Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Are All White People Racist?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    But, see, that's the difference --- the media was complicit in exposing every single possible indiscretion of Trump, but they "won't go there" with Joe.
    Ah well, as I remarked somewhere else,I am merely an effete European who reads all the exciting news emanating from the USA from a safe distance!
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • Firstly, hello Leonhard, it's always a pleasure to read your posts, and even more so to discuss things with you.


      Confession time: I responded only to the excerpt you had posted. Mea culpa. I have now read the text of the interview, and will briefly address that here. I do plan to respond to the rest of your post, but don't have time right now.

      I also accept that this, being an interview, is not necessarily the best or most accurate statement of her beliefs. Perhaps she makes a better case in her book. I'll quote from the article you cited.


      (1) White fragility

      Well, when I coined that term, the fragility part was meant to capture how little it takes to upset white people racially. For a lot of white people, the mere suggestion that being white has meaning will cause great umbrage. Certainly generalizing about white people will. Right now, me saying “white people,” as if our race had meaning, and as if I could know anything about somebody just because they’re white, will cause a lot of white people to erupt in defensiveness.
      Isn't this no more than a racially-based stereotype of people? She's making a broad judgment -saying that she can know some things about people - solely based on their race; and also saying that if they respond negatively to her race-based perception of them, it's because they are being 'defensive' in a way that is " ...a kind of white racial bullying." I think this is her poisoning the well.

      So, so far, she has racially profiled and stereotyped people - although it may be true that some (or even most) white people (Americans) respond defensively/ negatively when approached in this way, that does not mean that the approach / claim is true; and she has poisoned the well by claiming that people who disagree with her racial stereotype are doing so because they can't deal with their problem (of being unconsciously racist)


      People of color working and living in primarily white environments take home way more daily indignities and slights and microaggressions than they bother talking to us about because their experience consistently is that itÂ’s not going to go well. In fact, theyÂ’re going to risk more punishment, not less. TheyÂ’re going to now have to take care of the white personÂ’s upset feelings. TheyÂ’re going to be seen as a troublemaker. The white person is going to withdraw, defend, explain, insist it had to have been a misunderstanding.
      Not sure what to make of this, since it's a unverified and unverifiable claim, based on one group's perception of their interactions with people in another group. And again, she insists that the white people are at fault, and that their attempts at explanation are inadequate. The problem with this is is that when there are two cultures interacting there are going to be areas of friction and misunderstanding. I work in a cross-cultural environment (I am the (by far) minority culture) and there are things that happen every single day where I could feel aggrieved, or offended, or slighted.

      But

      (a) I think that everyone has the right to have their own culture, and to follow that culture. Especially if they are the majority culture in a particular society.

      (b) People's motivations are more important than their actions. That is, we have to make allowances for innocent offense caused through ignorance, or simply because they do things differently than we do. For example, commenting to someone that they 'have put on weight' is something of a compliment in the majority culture where I live, but a minor insult in my culture. So I have to understand that when people say that, they intend it as a compliment, and I have to take it as such. If I know the person well enough I might explain to them that it comes across to me as slightly rude.

      (c) People from a minority culture can just as easily give offense to people in a majority culture. I can easily offend people here, just by acting as I normally would in my own culture. Even if I don't offend them, I can come across as rude, ill-mannered and disrespectful. Is it their responsibility to accept my way of doing things, or my responsibility to adjust (to some degree) to their culture?


      I think intentions are irrelevant. ItÂ’s nice to know you had good intentions, but the impact of what you did was harmful. And we need to let go of our intentions and attend to the impact, to focus on that.

      Again I think this is problematic. If you did have good intentions, then you should be given a pass (so to speak) on what you said or did. Perhaps it can be gently explained that what you said or did was unintentionally hurtful. But I think that there has to be a two-way thing going here, where a person's actual intentions are part of the content of their act. If I intend a compliment, but it comes across to someone as an insult, once the matter is explained, they should take it as it was meant by me - as a compliment. If they stalk off in a huff, and refuse to listen to a clarification, or refuse to attempt to understand my culture, then they are seeking to be offended, and they are, frankly, welcome to it. And yes, I have had this experience when dealing with people who come from the majority culture here. Including people publicly dressing me down because they misunderstood my meaning, and refusing to accept my explanation. So, yeah, intentions are definitely NOT irrelevant.


