The post begins with two clearly and amazingly false claims....
"Systemic racism is the idea that people can’t lift themselves out of poverty by making good decisions, because powerful groups in society that hold the poor down, regardless of their decisions..."
Says who? This is a very mistaken view. He can't find anybody who gives us definition, he makes it up himself. That may be his impression, but it's not the operating definition the people who use the term are talking about. As such, it's just a false claim. What is the source for this?
"Do you think that America is a place where no matter what choices you make, you’ll never be able to be more properous? That’s what the leaders of Black Lives Matter think..."
Again, says who? I've never heard anybody associated with black lives matter say this, nor do I think it's what they believe.
It sounds like this person is just not familiar with systemic racism or black lives matter.
Before you say to me, prove it, he's making the claim. The onus is on him to prove it. I'm saying it doesn't exist out there in the real world what he said.
He didn't offer any support for these claims, I'm saying he didn't because those aren't real world realities.
I can't prove a negative. He has to support his claim if he wants to be taken seriously.
I'm simply going to point out that the gentleman in question is literally not white. He's literally the exact person who should be able to speak on "systemic racism". I guess if you're going to try to impose your white privileged opinions on him, that tells us something about how you view voices of POC.
I'll point out that he provides a quote that pretty much says what you claim he can't prove, and that you've chosen not to demonstrate that the DATA he provides is somehow faulty.
I guess your white, liberal, privilege trumps his data and ethnicity.
Again, I merely posted the link and said it was an interesting perspective from a POC. If you have problems, take it up with him directly.
It's also interesting how you respond to POC who don't agree with you.
"To summarize, none of the actions we are told black people must take if they want to “lift themselves” out of poverty and gain financial stability — not marrying, not getting educated, not saving more, not owning a home — can mitigate 400 years of racialized plundering."
I'll note that this comment comes from the creator of the 1619 project. Who also just pointed out that the 1619 project was never intended to be history (ie accurate), but instead is a work of "journalism". It's interesting that Wells is suggesting that "journalism" isn't about accurately reporting facts, but about "challenging the national narrative". I've always thought that facts and truth were important, I guess not.
Yes, you tend toward uncritical acceptance of any POC who agrees with you, and critical dismissal of those that don't. For example, you bitch that he didn't "support" his opinions, yet you ignore the quote he provided as well as the data.
"I pointed out some facts, and that he didn't support his claim. What's wrong with that?"
I'd point out that you rarely support your claims either, but that wouldn't matter.
The reality is that your liberal, white, privilege is on full display here. This, attitude of "ignore the black man, listen to me.".
"It sounds like this person is just not familiar with systemic racism or black lives matter."
Because you as a white liberal are much more qualified to spew about what racism is that an actual POC.
That y'all misunderstand her words does not mean that she says what you think she saying. As always, it appears y'all have a reading comprehension problem. We're all seeing the words, but they're not saying but you think they're saying.
Fascinating to see Dan object to the accurate assessment of what believers in the notion of "systemic racism" truly is. The explanation is true..."SR" is an excuse for failure. If a black person fails to achieve,by golly it just has to be the fault of someone else!!
The old "misunderstand" trope. It's almost like you think that you have some sort of supernatural power to correctly interpret the words of others that no one else has. Yet, that you feel like simply asserting something as a fact settles the argument.
"He didn't offer any support for these claims,"
But he did. He offered that quote I pointed out, as well as multiple examples of data to support his point. I'm sorry that your claim has been proven false and that you're stuck with "You don't understand, but I do." as your fallback.
You've taken a small part of the entire piece, misrepresented it, and used that as your excuse to make a false claim about the whole and ignore the data.
Well done. That poor black guy couldn't possibly have understood what the enlightened white guy understands.
I think that part of the problem is that Dan might not be open to looking at the logical conclusion of what people are saying. So, while they aren't using certain specific words and phrases, they are definitely sending the massage that "systemic racism" permeates everything. That the (primary) reason why your life isn't what you want is because other people are "racist" and are preventing your from advancing. While it's foolish to fail to acknowledge the instances and effects of codified racism, it's equally foolish to simply blame virtually everything on "systemic racism". This becomes even more problematic when looking critically at those who have historically controlled the systems is frowned on.
Like so many things, if one side is going to minimize or exclude certain possible explanations or to blame others for what the data says then it seems obvious that finding the best solution is doomed to failure.
We know that there are certain choices that will give individuals and families the best possible path out of poverty, yet those choices aren't emphasized. I've seen too many black people vilified for even suggesting that making good choices leads to better outcomes.
So yes, it is fascinating to see the response of progressives to anything that might cast even a shadow of doubt on the "systemic racism" narrative.
Note: I'm drawing a distinction between systemic or codified racism and the current narrative around systemic racism.
Systemic racism is a reality. You all not believing in it is similar to you all not believing in the moon landing. It was a matter if you believe in it or not. It's reality. Most likely, you all don't understand it I think it's something that it's not and you don't believe in your misunderstanding. But that's different. Reality is reality.
I would benefit by your explanation for the difference between "codified" and "systemic" for the purposes of this conversation. I'm not getting the distinction.
In the meantime, I would clarify my own position, that it is far less important what went before compared to what is true now. There is no impediment to success that is race based nor not experienced by anyone else. There are many examples from a far more racist period in history where that was true that it should be given the time of day in the here and now. If a policy or regulation is given as proof of racism, it must be proven to be so, not merely asserted because it serves a narrative...which is pretty much the only purpose for such accusations today. Once the narrative is accepted, those pushing it can profit. Those who do push that narrative need to do more than assert...FAR more.
When I talk about "codified" racism, I'm talking about things like FDR's racist housing laws. Things that were actually codified into law. This codified racism has mostly/entirely been eradicated, although the crack/powdered cocaine laws could be argued as codified racism as well.
When I talk about "systemic" racism, I'm referring the things embedded in various systems (government, ONG, etc) that, while racist to some degree, aren't actually written down and made official.
Why I draw a distinction is that codified racism is imposed on everyone affected by the law regardless of their actual views on race. For example, someone who wasn't actually racist was still required to obey FDR's racist housing policies. Systemic racism might permeate at government, a department, or a company, but it's still more about individual racism than official racism.
Hope that helps.
I agree that this obsessive focus on the past is ultimately counterproductive. Obsessing on slavery in the original English colonies really doesn't help us much with what we see today. Even if it did, it still takes the focus off of the possibility of future improvement and put it on the past. Further, this looking to the past is rarely evenhanded or accurate in it's portrayal. We're seeing this up here in the insistence that the same philosophies and people that have been protecting and implementing systemic racism, have somehow managed to get many people to ignore that fact and look to them for solutions.
I'd disagree that there is "no impediment to success". I think that there are some impediments to success, although they are fewer than in the past, they aren't necessarily all from the "system", and they don't seem to affect all ethnic groups equally.
Yes, things were more racist in the past (thanks Darwin and Sanger, who are still respected by the left in the present), and they're less racist now. Hopefully that will continue to get better. Unfortunately, we're all sinful and not perfect.
Of course I agree that policies or regulations should be supported by data. Although things like data, reason, mathematics, etc are now considered as racist, so this might be a problem going forward.
I pointed out that not only is there a distinction between codified and systemic racism, but that there is a distinction between systemic racism and the narrative of systemic racism.
As we've just seen with the Michael Brown case, the narrative has been demonstrated to be false thrice, yet the crowds still stick with the narrative over the truth.
So, I agree that the narrative needs to conform to facts and that less narrative and more truth is a good thing.
"To summarize, none of the actions we are told black people must take if they want to “lift themselves” out of poverty and gain financial stability — not marrying, not getting educated, not saving more, not owning a home — can mitigate 400 years of racialized plundering."
This quote that Dan insists is misinterpreted is interesting, because the actions she mentions have no relationship to "mitigating the past", they can only affect the future. There is no actions that can mitigate things that happened 400 years ago when Britain ruled these shores. The reality is that focusing on mitigating that past (blaming others) can be detrimental to improving conditions in the future.
