The Killing of George Floyd: The Last Straw?

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, koti said:

But doesn’t that tell us that white privilage is subjective? 

I don't think so. It probably just means that the label is a bit too much "short hand" (as labels tend to be).

So, if my guess about the responses by EU immigrants were correct, then it might be better to label it "White / native privilege". And then you begin to see why certain groups are called "white nationalists" because it is more than just race; they feel that "others" are polluting their "native purity". (Doubly ironic for the USA where the majority white population are not native to the land).

But I think that trying to discuss all of the complexities around different types of prejudice, against different groups, in different societies, for different reasons, may take us too far off topic.

I think the black experience in the USA is uniquely bad because of the history of slavery. (Plus the inherent inequalities between rich and poor of any colour, produced by the American system)

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No, it tells us that privilege is real, the subjective part is how the privileged perceive a threat...

Good point. Or who they feel threatened by.

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

You need me to cut your meat and tie your shoelaces for you, too?

These are personal issues, and I have no problem with Moreno attempting them on their own, wherever they may find themselves. Where I think they need help is with those areas where their personal behavior overlaps with the expectations of a society. It's pretty clear they have no interest in being inclusive wrt the way groups of people interact with them, and still hold on to a very primitive, tribal mentality when it comes to those who look different. 

[Moreno]

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think the black experience in the USA is uniquely bad because of the history of slavery. (Plus the inherent inequalities between rich and poor of any colour, produced by the American system)

Black slavery existed on mass scale in the Southern States and Brazil only. Only in minority of US states. Before that there were less numerous cases of black slavery in the rest of US in 16-18 centuries and even white slaves. But not in Canada, Europe, Australia or somewhere else. It all ended 160 years ago by goodwill of whites, without any uprising from slave's side. Almost immediately after that black males received all the election rights and business freedom. The first two black senator were elected in 1870. It proves election system was quite transparent towards blacks even back then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels

And what is most important that despite racial segregation in the last 160 years no one prevented blacks to do the business, to create their own banks and enterprises and hire other blacks. Why they suppose to rely totally on white favors in our days? 

 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Black slavery existed on mass scale in the Southern States and Brazil only. Only in minority of US states. Before that there were less numerous cases of black slavery in the rest of US in 16-18 centuries and even white slaves. But not in Canada, Europe, Australia or somewhere else. It all ended 160 years ago by goodwill of whites, without any uprising from slave's side. Almost immediately after that black males received all the election rights and business freedom. The first two black senator were elected in 1870. It proves election system was quite transparent towards blacks even back then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels

And what is most important that despite racial segregation in the last 160 years no one prevented blacks to do the business, to create their own banks and enterprises and hire other blacks. Why they suppose to rely totally on white favors in our days? 

 

I just negged that, because I can't be bothered to argue... And I love to argue... 🙄

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Black slavery existed on mass scale in the Southern States and Brazil only. Only in minority of US states. Before that there were less numerous cases of black slavery in the rest of US in 16-18 centuries and even white slaves. But not in Canada, Europe, Australia or somewhere else. It all ended 160 years ago by goodwill of whites, without any uprising from slave's side.

There were plenty of slave uprisings. They were not successful.

 

Quote

Almost immediately after that black males received all the election rights and business freedom.

Jim Crow begs to differ.

Quote

The first two black senator were elected in 1870. It proves election system was quite transparent towards blacks even back then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels

And what is most important that despite racial segregation in the last 160 years no one prevented blacks to do the business, to create their own banks and enterprises and hire other blacks. Why they suppose to rely totally on white favors in our days? 

This is incredibly ignorant. Unpacking all of this is beyond me.

[Moreno]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Jim Crow begs to differ.

I never lived in US for more than 6 month and don't suppose to be an expert in US history. Could you please stick to the facts, links and interesting details if you have something to say.

[dimreepr]

Just now, Moreno said:

I never lived in US for more than 6 month and don't suppose to be an expert in US history. Could you please stick to the facts, links and interesting details if you have something to say.

LOL, I almost gave that a +1...

Just because satire is a thing of the past...

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, Moreno said:

I never lived in US for more than 6 month and don't suppose to be an expert in US history. Could you please stick to the facts, links and interesting details if you have something to say.

IOW, "I don't know what I'm talking about, but if YOU do, I would appreciate it if you'd stop making my argument look bad."