      Foundationally [we] have to change our idea of what it means to be racist. As long as you define a racist as an individual who intentionally is mean, based on race, youÂ’re going to feel defensive.
      Well that just is what racism is. So it's not 'feeling defensive' to respond negatively to being accused of being racist. It's an attack on one's character and morality. And since it requires an understanding of a person's motivations and beliefs, it DOES depend on those, and not just on actions alone.

      Now if she wants to talk about this:

      When we understand racism as a system that we have been raised in and that its impact is inevitable, it’s really not a question of good or bad. It’s just, “I have it. I have been socialized into it.” And so, “What am I going to do about it?” is really the question. And that’s where, I think, maybe some guilt could come in, when you know that and you’re still not going to do anything about it. I don’t struggle with guilt because, to the best of my ability, I am trying to challenge my socialization. So, let me be really clear: As a result of being raised as a white person in this society, I have a racist worldview. I have racist biases. I have developed racist patterns as a result, and I have investments in the system of racism.
      then she needs to coin a new term , instead of blurring the lines between what she wants to address and something which is different - actual racism. Perhaps she should talk about 'unconscious cultural superiority' or something like that.


      If I accept her redefinition of racism, then I have no reason to do anything about my actions if I do meet her new definition. It's just part of my cultural background and no more wrong or right than any other cultural tic I might have. It's saying that I have been socialised into my culture, which happens to be the dominant one in America, and I expect people to fit in with that culture, by and large. Great. So what? Nothing of interest follows from that, especially when we realise that she offers no objective external standard to compare aspects of different cultures. Why should I be expected to modify or abandon aspects of my culture to make people from a minority group feel more comfortable? Should I adapt their culture instead of mine? Why? If I do do that, should I and they (now the majority) then change to fit in with the new minority culture (which used to be the majority)? It's an incoherent relativistic mess.


      I offer instead the following:

      Every human has inherent value and dignity, regardless of race or ability, since we are all made in God's image. Therefore racism is a true evil, and must be addressed.

      Racism can be overcome when we each find our core identity in and through our relationship with God, our creator.

      We must all stop looking at each other through the lens of race. Let us judge each other by the content of our character.

      We must stop carelessly throwing around accusations of 'racism'. Instead, like a disease, actual racism must be carefully and objectively identified so that it can be dealt with.

      We must deal with people, all people, as unique individuals, and take the time to understand their background, beliefs, and motivations. When we do that, we can 'convert' racists into normal people. Daryl Davis is a superb example of how effective this can be.
      ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

      Comment


      • It's all just one, big kaftatrap: accuse you of unspecified "crimes" (for example: microaggressions, white fragility, white privilege, etc.), and if you deny it, that just proves you're guilty.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Brief summary of the issues I see with this White Fragility book:

          Problem: Everyone is guilty, on an individual level, of doing this terrible thing.
          Criticism: Is proof that you're guilty.
          Solution1: Constant cooperate training that shifts all blame away from general policies onto employees.
          Solution2: Buy more of her books.
          REAL solution: None. Just repeat solution1&2.

          So much of the language is comparable to the understanding of original sin, packaged up in an idea palatable to those at the top, and with the sole benefit of making money and social capital for those who endorse it. There's no hope of redemption, but buy the book and support the cause to prove you're a good person. (Or at least, not a bad one who must be shunned). It isn't morality, it doesn't require radical change, and it doesn't ask difficult questions of anyone who has the power or resources to defend themselves.

          ...So of course it's popular.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            If that is, in actual fact, Biden's profile he seems to be equal in comparison with that other old creepy, racist, groper, and voyeur that is currently resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
            You're missing the point of the political juxtaposition. He's embraced by the same political cult that is -- to absurd levels -- the most outspoken against racism and sexism (even levels that are outright false), and believe there's absolutely no redemption of such an individual even if those qualities were a thing of the individual's past.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              This is the recipe for race wars or at least gulags.
              No. Not even a majority or a large minority are. And there are plenty of racists of other races out there. In fact in my lifetime as someone of Indian (the country) descent with a wife of native American descent (and several kids who are clearly not white), I've experienced more racism from black and Hispanic people toward me and my family than I have from white people.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                No. Not even a majority or a large minority are. And there are plenty of racists of other races out there. In fact in my lifetime as someone of Indian (the country) descent with a wife of native American descent (and several kids who are clearly not white), I've experienced more racism from black and Hispanic people toward me and my family than I have from white people.
                My experience is that young blacks are more prejudiced than young whites, but older whites are more prejudiced than older blacks. Not sure why this is.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  But didn't you know? Yesterday's Democrats morphed into today's Republicans!
                  Very very true as witnessed by the recent history of the Dixiecrats of the South.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Very very true as witnessed by the recent history of the Dixiecrats of the South.
                    On several occasions both Teal and I have demolished your little fantasy by repeatedly pointing out that nearly all the old Dixiecrats remained firmly ensconced in the Democrat Party until the day they died and that the South didn't shift Republican until several decades after their time.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      On several occasions both Teal and I have demolished your little fantasy by repeatedly pointing out that nearly all the old Dixiecrats remained firmly ensconced in the Democrat Party until the day they died and that the South didn't shift Republican until several decades after their time.
                      Truth over facts, or.. um...
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        On several occasions both Teal and I have demolished your little fantasy by repeatedly pointing out that nearly all the old Dixiecrats remained firmly ensconced in the Democrat Party until the day they died and that the South didn't shift Republican until several decades after their time.
                        In your view Napolean won the Battle of Waterloo. Your trying to rewrite the real history. The South most definitely went Republican in response to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Laws, and the shift integration.

