Systemic racism in the USA: Are whites "guiltier" if they had slavery in their past?

[RDKirk]

Your flavor of cool aid doesn't taste much better. Do you really think that young black women are so gullible that they would act against their own best interests just on the say-so of some radical white women? I live in a black neighborhood in a small southern town where employment rates are good, home ownership rates aren't terrible and most of the women are married. Nobody around here pays much attention to what white radical feminists have to say.

First, I'm talking about the political atmosphere of the 80s and urban ghetto areas. If you check , you see that currently 70% of black births are to unwed mothers. Beyond your small southern town black neighborhood, things are very different. I've already pointed out that black culture is not monolithic...so what's going on in your small southern town black neighborhood is not relevant.

You said: "....women don't want to actually marry a poorly educated, basically unemployable man who may have a police record just to have a baby." That's propaganda that I've heard before.

That propaganda pushes the notion that most black men are poorly educated, basically unemployable and have a police record and that black women are doing much better, which is a lie. Statistically, black women are less employed and earn less than black men. I know the propaganda says otherwise, but the statistics are available.

Black women were the stalking horses of the Radical Feminist movement in the 70s and 80s. Have you not read bell hooks (lower case is intentional)?

 

[RDKirk]

Which is a good sign. But if you accept that the effects were ameliorated then you must accept that there were effects in the first place. That there was a change in how people felt was understandable. We get used to different situations. You start to think 'Hey, there's no problem here. They're just a couple of dudes going to work'.

Which means the test did nothing but note that people have an initial negative response to a chance in their routine situation which dies down after they see the change is unimportant. <yawn>

That's certainly not the spin you initially attempted to place on it.

 

[BCP1928]

First, I'm talking about the political atmosphere of the 80s and urban ghetto areas. If you check , you see that currently 70% of black births are to unwed mothers. Beyond your small southern town black neighborhood, things are very different. I've already pointed out that black culture is not monolithic...so what's going on in your small southern town black neighborhood is not relevant.

Except it's not just my small town. Here's a story for you: I lived in Berkeley back in the day. Up in the hills was a university and a bunch of white liberal intellectuals. The flats were industrial, with lots of nice little bungalows, almost all black. The intellectuals decided to run a socialist slate for city government and campaigned, but not down in the flats much because being leftists they figured they had the black vote locked in. I was laughing my you-know-what off the whole time, because (and you know this already) a black working class man in steady employment who is raising a family in a home he owns is going to be just as conservative as they make 'em. Come election day the socialists hardly knew what hit them.

You said: "....women don't want to actually marry a poorly educated, basically unemployable man who may have a police record just to have a baby." That's propaganda that I've heard before.

It applies to white women as well, with slightly different details. Women of all colors are becoming dissatisfied with "masculinity."

That propaganda pushes the notion that most black men are poorly educated, basically unemployable and have a police record, which is a lie. Statistically, black women are less employed and earn less than black men. I know the propaganda says otherwise, but the statistics are available.

In "urban ghetto" neighborhoods? Or in general?

Black women were the stalking horses of the Radical Feminist movement in the 70s and 80s. Have you not read bell hooks (lower case is intentional)?

Will look into it. I still think you are overgeneralizing as assigning too much influence to "radical feminism."

 

[Bradskii]

Which means the test did nothing but note that people have an initial negative response to a chance in their routine situation which dies down after they see the change is unimportant. <yawn>

That's certainly not the spin you initially attempted to place on it.

It wasn't a negative response to their daily routine. They didn't ask them how their day went. They asked them about immigration. The increased negative response was to that.

Immigration? Hey, no problem. But did you those two Mexican dudes on the train this week? Are they going to start living in the neighbourhood?

But no big deal. One experiment is just that. You can take it or leave it.

 

[rturner76]

n recent years, I've noticed a change from individualistic and historical focus of racism, toward more 'systemic' focus. The idea is, it doesn't really matter that my husband's family was historically slave-owning, whereas mine were in regions where slavery never occurred. The focus now is, both nonetheless benefited from 'white privilege,' so it doesn't matter if one's white families had slaves or not. What matters now is, if they are allies, or at least voting Democrat in greater numbers. In that case, my husband's family is generally more progressive now, even if they have purely Southern and slave-owning roots.

These are awesome questions! I think when dealing with "systemic" racism it isn't as much about whose family owned slaves and whose didn't. The matter of systemic racism is more that when those slavery and Jim Crow laws were in place, our country like all European countries, broke society into classes. There were plantation owners in the South and factory owners in the North who categorized everyone into a certain class. Poor and uneducated whites were hired to supervise the blacks directly as the upper class thought it was beneath them to even speak to a person of color. Through the trickle-down of the centuries, this notion has never been fully distinguished. You have the uber-rich whites who would be considered lords in the old country. There was the Gentry who were whites that owned businesses that weren't living off their inheritance but they had to work every day, even if they did make a lot of money. They would be considered by the Noble lords as people they could associate with in business matters which would allow for the Gentry to be able to eat with the Nobel Lords from time to time if it would be advantageous for the Lords in business negotiations. Now the blacks and poor or uneducated whites were considered trash but they needed the poor whites to supervise the negros because the nobility wouldn't even speak to them. It also kept the poor whites from uniting with the negros until an incident in 1741.

