The High Price of Stale Grievances

[CKwi88]

He makes solid points. He writes well, although he could probably leave the pocket thesaurus to the side next time.

I'd simply echo a lot of Bels' well laid out points ifiI were to give a longer response. But I think it's suffice to say that Discrimination and unequal treatment is wrong. As wrong as saying that oppression has been gone for decades.

Hopefully there comes a day when everyone is as forunate as the author to not experience oppression. I just feel like we're still on our way there.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-07-2018, 05:52 PM)Millhouse Wrote: It is people like this that is causing more problems than anything, because teaching children this is simply wrong. My best friend from 1st grade until through junior high was black. He had a brother, two sisters, and mom, and lived in subsidized housing in my area which is a suburb of Cincy. We did everything together from overnight sleepovers, camping, playing basketball for hours on end, bike riding, my dad taking us on little trips to museums or wherever. He was simply my best friend, and I grew up looking at racists and bigots as ignorant idiots, which they are. So yeah, its these kind of attitudes on any racial side that need to be eradicated.

Exactly.

(06-07-2018, 06:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Agreed.  Extremist positions like this are ridiculous.

Racial discrimination against blacks is common enough to cause lots of problems, but most white people are not racist.  Alcoholism and drug addiction are common enough to cause lots of problems in society, but I would never say that every person who drinks or uses illegal drugs is a problem.

Extremist positions make issues harder to address.

Yet the article in which the quote Millhouse cited was printed in the New York Times with nary a word of protest or upset by anyone.  Which is a key point of the article that you have dismissed as steeped in "semantics".  Your intellectual inconsistency is a huge weakness that you appear to be unaware of, thus exacerbating the weakness.

[fredtoast]

(06-08-2018, 03:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yet the article in which the quote Millhouse cited was printed in the New York Times with nary a word of protest or upset by anyone.  Which is a key point of the article that you have dismissed as steeped in "semantics".  Your intellectual inconsistency is a huge weakness that you appear to be unaware of, thus exacerbating the weakness.

So you quote a post where I condemn the extremist quote from the New York Times and then accuse me of dismissing it?

How is that even possible?

There is nothing inconsistent with my argument.  I am opposed to extremist comments about how all white people are racist and at the same time I am opposed to comments about how all racism ended decades ago and only exists in history and folklore.  Those are not mutually exclusive positions.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-08-2018, 03:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you quote a post where I condemn the extremist quote from the New York Times and then accuse me of dismissing it?

How is that even possible?

There is nothing inconsistent with my argument.  I am opposed to extremist comments about how all white people are racist and at the same time I am opposed to comments about how all racism ended decades ago and only exists in history and folklore.  Those are not mutually exclusive positions.

But his argument isn't that racistm ended decades ago and "only exists in history and folklore". It's that whenever someone makes an argument that may paint blacks in a negative ways it's automatically dismissed as racist because of slavery, etc.

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2018, 03:39 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But his argument isn't that racistm ended decades ago and "only exists in history and folklore". It's that whenever someone makes an argument that may paint blacks in a negative ways it's automatically dismissed as racist because of slavery, etc.

Often times it is racism, though. I'm not going to sit here and say that every instance of it is, or that those that are come from a place of hatred. What I think is that people often don't understand the background, the policy decisions, the statistical evidence, etc., that could provide them with a better view of the situation. People often discuss the racial inequality in this country from a position of ignorance and that results in racist generalizations. Then, because the words "racism" and "racist" have become so weaponized in our society, it results in conversations being shut down before we can actually engage in meaningful discussion.

Talking about race and social issues is something that we need to do. We need to talk about it because they are tied to each other and ignoring that will mean that it won't be solved.

[fredtoast]

(06-08-2018, 03:39 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But his argument isn't that racistm ended decades ago and "only exists in history and folklore". It's that whenever someone makes an argument that may paint blacks in a negative ways it's automatically dismissed as racist because of slavery, etc.

Yes it is.  He repeats it over and over again

"Yet there we were—young black men born decades after anything that could rightly be called ‘oppression’ had ended—benefitting from a social license bequeathed to us by a history that we have only experienced through textbooks and folklore.  .  ."  


"modern-day blacks must be seen through the filter of history—not as autonomous individuals living in the present.  .  . "

"Stale grievances are dredged up from history ,"

"What do slavery and Jim Crow have to do with modern-day blacks, who experienced neither? "

How can this guy honestly claim that there are no blacks around today who lived  in the 1960's?

(06-08-2018, 03:39 PM)PhilHos Wrote:  It's that whenever someone makes an argument that may paint blacks in a negative ways it's automatically dismissed as racist because of slavery, etc.

