+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: It's Kamala! (/Thread-It-s-Kamala)
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-18-2020
(08-17-2020, 12:02 PM)hollodero Wrote: ?? No, I am not offended in any way. Just to be clear about that. Also, while you say you don't see my views as Ignorant, you go on within the next sentence and describe a form of ignorance. But that is totally, 100% fair. I am ignorant of many things for sure, it's just that at times I feel the distance also gives me a different perspective, which at times can not be that disadvantageous. No offense, but at times I feel you're a bit too caught up with historical examples and drawing up connections that are a bit far fetched.
Your distance does give you a different and valuable perspective, and offers us Amis a chance of seeing things we don't see because we are too close. (For which reason I have previously encouraged you to keep hammering us.) Still, I can make a case for distance as a deficiency in one instance without denying the principle or implying you are "just plain" ignorant. (And as a case it has to be demonstrated, not just asserted.)
I doubt my historical examples and connections are "far fetched," at least in this case, though they may yet be unclearly framed. You are likely tired of the back and forth, but that you have endured so far will help me in constructing future arguments.
(08-17-2020, 12:02 PM)hollodero Wrote: I also have a habit of more or less always being annoyed when an important post is to be filled and the first thing people say is "let's first decide to put in someone from this or that group and move on from there". It annoys me in my country as well, where we treat women's rights a bit similar. When we needed a surrogate chancellor in dire political times, folks just claimed it has to be a woman, it is the most important thing, and it would be sexist not to choose a woman, just look at how unfairly women were treated throughout history... - and I consider this approach quite wrong. That's maybe just me, but that's one of my main issues with the black female VP pick.
For one, I hate the underlying message of "if it's not a black person, this person can't do good by your community", or at least significantly less good, which is just not true. I also dislike it then when someone non-black would have been chosen, blacks would have been told that they somehow got victimized by that. I get annoyed when self-declared black leaders claim that Biden can either choose a black woman as VP or is a devil. What nonsense. Or all the hysteria of deep offense to a whole race, a slap in their collective faces and whatnot when no black person won an oscar... ah this leads too far now.
LOL too far indeed. Your mention of the Oscars reminds me of my surprise in 2002 when I learned that Halle Berry was the first black woman ever to win an Oscar for best leading actress. EVER. I'd never noticed there were no black female winners before, but Halle certainly had. And she is still only one, somewhat less than 13% of the 93 female actresses who have won it. Of course, how many black women have been cast as leads since 1929? Not many. Far smaller pool because of merit? Perhaps because part of an actress' talent is in appealing to people who can identify with her visually, accept her as standard of beauty or class or some other merit? And for a long time Black actresses could not sufficiently meet those standards in "the business." Chosing one would have indeed been a bad business decision for years. How many talented Black actresses never went to Hollywood figuring they didn't have a shot. How many did and found out when they got there? There is always a range of selections at work in this process--self selection, teachers selecting students, agents selecting clients, directors selecting actresses--before we even get to the nominations. At some point "race" stopped being an openly stated criterion when directors hired actresses and nominators nominated them, but then did racial selection then just give way to pure merit, continuing that way until and after Halle too? Are our politics at the highest level similar to the film industry in any aspect? Do we exclude that identification factor? The series of selection hurdles?
I remember when I was about 12 years old, an older man told me that, although Blacks could make good football players, one could never be a quarterback. They lacked the intelligence and leadership qualities required. How many never tried out back then because they never saw themselves in that position? Now few think a quarterback is ever passed over in the draft because he is black. And few young athletes would self select out because they don't see people like them in that position. The black coach barrier is similarly broken. Ownership next? The hurdle there is higher and more difficult because it involves a wealth gap, another kind of selection. By "the economy"? Another long history of "selections" being slowly overcome? But are our politics, especially at the leadership level, like the NFL in any aspect?
Trump recently argued that schools should open because children are less affected by the Coronavirus. They slough it off. Dems, of course, reminded us all that children can still get sick, and they can communicate the disease to teachers, parents, and grandparents. That one demographic unit, children, could not be treated in isolation because of the way it was interconnected with, embedded in, other groups.
I think one problem with the discussion about Harris and "black women" is that critics of the pick are often not viewing demographic groups in the US as a variously interconnected and mutually defining, but rather as individual, disconnected things. You pick a black woman and it helps "her group" and not another, or maybe doesn't help them at all, because competence is really the issue and, unlike with whites, that's an either/or. Besides we already had a black president. Some other group's turn. As if a black woman, from the most historically reviled minority, wouldn't be breaking a barrier for Latinas or Asian Americans or Native Americans as well as Black women and women in general. The first female vp in history. Like that wouldn't be a statement about commitment to equality for all, not just that one whiny group that finally got theirs. And a statement about the ideals and commitments of the party that chose her. As compared to the party of "merit."
I guess what I am trying to say here is that I don't see picks for offices like the vp as simply about the individual and whether he/she has the typing skills. And they are not simply about helping this or that one group, though reward may indeed be a factor, along with the more pedestrian considerations of state or regional appeal. It's also about what the party will work for, whom it will IN FACT seek to include. It implies what a cabinet will look like, and that implies what policies will look like as well.
Harris' right wing opponents understand this very well. They know 95% of Black women were already likely to vote for Biden. Their goal now is to shape what this choice says about the party--to disconnect all the connections I just made.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-18-2020
(08-17-2020, 12:02 PM)hollodero Wrote: Dill: By that same token of distance, there is absolutely no reason to suppose you and your neighbors would raise the meritocratic standard to fight a "rear guard action" to defend a US status quo, especially one you, personally, have always been critical of. You've generally been a touchstone of rational clarity in this forum. My humble apologies if I have given you the impression I thought otherwise. My intent was to SEPARATE, not conflate, your defense of meritocracy from that of Ingraham and others by emphasizing the difference in context.
Well, to be fair, you also lumped them together in the first place. Meritocratic arguments per se do not have any historic context, they just have a somewhat logical, well, merit. I am certain though without a dozen more examples that meritocratic arguments, as you put it, were used time and again to defend the racially unjust status quo throughout history and up to this day. But this approach also can lead to a killer argument, like saying "you believe the earth is round? You know who else believed that? Hitler." I'm not trying to say you do something akin to that, I'm saying that Laura Ingraham or other right-wing voices don't need to be part of this debate at all, and the existence of Laura Ingraham etc. etc. doesn't need to result in automatically refuting meritocratic arguments. This isn't about the right wing. What I could say about the right wing though is that it can be observed how they start to use the same racism arguments now - like Biden is a racist for saying blacks vote for him or they ain't black or that the hispanic vote is more diverse. No he's not a racist, he's just a bit dull at times. But the quality of the racist takedown is something the right wing learned by observation.
That's probably true. Doesn't mean all they do is not just pandering without leaving them as marginalized as before. It depends on what people do, it also depends on what Kamala Harris will do, it doesn't depend on what skin color or gender she is.
