Racism and wealth distribution [Archive]

Demogorgon

1st November 2008, 22:04

There is some truth to what RGacky says, though he understates the impact of current racism.

Basically though, it is true that the reason for racial inequality is that non-whites tend to be disproportionately represented in less privileged classes. The reasons for this can be traced back through history. The origins of the relatively disadvantaged position of African Americans, for instance, can be traced back to before the United States even formed.

The problem is however that while that is the reason that racial inequality came about, it is not the reason that it continues. The reason it continues is that social mobility in general is is a pretty poor state so those whose parents were disadvantaged will likely be disadvantaged themselves. Racism of course helps make this even more overwhelming for racial minorities of course, but it is a problem for poor whites as well.

So what to do about it? It is a difficult issue. Can you address racial inequality without addressing class inequality itself? I am not sure if you can. You could make efforts to have non-whites proportionally represented in the ruling classes, but what good would that do? The breaking down of class divisions is the only real solution though in the short run it won't solve the problem with us now For that reason I support things like Affirmative Action and so forth, but they will never solve the problem entirely.

As for re-distributing wealth, that is obviously something I back, but doing it on a racial basis is dodgy. Would you have wealth taken from poor whites to give to wealthy blacks? Or would you give poor blacks financial help and deny it to poor whites? I don't say that to say the problem cannot or should not be addressed, it should, but it has to be approached from the right angle. We need to try and work out how much of the racial disparity is caused by current racism and how much is caused by non-whites simply being over-represented in poorer social groups for historical reasons. The latter problem can only be resolved by addressing social inequality on a non-racial basis, the former obviously does require us to consider race.

We cannot over-compensate though. If we presume that current racism is more significant than it is, we will fail to address the class division itself and likely just create division. On the other hand, if we put the problem down entirely to historical racism, we will fail to help non-white people as much as white people as we remove class divisions. It is a delicate business I am afraid.

Bud Struggle

1st November 2008, 22:08

No one deserves anything. Such statements by the OP imply an inforced morality based on some inalterable truth. Life is what it is. For what it's worth--are there such thing as "groups" racial or otherwise? Who knows?

Really, all this dividing of human being into Black and White, Bourgeoise and Proletariat, common and preferred, is totally artificial and absurd.

People are people--nothing more or less--that's the new reality of the world, past Communism and Capitalism. It's time for some common sense.

Schrödinger's Cat

1st November 2008, 22:14

This is a stupid poll.

No one deserves anything.You don't deserve anything? I can smack you in the face with a baseball bat?

(Not that I would. We all love Tom.)

Bud Struggle

1st November 2008, 22:21

This is a stupid poll.

You don't deserve anything? I can smack you in the face with a baseball bat?

I don't deserve that. :) Or maybe I do. :lol:

We deserve what we earn.
Nothing more, nothing less.

I do really think parsing up humanity into anything greater quanity than "a person" is doing a diservice to the human race. Anything beyond that is just some sort of nasty "groupism" of one sort of another.

You can really see how Communism is just "more of the same." Communism is a tool--maybe a good one, but one to use and then disgard. The 20th Century was the age of Communism, it's over--

Time to move on.

jake williams

2nd November 2008, 01:29

No, look. There is a very clear isolable statistical group, black people works but you can pick others. Either capitalism has determined a just outcome, in terms of the way resources such as lifesaving drugs or basic nutrition as well as the things capitalists like to talk about, like large houses and flatscreen TVs, or it hasn't. We've seen the outcome. Either it's just or it isn't. Capitalists argue it is, and that is sick. The idea that Tom says explicitly, that "people get what they 'earn' [normatively]" under capitalism, means blacks "earn" a higher mortality than whites, on average. This is the claim.

jake williams

2nd November 2008, 01:50

Do you support the war in Iraq?
Or Do you support Saddam Hussain?
That is a false dichotomy for a few reasons.

The actual question would be, Which do you prefer: fighting a war in Iraq, or leaving Saddam Hussein in power? This one is probably a false dichotomy, except that maybe there's a way to have gotten Saddam Hussein out of power without the US-led war. But let's suppose there wasn't. I would guess that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would have been much less destructive for Iraqis and for the whole Arab world - and everyone else, but you don't talk about whether a rapist got bitten on the arm in the same way you have to talk about the cost in American troops' lives.

If you're really that disturbed by the question, one could maybe rephrase my question in a similar way I did the Iraq one. And because maybe America is too close to home for some folks, we can talk about South Africa - where the differences are much starker. Which do you prefer: extensive redistribution of wealth, or blacks having a MUCH lower standard of living than whites?

But there's an important reason I didn't do this. As our lovely Tom himself hinted at, capitalists say that their system has just outcomes. The outcome of their system - and don't say it takes 300 more years - is what we see in American, or Latin American, or African society today. And the argument by capitalists is that these outcomes are just. And this is absolutely repugnant.

RGacky3

2nd November 2008, 02:57

Which do you prefer: fighting a war in Iraq, or leaving Saddam Hussein in power? This one is probably a false dichotomy

Its a false dichotomy because there are many more options, and by only giving a few options you are labeling someone, your question assumes that anyone that does'nt support redistribution of wealth is a racist, which is a total false dichotomy.

Which do you prefer: extensive redistribution of wealth, or blacks having a MUCH lower standard of living than whites?

Thats also a false dichotomy because one does not = the other, I support redistribution of wealth, but my reasons for htat have nothing to do with black people or white people, I have a problem with POOR people having a much lower standard of living than RICH people.

A pro Capitalist could argue that he does'n support redistribution of wealth but would like to see blacks make it in the corporate world, and that as a valid opinion. Making questions that pidgon whole people into opinions they do not hold is dishonest and pointless.

The outcome of their system - and don't say it takes 300 more years - is what we see in American, or Latin American, or African society today. And the argument by capitalists is that these outcomes are just. And this is absolutely repugnant.

I agree with you, and the outcomes are that POOR people are poor and RICH people are rich, and working class people are exploited.

A Capitalist would argue that Capitalism in itself is not inherently racist, but other factors contributed to it, like slavery, and the racist attitude or some people in power. I would agree Capitalism is not racist, many times racism comes about because of Capitalism, i.e. people that don't understand capitalism may blaim another race for their problems.

Really, all this dividing of human being into Black and White, Bourgeoise and Proletariat, common and preferred, is totally artificial and absurd.

Well the deviding of Bourgeoise and Proletariat IS real because the Bourgeoisie obviously have power that the proletariat do not, thats real.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

2nd November 2008, 08:32

I'd debate, but I'd have to admit racism by merely responding.

Killfacer

2nd November 2008, 14:08

This poll is shit.

Bud Struggle

2nd November 2008, 14:23

It's not a matter of race--especially if you take it on a global basis. For some reason the people living in post-Medeival Europe devloped a certain rather "aggressive" form of Capitalism before other people in the world did. (And one can question if that sort of Capitalism was inevitable in other parts of the world.) The Europeans took Africa, a place where Blacks "happen" to live in rather feudal societies, as their own and for the most part have kept it that way.

The Europeans and now the Americans are using Africa as property owned by them. One can make a pretty good case that the property of Africa is owned by the Africans (Black and White) and they should demand their property rights over that contenent.

They have to so so politically--but so far they have done little to exert their rights. Corrupt governments, etc. have been stopping them. They also need to organize their populations to work for fair, of at least better wages as India and China are doing (and I don't just mean Unions).

It's not a matter of Black or white--it's a matter of who developed Capitalism first. If things were a bit different it could have been the Africans that colonized Europe and America.

jake williams

2nd November 2008, 14:58

Tom, you're totally missing my point.

It's not a matter of Black or white--it's a matter of who developed Capitalism first.
So you're saying that people have a right to own the world if they happen to develop capitalism first? Are you actually justifying wealth maldistribution by colonialism?

Labor Shall Rule

2nd November 2008, 16:05

No, they don't deserve it.

The past historical prejudices of white skin privilege has meant that the distribution of goods, such as education and education, are unfairly deprived from 'minorities' - this is why racial modification (i.e. 'affirmative action') should be applied to employment, housing, education, and medical services. The failure of Reconstruction has meant that the gains that black Americans should have received after the Civil War has been stolen from them.

