Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 26 2020 08:34 pmh wrote: There was a documentary on tv here tonight which was interesting "capital in the 21st century" Amongst other things it argues that racism and racial tensions are one of the symptoms of the increasing economic struggles of the lower and middle class and the growing inequality. It was argued pretty convincingly and i think this is very much correct.The best way to fight racism is to fight this growing inequality.
I'm curious, do they make the argument that racism is increasing in the US in the same time frame that inequality is getting worse (from the 70's on)? I understood that racism in the US was bad, but assumed it was constantly bad (if one can put a number on such a thing), not worsening bad.
It is worsening in some places like New York, the racial inequality is growing in schools/upper neighboroughs. www.nytimes.com
I can agree that racial inequality is growing through the (apparently unintended?) racial segregation that results from parents being allowed to choose schools, but is it correct to say that racism increased?
If I am to interpret that this policy is a symptom of increased racism, would it be fair to say such a policy not have been implemented in the 90's (or 80's, or 70's) because they were less racist? Or perhaps that 90's parents would change their children around less because they were less racist?
On August 26 2020 08:34 pmh wrote: There was a documentary on tv here tonight which was interesting "capital in the 21st century" Amongst other things it argues that racism and racial tensions are one of the symptoms of the increasing economic struggles of the lower and middle class and the growing inequality. It was argued pretty convincingly and i think this is very much correct.The best way to fight racism is to fight this growing inequality.
I'm curious, do they make the argument that racism is increasing in the US in the same time frame that inequality is getting worse (from the 70's on)? I understood that racism in the US was bad, but assumed it was constantly bad (if one can measure such a thing), not worsening bad.
The usa is a racist country in some aspects but i dont think the majority of the usa population is racist by nature,far from. I dont think racism is getting worse either in the usa on the contrary,things are still slowly improving. But based on the outrage now you would get the impression that it is getting worse.
The argument in the documentary (which was only touched upon very briefly) is that the more economic hardship and struggle people experience,the more they will lash out to people who are different. I think that argument is pretty much true,though it is off course not the only reason for racism.
It is interesting that the greatest progress for a more inclusive society (relative to where it was coming from) was made in the 60,s of the previous century. Which accidently also was an era of relative great economic equality.
The out group is usually blamed for some sort of problem in poorer communities. Be it x group brings crime, x group is taking jobs etc and anger is thus misdirected from the real culprits, be it obvious or more complex systemic issues.
Current anger is rather stoked by the existence of camera phones, stuff is being captured on film that is nothing new, just there was a plausible deniability to it.
Racism is probably amplified in the States because of the bootstrap mentality that is more prevalent than in other comparable countries, allied to socioeconomic disparities. If your worldview dictates that those who are poor and suffer from various social problems aren’t working hard enough, and particular groups are overrepresented that’s probably fertile ground to connect perceived moral failings to whole groups.
And while i do realize this is drifting a way a bit.
Yes we all have a frontal lobe but thats not the only part of the brain that dictates our behaviour. The brain consists of roughly 3 distinctly different brains (why this is the case is explained by our evolution) that each carries different functions that effect our behaviour. (ratio,feelings and instincts). The ratio is evolutionairy speaking the latest adition to the brain,and instincts are the oldest. The frontal lobe is the part that shapes the ratio. And while some elements of racism come from the frontal lobe,not all elements come from it. Some elements come from the part that caries feelings and some probably also come from the even older part that caries instincts.
And to go even more of topic:these 3 brains they often conflict with eachoter. The ratio,while the most dominant part of the brain, can not fully regulate and control the other 2 parts of the brain. Which is why for example you can feel very bad for a lost love (feelings), even though your other brain (ratio) can tell you that he or she was a very bad love for you and that you are better of without her/him.
But this kinda goes beyond what i was pointing at in the first place.
The less the system naturally keeps minorities down, the more racists have to do it themselves and the more apparent racism feels.
Racists didn't have to sneer at minorities on the bus when they weren't allowed to ride it. That you see some now doesn't mean that there are more racists compared to when minorities weren't allowed on the bus.
Additionally a black person becoming President was a rather clear cut sign that the racists lost the culture war, and as a result they got a fair bit louder to compensate, making it look like there are more of them.
