The Killing of George Floyd: The Last Straw?

[StringJunky]

42 minutes ago, Moreno said:

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

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

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

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. 

Yeah, I don't think that's right either on review. I remembered it being a woman but saw that one first when I went to search again and assumed it to be correct. Her name was Matilda McCrear and she was born in 1858, brought over in a slave ship at two and died in 1940 at 82.

Edited June 4, 2020 by StringJunky

[Moreno]

If there exist systematic white racism in US, what could be a motives behind it? Does it mean that many whites hate black people solely for color of their skin? I do not suggest that someone suppose to change their skin color under racism pressure, but in principle it is quite easy to do. The cheapest solution is pinkish white tattoo over all your body. One visit to tattoo specialist and you are white forever. This method supposed to be available as long as 100 years ago. I never heard about anyone who would do it. With exception of Michael Jackson, of course.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Moreno

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Moreno said:

If there exist systematic white racism in US, what could be a motives behind it? Does it mean that many whites hate black people solely for color of their skin?

Why does there have to be a motive? It’s not like there is a final goal in mind.

Yes. There are people who hate others just because of the color of their skin. They have been taught this hate by others who hate people just because of the color of their skin.

You can substitute religion, gender, sexual orientation, and other attributes here. Surely you’ve noticed.

1 minute ago, Moreno said:

I do not suggest that someone suppose to change their skin color under racism pressure, but in principle it is quite easy to do. The cheapest solution is pinkish white tattoo over all your body. One visit to tattoo specialist and you are white forever. This method supposed to available as long as 100 years ago. I never heard about anyone who would do it. 

You should stop digging.

[Moreno]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why does there have to be a motive? It’s not like there is a final goal in mind.
Yes. There are people who hate others just because of the color of their skin.

And how common are such people among administrators or business owners (who are capable to conduct discrimination)? What is their intelligence level?

An easy solution to racial profiling and discrimination. Do not regard as obligatory.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Moreno

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Dagl1 said:

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. 

There are several issue with breaking it down to in and out-group recognition. Specifically, groups were defined along different lines, even if they may had racial undertones. But the nature is very different from modern racism. There, for example you will find to have groups (usually enemies) associated with certain negative physical traits. An example the depiction of the Irish during British colonization in the 12th century. However, there was significant less clear delineations in terms of race, ethnicity vs cultural and regional aspects. There is quite some description what the impact of this type of protoracism has (and whether it existed at all) but it is not until the modernity where we have a clear delineation along racial line.

And what is even more important and which is missing in your model is that the hierarchical categorization perhaps since Linnaeus (there is some disagreement whether it was really hierarchical but it clearly is at least the precursor of these schools of thoughts). It is only then that we associate systematically certain skin tones with things like temperament and moral character. And it is from there where "white" become synonymous with the norm with which the rest is being measured against.

Modern racism is not just a matter of the others. It is about the quality of a given group, if it was there would be a symmetry in prevalent views. It is almost universally accepted that white is not a negative attribute in itself. For many it at least represents power, and to various degree also civilization or ultimately an elite. There is no standing stereotype of whites being dumber or more animal-like in virtual any culture. As such these racial constructs have become so overbearing that it has utterly supplanted the in and outgroup model that you associate with tribalism once race becomes the delineating factor.

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, Moreno said:

And how common are such people among administrators or business owners (who are capable to conduct discrimination)? What is their intelligence level?

I don’t have that information. 

16 minutes ago, Moreno said:

An easy solution to racial profiling and discrimination. Do not regard as obligatory.

I beg you, stop.

Why should any minority have to change who they are to conform to bigotry-driven “norms”?

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

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.  

In that we are in agreement. I think what I felt was missing is that while tribalism or equivalent may be at the heart of racism, history has shaped it into something more systemic, which is at the root of current problems. I also believe that this transcends mere biological responses. The racial assumptions that all of us carry is something that we learn and it is not just a simple reflex. 

And often it is intentional. If all you learn about Africa is a short passage on subsistence farming somewhere you might be forgiven that you think that Africans still leave in dirt huts with no sanitation. But it is just very ignorant. If you hear whitewashed stories as a Belgian student that it is their ancestor who brought civilization to Congo, it might also colour their attitudes toward black folks without ever seeing one. I.e. racism does not start with seeing that someone is different (i.e. as an extension of a biological reflex). It is a lengthy learning process, which makes unlearning it even harder. 

[Moreno]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why should any minority have to change who they are to conform to bigotry-driven “norms”?

I do not demand they have to, but it could serve as an indicator of a real discrimination scale. Typically people are trying to change their appearance if they expect significant economic or social gains by doing that. For example some actors of managers may go in solariums or work on their weight hardly to suit to some beauty "norms". 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Moreno

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Moreno said:

I do not demand they have to, but it could serve as an indicator of a real discrimination scale. Typically people are trying to change their appearance if they expect significant economic or social gains by doing that. For example some actors of managers may go in solariums or work on their weight hardly to suit to some beauty "norms". 

Undoubtedly people feel pressure to do so, but many are fighting back against this. Your “solution” is rather extreme.

[Moreno]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Undoubtedly people feel pressure to do so, but many are fighting back against this. Your “solution” is rather extreme.

