|
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2015/06/26/string-of-nighttime-fires-hit-predominately-black-churches-in-four-southern-states/ It looks like we are already seeing a backlash. Moreover while this could be a series of copycats of the Charleston Shootings There is growing response to calls to remove the confederate flag, rallies of dixieland and other such things One reporter captured video of a counter protest https://twitter.com/ChadMillsWIS/status/614826554691055616 "Go back to where you came from"  All implying that black people are not true Americans, that they do not belong here. When pressed on it the inbred hillbilly white trash said that https://twitter.com/ChadMillsWIS/status/614828774824235008 anyone against the confederate flag needs to leave the country. I think what we are seeing is a violent response in some sectors to social change, both related to the gay marriage ruling and the calls to remove the flag in light of the recent murders. Who knows where it can go from here but thus far, CNN and MSNBC have not yet picked up the story of copycat hate crimes.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
i see a typo on that sign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Your Weird Uncle posted:i see a typo on that sign. Par for the course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
It's heritage not hate! *threatens black people* They are just proving the point but it will go completely over their heads.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
I still think americans should refer to it as the "Treason flag", to gently caress with the idiots who claim to be patriots whist flashing symbolism from a specifically treasonous historical movement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Well racism is something invented by SJWS on tumblr, so I wonder what's causing these
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Faustian Bargain posted:It's heritage not hate! *threatens black people* "If you don't like our racism you can GIIIIITTT OWWWWTTTT"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
You'll also see them trot out the person who wither "has lots of black friends" or a person of color they can find somewhere who is cool with the flag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
You don't like it, go back to where you came from! sounds really funny considering that many of them didn't come here by choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
There's a good chance they've been in the US longer than whatever white dude's ancestors too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
There's another fire. http://www.wach.com/news/story.aspx?id=1224673#.VZNWoEarEgk
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Those churches, they were no angels I wonder what could be causing these problems. We'll never know what was on the minds of these people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:There's another fire. quote:It is about the seventh Southern church to catch fire in recent weeks. lol and also 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
duck monster posted:I still think americans should refer to it as the "Treason flag", to gently caress with the idiots who claim to be patriots whist flashing symbolism from a specifically treasonous historical movement. It's like "North vs South". No, it was the United States of America vs the Confederate States of America or separatists or rebels or whatever. The US didn't somehow dissapear for 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
I guess the depressing "upside" is that they are merely destroying the buildings and not murdering the people inside them. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Reinstate Reconstruction. (On the rest of the country too.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
dunno where to put this, so i'll put it here: What I learned from leading tours about slavery at a plantation
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
I guess they burn bigger crosses than they used to. Wonder if the white hoods are bigger too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I guess they burn bigger crosses than they used to. Wonder if the white hoods are bigger too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:dunno where to put this, so i'll put it here: What I learned from leading tours about slavery at a plantation There is also a good article linked by that one which I must highly recommend http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122117/why-are-white-racists-always-called-white-trash Why Are White Racists Always Called “White Trash"? United States of America has certain regional divisions. There is the North, and the South. Within the South, there is the Upper South and the Deep South. Within the Deep South, there is South Carolina, and within South Carolina there is Charleston. With an economy based primarily in plantation agriculture, the South, after the Revolution, possessed no major cities—no major cities, at least, aside from Charleston. Its fine natural harbor, situated at the confluence of two rivers with the sea, made it an ideal commercial staging point, and commerce meant, for the most part, one thing: Roughly two-fifths of the slaves imported to America passed through the port. Not until the conquest of New Orleans would there be a larger city in the South than Charleston, nor a wealthier one. Its aristocrats, composed of merchants and planters, made themselves known for their politeness and their hospitality. Last Wednesday night, a young white man with a gun killed nine black people—three men and six women—in Charleston, South Carolina. The victims had prayed for an hour prior to their killing, and the killer had, for that hour, prayed with them: The church security cameras had caught his face as he entered. It wasn't enough. The morning after, two hundred miles away, the police would take the shooter into custody. His name was Dylann Storm Roof. On his Facebook page, he had a picture sporting pins with the flags of apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia; he looked sullen in the other pictures too. As elsewhere in the South before Emancipation, Charleston’s white wealth depended so entirely upon black slaves that the majority of that wealth was invested in the slaves themselves. The invention of the cotton gin—the United States' first killer app—created tech millionaires in an era where millions could buy what hundreds of millions buy now; then, as now, the more content producers there were, the more wealth there was to be reaped. But with more slaves came more danger. Haunted by the Haitian Revolution, the plantation owners were well aware of what they, as a tiny minority, could expect in the event of a successful slave uprising: extermination. Their only hope for survival lay in doing two things. The first was to enlist the state's other, poorer whites under the banner of white supremacy, employing them all, in one form or another, as overseers and defenders, paying them off with little more than a sense of superiority over black lives. The second was to respond, violently, immediately, and mercilessly to even the slightest hint of an uprising. This is what happened. The doctrine of white supremacy sank deep roots in the minds of all whites, rich and poor; when, in 1822, the plans of the freed slave, carpenter, and churchgoer Denmark Vesey to free other slaves and flee to Haiti were discovered, he and thirty-four associates were executed. Though there was fierce competition for the title, South Carolina acquired the reputation for being the most belligerent state in defense of slavery. It was the first state to secede from the Union, and the first shots of the Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter, from Charleston. Four years later, a specter haunted South Carolina. One could call it democracy, but the more precise term is black power. The liberation of the slaves and their winning the right to vote left the state's white population a minority in absolute numbers, and potentially in political representation as well. Once the North lost its commitment to maintaining the liberties of Southern blacks, however, they were systemically excluded, through the use of poll taxes and literacy tests, from enfranchisement and from public office; they were terrorized by an escalating series of threats that ran up to and included lynching. The former overseers became, when required, vigilante dispensers of extra-judicial death. Because of this, large segments of the state's black population fled to the cities of the industrial North until, at last, in 1930, the majority of South Carolina's population was white. It has remained so ever since. Once the shooter's identity was confirmed on Wednesday, it was time for the cleansing concept of the "other" white person to come into play. Since the act of killing nine black people in their own church is so blatantly racist that even Charleston's police chief termed it a hate crime, the only option remaining was to excommunicate the killer from polite society. This should not be difficult. Only the most desperate white racists openly identify as racists. Invariably, these white people come from a social stratum deprived of all that whiteness tries to connote: wealth, beauty, power, cleanliness, grace. But because it is uncomfortable for white people to define such things too clearly, the phrase "white trash" had to be invented to cover them. The phrase, developed to describe all Southern whites outside the aristocracy, has shifted in tandem with economic and social changes so that it now applies to a demographic sliver. Yet this reduction in range has not corresponded to a reduction in the disgust it evokes in whites of putatively higher status. When a white person claims that they are not racist today, what they are saying, for the most part, is that they are not "white trash." In other words, they are not so poor, so miserable as to be obliged to declare their racism openly, nakedly: Since the rhetorical triumph of the civil rights movement, outright bigotry has been banished, more and more, from the field of tolerable public discourse. But there's an interesting parallel, or at least inversion, from the side of the "white trash" racists. The "white trash" racist slogan "white power" is, above all, an attempt to claim that they are not "white trash," but white as such. They believe it is possible to become wealthy, beautiful, powerful, clean, and graceful by treating colored people atrociously: This is true. But the truth of their belief is embodied in the very white people who look down on them with such contempt: It is true, but not for them. Possessing a pale skin without any of the purported pale virtues, they are trapped by whiteness, compelled by it, enslaved by it. White power is always vicious, always violent, and it is always most vicious and violent where most precarious. To be a dumb, "white trash" killer from “South Carolina,” then, is to fit the contemporary description of a “racist,” whether from the right or the left, perfectly. Should actual details of the killer's life fall outside the stereotype, they will have to be forced into it for any societal closure to occur. It will likely mean nothing that Dylann Roof comes from a middle-class household, or that he is not stupid: At the very least, he was sharp enough to know that attacking a black church—Denmark Vesey's church, no less, and on the anniversary of Vesey's attempted liberation—and killing nine black people, including a black churchman and elected official, was the most incendiary act he could possibly perpetrate. He was sufficiently far-seeing to transpose the images of apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia—former British colonies like South Carolina whose especially virulent racism, much like South Carolina's, originated in the fear of a black majority visiting upon their overlords the same unkind favors delivered unto them—onto his vision of a United States on the verge of being overtaken by black insurrection. Certainly, he was a strong reader of the message delivered to him daily, in