On August 26 2020 08:34 pmh wrote: There was a documentary on tv here tonight which was interesting "capital in the 21st century" Amongst other things it argues that racism and racial tensions are one of the symptoms of the increasing economic struggles of the lower and middle class and the growing inequality. It was argued pretty convincingly and i think this is very much correct.The best way to fight racism is to fight this growing inequality.
I'm curious, do they make the argument that racism is increasing in the US in the same time frame that inequality is getting worse (from the 70's on)? I understood that racism in the US was bad, but assumed it was constantly bad (if one can put a number on such a thing), not worsening bad.
It is worsening in some places like New York, the racial inequality is growing in schools/upper neighboroughs. www.nytimes.com
I can agree that racial inequality is growing through the (apparently unintended?) racial segregation that results from parents being allowed to choose schools, but is it correct to say that racism increased?
If I am to interpret that this policy is a symptom of increased racism, would it be fair to say such a policy not have been implemented in the 90's (or 80's, or 70's) because they were less racist? Or perhaps that 90's parents would change their children around less because they were less racist?
There are houses in America near school district lines that change in price by hundreds of thousands of dollars because one house goes to a better school. Exact same house, layout, model, and same neighborhood, but one of them goes to a better school. It's just the natural consequence of income inequality. When your schools are funded by local property taxes, all the rich people will cluster for the best schools. These people will produce offspring that self select to the upper income levels and continue the cycle. Years later with the highest level of inequality we've ever seen you're going to reach the obvious conclusion.
You'll see some counties do this busing strategy where the poor neighborhood kids get to ride on a bus for hours every week so things can be racially balanced and people can feel good about themselves. It is garbage policy and I'm not sure why we still bother.
On August 26 2020 08:34 pmh wrote: There was a documentary on tv here tonight which was interesting "capital in the 21st century" Amongst other things it argues that racism and racial tensions are one of the symptoms of the increasing economic struggles of the lower and middle class and the growing inequality. It was argued pretty convincingly and i think this is very much correct.The best way to fight racism is to fight this growing inequality.
I'm curious, do they make the argument that racism is increasing in the US in the same time frame that inequality is getting worse (from the 70's on)? I understood that racism in the US was bad, but assumed it was constantly bad (if one can put a number on such a thing), not worsening bad.
It is worsening in some places like New York, the racial inequality is growing in schools/upper neighboroughs. www.nytimes.com
I can agree that racial inequality is growing through the (apparently unintended?) racial segregation that results from parents being allowed to choose schools, but is it correct to say that racism increased?
If I am to interpret that this policy is a symptom of increased racism, would it be fair to say such a policy not have been implemented in the 90's (or 80's, or 70's) because they were less racist? Or perhaps that 90's parents would change their children around less because they were less racist?
There are houses in America near school district lines that change in price by hundreds of thousands of dollars because one house goes to a better school. Exact same house, layout, model, and same neighborhood, but one of them goes to a better school. It's just the natural consequence of income inequality. When your schools are funded by local property taxes, all the rich people will cluster for the best schools. These people will produce offspring that self select to the upper income levels and continue the cycle. Years later with the highest level of inequality we've ever seen you're going to reach the obvious conclusion.
You'll see some counties do this busing strategy where the poor neighborhood kids get to ride on a bus for hours every day so things can be racially balanced and people can feel good about themselves. It is garbage policy and I'm not sure why we still bother.
I agree with the mechanism you describe, and it shows that racial inequality does not require racism to perpetuate itself. I was only questioning the assertion that racism had increased in tandem with the worsening of economic (be it income or wealth) inequality since the 70's.
Race itself as a social construct in the US has a history very intimately linked with the origin story of the US. The relationship between racism and economic inequality is a study that goes back almost as long.
The general consensus among scholars of the related fields is that race was basically constructed to divide the poor by creating a category called "white" (more not-white really) and inequitably distributing the minimal rights, resources, and privileges left to the poor disproportionately away from those deemed "not-white".
I hesitate to get into it, but prior to chattel slavery the colonies primarily used (still deplorable) indentured servitude. Chattel slavery as most of us know it in the US was molded mostly out of Virginia after Bacon's Rebellion cemented the threat posed by a free and mostly united poor among the frontier.