                        You apparently are a true believer, and save your Confederate money and flags.

                        Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats#:~:text=Subsequent%20to%20the%20passage%20of,Party%20due%20to%20racial%20conservatism.



                        Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the Southern United States.

                        In the 19th century, Southern Democrats were whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they defended slavery in the United States, and promoted its expansion into the West against northern Free Soil opposition. The United States presidential election of 1860 formalized the split in the Democratic Party and brought about the American Civil War. Stephen Douglas was the candidate for the Northern Democratic Party, and John C. Breckinridge represented the Southern Democratic Party, Abraham Lincoln, who opposed slavery was the Republican Party candidate. [1] After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s so-called redeemers controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some Appalachian mountain districts and a few heavily German-American counties of Texas.

                        The monopoly that the Democratic Party held over most of the South first showed major signs of breaking apart in 1948, when many white Southern Democrats, upset by the policies of desegregation enacted during the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman, created the States Rights Democratic Party, which nominated South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond for President. The "Dixiecrats" won most of the deep South (where Truman was not on the ballot). The new party collapsed after the election, while Thurmond became a Republican in the 1960s. Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, which were signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, although a southern Democrat himself, led to heavy opposition from both Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans. Subsequent to the passage of civil rights legislation, many white southerners switched to the Republican Party at the national level. Many scholars argue that Southern whites shifted to the Republican Party due to racial conservatism.[2][3][4] Many continued to vote for Democrats at the state and local levels, especially before the Republican Revolution of 1994. In 2000–10, Republicans gained a solid advantage over Democrats at all levels of politics in most Southern states.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        This is a fairly factual history of the political evolution of the South in recent history.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-11-2020, 07:13 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            "If they post a picture of their dinner, accuse them of racism because there's no black people in their food."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              In your view Napolean won the Battle of Waterloo. Your trying to rewrite the real history. The South most definitely went Republican in response to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Laws, and the shift integration.

                              You apparently are a true believer, and save your Confederate money and flags.

                              Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats#:~:text=Subsequent%20to%20the%20passage%20of,Party%20due%20to%20racial%20conservatism.



                              Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the Southern United States.

                              In the 19th century, Southern Democrats were whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they defended slavery in the United States, and promoted its expansion into the West against northern Free Soil opposition. The United States presidential election of 1860 formalized the split in the Democratic Party and brought about the American Civil War. Stephen Douglas was the candidate for the Northern Democratic Party, and John C. Breckinridge represented the Southern Democratic Party, Abraham Lincoln, who opposed slavery was the Republican Party candidate. [1] After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s so-called redeemers controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some Appalachian mountain districts and a few heavily German-American counties of Texas.

                              The monopoly that the Democratic Party held over most of the South first showed major signs of breaking apart in 1948, when many white Southern Democrats, upset by the policies of desegregation enacted during the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman, created the States Rights Democratic Party, which nominated South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond for President. The "Dixiecrats" won most of the deep South (where Truman was not on the ballot). The new party collapsed after the election, while Thurmond became a Republican in the 1960s. Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, which were signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, although a southern Democrat himself, led to heavy opposition from both Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans. Subsequent to the passage of civil rights legislation, many white southerners switched to the Republican Party at the national level. Many scholars argue that Southern whites shifted to the Republican Party due to racial conservatism.[2][3][4] Many continued to vote for Democrats at the state and local levels, especially before the Republican Revolution of 1994. In 2000–10, Republicans gained a solid advantage over Democrats at all levels of politics in most Southern states.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              This is a fairly factual history of the political evolution of the South in recent history.
                              Coming from someone who has claimed that Dixiecrats were Republicans

                              If the South went Republican as a result of legislation passed in the early to mid 60s then why did it take a couple of decades before that change started taking place? What were the racists waiting for?