If you assume that people suppose to stick to their natural appearance as a holy shrine then define "natural". Does it mean we never suppose to shave or cut our hair/nails like some ethnicities/religious cults do? But in some places like police, army and other govt. institutions the maximal length of beard/hair/nails could be mandatory, so we already live against the nature, as you see.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Moreno

[swansont]

Just now, Moreno said:

If you assume that people suppose to stick to their natural appearance as a holy shrine then define "natural"?

I assumed no such thing, and did not say anything about “natural appearance”

 

 

[Moreno]

If I like to grow beard and believe it is natural and I live in Japan where many people and my potential employers may not have beard by nature and they believe it is a sign of a "barbarian" what I do if I follow no religion which mandates me to grow beard? Go in court and sue any employer who refused to hire me for discrimination or just shave my beard? The most important it could be done easily and without any health related consequences.

[MigL]

Can we please get back to the G Floyd incident and any potential change, instead of everyone trying to score points by painting Moreno as a racist ?
I find it funny that a bunch of Brits have labelled him ignorant because he has never lived in the US for more than 6 months.
How long have Dimreepr and Strange lived in the US ??
Surely you can make a better argument than that !

Seems former slave, Mr S McGee, lived to a ripe old age of 130...
"Died: October 15, 1971, Columbia, Mississippi
Born: May 29, 1841, North Carolina"

Slavery must be good for you !
( Or the dates are wrong )

[Moreno]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

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

Yes, but I've meant that there was a wide movement among whites against black slavery and president like A. Lincoln who did a lot to make them free. Many even fought and died in the citizenship war. There was a moral progress and a goodwill among whites to abolish slavery. Probably if whites would want they could still keep blacks in slavery up to 21 century.

[iNow]

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

have labelled him ignorant because he has never lived in the US for more than 6 months.

Sorry mate, but you must realize that’s a strawman and unrelated to people’s views of his comments 

[MigL]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

8 hours 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.

Here is the 'strawman' INow..

I don't particularly like it when 'labelling' takes the place of reasoning.
Calling people racists, or ignorant ( especially when the criteria used also applies to the user ) is counterproductive to the discussion America ( and some other parts of the world ) needs to have in the wake of this eye-opening incident.
The time for pointing fingers and divisiveness is way past, only by working together can we bring about change and move forward.

One simply needs to ask Moreno "How do you feel when you watch the video death murder of G Floyd ? Do you think that this is OK ? What about all the other shit that black people have to put up with every day of their lives ? And do you think it's time for a change ?"

You might find that he thinks a lot like the rest of us.

Edited June 5, 2020 by MigL

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Yes, but I've meant that there was a wide movement among whites against black slavery and president like A. Lincoln who did a lot to make them free. Many even fought and died in the citizenship war. There was a moral progress and a goodwill among whites to abolish slavery. Probably if whites would want they could still keep blacks in slavery up to 21 century.

Please stop saying things that you haven’t researched, and for which you provide no evidence.

I would imagine plenty of people supported abolition only as a tool for ending the war, and it didn’t pass before the south seceded. I don’t see how you can assert a wide movement and moral progress and goodwill as if a switch was flipped and everyone embraced equality. 

[Moreno]

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

What about all the other shit that black people have to put up with every day of their lives ?

Probably if I would experience something like this I would try to change my skin color by putting white tattoo on it in and in one day get out of such a misery forever. But that's a personal choice. 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Moreno

[zapatos]

9 hours 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.

If you don't know then quit making assertions. Your ignorance is epic. Please stop it. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Can we please get back to the G Floyd incident and any potential change, instead of everyone trying to score points by painting Moreno as a racist ?

No 'painting' is necessary. He clearly already has two coats. I cannot believe he's not been suspended.

13 hours ago, MigL said:

My concern is that often we find 'hidden' meaning in certain words or phrases.

As that may be directed my way in part, can you tell me what hidden meaning I am finding? And whether or not it was hidden by the speaker or if you are suggesting I find something that is not there?

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Seems former slave, Mr S McGee, lived to a ripe old age of 130...
"Died: October 15, 1971, Columbia, Mississippi
Born: May 29, 1841, North Carolina"

Slavery must be good for you !
( Or the dates are wrong )

The precise date is uncertain as slaves had no birth certificates as they were obviously considered property. He apparently was listed on a bill of sales in 1859 with his father, though.

 

Quote

court records in Covington County, Mississippi listed him, along with his father, on a bill of sale in 1859. He died in 1971.

https://www.tricountytimes.com/opinion/20190207/curious-case-of-sylvester-magee

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

If you don't know then quit making assertions. Your ignorance is epic. Please stop it. 

No 'painting' is necessary. He clearly already has two coats. I cannot believe he's not been suspended.

As that may be directed my way in part, can you tell me what hidden meaning I am finding? And whether or not it was hidden by the speaker or if you are suggesting I find something that is not there?

How would that be helpful?

 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

Interested members, take a look. You’ve got 4 minutes available to learn. That’s why you’re here

 

 

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How would that be helpful?

Maybe when he came back he'd make his arguments in good faith, instead of making things up and presenting them as fact. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, zapatos said:

Maybe when he came back he'd make his arguments in good faith, instead of making things up and presenting them as fact. 

More likely he might find a forum that, regrettably, would agree with some of his base assumptions and not challenge him on them. He's not arguing in bad faith IMO.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

He's not arguing in bad faith IMO

We’ll never know the motives of others. All we have is their actions and words to interpret their intent