You know, the more I research and read up on the Gates scandal, the more outwardly disgusted and shamed I am by the retarded actions of Gates and Obama. Gates was an immature twit with too big of a head and a sense of "entitlement as Dr. Harvard professor" to notice that you're supposed to comply with police and Obama is even more of a dumbass to act as judge and jury. What's this world coming to?
In my opinion it's CLEAR who had race in mind, from the moment that innocent officer stepped onto that retard's front porch.
What do you think of this?
Obviously this is something that would get me shot in public but: Don't you think Black people play the race card too much?
I do clearly remember one time in when I was working at EMS where we went to a black man that was drunk and he wanted transport to the Emergency Room (mostly because otherwise I think the cops would've taken him in for loitering in the middle of the street). As soon as he got in and the wheels started rolling he demanded that he be taken to his house. I told him we can only go from the scene to the ER. That son of a bitch starts with "Well, your forefathers enslaved my people. Let my people go. You people are oppressin' my people" all the while pointing at me accusingly.
I do distinctly remember looking at him and saying (verbatim - I'm Korean by the way) "Are you fucking retarded? The race card doesn't work on me" It sickens me to see other minorities working hard to pull themselves up from their situations while the supposed "representatives" of Black community and their interests (NAACP, Rev Jackson) keep Blacks in misery by addicting them to a sense of entitlement.
Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks? - edit: Cunninglinguists brought up a good point on this (I'm beginning to subscribe completely to the self-selection in immigration theory).
Why is everyone afraid to bring up these questions? Aren't we supposed to be an objective and free society? What the hell's the deal with Affirmative Action? I am so fucking frustrated.
Why won't anyone actually do what will REALLY help the Black society in America?
"Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history.
On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote: "Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history.
How does that actually correlate to anything? I bet your ancestors were enslaved and treated like animals at some point. I don't think this type of argument has any merit - how about the Jews being enslaved in Egypt? I don't see Egypt apologizing for that.
On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote: "Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history.
Well it may not have been during both America's tenure, but both Jews and many Asians have been enslaved for long periods of time in the past.
ItsYoungLee: Jews and Asians (aside from WW2) have had reasonably equal legal rights in the USA for far longer than blacks. It's not fair to simply compare how much they make or something like that.
if i were smashed like the guy that yelled at you was, i probably would have yelled nonsensical gibberish to you too. why use him in the same argument in which you use a harvard professor and the president of the united states?
On July 24 2009 13:34 dasanivan wrote: your point of "other minorities working hard to pull themselves up from their situations"?
I was just referring to failsafe's claim that tl.net would not respond kindly. That would prove my point that any rational, scientific analysis of the racial situation would be shunned. I do admit that comment you quoted up there is pretty racist. I do concede that there are SO many outstanding black people (they are all around on my college campus), but it seems much to the fault of special "advocacy" organizations such as the NAACP and people like Rev. Jackson that promote the division and "sense of entitlement" that plagues progress.
On July 24 2009 13:37 OhThatDang wrote: your "example" kinda fell a little dry when you told us the man was drunk +_+
I think that validates my argument. When you're drunk, you lose your inhibitions. You say what comes to mind first - and obviously that's what was on his mind, and he was going to say it and think it regardless of the fact that I'm not white.
What will REALLY help the black society in America is for them to stop thinking of themselves as a subset of black people and start thinking of themselves as individual people. It would also help if everyone else did this as well. Unfortunately since tribalism is everywhere in today's society (republicans or democrats, black or white or brown or yellow, blue-collar or white-collar, gay or straight, British or French or Korean or European or American) there is zero chance of this ever happening.
Note that I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being part of a group, but allowing that group to define you at the expense of reason--like the black guy complaining about getting the same ambulance service as anyone else, or like an Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombing a coffee shop to kill Jews (tribe versus tribe)--is sickening.
Edit: note its impossible to even discuss topics like this without being inherently racist, as I myself did by referring to "black society in America." This world is so fucked on so many levels. Send 100 babies to the moon with robots to raise them and nuke the place.
On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote: "Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history.
How does that actually correlate to anything? I bet your ancestors were enslaved and treated like animals at some point. I don't think this type of argument has any merit - how about the Jews being enslaved in Egypt? I don't see Egypt apologizing for that.
well, my point was that if blacks had the exact same status as whites during the entirety of America's history, perhaps it wouldn't be the case that "Asians and Jews make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks."
but i don't understand your logic here. Jews living in Egypt are more economically successful than Blacks? in America?
On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote: "Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history.
Well it may not have been during both America's tenure, but both Jews and many Asians have been enslaved for long periods of time in the past.
ItsYoungLee: Jews and Asians (aside from WW2) have had reasonably equal legal rights in the USA for far longer than blacks. It's not fair to simply compare how much they make or something like that.
I see your point and I agree that of course, basing success on a single variable outcome predictor, like yearly income is faulty.
But what do you mean by "reasonably equal legal rights". Weren't Asians categorized as "colored" back before the Civil-rights movement era?
Then what factors determine success and viability as a racial group in America?
On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote: "Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history.
How does that actually correlate to anything? I bet your ancestors were enslaved and treated like animals at some point. I don't think this type of argument has any merit - how about the Jews being enslaved in Egypt? I don't see Egypt apologizing for that.
well, my point was that if blacks had the exact same status as whites during the entirety of America's history, perhaps it wouldn't be the case that "Asians and Jews make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks."
but i don't understand your logic here. Jews living in Egypt are more economically successful than Blacks? in America?
Sorry, I wasn't clear here. I just meant to show that almost every racial group has had a history of being enslaved/exploited, sometime in the past.
On July 24 2009 13:37 OhThatDang wrote: your "example" kinda fell a little dry when you told us the man was drunk +_+
I think that validates my argument. When you're drunk, you lose your inhibitions. You say what comes to mind first - and obviously that's what was on his mind, and he was going to say it and think it regardless of the fact that I'm not white.
Oh, that's convenient.
Also, you argue that the hair trigger for the race card that blacks exhibit inhibits their progress and yet you use a black Harvard professor as an example. I think there is some merit to the idea that black culture in America fosters an anti-education, pro-NBA/rap star mentality that even Obama has acknowledged, but your rant was incoherent.
On July 24 2009 13:34 dasanivan wrote: your point of "other minorities working hard to pull themselves up from their situations"?
I was just referring to failsafe's claim that tl.net would not respond kindly. That would prove my point that any rational, scientific analysis of the racial situation would be shunned. I do admit that comment you quoted up there is pretty racist. I do concede that there are SO many outstanding black people (they are all around on my college campus), but it seems much to the fault of special "advocacy" organizations such as the NAACP and people like Rev. Jackson that promote the division and "sense of entitlement" that plagues progress.
though it's inevitable that organizations like NAACP will sometimes overreact, they do the opposite of plaguing progress.
would you rather have no immune system just because occasionally they sometimes give you painful inflammations, or even risk of death?
Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
I don't see the analogy between japan-occupied Korea and America, which doesn't even have a single majority of any of the NIH-considered races (White, Black, Asian, Hawaiian, Alaskan native, etc...)
Having an unconditional trust in the innocence of law enforcement is silly, of course it is. But there's a difference between not having an unconditional trust and having to act disorderly.
On July 24 2009 13:37 OhThatDang wrote: your "example" kinda fell a little dry when you told us the man was drunk +_+
I think that validates my argument. When you're drunk, you lose your inhibitions. You say what comes to mind first - and obviously that's what was on his mind, and he was going to say it and think it regardless of the fact that I'm not white.
Oh, that's convenient.
Also, you argue that the hair trigger for the race card that blacks exhibit inhibits their progress and yet you use a black Harvard professor as an example. I think there is some merit to the idea that black culture in America fosters an anti-education, pro-NBA/rap star mentality that even Obama has acknowledged, but your rant was incoherent.
A black Harvard professor in what field of study? Think about that one. I definitely agree that any racially divisive ideology fosters the anti-education/pro-NBA/rap star mentality.
Gates acted like a fucking idiot towards the police. I think this situation was really simple. You don't cooperate with the police ---> you get put in cuffs. It's really fucking pathetic how the professor is defending himself. How he wanted to be an intellectual martyr.
On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote: Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black
On July 24 2009 13:34 dasanivan wrote: your point of "other minorities working hard to pull themselves up from their situations"?
I was just referring to failsafe's claim that tl.net would not respond kindly. That would prove my point that any rational, scientific analysis of the racial situation would be shunned. I do admit that comment you quoted up there is pretty racist. I do concede that there are SO many outstanding black people (they are all around on my college campus), but it seems much to the fault of special "advocacy" organizations such as the NAACP and people like Rev. Jackson that promote the division and "sense of entitlement" that plagues progress.
though it's inevitable that organizations like NAACP will sometimes overreact, they do the opposite of plaguing progress.
would you rather have no immune system just because occasionally they sometimes give you painful inflammations, or even risk of death?