But this just is not true.  For example he mentions the recent reaction to the incident at Starbucks.  I don't remember one person bringing up slavery in that discussion.  All I heard was about the racism that still exists today.  He also mentions a discussion on "white privilege".  Whenever I see a debate about white privilege it is not about slavery.  It is about the racism that still exists today.  All he did was set up a straw man that was easy for him to knock down.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-08-2018, 04:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Often times it is racism, though. I'm not going to sit here and say that every instance of it is, or that those that are come from a place of hatred. What I think is that people often don't understand the background, the policy decisions, the statistical evidence, etc., that could provide them with a better view of the situation. People often discuss the racial inequality in this country from a position of ignorance and that results in racist generalizations. Then, because the words "racism" and "racist" have become so weaponized in our society, it results in conversations being shut down before we can actually engage in meaningful discussion.

Talking about race and social issues is something that we need to do. We need to talk about it because they are tied to each other and ignoring that will mean that it won't be solved.

I would think the author actually agrees with you. I think he's just trying to point out that it doesn't help to discount a white person's viewpoint or argument simply because of slavery or whatever.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2018, 03:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you quote a post where I condemn the extremist quote from the New York Times and then accuse me of dismissing it?

How is that even possible?

There is nothing inconsistent with my argument.  I am opposed to extremist comments about how all white people are racist and at the same time I am opposed to comments about how all racism ended decades ago and only exists in history and folklore.  Those are not mutually exclusive positions.

Newsflash Fred, this is not all about you.  A man wrote an opinion piece in the NYT that he's going to teach his children that you can't be friends with white people.  Was there a reaction to it even remotely similar to the reaction that would be caused if a white author made the same statements about teaching his children that you can't be friends with black people?  Would a person who wrote that they hated the first responders and felt no sympathy for their deaths be lauded by the left, a virtual darling of the left, the way Coates has, if he was white?

Take of the egocentric goggles for a second and join the rest of us, we're having quite a nice discussion about what we agree, and disagree, with in this article.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Isn't this thread racist since everyone is discussing the article about things that have been said many times before by other races?

What gives this article more relevance than any other?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2018, 04:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Often times it is racism, though. I'm not going to sit here and say that every instance of it is, or that those that are come from a place of hatred. What I think is that people often don't understand the background, the policy decisions, the statistical evidence, etc., that could provide them with a better view of the situation. People often discuss the racial inequality in this country from a position of ignorance and that results in racist generalizations. Then, because the words "racism" and "racist" have become so weaponized in our society, it results in conversations being shut down before we can actually engage in meaningful discussion.

Talking about race and social issues is something that we need to do. We need to talk about it because they are tied to each other and ignoring that will mean that it won't be solved.

Stating it is racist even when it isn't dilutes the accusation when it is made for valid reasons.  In any event, I think the main thrust of the article is that black people should not be able to commit casual, and overt, racism with impunity simply because of the injustices of the past.  That this happens isn't really disputable, nor is it disputable that the fact that it is happening is severely damaging to race relations in this country.  Nor does this issue affect only black and white people.  

The man led off with a story about his Hispanic friend being denied a job because he wasn't black and his musing on what would have occurred if his friend was black and was denied a job because he wasn't white.  To me the central point of his essay is readily apparent but appears to not be the main topic of the back and forth in this thread.

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2018, 07:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Stating it is racist even when it isn't dilutes the accusation when it is made for valid reasons.  In any event, I think the main thrust of the article is that black people should not be able to commit casual, and overt, racism with impunity simply because of the injustices of the past.  That this happens isn't really disputable, nor is it disputable that the fact that it is happening is severely damaging to race relations in this country.  Nor does this issue affect only black and white people.  

The man led off with a story about his Hispanic friend being denied a job because he wasn't black and his musing on what would have occurred if his friend was black and was denied a job because he wasn't white.  To me the central point of his essay is readily apparent but appears to not be the main topic of the back and forth in this thread.

I got the central point, and I talked about my agreement with that. I think it is important to understand that there is a very strong reason to discuss the injustices in the past in conjunction with present day. When we talk about people not using those to justify racist acts by black people, that's fine, but what we need to make sure doesn't happen is that we eradicate discussion of those atrocities and pretend they don't influence the inequalities faced by black people in modern times.

That's my main point in all of this. The socioeconomic impact and the way society acts are joined together because they come from the same origins. If we are going to make a point of taking a critical look at the societal actions, we need to make sure that conversation can take place while still recognizing the economic injustices and allowing ourselves to continue that discussion.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-08-2018, 07:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I got the central point, and I talked about my agreement with that.  I think it is important to understand that there is a very strong reason to discuss the injustices in the past in conjunction with present day. When we talk about people not using those to justify racist acts by black people, that's fine, but what we need to make sure doesn't happen is that we eradicate discussion of those atrocities and pretend they don't influence the inequalities faced by black people in modern times.

