|
Phone posted:White washing doesn't even scratch the surface of all of that "Not Racist, but" bullshit. God drat. Guys, I got it: White Power Washing
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
Magres posted:Wat. Source? Holy gently caress that is beyond demented. I can't be arsed to find a 'good' article right now, but the argument basically boils down to "I can find a few historical slaveowners who didn't routinely brutalize or rape their slaves, these clearly represent the majority of good southern slaveowners and clearly isn't that bad, why can't those silly black people just get over it?" Which, I mean, is privelaged to the point of utter lunacy, but at least follows a certain idiot logic that I can see someone believing if they bought into some really loving flawed assumptions. I can't see how anyone who's even passingly familiar with the lynching phenomenon could be at all convinced that America has been the best country in history for black people, however.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Really I just meant the ball feeding in the early 1900s because 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Also even if someone treated their slaves decently, THEY WERE STILL loving SLAVES.  That's such an abysmal argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 19:44
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:"Hey man, my ancestors didn't own slaves and nobody does that now stop trying to hold me responsible for things I never did." So, how do you respond to that?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:So, how do you respond to that? Not owning slaves doesn't mean someone can't benefit massively from slave labor. I have never run a sweatshop, but if I wanted I could go grab sweatshop labor clothing on the cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:So, how do you respond to that? Slavery is only part of America's poo poo history with blacks?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Magres posted:Really I just meant the ball feeding in the early 1900s because Ah. I can't remember the precise incident, but I was told about it in more detail in an honors American Cultures course by a professor who specializes in examining Race Relations in America, so I'm 95% sure it's not bullshit. And yeah, loving demented. Lynch culture in the late 1800s and early 1900s is loving terrifying to read about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 19:57
|
|
Magres posted:Not owning slaves doesn't mean someone can't benefit massively from slave labor. The response you'll get is "my ancestors came over after slavery was ended. How did they benefit?"
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
"I'm going to break Jimmies legs, let him heal for a month, then you guys can run a race. It'll be a fair race because you didn't get any benefits."
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:03
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:"I'm going to break Jimmies legs, let him heal for a month, then you guys can run a race. It'll be a fair race because you didn't get any benefits." "So, because someone else broke Jimmy's legs, I have to be penalized?"
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Just post this as a reply:
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Helping someone who had been kneecapped is the decent human thing to do. I know they'll have some pithy response which is why just throw out the "I'm sorry you're racist I'm done talking to you".
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:07
|
|
WampaLord posted:Just post this as a reply: That won't convince anybody. How are a bunch of German, Irish, and Czech immigrants arriving to the US in the late 1800's and moving to the midwest standing on the backs of black slaves?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:That won't convince anybody. Can you clarify why you're fixating on directly benefiting from slavery and not, say, the rest of America's poo poo history with black people
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:That won't convince anybody. There's another, better, comic where it's the history of a white person through the generations being told things like 'hey we want your kind of people in this nice neighborhood, and you qualify for special rate loans' and poo poo, and then an indignant white guy in the modern era saying he never benefited from anything. Like, you know that after we released the slaves we still hosed them pretty bad, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:That won't convince anybody. They had it pretty lovely too, up until the 50s or 60s when White Christendom needed to unite to fight the integrationist pinkos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:That won't convince anybody. A German, Irish or Czech immigrant was probably white.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I think that helping the disadvantaged is the right thing to do, I'm trying to find responses to the common arguments I've heard on why white people shouldn't have to help. The basic question is "why should I have to help out black people just because I'm white?" Saying that black people have always been dis-advantaged is fine, but if a person doesn't think they have personally done anything to put black people at a disadvantage, they're going to think that they're being held responsible for something that isn't their fault. Being snarky with them isn't going to convince them.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Someone on my facebook comments on this. This is the most I call bullshit right loving here at square one. Ignoring entirely the premise being put forward that these 20 things are key differences in the causes of poverty vs. wealthy living, #1 isn't accurate when comparing the diets of poor people on food stamps against higher income non-participants: quote:Examination of food choices within food group identified some common food choice patterns across all age groups. Compared with higher income nonparticipants, FSP participants in all age groups made the following less healthful food choices: They eat less salty snacks and less sugary sweets than their contemporaries in higher incomes. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/published/SNAP/FILES/Participation/NHANES-FSP.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:36
|
|
thing I've ever seen.(especially since it doesn't list one source)
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:So, how do you respond to that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:Saying that black people have always been dis-advantaged is fine, but if a person doesn't think they have personally done anything to put black people at a disadvantage, they're going to think that they're being held responsible for something that isn't their fault. Being snarky with them isn't going to convince them. I want to explain how to respond to those people, but the very concept of them is apparently enough to make my blood boil. So all I've got is, "They've always been disadvantaged because society is continually re-breaking their legs at every step with the Southern Strategy being the last huge push for it, and you are assisting it by being silent you racist piece of poo poo."