There's a basic amount of history/context that's generally needed to opine substantively on racism in the US (as someone that doesn't experience it), especially something like how it changes over time. I recommend getting a better understanding from this short video with John A Powell explaining what I did in a bit more detail:
Or if you want a more musical presentation this seems alright as a starting point for folks:
On August 26 2020 08:34 pmh wrote: There was a documentary on tv here tonight which was interesting "capital in the 21st century" Amongst other things it argues that racism and racial tensions are one of the symptoms of the increasing economic struggles of the lower and middle class and the growing inequality. It was argued pretty convincingly and i think this is very much correct.The best way to fight racism is to fight this growing inequality.
I'm curious, do they make the argument that racism is increasing in the US in the same time frame that inequality is getting worse (from the 70's on)? I understood that racism in the US was bad, but assumed it was constantly bad (if one can put a number on such a thing), not worsening bad.
It is worsening in some places like New York, the racial inequality is growing in schools/upper neighboroughs. www.nytimes.com
I can agree that racial inequality is growing through the (apparently unintended?) racial segregation that results from parents being allowed to choose schools, but is it correct to say that racism increased?
If I am to interpret that this policy is a symptom of increased racism, would it be fair to say such a policy not have been implemented in the 90's (or 80's, or 70's) because they were less racist? Or perhaps that 90's parents would change their children around less because they were less racist?
There are houses in America near school district lines that change in price by hundreds of thousands of dollars because one house goes to a better school. Exact same house, layout, model, and same neighborhood, but one of them goes to a better school. It's just the natural consequence of income inequality. When your schools are funded by local property taxes, all the rich people will cluster for the best schools. These people will produce offspring that self select to the upper income levels and continue the cycle. Years later with the highest level of inequality we've ever seen you're going to reach the obvious conclusion.
You'll see some counties do this busing strategy where the poor neighborhood kids get to ride on a bus for hours every day so things can be racially balanced and people can feel good about themselves. It is garbage policy and I'm not sure why we still bother.
I agree with the mechanism you describe, and it shows that racial inequality does not require racism to perpetuate itself. I was only questioning the assertion that racism had increased in tandem with the worsening of economic (be it income or wealth) inequality since the 70's.
I agree with the mechanism you describe, and it shows that racial inequality does not require racism to perpetuate itself
I wrote a big long post about that Powell video, but I'm going to simplify.
Pushing things back to 1697 from one rebellion in one state with Elites bamboozling Europeans into their racism can't stand. Not based on what was shown. Preferential immigration policies was at least up to the interwar years fueled by eugenics that very clearly did not prefer Eastern and Southern Europe. Racism against Irish, Italians, etc- there was not clear line of 'whiteness' as a constructed racial category from the late 1600's designed to exclude blacks that had any meaningful internal loyalty. The breakdown of inter-European prejudice was only very recent. What you do see is people drawing wider and wider circles around who they include in the Us category (as language barriers erase) to a point where there does become very giant categories based on skin tone- I don't think the cause requires scheming from the Elites. The final step was recognizing differences in skin tone is also Us.
But who are these Elites that have had an unbroken and secret policy that extends 300 years?
On August 26 2020 15:00 Falling wrote: I wrote a big long post about that Powell video, but I'm going to simplify.
Pushing things back to 1697 from one rebellion in one state with Elites bamboozling Europeans into their racism can't stand. Not based on what was shown. Preferential immigration policies was at least up to the interwar years fueled by eugenics that very clearly did not prefer Eastern and Southern Europe. Racism against Irish, Italians, etc- there was not clear line of 'whiteness' as a constructed racial category from the late 1600's designed to exclude blacks that had any meaningful internal loyalty. The breakdown of inter-European prejudice was only very recent. What you do see is people drawing wider and wider circles around who they include in the Us category (as language barriers erase) to a point where there does become very giant categories based on skin tone- I don't think the cause requires scheming from the Elites. The final step was recognizing differences in skin tone is also Us.
But who are these Elites that have had an unbroken and secret policy that extends 300 years?
It's a simplification so it fits into a short video. But even there it doesn't claim to reduce everything to that one moment. It just stands as a particularly well documented example of how racism came about and increased from the early 1600's pre anti-miscogination laws (which came out of Virginia in 1691) through to at least the civil war.
I don't know how (else besides what I've tried previously, like Risk or Monopoly) to describe elites as a class with class interests that don't require nefarious secret societies to act cooperatively against the interests of a common foe.
The "~100 years of experimentation" he describes encompasses many different strategies tried by different elites sometimes in coordination with other local elites, sometimes their own harebrained schemes. Skin color/race was one that ended up "working" for a variety of reasons. It's effectiveness, synergy with capitalism, and legal support helped lead to its proliferation. Its inherent contradictions led to a civil war, civil rights movement, and now these uprisings.
