|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Keeping Us Racially Divided
The White House Task Force report endorses the work of a group called “Welcoming America,” which it lauds for “promot[ing] mutual respect and cooperation between foreign-born and native-born Americans.” Among the resources the group promotes to assist in this project is a “toolkit” that recommends material examining “structural racism,” white privilege, and the like.
One of the recommended resources in the toolkit is an article by Jamie Grant, a contributing editor of Gender and Sexualities, entitled “Emptying The White Knapsack: Applying Privilege by Redistributing White-Hoarded Power and Resources,” which notes that “white people benefit from racist structures and the racist distribution of power and resources in U.S. society every day of [their] lives.” Grant takes her inspiration from a 1988 essay by Peggy McIntosh, which she describes as “a classic consciousness-raising piece about white privilege.” Grant argues, “Once we get past the idea that racism rests with a few prejudiced, hate-filled individuals and accept that all white people uphold a system of racism in our daily choices and actions, there is a lifetime of anti-racist work ahead of us.” This is the kind of literature that an Obama-administration-endorsed group recommends to assist in the integration of immigrants into the mainstream of American life.
In 1990, in an article entitled, “After Socialism: Balkanization of U.S.,” Charles Krauthammer wrote that after the collapse of “the actually existing socialism” that was Soviet Communism, the “most serious” threat to America was “Balkanization,” the “division of Americans into a hierarchy of legally preferred groups based on race and gender.” Today, mass immigration (legal and illegal) without assimilation (or, more precisely, with “integration” of immigrants understood to mean promotion of identity politics and adversarial multiculturalism) has paved the way for a radical transformation in how we conceive of ourselves as a polity. This effort seeks to replace the traditional ethos of patriotic assimilation, which encouraged new immigrants to think of themselves as Americans first and foremost, with one that prioritizes ethnic, racial, and gender identities over a unifying national identity. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton would consolidate and expand this project of balkanization. If it succeeds, it could permanently tear the very fabric of American society.
http://www.hudson.org/research/12751-the-obama-clinton-immigration-agenda-will-mean-the-balkanization-of-america
|
yes the good old times, when the blacks where happily integrated and culturally assimilated..
|
On August 20 2016 07:21 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 07:16 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 06:55 Dan HH wrote:On August 20 2016 06:46 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 06:29 Dan HH wrote:On August 20 2016 06:20 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 06:04 mahrgell wrote:On August 20 2016 05:49 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 04:19 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2016 03:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:[quote] Source Just like we have drones defending why a ransom isn't ransom, we have the same drones saying why Obama's handling isn't his fault or is in despite of the best expert policy, and why Hillary is most capable of fixing the trouble. Expect to see a rise in reporting if Trump is elected. The president's got style and substance fused pretty well - he's not doing much of anything and not making any spectacle of it. That's the unfortunate climate we're in, or he thinks we're in, that he's politically afraid to practice robust foreign policy because people might think any actions the US would abroad are too dirty and stop voting. So we get these kick the bucket fetuses of haphazard policy involving supplying arms, sanctions, drone strikes, and having fewer troops in the Middle East than in Germany, and hoping nothing ends up bad enough that the Democrats would either 1) lose elections over it or 2) have to do something decisive like start a war that they would then lose elections over. Yeah, the lack of US wars/invasions is really a dissappointing low point in US foreign policy. I wonder how the US citizens can accept this lack of action. Most Americans aren't buying it, actually: + Show Spoiler +They might have thought differently if US foreign policy was working even without the military. Would staying in Iraq for decades count as 'it's working' any more than this though? Or what is the proposed alternative here? Those are the only two foreign policy multiple choices, occupy a specific country for decades or continue with exactly what the government's doing now. Hence the 2nd question in my comment. If occupation is bad, and leaving is bad, what is this 'robust foreign policy' you are referencing cryptically that at the same time involves having more troops in the Middle East but without occupying anything? There's nothing wrong with occupying (or leaving) a country so long as it serves your goals, which the president doesn't have. Instead we get "containment" of ISIS while letting the international community turn Syria into a playground for proxy wars. In the case of Iraq, the government asked the US to withdraw. you still did not answer the question. also the approach that there is nothing wrong with actions as long as they are selfish is exactly the kind of morally bancrupt stuff we were discussing with kwizach a few months ago...