I'll use one example. The Law of compound interest. The notion of starting early to save and invest money will result in significant growth is true regardless of your skin color or ethnicity. I was told this magical secret when I was in my 20's and I promptly chose to ignore it, but that has nothing to do with my skin color, and everything to do with my immaturity and bad choices.
The other example is home ownership as a vehicle for generational wealth. Yes, absolutely, FDR chose racism when his administration started the FHA. Between FDR and Truman they pretty much screwed black WW2 vets out of the ability to leverage their service into things like owning homes. No argument about that history. But, a little current reality. Regardless of your skin color or ethnic background, it you can muster a 650+ FICO score, come up with a 3% down payment (with multiple programs and much more liberal acceptance of gifts than in the past) it's possible to purchase a house. It might not be HGTV pimped out, it might even need some significant work, but that's how it's done. Habitat (I believe) coined the term for this "sweat equity". Of course for those who can't meet the current (pretty low) bar, there are organizations like Habitat that can subsidize those folks as well.
Finally, if we're going to focus on "mitigating" the past, why stop at 400 years ago and the east coast on North America?
Ultimately we need to not sugar coat or ignore the realities of history, we should be able to learn from past mistakes and do better going forward, but that doesn't mean constructing a narrative that doesn't look at history in it's entirety or push aside Truth in favor of narrative.
Re: 400 years. I believe the chick was referring to the four hundred years beginning four hundred years ago until now. That's how I took it. So, though it really, really sucked four hundred years ago, there was still some "racialized plundering" happening all along the way. Again, that's how I took it.
But it's still a crap argument. The first black millionaires in this country became so during a time of widespread racism. Racism was no impediment to their success because their determination to be successful was stronger than any race-based impediment...indeed, stronger than any impediment at all.
I think that today, racism as an impediment is an excuse. At worst, it is no more a factor in success than any other obstacle and thus, is not an excuse that is any more legitimate than any other. Ultimately, the only true impediment is our own selves.
I believe that the point of the 1619 project is to convey the narrative that slavery and its effects have been here since 1619. While the premise isn’t out and out false, it’s certainly not an accurate representation of the ubiquity of slavery.
Obviously slavery in The Americas predates 1619 and isn’t unique to the European settlers.
But it’s a catchy title, it’s not intended as historically accurate, and it’s about advancing a narrative.
I disagree that racism isn’t an impediment today. It is less of one, it can certainly be an excuse, and it’s definitely not the only impediment, but it is still a thing.
Is it truly an impediment if it can be overcome? Is it truly an impediment of any significance, and if not, is "impediment" the correct term to use? The more determined one is, the less significant any impediment is. To concede an impediment exists is to surrender to it. And when it's as minor a factor as racism is in this country, to spend so much time and effort focused on it is, ironically, to enslave one's self to an incredibly weak master. Thus, it is no more tgan one more excuse available to the black person who is lazy. Better black people pay it little mind, just as better people of every race have little regard for other, arguably more tangible impediments.
When I think that white conservatives like y'all are missing is this. We're not talking about the ability of an individual black person or family to be successful. Clearly that can happen.
We're talking about the systemic racism that effects and causes harm to the black community at large and wide and entangled number of ways.
An impediment is "a hindrance or obstruction in doing something.", which seems to be an appropriate term, and to indicate that an impediment can be overcome. Obviously ones determination and choices play into how easily one overcomes the impediment of racism, and the existence of the impediment can also be used as an excuse for those who are less determined. In either case, this semantic diversion seems like a Dan tactic. It's absurd to say "pay it no mind", knowing the obstacles that one faces are key to overcoming those obstacles, to pretend something doesn't exist as opposed to assessing honestly the impediments one faces is simply foolish and poor planning.
The data shows that it is possible to overcome whatever systemic racism exists. I assume that things will continue to trend in that direction.
What I think you're missing is the fact that we're individuals and as such don't fall under the stereotypical, prejudices about "white conservatives". But, as always, I appreciate the sanctimonious lecture from a white guy about these topics.
Perhaps if you read what I've said more closely, you'd not make these prejudiced generalizations.
As the data you ignored shows, this "systemic racism" doesn't seem to be as pervasive and wide ranging as you've thought. Clearly it's not a blanket racism that affects every minority the same way.
Where we diverge is that your side wants to focus on the past and the actions of others, while paying less attention to the actions/choices/and ways that communities affected by racism can help themselves.
How much of the millions/billions of dollars donated to BLM have gone to things like charter schools, job skills training centers, drug rehab centers. micro lending institutions, and other ways to directly help the black community?
As I said to Art, the key is to look honestly and diligently at ALL of the factors that impede minority success and focus on the ones that will provide the best ROI for those they help. If y'all think that tearing down statues or burning down buildings, or putting minority owned business out of business is going to make things better for people, cool. I can think of better things to put effort into.
Craig... "Where we diverge is that your side wants to focus on the past and the actions of other..."
Where we diverge is that I'm trying to listen to what black people are us - what all black people are saying, especially what the majority are saying their experiences are - whereas you're only listening to those who say things that you already agree with.
I am not saying, "let's focus on the past." Literally. I've never said that. You just made that up.
I'm saying, black people are telling us we can't ignore the past and pretend like it didn't happen or like all the advantages that have been handed down to the white community because of the oppression of black folks hasn't benefited us but clearly it has.
If one is handed a tangled ball of string it helps to know what led to the tangling. Those who ignore what led to the tangling are not going to fix it well. That's probably not the best analogy, but that's what I have for now.
“Where we diverge is that I'm trying to listen to what black people are us - what all black people are saying, especially what the majority are saying their experiences are - whereas you're only listening to those who say things that you already agree with.”
Apparently where we diverge is that you keep peddling this huge, false, pile of bullshit,
Of course your right that tearing down statues of abolitionists and destroying the hard work of immigrants and minorities is a helpful positive way forward. I’ll note that you had one question that you could have answered, and you chose to avoid it. As I’ll note that there has been evidence presented that you’ve ignored.
Since no one is saying that we should “ignore the past”, and “pretend it never happened”, I guess you’ve just decided to argue against straw men when you’re not lying.
FYI, it’s possible to determine the focus of a movement by observing what the people involved do. It’s not necessary to use a specific phrase or set of words to communicate what’s important.
I also love how the two big things you’ve offered as evidence are 1. An old white guy who’s claim to fame is being the voice of an animated vegetable, whose theology you’d likely disagree with. 2. 2 rich, old, white men who live in a state that’s less than 2% black.
So you say “listen to blacks”, yet you (older white guy), keeps offering as experts in racism, old white guys. Interesting.
"Where we diverge is that I'm trying to listen to what black people are us - what all black people are saying, especially what the majority are saying their experiences are - whereas you're only listening to those who say things that you already agree with."
False on both counts. We're listening to black voices that are citing evidence, stats and "hard data" to support their positions and beliefs. You're favoring black voices that provide subjective perspectives that we have to take at face value with absolutely no evidence, stats or "hard data" in support of it. Said another way, we're hearing one side of a story with no basis for knowing that the person relating the story is doing so accurately or even truthfully. "I was stopped because I'm black." versus "I stopped him because he was speeding." You're only hearing the former and accepting that as the reality. We've heard those tales as well, but unlike you...and here's the divergence...we're objective in the listening, not swayed by emotion (even though emotion may seek to influence). It's not nearly enough because there's no way to verify such stories.
As to the past, you analogy...as usual...is crap. I don't need to know how the string got tangled if I need the string for a purpose. I only need to untangle it. But I'll help you with your analogy: If I continue to be handed tangled balls of string I must untangle before putting them to use, then I look to see why string is always tangled. But again, I don't assume the story I'm told is accurate without evidence to validate. You would.
To build further on your string analogy. If I continue to be handed tangled balls of string by the same people over and over, my concern isn’t how or why the string got tangled, but how to find people who won’t make the same mistake over and over. Especially if the people who hand me the tangled string keep telling me that they’re experts in string untangling. There comes a point where it makes sense to start over.