As has been discussed before "whiteness" or "whiteclub" is not a stagnant entity. It's included and shed groups of people for all sorts of reasons throughout it's manifestation. Kennedy is white by today's standards but his winning was seen at the time as a bit of a culmination of Irish post-revolution immigrants being included in whiteclub.
No one would say Irish and Black people were on comparable footing in the 60's or that intra-European prejudice against the Irish was comparable to that of white societies prejudice + power over Black people's lives. Baldwin jokes about this since Kennedy (Bobby) once said that maybe in 40 years the US could have a Black president as if his family didn't get here 100+ years after Black people built the country up.
EDIT: Which reminds me, f that Joe Kennedy prick
Kwark also did a decent write-up on more between 1776 and more recent history. He takes a swipe at explaining why it's not some conspiracy of elites nefariously plotting together as well.
It's the white moderate. Should really stop blaming white supremacy on "human nature" though
Nowhere did i blame white supremacy on "human nature" Nowhere did i even talk about white supremacy and white beeing superior over black,let alone that i would contribute it to "human nature" This is actually a very nasty attempt to paint me as a racist white supremacist and tbh you should be banned for this since you very well know this.
But o well,i got used to such things coming from you by now. It actually is the white person coming from a very privilidged economic position himself who thinks the biggest problem many people of color face is a police force which would be overwhelmingly racist. Anything to not have to give up their own privilidged position.
Go into the hood,just do it once. Ask the mothers living there what the greatest problems they face every day are and then give them a choice between:living in bad nabourhoods and getting into contact with crime every day,having bad acces to medical care,having their kids have to go to bad schools where they face a huge uphill struggle,having to work 2 jobs not leaving them any time to give the kids the attention they need,or the overwhelmingly racist police force. Go to these people and ask them,ask the average person of color what the biggest struggles they face every day are.
But yes i say again:You really should be banned for your veil attempts to paint people who actually do care as beeing "white supremacist who think the differences between the social economic conditions are caused by human nature". because thats clearly not what i was pointing at and you know it. Let me guess,you are a white person coming from a privilidged social and economic position yourself?
Yes racism in the police is a problem and should be dealth with but to think all the problems that people of color face will disapear when we disband the police is BS and you know it. Its the white social and economic elites vision on racism.
Anyway i am done. I cant believe i even responded again in the first place but as i do truly care i couldnt resist. you are not arguing in good faith,you are trying to purposely misrepresent peoples opinion as beeing a white supremacists vision while it clearly is not. Maybe some people fall for your tactics but anyone with halve a brain sees through it.
Go into the hood,i doubt you dare but do it just once.
The unmitigated caucacity it takes to click post after typing that is almost admirable.
Let me guess,you are a white person coming from a privilidged social and economic position yourself?
ohhhhhh, I see. No, I'm not. I'm a Black person that grew up in poverty.
Yes racism in the police is a problem
Losing your car keys is a problem, the cooler not fitting in the trunk is a problem, racist police in the US is a national atrocity/human rights violation.
Racist police in the US is a national atrocity/human rights violation.
Off course it is,nowhere did i say it isnt. (and i actually did give a realistic possible solutions for this in previous posts a lot of pages back,for example hiring more people of color to work as police officers and in management functions within the police).
But ok i give up. Disband the police and then see if that actually makes the life for people of color so much better,(let me tell you,it wont. it would make the situation even worse). The people with bad medical care,having their children go to bad schools,living in horrible nabourhoods where they face crime every day. Maybe its something that simply has to run its course,you already have the support of the right wing so it shouldnt be impossible to achieve.
No, I'm not. I'm a Black person that grew up in poverty
This makes it even more difficult for me to understand your position.
Just out of curiosity since you didnt get back to it: do you think i am a white supremacist who thinks that racial inequalitys are caused by human nature as you did seem to imply in the part of your previous post that i did quote above?
Edit:and just to clarify,i am anything but a moderate even though i at times defend a moderate position out of pragmatism. When it comes to socio economics i am probably the most far left person on this forum even though my posts might not always reflect that. I will admit i dont have much affinity with racism in the usa,as i am from europe where it is a very different problem. But i do truly think that the path the radical left in the usa is on now will lead to nothing and end up only making the situation worse for the people they want to stand up for,but maybe that is something that has to run its course before real progress can be made.