You misunderstand. Having well-defined foreign policy goals is not "selfish." The point is there are valid contexts for going to war, for occupying countries, for just about any action. Eschewing something on principle isn't a viable way to be successful.
|
You did not qualify the goals in any way. As long as it servers "your goals" it was said to be fine. This means you generalized on principle - not me.
There's nothing wrong with occupying (or leaving) a country so long as it serves your goals
If my goal is to erradicate the jews there is nothing wrong with occupying Poland.
|
On August 20 2016 07:26 puerk wrote:
yes the good old times, when the blacks where happily integrated and culturally assimilated..
Obama is trying to divide us by promoting writings discussing racism from the perspective of black Americans. There books are inflammatory!
|
On August 20 2016 04:08 Falling wrote:
I actually consider the repeated refrain "we just don't deal with that guy anymore, therefore argument invalid" as a far greater reason to close down the US Politics thread because as I've observed before, people have stopped discussing. You certainly can choose who you do and do not respond to- I after all pick and choose which topics I want to discuss all the time. But by the same measure, if you aren't going to engage, then lay off the 'well x is just x so invalid.' While it can be true, if a poster has become a partisan puppet or a reddit reposter, responding to everything in hackneyed partisan sound bytes and one liners, but then it that case moderation will typically step in, but it's a clear case of the entire thread becoming pulled down by a really terrible and lazy poster incapable or unwilling to self-reflect and re-evaluate.
But if a person is bothering to actually use sources, providing actual excerpts and links to where you can find the rest rather than the typical "watch this two hour video that refutes all your points" *mic drop*, then I take a low view of the casual dismissal of the person. Don't respond if you don't want to respond, but don't declare victory if you don't want to engage.
Now I do think kwizach could afford to make his posts shorter and therefore more manageable to engage with, but I dislike that an attempt at providing sources (synthesized no less rather than "read these 3 books and get back to me, peasant") was met with a "pffff"... unless the sources are really that bad.
I want to address this but I realize it will distract from the main thread, so I wrote a response in the feedback thread.
|
On August 20 2016 07:44 puerk wrote:You did not qualify the goals in any way. As long as it servers "your goals" it was said to be fine. This means you generalized on principle - not me. Show nested quote +There's nothing wrong with occupying (or leaving) a country so long as it serves your goals If my goal is to erradicate the jews there is nothing wrong with occupying Poland.
You say you had a conversation about this months ago and still couldn't figure out that genocide is a bad goal by itself?
|
On August 20 2016 07:26 puerk wrote:
yes the good old times, when the blacks where happily integrated and culturally assimilated..
On August 20 2016 07:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 07:26 puerk wrote:
yes the good old times, when the blacks where happily integrated and culturally assimilated.. Obama is trying to divide us by promoting writings discussing racism from the perspective of black Americans. There books are inflammatory!
Nailed it+ Show Spoiler +
|
I think it is fascinating that republicans have had such a hard time understanding why minorities don't vote for them for so long. This whole 'let me fix it for you' appeal doesn't resonate very well.
|
On August 20 2016 07:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 07:44 puerk wrote:You did not qualify the goals in any way. As long as it servers "your goals" it was said to be fine. This means you generalized on principle - not me. There's nothing wrong with occupying (or leaving) a country so long as it serves your goals If my goal is to erradicate the jews there is nothing wrong with occupying Poland. You say you had a conversation about this months ago and still couldn't figure out that genocide is a bad goal by itself?
Again: your statement made no qualifications about the goals. All actions are fine as long as they serve your goals. There was nothing in that post about good, moral, reasonable goals.
So again: what in your mind, since you brought it up, would constitute this obviously good foreign policy for america, that is an alternative to withdrawing and occupying.
|
On August 20 2016 07:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 07:26 puerk wrote:
yes the good old times, when the blacks where happily integrated and culturally assimilated.. Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 07:49 Plansix wrote:On August 20 2016 07:26 puerk wrote:
yes the good old times, when the blacks where happily integrated and culturally assimilated.. Obama is trying to divide us by promoting writings discussing racism from the perspective of black Americans. There books are inflammatory! Nailed it + Show Spoiler +
Templar, are you really against people reading views of racism written from a black perspective? Having a discussion about privilege and how it effects race relations in our country isn't bad. And it won't "tear the fabric of our nation apart". If anything, the lack of a discussion is doing far more to push people apart than the any discussion could.
|
On August 20 2016 07:59 CobaltBlu wrote:
I think it is fascinating that republicans have had such a hard time understanding why minorities don't vote for them for so long. This whole 'let me fix it for you' appeal doesn't resonate very well.