I don't advocate getting rid of NAACP. Advocacy groups are necessary, just like immune systems. I would propose a reform in the divisive and entitlement-seeking ideology that the NAACP seems to propagate. I think the comparison is better put: would you rather have rheumatoid arthritism or a health immune system?
On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote: Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black
He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government.
On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote: Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black
See what I mean. We'll never have an honest debate with:
#1 White liberal Guilt (Protip: YOU WEREN'T LIVING IN THOSE DAYS) #2 Black racial card
Face it, the black community is keeping themselves down. No one else is hindering them.
We can all dream that one day the world can be like this? Back to reality for now :-(
I also realized that I ranted a lot, but offered no possible steps towards a solution. Here is what I think would be ideal: A double-blind system where benefits and aid are given on the basis of class (economic status) so that neither the people in the government deciding to give aid, nor the people receiving the aid know which race is getting aid.
I'm pretty sure that's been proposed, but it's obviously not very pragmatic. :-\
On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote: "Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history.
what the fuck? asian's would think enslavement as a blessing with their poverty, and i know my relatives, take my dad for example, got his leg shot off from being DRAFTED into the vietnam war , ran to the U.S. after american's ditched south vietnam on ... not a boat- but a motherfucking plank of wood. and he's doing fine. whereas, on average, 1/3 of the black male population gets set up behind prison bars.
and the damn holocaust for the jews > anything the blacks had to suffer through
Besides that was quite a while ago, you know the kids of black population TODAY have just have many chances and opportunities as asians or jews. then it just goes back to the OP, with their sense of entitlement or whatever the fuck their issue is.
100% agree
While it's fair for you to respond emotionally to the post you quoted (which I didn't particularly care for either), you are implying (saying rather) that the situation is far more simple than it actually is. From reading your post it seems like the message is...
Those whose parents/ancestors suffered more have more an excuse to be deadbeats; few jews/asians comparatively are deadbeats; blacks currently suck. Surely if you are more clear you'll make a better message.
On July 24 2009 13:58 Aegraen wrote: Face it, the black community is keeping themselves down. No one else is hindering them.
You make great points and then have to sully it all with this statement.
;/ Tis' true though, unless you advocate another source that is hindering progress? Eager to hear.
There are many people today who (intentionally or not) are hindering the progress of the black community who are not in the black community. If we go back a very short period of time, there have been negative laws (as opposed to controversial affirmative action and related laws) that have severely hindered the progress of the black community. This is all post-slavery in the USA.
I'm not saying that no blame can necessarily be placed on the black community for some of its issues, but I think it is a huge mistake for you to say "No one else is hindering them."
On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote: Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black
He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government.
It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity.
My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money.
On July 24 2009 13:34 dasanivan wrote: your point of "other minorities working hard to pull themselves up from their situations"?
I was just referring to failsafe's claim that tl.net would not respond kindly. That would prove my point that any rational, scientific analysis of the racial situation would be shunned. I do admit that comment you quoted up there is pretty racist. I do concede that there are SO many outstanding black people (they are all around on my college campus), but it seems much to the fault of special "advocacy" organizations such as the NAACP and people like Rev. Jackson that promote the division and "sense of entitlement" that plagues progress.
though it's inevitable that organizations like NAACP will sometimes overreact, they do the opposite of plaguing progress.
would you rather have no immune system just because occasionally they sometimes give you painful inflammations, or even risk of death?
I don't advocate getting rid of NAACP. Advocacy groups are necessary, just like immune systems. I would propose a reform in the divisive and entitlement-seeking ideology that the NAACP seems to propagate. I think the comparison is better put: would you rather have rheumatoid arthritism or a health immune system?
i would, of course, prefer a healthy immune system, but it can't always be guaranteed for me, can it? unlike certain diseases, this situation can of course be helped, but probably not with rants. your rant is about as explosive as the race card reactions of the blacks that you criticize.
when will there be a perfect yin and yang between each pair of races? i doubt it will happen as long as each side reacts to the other's reaction with more energy.
This is just obviously a case of who is lieing here. The officer was being a dick by not seeing the ID if that is true. Gates is being a dick if he lied about asking politely the officer to see his ID or if he resisted arrest only proving the point of his arrest. I know officers yelling, shouting etc anything that isn't clam and cooperating with them = they just don't want to listen to you anymore they hear that all the time.
Either way blah blah blah. Wouldn't it be more of racial profiling if they didn't arrest him because he didn't look like a thug. Last point Obama should not weigh in on something that he only has heard from others. He just should concentrate on his already full plate.
A black Harvard professor in what field of study? Think about that one. I definitely agree that any racially divisive ideology fosters the anti-education/pro-NBA/rap star mentality.
a) The point was you could've used a better example than a Harvard professor, for whom you have to make a subsidiary argument that "he's only successful because he's good at the very thing that keeps other blacks down", which is why I said your argument was incoherent. Think about that one. I also find it funny how you assume I'm taking a side on this issue.
b) I never said anything about a "racially divisive ideology" fostering that mentality. The mentality I'm talking about is the glorification of the flashy lifestyles they see on MTV and in sports over education.
On July 24 2009 14:06 Saddened Izzy wrote: The officer was being a dick by not seeing the ID if that is true. Gates is being a dick if he lied or if he resisted arrest only proving the point of his arrest.
Either way blah blah blah. Wouldn't it be more of racial profiling if they didn't arrest him because he didn't look like a thug. Last point Obama should not weigh in on something that he only has heard from others. He just should concentrate on his already full plate.
obama is the president. it would be bad for a president's image not to weigh in on an issue about which even starcraft enthusiasts debate.
On July 24 2009 13:34 dasanivan wrote: your point of "other minorities working hard to pull themselves up from their situations"?
I was just referring to failsafe's claim that tl.net would not respond kindly. That would prove my point that any rational, scientific analysis of the racial situation would be shunned. I do admit that comment you quoted up there is pretty racist. I do concede that there are SO many outstanding black people (they are all around on my college campus), but it seems much to the fault of special "advocacy" organizations such as the NAACP and people like Rev. Jackson that promote the division and "sense of entitlement" that plagues progress.
though it's inevitable that organizations like NAACP will sometimes overreact, they do the opposite of plaguing progress.
would you rather have no immune system just because occasionally they sometimes give you painful inflammations, or even risk of death?
I don't advocate getting rid of NAACP. Advocacy groups are necessary, just like immune systems. I would propose a reform in the divisive and entitlement-seeking ideology that the NAACP seems to propagate. I think the comparison is better put: would you rather have rheumatoid arthritism or a health immune system?
i would, of course, prefer a healthy immune system, but it can't always be guaranteed for me, can it? unlike certain diseases, this situation can of course be helped, but probably not with rants. your rant is about as explosive as the rlace card reactions of the blacks that you criticize.
when will there be a perfect yin and yang between each pair of races? i doubt it will happen as long as each side reacts to the other's reaction with more energy.
The rant is probably also just as rationally unjustified as self-entitlement, but you also have to understand, the best thing to do when you're frustrated is to rant and let it out. According to my view of history, history happens in bursts - nothing happens gradually. There needs to be some sort of strong reaction/ranting to get this flawed system fixed.
On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote: Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black
He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government.
It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity.
My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money.
TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say.
He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall.
On July 24 2009 13:22 ItsYoungLee wrote: Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?
asian americans are seen as the model minority. they are stereotyped as hardworking and intelligent. hence, while asian americans do face discrimination, this discrimination is lessened in terms of vocation. in addition asian americans have statistically one of the highest college graduation rates, correlating with higher employment.
jews are not immediately identifiable as many are white. thus it's more difficult to discriminate against them in hiring practices.
blacks however experience much discrimination, not just in terms of hiring practices but in terms of life choices as well. at the university of pennsylvania, for example, douglas massey and the students in his undergraduate course in research methods conducted a study on how americans often identify one another racially by their speech. in massey's class were whites who spoke what is called "white middle class english", african americans who spoke a dialect known as "black english vernacular", and other african americans who spoke middle-class english with a black accent. the class investigated how voice is used to discriminate in the housing market. they designed standard identities for the class members who spoke these variants of english, assigning them similar incomes, jobs, and education they also developed a standard script and translated it into black english. the students called on 79 apartments that were advertised for rent in newspapers.
the studies found that those who spoke black english were less likely to get to talk to rental agents, who often used answering machines to screen calls. when they did get through, they were less likely to be told that an apartment was available, more likely to have to pay an application fee, and more likely to be asked about their credit history.
i used to have similar opinions to you--i thought that african americans would repeated claim racial discrimination when there really was none and while i'm sure that this is sometimes the case, recent discussions i've had with blacks on their life experiences seem to point to evidence of a highly subtle and near-invisible racist system that systematically disadvantages african americans.