One more word on "impediments". If one is going to argue that racism was an impediment to their success, regardless of whether or not they achieved any, it would seem to me to be important to be able to provide more than just the assertion that it was. An impediment might exist, but to what extent did it really impede? Is it enough to merely assert that it did? I say "no", because it skews reality if it is not so or if it was over-hyped as an actual obstacle.
Far better than using ANYthing as such an excuse is to focus on what really matters and has proven effective for the successful: dedication, perseverance, discipline, etc. NOT excuse making, which using racism as an actual impediment is.
I'm not sure why your clinging so tightly to this position. It is foolish not to acknowledge that some degree of racism exists and that it impedes blacks to some degree or another. Having said that, the bigger issue is how does one overcome the impediments that one encounters when trying to achieve success. I think you are having trouble differentiating between the existence of an impediment and using that impediment as an excuse for not trying or for failure. If one knows the impediment exists, then one can strategize ways to surmount it.
I agree that using the existence of an impediment or blaming others for ones failures is a problem, but acknowledging and strategizing how to surmount the impediment is laudable.
One of the things I hear constantly around my work is people saying things like, "If X has been done once, then it can be done again.". In this context, that means that the existence of a success story like Ben Carson, means that being born and raised by a single mother in a project, isn't necessarily the dead end that many perceive. It isn't easy, it's not a path everyone will choose, it takes work and dedication, but it's possible.
Our problem is to figure out what can be done by society at large to facilitate more success stories like Carson, rather that to settle for the status quo.
I'm not at all disregarding the existence of racism. My position is that it doesn't exist in any substantial way that results in it being a really significant impediment to success. More than racism itself, it is the perception of racism...the certainty that racism is the reason one is denied, hampered or in any way impeded from achievement, when it never really was. I believe this is far more common to the point of being the most likely case. Said another way, there is no greater impediment to success but one's own self. All others pale in comparison.
"1. Your question implies that you know that the piece, which doesn’t give any indication of the skin color of the author, is authored by a POC.
2. It’s an official B/J website, are you suggesting that B/J aren’t supportive of it?"
Black people are saying listen to us, to all of us. And yet, you were only citing black people who agree with you, the minority of black people.
I'm saying listen to all black people, including those who disagree with you, especially when they're the vast majority who are telling you their experience.
Black people are also asking white allies to listen to us, AND, since so many white people won't listen to us, use your words and privilege to speak to those white people who won't listen to us. And so, since you're not listening to all black people but just those who agree with you, then I cite the VeggieTales guy or the Ben & Jerry's website, whoever it was written by. (I don't know the race of the person or people who wrote it, but I do recognize it as coming from a black voice. Whether was written down by white person or not, the words and information are what many black people are telling you.)
The problem you're having is that you're not listening to all black voices and so when I cite white voices that you might listen to, you criticize me for citing white sources, or allegedly white sources.
You can't have it both ways. You want to listen to Black voices? Read some of the literature out there from black people. You must be aware of them by now. Read about that, cite some of those voices, the majority voices in the black community. Reflect on those and demonstrate that you're listening to all black voices.
I cited the two sources I cited because I didn't think either of you all would be willing to put the effort into reading more serious books and authors, but if you are, listen to these black voices, read their words, then respond.
"Black people are saying listen to us, to all of us. And yet, you were only citing black people who agree with you, the minority of black people."
1. That's false. 2. Who I cite and who I listen two are two entirely different things. 3. Majority does not equal right, minority does not equal wrong. You're back to arguing from numbers, a logical fallacy. 4. I quote the black people I quote to expose folks like you to a broader spectrum or black voices.
"I'm saying listen to all black people, including those who disagree with you, especially when they're the vast majority who are telling you their experience."
I'm saying that if you don't meet this absurd standard you try to impose on me, why should I take you seriously. See #3 above.
"Black people are also asking white allies to listen to us, AND, since so many white people won't listen to us, use your words and privilege to speak to those white people who won't listen to us."
Since you appear to be identifying as black, I have nothing more to say to this idiocy.
"And so, since you're not listening to all black people but just those who agree with you,..."
If you are going to make claims of fact like this, then either provide proof or apologize for lying.
".. then I cite the VeggieTales guy or the Ben & Jerry's website, whoever it was written by. (I don't know the race of the person or people who wrote it, but I do recognize it as coming from a black voice. Whether was written down by white person or not, the words and information are what many black people are telling you.)"
So, you're assuming that it's a "black voice" without actual proof. FYI, the BJ piece threw out a bunch of "statistics", but didn't actually prove that those facts are exclusively and conclusively due to racism.
"You can't have it both ways. You want to listen to Black voices?"
I'm not trying to have it both ways, that would be you. What's interesting is that the piece I linked to at the beginning of the post, contained multiple examples of data, and you've responded to absolutely nothing, beyond your subjective bullshit excuse. It seems pretty clear that you're not living up to the standards you demand of others.
"Read about that, cite some of those voices, the majority voices in the black community. Reflect on those and demonstrate that you're listening to all black voices."
Of course, I do and have. Fortunately, you don't get to make demands and be taken seriously. Especially since you've ignored data and dodged questions.
"I cited the two sources I cited because I didn't think either of you all would be willing to put the effort into reading more serious books and authors, but if you are, listen to these black voices, read their words, then respond."
What a bunch of prejudice driven, presumptuous, bullshit.
Above are links to three examples of black voices saying things you probably wouldn't normally listen to. Since I've confounded your prejudices, and watched/read that two white voices that you've offered, it only seems reasonable that you'd jump at the chance to live up to the standards you try to impose on others.
I'll have at least one more as soon as it's available.
I've addressed pretty much everything except your comment that the perception of racism is a problem.
I agree that if people are constantly told that there is someone or something that is out to get them, or to hold them down, that they are likely to believe it and to act on that belief. I see no reason why this wouldn't apply to racism. The question then becomes, how do you get people to look at racism accurately, and to encourage people that they can overcome obstacles?
Wealth. Since the piece makes the very basic error of equating income with wealth, I find it hard to take seriously. Further, the breakdown of % of wealth that we see in the white demographic is also present in the black demographic. Small percentage of blacks own @90% of the wealth. This raises the possibility that there are other factors beyond racism.
I will acknowledge that in the absence of FDR's racist restrictions on housing loans, it's likely that the black wealth number would be higher.
It also ignores that fact that "whites" are ranked like 15th in terms of median household income as of 2018. So clearly not all racial groups are held back by this "systemic" racism.
Employment. Since this propaganda was put together in 2016, it doesn't consider the recent significant gains in employment in the black community.
It also doesn't take into account the median income stat above.
Education. While I'm not going to dig deeply into this, I'll point out that numbers of black students in college has increased since 2000. I'll point out that the education system is run almost entirely by those on the political left. I'll point out that there has been a cultural bias against education in the black community for decades.
Criminal Justice. While I think that this is potentially one of the stronger arguments, I've seen enough other evidence to not have some questions. Further, I think that reducing it to skin color ignores the influence of wealth and power. With OJ being the poster child for this we certainly have seen rich and powerful blacks "get off" in recent years. FYI, I've looked at the stats for incarceration and there are a lot more possible factors that skew the numbers.
Housing. FDR's racist housing policies are probably the most significant example of this. Yet current law and practice is strongly protective of the various protected classes.
Surveillance. Extrapolating "pulled over" into "surveillance" seems like a stretch. As does including generic "Muslims" into the discussion. I'll say that the majority of traffic stops for blacks seem to be "equipment" violations. Which raises the questions about those laws and how necessary they are. If driving without brake lights is a legitimate issue for safety, then it's hard to ascribe pulling a car with broken brake lights over to racism. Obviously, it can be a ruse, but we'd need to see proof before speculating.
Health Care. I suspect that there are many factors that are unaddressed in this piece to make the blanket, objective, claim that it's all "systemic racism".