[Moreno]

Whites constitute 61.5% of total population in US. Among non-retired people this percentage is even lower. In some states like California whites constitute around 1/3 of population. How they been a small minority in a huge areas or been an insignificant majority in US in general are capable to organize a systematic racism is difficult to comprehend. Are they overrepresented in police or state government?

Edited June 4, 2020 by Moreno

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

It all ended 160 years ago by goodwill of whites, without any uprising from slave's side.

Nope

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

Almost immediately after that black males received all the election rights and business freedom

Nope

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

despite racial segregation in the last 160 years no one prevented blacks to do the business

Nope again

48 minutes ago, Moreno said:

I never lived in US for more than 6 month and don't suppose to be an expert in US history

Well, I would NEVER have guessed that... you don't say!

6 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Whites constitute 61.5% of total population in US

You're at least consistent in your wrong assertions

8 minutes ago, Moreno said:

In some states like California whites constitute around 1/3 of population

Nope... yet again

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

I never lived in US for more than 6 month and don't suppose to be an expert in US history. Could you please stick to the facts, links and interesting details if you have something to say.

In order not to appear to be arguing in bad faith, I would ask you to read up on the ongoing and systematic marginalization of black folks in the US. If you have never heard of Jim Crow laws or redlining or any of the measures , it just means that you lack critical knowledge to express informed opinion. What is worse is that same lack of knowledge also leads you to formulate a specific form of historical negationism that is commonly used by white supremacist groups. I.e. that a) it wasn't that bad and they were actually well treated b) that it was ended by the grace of white folks that it was ended. The overall undertone suggests that black folks lack their own agency and their actions have to be seen and directed by their betters. It is not their right to be free, but they were allowed to be free. They were treated right that is why they did not rebel (which is wrong as Swansont pointed out). 

This, of course is still assuming that the argument was not made in bad faith to begin with.

7 hours ago, Dagl1 said:

Hence people speak of systemic racism, yes it may be (please note that I am not saying this is the case) the case that if most power in the USA and other western countries would lie in people of colour, they would be equally racist. But they are not in power (generally) and thus the current issue is that they are disproportionally discriminated against. If we ever get to a position where it is the other away around, then we have a different issue to solve.

One thing to add is that systemic racism can be baked into historic mechanisms that do not appear to be racial. For example laws that punish certain actions that are more associated with certain groups than others. Or overpolicing certain actions more than others. Even if demographics shift, these mechanisms may not be removed as often they are not considered to be racial, despite having effects along racial borders. Typically, only some level research reveal these inequalities. But sometimes they are also actively enhanced.

The historic way to view these inequalities in terms of socioeconomic and health outcomes (African Americans die at triple the rate from COVID-19 than white folks) was to view it as something wrong with the community. Folks were not making right(tm) choices, or they were just culturally off and every now and then there is also the genetic argument.

Only recently folks realized (well, actually black folks knew that much longer, as well as folks that bothered to look, but I mean here the overall academic view) has shifted to look at the circumstances and mechanisms leading to these disparities, and it became apparent that laws, rules and as well as simple bias have resulted folks from accumulating generational wealth obtaining worse jobs, create more stress and other issues.

I.e. the race-blind research that has been conducted so far did not take specifics of certain groups into account and academia was largely blind to these issues, highlighting generally things from the viewpoint of the majority of a given cohort (which were dominantly white). In fact, research with overrepresentation of black participants were sometimes rejected as being not representative enough. And again, it is a happy illusion that things are fine in Europe. Things are less violent in Europe, for sure, but by pretending that there is no racial inequality there, folks are breeding resentment among visible minorities after a few generations.

Often there are small things in the line of "where are you really from" but it can go well beyond them (since ~2010 or so there is actually more research on that matter also in Poland, for example ).

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Moreno said:

Black slavery existed on mass scale in the Southern States and Brazil only. Only in minority of US states.

Apart from the fact that this is not true, it is irrelevant. For one thing, the existence of the slave trade affected many other areas. For example, Bristol in the UK became a centre for the slave trade. That made many people in Bristol and elsewhere in the UK very rich. It also meant that that they saw black people as a product to be traded, not as human.

Similarly, most people in the US did not have slaves but, because they lived in a slave-owning culture, they too saw black people as less than human. As things to be bought and sold. Things to do the unpleasant work that "real people" (white people) didn't want to do.