one of my professors is black, and acts the stereotype as well. he grew up in the hood, sold drugs, speaks black english vernacular and works out frequently. yet he's also highly educated and eloquent, widely read, and passionate about minority and lgbt civil issues. he has told our class countless stories of personal discrimination that he had faced as a young child growing up and even current ones that occurred to him maybe only a few hours prior to him arriving at class. in one session that i'll forever remember, he demonstrated the effect racism has had on his mental state by placing a water bottle on a female student's desk and went back to his desk. he then said more or less the following:
"alright, i'm thirsty. where's my water bottle? oh there it is...but it's on someone else's desk. damn, how am i going to get it. well no biggie, i guess i can just get up and walk towards the bottle and grab it. but i have to be careful, i don't wanna walk to fast or else she might think i'm threatening her. i don't wanna grab it too fast either or it might seem like i'm stealing the bottle or even worse, reaching for her. but i can't walk too slow or it might seem suspicious and that i'm planning something so that when i finally take that bottle of water people might think it was her's and i stole it. shit, i wish i didn't leave my bottle on her desk. i can't wait until everyone leaves before i get that bottle because i'm really thirsty right now....DAMMIT! why'd i stand up? i wish i hadn't stood up. now people are looking at me and expecting me to do something. fuck i should have just brought another bottle of water."
at the end, many of us were trying to subdue our laughter. our prof looked at us and smiled, asking "now does anyone really think like that?"
we all giggled amongst ourselves, relieved that it was only a joke. a chorus of replies came, some answering "of course not" others saying "maybe, but definitely not that extreme." hell to me it sounded like downright paranoia.
my prof stopped smiling and then answered his own question. "yes they do. i know for a fact that they do...i think like that."
many of you reading this are probably thinking "rofl. that's just being paranoid." in fact, if it wasn't for the fact that i know my professor really well and i know him to be an incredibly smart, level headed man i would've left his class thinking that too.
in any case, whether you read all of that or not, i hope that before you form any conclusive opinion on the views you resented in your post, i hope you can first watch "The Color of Fear", a film by Lee Mun Wah that by gathering six men of color and two white americans to discuss racial issues, explores the ideas expressed in your post.
cunninglinguists - First of all, hilarious username. I've watched "The Color of Fear" we were required to do that in High School. I found it funny how some of the most educated and well-mannered, hardworking people were so worried about being racist.
Your professor's research study is very interesting. What results (if any) have they found with using an Asian accent?
I don't deny that there is a lot of racism in this country. Race is only one of many factors that I use to pre-judge someone (and don't tell me you don't pre-judge). I'm not really arguing that one. What I'm arguing is that the ideology of self-entitlement is harmful, because it hinders progress. I think the Black leadership needs to realize this (especially a person like Gates).
I also just read the blurb on Wiki on the model minority self-selective immigration hypothesis. It's interesting, because that's the conclusion I drew for myself on why Asian-Americans do so much better on average. It still shouldn't affect my argument. Just as a self-imposed view of self-entitlement is harmful, a externally imposed view (like the "model minority myth") is harmful. I think they are just the same phenomena working in different ways. We all should think of ourselves as individuals first, and then race should be a whole lot further down on the list of how we identify ourselves.
The rant is probably also just as rationally unjustified as self-entitlement, but you also have to understand, the best thing to do when you're frustrated is to rant and let it out. According to my view of history, history happens in bursts - nothing happens gradually. There needs to be some sort of strong reaction/ranting to get this flawed system fixed.
this is the exact type of strong reaction for which you criticize others. i agree that many things in history happens in bursts, but behind especially effective bursts, are calm and rational minds.
strong reactions without some sort of rationality gives way to radical groups.
On July 24 2009 14:06 Saddened Izzy wrote: The officer was being a dick by not seeing the ID if that is true. Gates is being a dick if he lied or if he resisted arrest only proving the point of his arrest.
Either way blah blah blah. Wouldn't it be more of racial profiling if they didn't arrest him because he didn't look like a thug. Last point Obama should not weigh in on something that he only has heard from others. He just should concentrate on his already full plate.
obama is the president. it would be bad for a president's image not to weigh in on an issue about which even starcraft enthusiasts debate.
this doesn't make sense, have you seen some of the debates on TL? not exactly president appropriate:
just to show a couple. point is, the president's job is not to weigh in on EVERY issue, especially one so insignificant to his political career. In fact, topics such as these that are extremely sensitive and provide little political gain are the exact situations he should stay away from. as somebody said earlier he already has enough on his plate
On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote: Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black
He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government.
It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity.
My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money.
TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say.
He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall.
"In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)"
So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't.
If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful.
If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment in the first place? "Preferential treatment for black people is a sufficiently significant benefit to bring up as a reason they should be more successful" and "black people do not have it easy" are contradictory arguments
On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote: Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black
He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government.
It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity.
My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money.
TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say.
He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall.
"In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)"
So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't.
If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful.
If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment as if it was supposed to make them have it easy?
I really don't understand the logic that you are trying to use, but I'll just sum up again what I believe is a reasonable stance to interpret from his post.
1) Blacks receive the best preferential treatment by the government. 2) Receiving the best preferential treatment by the government does not ensure that you have it easy, although it can relieve some of the burden of having it 'difficult'. 3) Blacks don't necessarily have it easy overall even though in one particular category they might be at an advantage.
You seem to be making assumptions that are not valid.
On July 24 2009 14:06 Saddened Izzy wrote: The officer was being a dick by not seeing the ID if that is true. Gates is being a dick if he lied or if he resisted arrest only proving the point of his arrest.
Either way blah blah blah. Wouldn't it be more of racial profiling if they didn't arrest him because he didn't look like a thug. Last point Obama should not weigh in on something that he only has heard from others. He just should concentrate on his already full plate.
obama is the president. it would be bad for a president's image not to weigh in on an issue about which even starcraft enthusiasts debate.
this doesn't make sense, have you seen some of the debates on TL? not exactly president appropriate:
just to show a couple. point is, the president's job is not to weigh in on EVERY issue, especially one so insignificant to his political career. In fact, topics such as these that are extremely sensitive and provide little political gain are the exact situations he should stay away from. as somebody said earlier he already has enough on his plate
that is why i said "which even starcraft enthusiasts debate," rather than "which only starcraft enthusiasts debate." The difference between this issue and others is that the president is looked upon by a large portion of America to weigh in. regarding irrelevant topics, of course, the president is not advised to comment.
though a president does have to be cautious about sensitive topics, for the president not to have opinions about them in general defeats the purpose of having a political party.
On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote: Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black
He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government.
It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity.
My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money.
TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say.
He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall.
"In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)"
So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't.
If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful.
If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment as if it was supposed to make them have it easy?
I really don't understand the logic that you are trying to use, but I'll just sum up again what I believe is a reasonable stance to interpret from his post.
1) Blacks receive the best preferential treatment by the government. 2) Receiving the best preferential treatment by the government does not ensure that you have it easy, although it can relieve some of the burden of having it 'difficult'. 3) Blacks don't necessarily have it easy overall even though in one particular category they might be at an advantage.
You seem to be making assumptions that are not valid.
I can only go off what he explicitly said: "Face it, the black community is keeping themselves down. No one else is hindering them."
Points 2) and 3) seem to be only your assumptions, not his, and on those points I agree with you completely.
The rant is probably also just as rationally unjustified as self-entitlement, but you also have to understand, the best thing to do when you're frustrated is to rant and let it out. According to my view of history, history happens in bursts - nothing happens gradually. There needs to be some sort of strong reaction/ranting to get this flawed system fixed.
this is the exact type of strong reaction for which you criticize others. i agree that many things in history happens in bursts, but behind especially effective bursts, are calm and rational minds.
strong reactions without some sort of rationality gives way to radical groups.
I think there is a strong rationality behind why feelings of self-entitlement are detrimental. While the solutions seem difficult, no change comes from everyone keeping hush hush about sensitive issues. The benefits from the thinking provoked by ranting as above outweighs the evils of self-entitlement. That was one of the main complaints I had - there's so much stigma against bringing up any racial issue involving the black community. It would be a dream if this blog could get the cogs going in one of TL's numerous calm and rational minds.
In accordance to your comment "strong reactions without some sort of rationality gives way to radical groups.", would you agree that Obama, in his comment of calling the way the Cambridge police acted "stupidly", had a strong reaction without some sort of rationality?
exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources
On July 24 2009 14:33 benjammin wrote: exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources
There are generally more grants available for higher education and of course hiring quotas that many people complain about. My point and the point of others in the thread is that they don't offset the systematic disadvantages the poor are born into.
On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote: Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black
He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government.
It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity.
My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money.
TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say.
He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall.
"In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)"
So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't.
If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful.
If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment in the first place? "Preferential treatment for black people is a sufficiently significant benefit to bring up as a reason they should be more successful" and "black people do not have it easy" are contradictory arguments
why are there only two cases? this is a common logical flaw called the either-or fallacy,
the OP isn't saying black people have it easy, he's saying that many black people have a sense of entitlement (promoted, or at least not helped, by government preference) that causes many to blindly blame the government, white people, etc. instead of realizing that life is unfair and they should do something about it
On July 24 2009 14:33 benjammin wrote: exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources
There are generally more grants available for higher education and of course hiring quotas that many people complain about. My point and the point of others in the thread is that they don't offset the systematic disadvantages the poor are born into.