It's not a matter of race--especially if you take it on a global basis. For some reason the people living in post-Medeival Europe devloped a certain rather "aggressive" form of Capitalism before other people in the world did. (And one can question if that sort of Capitalism was inevitable in other parts of the world.) The Europeans took Africa, a place where Blacks "happen" to live in rather feudal societies, as their own and for the most part have kept it that way.

The Europeans and now the Americans are using Africa as property owned by them. One can make a pretty good case that the property of Africa is owned by the Africans (Black and White) and they should demand their property rights over that contenent.

They have to so so politically--but so far they have done little to exert their rights. Corrupt governments, etc. have been stopping them. They also need to organize their populations to work for fair, of at least better wages as India and China are doing (and I don't just mean Unions).

It's not a matter of Black or white--it's a matter of who developed Capitalism first. If things were a bit different it could have been the Africans that colonized Europe and America.You are treating capitalism as an 'idea' that can be invented at a certain course of history, which is dismally ahistorical and stupid. It's the kind of shit that racist libertarians espouse.

Africa's climate (which is something that people with melanin can not control) made it hard to constantly acquisition food, since most species of animals could not be domesticated, and because the direct cultivation of crops that have high nutritive properties (such as maize) was nearly impossible from the lack of good soil. The lack of a sizable source of labour meant that they could not develop advanced political forms of cooperation (the 'state'), hence they could not promote the development of science and technology.

Pogue

2nd November 2008, 16:37

I don't deserve that. :) Or maybe I do. :lol:

We deserve what we earn.
Nothing more, nothing less.

I do really think parsing up humanity into anything greater quanity than "a person" is doing a diservice to the human race. Anything beyond that is just some sort of nasty "groupism" of one sort of another.

You can really see how Communism is just "more of the same." Communism is a tool--maybe a good one, but one to use and then disgard. The 20th Century was the age of Communism, it's over--

Time to move on.

I appreciate your sentiment of how its irrelevant of what colour people are, but what you're saying in regards to class and communism is aload of wank. So the age of communism is gone? Lets move on? To what? To replace it with what? The age of capitalism should be long gone because its proven itself to be stupid and cruel.

To move on from communism is to maintain capitalism, the system of the last 200 years, the failed system which kills thousands. In contrast, communism has never been applied properly and boradely so surely its communisms time to shine?

Seriously, what do we move on to?

And clearly we don't deserve what we earn if we're being paid shit wages like millions of people across the world are.

What is common sense? To me communism is common sense. Everyone co-operates and shares according to need as opposed to the random distribution of wealth according to who already has it and who has the pwoer we see at the moment. Its the most simple and intelligent form of human organisation.

If we have to move on from communism what too? More of capitalism? But surely its time to move on from capitalism? You make no sense.

What you're saying is meaningless rubbish, it has no substance or logic attached. Regardless of what you think due to your personal circumstances, for many people its time to move on to communism.

graffic

2nd November 2008, 17:10

jake williams

2nd November 2008, 17:25

The point isn't that capitalism involves differentially "targeting" black people. The point is that there are historic maldistributions of wealth and that capitalism exacerbates rather than ameliorates these maldistributions.

Labor Shall Rule

2nd November 2008, 17:33

The reason so many black people in America and the UK are at the lower end of society is because people (unfortunately) tend to "stick together".

The majority of success in our capitalist world is down to "who you know" not "what you know". It also helps if your dad owns a string of businesses.

Whether people in business are purposefully racist or subconsciously racist is a different question.

'Race' factors into everything - including if you have a string of businesses.

If your dad (hypothetically) got the capital to open them from wage savings, from working at an auto plant for a number of years, then that is something that Black, Puerto Rican, and Chicano workers can't identify with - the autoworker unions have historically left colored workers out, and often they could not afford to have the training required to work at an automobile plant because of their historic oppression.

At college, they add points to assure admission on the basis of being involved in athletics, for having parents that are alumni, for coming from a
'rural' part of the country that the university gets less applications from, or for taking part in AP courses in high school - this (indirectly) factors into leaving colored people out, since their schools are less likely to have athletic and AP programs, and that since their parents were either discriminated and/or had to work hard and were unable to receive an education, they couldn't attend college either.

It's in nearly every sphere of life.

Bud Struggle

2nd November 2008, 17:56

Tom, you're totally missing my point.

So you're saying that people have a right to own the world if they happen to develop capitalism first? Are you actually justifying wealth maldistribution by colonialism?

I'm not justifying anything--I'm just explaining what happened. I'm saying that it's not a racial thing, it's an ideological problem. For whatever reason some people in one part of the world decided to put in practice an economic throery that would be decidedly disadvantageous to people in another part of the world.

No, they don't deserve it. I don't follow that at all. You are superimposing some sort of moral or ethical grid on the past that must be justified by people in the present and the future.

The past historical prejudices of white skin privilege has meant that the distribution of goods, such as education and education, are unfairly deprived from 'minorities' - this is why racial modification (i.e. 'affirmative action') should be applied to employment, housing, education, and medical services. The failure of Reconstruction has meant that the gains that black Americans should have received after the Civil War has been stolen from them. Not at all--what a certain "people" did to other "people" in the past has no realtionship to the present. Just because some people in the present have certain similar features to certain people that did things in the past--doesn't make them libel for the deeds of the offenders. It's like saying that Jesse James had brown hair, I have brown hair so I have to pay back Wells Fargo bank for the money he stole.

I have no particular relationship to 17th century Western European merchants--in fact at the time my ancestors (serfs) were being treated similarly to the Blacks in Eastern Europe by the Russians. Do the Russians owe me money?

You are treating capitalism as an 'idea' that can be invented at a certain course of history, which is dismally ahistorical and stupid. It's the kind of shit that racist libertarians espouse. What's racist about capitalism up at a certain point in history--maybe it's a racist idea, but I really don't see why.

Africa's climate (which is something that people with melanin can not control) made it hard to constantly acquisition food, since most species of animals could not be domesticated, and because the direct cultivation of crops that have high nutritive properties (such as maize) was nearly impossible from the lack of good soil. The lack of a sizable source of labour meant that they could not develop advanced political forms of cooperation (the 'state'), hence they could not promote the development of science and technology. Fine. But if Africa was a more hospitable place to live--I don't see any problem with Blacks developing in a similar pattern to the Europeans.

I appreciate your sentiment of how its irrelevant of what colour people are, but what you're saying in regards to class and communism is aload of wank. So the age of communism is gone? Lets move on? To what? To replace it with what? The age of capitalism should be long gone because its proven itself to be stupid and cruel. I'm something of the mind that Communism was tried--with the best of intentions in the Soviet Union, China, etc. and was found wantiing. It never became Communism--the best Communism could do was this State Socialism that we seem to have found all over the world. It was ungainly and sometimes downright nasty and it fell apart.

To move on from communism is to maintain capitalism, the system of the last 200 years, the failed system which kills thousands. In contrast, communism has never been applied properly and boradely so surely its communisms time to shine?

Seriously, what do we move on to?
I'm seeing some sort of Social Democracy--like maybe Sweden all over the world. I think Capitalism has it's place--but it has to be subordinate to the general good of the people. Progressive income taxes and government control of monoplies.

And clearly we don't deserve what we earn if we're being paid shit wages like millions of people across the world are. People are being paid shit wages not because Capitalism is bad--but because they have really crappy governments looking out for them in the third world. The BEST governments would make sure their people were paid decently and become not only producers of things--but CONSUMERS of things--that's good Capitalism, but making sure thhat happens is the job of the government.

What is common sense? To me communism is common sense. Everyone co-operates and shares according to need as opposed to the random distribution of wealth according to who already has it and who has the pwoer we see at the moment. Its the most simple and intelligent form of human organisation. Oh, I like it, too. But I just don't think it's practical. A bit too "Kumbaya" for reality. I just don't think it meshes with the current state of human psychologica and sociological development.

If we have to move on from communism what too? More of capitalism? But surely its time to move on from capitalism? You make no sense. No, Capitalism needs to be refined as I mentioned above. And I said--some places have it down pretty nicely.

What you're saying is meaningless rubbish, it has no substance or logic attached. You are sounding like my wife here. :lol:

Labor Shall Rule

2nd November 2008, 18:22

I don't follow that at all. You are superimposing some sort of moral or ethical grid on the past that must be justified by people in the present and the future. Did Reconstruction fail? Are Afro-Americans still far behind whites in their socio-economic standing ever since?

