The High Price of Stale Grievances

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2018, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I didn't get my ass handed to me on anything.  West has been ripping on Coates since 2015.

Well, yeah, you do.  It's been happening a lot lately.  I think you miss your buddy. 

Quote:http://observer.com/2015/07/cornel-west-delivers-blistering-takedown-of-ta-nehisi-coates/


And his criticism has been praised by the alt right.  You may nor realize it but Coates was probably first brought to your attention because of this.

Ohohoho, another not so clever attempt to tar your enemies by insinuating they are "far-right".  Horribly disingenuous of you, Fred.  But then we expect nothing less.  I've actually been aware of him for a long time, he's the exact type of demagogue that I would prefer to not have helping to steer public discourse.

(06-12-2018, 01:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then he should not have ripped on Michael Eric Dyson who was born in 1958.

Anyone who saw him flail and spout racist invective in the debate with Fry and Peterson has all the ammunition they need to do that without referencing anything else.

Quote:All this guy is doing is building up a straw man.  Almost all serious discussion about racial problems address what is happening today.  I have had lots of serious discussions on racism and I never bring up slavery.

 
Again, Fred, the world doesn't revolve around you.

Quote:No where does he ever mention that racism still exists today.

 
Actually the very premise of his essay is that it does.

Quote:All he does is act like racial grievances are "stale" and that "oppression" ended decades ago. Why would he claim that "modern day blacks have to be seen through  the filter of history" if they are still victims of racism today?

Except that's not at all what he said.  I think we can safely end this back and forth.  You think what you think and the rest of us who read it will think the other.

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2018, 04:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, yeah, you do.  It's been happening a lot lately. 

No it hasn't.  What happens is you state your opinion and I state stats and scientific studies showing you are wrong.

Then you claim you have won.

For example you just claim you "handed me my ass" because West did not criticize Coates until December of '17.  How'd that work out for you?

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2018, 04:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, Fred, the world doesn't revolve around you.

Never said it did.  I do not enter these debates by myself.  They usually happen here and they usually involve many different people.

When we have a debate about racial profiling no talks about slavery.  Instead we talk about what is happening today.  There is a big thread here about the Starbucks incident and I'll bet you can't find a single quote in there where anyone cites slavery as the reason the black men should not have been thrown out.  We have discussions about the crime ate among blacks and no one says "It's okay because of slavery".

It just does not happen that often at all.  Almost every discussion about racial problems have to do with racial problems blacks are facing today in America.  These grievances are not "stale" they are current.

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2018, 04:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except that's not at all what he said. 

Yes it is.  I pulled the quotes straight from his article. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-12-2018, 05:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it is.  I pulled the quotes straight from his article. 

If you're referring to the part about the injustices of slavery or the Jim Crow era not applying the the modern black community, no, that is not what the author was saying. I disagree with those statements by the author, and have explained that, but the implication in them is not that racism does not exist today. The author is saying that we should be addressing the problems of today rather than focusing on what happened before. That there are modern issues surrounding race in this country and we should stop using past injustices to color, for lack of a better word, that conversation.

At least that is what I gathered from the piece.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2018, 05:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you're referring to the part about the injustices of slavery or the Jim Crow era not applying the the modern black community, no, that is not what the author was saying. I disagree with those statements by the author, and have explained that, but the implication in them is not that racism does not exist today. The author is saying that we should be addressing the problems of today rather than focusing on what happened before. That there are modern issues surrounding race in this country and we should stop using past injustices to color, for lack of a better word, that conversation.

At least that is what I gathered from the piece.

Thank you, Matt.  I can now extricate myself from the circuitous "debate".

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2018, 05:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  The author is saying that we should be addressing the problems of today rather than focusing on what happened before. That there are modern issues surrounding race in this country and we should stop using past injustices to color, for lack of a better word, that conversation.

At least that is what I gathered from the piece.

But when I am in debates about racial problems almost no one ever brings up slavery.  Look at all the threads here.  I talk about the high crime rate among blacks and not one person has ever said "It is okay because of slavery".

I don't know if you remember, but when there was a huge protest over the confederate flag I said they would be better off focusing that energy on something that could really help them instead of a symbol that is not holding everyone back.  If this author had said something like that then I would agree with him.  But instead he claims that blacks today have to result to "stale grievances" because they don't have any current grievances.

To quote him directly.  .  .  "modern-day blacks must be seen through the filter of history—not as autonomous individuals living in the present.  .  . "  The fact is they can be viewed as autonomous individuals living in the present and still complain about racism.

[Belsnickel]

(06-12-2018, 05:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But when I am in debates about racial problems almost no one ever brings up slavery.  Look at all the threads here.  I talk about the high crime rate among blacks and not one person has ever said "It is okay because of slavery".

I don't know if you remember, but when there was a huge protest over the confederate flag I said they would be better off focusing that energy on something that could really help them instead of a symbol that is not holding everyone back.  If this author had said something like that then I would agree with him.  But instead he claims that blacks today have to result to "stale grievances" because they don't have any current grievances.

To quote him directly.  .  .  "modern-day blacks must be seen through the filter of history—not as autonomous individuals living in the present.  .  . "  The fact is they can be viewed as autonomous individuals living in the present and still complain about racism.

You really are missing the point of the piece. The section you quote there is the author explaining how, in his opinion, the reliance on those "stale grievances" is removing agency from modern-day black people. That saying those past injustices are a reason to handle them with, to use a term I think he would agree he is implying here, kid gloves is removing their agency. He isn't saying that there are no legitimate modern-day grievances. He isn't saying racial injustices don't exist in modern society. In fact, he even discusses how unfairness towards black people is treated differently than unfairness towards other races or by black people related to race. This part alone indicates he is acknowledging the presence of racism in modern society.

It's fine to disagree with this piece; I have already indicated my disagreements with it. You just don't seem to understand the argument being made.