On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote: "Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history.
Well it may not have been during both America's tenure, but both Jews and many Asians have been enslaved for long periods of time in the past.
ItsYoungLee: Jews and Asians (aside from WW2) have had reasonably equal legal rights in the USA for far longer than blacks. It's not fair to simply compare how much they make or something like that.
It's not enslavement but during WWII Americans of Japanese heritage were put into camps weren't they?
On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote: Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black
He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government.
It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity.
My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money.
TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say.
He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall.
"In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)"
So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't.
If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful.
If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment in the first place? "Preferential treatment for black people is a sufficiently significant benefit to bring up as a reason they should be more successful" and "black people do not have it easy" are contradictory arguments
why are there only two cases? this is a common logical flaw called the either-or fallacy,
the OP isn't saying black people have it easy, he's saying that many black people have a sense of entitlement (promoted, or at least not helped, by government preference) that causes many to blindly blame the government, white people, etc. instead of realizing that life is unfair and they should do something about it
I wasn't talking about the OP, I was talking about the person who said "Face it, the black community is keeping themselves down. No one else is hindering them." and railing against "preferential treatment" from the government (implying that black people are not disadvantaged solely because of said preferential treatment)
On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote: Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black
He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government.
It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity.
My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money.
TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say.
He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall.
"In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)"
So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't.
If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful.
If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment as if it was supposed to make them have it easy?
I really don't understand the logic that you are trying to use, but I'll just sum up again what I believe is a reasonable stance to interpret from his post.
1) Blacks receive the best preferential treatment by the government. 2) Receiving the best preferential treatment by the government does not ensure that you have it easy, although it can relieve some of the burden of having it 'difficult'. 3) Blacks don't necessarily have it easy overall even though in one particular category they might be at an advantage.
You seem to be making assumptions that are not valid.
I can only go off what he explicitly said: "Face it, the black community is keeping themselves down. No one else is hindering them."
Points 2) and 3) seem to be only your assumptions, not his, and on those points I agree with you completely.
He said that after I originally criticized your post. Therefore, I can only be wrong via expost facto XD
On July 24 2009 14:33 benjammin wrote: exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources
Plenty (in number, not necessarily in effect). What you are identifying doesn't invalidate the claim that blacks receive benefits from the government, rather, it simply identifies that some groups of people who are predominantly black are at a disadvantage compared to the average person.
On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote: Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black
He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government.
It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity.
My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money.
TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say.
He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall.
"In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)"
So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't.
If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful.
If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment in the first place? "Preferential treatment for black people is a sufficiently significant benefit to bring up as a reason they should be more successful" and "black people do not have it easy" are contradictory arguments
why are there only two cases? this is a common logical flaw called the either-or fallacy,
the OP isn't saying black people have it easy, he's saying that many black people have a sense of entitlement (promoted, or at least not helped, by government preference) that causes many to blindly blame the government, white people, etc. instead of realizing that life is unfair and they should do something about it
This conversation wasn't about what the OP was saying.
On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote: "Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history.
Well it may not have been during both America's tenure, but both Jews and many Asians have been enslaved for long periods of time in the past.
ItsYoungLee: Jews and Asians (aside from WW2) have had reasonably equal legal rights in the USA for far longer than blacks. It's not fair to simply compare how much they make or something like that.
It's not enslavement but during WWII Americans of Japanese heritage were put into camps weren't they?
Yes, which was obviously a horrible thing but for a relatively short period of time. I'm not saying the effects weren't lasting though.
On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote: "Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history.
Well it may not have been during both America's tenure, but both Jews and many Asians have been enslaved for long periods of time in the past.
ItsYoungLee: Jews and Asians (aside from WW2) have had reasonably equal legal rights in the USA for far longer than blacks. It's not fair to simply compare how much they make or something like that.
It's not enslavement but during WWII Americans of Japanese heritage were put into camps weren't they?
That's why he said aside from WW2. It means that besides the situation you speak of he's saying Jews and Asians have had more rights.
Actually is that true? I'd like to see some stuff on that, I've always been under the impression tolerance for Asians and blacks went together. ( I left out Jews, cause its hard to tell, especially if they don't practice.)
On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote: "Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history.
Well it may not have been during both America's tenure, but both Jews and many Asians have been enslaved for long periods of time in the past.
ItsYoungLee: Jews and Asians (aside from WW2) have had reasonably equal legal rights in the USA for far longer than blacks. It's not fair to simply compare how much they make or something like that.
It's not enslavement but during WWII Americans of Japanese heritage were put into camps weren't they?
That's why he said aside from WW2. It means that besides the situation you speak of he's saying Jews and Asians have had more rights.
Actually is that true? I'd like to see some stuff on that, I've always been under the impression tolerance for Asians and blacks went together. ( I left out Jews, cause its hard to tell, especially if they don't practice.)
This conversation actually got me thinking about what % of Jews in the USA have fairly recognizable Jewish-sounding names.
On July 24 2009 14:33 benjammin wrote: exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources
There are generally more grants available for higher education and of course hiring quotas that many people complain about. My point and the point of others in the thread is that they don't offset the systematic disadvantages the poor are born into.
oh, well, QFT
I want to add that this really should be more of an issue of class than an issue of race, but it just so happens that urban poor are overwhelmingly black.
Rural poor are another issue altogether and depending on where you go in the country you can find rural poor whites, blacks, hispanics, and natives all in equally hopeless situations. Rural poor are a good bit more spread out and have much less cultural impact than urban poor, but they are in many ways even worse off since they can't take the bus to more prosperous areas to work or study.
The son of a white coal miner in Appalachia is just as bad off as the son of a black farmer in Mississippi or a black dockworker in Baltimore.
On July 24 2009 14:33 benjammin wrote: exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources
There are generally more grants available for higher education and of course hiring quotas that many people complain about. My point and the point of others in the thread is that they don't offset the systematic disadvantages the poor are born into.
oh, well, QFT
I want to add that this really should be more of an issue of class than an issue of race,
I guess it depends on what you are talking about exactly, but sometimes it is about race rather than class.
When someone explained to me years ago about a University's policy of more freely admitting minority students because they were at a disadvantage, I immediately asked that someone if they meant the University would admit people from a poor socioeconomic background, which usually ended up being a minority.... and they said "No, a rich black or hispanic kid would get the same exact benefits" and I was like "duuuuude..."
The rant is probably also just as rationally unjustified as self-entitlement, but you also have to understand, the best thing to do when you're frustrated is to rant and let it out. According to my view of history, history happens in bursts - nothing happens gradually. There needs to be some sort of strong reaction/ranting to get this flawed system fixed.
this is the exact type of strong reaction for which you criticize others. i agree that many things in history happens in bursts, but behind especially effective bursts, are calm and rational minds.
strong reactions without some sort of rationality gives way to radical groups.
I think there is a strong rationality behind why feelings of self-entitlement are detrimental. While the solutions seem difficult, no change comes from everyone keeping hush hush about sensitive issues. The benefits from the thinking provoked by ranting as above outweighs the evils of self-entitlement. That was one of the main complaints I had - there's so much stigma against bringing up any racial issue involving the black community. It would be a dream if this blog could get the cogs going in one of TL's numerous calm and rational minds.
i'm afraid when you relate "benefits" and "ranting" on a scale larger than anything related merely to cartharsis. i'm also afraid when you call this word you often throw around, "self-entitlement," "evil." you are accusing, first, many black leaders of having a sense of self-entitlement (which can just as easily be interpreted as a necessary ideal in the face of oppression that lasted up to the ladder half of the 20th century), and then suggesting that it is evil.
and by all means, rant. i do take it seriously because i have to do everything i can to prevent your ideas from being taken.... seriously.
Upon retrospect, obviously a lot of my original post stated my opinions that the leadership of the Black community in America promotes self-entitlement. In my personal subjective view of the American culture, this seems to be true. However, this association between being a member of a Black community and having self-entitlement seeking behavior is not proven, nor can it be strictly claimed based on my single personal experience. My hot-headed furor is now calming down (Thank you TL for helping me think this one out) but the question still remains.
But the question remains: Does a group's sense of self-entitlement further their socioeconomic advancement? What if the self-entitlement is: (a) Justified (Do you think self-entitlement was the reason for the Civil Rights movement and Dr. King? I believe it was self-empowerment) (b) Unjustified
If the self-entitlement is detrimental, what are some practical solutions?
The rant is probably also just as rationally unjustified as self-entitlement, but you also have to understand, the best thing to do when you're frustrated is to rant and let it out. According to my view of history, history happens in bursts - nothing happens gradually. There needs to be some sort of strong reaction/ranting to get this flawed system fixed.
this is the exact type of strong reaction for which you criticize others. i agree that many things in history happens in bursts, but behind especially effective bursts, are calm and rational minds.
strong reactions without some sort of rationality gives way to radical groups.