I'll simply close by saying that cherry picking a small number of studies doesn't really give us the slam dunk proof that the piece claims that it does.
I don't know how to get someone from changing their perspective if they've proven themselves so attached to it for whatever the reason. All that can be done, I suspect, is to continually insist upon hard evidence from them, which would include proving that those who have achieved success didn't also face them ssme or worse challenges. Then reiterate the question, if they can, why can't you?
Craig... "One the other hand, I listen to a black guy reviewing White Fragility and he tells me this, https://slowtowrite.com/white-fragility-is-pro-racism/.
I'm not sure if I should listen to the black guy or not."
As I've been consistently saying, you should listen to ALL black voices. Not just the ones that reinforce your prejudices and biases. Especially not when that black voice that agrees with your foregone conclusions is a minority voice within the black community.
After all, it IS possible that some black people haven't experienced oppression by cops. I'm certain that it happens. BUT, the majority report a very real oppression from cops. If you ONLY listen to the minority who say they get along fine with the police, you are ignoring black voices.
You begin by listening to the majority opinion/voices, just because there are so many of them. THEN you continue by not denouncing and denying their very real experiences and opinions. That's the tack of the racists.
Listen to ALL black voices, Craig. Not just the ones you find comforting to your fragile white privilege.
Marshal posts a link to some apparently white economist who uses Machiavelli as his icon, who assures us that he doesn't think we should listen to Robin Dianegelo's voice. That's promising.
So, I should listen to ALL black voices (something you don't do), except the ones that you deem unsuitable or in the minority. I'd ask you if you acknowledge the reality that you're retreating into arguing from numbers, but you haven't answered a question in the last 3-4 threads so that would be a waste of time.
The question isn't, "Is someone in the "minority"?. It's is that person correct, accurate, or telling the Truth?.
"After all, it IS possible that some black people haven't experienced oppression by cops."
Not only is it possible, it's the position supported by actual data.
"I'm certain that it happens. BUT, the majority report a very real oppression from cops."
What you seem to be suggesting is that we uncritically accept "the majority" impressions, regardless of what the reality might be. We've literally seen multiple instances where body cam/dash cam footage has demonstrated that there was no "racist oppression" despite the claims of the "victims". We're seeing an increasing number of claims of "racist oppression" that are being demonstrated to be false.
"If you ONLY listen to the minority who say they get along fine with the police, you are ignoring black voices."
Thank goodness I'm not doing what you keep falsely claiming I'm doing. It won't stop you from making your false claims, but at least you've been notified.
"You begin by listening to the majority opinion/voices, just because there are so many of them. THEN you continue by not denouncing and denying their very real experiences and opinions. That's the tack of the racists."
Thank you oh magical white guy for telling me the "right" way to do things when it comes to "black voices", and for continuing to peddle the "majority=right/Truth" fallacy.
"Listen to ALL black voices, Craig. Not just the ones you find comforting to your fragile white privilege."
If you can't prove your bullshit lies, stop. Prove your claims or shut the hell up.
What you've done here is to ignore the multiple black voices I've suggested that you read/listen to, and marginalized them to the "minority" before you've even read/listened to them. You haven't even attempted to demonstrate that your "magic Negroes" are correct, or that the people I've suggested are wrong. Instead, you've lied about me, relegated them to the "minority", and engaged in both ad hom and arguing from numbers logical fallacies. I could conclude that you don't want to engage with the "black voices" that contradict your narrative because you're concerned that they might be right.
I guess it's OK for you to make assumptions about people's ethnicity, while you criticize/question others for doing so. FYI, people often use things for their icons that are attempts to be humorous or ironic. But, you've chosen to substitute your prejudices and assumptions for actually engaging with the content of anything you've been offered.
I'll make a suggestion. If you aren't willing to do something, don't demand that others do the thing that you aren't willing to do.
"Marshal posts a link to some apparently white economist who uses Machiavelli as his icon, who assures us that he doesn't think we should listen to Robin Dianegelo's voice. That's promising."
This is out of feo's playbook. Don't address the points made, but simply attack the person making the points for whatever lame reason one can easily grab. Who cares what icon he uses (I mean besides morons)? How do you make the case that his points aren't valid? The dude does more than simply "assure" us we shouldn't listen to DiAngelo. He shows why her position is crap. Dan likely hasn't read the book anyway and it seems clear he didn't read this guys critique of it.
And again, it's straight out of feo's playbook. Apparently Dan wasn't satisfied with his own lack of arguments against that which doesn't align with what he prefers to be true (regardless of whether or not it is). Way, way back, I posted a very detailed and scholarly discussion of Levitical law, which explained why some of it applies to Christians today and why other parts of it doesn't. It didn't work for the pro-homosexual "progressives" like Dan and feo. Dan simply shrugged it off saying "I don't buy it", without every explaining why or where the authors went wrong. feo attacked the authors, particularly one who is, by trade, an aeronautical engineer. Apparently, in feo's warped and hateful imaginings, one is incapable of being expert and scholarly on more than one subject at a time. In the meantime, neither he nor Dan are expert in anything except being wrong. But now Dan adopts this mode of attack to disparage the critique of DiAngelo's book.
Dan's not interested in listening to black voices. He's interested in convincing people that a fiction is reality, while disparaging all who provide "hard data" proving his preferred narrative is indeed fiction. This is serious stuff. To perpetuate falsehood...even out of a sense of sincere concern...is detrimental to all who buy in to the falsehood. Why would a real Christian do such a thing? It's clear neither he nor his troll are real Christians at all.
Dan's relationship to data definitely seems to be fluid, it probably correlates with how closely any given data supports his positions.
For example, we're seeing increasing data that suggests that "sex transition" isn't the healthy, cure all that it's presented as. Data suggests that a significant number of people who experience gender dysphoria (if not encouraged to transition quickly) end up in a place where they realize that their biological gender is "correct". We also see that in this discussion, the "hard science" of biology gets sidelined for the "soft science" of psychology.
But yeah, it's all about the data.
I also pointed out the phenomenon you address elsewhere. It's so much easier to go after people than it is to actually engage with their arguments. It's so much easier to dismiss people for shallow reasons (their avatar, or something superficial) than to demonstrate that their arguments are bad.
It's why Dan keeps insisting that he's conversant enough in every possible argument that a conservative has ever made, because he read some stuff 30 years ago. He hasn't demonstrated that any of the stuff he read was wrong, or that he's right. He just insists that none of it is convincing and that he's has no obligations beyond that assertion. Because it's all just opinion anyway.
Indeed. For Dan and most lefties, it's not a matter of what's true, but whether it's personally pleasing. If it is, then it is asserted as true or worth hearing by others.
53 comments:
The post begins with two clearly and amazingly false claims....
"Systemic racism is the idea that people can’t lift themselves out of poverty by making good decisions, because powerful groups in society that hold the poor down, regardless of their decisions..."
Says who? This is a very mistaken view. He can't find anybody who gives us definition, he makes it up himself. That may be his impression, but it's not the operating definition the people who use the term are talking about. As such, it's just a false claim. What is the source for this?
"Do you think that America is a place where no matter what choices you make, you’ll never be able to be more properous? That’s what the leaders of Black Lives Matter think..."
Again, says who? I've never heard anybody associated with black lives matter say this, nor do I think it's what they believe.
It sounds like this person is just not familiar with systemic racism or black lives matter.
Before you say to me, prove it, he's making the claim. The onus is on him to prove it. I'm saying it doesn't exist out there in the real world what he said.
He didn't offer any support for these claims, I'm saying he didn't because those aren't real world realities.
I can't prove a negative. He has to support his claim if he wants to be taken seriously.
Dan,
I'm simply going to point out that the gentleman in question is literally not white. He's literally the exact person who should be able to speak on "systemic racism". I guess if you're going to try to impose your white privileged opinions on him, that tells us something about how you view voices of POC.
I'll point out that he provides a quote that pretty much says what you claim he can't prove, and that you've chosen not to demonstrate that the DATA he provides is somehow faulty.
