NYT: Can my Children be friends with white people

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2017, 12:11 PM)Dill Wrote: You and Vlad and Lucy love to react to "leftist" texts and then share your projections. Your impressions square with Vlad's which square with Lucy's and maybe Bfine's too, though he didn't finish reading.

Suddenly we have our own right wing echo chamber on a single thread. All ready to challenge the "blatant racism" of an author who judges an "entire ethnicity of people" by asserting that "we can stand beside one another against cheap attack and devaluation" and "live together and not simply beside one another."

Prediction: You will continue sharing your impressions of Yankah's text without ever demonstrating you can follow his argument. And you will continue sharing your impressions of my response without ever demonstrating you can follow that either.  

Let's break down what I could stomach of the race-baiting Op-ed:

Quote:My oldest son, wrestling with a 4-year-old’s happy struggles, is trying to clarify how many people can be his best friend. “My best friends are you and Mama and my brother and …” But even a child’s joy is not immune to this ominous political period. This summer’s images of violence in Charlottesville, Va., prompted an array of questions. “Some people hate others because they are different,” I offer, lamely. A childish but distinct panic enters his voice. “But I’m not different.”

 
This first paragraph starts with a 4 year old child trying to clarify how many people he can consider his best friend. The father responds with images of Charlottesville and tells his 4-year old child that some folks hate others just because they are different. He even admits to causing his 4 year old son to go into a panic
 

Quote:It is impossible to convey the mixture of heartbreak and fear I feel for him. Donald Trump’s election has made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped. I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.

He then points to Trump getting elected is why he must teach his sons caution, distrust and suspicion. And this caution, distrust and suspicion must be directed at Whitey.
 

Quote: Meaningful friendship is not just a feeling. It is not simply being able to share a beer. Real friendship is impossible without the ability to trust others, without knowing that your well-being is important to them. The desire to create, maintain or wield power over others destroys the possibility of friendship. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous dream of black and white children holding hands was a dream precisely because he realized that in Alabama, conditions of dominance made real friendship between white and black people impossible.

In this paragraph he implies that whitey desires to maintain power over blacks and then provides a analogy about MLK’s speech and why it is impossible for blacks and whites to be friends in Alabama.
 
 

Quote:History has provided little reason for people of color to trust white people in this way, and these recent months have put in the starkest relief the contempt with which the country measures the value of racial minorities. America is transfixed on the opioid epidemic among white Americans (who often get hooked after being overprescribed painkillers — while studies show that doctors underprescribe pain medication for African-Americans). But when black lives were struck by addiction, we cordoned off minority communities with the police and threw away an entire generation of black and Hispanic men.

This is the paragraph that broke the Camel’s back. He first indicates that America is focused on a white problem and it is solely a white problem because Doctor’s discriminate based on race.

My "ech-chamber" response: The purpose of this race-baiting Op-ed was to widen the divide not lessen it and anyone that reads it and gives it any merit looks to do nothing more than fan the flames of racism.

[*michaelsean*]

I'm curious about the studies that say black people are under-prescribed pain killers. Maybe as a whole, black people rely on them less. They may refuse the prescription.

[Dill]

(11-15-2017, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hahaha, I wonder if you know just how painfully transparent you are here.  This type of post is why, despite your attempts at erudition, you're largely considered a joke.

I believe people have articulated, quite well I might add, how this article is obviously racist.  Specific examples have been cited and dissected.  It's telling that rather than try to refute those argument you revert to claims of group think and "echo chamber".

I'm sure not to your faux intellectual standards.  Arguments have been given.  Refute them with what passes for your intellect or kindly shut up with your condescending insults.  I'll reiterate, you're transparent and you'd be funny as well if you didn't actually believe all the tripe you spout.

Well I just reviewed all the responses on this thread.  I see only two people have actually quoted a passage from the article--Bfine and  myself. (And now I see one brief snippet from Vlad too.) I have asked Bfine to clarify how his claim Yankah "blames doctors" for not producing a black opioid epidemic can be inferred from an argument that the white community ignores drug epidemics in the black community.

That is the only "dissection" that has occurred so far. 

Michaelsean did not like the OpEd either, but his responses have been civil and cautious. No problem there. In response to him I also reconstructed a part of Yankah's argument. He will agree or disagree with that reconstruction. Or simply remain silent. But he will not turn to personal abuse.