I think there is a strong rationality behind why feelings of self-entitlement are detrimental. While the solutions seem difficult, no change comes from everyone keeping hush hush about sensitive issues. The benefits from the thinking provoked by ranting as above outweighs the evils of self-entitlement. That was one of the main complaints I had - there's so much stigma against bringing up any racial issue involving the black community. It would be a dream if this blog could get the cogs going in one of TL's numerous calm and rational minds.
i'm afraid when you relate "benefits" and "ranting" on a scale larger than anything related merely to cartharsis. i'm also afraid when you call this word you often throw around, "self-entitlement," "evil." you are accusing, first, many black leaders of having a sense of self-entitlement (which can just as easily be interpreted as a necessary ideal in the face of oppression that lasted up to the ladder half of the 20th century), and then suggesting that it is evil.
and by all means, rant. i do take it seriously because i have to do everything i can to prevent your ideas from being taken.... seriously.
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
On July 24 2009 14:50 ItsYoungLee wrote: Upon retrospect, obviously a lot of my original post stated my opinions that the leadership of the Black community in America promotes self-entitlement. In my personal subjective view of the American culture, this seems to be true. However, this association between being a member of a Black community and having self-entitlement seeking behavior is not proven, nor can it be strictly claimed based on my single personal experience. My hot-headed furor is now calming down (Thank you TL for helping me think this one out) but the question still remains.
But the question remains: Does a group's sense of self-entitlement further their socioeconomic advancement? What if the self-entitlement is: (a) Justified (Do you think self-entitlement was the reason for the Civil Rights movement and Dr. King? I believe it was self-empowerment) (b) Unjustified
If the self-entitlement is detrimental, what are some practical solutions?
I think generalizing 'self-entitlement' into a yes/no thing and then talking about its effects is a mistake. The ways in which they behave differently than they should as a result of various feelings of self-entitlement can be explored, but not easily.
Your professor's research study is very interesting. What results (if any) have they found with using an Asian accent?
the study didn't include asian accents, but a personal account i've read by amy tan (the author of joy luck club) about her mother's chinese accent reportedly turned many people off over the phone. when her mother talked with store managers, her broker, or others they were far more likely to be rude and terse with her than if amy spoke with them.
On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote: Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed.
yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black
He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government.
It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity.
My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money.
TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say.
He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall.
"In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)"
So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't.
If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful.
If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment in the first place? "Preferential treatment for black people is a sufficiently significant benefit to bring up as a reason they should be more successful" and "black people do not have it easy" are contradictory arguments
why are there only two cases? this is a common logical flaw called the either-or fallacy,
the OP isn't saying black people have it easy, he's saying that many black people have a sense of entitlement (promoted, or at least not helped, by government preference) that causes many to blindly blame the government, white people, etc. instead of realizing that life is unfair and they should do something about it
I wasn't talking about the OP, I was talking about the person who said "Face it, the black community is keeping themselves down. No one else is hindering them." and railing against "preferential treatment" from the government (implying that black people are not disadvantaged solely because of said preferential treatment)
wasn't that quote in the OP? before the edit? maybe I'm going crazy
On July 24 2009 14:33 benjammin wrote: exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources
There are generally more grants available for higher education and of course hiring quotas that many people complain about. My point and the point of others in the thread is that they don't offset the systematic disadvantages the poor are born into.
oh, well, QFT
I want to add that this really should be more of an issue of class than an issue of race, but it just so happens that urban poor are overwhelmingly black.
Rural poor are another issue altogether and depending on where you go in the country you can find rural poor whites, blacks, hispanics, and natives all in equally hopeless situations. Rural poor are a good bit more spread out and have much less cultural impact than urban poor, but they are in many ways even worse off since they can't take the bus to more prosperous areas to work or study.
The son of a white coal miner in Appalachia is just as bad off as the son of a black farmer in Mississippi or a black dockworker in Baltimore.
this right here is my problem with affirmative action, assuming all black people are poor and need help from the government is very condescending, not to mention racist.
also i'm from a family of 6 that makes ~20k USD (i realize this is rich in some countries, but not at all in the USA), I attended a pretty crappy high school, had to go to a CC instead of a uni for the first 2 years of college and other such crap but i deal with it. i think if the government wanted to help equalize the races we should kill a couple birds here and just reward poor kids who are working hard to make a future for themselves regardless of race
On July 24 2009 14:50 ItsYoungLee wrote: Upon retrospect, obviously a lot of my original post stated my opinions that the leadership of the Black community in America promotes self-entitlement. In my personal subjective view of the American culture, this seems to be true. However, this association between being a member of a Black community and having self-entitlement seeking behavior is not proven, nor can it be strictly claimed based on my single personal experience. My hot-headed furor is now calming down (Thank you TL for helping me think this one out) but the question still remains.
But the question remains: Does a group's sense of self-entitlement further their socioeconomic advancement? What if the self-entitlement is: (a) Justified (Do you think self-entitlement was the reason for the Civil Rights movement and Dr. King? I believe it was self-empowerment) (b) Unjustified
If the self-entitlement is detrimental, what are some practical solutions?
I think generalizing 'self-entitlement' into a yes/no thing and then talking about its effects is a mistake. The ways in which they behave differently than they should as a result of various feelings of self-entitlement can be explored, but not easily.
Ok, then what if I forced you to dichotomize the "self-entitlement" thing. Suppose you could take self-entitlement-ness and transform it into a continuous scale. Now take everyone below the median as "not self-entitled" and everyone above the median as "self-entitled". Which do you think would be more harmful to progress?
The biggest irony in all of this is that Bob Johnson, the first black billionaire, has made his money through BET, which perpetuates many of the damaging cultural stereotypes and messages which people complain about. How's that for "minorities need to think of themselves as individuals and not members of a racial bloc"?
I personally think that Sharpton, Jackson, et al do more harm than good if for no other reason than the reaction they provoke in mainstream society. Even if one of them came out and read one of Dr. King's speeches verbatim I don't think it would be a stretch for many people to mock it simply because people have a conditioned response to be derisive of them as public figures. However, the things they do could be motivated by an individual sense of self-entitlement (like Bob Johnson's) and not a racial one. Perhaps they just enjoy the spotlight.
That raises the question: would this perception of self-entitlement exist if there were not figureheads who perpetuated it? Should the self-entitlement of those figureheads be applauded because they are doing what is best for themselves as an individual or criticized because they are setting a bad example in many ways?
There are certainly role models for urban poor such as Bill Cosby who receive far less media attention because he says things which are not controversial (except to the more radicalized figures and people influenced by their teachings).
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given.
it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason.
in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used.
Your professor's research study is very interesting. What results (if any) have they found with using an Asian accent?
the study didn't include asian accents, but a personal account i've read by amy tan (the author of joy luck club) about her mother's chinese accent reportedly turned many people off over the phone. when her mother talked with store managers, her broker, or others they were far more likely to be rude and terse with her than if amy spoke with them.
Bilingual German speakers in Pennsylvania who had strong German accents (basically nonexistent anymore except for the Amish, which this doesn't apply to) felt a lot of social pressure to learn how to speak "normally" in academic or professional circles outside their home areas. They found it difficult to be taken seriously with their accent (even without any anti-German war hysteria) because they sounded rural and lower class. Sounding funny isn't the exclusive domain of minorities.
Interesting discussion. I just have a quick question for CunningLinguist
In the study you referenced, were there any attempts to correlate accents/'dialects' with affluence/total demographic or perceived demographic?
It seems likely to me that most people will perceive individuals speaking 'black english vernacular' as coming from a relatively poor background. Many will associate this with lacking social graces, greater propensity for criminal activity etc maybe making other tenants uncomfortable.
Of course, black english vernacular is not going to be the only accent/dialect which has these (or similarly negative) connotations - there are a number, even within the USA. Just as an example (maybe not a great one), a landlord in certain parts of England may be more likely to respond to a caller with an Oxford accent than a cockney accent.
So there should be an attempt to determine the extent to which issues of class etc are relevant to this sort of discrimination (as opposed to purely race) - I suspect it is significant.
Edit: Sorry I didn't notice this issue had already been partly brought up - still I hope for more discussion relating to it
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given.
it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason.
in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used.
I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?
Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused.
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given.
it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason.
in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used.
I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?
Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused.
what? you mean you have to work to get ahead? blasphemy, you're just not doing it right
Ok, then what if I forced you to dichotomize the "self-entitlement" thing. Suppose you could take self-entitlement-ness and transform it into a continuous scale. Now take everyone below the median as "not self-entitled" and everyone above the median as "self-entitled". Which do you think would be more harmful to progress?
before i say anything, i will mention that this system is flawed because you have no definition of progress. progress could be the genocide of an entire group of people, as certain leaders in history have defined it.
if you were to reduce this situation into a dichotomy of "not self-entitled" and "self-entitled," naturally those who do not feel self-entitled will lose everything to those who feel self-entitled. naturally.
for a group to survive in the dichotomy, they must be "self-entitled," or they will not survive.