I guess your white, liberal, privilege trumps his data and ethnicity.
Again, I merely posted the link and said it was an interesting perspective from a POC. If you have problems, take it up with him directly.
It's also interesting how you respond to POC who don't agree with you.
I know he's black. He's a black man who posted two unsupported claims, false claims as far as I can see.
How I respond to poc who don't agree with me?
I pointed out some facts, and that he didn't support his claim. What's wrong with that?
"To summarize, none of the actions we are told black people must take if they want to “lift themselves” out of poverty and gain financial stability — not marrying, not getting educated, not saving more, not owning a home — can mitigate 400 years of racialized plundering."
I'll note that this comment comes from the creator of the 1619 project. Who also just pointed out that the 1619 project was never intended to be history (ie accurate), but instead is a work of "journalism". It's interesting that Wells is suggesting that "journalism" isn't about accurately reporting facts, but about "challenging the national narrative". I've always thought that facts and truth were important, I guess not.
"How I respond to poc who don't agree with me?"
Yes, you tend toward uncritical acceptance of any POC who agrees with you, and critical dismissal of those that don't. For example, you bitch that he didn't "support" his opinions, yet you ignore the quote he provided as well as the data.
"I pointed out some facts, and that he didn't support his claim. What's wrong with that?"
I'd point out that you rarely support your claims either, but that wouldn't matter.
The reality is that your liberal, white, privilege is on full display here. This, attitude of "ignore the black man, listen to me.".
"It sounds like this person is just not familiar with systemic racism or black lives matter."
Because you as a white liberal are much more qualified to spew about what racism is that an actual POC.
That y'all misunderstand her words does not mean that she says what you think she saying. As always, it appears y'all have a reading comprehension problem. We're all seeing the words, but they're not saying but you think they're saying.
Fascinating to see Dan object to the accurate assessment of what believers in the notion of "systemic racism" truly is. The explanation is true..."SR" is an excuse for failure. If a black person fails to achieve,by golly it just has to be the fault of someone else!!
AHHHHHHHH...
The old "misunderstand" trope. It's almost like you think that you have some sort of supernatural power to correctly interpret the words of others that no one else has. Yet, that you feel like simply asserting something as a fact settles the argument.
"He didn't offer any support for these claims,"
But he did. He offered that quote I pointed out, as well as multiple examples of data to support his point. I'm sorry that your claim has been proven false and that you're stuck with "You don't understand, but I do." as your fallback.
You've taken a small part of the entire piece, misrepresented it, and used that as your excuse to make a false claim about the whole and ignore the data.
Well done. That poor black guy couldn't possibly have understood what the enlightened white guy understands.
Art,
I think that part of the problem is that Dan might not be open to looking at the logical conclusion of what people are saying. So, while they aren't using certain specific words and phrases, they are definitely sending the massage that "systemic racism" permeates everything. That the (primary) reason why your life isn't what you want is because other people are "racist" and are preventing your from advancing. While it's foolish to fail to acknowledge the instances and effects of codified racism, it's equally foolish to simply blame virtually everything on "systemic racism". This becomes even more problematic when looking critically at those who have historically controlled the systems is frowned on.
Like so many things, if one side is going to minimize or exclude certain possible explanations or to blame others for what the data says then it seems obvious that finding the best solution is doomed to failure.
We know that there are certain choices that will give individuals and families the best possible path out of poverty, yet those choices aren't emphasized. I've seen too many black people vilified for even suggesting that making good choices leads to better outcomes.
So yes, it is fascinating to see the response of progressives to anything that might cast even a shadow of doubt on the "systemic racism" narrative.
Note: I'm drawing a distinction between systemic or codified racism and the current narrative around systemic racism.
Systemic racism is a reality. You all not believing in it is similar to you all not believing in the moon landing. It was a matter if you believe in it or not. It's reality. Most likely, you all don't understand it I think it's something that it's not and you don't believe in your misunderstanding. But that's different. Reality is reality.
I would benefit by your explanation for the difference between "codified" and "systemic" for the purposes of this conversation. I'm not getting the distinction.
In the meantime, I would clarify my own position, that it is far less important what went before compared to what is true now. There is no impediment to success that is race based nor not experienced by anyone else. There are many examples from a far more racist period in history where that was true that it should be given the time of day in the here and now. If a policy or regulation is given as proof of racism, it must be proven to be so, not merely asserted because it serves a narrative...which is pretty much the only purpose for such accusations today. Once the narrative is accepted, those pushing it can profit. Those who do push that narrative need to do more than assert...FAR more.
Dan,
First you misrepresent WK's comments, now you misrepresent mine. All the while ignoring the data.
Art,
When I talk about "codified" racism, I'm talking about things like FDR's racist housing laws. Things that were actually codified into law. This codified racism has mostly/entirely been eradicated, although the crack/powdered cocaine laws could be argued as codified racism as well.
When I talk about "systemic" racism, I'm referring the things embedded in various systems (government, ONG, etc) that, while racist to some degree, aren't actually written down and made official.
Why I draw a distinction is that codified racism is imposed on everyone affected by the law regardless of their actual views on race. For example, someone who wasn't actually racist was still required to obey FDR's racist housing policies. Systemic racism might permeate at government, a department, or a company, but it's still more about individual racism than official racism.
Hope that helps.
I agree that this obsessive focus on the past is ultimately counterproductive. Obsessing on slavery in the original English colonies really doesn't help us much with what we see today. Even if it did, it still takes the focus off of the possibility of future improvement and put it on the past. Further, this looking to the past is rarely evenhanded or accurate in it's portrayal. We're seeing this up here in the insistence that the same philosophies and people that have been protecting and implementing systemic racism, have somehow managed to get many people to ignore that fact and look to them for solutions.
I'd disagree that there is "no impediment to success". I think that there are some impediments to success, although they are fewer than in the past, they aren't necessarily all from the "system", and they don't seem to affect all ethnic groups equally.
Yes, things were more racist in the past (thanks Darwin and Sanger, who are still respected by the left in the present), and they're less racist now. Hopefully that will continue to get better. Unfortunately, we're all sinful and not perfect.
Of course I agree that policies or regulations should be supported by data. Although things like data, reason, mathematics, etc are now considered as racist, so this might be a problem going forward.
I pointed out that not only is there a distinction between codified and systemic racism, but that there is a distinction between systemic racism and the narrative of systemic racism.
As we've just seen with the Michael Brown case, the narrative has been demonstrated to be false thrice, yet the crowds still stick with the narrative over the truth.
So, I agree that the narrative needs to conform to facts and that less narrative and more truth is a good thing.
"To summarize, none of the actions we are told black people must take if they want to “lift themselves” out of poverty and gain financial stability — not marrying, not getting educated, not saving more, not owning a home — can mitigate 400 years of racialized plundering."
This quote that Dan insists is misinterpreted is interesting, because the actions she mentions have no relationship to "mitigating the past", they can only affect the future. There is no actions that can mitigate things that happened 400 years ago when Britain ruled these shores. The reality is that focusing on mitigating that past (blaming others) can be detrimental to improving conditions in the future.
I'll use one example. The Law of compound interest. The notion of starting early to save and invest money will result in significant growth is true regardless of your skin color or ethnicity. I was told this magical secret when I was in my 20's and I promptly chose to ignore it, but that has nothing to do with my skin color, and everything to do with my immaturity and bad choices.
The other example is home ownership as a vehicle for generational wealth. Yes, absolutely, FDR chose racism when his administration started the FHA. Between FDR and Truman they pretty much screwed black WW2 vets out of the ability to leverage their service into things like owning homes. No argument about that history. But, a little current reality. Regardless of your skin color or ethnic background, it you can muster a 650+ FICO score, come up with a 3% down payment (with multiple programs and much more liberal acceptance of gifts than in the past) it's possible to purchase a house. It might not be HGTV pimped out, it might even need some significant work, but that's how it's done. Habitat (I believe) coined the term for this "sweat equity". Of course for those who can't meet the current (pretty low) bar, there are organizations like Habitat that can subsidize those folks as well.