And I have offered counter arguments to Lucy as well.  So I did not "revert" to my echo chamber claims "rather than try to refute arguments," as you claim.  I have been "refuting" all along.

What you, Lucy and Vlad have "articulated" so far are your impressions and reactions, as I said above.  You have not quoted or reconstructed any part of the argument to support those impressions. That is why you remain at the level of impressions. Adding yet another claim the article is "obviously racist" is only adding another impression, a claim at best and not an argument. 

One of my "faux standards" has been around for some 2400 years now. It is the requirement that one demonstrate an understanding of the argument one presumes to refute.  One accomplishes that by reconstructing the other's argument, identifying the premises and the pattern of inference from them to the conclusion. A more recent "faux standard" which has been around for about 500 years--One quotes the argument so readers can measure one's interpretation against the actual words, as I was doing with Bfine.

One doesn't refute anyone or anything by simply calling people "a joke," "transparent," their arguments "tripe," telling them to "shut up"--and then accusing THEM of condescension.   So I reject that "standard."

You could be explaining why an author who desires that we "stand beside one another against cheap attack and devaluation" and "live together and not simply beside one another" is a "blatant racist."  Whatever the quality of your argument, you would at least be walking the walk.

So far, you've chosen not to do that.

[GMDino]

(11-15-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's break down what I could stomach of the race-baiting Op-ed:


 
This first paragraph starts with a 4 year old child trying to clarify how many people he can consider his best friend. The father responds with images of Charlottesville and tells his 4-year old child that some folks hate others just because they are different. He even admits to causing his 4 year old son to go into a panic
 

This isn't even close to what was quoted by you:

Quote:My oldest son, wrestling with a 4-year-old’s happy struggles, is trying to clarify how many people can be his best friend. “My best friends are you and Mama and my brother and …” But even a child’s joy is not immune to this ominous political period. This summer’s images of violence in Charlottesville, Va., prompted an array of questions. “Some people hate others because they are different,” I offer, lamely. A childish but distinct panic enters his voice. “But I’m not different.”

The father doesn't respond to the child's question with "images of Charlottesville".  He responds to his child's question about the images in Charlottesville.  His child panics because of the simplest (and true) answer. 

Dear lord that is a horrible interpretation of just the opening lines.

[BmorePat87]

(11-15-2017, 12:39 PM)GMDino Wrote:

(11-15-2017, 01:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Surrender accepted.

Heads up since I like you two, changing quotes can be suspendible offense. 

[GMDino]

(11-15-2017, 03:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Heads up since I like you two, changing quotes can be suspendible offense. 

Good natured ribbing.  I don't take what Joe says seriously and I didn't accuse him of being something he isn't nor did I call him any banned names.

But thank you.

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2017, 03:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: This isn't even close to what was quoted by you:



The father doesn't respond to the child's question with "images of Charlottesville".  He responds to his child's question about the images in Charlottesville.  His child panics because of the simplest (and true) answer. 

Dear lord that is a horrible interpretation of just the opening lines.

I didn't say he showed the child the images I said the father responds with images of Charlottesville. What does that have to do with the Child's question of how MANY people can be his best friend?

I do agree there is a lapse in interpretation; however, there's a good chance that I am not the one guilty of it.

[GMDino]

(11-15-2017, 03:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't say he showed the child the images I said the father responds with images of Charlottesville. What does that have to do with the Child's question of how MANY people can be his best friend?

I do agree there is a lapse in interpretation; however, there's a good chance that I am not the one guilty of it.

He doesn't say that at all:

Quote: But even a child’s joy is not immune to this ominous political period. This summer’s images of violence in Charlottesville, Va., prompted an array of questions. 

Above and separate from the first sentence and in no way implies he "responds" to the first line with the second.  The two things happened.  One did not prompt the other.

At this rate we'll get through the piece by next election. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2017, 04:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: He doesn't say that at all:



Above and separate from the first sentence and in no way implies he "responds" to the first line with the second.  The two things happened.  One did not prompt the other.

At this rate we'll get through the piece by next election. 

You didn't answer the question posed Mr interceptor. What does Charlottesville have to do with a 4 year old child asking his father how many people can be his best friend? 

The son asks "How many

The father reflects on Charlottesville and obviously shares his reflections with his son 

Then his answer to his son is:. “Some people hate others because they are different,”

So my original interpretation of the first paragraph is exactly what happened. Son asks an innocent question, father directs it to racism. He should be ashamed as should any bystander trying to give merit to his response.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-15-2017, 03:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Heads up since I'm self-appointed hall monitor, changing quotes can be suspendible offense. 