'Race' is still reality, and you can't color it as a mythical phenomena that doesn't factor into leaving oppressed peoples of color behind.

Not at all--what a certain "people" did to other "people" in the past has no realtionship to the present. Just because some people in the present have certain similar features to certain people that did things in the past--doesn't make them libel for the deeds of the offenders. It's like saying that Jesse James had brown hair, I have brown hair so I have to pay back Wells Fargo bank for the money he stole.

I have no particular relationship to 17th century Western European merchants--in fact at the time my ancestors (serfs) were being treated similarly to the Blacks in Eastern Europe by the Russians. Do the Russians owe me money?It's not 'punishing' or giving 'preferential treatment' to anybody - this post pretends that what I was saying in regards to the redistribution of wealth is that the 'white man' should surrender a portion of what he has to even things out for 'the past', despite of the fact that most of white America does not descend from slave owners.

The point is this: should a policy of equality of opportunity (vis-a-vis the redistribution of goods and services to make employment, human shelter, education, health care, and food more accessible to people of color) be initiated to counter the historic denial of a pursuit of happiness to those of differing pigment hue? I believe so - most Black Americans agree also, and it's not because they want to cheat "whitey" out of a job that he deserves, but because they want the same treatment that were disproportionately given to whites for the past two centuries.

Bud Struggle

2nd November 2008, 18:40

Did Reconstruction fail? Are Afro-Americans still far behind whites in their socio-economic standing ever since? Reconstruction failed--but so did the Great Society and Affermative Action and Welfare and the "Projects" and all of that, too.

'Race' is still reality, and you can't color it as a mythical phenomena that doesn't factor into leaving oppressed peoples of color behind. All right, but the only thing you can do is to treat people EQUALLY.

It's not 'punishing' or giving 'preferential treatment' to anybody - this post pretends that what I was saying in regards to the redistribution of wealth is that the 'white man' should surrender a portion of what he has to even things out for 'the past', despite of the fact that most of white America does not descend from slave owners. If I misrepresented you--I apologize. It wasn't my intent.

The point is this: should a policy of equality of opportunity I agree there.

(vis-a-vis the redistribution of goods and services to make employment, human shelter, education, health care, and food more accessible to people of color) be initiated to counter the historic denial of a pursuit of happiness to those of differing pigment hue? I believe so - most Black Americans agree also, and it's not because they want to cheat "whitey" out of a job that he deserves, but because they want the same treatment that were disproportionately given to whites for the past two centuries. Nope--no redistribution. The equality starts today. The only way TRUE equality will work is for people to stop treating people of one color differently than the people of another color. The "redistribution" route was already tried with DISASTEROUS results here in the United States. As far as Africa goes--Africans need to pot into place better leaders and officials in their respective countries to help regulate the goods and services that their country can offer on the international market.

There is no turning back the clock.

Labor Shall Rule

2nd November 2008, 21:55

How can you have "equality of opportunity" if resources are distributed in such a way that restricts opportunity for others? You are misrepresenting what I was saying, even after apologizing for doing so.

For example, Black applicants are at odds with the 'whites' - they come from schools that lack athletic programs, that have no advanced placement classes - they can have high test scores and verbal and mathematic aptitude that is higher than their pale counterparts, but by the nature of coming from a school that lacks the federal funding that the 'better' schools have, they are punished. If you were to relocate funds to their inner-city schools, it's a redistribution of wealth from how it was formerly distributed.

Reconstruction failed--but so did the Great Society and Affermative Action and Welfare and the "Projects" and all of that, too.

And they failed (often) from under-funding and federal neglect.

After the University of Michigan ended their affirmative action programs, Black and Hispanic attendance dropped by a total of 10%. After five years, it dropped by up to 20%. As I said (if you know how to read) 'race' factors into everything - whites are given preferential treatment since applicants are given points if they are related to alumni, even if the school was pretty much segregated a little over forty years ago.

Bud Struggle

2nd November 2008, 22:49

How can you have "equality of opportunity" if resources are distributed in such a way that restricts opportunity for others? You are misrepresenting what I was saying, even after apologizing for doing so.

Sorry again, but then maybe you are being a bit obtuse in your presentation.

For example, Black applicants are at odds with the 'whites' - they come from schools that lack athletic programs, that have no advanced placement classes - they can have high test scores and verbal and mathematic aptitude that is higher than their pale counterparts, but by the nature of coming from a school that lacks the federal funding that the 'better' schools have, they are punished. If you were to relocate funds to their inner-city schools, it's a redistribution of wealth from how it was formerly distributed. But here is the BEST high schools in the United States--now just LOOK at the subsidized lunch program. http://www.newsweek.com/id/39380 That will tell you where the disadvantaged Blacks are--and they have some decent opportunity. Now, do Blacks take advantage of these programs? That's another story--but they seem to be presented with an opportunity. Next...

And they failed (often) from under-funding and federal neglect. You are sounding like a '60's Liberal--MORE MONEY. It's been proven--it doesn't work. As a matter of fact segregation--negative, or positive doesn't work. ANY KIND OF segregation--negative or positive is racism.

After the University of Michigan ended their affirmative action programs, Black and Hispanic attendance dropped by a total of 10%. After five years, it dropped by up to 20%. As I said (if you know how to read) 'race' factors into everything - whites are given preferential treatment since applicants are given points if they are related to alumni, even if the school was pretty much segregated a little over forty years ago.

On the other hand Affirmative Action is getting foreign born Blacks into top American school in a record number. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/06/DI2007030600434.html And Carribean immigrants are doing really well in the small business segment of the Community. And a son of an African (though not an African-American) is about to become President of the United States.

What exactly is the problem? It's time to realize everyone is human, everyone is the same and everyone deserves an equal chance in this world. Society is doing better with this issue than government "programs" ever could.

Sooner or later you have to tell people the truth and then trust them.

Labor Shall Rule

2nd November 2008, 23:03

We are talking about what colleges look at when they are admitting students into college, and they certainly don't give a shit if you have a free lunch or not.

I'd highly recommend you do not instruct me on how 'well off' they are - they lack what colleges look at, which is indicative of the dislocation of funds. There has been a cut of federal, state, and local public money to schools in the past few years, which has lead to a radical deduction of teachers' wages and of after-school programs that help children with their homework. The lower strata of that list is what 'normal' schools look like nowadays. If you do not believe me, you haven't been to school in quite some time.

And 'more money' (along with a cut of administrative costs, attaching different preconditions before receiving aid) is certainly better than not having it at all. If you can explain to me what you perceive what the problem is, or why it's 'not working', then I'd gladly back off.

Bud Struggle

2nd November 2008, 23:25

We are talking about what colleges look at when they are admitting students into college, and they certainly don't give a shit if you have a free lunch or not. Dufus--that's not the point. These school are teaching a poor/minority class of pupils. It's not about the freaking lunch. It's about the percentage of poor kids in the High school. I have kids in High School and I see what's going on. (You obviously don't!)

I'd highly recommend you do not instruct me on how 'well off' they are - they lack what colleges look at, which is indicative of the dislocation of funds. There has been a cut of federal, state, and local public money to schools in the past few years, which has lead to a radical deduction of teachers' wages and of after-school programs that help children with their homework. The lower strata of that list is what 'normal' schools look like nowadays. If you do not believe me, you haven't been to school in quite some time. As I said, I have kids in High School and I am an interviewer for my Alma--a major American University. Nobody's out screwing Blacks over, but Blacks in many cases have a vast parental problem and a societal problem that prevent them from doing reasonable academic work. I'll admit that. But there are standards we all have to live by.

And 'more money' (along with a cut of administrative costs, attaching different preconditions before receiving aid) is certainly better than not having it at all. If you can explain to me what you perceive what the problem is, or why it's 'not working', then I'd gladly back off.

The hell with aid. Carribean and African Blacks come into the US do well in business, get scholarships (Black scholarships) to major American Universities--and do quite well. If they can do it--maybe the whole idea of "racism" is just a myrh. (Not to say it didn't exist in the past.)

It's over--time to move on.

Labor Shall Rule

3rd November 2008, 00:58

Bud Struggle

3rd November 2008, 11:52

Once again, colleges look at if you have AP classes and/or athletic programs, most predominately Black schools have none since they are historically underfunded, which I think we should fund more so that they can get into colleges more, hence "redistribution".