Finally, if we're going to focus on "mitigating" the past, why stop at 400 years ago and the east coast on North America?
Ultimately we need to not sugar coat or ignore the realities of history, we should be able to learn from past mistakes and do better going forward, but that doesn't mean constructing a narrative that doesn't look at history in it's entirety or push aside Truth in favor of narrative.
Re: 400 years. I believe the chick was referring to the four hundred years beginning four hundred years ago until now. That's how I took it. So, though it really, really sucked four hundred years ago, there was still some "racialized plundering" happening all along the way. Again, that's how I took it.
But it's still a crap argument. The first black millionaires in this country became so during a time of widespread racism. Racism was no impediment to their success because their determination to be successful was stronger than any race-based impediment...indeed, stronger than any impediment at all.
I think that today, racism as an impediment is an excuse. At worst, it is no more a factor in success than any other obstacle and thus, is not an excuse that is any more legitimate than any other. Ultimately, the only true impediment is our own selves.
I believe that the point of the 1619 project is to convey the narrative that slavery and its effects have been here since 1619. While the premise isn’t out and out false, it’s certainly not an accurate representation of the ubiquity of slavery.
Obviously slavery in The Americas predates 1619 and isn’t unique to the European settlers.
But it’s a catchy title, it’s not intended as historically accurate, and it’s about advancing a narrative.
I disagree that racism isn’t an impediment today. It is less of one, it can certainly be an excuse, and it’s definitely not the only impediment, but it is still a thing.
Is it truly an impediment if it can be overcome? Is it truly an impediment of any significance, and if not, is "impediment" the correct term to use? The more determined one is, the less significant any impediment is. To concede an impediment exists is to surrender to it. And when it's as minor a factor as racism is in this country, to spend so much time and effort focused on it is, ironically, to enslave one's self to an incredibly weak master. Thus, it is no more tgan one more excuse available to the black person who is lazy. Better black people pay it little mind, just as better people of every race have little regard for other, arguably more tangible impediments.
When I think that white conservatives like y'all are missing is this. We're not talking about the ability of an individual black person or family to be successful. Clearly that can happen.
We're talking about the systemic racism that effects and causes harm to the black community at large and wide and entangled number of ways.
Art,
An impediment is "a hindrance or obstruction in doing something.", which seems to be an appropriate term, and to indicate that an impediment can be overcome. Obviously ones determination and choices play into how easily one overcomes the impediment of racism, and the existence of the impediment can also be used as an excuse for those who are less determined. In either case, this semantic diversion seems like a Dan tactic. It's absurd to say "pay it no mind", knowing the obstacles that one faces are key to overcoming those obstacles, to pretend something doesn't exist as opposed to assessing honestly the impediments one faces is simply foolish and poor planning.
The data shows that it is possible to overcome whatever systemic racism exists. I assume that things will continue to trend in that direction.
Dan,
What I think you're missing is the fact that we're individuals and as such don't fall under the stereotypical, prejudices about "white conservatives". But, as always, I appreciate the sanctimonious lecture from a white guy about these topics.
Perhaps if you read what I've said more closely, you'd not make these prejudiced generalizations.
As the data you ignored shows, this "systemic racism" doesn't seem to be as pervasive and wide ranging as you've thought. Clearly it's not a blanket racism that affects every minority the same way.
Where we diverge is that your side wants to focus on the past and the actions of others, while paying less attention to the actions/choices/and ways that communities affected by racism can help themselves.
How much of the millions/billions of dollars donated to BLM have gone to things like charter schools, job skills training centers, drug rehab centers. micro lending institutions, and other ways to directly help the black community?
As I said to Art, the key is to look honestly and diligently at ALL of the factors that impede minority success and focus on the ones that will provide the best ROI for those they help. If y'all think that tearing down statues or burning down buildings, or putting minority owned business out of business is going to make things better for people, cool. I can think of better things to put effort into.
Craig... "Where we diverge is that your side wants to focus on the past and the actions of other..."
Where we diverge is that I'm trying to listen to what black people are us - what all black people are saying, especially what the majority are saying their experiences are - whereas you're only listening to those who say things that you already agree with.
I am not saying, "let's focus on the past." Literally. I've never said that. You just made that up.
I'm saying, black people are telling us we can't ignore the past and pretend like it didn't happen or like all the advantages that have been handed down to the white community because of the oppression of black folks hasn't benefited us but clearly it has.
If one is handed a tangled ball of string it helps to know what led to the tangling. Those who ignore what led to the tangling are not going to fix it well. That's probably not the best analogy, but that's what I have for now.
Systemic racism explained, by Ben & Jerry's...
https://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2016/systemic-racism-is-real
“Where we diverge is that I'm trying to listen to what black people are us - what all black people are saying, especially what the majority are saying their experiences are - whereas you're only listening to those who say things that you already agree with.”
Apparently where we diverge is that you keep peddling this huge, false, pile of bullshit,
Of course your right that tearing down statues of abolitionists and destroying the hard work of immigrants and minorities is a helpful positive way forward. I’ll note that you had one question that you could have answered, and you chose to avoid it. As I’ll note that there has been evidence presented that you’ve ignored.
Since no one is saying that we should “ignore the past”, and “pretend it never happened”, I guess you’ve just decided to argue against straw men when you’re not lying.
FYI, it’s possible to determine the focus of a movement by observing what the people involved do. It’s not necessary to use a specific phrase or set of words to communicate what’s important.
I also love how the two big things you’ve offered as evidence are 1. An old white guy who’s claim to fame is being the voice of an animated vegetable, whose theology you’d likely disagree with. 2. 2 rich, old, white men who live in a state that’s less than 2% black.
So you say “listen to blacks”, yet you (older white guy), keeps offering as experts in racism, old white guys. Interesting.
How many blacks are employed at Ben and Jerry’s? How many are supervisors, managers, or executives? How many blacks employed by Vischer?
Are you assuming that the B/J information did not come from an African American(s)? Why would you make that presumption?
"Where we diverge is that I'm trying to listen to what black people are us - what all black people are saying, especially what the majority are saying their experiences are - whereas you're only listening to those who say things that you already agree with."
False on both counts. We're listening to black voices that are citing evidence, stats and "hard data" to support their positions and beliefs. You're favoring black voices that provide subjective perspectives that we have to take at face value with absolutely no evidence, stats or "hard data" in support of it. Said another way, we're hearing one side of a story with no basis for knowing that the person relating the story is doing so accurately or even truthfully. "I was stopped because I'm black." versus "I stopped him because he was speeding." You're only hearing the former and accepting that as the reality. We've heard those tales as well, but unlike you...and here's the divergence...we're objective in the listening, not swayed by emotion (even though emotion may seek to influence). It's not nearly enough because there's no way to verify such stories.
As to the past, you analogy...as usual...is crap. I don't need to know how the string got tangled if I need the string for a purpose. I only need to untangle it. But I'll help you with your analogy: If I continue to be handed tangled balls of string I must untangle before putting them to use, then I look to see why string is always tangled. But again, I don't assume the story I'm told is accurate without evidence to validate. You would.
I’m impressed with your brazenness, to ask a question after ignoring multiple questions is impressive even for you.
1. Your question implies that you know that the piece, which doesn’t give any indication of the skin color of the author, is authored by a POC.
2. It’s an official B/J website, are you suggesting that B/J aren’t supportive of it?
3. You’re the one who used B/J not me.
4. Your selective listening to black people is amusing.
5. Your selective acceptance of data is as well.
Art,
To build further on your string analogy. If I continue to be handed tangled balls of string by the same people over and over, my concern isn’t how or why the string got tangled, but how to find people who won’t make the same mistake over and over. Especially if the people who hand me the tangled string keep telling me that they’re experts in string untangling. There comes a point where it makes sense to start over.