And this is not some event that happened in the distant past, that has only theoretical relevance to the real world. People who grew up as slaves were still alive in my lifetime. The legacy of segregation, and considering black people as less than human has continued ever since.

To feel you have to go through these mental contortions to pretend that slavery didn't happen or doesn't matter is kind of impressive but also very sad. I don't know what it will take to open your mind to the reality of the world we live in.

Quote

It all ended 160 years ago by goodwill of whites

Just ...  NO.

Sheesh.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The first two black senator were elected in 1870. It proves election system was quite transparent towards blacks even back then.

It proves no such thing. 

2 hours ago, Moreno said:

And what is most important that despite racial segregation in the last 160 years no one prevented blacks to do the business, to create their own banks and enterprises and hire other blacks.

And this is just another blatant falsehood.

Are you just stunningly ignorant or deliberately lying?

 

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

I never lived in US for more than 6 month and don't suppose to be an expert in US history. Could you please stick to the facts, links and interesting details if you have something to say.

OK. I guess we can go with "ignorant" then.

Maybe you should educate yourself before further making more idiotic statements.

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

Whites constitute 61.5% of total population in US. Among non-retired people this percentage is even lower. In some states like California whites constitute around 1/3 of population. How they been a small minority in a huge areas or been an insignificant majority in US in general are capable to organize a systematic racism is difficult to comprehend. Are they overrepresented in police or state government?

Firstly, systemic racism is not "organised".  (Did you watch that video earlier? I assume not.)

Secondly: POWER & PRIVILEGE.

Also, please provide a source for these figures.

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Strange
Fixed misattribution

[Moreno]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

People who grew up as slaves were still alive in my lifetime. 

How old are you?!! I'm not young already, but even grandparents of my grandparents were almost certainly born after 1865 when slavery was abolished.

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

Apart from the fact that this is not true, it is irrelevant. For one thing, the existence of the slave trade affected many other areas. For example, Bristol in the UK became a centre for the slave trade. That made many people in Bristol and elsewhere in the UK very rich. It also meant that that they saw black people as a product to be traded, not as human.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the British outlawed slavery trade somewhere in the beginning of 19-th century. Moreover according to some claims they intercepted US ships with black slaves and hanged white slave traders right on the ships. 

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, Moreno said:

How old are you?!! I'm not young already, but even grandparents of my grandparents were almost certainly born after 1865 when slavery was abolished.

From Wiki:

Quote

Sylvester Magee. Sylvester Magee (claimed May 29, 1841 – October 15, 1971) was purported to be the last living former American slave. He received much publicity and was accepted for treatment by the Mississippi Veterans Hospital as a veteran of the American Civil War.
Died: October 15, 1971, Columbia, Mississippi
Born: May 29, 1841, North Carolina
Nationality: United States
Place of burial: Pleasant Valley Church Cemetery

I was 9.

Edited June 4, 2020 by StringJunky

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the British outlawed slavery trade somewhere in the beginning of 19-th century. Moreover according to some claims they intercepted US ships with black slaves and hanged white slave traders right on the ships. 

As you are either not reading or not understanding anything that is said to you, I have nothing else to say.

Your determination to remain ignorant so that you don't have to question your racist views is depressing. No, it is sickening. I have nothing more to say to you. (Nothing polite, anyway.)

[dimreepr]

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It all ended 160 years ago by goodwill of whites

Just ...  NO.

Sheesh.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The first two black senator were elected in 1870. It proves election system was quite transparent towards blacks even back then.

It proves no such thing. 

I don't know how my name got entangled here, I just want it on record; I'm not that deluded...

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't know how my name got entangled here, I just want it on record; I'm not that deluded...

Profoundest apologies! Fixed now.

[iNow]

58 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The overall undertone suggests that black folks lack their own agency

Additionally, he's repeating the long-debunked, but classic racist position known as the bootstrapping myth: https://money.howstuffworks.com/bootstrap-myth-climbing-economic-ladder-takes-more-hard-work.htm

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Moreno said:

Could you please stick to the facts, links and interesting details if you have something to say.

You should take this advice. You can start your education by reading up on Jim Crow laws and the KKK. Minority disenfranchisement occurs to this day. 

Then you can revisit your position that nobody impeded blacks’ rights to vote, or ability to engage in business, etc. 

[DrmDoc]

8 hours ago, Moreno said:

This is bad, of course. But there is some difference between a racial genocide as covert/open government program and an individual psycho. Are an individual white racists more common than colored racists? Including police officers? If yes, why? I thought that all races are equal and therefore racism (and racism motivated crime) should be equally common among them all. 