New York Conspiracy of 1741 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

The "system" is still in place though blacks and other minorities through capitalism can make enough money to break into the Nobel class but they are never really accepted by the Nobel whites (in general, not everyone) but sometimes they can get a seat at the table. The same government that was the government to allow slaver is still in place and even though laws have changes in order to make overt racism illegal in terms of job discrimination, the social order still goes by rank in society. Hope that helps

 

[rjs330]

Why is it so important to you to paint those who believe that there is systemic racism as making an accusation of personal racism?

Inevitably it always comes.down to that.

Why is it so important to you to misrepresent it as making white kids feel personally guilty for the racism of their ancestors?

Because it's it's only their ancestors that are blamed. No one else's.

Until we figure out why you really don't like the possibility that there is systemic racism we won't get anywhere.

It has nothing to do with like or not like. No one has been able to show there is systemic racism.

 

[BCP1928]

Inevitably it always comes.down to that.

You have to understand that vigorously denying that there is such a thing as systemic racism or that anything should done about it looks quite a bit like racism to many people

Because it's it's only their ancestors that are blamed. No one else's.

Because only their ancestors are painted as not deserving any blame. As for guilt, only the Christian religion teaches that we need feel personally guilty for the sins of an ancestor.

It has nothing to do with like or not like. No one has been able to show there is systemic racism.

If you mean, that no one has been able to give examples of systemic racism that hasn't been discovered yet, then I agree with you.

 

[RDKirk]

Because only their ancestors are painted as not deserving any blame. As for guilt, only the Christian religion teaches that we need feel personally guilty for the sins of an ancestor.

No, it doesn't.

 

[RDKirk]

It has nothing to do with like or not like. No one has been able to show there is systemic racism.

Sure they have. It's a matter of creating a definition that says what you want it to say. Like defining Pluto as a planet...or not.

 

[timothyu]

"Don't hate the black. Don't hate the white. If you get bitten, just hate the bite." ... Sly Stone

 

[rjs330]

You have to understand that vigorously denying that there is such a thing as systemic racism or that anything should done about it looks quite a bit like racism to many people

Usually only to those who see want they want to see. So far you haven't shown any.

Because only their ancestors are painted as not deserving any blame. As for guilt, only the Christian religion teaches that we need feel personally guilty for the sins of an ancestor.

See you only blame thier ancestors. No one else's. When you start blaming all involved equally then we can take you seriously. Until then you are just another self flagulating white person.

No the Christian religion teaches we are all guilty. We a guilty for our own sins.

you mean, that no one has been able to give examples of systemic racism that hasn't been discovered yet, then I agree with you.

There aren't any. That's why you can't provide any.

 

[BCP1928]

Usually only to those who see want they want to see. So far you haven't shown any.

See you only blame thier ancestors. No one else's. When you start blaming all involved equally then we can take you seriously. Until then you are just another self flagulating white person.

No the Christian religion teaches we are all guilty. We a guilty for our own sins.

There aren't any. That's why you can't provide any.

Not the ones that haven't been discovered yet. Some of the more egregious examples from the past include literacy tests for voters and redlining.

 

[IceJad]

You have to understand that vigorously denying that there is such a thing as systemic racism or that anything should done about it looks quite a bit like racism to many people

Because only their ancestors are painted as not deserving any blame. As for guilt, only the Christian religion teaches that we need feel personally guilty for the sins of an ancestor.

If you mean, that no one has been able to give examples of systemic racism that hasn't been discovered yet, then I agree with you.

I can tell you don't read much nor see things objectively. Ok let's breakdown your main 2 grievances.

First let's start with Christianity teaching guilt by association. I'm guessing you're referring to the original sin that is inherited by all man. Adam and Eve's sin. Because you neither explain nor give any examples. The original sin inherited by all is the sin of disobeying God and God alone. It has nothing to do with human to human historical misgivings, wrong and animosity towards one another. That sin has been forgiven through Jesus' death and resurrection. Our sin towards God has ended and in Christ we are renewed.

When it come to the matter of inheriting the sins of your father towards another man the Bible teaches otherwise.

Deuteronomy 24:16
Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.

John 9:1-4
Now as Jesus was passing by, He saw a man blind from birth, and His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God would be displayed in him. While it is daytime, we must do the works of Him who sent Me. Night is coming, when no one can work.

Your statement of only Christianity teaches ancestral sins is also very wrong. Other religions teach that as well. The precursor to Christianity, Judaism teaches that in the Old Testament. Hinduism from the sect of Brahma teaches that he can scorch unborn generations. Of course other parts of their scriptures teaches otherwise. If you only take portion of the scriptures you can always make as case for your personal convictions - it's called cherry picking.