It's not that they don't understand why minorities don't vote for them, it's just that pivoting to capture the minority vote would piss of their base while making them a shittier version of the Democrats to everyone else.
|
On August 20 2016 07:59 CobaltBlu wrote:
I think it is fascinating that republicans have had such a hard time understanding why minorities don't vote for them for so long. This whole 'let me fix it for you' appeal doesn't resonate very well.
NPR was talking about Trumps statements earlier today and one of their correspondents pointed out that Trump has refused numerous invitations to appear in front of black audiences and reporters. And that is the discussion he is hearing among black voters(the reporter was also black). The reporter thought the appeals to black voters might be a counter to the claims of racism in the Trump campaign. That Trump camp can't be racist if he is saying things like that. I doubt it will do anything to sway black voters.
|
|
|
On August 20 2016 08:03 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 07:50 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 07:44 puerk wrote:You did not qualify the goals in any way. As long as it servers "your goals" it was said to be fine. This means you generalized on principle - not me. There's nothing wrong with occupying (or leaving) a country so long as it serves your goals If my goal is to erradicate the jews there is nothing wrong with occupying Poland. You say you had a conversation about this months ago and still couldn't figure out that genocide is a bad goal by itself? Again: your statement made no qualifications about the goals. All actions are fine as long as they serve your goals. There was nothing in that post about good, moral, reasonable goals.
Then I am here unequivocally explaining to you something that apparently wasn't obvious in context, genocide should never be an avowed goal of anyone's foreign policy.
|
When you start talking to your girlfriend about something bothering you, and it ends up as a bit of a fight, it's not that bringing it up made things worse. It's that things were shitty and needed to be talked about eventually. Same deal here. It is an unpleasant conversation that is also emotional. That doesn't mean Obama made it worse, it means he brought it up. It's easy to pretend nothing is wrong, but leadership isn't about only doing what is easy or pleasant for people.
|
On August 20 2016 08:14 Mohdoo wrote:When you start talking to your girlfriend about something bothering you, and it ends up as a bit of a fight, it's not that bringing it up made things worse. It's that things were shitty and needed to be talked about eventually. Same deal here. It is an unpleasant conversation that is also emotional. That doesn't mean Obama made it worse, it means he brought it up. It's easy to pretend nothing is wrong, but leadership isn't about only doing what is easy or pleasant for people.
Absolutely. I just wanted to make clear who it is that is complaining that Obama is divisive and why we should discount their complaining. The Pew data makes it clear that White conservatives are the ones who are getting emotional over shitty subjects (accountability for police use of force, ease/difficulty of black voting) that need to be addressed.
|
As a white dude who really pushed back against the concept of privilege in his 20s and totally believed I was super open minded, the process is not fun. I understand why people are resistant, but listening other perspectives and views is important.
|
Norway28876 Posts
I wonder how the group who answered 'made things worse' would answer how Obama's handling of any issue changed that issue. To be honest I suspect the same respondents would be rather negative across the board. 
|
On August 20 2016 08:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 07:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 20 2016 07:26 puerk wrote:
yes the good old times, when the blacks where happily integrated and culturally assimilated.. On August 20 2016 07:49 Plansix wrote:On August 20 2016 07:26 puerk wrote:
yes the good old times, when the blacks where happily integrated and culturally assimilated.. Obama is trying to divide us by promoting writings discussing racism from the perspective of black Americans. There books are inflammatory! Nailed it + Show Spoiler + Templar, are you really against people reading views of racism written from a black perspective? Having a discussion about privilege and how it effects race relations in our country isn't bad. And it won't "tear the fabric of our nation apart". If anything, the lack of a discussion is doing far more to push people apart than the any discussion could.
I'm saying you nailed it sarcastically because you two completely straw manned the article
I'm absolutely not against Perspectivism I'm a huge believer in it and I don't find it at odds with the argument presented in the article
Also there is no lack of discussion; it's everywhere now. Welcome to the takeover of identity politics that's been happening the past 5 years.
Ironically I think you're the one advocating a lack of discussion when you completely strawman and ridicule the article, shutting down the discussion because you disagree rather than acknowledging there is a point to be made on the other side of the aisle
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2016/06/ST_2016.06.27_race-inequality-overview-03.png)