real American life through radio and through television, and last but not least online: That the assertion of black humanity, whether expressed in churches, marches, or riots, constitutes a mortal danger to white lives and livelihoods. None of this can count in the eyes of the national media because it steps beyond the given cultural narrative, that anti-black racism is purely the province of accented simpletons in greasy overalls as opposed to what it is really—a web of suppositions and insinuations whose cruelty animates the minds and words and acts of Americans of all classes and all political ideologies. The guilt for Roof's killings falls primarily and overwhelmingly on Roof himself, but its shadow touches all non-black Americans, with an especial emphasis on the white Americans who profit most from anti-black racism. But since these white Americans happen to be—at once, and not coincidentally—America's wealthiest demographic, the primary audience for the national media, and the people most confident of their innocence, the media coverage of the killings so far has a muffled feel to it. The chase for Roof is over, but the quest to get away from what his act implies about his various social milieux (white, South Carolinian, Southern, American) goes on. Today, the alibi is everything; since the violent death of that great black church leader Martin Luther King Jr., white Americans have lived in a country where the celerity with which they mask their racism matters as much as the color of their skin. One might look forward, unhappily, to white conservatives disassociating themselves from this massacre by claiming, in effect, that they're not "white trash"—meaning, in effect, that they've profited enough from their racism that they can afford to dress it up better; or look forward to white liberals disassociating themselves by claiming, in effect, that they're not "white conservative" hypocrites—meaning, in effect, that they've profited enough from their racism that they can afford to dress it up better still; or to white leftists disassociating themselves by claiming, in effect, that they're not "white liberal" hypocrites. The remarkable thing about Roof's manifesto, discovered online this weekend, was how unremarkable it was. The tone of his premeditations was miserably calm. Whatever anger drove him had been almost fully translated into sullen logic: Since the brutality, stupidity, and inherent danger of black people were his axioms, all that remained for him to do was pursue them to their murderous conclusion. White people weren't doing enough to defend whiteness, he believed, and the burden fell upon him, vigilant and armed, to make up the difference. He had fully absorbed the version of history that justified his misery and loneliness the most. It blinded him, and he doubled down on his inability to see; if “white trash” meant anything, he was it. But the fogged stupor evident in most of the American media's response to his crime and the terminal vacuity of the language deployed to do away with him—do these not comprise the mirror image of his blindness? Whiteness needs white trash. This seems straightforward enough. But when the ignorance that manifests itself in the public expressions of whites and white trash is so thoroughly alike, one can't help but wonder if whiteness exists at all—wonder, idly and lazily, no doubt, whether white trash is all there is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
http://bossip.com/1162762/black-church-south-carolina-burning/ This brings it up to eight churches. Pity it isn't an eighth Baltimore CVS, then there would be wall to wall coverage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Some good stuff in there, but the central thesis seems to be "all white people are [intentionally] racist; the rich ones just hide it better by hiding behind the poor ones," the basic premise of which is... kind of racist? edit for emphasis Choadmaster fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
I may have missed out some key element but that wasn't the impression I got, more that it says not to trust a hasty insistence of one's non-racism, and that writing off violent racists as simply "mad" and lumping the causes of their violence in with it is to ignore the problem. The views of violent racists are not uncommon, the uncommon part is that they act on them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
I don't disagree with the second half of the thesis; plenty of people try to hide their racism (from others or even themselves) by saying they're better than X, where explicitly racist "white trash" would be at the bottom of the totem pole. And there's no doubt that every white American has benefited from racism in some form (particularly institutional racism). And everyone (black/white/insert comprehensive list) is subconsciously affected by the racial biases inherent in our culture whether they're intentionally racist or not. But the author of that article seems to deny any kind of nuance in favor of blunt, all-encompassing claims about white people:quote:When a white person claims that they are not racist today, what they are saying, for the most part, is that they are not "white trash." In other words, they are not so poor, so miserable as to be obliged to declare their racism openly, nakedly. ... Today, the alibi is everything; since the violent death of that great black church leader Martin Luther King Jr., white Americans have lived in a country where the celerity with which they mask their racism matters as much as the color of their skin. One might look forward, unhappily, to white conservatives disassociating themselves from this massacre by claiming, in effect, that they're not "white trash"—meaning, in effect, that they've profited enough from their racism that they can afford to dress it up better; or look forward to white liberals disassociating themselves by claiming, in effect, that they're not "white conservative" hypocrites—meaning, in effect, that they've profited enough from their racism that they can afford to dress it up better still...