Ok, then what if I forced you to dichotomize the "self-entitlement" thing. Suppose you could take self-entitlement-ness and transform it into a continuous scale. Now take everyone below the median as "not self-entitled" and everyone above the median as "self-entitled". Which do you think would be more harmful to progress?
before i say anything, i will mention that this system is flawed because you have no definition of progress. progress could be the genocide of an entire group of people, as certain leaders in history have defined it.
if you were to reduce this situation into a dichotomy of "not self-entitled" and "self-entitled," naturally those who do not feel self-entitled will lose everything to those who feel self-entitled. naturally.
for a group to survive in the dichotomy, they must be "self-entitled," or they will not survive.
in my experience (warning: generalizing from experience could be dangerous) people who feel self-entitled tend to sit around complaining that they deserve more, that they're "above" menial labor or whatever. people who don't feel self-entitled tend to work harder to EARN what they get.
On July 24 2009 14:50 ItsYoungLee wrote: Upon retrospect, obviously a lot of my original post stated my opinions that the leadership of the Black community in America promotes self-entitlement. In my personal subjective view of the American culture, this seems to be true. However, this association between being a member of a Black community and having self-entitlement seeking behavior is not proven, nor can it be strictly claimed based on my single personal experience. My hot-headed furor is now calming down (Thank you TL for helping me think this one out) but the question still remains.
But the question remains: Does a group's sense of self-entitlement further their socioeconomic advancement? What if the self-entitlement is: (a) Justified (Do you think self-entitlement was the reason for the Civil Rights movement and Dr. King? I believe it was self-empowerment) (b) Unjustified
If the self-entitlement is detrimental, what are some practical solutions?
I think generalizing 'self-entitlement' into a yes/no thing and then talking about its effects is a mistake. The ways in which they behave differently than they should as a result of various feelings of self-entitlement can be explored, but not easily.
Ok, then what if I forced you to dichotomize the "self-entitlement" thing. Suppose you could take self-entitlement-ness and transform it into a continuous scale. Now take everyone below the median as "not self-entitled" and everyone above the median as "self-entitled". Which do you think would be more harmful to progress?
I believe that self-entitlement is too complicated to be converted into a one-dimensional spectrum. Self entitlement is not about how entitled you feel, but rather, the ways in which you feel entitled, and how you react to those feelings (although each particular one can certainly have varying degrees of intensity). Perhaps, using specific examples and linking them to real life actions taken by black people/communities would illustrate your point to some degree.
Another comment I'd like to make is that during the years of slave trading (legal slave trading that is) most of non-colonial Africa consisted of relatively isolated tribes. In many senses its inhabitants may have been practically stone age. This may be explained by the harsh climate and relative infertility of the ground - meaning that agriculture could rarely support large cities and so forth.
So the point of this is that by the time slavery was finally outlawed in the USA, Africans were freed into a society for which they were completely culturally unprepared. On top of that, everyone still hated them - active discrimination was still legally acceptable, as we all know, through the 1960s or so. With all of this in mind, it is no surprise at all that a century and a half later, African Americans as a whole are still struggling to make headway in this nation, or rather, we are still struggling to reach socioeconomic equilibrium between blacks, whites, and other ethnic groups.
While many people may use the race card inappropriately to their advantage, I feel that I see enough examples of racism to understand why that sort of thinking still exists.
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given.
it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason.
in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used.
I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?
Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused.
you are confused, first of all, because you are overcomplicating what i said. perhaps i should have explicitly stated that my twin brother and i are equally deserving of the cake, in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth (get the point?)'s eyes. The sole purpose of my example was to define self-entitlement in a light that would not be seen by most as negative.
i continued my argument by saying that the situation of today is actually a lot more complex, and that one should have a lot more ammunition with which to argue than you, as of this moment, have.
You say, "According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?"
But my argument had nothing to do with our governments, the US, life, liberty, or the Constitution.
Simply put, Blacks feel self-entitlement, and the only reason they should feel any less self-entitlement is if they feel more than they should. But how do you know whether they feel entitled to more than they should?
On July 24 2009 14:50 ItsYoungLee wrote: Upon retrospect, obviously a lot of my original post stated my opinions that the leadership of the Black community in America promotes self-entitlement. In my personal subjective view of the American culture, this seems to be true. However, this association between being a member of a Black community and having self-entitlement seeking behavior is not proven, nor can it be strictly claimed based on my single personal experience. My hot-headed furor is now calming down (Thank you TL for helping me think this one out) but the question still remains.
But the question remains: Does a group's sense of self-entitlement further their socioeconomic advancement? What if the self-entitlement is: (a) Justified (Do you think self-entitlement was the reason for the Civil Rights movement and Dr. King? I believe it was self-empowerment) (b) Unjustified
If the self-entitlement is detrimental, what are some practical solutions?
The rant is probably also just as rationally unjustified as self-entitlement, but you also have to understand, the best thing to do when you're frustrated is to rant and let it out. According to my view of history, history happens in bursts - nothing happens gradually. There needs to be some sort of strong reaction/ranting to get this flawed system fixed.
this is the exact type of strong reaction for which you criticize others. i agree that many things in history happens in bursts, but behind especially effective bursts, are calm and rational minds.
strong reactions without some sort of rationality gives way to radical groups.
I think there is a strong rationality behind why feelings of self-entitlement are detrimental. While the solutions seem difficult, no change comes from everyone keeping hush hush about sensitive issues. The benefits from the thinking provoked by ranting as above outweighs the evils of self-entitlement. That was one of the main complaints I had - there's so much stigma against bringing up any racial issue involving the black community. It would be a dream if this blog could get the cogs going in one of TL's numerous calm and rational minds.
i'm afraid when you relate "benefits" and "ranting" on a scale larger than anything related merely to cartharsis. i'm also afraid when you call this word you often throw around, "self-entitlement," "evil." you are accusing, first, many black leaders of having a sense of self-entitlement (which can just as easily be interpreted as a necessary ideal in the face of oppression that lasted up to the ladder half of the 20th century), and then suggesting that it is evil.
and by all means, rant. i do take it seriously because i have to do everything i can to prevent your ideas from being taken.... seriously.
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
Yeah, they don't seek Government...no really. I mean, they didn't heed warnings about Hurricane Katrina and stayed. What happens afterward is a mob of people with no ability to self-sustain because they are accustomed to sucking off the teet of the US Government. Fast forward a few years and the winter Ice storms that decimated rural Kansas. Little to none Government assistance and over 300,000 without power for weeks in freezing temps and hardly a peep from the MSM and they did just fine because they relied on each other and not on the Government.
Entitlement programs don't teach you how to fish, they give you a fish. Once that fish is eaten, they're back at the tit for some more. That is the fundamental problems with Entitlements and is the major factor while the black community wallows in poverty. When I was growing up my parents were pretty poor. I'm half Cherokee and I could go to college for free on the Government, but when I grew up my parents drilled into me the ethos of hard-work and never taking a dime from the Government. Fast forward to today; I am self-sustained, educated, and a healthy productive member of society. It's easy to sit there and keep your hands out for the rest of your life. It's not easy to get up and work hard, work towards your education, and avoid obstacles that hinder your progress (Bad influences, drugs, etc.).
I bet within 30 years if the black community was weened off the government tit and had to work to make due you would see a greater emphasis on education, productiveness, work ethos, and you would see crime drop, education levels rise, and median income skyrocket. It's all ready proven. Look at the early immigrants to this country who faced hardships much like todays black communities do. Those second and third generation immigrants grew up with the work ethos, education importance, etc. and look at them now. Productive fully self-sufficient members of society.
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given.
it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason.
in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used.
I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?
Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused.
you are confused, first of all, because you are overcomplicating what i said. perhaps i should have explicitly stated that my twin brother and i are equally deserving of the cake, in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth (get the point?)'s eyes. The sole purpose of my example was to define self-entitlement in a light that would not be seen by most as negative.
i continued my argument by saying that the situation of today is actually a lot more complex, and that one should have a lot more ammunition with which to argue than you, as of this moment, have.
You say, "According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?"
But my argument had nothing to do with our governments, the US, life, liberty, or the Constitution.
Simply put, Blacks feel self-entitlement, and the only reason they should feel any less self-entitlement is if they feel more than they should. But how do you know whether they feel entitled to more than they should?
Read my prior post. Entitlements breed stagnation and backwords progress. It does nothing to incentivize progress. (Not only that, but its a form of wealth distribution, which I am vehemently opposed to morally, and philosophically)
On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote: I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased...