                              Further, that civil rights legislation would have never passed without overwhelming support by Republicans in both the House in Senate. There is after all a reason that the NAACP presented Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen a civil rights accomplishment award in recognition of his yeoman service in getting the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed. So why in the world would racists defect en masse from the Democrats -- many of whom led the resistance to passing civil rights legislation -- and join the party responsible for pushing it through?

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Coming from someone who has claimed that Dixiecrats were Republicans

                                If the South went Republican as a result of legislation passed in the early to mid 60s then why did it take a couple of decades before that change started taking place? What were the racists waiting for?

                                Further, that civil rights legislation would have never passed without overwhelming support by Republicans in both the House in Senate. There is after all a reason that the NAACP presented Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen a civil rights accomplishment award in recognition of his yeoman service in getting the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed. So why in the world would racists defect en masse from the Democrats -- many of whom led the resistance to passing civil rights legislation -- and join the party responsible for pushing it through?
                                Read the reference again it reflects the real history., and not your white wash of the South. Pushed it through without the support of the South.

                                As noted in the reference Strong Thurmond's boycote of the Civil rights legislation and run for the president.

                                Source: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-filibuster-that-almost-killed-the-civil-rights-act/



                                The filibuster that almost killed the Civil Rights Act
                                April 11, 2016 by NCC Staff


                                On this day in 1964, the Senate was involved in an epic fight over the Civil Right Act, after a group of Southern senators started a record-setting filibuster in March.

                                Civil_Rights_Act,_July_2,_1964The Act was signed by President Lyndon Baines Johnson on July 2, 1964, but not before a lengthy, protracted fight in Washington. In fact, no full-featured Civil Rights Act proposal had ever survived a filibuster attempt on the Senate floor. Under the old Senate rules, two-thirds of the Senate would need to vote for cloture, or limiting debate time on the floor. (Today, the cloture barrier stands at 60 votes.)

                                The Act had been approved by the House of Representatives in February 1964, and Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield made the unusual move of bypassing the Judiciary Committee (which was chaired by an anti-bill Senator) and placing the Act directly on the Senate’s main calendar.

                                But when Mansfield made the first motion about the bill in the Senate, the well-organized filibuster attempt started. And had it been successful, the Civil Rights Act would have been finished for that Senate session.

                                A year earlier, President John F. Kennedy told a nationwide audience that the Act was a necessity. A prior bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, was important but it had a limited impact and it was difficult to enforce. It also had survived a 24-hour filibuster from Senator Strom Thurmond.

                                As Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson has been involved heavily in the fight for the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and as President, he was committed to honoring his own values and Kennedy’s legacy in the fight for the much-more comprehensive 1964 act.

                                Committed to the filibuster effort were the powerful Senators Richard Russell, Thurmond, Robert Byrd, William Fulbright and Sam Ervin. Russell started the filibuster in late March 1964, and it would last for 60 working days in the Senate.

                                Behind the scenes, two opposing leaders were working to find a way to get 67 votes: the Democratic Senate whip, Hubert Humphrey and the Senate Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen of Illinois.

                                At first, Dirksen opposed the House version of the bill because of certain passages, even though he was a long-time civil rights supporter. Humphrey, a Democrat, worked together with his Republican colleague to make the bill more acceptable to Republicans, while not weakening its powers.

                                On June 10, 1964, Dirksen made a powerful speech that served to bring more Republicans onto his side in the fight.

                                Dirksen made his case and then quoted the author Victor Hugo: “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.” The Senator then reminded his colleagues that the Republican Party stood for equality since its founding in the years before the Civil War.

                                That same day, the Humphrey-Dirksen group got 71 votes to end the filibuster, four more than needed, as 27 Republicans had decided to support the Act.

                                During the vote, the terminally ill Senator from California, Clair Engle, was brought to the floor in a wheelchair. Unable to speak because of a brain tumor, Engle pointed to his eye to signify his Yes vote.

                                President Johnson signed the bill on July 2 in a nationally televised ceremony.

                                The new law prohibited discrimination in public places. It also provided for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and it made employment discrimination illegal.

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-12-2020, 10:00 PM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                171 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                409 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X