You have not debated against that - anywhere - in your posts.

I thought I did--but let me go over again in better detail. If you look on the list of the "best" High Schools (having AP, IB and other programs) in the country you'll see that most of these schools have a pretty good subsidized lunch program--which is a general indicator of the poverty level of the students in the school. The government doesn't subsidize lunch for midle class and above students--it just shows that schools in poor districts can and do put together good schools--ultimately it is up to the school board and the people that elect them.

Further here in Florida where I live--all schools are judged on an FCAT test given to all student in certain years. It behooves the county school boards to get all schools and students up to par. I know in my county they put the school with the best programs is in the "worst" part of town. My daughters are in IB programs not in the schools near out house, but in schools (HS and Middle) in the inner city.

They bus the white kids in from the suburbs into the inner city to take the IB and AP courses and bring the average FCAT score of the schools up into the "A" category. On the other hand, at least in my kids schools the IB program and AP courses are offered to everyone but are almost the exclusive province of white and Asian kids bussed in from outside the school's geographic area.

But the programs are offered.

Demogorgon

3rd November 2008, 16:31

Not at all--what a certain "people" did to other "people" in the past has no realtionship to the present. That's not true. What you might mean is that people today carry no moral blame for what happened in the past and that is not true, but it simply is not true that the crimes of the past have no bearing on the present. Privilege and disadvantage tend to resonate down the ages. That is why blacks are, as a rule, in a disadvantaged position compared to whites. It isn't because they are black per se (though no doubt that is a factor) but because they are often born into lower socio-economic classes, due to the fact that their parents and grandparents suffered blatant racial discrimination.

You do not have any blame for that, but it is social reality.

Fine. But if Africa was a more hospitable place to live--I don't see any problem with Blacks developing in a similar pattern to the Europeans.
Not really, we can have a debate about whether Africa or Europe is more hospitable, but there is no denying that the population boomed in Europe in a manner it simply did not in Africa meaning it was more densely populated and people were put in greater competition for resources leading to the need to develop quicker.

Plus of course Europeans had trainable horses unlike the Africans who only had untrainable zebra, that made a difference too. Horses are very useful.

No, Capitalism needs to be refined as I mentioned above. And I said--some places have it down pretty nicely.

Capitalism doesn't stay refined though. You can fix it up so that it seems quite civilised, but then it turns nasty again. It is a pattern we see over and over. Social Democracy is right now, somewhat on the back foot. I wish it wasn't, it was a nice, if rather limited, idea, but we need something more robust.

All right, but the only thing you can do is to treat people EQUALLY.
I agree, but equality on paper is nothing if it does not exist in practice.

Nope--no redistribution. The equality starts today. The only way TRUE equality will work is for people to stop treating people of one color differently than the people of another color. The "redistribution" route was already tried with DISASTEROUS results here in the United States. As far as Africa goes--Africans need to pot into place better leaders and officials in their respective countries to help regulate the goods and services that their country can offer on the international market.

Equality today with no redistribution is a bit like saying you are going to run a fair and competitive race, but everybody starts at different positions, some already over the finishing line. You don't have to support redistribution, there are surely alternatives, but you do need some means or another of leveling the playing field.
Dufus--that's not the point. These school are teaching a poor/minority class of pupils. It's not about the freaking lunch. It's about the percentage of poor kids in the High school. I have kids in High School and I see what's going on. (You obviously don't!) Obviously the issue is more complicated than just deprivation, but it is a factor, though I believe relative poverty actually plays a bigger part than absolute poverty.

At any rate, it is certainly the case that poor kids can be taught well and do well, but it is an uphill struggle. Success stories are great, but they don't improve things for the majority who are not benefiting.

As I said, I have kids in High School and I am an interviewer for my Alma--a major American University. Nobody's out screwing Blacks over, but Blacks in many cases have a vast parental problem and a societal problem that prevent them from doing reasonable academic work. I'll admit that. But there are standards we all have to live by.

Yes, but these problems are suffered by all racial groups, the question is why are blacks over-represented?

It's over--time to move on.
The problem is that it isn't. The after effects are still being felt.

Let me re-emphasise something very important though. The question is not "why are blacks worst off than whites?" but "why are blacks over-represented in the worst off socio-economic groups?". There is an answer to that question that doesn't require mention of current racism at all (though I cannot believe that current racism is not a factor), but it hurts your thesis that slavery and segregation are in the past.

Black people are on average worse off because their ancestors were worse off. Wealth cascades through the ages. Your parentage is the biggest factor as to your success. Individual success stories do exist, but they are the exception. Poor whites have just as much trouble as poor blacks, but the fact that blacks are so over-represented amongst the poor brings the issue into sharper focus. Without some kind of re-distribution of wealth it will remain that way for centuries.

RGacky3

3rd November 2008, 17:11

The point is that there are historic maldistributions of wealth and that capitalism exacerbates rather than ameliorates these maldistributions.

Thats true but does'nt mean you can make sweeping statements and accuse people of racism based on BS questions.

luchtoibre

3rd November 2008, 17:20

jake williams

3rd November 2008, 17:39

Thats true but does'nt mean you can make sweeping statements and accuse people of racism based on BS questions.
There's an effort to redefine "racism" as a really horrible thing that none of "us" do anymore. I reject that effort. The sorts of things are very much in line with the sorts of things that used to go on but which we now comfortably call racism.

RGacky3

3rd November 2008, 18:37

There's an effort to redefine "racism" as a really horrible thing that none of "us" do anymore. I reject that effort. The sorts of things are very much in line with the sorts of things that used to go on but which we now comfortably call racism.

No ones redefining racism, people like you are redefining racism to ultimately be anything that you don't agree with, hell people are calling being white being racist, your calling not being for redistribution racism.

Racism is either descriminating based on race or believing your race is superior to others, or having a hatred for certain races. THATS what racism is, and it is horrible, and people do it still, and most are pretty open about it.

Being white is not being racist, being against certain policies is not being racist (unless the reason your against them is based on race), being a Capitalist is not being racist.

Most Capitalists are not racist, its bad for business, some might encourage racism because it helps keep the lower classes from getting together (that was used in the past I"m not sure any more), but as a whole they arn't really racist.

Most racism comes from the lower classes, working class people (of all races) who in ignorance misplace the blaim for their condition on other races, or feel threatened by them. Ultimately Capitalism has a lot to do with racism and it contributes to it, BUT that does NOT mean that Capitalists are nessesarily racist.

If you want racism to be treated seriously don't use the term so lightly.

jake williams

4th November 2008, 01:40

believing your race is superior to others
My basic point - which I'm thus far astounded people have missed the basic essence of - is that if you believe capitalism has determined just outcomes, and the outcomes really shit on non-white people - then this belief entails a strong belief that white people are superior to non-white people, and in this understanding it's racist.

If I still need to dance around though, we can take it totally away from the intellectual and political and scientific baggage surrounding race, and bring the question (I think perfectly analogously, but you don't have to agree) to gender inequality rather than racial equality. There's a whole bunch of different metrics you can use, but however you want to look at it our current economic system really shits on women. Either this is okay - and that's sexist - or we need major institutional change, which I think would mean at least partially negating free markets.

Bud Struggle

4th November 2008, 12:21

First ioa all Demo, excellent post:

That's not true. What you might mean is that people today carry no moral blame for what happened in the past and that is not true, but it simply is not true that the crimes of the past have no bearing on the present. Privilege and disadvantage tend to resonate down the ages. That is why blacks are, as a rule, in a disadvantaged position compared to whites. It isn't because they are black per se (though no doubt that is a factor) but because they are often born into lower socio-economic classes, due to the fact that their parents and grandparents suffered blatant racial discrimination. I have no problem with that--but the point of Capitalism is not where you come from--but that you should be given an opportunity to bett yourself, no matter who you are. And I would agree that Blacks in America at least have only been given that opportunity for the past 50 or so years--since the civil rights movement. But as I see it at lest the opportunity is there, not it just has to be used. And that may take some time. Hopefully today's election of Obama will be a good step in that direction.