[GMDino]

(11-15-2017, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You didn't answer the question posed Mr interceptor. What does Charlottesville have to do with a 4 year old child asking his father how many people can be his best friend? 

The son asks "How many

The father reflects on Charlottesville and obviously shares his reflections with his son 

Then his answer to his son is:. “Some people hate others because they are different,”

So my original interpretation of the first paragraph is exactly what happened. Son asks an innocent question, father directs it to racism. He should be ashamed as should any bystander trying to give merit to his response.

He clearly is stating the childish questions "how many friends can I have" also came with more serious questions about why charlottesville happened, or what happened (the question is unstated).  To which the father explained in a way a young child would understand.  He didn't say they happened in succession or that one prompted the other.  

I can't wait to get to line three!  

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2017, 04:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: He clearly is stating the childish questions "how many friends can I have" also came with more serious questions about why charlottesville happened, or what happened (the question is unstated).  To which the father explained in a way a young child would understand.  He didn't say they happened in succession or that one prompted the other.  

I can't wait to get to line three!  

Meh, I guess we'll just have to wait until we can get an unbiased ruling; as I doubt you are going to admit you looked like an idiot and tried to correct comprehension where none was need and I damn sure are not going to tell you that you are right, because that would be dishonest on my part. Plus I might be "derailing"

How do you think a 4-year old's attentions got drawn to Charlottesville when asking his father how many best friends he can have? Perhaps from the in-depth documentary the 4-year old recently watched on CNN?

As I said. There are those that seek to widen the divide caused by racism this man and anyone who applauds his comments fall into that category in my book.

[GMDino]

(11-15-2017, 05:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Meh, I guess we'll just have to wait until we can get an unbiased ruling; as I doubt you are going to admit you looked like an idiot and tried to correct comprehension where none was need and I damn sure are not going to tell you that you are right, because that would be dishonest on my part. Plus I might be "derailing"

How do you think a 4-year old's attentions got drawn to Charlottesville when asking his father how many best friends he can have? Perhaps from the in-depth documentary the 4-year old recently watched on CNN?

As I said. There are those that seek to widen the divide caused by racism this man and anyone who applauds his comments fall into that category in my book.

I think the 4 year old ask question about what they saw.  Like watching the news with their father.  

I think those questions were separate from the question about how many friends they can have.

Two...separate...things.

Both showing childish innocence.  One showing how sad it is a father has to try to explain why Charlottesville happened.

[*michaelsean*]

I can be impartial because I forget who is claiming what. It seems the child's questions arose from the Charlottesville images. Now I think it's probably a bunch of BS, but who knows. Seems every other child is gifted. I also wonder why the father didn't use himself as an example of someone who hates people because they are different. He could mitigate it by explaining how is hatred is warranted and other people's is just evil.

[GMDino]

(11-15-2017, 06:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I can be impartial because I forget who is claiming what.  It seems the child's questions arose from the Charlottesville images.  Now I think it's probably a bunch of BS, but who knows.  Seems every other child is gifted.  I also wonder why the father didn't use himself as an example of someone who hates people because they are different.  He could mitigate it by explaining how is hatred is warranted and other people's is just evil.

Does the father hate people?  Or did he say he grew up thinking things were getting better and now with Charlottesville and Trump (whether I agree with that or not) he is afraid it will be the same for his child as it was for him?  

But again, I don't have a background as a black person in America.  What he wrote is his opinion.  Maybe we can ask him?

[*michaelsean*]

(11-15-2017, 06:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: Does the father hate people?  Or did he say he grew up thinking things were getting better and now with Charlottesville and Trump (whether I agree with that or not) he is afraid it will be the same for his child as it was for him?  

But again, I don't have a background as a black person in America.  What he wrote is his opinion.  Maybe we can ask him?

Yes I believe he does.  I would guess he always has, and has now found an excuse to be open about it.  We have no problem saying we know there are white people who hate black people.  I don't know why it's so hard to believe there are black people who hate white people.  I used to like this saying a lot, but it became overused so I'm not as enamored with it, but here it's apt.  "When people show you who they are, believe them."