Not sure where I Lumped them together. And I don't think contextualizing arguments to understand what they are intended to accomplish at a specific moment and what specific effects they have had that encourage re-deployment can lead to arguments like "You know who else believed the earth is round?" Which precisely erase those concerns. De-historicizing arguments is what leads to "Hitler did too."
But what you say above I think makes clear where we misunderstand each other. I am saying Ingraham et al. made themselves a part of the debate when they began using the meritocratic argument to defend a racial status quo by saying race should never displace merit as a criterion for advancement. I am arguing, then, not against the principle of meritocracy, but against a specific deployment of it in US race politics because it has been truly devastating to affirmative action efforts. This argument does not entail a rejection of merit as principle for selection of political candidates. But it has to be made as part of a more general effort to explain and hopefully counter systemic racism.
In explaining this, I have in the past found it useful to start with examples everyone can agree on and understand, like marching band auditions ostensibly based only on merit, and then transition to more complex cases which make clear how the meritocratic argument can serve as a racial bar precisely by uncoupling selection from race. The remaining question now is whether or where that argument continues to work today. My answer is yes. That is what is happening when Ingraham goes off on how Dems rely on identity politics--as if white identity politics were not fundamental to her politics--instead of seeking "the best person" for vp. So I'm puzzled by your insistence the merit argument has nothing to do with the Right, with Ingraham. Are you still defending what I am not disputing, that merit is really a very important and valid standard in selecting leaders? I grant that it is so independently of what Ingraham thinks. But when she deploys it, it is not used independently of "the right" and what she thinks.
The "quality of the racist takedown" is a concern for the Right because they have so often defended racism, and racists like the current president. They feel the accusation even when it is not made. Since this history is not open to direct refutation, the next best thing is to claim "both sides do it"--hence the frenetic search for racist Dems/Dem statements to distract from those policy differences that attract the vast majority of Black voters to Dems, regardless of their verbal stumbles.
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-20-2020
(08-18-2020, 08:34 PM)Dill Wrote: I doubt my historical examples and connections are "far fetched," at least in this case, though they may yet be unclearly framed. You are likely tired of the back and forth, but that you have endured so far will help me in constructing future arguments.
I guess mainly everyone else might be tired of it. But whatever :)
I try to give an answer in one piece though, sorry for leaving out quite a bit. Regarding examples from around the '60s, I'd argue that it isn't the '60s any more and so some of the arguments used back then no longer apply in a similar fashion. I guess I get what you're trying to get at. Take an argument, show how this argument can lead to certain developments and trains of thoughts that then were used to disenfrachise black people, hence be warned of said argument. Which ok sure is fair, but see above. This, in the end, is no longer about restricting access of blacks to marching bands and all kinds of other entities. These times are indeed over. I'm not saying racism is over by any stretch of the imagination, but the circumstances have changed too much still to really use these examples effectively, imho. That's why I say "far fetched".
Of course I apply that especially to the argument that VPs should be chosen on the grounds of merit and not on the grounds of race and gender. A merit-based argument is not per se bad or dubious because it got misused. You brought the example of black QB's, and that imho is an example how a distinctly not merit-based (but race-based) system was used to disenfranchise black QBs. Nowadays, that doesn't really happen on a similar scale, nowadays this is mainly a strictly merit-based decision. I would not be fine with my team out of hand committing to a black QB and then checking the options available. I want the best QB, black or white or whatever.
The problem with a different approach imho is the following, and again I have to somwhat change the scenario here. It's like when our academic world discovered the importance of gender equality. Which lead to trying to achieve the goal of having 50% females in influential positions in our universities. Which I guess is just fine and probaly the right thing to do when there are roughly 50% of female applicants. It is, however, imho a very bad idea if there are only 15% female applicants. One can of course argue that well, there are only 15% applicants because women were detained by a patriarchalic system from getting into science for a long time, and this might very well be true. On the other hand, being forced to choose from a 15% pool will lead to a drop-off in quality, and this is exactly what actually happened in the field of natural sciences here.
And yes, I absolutely see a point of concern there when it comes to affirmative action. Sure, I completely am fine with preferring a black person in principle. I also have zero problem though, for example, if there's a fire department full of white people for whatever reason and a chief still chooses a white person to hire because he had the best credentials and was the best fit. It might be actually dangerous to think of color and diversity ahead of merit. In the same sense, I wish that my surgeon got the job based on merit, and not because the hospital felt there were too few black surgeons around so they just had to hire one. If he's just as capable as any other applicants, sure, take the black one and increase diversity, I'm all for it. But when you commit to it in advance, this is all but a guarantee.
VP of the most important country in this world? Yeah, to me, same thing. Committing to a black female, I am just not so keen on that kind of thinking and I try to explain why. And even if you find many examples of how that approach was misused, led to additional thoughts and approaches that were discriminatory etc., I am not willing to abandon the thought itself.
Lastly, I just mentioned the oscars as an example of how many emotions often flow into these things. It is a really bad example in one sense (because no doubt the film industry overlooked black people for a long time and probably in some extent still does), but the extent of months-long indignation about that still was a bit much. At this time I watched quite a lot of American TV, and yeah at the 10.000th mention of rampant racism as exemplified by this oscar scandal, I just thought, ok, enough already, don't just jump on any example and exaggerate it that extremely. And I still think it was too much, it's just the oscars and some people are just too eager to find racism everywhere. This I can't quite lay out on an argumentatively sound manner, it's just a feeling of mine and I should not have gone there in the first place, but I did, so here we are :)
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-20-2020
(08-20-2020, 04:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: I guess mainly everyone else might be tired of it. But whatever :)
I try to give an answer in one piece though, sorry for leaving out quite a bit. Regarding examples from around the '60s, I'd argue that it isn't the '60s any more and so some of the arguments used back then no longer apply in a similar fashion. I guess I get what you're trying to get at. Take an argument, show how this argument can lead to certain developments and trains of thoughts that then were used to disenfrachise black people, hence be warned of said argument. Which ok sure is fair, but see above. This, in the end, is no longer about restricting access of blacks to marching bands and all kinds of other entities. These times are indeed over. I'm not saying racism is over by any stretch of the imagination, but the circumstances have changed too much still to really use these examples effectively, imho. That's why I say "far fetched".
Of course I apply that especially to the argument that VPs should be chosen on the grounds of merit and not on the grounds of race and gender. A merit-based argument is not per se bad or dubious because it got misused. You brought the example of black QB's, and that imho is an example how a distinctly not merit-based (but race-based) system was used to disenfranchise black QBs. Nowadays, that doesn't really happen on a similar scale, nowadays this is mainly a strictly merit-based decision. I would not be fine with my team out of hand committing to a black QB and then checking the options available. I want the best QB, black or white or whatever.
The problem with a different approach imho is the following, and again I have to somwhat change the scenario here. It's like when our academic world discovered the importance of gender equality. Which lead to trying to achieve the goal of having 50% females in influential positions in our universities. Which I guess is just fine and probaly the right thing to do when there are roughly 50% of female applicants. It is, however, imho a very bad idea if there are only 15% female applicants. One can of course argue that well, there are only 15% applicants because women were detained by a patriarchalic system from getting into science for a long time, and this might very well be true. On the other hand, being forced to choose from a 15% pool will lead to a drop-off in quality, and this is exactly what actually happened in the field of natural sciences here.