You do not have any blame for that, but it is social reality.
Not really, we can have a debate about whether Africa or Europe is more hospitable, but there is no denying that the population boomed in Europe in a manner it simply did not in Africa meaning it was more densely populated and people were put in greater competition for resources leading to the need to develop quicker. Sore there's lats of reason why thing played out the way they did--I wasn't trying to explain the mechanisms that caused the birth of European Capitalism

Plus of course Europeans had trainable horses unlike the Africans who only had untrainable zebra, that made a difference too. Horses are very useful. And the Native Americans put hosese to good use when fighting American expansion into the West.

Capitalism doesn't stay refined though. You can fix it up so that it seems quite civilised, but then it turns nasty again. It is a pattern we see over and over. Social Democracy is right now, somewhat on the back foot. I wish it wasn't, it was a nice, if rather limited, idea, but we need something more robust.I agree, but equality on paper is nothing if it does not exist in practice. Well, that's a major difference between us--I don't see much hope for the reemergance of Communism--you seem to thing there actually will be a Revolution. I kind of think it will all evolve (or desolve) into Social Democracy. I think it's a good plan.

Equality today with no redistribution is a bit like saying you are going to run a fair and competitive race, but everybody starts at different positions, some already over the finishing line. You don't have to support redistribution, there are surely alternatives, but you do need some means or another of leveling the playing field.Obviously the issue is more complicated than just deprivation, but it is a factor, though I believe relative poverty actually plays a bigger part than absolute poverty. But money isn't what matters. It's only a tool. The real thing that matters is INFORMATIOM. In fact that's all that matters. And that, because if the internet and a host of other this is much more available to everyone, Blacks included--so that's where the real redistribution comes into play.

I'm in the chemical business--I built the business in a relatively short time for two reasons, first I had the knowledge of howto build a business from other businesses I've built--but secondly, I got almost all of the initial infromation I needed on formulations and such--on the internet. (For example look up Stepan Chemical and go to "formulations" you can start you own chemical company, too!) That's why I don't really care about giving money to my kids when they get older per se--it's easier and cheeper to just show them how to make it themselves. And that very information is all over the internet, in a million books, and in all sorts of schools all through out the world. It just takes a little time and effort.

At any rate, it is certainly the case that poor kids can be taught well and do well, but it is an uphill struggle. Success stories are great, but they don't improve things for the majority who are not benefiting. See the thing is that with the advent of the information age--it all is a lot simpler. You don't have to give people anything--you can let them earn it themselves--like that old saying, if you give a person a fish he as a meal, if you teach him how to fish he can eat for a lifetime.

Yes, but these problems are suffered by all racial groups, the question is why are blacks over-represented?

Let me re-emphasise something very important though. The question is not "why are blacks worst off than whites?" but "why are blacks over-represented in the worst off socio-economic groups?". There is an answer to that question that doesn't require mention of current racism at all (though I cannot believe that current racism is not a factor), but it hurts your thesis that slavery and segregation are in the past. No doubt there was and maybe still is racism--but again how bad is it if Americans are election a Black man as their President? It's there, I know but it is no where near as crucial as it once was--and it will decrease and decrease as we go into the future.

Black people are on average worse off because their ancestors were worse off. Wealth cascades through the ages. Your parentage is the biggest factor as to your success. Individual success stories do exist, but they are the exception. Poor whites have just as much trouble as poor blacks, but the fact that blacks are so over-represented amongst the poor brings the issue into sharper focus. Without some kind of re-distribution of wealth it will remain that way for centuries. Again, it's not wealth that matters--it's information that's important. The rise of China and of India show that profoundly. Now it's time for Blacks to do the same.

RGacky3

4th November 2008, 16:57

is that if you believe capitalism has determined just outcomes, and the outcomes really shit on non-white people - then this belief entails a strong belief that white people are superior to non-white people, and in this understanding it's racist.

NO, because they would believe that the position of non-whites HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CAPITALISM, but other factors in this countries history, which having nothing to do with one group being supperior but rather historical factors.

Its not racist, unless they are actually racist, your not racist by default. Trying to entrap people into calling them racist based on something else is dishonest arguing on the level of those idiot conservatives that equate non-pro-iraq war with being pro-terrorism.

Its pure sophism.

But money isn't what matters. It's only a tool. The real thing that matters is INFORMATIOM. In fact that's all that matters.

Money IS what matters, I know very many intelligent people, that have a lot of knowledge but are very poor. Money is the bottom line always.

jake williams

4th November 2008, 17:37

NO, because they would believe that the position of non-whites HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CAPITALISM, but other factors in this countries history, which having nothing to do with one group being supperior but rather historical factors.
The whole point that it is part of capitalist ideology to say "shucks, there's nothing we can do" in regards to historic injustices which did not themselves grow out of capitalism, at least not very much. It's an integral part of the capitalist idea, and it's not acceptable.

Bud Struggle

4th November 2008, 17:44

RGacky3

4th November 2008, 18:07

The whole point that it is part of capitalist ideology to say "shucks, there's nothing we can do" in regards to historic injustices which did not themselves grow out of capitalism, at least not very much. It's an integral part of the capitalist idea, and it's not acceptable.

Maybe not, but its NOT racist, nor does it mean one believes that white people deserve more than black, its important to make that distinction.

Like I said, if you want racism to be taken seriously, then take it seirously.

But that being said, deviding things into race is stupid, history has also been unfair to poor people in general, and wealthy blacks don't need help, we should'nt make this a race issue, because its not a race issue, its a social issue.

Yes there are proportionately more blacks poor, that means that proportionaately more blacks will benefit more from a social revolution, but thats niether here nor there, what matters is the social revolution for everyone.

jake williams

4th November 2008, 20:43

So would the Communistideal treat Blacks any different than whites? Wouldn't that be hard to do if everyone's equal?
This argument goes back to the idea that affirmative action is anti-racist rather than racist. If a society were to distribute wealth fairly then the redistribution of it would be more to blacks than it would to whites - assuming that blacks don't deserve less than do whites, on average. Capitalism doesn't do this, so either capitalism doesn't distribute wealth fairly or it assumes - which I think it does, though it doesn't do it directly - that blacks deserve less than whites.

nor does it mean one believes that white people deserve more than black
Fuck! Yes it does! If you support a system that gives wealth disproportionately to a certain group of people, either you think they deserve it more, or you think your system doesn't give people what they deserve. Capitalists - at least a whole lot of them - believe that their system distributes wealth justly and fairly. That means that it's just and fair to distribute wealth disproportionately to black people. And that's racist.

Dóchas

4th November 2008, 20:47

whats the point in this poll any leftist would vote for the second one even a nazi on this site would vote for the second option

Bud Struggle

4th November 2008, 21:00

This argument goes back to the idea that affirmative action is anti-racist rather than racist. If a society were to distribute wealth fairly then the redistribution of it would be more to blacks than it would to whites - assuming that blacks don't deserve less than do whites, on average. Capitalism doesn't do this, so either capitalism doesn't distribute wealth fairly or it assumes - which I think it does, though it doesn't do it directly - that blacks deserve less than whites. But where I think your argument fails is that you believe that people somehow because they exist they DESERVE something. I don't see how anyone deserves anything they don't earn. Now I will grant you that society has in the past been unfair in giving the opportunity to earn, to a good extent it is still a bit unfair--and that should be rectified as soon as possible. But that's a long way from saying people deserve things they didn't earn. Also there are plenty of whites that are poor--so RGacky is right--this isn't a race issue--it's a rich vrs. poor issue.

jake williams

4th November 2008, 21:02

Bud Struggle

4th November 2008, 21:17

Well if we want to simplify it a bit - and I'm hesitant to do that, but I think it's the simplest way to communicate - your argument Tom is that, with some variation, black people are only poorer because they're "lazy" essentially. And if you think that you're a racist. I'm sorry. There's black people who think that too! In fact a lot of them, but that's another story. It's still a racist view.

Black people became "free" less than 50 years ago. What went on between the 1860s and the 1960s was a quasi slavery of sorts. They haven't time to build up the interior structures that would help them earn more money. And I think that's understandable. Give them another 50 years and they will be right on top of the game with everyone else.

Maybe less. I think, love him or hate him--Obama is moving Blacks pretty far down the path with his expected presidentcy.