But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) -
yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP
Ok, then what if I forced you to dichotomize the "self-entitlement" thing. Suppose you could take self-entitlement-ness and transform it into a continuous scale. Now take everyone below the median as "not self-entitled" and everyone above the median as "self-entitled". Which do you think would be more harmful to progress?
before i say anything, i will mention that this system is flawed because you have no definition of progress. progress could be the genocide of an entire group of people, as certain leaders in history have defined it.
if you were to reduce this situation into a dichotomy of "not self-entitled" and "self-entitled," naturally those who do not feel self-entitled will lose everything to those who feel self-entitled. naturally.
for a group to survive in the dichotomy, they must be "self-entitled," or they will not survive.
in my experience (warning: generalizing from experience could be dangerous) people who feel self-entitled tend to sit around complaining that they deserve more, that they're "above" menial labor or whatever. people who don't feel self-entitled tend to work harder to EARN what they get.
in my argument, the person who doesn't work would be classified as "feels more self-entitlement than deserved," and the person who does work would be classified as "feels as much self-entitlement as deserved."
On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote: I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased...
But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) -
On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote: I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased...
But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) -
yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP
Don't you have a freedom of speech? Facts like these aren't even being discussed?
On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote: I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased...
But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) -
what do you intend to prove with this?
he's referring back to the OP situation about the Gates guy, he's wondering if, since more crimes are committed by black people isn't it justified from a police POV to discriminate based on race (e.g. who they stop, what they think looks suspicious etc)
On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote: I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased...
But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) -
yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP
Don't you have a freedom of speech? Facts like these aren't even being discussed?
I can see the reasoning though.
You can't discuss the facts because those who believe in "white guilt" and think they caused what is currently happening in the black community will try and rationalize why it is "our" fault, and not theirs no matter how many statistics you lay at them.
Anyone want to see the Out of Wedlock and Single mother statistics?
On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote: I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased...
But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) -
yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP
Don't you have a freedom of speech? Facts like these aren't even being discussed?
I can see the reasoning though.
Freedom of speech limits the government's ability to control what we are allowed to say. This issue however is limited by how we control each other (hence taboo rather than illegal).
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given.
it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason.
in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used.
I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?
Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused.
you are confused, first of all, because you are overcomplicating what i said. perhaps i should have explicitly stated that my twin brother and i are equally deserving of the cake, in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth (get the point?)'s eyes. The sole purpose of my example was to define self-entitlement in a light that would not be seen by most as negative.
i continued my argument by saying that the situation of today is actually a lot more complex, and that one should have a lot more ammunition with which to argue than you, as of this moment, have.
You say, "According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?"
But my argument had nothing to do with our governments, the US, life, liberty, or the Constitution.
Simply put, Blacks feel self-entitlement, and the only reason they should feel any less self-entitlement is if they feel more than they should. But how do you know whether they feel entitled to more than they should?
Read my prior post. Entitlements breed stagnation and backwords progress. It does nothing to incentivize progress. (Not only that, but its a form of wealth distribution, which I am vehemently opposed to morally, and philosophically)
my argument has nothing to do with wealth distribution. you must understand the way i have defined "self-entitlement" during the argument. you feel entitled to your paycheck after you work, correct? along the same line, i do not feel entitled to a paycheck if i do not work. the idea of entitlements of which you speak is not the same idea i am using to carry my arguments.
On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote: I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased...
But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) -
yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP
Don't you have a freedom of speech? Facts like these aren't even being discussed?
I can see the reasoning though.
it's really weird actually, in the US it sometimes feels like we have 2 completely separate cultures, and to some extent we do. the idea of "political correctness" has been taken to the point where you can be instantly fired (or marked as a racist) for a perceived racist comment, even if it's taken out of context from your personal life/facebook/myspace or whatever. so people are very cautious about sharing their views
Ok, then what if I forced you to dichotomize the "self-entitlement" thing. Suppose you could take self-entitlement-ness and transform it into a continuous scale. Now take everyone below the median as "not self-entitled" and everyone above the median as "self-entitled". Which do you think would be more harmful to progress?
before i say anything, i will mention that this system is flawed because you have no definition of progress. progress could be the genocide of an entire group of people, as certain leaders in history have defined it.
if you were to reduce this situation into a dichotomy of "not self-entitled" and "self-entitled," naturally those who do not feel self-entitled will lose everything to those who feel self-entitled. naturally.
for a group to survive in the dichotomy, they must be "self-entitled," or they will not survive.
in my experience (warning: generalizing from experience could be dangerous) people who feel self-entitled tend to sit around complaining that they deserve more, that they're "above" menial labor or whatever. people who don't feel self-entitled tend to work harder to EARN what they get.
in my argument, the person who doesn't work would be classified as "feels more self-entitlement than deserved," and the person who does work would be classified as "feels as much self-entitlement as deserved."
yes, i was agreeing with you. i was saying that in my experience people who feel self-entitled despite not doing anything are typically whiners who sit around rather than work for what they feel they already deserve. those who don't feel entitled to much tend to work harder for what they get, since they don't feel they deserve it in and of themselves
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given.
it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason.
in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used.
I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?
Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused.
you are confused, first of all, because you are overcomplicating what i said. perhaps i should have explicitly stated that my twin brother and i are equally deserving of the cake, in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth (get the point?)'s eyes. The sole purpose of my example was to define self-entitlement in a light that would not be seen by most as negative.
i continued my argument by saying that the situation of today is actually a lot more complex, and that one should have a lot more ammunition with which to argue than you, as of this moment, have.
You say, "According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?"
But my argument had nothing to do with our governments, the US, life, liberty, or the Constitution.
Simply put, Blacks feel self-entitlement, and the only reason they should feel any less self-entitlement is if they feel more than they should. But how do you know whether they feel entitled to more than they should?
Read my prior post. Entitlements breed stagnation and backwords progress. It does nothing to incentivize progress. (Not only that, but its a form of wealth distribution, which I am vehemently opposed to morally, and philosophically)
my argument has nothing to do with wealth distribution. you must understand the way i have defined "self-entitlement" during the argument. you feel entitled to your paycheck after you work, correct? along the same line, i do not feel entitled to a paycheck if i do not work. the idea of entitlements of which you speak is not the same idea i am using to carry my arguments.
No, I do not feel "entitled" to my paycheck. I feel I have EARNED my paycheck. There is a huge difference.
On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote: I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased...
But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) -
yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP
Don't you have a freedom of speech? Facts like these aren't even being discussed?
I can see the reasoning though.
it's really weird actually, in the US it sometimes feels like we have 2 completely separate cultures, and to some extent we do. the idea of "political correctness" has been taken to the point where you can be instantly fired (or marked as a racist) for a perceived racist comment, even if it's taken out of context from your personal life/facebook/myspace or whatever. so people are very cautious about sharing their views
I think it's similar to the idea of overreaction to certain things like toy guns and middle eastern people in airports. in a nation where there is a history of racism, weapons, and ideals of regional origin being abused, people naturally become extremely cautious.
On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote: I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased...
But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) -
yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP
Don't you have a freedom of speech? Facts like these aren't even being discussed?
I can see the reasoning though.
it's really weird actually, in the US it sometimes feels like we have 2 completely separate cultures, and to some extent we do. the idea of "political correctness" has been taken to the point where you can be instantly fired (or marked as a racist) for a perceived racist comment, even if it's taken out of context from your personal life/facebook/myspace or whatever. so people are very cautious about sharing their views
I think it's similar to the idea of overreaction to certain things like toy guns and middle eastern people in airports. in a nation where there is a history of racism, weapons, and ideals of regional origin being abused, people naturally become extremely cautious.
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given.
it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason.
in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used.
I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?
Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused.
you are confused, first of all, because you are overcomplicating what i said. perhaps i should have explicitly stated that my twin brother and i are equally deserving of the cake, in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth (get the point?)'s eyes. The sole purpose of my example was to define self-entitlement in a light that would not be seen by most as negative.
i continued my argument by saying that the situation of today is actually a lot more complex, and that one should have a lot more ammunition with which to argue than you, as of this moment, have.
You say, "According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?"
But my argument had nothing to do with our governments, the US, life, liberty, or the Constitution.
Simply put, Blacks feel self-entitlement, and the only reason they should feel any less self-entitlement is if they feel more than they should. But how do you know whether they feel entitled to more than they should?
Read my prior post. Entitlements breed stagnation and backwords progress. It does nothing to incentivize progress. (Not only that, but its a form of wealth distribution, which I am vehemently opposed to morally, and philosophically)
my argument has nothing to do with wealth distribution. you must understand the way i have defined "self-entitlement" during the argument. you feel entitled to your paycheck after you work, correct? along the same line, i do not feel entitled to a paycheck if i do not work. the idea of entitlements of which you speak is not the same idea i am using to carry my arguments.
No, I do not feel "entitled" to my paycheck. I feel I have EARNED my paycheck. There is a huge difference.
if it so pleases you, change all the words i used containing "entitlement" to "banpitongbrew," and define the new word as "something one deserves"
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given.
it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason.
in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used.
I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?
Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused.
you are confused, first of all, because you are overcomplicating what i said. perhaps i should have explicitly stated that my twin brother and i are equally deserving of the cake, in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth (get the point?)'s eyes. The sole purpose of my example was to define self-entitlement in a light that would not be seen by most as negative.
i continued my argument by saying that the situation of today is actually a lot more complex, and that one should have a lot more ammunition with which to argue than you, as of this moment, have.