And yes, I absolutely see a point of concern there when it comes to affirmative action. Sure, I completely am fine with preferring a black person in principle. I also have zero problem though, for example, if there's a fire department full of white people for whatever reason and a chief still chooses a white person to hire because he had the best credentials and was the best fit. It might be actually dangerous to think of color and diversity ahead of merit. In the same sense, I wish that my surgeon got the job based on merit, and not because the hospital felt there were too few black surgeons around so they just had to hire one. If he's just as capable as any other applicants, sure, take the black one and increase diversity, I'm all for it. But when you commit to it in advance, this is all but a guarantee.
VP of the most important country in this world? Yeah, to me, same thing. Committing to a black female, I am just not so keen on that kind of thinking and I try to explain why. And even if you find many examples of how that approach was misused, led to additional thoughts and approaches that were discriminatory etc., I am not willing to abandon the thought itself.
Lastly, I just mentioned the oscars as an example of how many emotions often flow into these things. It is a really bad example in one sense (because no doubt the film industry overlooked black people for a long time and probably in some extent still does), but the extent of months-long indignation about that still was a bit much. At this time I watched quite a lot of American TV, and yeah at the 10.000th mention of rampant racism as exemplified by this oscar scandal, I just thought, ok, enough already, don't just jump on any example and exaggerate it that extremely. And I still think it was too much, it's just the oscars and some people are just too eager to find racism everywhere. This I can't quite lay out on an argumentatively sound manner, it's just a feeling of mine and I should not have gone there in the first place, but I did, so here we are :)
What you're encountering here is the political extremes in this country and how obsessed they are with race. To the far left race is a cudgel to attack opponents and to force the kind of diversity you alluded to above, quality of the applicant be damned. To the far right race isn't even an issue, it's something to be ignored at best, except when a particular example or category (violent crime immediately leaps to mind) helps them diffuse the cudgel being wielded by the far left.
Most US citizens have no issues with people of different ethnicities. I've long been either the only, or one of the few, white men at my workplace. At one location, in which I was one of two white men, one of the older, black, clerks approached me and called me by the other gentleman's name. When I corrected her with my actual name she stated, "Oh, you're the other one", which I found funny for a reason that apparently perplexed her. Point being, most of us inhabiting the middle, which doesn't get a lot of attention these days, don't have an issue with race. We certainly acknowledged that in some cases it holds people back and in others it is used to unduly advance people, but by in large we just live our lives and treat each other like human beings.
Unfortunately both extremes will never let that be the end of it. The left's particular brand of insanity is in ascendancy now, hence the stated reason for the VP pick that your correctly criticize. Just don't expect someone who approves of that reason to ever begin to understand the reason you have issues with it. Because you're European you're given a bit of leeway. Trust me when I say if you were an American someone would already have called you a racist for raising the exact same questions. You bore witness to that phenomena first hand in that rioting thread.
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-21-2020
(08-20-2020, 08:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What you're encountering here is the political extremes in this country and how obsessed they are with race. To the far left race is a cudgel to attack opponents and to force the kind of diversity you alluded to above, quality of the applicant be damned. To the far right race isn't even an issue, it's something to be ignored at best, except when a particular example or category (violent crime immediately leaps to mind) helps them diffuse the cudgel being wielded by the far left.
I disagree - meaning of course, as a foreigner with no real idea I came to a different impression. When it comes to the "far left", well, you saw my posts, there are aspects within your response I do not disagree with. I also feel that the word "racism" is thrown out too loosely at times, and the accusation does get misused to silence opponents. Aside from that, I guess in many cases the intentions are pure and good, and also very often totally appropriate.
Which leads me to the "far right". For sure, being far right is in no way akin to being racist, but there are quite a few racists (a little racists to full-blown racists) among the far right. Maybe you don't count David Duke or Richard Spencer or whatever white supremacy group that marches in an unite the right rally as "far right", but I would. But aside from that, there is also the Breitbart mob, which basically is a bunch of dogs barking as intended at every racist dog whistle that gets thrown out. This imho is not a neglectable, tiny group, and it's definitely a far right group, and boy many of them are quite racist.
Which leads me to Donald Trump, for sadly everything also is about Donald Trump these days. This president imho is racist, or say he says a lot of racially precarious things. I made a list once somewhere. And while I'm usually rather cautious with racism accusations, Donald Trump fits the bill. And he has quite a lot of fans. Now while I am in no way accusing all Trump voters of racism, I can't quite acquit them of at least being somewhat indifferent to Trump's racism and of more or less consciously voting for a racist. And some are racists, Trump does not throw his tropes out for no one to digest, he has folks who actively like it.
(08-20-2020, 08:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Most US citizens have no issues with people of different ethnicities. I've long been either the only, or one of the few, white men at my workplace. At one location, in which I was one of two white men, one of the older, black, clerks approached me and called me by the other gentleman's name. When I corrected her with my actual name she stated, "Oh, you're the other one", which I found funny for a reason that apparently perplexed her. Point being, most of us inhabiting the middle, which doesn't get a lot of attention these days, don't have an issue with race. We certainly acknowledged that in some cases it holds people back and in others it is used to unduly advance people, but by in large we just live our lives and treat each other like human beings.
I think so too, and I'm not so sure many really dispute that. Regarding your example though, of course things are quite different and easier to laugh at when you're still the majority and only are not in a certain setting. If you're the minority and have experienced racism throughout your life (and I'd suppose pretty much every black person has experience with some form of racism), things are different.
Also, when it comes to black people, it's not just that people are held back, it's also that they get arrested and imprisoned more often, and mainly that they are victims of police killings more often. And of course by often being systematically targeted, like when this one police chief called for a "black day" and whatnot. With that I am not so much saying that just police is disadvantaging blacks, I claim that society (not every individial, some more or less unconsciously, it's this "systemic" thing folks often might not be even aware of) as a whole does; and police is just the example where the consequences of that are most dire. It is a topic that deserves attention and not just some kind of leftist identity politics issue. Imho.
(08-20-2020, 08:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Unfortunately both extremes will never let that be the end of it. The left's particular brand of insanity is in ascendancy now, hence the stated reason for the VP pick that your correctly criticize. Just don't expect someone who approves of that reason to ever begin to understand the reason you have issues with it. Because you're European you're given a bit of leeway. Trust me when I say if you were an American someone would already have called you a racist for raising the exact same questions.