Demogorgon

4th November 2008, 21:35

First ioa all Demo, excellent post:

I have no problem with that--but the point of Capitalism is not where you come from--but that you should be given an opportunity to bett yourself, no matter who you are. And I would agree that Blacks in America at least have only been given that opportunity for the past 50 or so years--since the civil rights movement. But as I see it at lest the opportunity is there, not it just has to be used. And that may take some time. Hopefully today's election of Obama will be a good step in that direction.The problem is that Obama is one man, and a man incidentally rather at the top of the socio-economic pile. It will be a triumph over overt racism if he wins today, but it won't solve the problem of over-representation of blacks amongst the poor.

Well, that's a major difference between us--I don't see much hope for the reemergance of Communism--you seem to thing there actually will be a Revolution. I kind of think it will all evolve (or desolve) into Social Democracy. I think it's a good plan.I do think there will be a revolution, yes. Indeed I think that so long as the human race exists there will be revolutions. I cannot see into the future and cannot be sure that what I hope for will happen, but I do know there will always be change. Social Democracy is not the end of the road though, it just isn't stable enough.

But money isn't what matters. It's only a tool. The real thing that matters is INFORMATIOM. In fact that's all that matters. And that, because if the internet and a host of other this is much more available to everyone, Blacks included--so that's where the real redistribution comes into play.

I'm in the chemical business--I built the business in a relatively short time for two reasons, first I had the knowledge of howto build a business from other businesses I've built--but secondly, I got almost all of the initial infromation I needed on formulations and such--on the internet. (For example look up Stepan Chemical and go to "formulations" you can start you own chemical company, too!) That's why I don't really care about giving money to my kids when they get older per se--it's easier and cheeper to just show them how to make it themselves. And that very information is all over the internet, in a million books, and in all sorts of schools all through out the world. It just takes a little time and effort.

See the thing is that with the advent of the information age--it all is a lot simpler. You don't have to give people anything--you can let them earn it themselves--like that old saying, if you give a person a fish he as a meal, if you teach him how to fish he can eat for a lifetime.Yes, but there are only a finite number of people who can have success in this world and what is worse is that some people have a far greater chance than others-for reasons that are well canvassed. If we are going to have a decent society we need both proper equality of opportunity and a good life even for those who are not high fliers. Social Democracy might very well be your answer to that question, indeed it can provide solutions for a while.

No doubt there was and maybe still is racism--but again how bad is it if Americans are election a Black man as their President? It's there, I know but it is no where near as crucial as it once was--and it will decrease and decrease as we go into the future.This goes back to what I was saying earlier though. Obama is a black man, he is not all black men. Don't get me wrong, he is proving that overt racism can no longer stop black people rising to the top of society, but he cannot change the fact that black people are over-represented amongst the poor. The main issue is not really a racial one at all, but simply the social stratification in society. Racism in the past has put it so that black people are more likely to be poor and present racism presumably doesn't help. Until we deal with the lack of social mobility in society, this will remain a problem.

Again, it's not wealth that matters--it's information that's important. The rise of China and of India show that profoundly. Now it's time for Blacks to do the same.
Suffer great inequality and watch the majority of people become worse off for the benefit of the wealthy?

RGacky3

4th November 2008, 21:49

Fuck! Yes it does! If you support a system that gives wealth disproportionately to a certain group of people, either you think they deserve it more, or you think your system doesn't give people what they deserve. Capitalists - at least a whole lot of them - believe that their system distributes wealth justly and fairly. That means that it's just and fair to distribute wealth disproportionately to black people. And that's racist.

Your not listening to me, your not reading my post.

Capitalism DOES NOT DISPROPORTIONATELY GIVE WEALTH TO WHITE PEOPLE, the reason there are proportionately more rich whites are because of historical factors that are not Capitalism. Capitalism only cares about profit, not color. Capitalist DICPROPORTIONATELY GIVES WEALTH TO CAPITLISTS!!!

Please read my posts before responding to them. The reason blacks are disproportionately poorer is because of historical factors, that don't have to do with Capitalism (i.e. slavery, discrimination, racist laws.) Redistribution should have nothing to do with race, we arn't fighting for a race, we are fighting for a class.

but it won't solve the problem of over-representation of blacks amongst the poor.

Would you be happy if there were proportionately as much poor blacks as there were whites? Does it matter? Over-representation of blacks among the poor is'nt the problem, the problem is poverty.

Well if we want to simplify it a bit - and I'm hesitant to do that, but I think it's the simplest way to communicate - your argument Tom is that, with some variation, black people are only poorer because they're "lazy" essentially.

Thats not what he said, its inevitable that there are more poor blacks in this country than whites, because of the history of the US, most blacks came as slaves, many whites came as landowners, most blacks in the past suffered racism, most whites did not, for hundreds of years blacks were discriminated against because of their color, whites were not.

THATS why there are a disproportionate number of poor blacks, but a disproportionate number of poor blacks is'nt the problem, the problem is Capitalism. Black capitalists are the same as white ones, poor whites are the same as black ones. We are fighting for the working class.

jake williams

5th November 2008, 02:51

Black people became "free" less than 50 years ago. What went on between the 1860s and the 1960s was a quasi slavery of sorts. They haven't time to build up the interior structures that would help them earn more money. And I think that's understandable. Give them another 50 years and they will be right on top of the game with everyone else.
The argument is essentially the fairly common "that's not real capitalism!", in addition to ignoring the implications of what I said beyond the specific case of black Americans, and saying that it'll all get better on its own but we just have to wait 50 years - but through what mechanism?

Maybe less. I think, love him or hate him--Obama is moving Blacks pretty far down the path with his expected presidentcy.
Barack Obama's election will have very complex effects on American and world politics.

Bud Struggle

5th November 2008, 11:59

The argument is essentially the fairly common "that's not real capitalism!", in addition to ignoring the implications of what I said beyond the specific case of black Americans, and saying that it'll all get better on its own but we just have to wait 50 years - but through what mechanism? Well, "that's not real Capitalism" is like when the Soviet Union comes up in conversation and RevLefters say, "that's not real Communism." Both are right in a way--they are "one of the many alternative" versions of their respective philosophical/economic systems. As far as the 50 years goes, maybe it will be a lot faster--who would have thought even 5 years ago a Black would be President?

As to the mechanism--the usual Capitalist grind of Blacks finding ways to make more and more money in the Capitalist system and then the Capitalist realizing that the Blacks need to spend that money and then funding a place for them to spend it. RGacky is right, no Capitalist much cares about disenfranchizing Blacks because of race--they are disenfranchized because they are poor. Now when they find better and better ways of making more and more money--Blacks will be melded into the economic melting pot.

I can't think of another way--in the Capitalist economic system--what would you suggest? Cash hand outs? That entire "welfare" system has been tried and failed.

Barack Obama's election will have very complex effects on American and world politics.As to Obama being a tool of the Capitalists and all that--that's one story, but as to him being the A Black man and President of the United States--I can't see that as anything but good for African-Americans.

synthesis

10th November 2008, 01:43

There is a time and a place for proposing that we move beyond the concept of "black and white"; unfortunately, the vast majority of the country still thinks in these terms and therefore to address the problems we must address the patterns which lead to them.

no Capitalist much cares about disenfranchizing Blacks because of race--they are disenfranchized because they are poor.

That assumes a rational basis for racism. The myriad forms of racism in American society are discrete (sometimes discreet) yet highly intertwined.

For example: Economic racism will deny good jobs to black people just because they have "black-sounding names", while police often go straight to black neighborhoods looking to fill their weekly quotas, yet economic and judiciary racism are intertwined because of the difficulties in securing a decent job with a criminal record.

The point I am trying to make is that we can't move beyond "black and white" until people in positions of power and authority (employers, policemen, judges, and so on) have also adopted the idea.

synthesis

10th November 2008, 02:00

If you want racism to be treated seriously don't use the term so lightly.

Everyone is racist, and more often than they think.

Stereotyping is called a heuristic, a mental shortcut. We have a natural human tendency to stereotype; in evolution, this made sense when it was us versus the wolves and lions. The time it took to differentiate was the difference between life and death.

However, you can't call something ethical or morally acceptable just because it's natural. (Obviously.)

The point is that "racism" is pervasive in our society - but because it's usually white people who hire employees, who make arrests, who sentence accused criminals, who accept people into higher education, who write history, who order men and women into war, who hold authority, power, and influence - because of all this, the racism of white people is the most important obstacle to racial equality in this country.