Secondly let's talk about your claims about systemic racism. What example have you to present? The statement of yet to discover is invalid. You can't hold a person in court and say I'll find your wrong doings someday. You either find his wrong doing and bring him to court or you don't. There is no such thing as guilty till proven innocent. Then you are practicing what you criticizing Christianity teaching of ancestral sin, a presumptive sin. I on the other hand can actually give you a case for systemic racism in America. However I doubt you're going to like the example. Race based scoring in Ivy league universities. East Asians, south Asians and White candidates are scored lower in university admittances. This was so bad that a court case was taken against the universities and the defendant lost.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was embedded in Ivy league universities to favor other races over the often overachieving Asians for ironically racial equity.

 

[rjs330]

Not the ones that haven't been discovered yet. Some of the more egregious examples from the past include literacy tests for voters and redlining.

We aren't talking about the past. We are talking about now. The things in the past are outlawed. Individual racism still exists. But it's not in the systems.

 

[rjs330]

East Asians, south Asians and White candidates are scored lower in university admittances. This was so bad that a court case was taken against the universities and the defendant lost.

Oh Nan I was wrong. Systemic racism does exist. In ivy league schools to be exact. I forgot about that.

 

[IceJad]

Oh Nan I was wrong. Systemic racism does exist. In ivy league schools to be exact. I forgot about that.

Shhh.. that's not exactly the correct kind of systemic racism they are looking for. We have to pretend it is otherwise because this kind of racism is the positive kind of racism I have heard as argument.

 

[timothyu]

Is manipulating a race to win elections systemic?

 

[IceJad]

Is manipulating a race to win elections systemic?

Is it ingrained into the elections? If yes then it is systemic racism.

For my country Malaysia it sure is. We have actual Race and Religion based political parties. We have UMNO and Bersatu for the Malays, MCA for the Chinese, MIC for the Indians and PAS for the Muslims who are mostly Malays.

It is as bad as you think it is. All pandering to their respective race/religious fears and insecurities. They use slogans akin to Biden's "if you don't know who you're voting for, you ain't black". Always playing up the race & religion card.

"The minorities (Chinese & Indians) will take over the majority (Malays) and they will destroy your position in the country of your ancestors".

"The majority (Malays) will not protect your rights if you don't vote us in".

My personal favorite "They are Christianizing the country". No prizes for guessing which political party said that.

 

[BCP1928]

We aren't talking about the past. We are talking about now. The things in the past are outlawed. Individual racism still exists. But it's not in the systems.

So you really want me to provide evidence of systemic racism which hasn't been discovered yet. How do you know there isn't any, if it hasn't been discovered yet?

 

[BCP1928]

I can tell you don't read much nor see things objectively. Ok let's breakdown your main 2 grievances.

First let's start with Christianity teaching guilt by association. I'm guessing you're referring to the original sin that is inherited by all man. Adam and Eve's sin. Because you neither explain nor give any examples. The original sin inherited by all is the sin of disobeying God and God alone. It has nothing to do with human to human historical misgivings, wrong and animosity towards one another. That sin has been forgiven through Jesus' death and resurrection. Our sin towards God has ended and in Christ we are renewed.

When it come to the matter of inheriting the sins of your father towards another man the Bible teaches otherwise.

Deuteronomy 24:16
Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.

John 9:1-4
Now as Jesus was passing by, He saw a man blind from birth, and His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God would be displayed in him. While it is daytime, we must do the works of Him who sent Me. Night is coming, when no one can work.

Your statement of only Christianity teaches ancestral sins is also very wrong. Other religions teach that as well. The precursor to Christianity, Judaism teaches that in the Old Testament. Hinduism from the sect of Brahma teaches that he can scorch unborn generations. Of course other parts of their scriptures teaches otherwise. If you only take portion of the scriptures you can always make as case for your personal convictions - it's called cherry picking.

Secondly let's talk about your claims about systemic racism. What example have you to present? The statement of yet to discover is invalid. You can't hold a person in court and say I'll find your wrong doings someday. You either find his wrong doing and bring him to court or you don't. There is no such thing as guilty till proven innocent. Then you are practicing what you criticizing Christianity teaching of ancestral sin, a presumptive sin. I on the other hand can actually give you a case for systemic racism in America. However I doubt you're going to like the example. Race based scoring in Ivy league universities. East Asians, south Asians and White candidates are scored lower in university admittances. This was so bad that a court case was taken against the universities and the defendant lost.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was embedded in Ivy league universities to favor other races over the often overachieving Asians for ironically racial equity.

Except that is not an example of systemic racism. It is an example of overt racism, a sort of counter-racism if you like, but they are doing it consciously. Systemic racism is a law or institution which was established for some ostensibly non-racist purpose which has disproportionate effect on a particular race even though people may not realize it until it is called to their attention.