Hehe... I had thoughts about that, but I don't quite know if that's true. I supposed Dill won't. And the reason is of course that nothing I said imho can reasonably be deemed racism. I claim that I am not a racist, sure at times others reach different verdicts. We do have the more passionate kind of leftists here as well, and yeah they call me names at times for not fully agreeing with every racist, sexist or whatever conventional leftist wisdom thing, I know what you're referring to. Often though, it depends on the tone one uses. Meaning, folks are more likely to be berated as racists when they in return berate others as mindless, CNN-worshipping soreheads. The conversation between the two sides is full of ire for sure, but that imho isn't that much a leftist thing, but an american thing.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 02:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: I disagree - meaning of course, as a foreigner with no real idea I came to a different impression. When it comes to the "far left", well, you saw my posts, there are aspects within your response I do not disagree with. I also feel that the word "racism" is thrown out too loosely at times, and the accusation does get misused to silence opponents. Aside from that, I guess in many cases the intentions are pure and good, and also very often totally appropriate.
Something about the road to hell comes to mind.
Quote:Which leads me to the "far right". For sure, being far right is in no way akin to being racist, but there are quite a few racists (a little racists to full-blown racists) among the far right. Maybe you don't count David Duke or Richard Spencer or whatever white supremacy group that marches in an unite the right rally as "far right", but I would. But aside from that, there is also the Breitbart mob, which basically is a bunch of dogs barking as intended at every racist dog whistle that gets thrown out. This imho is not a neglectable, tiny group, and it's definitely a far right group, and boy many of them are quite racist.
There are quite a lot of racists on the far right. The far left certainly has its fair share of racists as well, they just don't tend to view their racism as such.
Quote:Which leads me to Donald Trump, for sadly everything also is about Donald Trump these days. This president imho is racist, or say he says a lot of racially precarious things. I made a list once somewhere. And while I'm usually rather cautious with racism accusations, Donald Trump fits the bill. And he has quite a lot of fans. Now while I am in no way accusing all Trump voters of racism, I can't quite acquit them of at least being somewhat indifferent to Trump's racism and of more or less consciously voting for a racist. And some are racists, Trump does not throw his tropes out for no one to digest, he has folks who actively like it.
He may be. I think it's more that he grew up in an era in which that kind of thought was much more prevalent and he never really grew out of it. A true racist wouldn't have anything to with those they hated, I don't think that's ever been the case with Trump. I think he has a lot of racist opinions and thoughts. I know this comparison won't really connect with you but it's a direct parallel. There's a guy on The Howard Stern show, Sal Governale. His father is a Sicilian immigrant and is absolutely racist against black people. While Sal was growing up he taught Sal a lot of racist "lessons" about black people. Sal, today, still has those thoughts in his head, and will say some racist things, but I don't think the guy is a racist at all. He just never learned to unwire those thoughts and feelings from early in his life. They still color his thoughts, but they don't cause him to fear or hate. Maybe I did a poor job of explaining it, but I do think a person have hold racist beliefs and not be a racist. There's a lot of room on the spectrum between a completely unracist person and a Klan member or black supremacist.
Quote:I think so too, and I'm not so sure many really dispute that. Regarding your example though, of course things are quite different and easier to laugh at when you're still the majority and only are not in a certain setting. If you're the minority and have experienced racism throughout your life (and I'd suppose pretty much every black person has experience with some form of racism), things are different.
Oh, I completely agree. I just use the example to point out that casual racism, such as was expressed to me, can be unintentionally stated without any racist intent.
Quote:Also, when it comes to black people, it's not just that people are held back, it's also that they get arrested and imprisoned more often, and mainly that they are victims of police killings more often. And of course by often being systematically targeted, like when this one police chief called for a "black day" and whatnot. With that I am not so much saying that just police is disadvantaging blacks, I claim that society (not every individial, some more or less unconsciously, it's this "systemic" thing folks often might not be even aware of) as a whole does; and police is just the example where the consequences of that are most dire. It is a topic that deserves attention and not just some kind of leftist identity politics issue. Imho.
This is a very touchy suspect, and actually one f the few areas in which Fred and I were in complete agreement. What you are stating here is true to an extent, but it absolutely does not account for the incredibly disproportionate number of violent crimes committed by black men in this country. There's something very wrong when ~7% of the population commits over half of the murder. If racism was the sole determinant of this disproportionality then we'd see it across the spectrum, but we don't. Hispanics commit crime around the same rate as their percentage of the population, the same with whites. Asians are actually under represented by quite a bit. Even Native Americans, who do show a disproportionate number, are only slightly over-represented, and they certainly got the shaft the worse in this country.
So, while what you say above is true, it's not the only reason for the problem. It's also why this problem will never be fixed, because the left flat out refuses to address this issue as a whole, instead they pretend it's solely about systemic racism. You can't patch the bullet hole in your chest, ignore the one in the back and expect the patient to survive. I think they feel that acknowledging the whole problem would, 1. be racist, and 2. would weaken their argument against systemic racism. Whatever the reason, it's the black community that will continue to suffer for it.
Quote:Hehe... I had thoughts about that, but I don't quite know if that's true. I supposed Dill won't. And the reason is of course that nothing I said imho can reasonably be deemed racism.
Trust me, that's not a bar the accusation has to hurdle.
Quote:I claim that I am not a racist, sure at times others reach different verdicts. We do have the more passionate kind of leftists here as well, and yeah they call me names at times for not fully agreeing with every racist, sexist or whatever conventional leftist wisdom thing, I know what you're referring to. Often though, it depends on the tone one uses. Meaning, folks are more likely to be berated as racists when they in return berate others as mindless, CNN-worshipping soreheads. The conversation between the two sides is full of ire for sure, but that imho isn't that much a leftist thing, but an american thing.
To an extent. I can tell you in the twenty years I've done my job I've only ever been accused of racism once, by a gang mom who would rather blame her family's criminality on me than her being a garbage parent. I have never worked an area that wasn't 90% plus minority either. But believe me when I say that this word is consistently used to shut down opposing viewpoints. As I said, you saw it first hand on this very forum, and I appreciate your joining me in its condemnation. I think largely due to the united front of opposition (there were others condemning it as well) we haven't seen it since. We created an environment in which the offender was made to realize we wouldn't tolerate such baseless accusations. Now, if we could move that concept to a larger scale of debate in this country we could actually have some real conversations and possibly fix a few problems.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 03:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But believe me when I say that this word is consistently used to shut down opposing viewpoints. As I said, you saw it first hand on this very forum, and I appreciate your joining me in its condemnation. I think largely due to the united front of opposition (there were others condemning it as well) we haven't seen it since. We created an environment in which the offender was made to realize we wouldn't tolerate such baseless accusations. Now, if we could move that concept to a larger scale of debate in this country we could actually have some real conversations and possibly fix a few problems.
Sounds like you are describing a "piling on" incident. I missed that it, and would not likely approve.
I confess I have not seen the "racism" accusation used as a shutdown move very often in this forum. Dino was accused of "blatant" racism at least once. I was too. Wait, maybe twice, if you count being "called out" for "real" racist "behavior." That might have been an attempt to shutdown an opposing viewpoint, as efforts to explain myself were dismissed outright. Others condemned the accusation in both mine and Dino's cases.