6. Even if the actual words were written by a black person, you offer it with the authority/credibility of B/J, not because of the actual author.
One more word on "impediments". If one is going to argue that racism was an impediment to their success, regardless of whether or not they achieved any, it would seem to me to be important to be able to provide more than just the assertion that it was. An impediment might exist, but to what extent did it really impede? Is it enough to merely assert that it did? I say "no", because it skews reality if it is not so or if it was over-hyped as an actual obstacle.
Far better than using ANYthing as such an excuse is to focus on what really matters and has proven effective for the successful: dedication, perseverance, discipline, etc. NOT excuse making, which using racism as an actual impediment is.
Art,
I'm not sure why your clinging so tightly to this position. It is foolish not to acknowledge that some degree of racism exists and that it impedes blacks to some degree or another. Having said that, the bigger issue is how does one overcome the impediments that one encounters when trying to achieve success. I think you are having trouble differentiating between the existence of an impediment and using that impediment as an excuse for not trying or for failure. If one knows the impediment exists, then one can strategize ways to surmount it.
I agree that using the existence of an impediment or blaming others for ones failures is a problem, but acknowledging and strategizing how to surmount the impediment is laudable.
One of the things I hear constantly around my work is people saying things like, "If X has been done once, then it can be done again.". In this context, that means that the existence of a success story like Ben Carson, means that being born and raised by a single mother in a project, isn't necessarily the dead end that many perceive. It isn't easy, it's not a path everyone will choose, it takes work and dedication, but it's possible.
Our problem is to figure out what can be done by society at large to facilitate more success stories like Carson, rather that to settle for the status quo.
I'm not at all disregarding the existence of racism. My position is that it doesn't exist in any substantial way that results in it being a really significant impediment to success. More than racism itself, it is the perception of racism...the certainty that racism is the reason one is denied, hampered or in any way impeded from achievement, when it never really was. I believe this is far more common to the point of being the most likely case. Said another way, there is no greater impediment to success but one's own self. All others pale in comparison.
Craig...
"1. Your question implies that you know that the piece, which doesn’t give any indication of the skin color of the author, is authored by a POC.
2. It’s an official B/J website, are you suggesting that B/J aren’t supportive of it?"
Black people are saying listen to us, to all of us. And yet, you were only citing black people who agree with you, the minority of black people.
I'm saying listen to all black people, including those who disagree with you, especially when they're the vast majority who are telling you their experience.
Black people are also asking white allies to listen to us, AND, since so many white people won't listen to us, use your words and privilege to speak to those white people who won't listen to us. And so, since you're not listening to all black people but just those who agree with you, then I cite the VeggieTales guy or the Ben & Jerry's website, whoever it was written by. (I don't know the race of the person or people who wrote it, but I do recognize it as coming from a black voice. Whether was written down by white person or not, the words and information are what many black people are telling you.)
The problem you're having is that you're not listening to all black voices and so when I cite white voices that you might listen to, you criticize me for citing white sources, or allegedly white sources.
You can't have it both ways. You want to listen to Black voices? Read some of the literature out there from black people. You must be aware of them by now. Read about that, cite some of those voices, the majority voices in the black community. Reflect on those and demonstrate that you're listening to all black voices.
I cited the two sources I cited because I didn't think either of you all would be willing to put the effort into reading more serious books and authors, but if you are, listen to these black voices, read their words, then respond.
Some examples...
How to be Anti-Racist,
White Fragility...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nymag.com/strategist/amp/article/anti-racist-reading-list.html
"Black people are saying listen to us, to all of us. And yet, you were only citing black people who agree with you, the minority of black people."
1. That's false.
2. Who I cite and who I listen two are two entirely different things.
3. Majority does not equal right, minority does not equal wrong. You're back to arguing from numbers, a logical fallacy.
4. I quote the black people I quote to expose folks like you to a broader spectrum or black voices.
"I'm saying listen to all black people, including those who disagree with you, especially when they're the vast majority who are telling you their experience."
I'm saying that if you don't meet this absurd standard you try to impose on me, why should I take you seriously. See #3 above.
"Black people are also asking white allies to listen to us, AND, since so many white people won't listen to us, use your words and privilege to speak to those white people who won't listen to us."
Since you appear to be identifying as black, I have nothing more to say to this idiocy.
"And so, since you're not listening to all black people but just those who agree with you,..."
If you are going to make claims of fact like this, then either provide proof or apologize for lying.
".. then I cite the VeggieTales guy or the Ben & Jerry's website, whoever it was written by. (I don't know the race of the person or people who wrote it, but I do recognize it as coming from a black voice. Whether was written down by white person or not, the words and information are what many black people are telling you.)"
So, you're assuming that it's a "black voice" without actual proof. FYI, the BJ piece threw out a bunch of "statistics", but didn't actually prove that those facts are exclusively and conclusively due to racism.
"You can't have it both ways. You want to listen to Black voices?"
I'm not trying to have it both ways, that would be you. What's interesting is that the piece I linked to at the beginning of the post, contained multiple examples of data, and you've responded to absolutely nothing, beyond your subjective bullshit excuse. It seems pretty clear that you're not living up to the standards you demand of others.
"Read about that, cite some of those voices, the majority voices in the black community. Reflect on those and demonstrate that you're listening to all black voices."
Of course, I do and have. Fortunately, you don't get to make demands and be taken seriously. Especially since you've ignored data and dodged questions.
"I cited the two sources I cited because I didn't think either of you all would be willing to put the effort into reading more serious books and authors, but if you are, listen to these black voices, read their words, then respond."
What a bunch of prejudice driven, presumptuous, bullshit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bt88SbZWmY
https://uncletom.com/
One Blood by John Perkins
Dan,
Above are links to three examples of black voices saying things you probably wouldn't normally listen to. Since I've confounded your prejudices, and watched/read that two white voices that you've offered, it only seems reasonable that you'd jump at the chance to live up to the standards you try to impose on others.
I'll have at least one more as soon as it's available.
Art,
I've addressed pretty much everything except your comment that the perception of racism is a problem.
I agree that if people are constantly told that there is someone or something that is out to get them, or to hold them down, that they are likely to believe it and to act on that belief. I see no reason why this wouldn't apply to racism. The question then becomes, how do you get people to look at racism accurately, and to encourage people that they can overcome obstacles?
Dan,
A few other options.
Discrimination and Disparities-Thomas Sowell
Target Africa- Obianuju Ekeocha
Strings Attached- Obianuju Ekeocha
"Are you assuming that the B/J information did not come from an African American(s)? Why would you make that presumption?"
You're making an assumption as the very premise of the questions. Why are your assumptions more valid than mine?
Re your BJ piece.
Wealth. Since the piece makes the very basic error of equating income with wealth, I find it hard to take seriously. Further, the breakdown of % of wealth that we see in the white demographic is also present in the black demographic. Small percentage of blacks own @90% of the wealth. This raises the possibility that there are other factors beyond racism.
I will acknowledge that in the absence of FDR's racist restrictions on housing loans, it's likely that the black wealth number would be higher.
It also ignores that fact that "whites" are ranked like 15th in terms of median household income as of 2018. So clearly not all racial groups are held back by this "systemic" racism.
Employment. Since this propaganda was put together in 2016, it doesn't consider the recent significant gains in employment in the black community.
It also doesn't take into account the median income stat above.
Education. While I'm not going to dig deeply into this, I'll point out that numbers of black students in college has increased since 2000. I'll point out that the education system is run almost entirely by those on the political left. I'll point out that there has been a cultural bias against education in the black community for decades.
Criminal Justice. While I think that this is potentially one of the stronger arguments, I've seen enough other evidence to not have some questions. Further, I think that reducing it to skin color ignores the influence of wealth and power. With OJ being the poster child for this we certainly have seen rich and powerful blacks "get off" in recent years. FYI, I've looked at the stats for incarceration and there are a lot more possible factors that skew the numbers.
Housing. FDR's racist housing policies are probably the most significant example of this. Yet current law and practice is strongly protective of the various protected classes.