[GMDino]

(11-15-2017, 06:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes I believe he does.  I would guess he always has, and has now found an excuse to be open about it.  We have no problem saying we know there are white people who hate black people.  I don't know why it's so hard to believe there are black people who hate white people.  I used to like this saying a lot, but it became overused so I'm not as enamored with it, but here it's apt.  "When people show you who they are, believe them."

Oh I can admit there are black people that hate white people.

I'm talking about this one opinion article.

As I read it I see a man who grew up with some racism but someone who thought the world was getting better and better until Trump.  And he uses Trump as the centerpoint for how the neo-nazis now march more openly and Trump supporters defend him when he doesn't condemn the nazis.  

I read it as one black man tired of seeing white people who are still racist who WANTS to tell his son he CAN be friends with anyone...but feels he cannot because of racism.

I think he's wrong.  And that his son should be open to everyone until they prove themselves unworthy of friendship.  There are LOTS of reasons to not like someone or to distrust someone.  The color of their skin isn't on that list.

I just didn't read "hate" in his words.  I read despair and being tired of the same old same old.  Even if he's exaggerating it.  His opinion.

[Dill]

(11-15-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Quote:My …This summer’s images of violence in Charlottesville, Va., prompted an array of questions. “Some people hate others because they are different,” I offer, lamely. A childish but distinct panic enters his voice. “But I’m not different.”
 
This first paragraph starts with a 4 year old child trying to clarify how many people he can consider his best friend. The father responds with images of Charlottesville and tells his 4-year old child that some folks hate others just because they are different. He even admits to causing his 4 year old son to go into a panic.

As I read the passage, the father is not responding WITH images of Charlottesville. Rather he says the images, possibly from the tv, have prompted the child’s questions.  The father’s “lame” response  to the questions induces the panic—“Some people hate others because they are different.”  So far, I don’t see a problem. The riot did occur for the reason given. What is the proper option for a black father in this case? No tv until the child is 7, or 9? At some point his black child will have to learn about the history of racism in the US. And he will learn why the history, reality, and perception of racism affect most whites very differently than most blacks in the US.

If the father were responding to a question about friendship with “images” of Charlottesville, then yes, that could be construed as conjuring racial anxiety out of nothing.  If the images came from elsewhere to prompt questions, then it is ultimately the riots and the people hating others for difference that create the anxiety.

(11-15-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He then points to Trump getting elected is why he must teach his sons caution, distrust and suspicion. And this caution, distrust and suspicion must be directed at Whitey.

He does a bit more than “point” in the remaining essay. And there is no blanket “whitey.” He explains why it is neither Trump, nor the white nationalists in Charlottesville who have generated his distrust. He explains why he thinks lessons taught to black children decades ago, long unnecessary and almost forgotten, must now be remembered and adapted to the current situation. Seems like he is taking a page from MLK and addressing the “white moderates” who were “of course” against racism and so forth but couldn’t be troubled to actually stand by their friends. 

That is why Yankah says it’s easy for white and black people to “like” one another, to “watch the game” together. But the distrust enters in as he is now unsure of which friends would have his back, which not. That is what he will discuss with his boys. He has and will continue to have genuine white friends. But he feels cannot know which of the "likeable" white people he meets every day would return that deep trust which is his criterion of friendship. Do you think the reasons he gives for distrust are insufficient? Can people really be "friends" without the deep trust he speaks of?

(11-15-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In this paragraph he implies that whitey desires to maintain power over blacks and then provides a analogy about MLK’s speech and why it is impossible for blacks and whites to be friends in Alabama.

I agree with Yankah’s claim about King and the racial power differential. In Alabama in 1963, conditions of white dominance made real friendship there impossible. But neither Yankah nor King doubts friendship is possible with at least some whites—e.g., those who put their bodies on the line in civil rights demonstrations, thereby SHOWING that the well being of fellow black citizens was important to them. 

(11-15-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is the paragraph that broke the Camel’s back. He first indicates that America is focused on a white problem and it is solely a white problem because Doctor’s discriminate based on race.

The first question here is, does he have his facts straight about the differential response to community problems? Do you say no, he does not?  If you agree he does, would you acknowledge the discrimination thereby evidenced?  If you so acknowledge, do you think he should not point this out, or address it in an OpEd?

(11-15-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The purpose of this race-baiting Op-ed was to widen the divide not lessen it and anyone that reads it and gives it any merit looks to do nothing more than fan the flames of racism.