That's my main point in all of this. The socioeconomic impact and the way society acts are joined together because they come from the same origins. If we are going to make a point of taking a critical look at the societal actions, we need to make sure that conversation can take place while still recognizing the economic injustices and allowing ourselves to continue that discussion.

According to Brookings, minorities are fast rising in percentage of middle class America.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/02/27/the-middle-class-is-becoming-race-plural-just-like-the-rest-of-america/

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2018, 08:10 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: According to Brookings, minorities are fast rising in percentage of middle class America.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/02/27/the-middle-class-is-becoming-race-plural-just-like-the-rest-of-america/

Which is fine and dandy. But with the income and wealth gaps continuing to grow wider in this country and the middle stretching thinner and growing smaller, what does this really mean? The data being discussed in that blog post still shows that there is disproportionate distribution of the races among the income groups. So while progress is being made, trying to just stop talking about the issue isn't going to help continuing this progress.

This is only one tiny part of this issue. As someone that listens to Brookings podcasts and gets their email newsletters on the regular, I'm here to tell you that there is a lot more to this story.

[fredtoast]

(06-08-2018, 08:10 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: According to Brookings, minorities are fast rising in percentage of middle class America.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/02/27/the-middle-class-is-becoming-race-plural-just-like-the-rest-of-america/

According to those stats non-Hispanic whites are supposed to lose 7 percentage points (from 59% to 52%) of the overall population but only 6 points of their positions in the top 40% (67% to 61%).

So as a percentage of the population we will still be getting ahead.

[fredtoast]

(06-08-2018, 07:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Would a person who wrote that they hated the first responders and felt no sympathy for their deaths be lauded by the left, a virtual darling of the left, the way Coates has, if he was white?

You know what is ironic?  You call Coates a "darling of the left", and I'll bet everything you know about him came from Cornel West quotes.

I've already agreed that extremist positions make it hard to get anything done, but most people here have never heard of Ta-Nehisi Coates.  And very few discussions I have about race deal with slavery.  The people who care the most talk about what is going on today.

And you are here praising a guy who does not think there are any black people still alive who lived in the 1950's or 60's.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2018, 11:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You know what is ironic?  You call Coates a "darling of the left", and I'll bet everything you know about him came from Cornel West quotes.

Who's Cornell West?  But seriously, folks, you'd lose that bet.  Too bad you didn't wager anything.

Quote:I've already agreed that extremist positions make it hard to get anything done, but most people here have never heard of Ta-Nehisi Coates.  And very few discussions I have about race deal with slavery.  The people who care the most talk about what is going on today.

I'm sorry to hear that, he's been widely discussed for years.  Here's a post of mine criticizing him from October of last year.

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-%E2%80%98Go-home-%E2%80%99-Mayor-tweets-after-white-nationalist-tiki-torch-%E2%80%98flash-mob%E2%80%99?pid=445524#pid445524

As the Cornell West feud occurred in December of last year it would appear that you've lost your bet.  He's a high profile writer for The Atlantic and he's written episodes of Black Panther.  You may have heard of this comic, it's about a fictional African nation called Wakanda and that nation's leader.  They even made a movie about it!

Quote:And you are here praising a guy who does not think there are any black people still alive who lived in the 1950's or 60's.

Dear, dear Fred, that's not what he's saying and anyone attempting to have an honest debate about this article knows this.  As I said, join us, it's been rather entertaining and enlightening.

[fredtoast]

(06-08-2018, 11:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dear, dear Fred, that's not what he's saying and anyone attempting to have an honest debate about this article knows this.  

Then why did he say this?  Jim Crow laws were in effect until at least 1965.

"What do slavery and Jim Crow have to do with modern-day blacks, who experienced neither? "


There are a lot of blacks alive today who suffered under Jim Crow laws.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-11-2018, 12:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then why did he say this?  Jim Crow laws were in effect until at least 1965.

"What do slavery and Jim Crow have to do with modern-day blacks, who experienced neither? "


There are a lot of blacks alive today who suffered under Jim Crow laws.

I would think he meant that most of the grievances being advanced by people are being advanced by people who did not directly experience them.  If you use the late 60's as an extreme for the end of segregation than people in their 50's and above would have been directly affected by them.  Of course, this doesn't mean that racism, institutionalized or at the personal level, ceased to exist at that time.  No one, especially the article, is claiming that. 

I did notice you glossed over getting your ass handed to you on your "bet".  I'm wonder if you'll do it again when you respond to this post.

[fredtoast]

(06-11-2018, 06:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I did notice you glossed over getting your ass handed to you on your "bet".  I'm wonder if you'll do it again when you respond to this post.

I didn't get my ass handed to me on anything.  West has been ripping on Coates since 2015. 


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.

[fredtoast]

(06-11-2018, 06:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would think he meant that most of the grievances being advanced by people are being advanced by people who did not directly experience them. 

Then he should not have ripped on Michael Eric Dyson who was born in 1958.

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