Surveillance. Extrapolating "pulled over" into "surveillance" seems like a stretch. As does including generic "Muslims" into the discussion. I'll say that the majority of traffic stops for blacks seem to be "equipment" violations. Which raises the questions about those laws and how necessary they are. If driving without brake lights is a legitimate issue for safety, then it's hard to ascribe pulling a car with broken brake lights over to racism. Obviously, it can be a ruse, but we'd need to see proof before speculating.
Health Care. I suspect that there are many factors that are unaddressed in this piece to make the blanket, objective, claim that it's all "systemic racism".
I'll simply close by saying that cherry picking a small number of studies doesn't really give us the slam dunk proof that the piece claims that it does.
I don't know how to get someone from changing their perspective if they've proven themselves so attached to it for whatever the reason. All that can be done, I suspect, is to continually insist upon hard evidence from them, which would include proving that those who have achieved success didn't also face them ssme or worse challenges. Then reiterate the question, if they can, why can't you?
Here's my conundrum.
On the one hand, a white guy assures me that if I read White Fragility that it will be worthwhile.
On the other hand the same white guy tells me to listen to black people.
One the other hand, I listen to a black guy reviewing White Fragility and he tells me this, https://slowtowrite.com/white-fragility-is-pro-racism/.
I'm not sure if I should listen to the black guy or not.
Art,
I just saw a comment that pertains to my distinction between codified racism, and systemic racism.
With codified racism, the law actually forces people who aren't racist to act as if they are. (Obviously that can work against the law or disobey it)
With systemic racism, you simply give individual racists the ability to act out their racism with impunity.
https://arcdigital.media/dear-white-people-please-do-not-read-robin-diangelos-white-fragility-7e735712ee1b
Craig... "One the other hand, I listen to a black guy reviewing White Fragility and he tells me this, https://slowtowrite.com/white-fragility-is-pro-racism/.
I'm not sure if I should listen to the black guy or not."
As I've been consistently saying, you should listen to ALL black voices. Not just the ones that reinforce your prejudices and biases. Especially not when that black voice that agrees with your foregone conclusions is a minority voice within the black community.
After all, it IS possible that some black people haven't experienced oppression by cops. I'm certain that it happens. BUT, the majority report a very real oppression from cops. If you ONLY listen to the minority who say they get along fine with the police, you are ignoring black voices.
You begin by listening to the majority opinion/voices, just because there are so many of them. THEN you continue by not denouncing and denying their very real experiences and opinions. That's the tack of the racists.
Listen to ALL black voices, Craig. Not just the ones you find comforting to your fragile white privilege.
Marshal posts a link to some apparently white economist who uses Machiavelli as his icon, who assures us that he doesn't think we should listen to Robin Dianegelo's voice. That's promising.
So, I should listen to ALL black voices (something you don't do), except the ones that you deem unsuitable or in the minority. I'd ask you if you acknowledge the reality that you're retreating into arguing from numbers, but you haven't answered a question in the last 3-4 threads so that would be a waste of time.
The question isn't, "Is someone in the "minority"?. It's is that person correct, accurate, or telling the Truth?.
"After all, it IS possible that some black people haven't experienced oppression by cops."
Not only is it possible, it's the position supported by actual data.
"I'm certain that it happens. BUT, the majority report a very real oppression from cops."
What you seem to be suggesting is that we uncritically accept "the majority" impressions, regardless of what the reality might be. We've literally seen multiple instances where body cam/dash cam footage has demonstrated that there was no "racist oppression" despite the claims of the "victims". We're seeing an increasing number of claims of "racist oppression" that are being demonstrated to be false.
"If you ONLY listen to the minority who say they get along fine with the police, you are ignoring black voices."
Thank goodness I'm not doing what you keep falsely claiming I'm doing. It won't stop you from making your false claims, but at least you've been notified.
"You begin by listening to the majority opinion/voices, just because there are so many of them. THEN you continue by not denouncing and denying their very real experiences and opinions. That's the tack of the racists."
Thank you oh magical white guy for telling me the "right" way to do things when it comes to "black voices", and for continuing to peddle the "majority=right/Truth" fallacy.
"Listen to ALL black voices, Craig. Not just the ones you find comforting to your fragile white privilege."
If you can't prove your bullshit lies, stop. Prove your claims or shut the hell up.
What you've done here is to ignore the multiple black voices I've suggested that you read/listen to, and marginalized them to the "minority" before you've even read/listened to them. You haven't even attempted to demonstrate that your "magic Negroes" are correct, or that the people I've suggested are wrong. Instead, you've lied about me, relegated them to the "minority", and engaged in both ad hom and arguing from numbers logical fallacies. I could conclude that you don't want to engage with the "black voices" that contradict your narrative because you're concerned that they might be right.
I guess it's OK for you to make assumptions about people's ethnicity, while you criticize/question others for doing so. FYI, people often use things for their icons that are attempts to be humorous or ironic. But, you've chosen to substitute your prejudices and assumptions for actually engaging with the content of anything you've been offered.
I'll make a suggestion. If you aren't willing to do something, don't demand that others do the thing that you aren't willing to do.
"Marshal posts a link to some apparently white economist who uses Machiavelli as his icon, who assures us that he doesn't think we should listen to Robin Dianegelo's voice. That's promising."
This is out of feo's playbook. Don't address the points made, but simply attack the person making the points for whatever lame reason one can easily grab. Who cares what icon he uses (I mean besides morons)? How do you make the case that his points aren't valid? The dude does more than simply "assure" us we shouldn't listen to DiAngelo. He shows why her position is crap. Dan likely hasn't read the book anyway and it seems clear he didn't read this guys critique of it.
And again, it's straight out of feo's playbook. Apparently Dan wasn't satisfied with his own lack of arguments against that which doesn't align with what he prefers to be true (regardless of whether or not it is). Way, way back, I posted a very detailed and scholarly discussion of Levitical law, which explained why some of it applies to Christians today and why other parts of it doesn't. It didn't work for the pro-homosexual "progressives" like Dan and feo. Dan simply shrugged it off saying "I don't buy it", without every explaining why or where the authors went wrong. feo attacked the authors, particularly one who is, by trade, an aeronautical engineer. Apparently, in feo's warped and hateful imaginings, one is incapable of being expert and scholarly on more than one subject at a time. In the meantime, neither he nor Dan are expert in anything except being wrong. But now Dan adopts this mode of attack to disparage the critique of DiAngelo's book.
Dan's not interested in listening to black voices. He's interested in convincing people that a fiction is reality, while disparaging all who provide "hard data" proving his preferred narrative is indeed fiction. This is serious stuff. To perpetuate falsehood...even out of a sense of sincere concern...is detrimental to all who buy in to the falsehood. Why would a real Christian do such a thing? It's clear neither he nor his troll are real Christians at all.
Dan's relationship to data definitely seems to be fluid, it probably correlates with how closely any given data supports his positions.
For example, we're seeing increasing data that suggests that "sex transition" isn't the healthy, cure all that it's presented as. Data suggests that a significant number of people who experience gender dysphoria (if not encouraged to transition quickly) end up in a place where they realize that their biological gender is "correct". We also see that in this discussion, the "hard science" of biology gets sidelined for the "soft science" of psychology.
But yeah, it's all about the data.
I also pointed out the phenomenon you address elsewhere. It's so much easier to go after people than it is to actually engage with their arguments. It's so much easier to dismiss people for shallow reasons (their avatar, or something superficial) than to demonstrate that their arguments are bad.
It's why Dan keeps insisting that he's conversant enough in every possible argument that a conservative has ever made, because he read some stuff 30 years ago. He hasn't demonstrated that any of the stuff he read was wrong, or that he's right. He just insists that none of it is convincing and that he's has no obligations beyond that assertion. Because it's all just opinion anyway.
Indeed. For Dan and most lefties, it's not a matter of what's true, but whether it's personally pleasing. If it is, then it is asserted as true or worth hearing by others.
Post a Comment