You say, "According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?"
But my argument had nothing to do with our governments, the US, life, liberty, or the Constitution.
Simply put, Blacks feel self-entitlement, and the only reason they should feel any less self-entitlement is if they feel more than they should. But how do you know whether they feel entitled to more than they should?
Read my prior post. Entitlements breed stagnation and backwords progress. It does nothing to incentivize progress. (Not only that, but its a form of wealth distribution, which I am vehemently opposed to morally, and philosophically)
my argument has nothing to do with wealth distribution. you must understand the way i have defined "self-entitlement" during the argument. you feel entitled to your paycheck after you work, correct? along the same line, i do not feel entitled to a paycheck if i do not work. the idea of entitlements of which you speak is not the same idea i am using to carry my arguments.
No, I do not feel "entitled" to my paycheck. I feel I have EARNED my paycheck. There is a huge difference.
if it so pleases you, change all the words i used containing "entitlement" to "banpitongbrew," and define the new word as "something one deserves"
It was quite obvious the OP was talking about Government entitlement programs and their adverse effects on society. You then hijacked the word and went on a tangent (along with the OP who got sidetracked with you), about some existential meaning. The point of fact is, Entitlements and the sense of people owing you anything, or more than reasonably expected either because of arbitrary birth skin pigments or other racial characteristics drags society down. It does nothing to give incentive to improve ones self.
it's true that for the duration of the argument, "entitlements" was used too haphazardly. it's my opinion that it isn't my place to argue whether blacks do indeed deserve, in a country that can either gain or lose from providing those that have had a history of being disadvantaged, special treatment, and i believe i've already said the same about the OP (that it was not his place to argue), in light of his rant.
i claimed that "self-entitlement" was not necessarily evil, using the definition i used to hijack the word, soon after my attempt to counter the OP's original rant. This I did because what a Black person feels when he cries out with the race card cannot automatically be related directly to the term "self-entitlement" as defined by a sense of deserving something one does not deserve. This feeling can just as easily be a sense of unfair treatment, stemming from not getting something one indeed is entitled to: non-discrimination.
Indeed, the original rant had to do with Gates acting like he did. Government entitlements seems like a subject the OP turned to after calming down, at which point I had irrevocably gone into existentialism mode.
On July 24 2009 16:13 NukemDuke wrote: I Laughed, out loud none the less. When I read the part about Asians being one of the more hated minorities.
you disagree? perhaps now asian americans are more respected but they were severely discriminated against even as late as the 1940's (hint: something called world war 2), japanese people were forced into internment camps across the US. even japanese people born and raised in the US two generations back were hated - not disliked - hated. earlier chinese people were also hated, check out this political cartoon from the era:
i think it's pretty clear what the general feeling towards asians at that time was
Dasanivan - Good point on your argument about whether self-entitlement in the Black community is more than it should be, but I think it's obvious from the context of my discussion that unjustified self-entitlement is harmful to progress.
In my view, you're entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, along with your rights in the constitution. If anything, if you're going to "level the playing field" as so many racially charged government policies intend to do, then you should rather discriminate on the basis of economic situation of an individual.
When I think of someone who's overly self-entitled about their race, they go into situations with a racial narrative already in mind "Oh well, I'm Asian, and if I don't get that job, they're just oppressing us Asians. Oh, that cop just pulled me over just because I'm Asian". This type of attitude does nothing to empower you, it's just a form of self-victimization that renders you helpless. That attitude is what I find repulsive.
Of course you won't find research to prove my point - who would fund that kind of research in America? The failure of certain minorities in America while other non-white minority groups thrive under the same government definitely points to a failure, not in the American system, but possibly in the intrinsic cultural values of that minority group. Not to mention, Magic84's post, if statistically intact, raises some serious questions - is it racial profiling, or are there other factors?
On July 24 2009 16:13 NukemDuke wrote: I Laughed, out loud none the less. When I read the part about Asians being one of the more hated minorities.
Read again LOL. The part about being the most hated minority I intended to apply to the Jewish people. On second thought though, governmental policies definitely seem to hate minorities (especially when it comes to applying to college, medical school, etc... >< )
On July 24 2009 14:06 Saddened Izzy wrote: The officer was being a dick by not seeing the ID if that is true. Gates is being a dick if he lied or if he resisted arrest only proving the point of his arrest.
Either way blah blah blah. Wouldn't it be more of racial profiling if they didn't arrest him because he didn't look like a thug. Last point Obama should not weigh in on something that he only has heard from others. He just should concentrate on his already full plate.
obama is the president. it would be bad for a president's image not to weigh in on an issue about which even starcraft enthusiasts debate.
Because he should weigh in on DoTA, Getting High and other popular threads like youtube and naruto.
The op asked what we thought of the gates situation... well
I would say I understand why Gates might have been a little angry, barely getting home from the airport from China, a bit of a long flight, having to force his way into his home, and probably being dead tired. I do think just about everyone might have been a little frustrated if an officer comes into your home and thinks you are burglarizing your own home. He probably should have used a little restraint and been a bit more cooperative with the police officer, and probably was unjustified in bringing up race as an issue, however, I do not blame him for doing so, as I'm sure his life experiences have probably included many justified racial (racist) encounters that were real which are probably still experienced by a large majority of black people, especially with regards to police.
I was also watching this police chief on pbs the other day, and I would agree with him when he said it was an issue of training rather than race in this instance, the police officer made a stupid decision when he decided to arrest Gates, he certainly could have handled the situation better than he did. Some departments do a better job of training than others, emphasizing good decision making and being able to use their discretion more wisely.
In regards to the discussion on self-entitlement, I think it's too abstract to measure or get any real sense of how it affects the black community, it can only be an assumption, and I do not think it would be a major influence of why blacks perform poorly or why they earn less money. I think saying it's self-entitlement is just an easy way to avoid addressing the real root problems of black issues, such as the cultures of poverty, poor education, drugs and gangs, single mothers. I also think the migration from urban centers since the 1950's has also played a major part in keeping poverty in densely populated black urban areas (also urban areas in general). As the city centers grew more dense, people who could afford to moved to the suburbs, and eventually people moved from those suburbs to new suburbs while economic opportunities and wealth moved with them leaving the poorer families behind, mostly black. I do think though Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton promote their own interest and are parasites and make issues out of non issues.
I think my general point would be that I think people do not take enough into account the black experience in American society, historically and even today when thinking about why they might play the race card sometimes, justifiably or unjustifiably so, its only been 45 years since the civil rights act of 1964, and around 100 years prior from the emancipation proclamation/13th amendment before that. The perception is there that it is them against society and has been ingrained and embedded into their minds from their relatives, ancestors, life experiences despite what may or may not be reality, I think it is difficult for other people to understand that life experience if you are not black, myself included even though I have experienced some racism when I was in school, and my mom went to a school for the "mexicans" in the same town when she was a kid, I still don't think I can comprehend what it would be like to be black, but I don't know if they place the race card too much or not, probably more than it is actually true.
this was a long post and here is chappelle vid fast forward to 3:50 for relevant section
Hey, at least in America you got rid of Affirmative Action in most states. In Canada, it is still very much alive. There is a "visible minority" box you can check on many job applications and if you aren't white, you WILL get the job even if you are under qualified. Employers are even allowed to post "looking for Asian applications" or shit like that. It is ridiculous.
Ok, then what if I forced you to dichotomize the "self-entitlement" thing. Suppose you could take self-entitlement-ness and transform it into a continuous scale. Now take everyone below the median as "not self-entitled" and everyone above the median as "self-entitled". Which do you think would be more harmful to progress?
before i say anything, i will mention that this system is flawed because you have no definition of progress. progress could be the genocide of an entire group of people, as certain leaders in history have defined it.
if you were to reduce this situation into a dichotomy of "not self-entitled" and "self-entitled," naturally those who do not feel self-entitled will lose everything to those who feel self-entitled. naturally.
for a group to survive in the dichotomy, they must be "self-entitled," or they will not survive.
I think you have it completely wrong here. You argue against my point by saying (1) the definition of progress does not exist. In fact, it does - Just because I can't define it perfectly doesn't mean that there doesn't exist a definition of process that would serve as a useful indicator of a racial group's "success". That argument is completely invalid. There does exist a meaningful measure of success that can be deemed as "progress"
What if I told you that breathing too fast was detrimental to your health? Take the breathing rates of a million people, take the top 10%tile, and compare this group to the rest. I'm pretty sure you would find that the top 10%tile are at greater risk of health problems. You obviously don't understand the principle of dichotomization based on a certain cut-off. (there are varying degrees of self-entitlement, not just 0 or 1) Obviously the "not self-entitled" will include people with lesser but nonzero amounts of self-entitlement, while "self-entitled" group will include people with more amounts of self-entitlement. You read too much into the titles.
Please stop arguing about the language and focus on the questions themselves.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee65/Shuu0/Misc/a.jpg)
, we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/YellowTerror.jpg)