Posters here rarely accuse other posters of racism, but a number do indeed complain about "the race card" and politicizing race as issues. Usually when someone posts an article in which past racial divisions are used to explain or question current issues like gentrification or statistical contrasts between health/educational outcomes for Blacks and whites. But I never viewed that as trying to shut down discussion. "Shutdown" happens when one side decides the other cannot be argued with, even as the other side continues to present rational, evidence-based arguments. I think when such threads appear, they make some posters "feel" personally accused, even when they are not directly addressed. I have myself at least once been accused of accusing someone of racism, though that person could never produce the offending statement. Both claiming others are racist and claiming oneself "accused" could be desparate shutdown tactics, I suppose. But they are rarely used.
Baseless accusations are tolerated in this "environment" though. The people making them rarely "feel" they are baseless. On my view, they become baseless when those who make them refuse any supporting evidence beyond a sweeping gesture at "posting history." Then it's clear they just want to accuse but not risk engagement and accountability. Impossible to regulate this sort of thing, beyond noting when it occurs, since many baseless accusations are harmless and ignored anyway.
(08-21-2020, 03:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There are quite a lot of racists on the far right. The far left certainly has its fair share of racists as well, they just don't tend to view their racism as such.
He may be. I think it's more that he grew up in an era in which that kind of thought was much more prevalent and he never really grew out of it. A true racist wouldn't have anything to with those they hated, I don't think that's ever been the case with Trump. I think he has a lot of racist opinions and thoughts. I know this comparison won't really connect with you but it's a direct parallel. There's a guy on The Howard Stern show, Sal Governale. His father is a Sicilian immigrant and is absolutely racist against black people. While Sal was growing up he taught Sal a lot of racist "lessons" about black people. Sal, today, still has those thoughts in his head, and will say some racist things, but I don't think the guy is a racist at all. He just never learned to unwire those thoughts and feelings from early in his life. They still color his thoughts, but they don't cause him to fear or hate. Maybe I did a poor job of explaining it, but I do think a person have hold racist beliefs and not be a racist. There's a lot of room on the spectrum between a completely unracist person and a Klan member or black supremacist.
Some flaws with the "true racist" definition above. To be consistent we'd have to say that slave masters who interacted daily with their house slaves in the antebellum South, literally living with them, were not true racists because they had "something to do" with their slaves. Or maybe there is an unstated premise here maybe that true racism requires "hatred"? Anyway, your definition could have some political consequences now, e.g., normalizing/excusing Trump behavior. We know that he has "a lot of racist opinions and thoughts" and it looks like he acts on them, e.g., in matters of immigration policy. But if he is not a true racist then someone could rationalize that he/she is not voting for a true racist and truly racist policies, perhaps? Don't think a "leftist" racist could do that. What if "true racists" are not the problem today, but people who just have "a lot of racist opinions and thoughts"?
I think there are few "racists" at any point in the political spectrum who view their racism as "racism"-- except on the right. Left-wing "racists," if there be such, tend to fight against racism, so that raises the question of how "racism" is defined here, not to mention the "right/left" spectrum.
If there are a lot of people out there who are "not racist" but their thoughts are "colored" by it, can we be sure that such thoughts don't also color their voting practices? Their response to current social issues? E.g. --
(08-21-2020, 03:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a very touchy suspect, and actually one f the few areas in which Fred and I were in complete agreement. What you are stating here is true to an extent, but it absolutely does not account for the incredibly disproportionate number of violent crimes committed by black men in this country. There's something very wrong when ~7% of the population commits over half of the murder. If racism was the sole determinant of this disproportionality then we'd see it across the spectrum, but we don't. Hispanics commit crime around the same rate as their percentage of the population, the same with whites. Asians are actually under represented by quite a bit. Even Native Americans, who do show a disproportionate number, are only slightly over-represented, and they certainly got the shaft the worse in this country.
I'm not sure anyone calls racism the "sole determinant of this disproportionality." Nor why we should expect to see it "across the spectrum" if it were. What spectrum? In other so-called "races"?
Most would agree there is something wrong "when~7% of the population commits over half of the murder." There is a public debate over why such disparities. And that debate will influence elections and policy.
You say "the left," the group(s) which have fought for and won the racial equality we have, refuses to address the issue as a whole, and now stands in the way of resolving racial problems in the US. iBy"limiting" discussion to systemic racism or some such? But there is another group which does see the whole problem? Who are they? "The Right"? Those who have traditionally opposed racial progress? What do they see that completes the explanation? How is the disproportion explained by not-racists whose views may only be colored by racism?
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-21-2020
(08-20-2020, 04:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: I guess mainly everyone else might be tired of it. But whatever :)
I try to give an answer in one piece though, sorry for leaving out quite a bit. Regarding examples from around the '60s, I'd argue that it isn't the '60s any more and so some of the arguments used back then no longer apply in a similar fashion. I guess I get what you're trying to get at. Take an argument, show how this argument can lead to certain developments and trains of thoughts that then were used to disenfrachise black people, hence be warned of said argument. Which ok sure is fair, but see above. This, in the end, is no longer about restricting access of blacks to marching bands and all kinds of other entities. These times are indeed over. I'm not saying racism is over by any stretch of the imagination, but the circumstances have changed too much still to really use these examples effectively, imho. That's why I say "far fetched".
Of course I apply that especially to the argument that VPs should be chosen on the grounds of merit and not on the grounds of race and gender. A merit-based argument is not per se bad or dubious because it got misused. You brought the example of black QB's, and that imho is an example how a distinctly not merit-based (but race-based) system was used to disenfranchise black QBs. Nowadays, that doesn't really happen on a similar scale, nowadays this is mainly a strictly merit-based decision. I would not be fine with my team out of hand committing to a black QB and then checking the options available. I want the best QB, black or white or whatever.
Another thoughtful Hollo post. Here I just want to clarify my example selection. If you are left with the impression my marching band example was meant to "still apply" in some direct sense, then I may not have managed my presentation well. My examples, taken together, make more sense if one agrees that 1) past actions have "set the table" for our present problems and continue to shape our politics, laws and policies in ways impossible to understand separately from their history; and 2) understanding the current complexity of race issues in the US requires recognizing an uneven development in racial progress, with the problem largely non-existent in some sectors and institutions, but still serious in others--particularly those which determine access to wealth and power--and evident in unequal healthcare outcomes, judicial treatment, and political representation. Remember that we still cannot get the US Congress to pass anti-lynching legistlation. You are probably this forum's foremost expert on Trump's racism--and often marvel at how MILLIONS could vote him into the nations top office. My posts and examples, taken together, are trying to do justice to this complexty.
Think of a continuum of racial segregation/suppression which begins with the overt, legal kind, which is then complicated when its legal rationale is declared unconstitutional. The marching band example illustrates a moment which is past. I did not introduce it to say "See how Blacks are (still) mistreated!" That overt discrimination is precisely what cannot be done effectively anymore, in part because of the way such decisions are monitored in universties and other institutions, both in house and out. I am not worried about marching bands anymore. So why mention the mention?