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
I wasn't really aware of how White Privilege helped me until I started receiving the negative end of Christian Privilege as an atheist and it just sunk in right there. My ancestors all immigrated in the late 1800s and I still don't feel "white guilt" over slavery, but I've learned to recognize the privilege that still comes with being glow-in-the-dark white. For most of the people that sit in the middle of the engrained Privilege Pool, good luck getting through to them; they have no common experience to draw empathy from. If you're trying to talk to people that are not descended from slave owners (which is probably most white people), don't approach from the slave owning guilt angle, as most people rightly will blow that off and stop listening right away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
The Freeper-esque response to things about slavery (besides "it was democrats who did it", which you can be drat sure they'll say) is that far more black people were slave traders than white people, so blacks are the real racists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:Don't get me wrong, I think that helping the disadvantaged is the right thing to do, I'm trying to find responses to the common arguments I've heard on why white people shouldn't have to help. In essence, the idea of "responsibility" is almost always a distraction. It fundamentally does not matter who is "responsible" for causing a problem, unless there is a risk that they might do it again. If we actually care about the victims, then the goal should be to identify the harm that has been done and find some way to resolve it moving forward; not to arbitrarily select the people most "responsible" and punish them. Hence, the goal is not for every individual white person to give money to every individual black person. Rather, we have seen that there are a set of circumstances, such as poverty, that disproportionately affect minorities due to historical and present racism. We as a society have decided on some set of programs, such as SNAP and TANF, to counteract these issues. Since these programs cost money, the individual members of society are required to contribute some small fraction of the cost. In this way, we all work together to seek equality. Furthermore, it's a basic moral necessity for all people to recognize racism as evil and do their best in their personal lives to root it out. Hopefully no one is going to argue this point. These two requirements naturally go hand in hand: racism on a personal level will tend to lead to an indifferent society, whereas a true understanding and abhorrence of same can't help but lead to a collective effort to fix inequality. A snappier response is that if black people are disadvantaged, then by definition some other group is advantaged relative to them. Even if the advantage is nothing more than having the ability to prioritize a few extra dollars on your paycheck over fighting racism. But you're taking it as a given that someone arguing these issues actually believes in the existence of systemic racism, which I think is sadly less than likely. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jul 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
Privilege is such an outside context issue for the average person that it almost requires them to have personal experience with discrimination before they "get it". I like to think I would still be as sensitive to race and gender issues if I were straight but I'm convinced my experiences as a gay person have made me a better person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Privilege is such an outside context issue for the average person that it almost requires them to have personal experience with discrimination before they "get it". I like to think I would still be as sensitive to race and gender issues if I were straight but I'm convinced my experiences as a gay person have made me a better person. The alternative is to be willing to truly empathize with another person. It's really easy for a minority person to point out the privilege of a person in the majority, but in general we tend to deploy enough layers of rationalization that they'll give up before the breakthrough is made.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/blackhistory.asp Is there a good rebuttal to that? It just sickeningly smells of "See? A black-person-of-some-stature says we shouldn't talk about race anymore, so it must be true!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
Aside from "oh we're taking the opinions of one person as gospel now? You know who else had opinions  "?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Privilege is such an outside context issue for the average person that it almost requires them to have personal experience with discrimination before they "get it". I like to think I would still be as sensitive to race and gender issues if I were straight but I'm convinced my experiences as a gay person have made me a better person. Or you could just be a Log Cabin Republican.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
It seems from that quote (I didnt click but Im guessing Morgan Freeman from context), Morgan probably hasnt been to a US history class in quite a long time. The fact is that black history is still seriously undertaught in schools, and when it is taught it is often from a souly white perspective, or focuses on accomplishments of african americans (which is good) rather than the continual problems they faced in our society (which is bad).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:"Hey man, my ancestors didn't own slaves and nobody does that now stop trying to hold me responsible for things I never did." I imagine not a day goes by that Ian MacKaye doesn't regret writing "Guilty of Being White".
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Something tells me that I'm not going to be disappointed by Bobby's response:
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/blackhistory.asp
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Dr Creflo A Dollar posted:Not that I'm knocking the diligence of your forebearers but it's also worth noting that, as hardscrabble as life could be in the last century, the possibility of advancement was greater (for whites). From the last page, but I won't dispute this. The post-war booms, ambitious social welfare programs, and large scale infrastructure projects did a lot to help the middle class in these eras, and many of those opportunities weren't available for non-whites.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/blackhistory.asp Point out that he's being misrepresented? He's not saying "stop teaching Black History" and "stop talking about racism", he's saying "stop treating Black History like a curio to be brought out one month of the year" and "unless we stop treating race like it defines people, racism can't end".
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
I don't understand the pro voter ID argument of "you need ID for <these things>". So fuckin what? You need ID to buy alcohol! You need ID to get a hotel room! You need ID to buy Sudafed! How, exactly, does it relate to voting?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
myron cope posted:I don't understand the pro voter ID argument of "you need ID for <these things>". So fuckin what? You need ID to buy alcohol! You need ID to get a hotel room! You need ID to buy Sudafed! CAUSE OTHERWISE ILLEGALS GONNA VOTE  It's literally the GOP going "DARK PEOPLE ARE SCARY!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 23:07
|
|
myron cope posted:I don't understand the pro voter ID argument of "you need ID for <these things>". So fuckin what? You need ID to buy alcohol! You need ID to get a hotel room! You need ID to buy Sudafed! They're saying that those things are not as important as voting and still ID is still required. And I'm not ID'd everytime I buy alcohol, and no on asks for ID when I use a credit card online, so that's crap too.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
Mornacale posted:In essence, the idea of "responsibility" is almost always a distraction. It fundamentally does not matter who is "responsible" for causing a problem, unless there is a risk that they might do it again. If we actually care about the victims, then the goal should be to identify the harm that has been done and find some way to resolve it moving forward; not to arbitrarily select the people most "responsible" and punish them. I think this is key. Very often privilege is seen as "who's fault is it?". Even worse, I hate when white straight men, in an effort to seem more open minded, will self flagellate themselves like it'll make them totally cool with black people or something. As a result people often see the privilege argument of "oh, you're blaming me? Well I'm poor too so gently caress you". The argument needs to be shifted towards "Who's being hurt?" not "who's fault is it?". It's good to ACKNOWLEDGE you have privilege and how that benefits you in a day to day context, but when you turn it into "As a white male I am Hitler, I am sorry, black people" it becomes pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 00:14
|
|