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I don't disagree with the second half of the thesis; plenty of people try to hide their racism (from others or even themselves) by saying they're better than X, where explicitly racist "white trash" would be at the bottom of the totem pole. And there's no doubt that every white American has benefited from racism in some form (particularly institutional racism). And everyone (black/white/insert comprehensive list) is subconsciously affected by the racial biases inherent in our culture whether they're intentionally racist or not. But the author of that article seems to deny any kind of nuance in favor of blunt, all-encompassing claims about white people: It's saying most white people are racist. I don't think that's unfair. I'm racist though I try hard not to be. It's really very difficult to not think about race when you live in a culture that makes a huge thing about it. The best I can say is that I am probably not racist in ways which would be detrimental to others most of the time, because I think carefully enough to avoid acting like that. Don't mean I'm not still racist though, personally or systemically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:26
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's saying most white people are racist. let me take that one step further for you all people are racist like... we're biologically programmed to form ingroups and outgroups based on various characterstics and what color your skin may be is basically impossible to ignore it's about being aware of it and not succumbing to your brain's nasty habit of fearing what you (subconsciously) don't understand
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:let me take that one step further for you I specifically didn't say that only white people are racist. Certainly it's a common human thing, but at the same time, in most western countries it's mostly white people being racist that's the problem, because non-white people being racist doesn't do much, because they don't run the country, so I think it's more important at the moment to say white Americans/Brits/Europeans are racist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
im not saying it's "common" I'm saying it's ubiquitous the problem isn't that people are racist, it's that they don't even understand what race/racism is i agree with you that it's "more important" that the people who can actually enact change in society recognize these things but ultimately labeling some people "racists" and some people "not racists" is really dumb and counter-productive. humans are prejudiced, we do discriminate for stupid reasons. it's about recognizing when your brain is falling in to that trap and not succumbing to the pressure of the lizard brain
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's saying most white people are racist. I don't think that's unfair. I don't see where you're getting "most" out of that article; my whole problem with it is there is no such qualifier in the author's statements. I agree with down with slavery that all people are racially biased - at a subconscious level at the very least (I linked to one example in my previous post) - but that's a different meaning than most people would generally interpret 'racist' as. There's a difference between intentional racism and the subconscious kind (I don't see the author of the above article making that distinction, either). There are plenty of people who are aware they have subconscious biases and do their best to counteract it in their own lives - I don't think calling these people 'racist' is really meaningful or productive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:It's like "North vs South". No, it was the United States of America vs the Confederate States of America or separatists or rebels or whatever. The US didn't somehow dissapear for 4 years. Lincoln would disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I don't see where you're getting "most" out of that article; my whole problem with it is there is no such qualifier in the author's statements. It's in the first line of your quote. quote:When a white person claims that they are not racist today, what they are saying, for the most part, is that they are not "white trash." There may perhaps be an ethical difference between intentional and unintentional racism, and there may also be trends of severity between the two, but being racist because it's an internalised part of your perception of the world still causes distinct problems. If, for example, someone is unconsciously uncomfortable around black people and isn't trying consciously to oppose this tendency, it will inform their decisions and potentially lead to a more difficult life for black folks they encounter. If your manager just gets a weird feeling about every black applicant that happens to apply for a job, suddenly black people don't get hired at your company. If a police officer just doesn't quite trust black people when they report crimes or get involved in a crime, suddenly you get normal American arrest rates. Conscious or unconscious, both make problems for people. Distinguishing between them is something you can do, but not something you especially need to do. Both types of racism hurt people and both need dealing with. Aggressive hostility may not be the best way to deal with either of them. The article acknowledges that people can be somewhat correct in saying they aren't racist, but those people are already on board and don't really need to be told "yes dear, you're not racist, the entirety of Black America wants to say thank you very much for your not-racism, have a gold star." And they are also rather few. Predominantly, I would agree that most people in the world who say they aren't racist, probably aren't thinking about it enough. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
It seems that a certain point, that author meant white privilege instead of outright rasism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:It seems that a certain point, that author meant white privilege instead of outright rasism. The well has been poisoned for that term, it is also a flawed paradigm good for introduction to the issues of how racism does and doesn't affect people - the invisibility of what it means to be white but it has other issues once you go deeper and start dealing with intersections and lateral issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 22:37
|
|