Beyond placing a marker for the abovementioned continuum, it sets up a contrast with the next example, regarding law school. Freshman musicians and football players in the '50s-60s likely had opportunity to become as good as their white competitors, even coming from poor, segregated high schools. Not so with law. Unlike most of the rest of the world, the US puts students through four years of college before law school. At that point of law school (or any graduate school) application, whether one comes from a good school or bad, and whether one's parents have resources, plays a determining role in who is "objectively" qualified to enter. I chose the Texas example because its director was an actual segregationist who recognized the merit argument would, at the graduate level, accomplish what the law could not. No question of what the guy REALLY thought about merit. The actual segregationsts are now long retired or dead, but the merit standard remains to this day part and parcel of a STRUCTURAL problem constituted by the historically unequal racial access to education and wealth. Your surgeon example fits in here. OF COURSE we want a doctor to be qualified, best qualified, if possible. But do we also want equal access for all to the training that creates "best qualified"? Is merit just a natural endowment? If there is not equal access then why not? That takes us back to history, to a wealth/power distribution contstructed by 400 years of affirmative action for whites.
In respect of the aforementioned structural problem, these times are indeed NOT over. Affirmative Action was one way of addressing the problem across a range of institutions. But it also generates a great deal of white grievance, which is politically exploited, in part by driving the "merit" argument. "Overt racism is long gone. Why can't we follow the example of MLK and look past race. Most whites don't care about race. This political focus on race is just keeping racism alive long after it is really dead. That's the 'real' racism!" etc.
I bring up the example of Black quarterbacks in part to show how far we have come and to show where, indeed, affirmative action concerns may indeed be misplaced. I.e., the example was clearly NOT to claim that what once happened is still a problem, but an example of how that moment has largely passed in that one institution (NFL), at least regarding players. And because it has passsed, we don't hear, for example, of groups demonstrating or writing letters signed by celebrities to the Bengals organization because they did not choose a Black quarterback in the draft and have never had one so "now it's time." Not so for the Oscars, however, and perhaps the film industry as a whole. That's why there ARE complaints when Blacks are not chosen for this or that category. And not so for other institutions. And you understand this. I note your post #205 above and its brief summary how inequity emerges in policing. We saw protests in Ferguson because there was real inequity; we don't in the NFL (at level of players) because there isn't. This makes me want to look closely at those sites where protest occurs--including the Oscars and in the fight over political nominations.
Progress against the racism and racial status quo has been uneven. One can point to he military and the NBA and the Post Office and news commentators and say "Look, integration!" And that makes it easier to say "Racism is history, and the 'real' racists are keeping it alive for their own political purposes." Many ordinary white folks don't belong to the Klan and don't often think much about race--until politicians and journalists and activists start talking about "systemic racism" and "white privilege" and protesting. Then historical knowledge, or lack thereof, plays a great role in determining their response, how they explain these puzzling protests.
You recognize that "those times" are past (overt discrimination in marching bands and the nfl draft), and I agree. You also recognize that racism--systemic racism--is still alive, a political issue. And I agree. Where we disagree is over the degree to which the "merit" argument still functions to divert focus from unequal access and preparation. I could agree that efforts to deal with or neutralize that argument may be ham-handed and produce backlash. The public discussion is complicated by people in different camps who over simplify. I cannot agree that our national politics is like the NFL though. That's where we need to be especially careful in deploying the merit criterion, when merit has been there and been repeatedly overlooked, even by people calling themselves "progressives." The Halle Berry example has some slight analogy to vp here. At some point, even the progressives start wondering why, with so many people of seemingly equal merit, the white ones just keep getting chosen, year after year. A concern arises that "merit" is covering a subconscious racial bias. In politics more so than the Academy Awards, that sense of "overdue" will eventually override the "best player available" strategy. I suspect that is why Biden announced his two criterion for vp ahead of time. It also signals his party is more prepared to recognize and address such concerns than a largely white party whose partisans boast "merit" as their standard. I don't this pick is at all analogous to the Bengals passing over Burrows to get a black quarterback.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-22-2020
(08-21-2020, 04:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you are describing a "piling on" incident. I missed that it, and would not likely approve.
If by piling on we all expressed that the accusation was baseless and unfair to make, then yeah?
Quote:I confess I have not seen the "racism" accusation used as a shutdown move very often in this forum. Dino was accused of "blatant" racism at least once. I was too. Wait, maybe twice, if you count being "called out" for "real" racist "behavior." That might have been an attempt to shutdown an opposing viewpoint, as efforts to explain myself were dismissed outright. Others condemned the accusation in both mine and Dino's cases.
Yup, that was me. In one instance I was shown by a rational poster that I was acting in an irrational manner and I consequently apologized. You might have described the incident as "piling on".
Quote:Posters here rarely accuse other posters of racism, but a number do indeed complain about "the race card" and politicizing race as issues. Usually when someone posts an article in which past racial divisions are used to explain or question current issues like gentrification or statistical contrasts between health/educational outcomes for Blacks and whites. But I never viewed that as trying to shut down discussion.
See, you're equating this board with the population as a whole. This is not the case and accusations of racism are frequently used to shut down the arguments of others.
Quote:"Shutdown" happens when one side decides the other cannot be argued with, even as the other side continues to present rational, evidence-based arguments. I think when such threads appear, they make some posters "feel" personally accused, even when they are not directly addressed. I have myself at least once been accused of accusing someone of racism, though that person could never produce the offending statement. Both claiming others are racist and claiming oneself "accused" could be desparate shutdown tactics, I suppose. But they are rarely used.
Unfortunately, we may be in the Dill doesn't see it so to him it never occurred territory in this regard.
Quote:Baseless accusations are tolerated in this "environment" though. The people making them rarely "feel" they are baseless. On my view, they become baseless when those who make them refuse any supporting evidence beyond a sweeping gesture at "posting history." Then it's clear they just want to accuse but not risk engagement and accountability. Impossible to regulate this sort of thing, beyond noting when it occurs, since many baseless accusations are harmless and ignored anyway.
Oh indeed, such as the incident I was discussing with Hollodero (not you btw). That was certainly a baseless accusation.
Quote:Some flaws with the "true racist" definition above. To be consistent we'd have to say that slave masters who interacted daily with their house slaves in the antebellum South, literally living with them, were not true racists because they had "something to do" with their slaves. Or maybe there is an unstated premise here maybe that true racism requires "hatred"?
This argument is ridiculous to the point of being offensive. No rational person could extrapolate that position to the patently absurd lengths that you did in this section.
Quote:Anyway, your definition could have some political consequences now, e.g., normalizing/excusing Trump behavior. We know that he has "a lot of racist opinions and thoughts" and it looks like he acts on them, e.g., in matters of immigration policy.
How is his immigration plan racist? Are we going to hear the "Muslim ban" trope again?
Quote:But if he is not a true racist then someone could rationalize that he/she is not voting for a true racist and truly racist policies, perhaps? Don't think a "leftist" racist could do that.
We don't know that as one has yet to be in power in this country. We could look at China though, were such racism is rampant. Oh, and don't forget the genocide.
Quote:What if "true racists" are not the problem today, but people who just have "a lot of racist opinions and thoughts"?
Who said they aren't "a" problem? The certainly aren't "the" problem, but I don't think any one problem is "the" problem.