There are a lot easier ways to “race bait” than pulling together a lengthy, elegantly-written OpEd, concluding with calls for blacks and whites to stand beside one another "against cheap attack and devaluation" and to "live together and not simply beside one another." That’s a very poor job of “fanning the flames of racism” for anyone who makes it to the end.  

So overall, I see that you disagree with Yankah's conclusions. I am curious as to whether you disagree with his reasons for them. Seems to me has offered some plausible evidence that racism is still a concern for blacks. But you seem to be holding his evidence/reasons separate from his conclusions by not addressing them. That might be one reason why you and I see him coming to different conclusions, and so come to different conclusions about what he is saying.

[Dill]

(11-15-2017, 06:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes I believe he does.  I would guess he always has, and has now found an excuse to be open about it.  We have no problem saying we know there are white people who hate black people.  I don't know why it's so hard to believe there are black people who hate white people.  I used to like this saying a lot, but it became overused so I'm not as enamored with it, but here it's apt.  "When people show you who they are, believe them."

Could the OpEd be about some white people showing the author who they are?

I also don't see a lot of "hate" in that OpEd. Just frustration and fear. Knowing that some black people hate whites doesn't really explain why someone would write an essay like that.  Haters write different.

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2017, 06:46 PM)Dill Wrote: As I read the passage, the father is not responding WITH images of Charlottesville. Rather he says the images, possibly from the tv, have prompted the child’s questions.  The father’s “lame” response  induces the panic—“Some people hate others because they are different.”  So far, I don’t see a problem. The riot did occur for the reason given. What is the proper option for a black father in this case? No tv until the child is 7, or 9? At some point his black child will have to learn about the history of racism in the US. And he will learn why the history, reality, and perception of racism affect most whites very differently than most blacks in the US.

If the father were responding to a question about friendship with “images” of Charlottesville, then yes, that could be construed as conjuring racial anxiety out of nothing.  If the images came from elsewhere to prompt questions, then it is ultimately the riots and the people hating others for difference that create the anxiety.

He does a bit more than “point” in the remaining essay. And there is no blanket “whitey.” He explains why it is neither Trump, nor the white nationalists in Charlottesville who have generated his distrust. He explains why he thinks lessons taught to black children decades ago, after a period of apparent dormancy, must now be adapted to the current situation. Seems like he is taking a page from MLK and addressing the “white moderates” who were “of course” against racism and so forth but couldn’t be troubled to actually stand by their friends. 

That is why Yankah says it’s easy for white and black people to “like” one another, to “watch the game” together. But the distrust enters in as he is now unsure of which friends would have his back, which not. That is what he will discuss with his boys. He has and will continue to have genuine white friends. But he feels cannot know which of the "likeable" white people he meets every day would return that deep trust which is his criterion of friendship. Do you think the reasons he gives for distrust are insufficient? Can people really be "friends" without the deep trust he speaks of?
I agree with Yankah’s claim about King and the racial power differential. In Alabama in 1963, conditions of white dominance made real friendship there impossible. But neither Yankah nor King doubts friendship is possible with at least some whites—e.g., those who put their bodies on the line in civil rights demonstrations, thereby SHOWING that the well being of fellow black citizens was important to them. 
The first question here is, does he have his facts straight? Do you say no, he does not?  If you agree he does, would you acknowledge the discrimination thereby evidenced?  If you so acknowledge, do you think he should not point this out, or address it in an OpEd?
There are a lot easier ways to “race bait” than pulling together a lengthy, elegantly-written OpEd, concluding with calls for blacks and whites to stand beside one another "against cheap attack and devaluation" and to "live together and not simply beside one another." That’s a very poor job of “fanning the flames of racism” for anyone who makes it to the end.  

So overall, I see that you disagree with Yankah's conclusions. I am curious as to whether you disagree with his reasons for them. Seems to me has offered some plausible evidence that racism is still a concern for blacks. But you seem to be holding his evidence/reasons separate from his conclusions by not addressing them. That might be one reason why you and I see him coming to different conclusions, and come to different conclusions about what he is saying.

Answer this one question: Why did he begin the article with his kid asking him how many people he could have as his best friend; if the kid was concerned about images from Charlottesville?

I have no problem discussing race relations with anyone and to think racism does not exist in modern society is ridiculous; however, when a father turns a question asked by his 4-year old son as to how many best friends he has into a racial issue, he is looking to bring race into any conversation. As do those in this forum that are applauding his words.