Racism likely owes it origins to tribalism emerging from the dawn of the human animal 200,000 years ago in Africa. All of humanity share an equal potential for varying degrees of suspicion and savage hostility towards divergent groups as we vie for the same, singular, and often limited resources.  What we witness through Chauvin's actions was an expression of savage indifference towards a fellow human being with whom he saw or felt no kinship and, therefore, no empathy.  Although we are all predisposed to behaviors emerging from our savage origins, I believe we equally share a potential to change that predisposition and become something more than the animal we were thousands of years ago.  

Edited June 4, 2020 by DrmDoc

[CharonY]

31 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

Racism likely owes it origins to tribalism emerging from the dawn of the human animal 200,000 years ago in Africa. All of humanity share an equal potential for varying degrees of suspicion and savage hostility towards divergent groups as we vie for the same, singular, and often limited resources.  What we witness through Chauvin's actions was an expression of savage indifference towards a fellow human being with whom he saw or felt no kinship and, therefore, no empathy.  Although we are all predisposed to behaviors emerging from our savage origins, I believe we equally share a potential to change that predisposition and become something more than the animal we were thousands of years ago.  

I would differentiate tribalism from racism quite bit. The latter is old, but the latter is a product of the enlightenment where groups were drawn up based on perceived naturalistic features. This notion has spread, through colonialism and other events throughout the world and has become quite persistent.

While they can overlap to a certain degree, they are not quite the same.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Additionally, he's repeating the long-debunked, but classic racist position known as the bootstrapping myth: https://money.howstuffworks.com/bootstrap-myth-climbing-economic-ladder-takes-more-hard-work.htm

Yes, good point. Honestly it is too often the same debunked arguments all over, I wonder whether there is a repository similar to talkorigins, but for racism.

[DrmDoc]

59 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I would differentiate tribalism from racism quite bit. The latter is old, but the latter is a product of the enlightenment where groups were drawn up based on perceived naturalistic features. This notion has spread, through colonialism and other events throughout the world and has become quite persistent.

While they can overlap to a certain degree, they are not quite the same.

I completely agree and if my comments were construed otherwise, you're mistaken.  My intend was to convey an opinion that one was likely the progenitor of the other rather than both being somehow synonymous. I've imagined that before early humanity diverged into separate races, we were separate families that became separate tribes that would one day savagely compete for the same resources. I believe racism owes its ancient origins to that savage competition among early humans for survival between families and tribes. It was may way of conveying to Moreno our equal potentials.  

[Dagl1]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I would differentiate tribalism from racism quite bit. The latter is old, but the latter is a product of the enlightenment where groups were drawn up based on perceived naturalistic features. This notion has spread, through colonialism and other events throughout the world and has become quite persistent.

While they can overlap to a certain degree, they are not quite the same.

Maybe I misunderstood, but you are saying tribalism and racism are not quite the same and I agree, but biologically speaking, we do have different responses (increased amygdala, reduced/slower prefrontal cortex inhibition when seeing out-group people) to in-group and out-group people. This is what I would consider tribalism, but one of the easiest ways for our brains to identify in- and out-group people is physical appearance (which is where racism starts, but I suppose maybe you mean that racism goes much further than such relatively fundamental responses)?

Please correct me if I am wrong or misunderstood you, I also realise that studies such things as increased amygdala response when seeing people with a different skin-colour may fall in the non-reproducible category of psychology/neuroscience. 

[Moreno]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Sylvester Magee. Sylvester Magee (claimed May 29, 1841 – October 15, 1971)

Astonishing. He supposed to die at 130. But from I know the longest well documented human lifespan was no more 122. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

White (non-Hispanic)

197,277,789

61.5%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race

Quote

According to 2018 US Census Bureau estimates, California's population was 36.6% Non-Hispanic White.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California

Quote

As of the 2015 Texas Population Estimate Program, the population of the state was 27,469,114; non-Hispanic whites 11,505,371 (41.9%)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas#Ethnicity

Quote

The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority white” in 2045.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/

Among non-retired people whites will become minority even sooner, not later than 2040. Just in 20 years. After that everyone would be able to sigh with relief because systematic white racism will gone once and forever. 

Racial segregation in US, examples. As you may see seats for whites are much better than those for coulored people.

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Moreno