Quote:I think there are few "racists" at any point in the political spectrum who view their racism as "racism"-- except on the right. Left-wing "racists," if there be such, tend to fight against racism, so that raises the question of how "racism" is defined here, not to mention the "right/left" spectrum.
This section is so insanely partisan and biased that I don't think you'll ever be able to claim a position of objectivity again. You honestly don't think left wing racists exist? But if they do exist they only fight against racism? This would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening. I can tell you from personal experience, that the most racists statements and actions I have ever witnessed were all committed by blacks or hispanics (usually directed at the other) none of whom would be described as "right wing" by any measure of the word.
Quote:If there are a lot of people out there who are "not racist" but their thoughts are "colored" by it, can we be sure that such thoughts don't also color their voting practices? Their response to current social issues? E.g. --
Of course they do, which is a problem. It doesn't make them racist though, no more than the older black woman, who said an incredibly racist thing to me with zero ill intent, is a racist.
Quote:I'm not sure anyone calls racism the "sole determinant of this disproportionality." Nor why we should expect to see it "across the spectrum" if it were. What spectrum? In other so-called "races"?
I suppose you could give us some proof otherwise? The correct term to use would be ethnicities, btw.
Quote:Most would agree there is something wrong "when~7% of the population commits over half of the murder." There is a public debate over why such disparities. And that debate will influence elections and policy.
Is there? You'll have to point out where that's occurring because I have yet to see it. If you mean the BLM movement, they don't discuss the issue. They have a position that allows for no discussion.
Quote:You say "the left," the group(s) which have fought for and won the racial equality we have, refuses to address the issue as a whole, and now stands in the way of resolving racial problems in the US.
I thought it was the Republican party that ended slavery? Didn't they also get the 13th amendment passed? That was a rather important move for "racial equality", no?
Quote: iBy"limiting" discussion to systemic racism or some such? But there is another group which does see the whole problem? Who are they? "The Right"? Those who have traditionally opposed racial progress? What do they see that completes the explanation? How is the disproportion explained by not-racists whose views may only be colored by racism?
As I explained in my post above, neither side gets it right on this issue, and for different reasons. As for your allegation, that someone out there is discussing this issue, the whole issue, in an honest and open fashion, please kindly point me in their direction. Somehow I think the example you do provide, if you provide any, won't be very compelling.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-22-2020
Thanks for the response. I think you made some good points in your previous post as well, in terms of your efforts to look at people's backgrounds, recognize the degree to which beliefs about race are largely acquired uncritically, and in childhood. I took you to be raising an important issue about how we deal with people who may now seem "out of time." I've also posted on this subject before. For example, I don't waste time declaring the Founding Fathers were "racist" when I suspect I'd have thought no differently than they if raised in their time.
For the moment, though I want to address the issue of definitions, especially of "racism" and "leftism," and I want to do so by identifying some criteria of good definition that ought hold no matter what the issue or one's political position.
In what follows, let's assume that I am not looking for opportunities to "call out" some alleged "blatant racism" on your part. Let's just look at the issues as of general interest.
(08-22-2020, 11:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: "A true racist wouldn't have anything to with those they hated, I don't think that's ever been the case with Trump. I think he has a lot of racist opinions and thoughts. I know this comparison won't really connect with you but it's a direct parallel. "
Quote: Some flaws with the "true racist" definition above. To be consistent we'd have to say that slave masters who interacted daily with their house slaves in the antebellum South, literally living with them, were not true racists because they had "something to do" with their slaves. Or maybe there is an unstated premise here maybe that true racism requires "hatred"?
This argument is ridiculous to the point of being offensive. No rational person could extrapolate that position to the patently absurd lengths that you did in this section.
Consistency is an important value in definitions. If a definition doesn't apply to all the cases it is designed to describe/classify, that is a weakness, often fatal. E.g., a bicycle must have two wheels. If something doesn't, it's not a bicycle. "Monotheism" means belief in one god. Two gods and your belief is not monotheism. Sometimes there are borderline cases and disputes; e.g., some think Christianity is not really monotheistic.
A definition of "racism" I'd say, at a minimum, ought to include a belief that "race" is a biological given, not a social/cultural construction, a belief that some "races" are inherently superior or inferior, and that this inherence ought to be reflected in political order. This basis is necessary even where people insist that "racism" can only be behavior, not thought and belief unacted, or when it can only be "systemic."
One way of testing a definition is to imagine how it would apply to possible cases.
Remember that today people still debate whether the Founding Fathers were "racist," and this spins out from current issues like whether its ok to tear down Confederate statues cuz they stood for "racism," then proceeding then to the question of statues of Washington and Jefferson. Upon hearing your definition, many "rational persons" would not think it "patently absurd" to wonder if it fits, say, Thomas Jefferson, someone who had a black lover and thought slavery a bad institution, but still kept slaves. You wouldn't be able to show that Jefferson "wouldn't have anything to do" with his slaves, and you wouldn't be able to convince those rational persons his slave-holding behavior wasn't racist, or even that he "hated" Blacks.
Further, people might wonder how your definition could be applied today. Which groups would fit, which would not. And it's likely the "Jefferson" problem would arise again in form another. Or you have a definition which defines only contemporary white supremacists as "racist." Good news for Trump, maybe. The racism studied by contemporary social scientists would have been defined away.
No one used to crafting political science definitions assumes s/he will get it right the first time; no one used to crafting such definitions assumes someone is "stupid" for not getting it right the first time. Just suggesting this definition could use some tweaking, or some further stipulation as to its use.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-22-2020
Changed my mind, putting the "leftist" discussion in a different post.
Quote: Wrote: Wrote:I think there are few "racists" at any point in the political spectrum who view their racism as "racism"-- except on the right. Left-wing "racists," if there be such, tend to fight against racism, so that raises the question of how "racism" is defined here, not to mention the "right/left" spectrum.
This section is so insanely partisan and biased that I don't think you'll ever be able to claim a position of objectivity again.* You honestly don't think left wing racists exist? But if they do exist they only fight against racism? This would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening. I can tell you from personal experience, that the most racists statements and actions I have ever witnessed were all committed by blacks or hispanics (usually directed at the other) none of whom would be described as "right wing" by any measure of the word.
What makes political parties, programs, and platforms "left," "center," or "right"? Maybe the best way to answer is to look to historical usage. The classification enters Western political discourse with the French revolution, when after 1789, at their National Assembly, representatives of the aristocracy and the church generally sat to the right of the speaker, and the lawyers, merchants and tradesmen--all commoners--sat on the left. What came to separate these groups was that those on "the right" of the speaker tended to support a hierarchical status quo, a residue of l'ancien regime, underpinned by supernatural authority. Those on "the left" supported equality, the "rights of man," and challenged traditional hierarchy.