Why? Because it is black people who are disproportionately denied jobs, arrested, sentenced to prison, recruited into the military, and forced to memorize a history that excludes them. The existence of "wealthy black people" does nothing to change this.

RGacky3

10th November 2008, 16:51

while police often go straight to black neighborhoods looking to fill their weekly quotas

Since when do police have weekly quotas? You better have something to back that up, becaus I'm sensing your juts making stuff up. BTW, a lot of cops are black and brown.

Also they don't just go to black neighborhoods they go to poor Mexican neighborhoods, poor white neighborhoods, they go where the crime happens (low level and in the open) Generally poor neighborhoods

Economic racism will deny good jobs to black people just because they have "black-sounding names"

Any evidence of this happening? As far as I can tell Capitalists are gonna want to make the most money possible, and racially selecting employees is not going to benefit that.

We have a natural human tendency to stereotype; in evolution, this made sense when it was us versus the wolves and lions. The time it took to differentiate was the difference between life and death.

Thats not racism, if I'm a gang neighboorhood, and I see a group of young guys hanging out late at night on the corner not doing anything and wearing big white T shirts and baggy pants, I'm gonna assume they are gangbangers, if I see a bunch of white guys outside a bar in suspenders and shaved heads I'm gonna asume they are skinheads, thats not racism thats your brain organizing.

The point is that "racism" is pervasive in our society - but because it's usually white people who hire employees, who make arrests, who sentence accused criminals, who accept people into higher education, who write history, who order men and women into war, who hold authority, power, and influence - because of all this, the racism of white people is the most important obstacle to racial equality in this country.

The reason because of this is history, first of all white people were the ones that stole this country, and lorded over it origionally, and brought black people here as slaves, also they make up probably over 60% of the population (if not 70%), whereas blacks make up around 10% and mostly come from poor backgrounds because their ansestors where slaves, whereas many white ansesters were landowners and business men and ultimately guys on top.

Nothing is "natural" its historical, now racism as an institutional part of the system has died down a lot, because its bad for business, ultimately.

synthesis

10th November 2008, 20:08

Since when do police have weekly quotas? You better have something to back that up, becaus I'm sensing your juts making stuff up.Do you know how to use Google?

I'll just list the exact search terms which I know for a fact will lead you to the information you seek.

Do the same research I have and then we will be on the same level, OK? All you have to do is copy and paste.

Google search: police+quotas

It is more prevalent in some places than others - namely, large cities. The practice of raiding black neighborhoods to fill these quotas (or "goals") comes straight out of the mouth of a cop who is engaging in it in a non-fiction book called Courtroom 302. Check it out from your local library.

By the way, it is never prudent to assert that I'm making anything up. You're going to wind up looking foolish. Fair warning.

Also they don't just go to black neighborhoods they go to poor Mexican neighborhoods, poor white neighborhoods, they go where the crime happens (low level and in the open) Generally poor neighborhoodsThey go to black neighborhoods disproportionately, looking for "criminals". This is not something I feel the need to prove to you. I'm sure this occurs in Mexican neighborhoods as well.

BTW, a lot of cops are black and brown.We are definitely on two different levels right now.

Google search: internalized+racism

Any evidence of this happening? As far as I can tell Capitalists are gonna want to make the most money possible, and racially selecting employees is not going to benefit that.Google search: black+names+study

Studies have overwhelmingly shown that the exact same resume will be far less likely to receive a callback if the name on it "sounds black."

Thats not racism, if I'm a gang neighboorhood, and I see a group of young guys hanging out late at night on the corner not doing anything and wearing big white T shirts and baggy pants, I'm gonna assume they are gangbangersYeah, and cops make the same assumption - that's one reason why some people actually think racism is a problem.

Nothing is "natural" its historical, now racism as an institutional part of the system has died down a lot, because its bad for business, ultimately.It is psychological. And people are not always rational in their bigotry.

RGacky3

11th November 2008, 17:11

I'll just list the exact search terms which I know for a fact will lead you to the information you seek.

Do the same research I have and then we will be on the same level, OK? All you have to do is copy and paste.

Google search: police+quotas

It is more prevalent in some places

Generally they guy making the statement should provide the evidence to back it up, but fair enough, based on what I read, a police department having a quota is against the law.

Yeah, and cops make the same assumption - that's one reason why some people actually think racism is a problem.

Is that an unfair assumption?

We are definitely on two different levels right now.

Google search: internalized+racism

Now your going to extreams to explain something away, if your saying to be a black your brown cop means your an internalized racist at this point your being rediculous.

They go to black neighborhoods disproportionately, looking for "criminals". This is not something I feel the need to prove to you. I'm sure this occurs in Mexican neighborhoods as well.

THey go to poor neighborhoods looking for criminals, you ever been to a trailor park? Cops there all the time, same in poor Mexican neighborhoods, do you know why? Thats where the petty crime happens, (I say that because crime happens in rich areas too, but its harder to find, rich people take drugs too). Why does the petty crime happen there? Because people are poor and desperate.

It is psychological. And people are not always rational in their bigotry.

WHen you start saying people are racist and they don't even know it, then in my book your beating a dead horse, its like those freudian guys that link everything up with sexual insecurities, EVERYTHING.

Instead of explaining everything away with racism like a deux ex machina, look at all the factors and then think about it.

synthesis

11th November 2008, 17:29

WHen you start saying people are racist and they don't even know it, then in my book your beating a dead horseGood thing I'm not writing in your book. That is exactly what I'm saying. To be entirely un-racist, you have to treat everyone as individuals and also seek the origin of their actions. That's why I said "everyone is racist." Everyone generalizes in some way or another; that's the natural human brain. The fact that it is natural is not a good excuse, and it leads to bias, discrimination, and so on. The point is that, like alcoholism, you have to recognize a problem exists before you can begin to address it.

There is such a thing as subconscious racism. If I seem like a dick to you, it's because I expect you to be willing to learn, as I can see that you are not very knowledgeable in this area. (No offense.)

Now your going to extreams to explain something away, if your saying to be a black your brown cop means your an internalized racist at this point your being rediculous."Internalized racists" are not very common. Internalized racism is quite prevalent, sad to say.

its like those freudian guys that link everything up with sexual insecurities, EVERYTHING.

Freudian psychology is pseudoscience. This is predicated on basic psychology (heuristics) other academic sources, and anecdotal consensus.

Rosa Provokateur

11th November 2008, 17:38

This reminds me of a great article I read forever ago on white privelege.

http://yclusa.org/article/articleview/1783/1/335/

Dr Mindbender

11th November 2008, 17:47

Your not listening to me, your not reading my post.

Capitalism DOES NOT DISPROPORTIONATELY GIVE WEALTH TO WHITE PEOPLE, the reason there are proportionately more rich whites are because of historical factors that are not Capitalism. Capitalism only cares about profit, not color. Capitalist DICPROPORTIONATELY GIVES WEALTH TO CAPITLISTS!!!

Is it merely coincidence then that the vast proportion of wealthy capitalists are white?

I somehow doubt it. Since it's inception, from the slave trade and industrial era capitalism has made a point of undermining the black race through every dirty trick possible. Comparitive social advances (equal standing for blacks) were made in spite of capitalism, not because of it! These were victories won by progressive groups like the black panthers and trade unions.
Were it up to the beourgiose, they'd still be picking cotton and fighting frontline battles as cannon fodder at their behest.

White privilege is an intended side effect; it provides the white working class with a lingering dominant hegemony to cling onto, which provides an excellent divide and conquer tool that is utilised by the media and right wing.

RGacky3

11th November 2008, 20:55

Is it merely coincidence then that the vast proportion of wealthy capitalists are white?

No, but just because its not coincidence does'nt mean its based on current racism, its based on history, I've explained it before in this thread.

The reason because of this is history, first of all white people were the ones that stole this country, and lorded over it origionally, and brought black people here as slaves, also they make up probably over 60% of the population (if not 70%), whereas blacks make up around 10% and mostly come from poor backgrounds because their ansestors where slaves, whereas many white ansesters were landowners and business men and ultimately guys on top.

Comparitive social advances (equal standing for blacks) were made in spite of capitalism, not because of it! These were victories won by progressive groups like the black panthers and trade unions.

I agree, Capitalism (for the most part) is neautral toward racism, sometimes its good for profit, sometimes its not. But saying Capitalism is innately racist is simply untrue. Capitalism does'nt have a consience.