In the wake of the Revolution, this distinction passed into 19th century political discourse of all European countries as "leftist" uprisings occurred throughout the German provinces, Italy, and Poland, and were opposed by still powerful representatives of a still powerful feudal hierarchy in those countries. In France and Great Britain, and eventually Germany, a middle class enamored of both equality and order arose to form a kind of "center," often opposed to a "left" which represented a growing urban working class. In each case, the "right" defended existing social hierarchy, even as it sometimes included new members (like rich commoners), while the "left" challenged hierarchy in the name of social equality--a natural soil in which anarchism, socialism, feminism, anti-racism and similar movements could take root and grow. I cannot think of a right wing European party that fought against racism--until it had already been rendered untenable by "the left." There could be individual "leftists" then who were racist, like most of their 19th century society, but their parties generally were not advocating or defending or perpetuating racism.
Quote: Wrote:You say "the left," the group(s) which have fought for and won the racial equality we have, refuses to address the issue as a whole, and now stands in the way of resolving racial problems in the US.
I thought it was the Republican party that ended slavery? Didn't they also get the 13th amendment passed? That was a rather important move for "racial equality", no?
The North American states are European transplants, adopting their languages, legal systems/norms and state forms, but the U.S. case has some important differences--namely it was never dominated by a powerful aristocracy and never developed a left of serious mass--closest thing maybe came with Eugene Debs' Socialist Party of America in the early 20th century. Rather, it was dominated until the post civil war years by a middle class. US "conservatives," who began appearing in the late 19th-century in the US were not conserving a feudal order, but a liberal one defined by Locke and Montequieu and Smith against the the 18th century European "right." There were efforts in the South to inscribe its plantation slavery into an aristocratic politics, in which race replaced birth as primary class distinction, validating a hierarchical and non-liberal society. So I guess you could say we have definitely had an empowered Right in the US, in control of many state and at times the national government.
If there was a "right" in the U.S. then the pro-slavery movement would exemplify it, not the free-soilers and Whigs who would form the Republican party. If anything, between 1854-70, Democrats and Republicans were the inverse of today, with Dems fighting "big government," supporting slavery and receptive to the nativist "Know Nothings" when the latter's party failed, and Republicans, to the left in that political spectrum, opposing slavery and (by 19th century standards) embracing government. You mentioned the 13th Amendment. Might as well throw in the two after that as well. The Republicans also set up a Freedman's bureau to help freed slaves become self-supporting citizens, and the created pensions for 600,000 wounded veterans and their widows--two large scale BIG GOVERNMENT programs. They also passed the Morrill Act in 1862 to help create universities in every state. RESEARCH universities which would become home to natural and social sciences, upon which big government would rely.
So yes, Republicans freed the slaves--not the party opposing big government and immigration. Had Fox news existed in 1865, we'd know which party was "the left" by their definition, and it would not be the Democrats.
It is always difficult to translate my understanding left into yours, but my point is that, historically, since the French Revolution, those people/groups which have opposed racism and sexism have tended to be liberal/leftists, and the people opposing them have tended to be rightists. I can think of no examples of a "right wing" in any country opposing slavery, unless it is 50 years after they have defended it. When you speak of Blacks and Hispanics who are both "leftists" and "racists," I don't clearly understand what you mean. E.g., Black and Hispanic gang members cursing each other would not likely count as an example of "leftist racism." A good example would be would be a "leftist" political party that excluded Jews or supported white supremacy or refused membership to Blacks. Can you think of any examples offhand?
*I never use the term "objective" to describe political observations, and never myself claim a "position of objectivity." Far more important is getting the logic and facts right.
RE: It's Kamala! - GMDino - 08-23-2020
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-23-2020
Sounds like the "reverse" one-drop rule.
I remember when Obama was only half black.
Kamala cannot be AFRICAN American because her ancestors came from JAMAICA, and we can be pretty sure that those Jamaican ancestors did not have ancestors which came from Africa.
I had no idea that Fredrick Douglas was also descended from a slave owner. So how could he--or Kamala--be the descendants of slaves?
I was just discussing how to construct and test definitions in a post above. In the Fox case it looks like true "Blackness" requires an "American experience" of oppression or something. And YOU Kamala are not part of that experience.
I have learned more about "blackness" from Fox than from all those books I read by Black people about the "Black Experience."
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-23-2020
This Dino-meme actually belongs on this thread.
![[Image: 117339979_10159180419646800_894168695016...e=5F68B071]](https://scontent.fpit1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/117339979_10159180419646800_8941686950167418360_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=55cN5_Gc3t0AX8sKJoO&_nc_ht=scontent.fpit1-1.fna&oh=0e95b0c555a29d0969121e6ba8719084&oe=5F68B071)
If anyone on this thread has questioned whether Kamala was really Black, I missed it; but it is interesting that so many right wingers (and not just white ones) have gone there--mostly the day after the pick was announced. It seems to have slacked off now.
The issue here is not that people question a black person's competence because she is black, but that they are questioning WHETHER she is Black, or the right kind of Black. Dino's Youtube post of Noah's takedown introduces all sorts of criteria for "real" blackness, and it is claimed Kamala does not meet those criteria.
LOL. I'm betting that Hollo, way over there in Austria, did not even know that real blacks are descended from slavery, not slave owners, and experienced oppression in the US, not Jamaica. Biden can fool Europeans but not real Americans.
RE: It's Kamala! - GMDino - 08-23-2020
(08-23-2020, 02:56 PM)Dill Wrote: This Dino-meme actually belongs on this thread.
If anyone on this thread has questioned whether Kamala was really Black, I missed it; but it is interesting that so many right wingers (and not just white ones) have gone there--mostly the day after the pick was announced. It seems to have slacked off now.
The question here is not that people question a black person's competence because she is black, but they are questioning whether she is Black, or the right kind of Black.
Aye, but that's why I shared the whole video here.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-23-2020
(08-23-2020, 03:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Aye, but that's why I shared the whole video here.
And thank you for doing that.
The operative definition of "blackness" used by the Foxers is not without precedent, as in the past people have complained that whites don't know what blacks "experience" and ignore their impression and the like. And Black activists have themselves criticized other Blacks for not being Black enough.
So the commentators in the video are just taking off from those precedents, though ham-handedly and little back ground knowledge of arguments over such definitions. The result could be an Onion or SNL parody.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-24-2020
(08-23-2020, 02:41 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like the "reverse" one-drop rule.
A fascinating point. It does seem the left uses the exact same criteria.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-24-2020
(08-24-2020, 12:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A fascinating point. It does seem the left uses the exact same criteria.
"Reverse" one drop? Crtieria for what? Used where?
And who is "the left"?
RE: It's Kamala! - GMDino - 08-24-2020
(08-24-2020, 02:10 AM)Dill Wrote: "Reverse" one drop? Crtieria for what? Used where?
And who is "the left"?
When presented with video evidence of how the right wing noise machine treats black opponents it is hard to defend except to blame "the other side" for doing the same.
That is literally the "no, YOU are" response that Trump gave to Michelle Obama.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-24-2020
(08-24-2020, 02:10 AM)Dill Wrote: "Reverse" one drop? Crtieria for what? Used where?
And who is "the left"?
What I was saying wasn't obvious? I thought it was. Sorry.