Were it up to the beourgiose, they'd still be picking cotton and fighting frontline battles as cannon fodder at their behest.

Maybe, but I doubt he beourgeose care if the slaves are black or not, free labor is free labor.

White privilege is an intended side effect; it provides the white working class with a lingering dominant hegemony to cling onto, which provides an excellent divide and conquer tool that is utilised by the media and right wing.

Thats true, sometimes, or I'll say that tactic has been used. But thats not nessesarily actual racism, its class war. The reverse has also been true, sometimes racism hurts business.

"Internalized racists" are not very common. Internalized racism is quite prevalent, sad to say.

to have internalized racism you need internalized racists, otherwise its not racism. Racism is not an effect, its a cause, its not a result its a reason, if you get my drift.

That is exactly what I'm saying. To be entirely un-racist, you have to treat everyone as individuals and also seek the origin of their actions.

No to be entirely un-racist you have to not discriminate because of race and not think one race is superior.

Not treating everyone as individuals is natural, because you can't get to know everyone as individuals that you come in contact with, You judge people all the time.

You see an old lady, chances are your not going to curse when you talk to her, you've just judged her using a generalization. You see a girl at a bar weaing slutty clothes and flirting a lot, you'll probably think she's pretty slutty, you just made a generalization. Your high somewhere you see an off duty cop, you get nervous, another generalization.

Making generalizations about entire races in general would be racist, but making different generalizations that include race is not, for example, if I saw a hispanic looking guy and spoke to him in spanish, would that be racist on my part? Not really. If I saw a white guy with a shaved head, a wife beater and skinny jeans would I think of him a different way than if I saw a black guy in the same get up, probably, I'd probably think of him as a skinhead.

Thats not a problem, thats not even related to racism.

Racism is something different.

Freudian psychology is pseudoscience. This is predicated on basic psychology (heuristics) other academic sources, and anecdotal consensus.

Yeah, as is using racism as a duex ex machina, its flawed.

synthesis

12th November 2008, 20:32

Not treating everyone as individuals is natural, because you can't get to know everyone as individuals that you come in contact with, You judge people all the time

Yup, and sometimes that's racist. Honestly, this is something you'll need to find out for yourself - best of luck.

RGacky3

13th November 2008, 05:18

Yup, and sometimes that's racist. Honestly, this is something you'll need to find out for yourself - best of luck.

If your saying people can be racist accidently, then your streatching the the concept of racism to where its meaningless, and pointless even to talk about, because then everyone is racist and they have reason to be racist.

I don't buy that definition of racism, I take it a little more seriously.

jake williams

13th November 2008, 05:56

I - and a number of others - use the term racism pretty broadly. Not so much that it loses its meaning, just that it encompasses a number of different related ideas, practices and social phenomena. If you don't that's fine, it's a decision about word usage, I just think our more open word usage is more useful.

synthesis

13th November 2008, 06:10

If your saying people can be racist accidently,

I am. That's the most dangerous kind.

Replace "accidentally" with "subconsciously" and we'll be on the same page.

then everyone is racist

That was the original argument.

they have reason to be racist

Here's where we diverge. We agree that it is "natural" to generalize, but is something acceptable just because it is natural?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Racism has roots in history, yet progress cannot be made until it is understood as a fundamentally psychological problem.

I'm talking about the kind of racism that leads cops to open fire on a black man while he's reaching for his wallet. They assume he's going for a gun, because they're generalizing, the same kind of generalization you argued was acceptable.

And then you have white people denying that the cops were racist, blaming other black people for "making cops assume things."

This is the same kind of racism that leads employers to turn down a resume just because it says "Jamal Williams" instead of "Cody Williams."

But that's exactly why I'm arguing that in this century, "racism" shouldn't be just a swear word but rather an intuitive diagnosis of something that is more accurately likened to a mental illness caused by ignorance.

synthesis

13th November 2008, 06:14

Also note that I believe ignorance to be another quality we all possess in varying degrees, not something that is isolated to people with white hoods or shaved heads. It is impossible to know everything about everything, and in reality most of us know very little about anything.

Again, just because there's no end in sight doesn't mean we won't improve things by trying to get there.

RGacky3

13th November 2008, 17:28

Quote:
If your saying people can be racist accidently,
I am. That's the most dangerous kind.

Replace "accidentally" with "subconsciously" and we'll be on the same page.

Quote:
then everyone is racist
That was the original argument.

If thats the case then racism is inconsequencial, at least that type of racism.

I'm talking about the kind of racism that leads cops to open fire on a black man while he's reaching for his wallet. They assume he's going for a gun, because they're generalizing, the same kind of generalization you argued was acceptable.

I guarantee you if its a black guy in a suit they're not going to shoot him, chances are if he's a redneck gunslinger looking white guy they'll react the same way, thats not racism.

And then you have white people denying that the cops were racist, blaming other black people for "making cops assume things."

I'm not blaming anyone, saying "cops are racist" is using racism as a deux ex machina, and not looking at the issue, its aking to saying the terrorists hate our freedom.

You say cops are racist, then everyone is racist, if thats the case, the cops arn't racist (compared to anyone else), so its a fallacy to call them racist in a way because your putting bad motives on them, which is dangerous.

This is the same kind of racism that leads employers to turn down a resume just because it says "Jamal Williams" instead of "Cody Williams."

If thats the case thats actively discriminating based on race and I'm willing to call that racist, although I'm not convinced that, that type of discrimination happens regularly.

But that's exactly why I'm arguing that in this century, "racism" shouldn't be just a swear word but rather an intuitive diagnosis of something that is more accurately likened to a mental illness caused by ignorance.

Its not a swear word, it describes a specific state of mind, accusing subconsious racism is EXACTLY, the same as freudians accusing everything leading back to subconsious sexual frustrations. Its a cop out.

synthesis

13th November 2008, 22:36

If thats the case then racism is inconsequencial, at least that type of racism.Does unintentional automatically equate to inconsequential in your book?

You say cops are racist, then everyone is racist, if thats the case, the cops arn't racist (compared to anyone else), so its a fallacy to call them racist in a way because your putting bad motives on them, which is dangerous.I'm curious as to your logic that equates "everyone being racist" to "no one being racist". People are racist in varying degrees, but that's not the point right now.

Police racism has much more immediate and brutal effects than the racism of an auto mechanic or a gas station attendant - same with employers, politicians, and bankers.

The point is that the source of this is ignorance - again, the natural state of humankind. The primary issue here is not racism itself but the injustice of society and the complex role of racism in it. I don't feel the need to understand everything in terms of ideology - science and the empirical approach have value as well.

If thats the case thats actively discriminating based on race and I'm willing to call that racist,You seem to have some conception that racism consists solely of the white right deviously scheming and plotting ways to cause harm to black people in every possible way.

It's more subtle than that. When an employers sees a name that "sounds black," they unintentionally introduce a whole host of other assumptions that accompany their idea of what it means to be black. That's the kind of subconscious racism I'm talking about.

RGacky3

13th November 2008, 22:53

Does unintentional automatically equate to inconsequential in your book?

Its inconsequential because your not talking about real racism, your taking about generalizations based on many aspects including race, and unless it directly results in discrimination its inconsiquencial, your nitpicking now.

I'm curious as to your logic that equates "everyone being racist" to "no one being racist". People are racist in varying degrees, but that's not the point right now.

Its like saying "everyone is short," if everyone, blacks, whites, asians, and the such are racist in your book because they make generalizations, then its not racist.

Police racism has much more immediate and brutal effects than the racism of an auto mechanic or a gas station attendant - same with employers, politicians, and bankers.

The point is that the source of this is ignorance - again, the natural state of humankind.

Of coarse, if it was there, if their generalizations actually led to discrimination BASED ON SOLELY RACE. Which means they are doing their actions BECAUSE of the persons race, not other reasons.

I go back to my example of a black guy in a suit and a shady looking white guy.

BTW, your idea that its the natural state of humankind would say that people are born racist, and studies have shown, and its common sense, that they are not.

When an employers sees a name that "sounds black," they unintentionally introduce a whole host of other assumptions that accompany their idea of what it means to be black.

Again, if its soly based on the idea that he's black, then yes its racist.

Now cops going to a poor (black or white or mexican) neighborhood more than rich white neighborhoods IS NOT racist.