On August 26 2020 19:27 pmh wrote: Racist police in the US is a national atrocity/human rights violation.
Off course it is,nowhere did i say it wasnt.
You did say some other bullshit though didn't you?
Anyway, you said
Yes racism in the police is a problem and should be dealth with but to think all the problems that people of color face will disapear when we disband the police is BS and you know it.
My point there was "a problem [that] should be dealt with" is how a landlord describes a leaky faucet (spoiler+ Show Spoiler +
they never fix it
). As you're ES(+?)L I'm not really upset with you about it, just tired of that language generally. It's an emergency as far as I'm concerned and I'm skeptical (to say the least) of anyone that doesn't treat it as such.
As a communist it's patently absurd to suggest I think "the problems that people of color face will disapear when we disband the police is BS and you know it". None of the Black radicals I frequently quote from the 60's and since thought that either. There's always been an accompanying economic critique that was based in Marxist influenced class analysis. It also tended to come with historical materialism context that was at the root of someone like Fred Hampton's Rainbow Coalition (not Jesse Jackson's).
do you think i am a white supremacist who thinks the racial inequalitys are caused by human nature as you did seem to imply in the part of your previous post that i did quote above?
I should say explicitly there's plenty of space between a "white moderate" (which + Show Spoiler +
I cant believe i even responded again in the first place but as i do truly care i couldnt resist.
is emblematic of) and "white supremacist" as most people understand the terms. I'm not calling you a white supremacist, I'm saying you're regurgitating "white moderate" talking points that go at least as far back as the 60's. This is also textbook white moderate stuff here:
(and i actually did give realistic possible solutions for this in previous posts to adress this,for example hiring more people of color to work as police officers and in management functions within the police).
You did say some other bullshit though didn't you?
Like what? I honestly have no clue what you are pointing at. If you point it out then i am happy to adress it and if i indeed said some BS then i will be the first to admit it or explain what i actually meant with something.
I explained before i never said nor think that racial inequality is a result of human nature (which to me more or less implies having the idea that white people are in some way superior to people of color based on human nature) and if you think so then you did misinterpret my words,which might very well be my fault in not beeing clear but i will be happy to adress it. I do think racism (not racial inequality) can be explained for a large part by how the human brain and psyche works,that does not mean i justify it. I only try to explain where it is coming from which i think is relevant for those who want to try solve the issue. Maybe thats what you are pointing at when calling some of my statements bs but i am not sure and if you dont want to be more specific about it then i can not adress or clarify it either. (which i am more then happy to do if you point it out).
My guess of your background was wrong,i can explain where my guess is coming from but beeing wrong about such a guess i dont think is BS,its my attempt to understand your position and where you are coming from and i did misjudge that. Now that you have clarified and also taking into account how the problem in the usa is different from the problem in europe i do understand it a bit better (not initially but i do now after having thought about it for a little bit).
Its like that southpark episode "you dont get it". Thats right,white people including me they dont get it,they dont experience it in their daily lifes. I have no problem admitting that. Can they be blamed for that,imo no. At least not as long as they are willing to make an effort to try understand it. But then again,i am not sure this is what you are pointing at.
Anyway i stop this discussion as i dont see it leading to anything from here. I do understand some issues a bit better now so it wasnt all in vain. I know for myself that i am anything but a white supremacist and that i truly do care for making the position of people of color better and thats enough for me no matter how other people might vieuw my position. And I still do think the path the radical left is on in the usa currently will not make the situation better. i do think it will end up reinforcing the status quo and actually make the problem of racism even worse but if thats the way things has to go then so be it and i truly hope i am wrong.
It’s only really a certain subset of liberals who think it’s an institutional police problem that can be fixed and solve the underlying problem of racism. Most other critiques place the police as a mechanism of an overall economic and cultural system, with work to be done elsewhere.
Hence the idea of defunding the police isn’t merely taking that cash away, but funding the areas where if you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Be that housing, general poverty, addiction issues, domestic violence and mental health issues.
It’s not your fault if you haven’t been lurking this thread forever but the wing that has been most critical of police activity is also generally the same that are critical of economic disparities and has already drawn a direct link between those phenomena.
It’s not your fault if you haven’t been lurking this thread forever but the wing that has been most critical of police activity is also generally the same that are critical of economic disparities and has already drawn a direct link between those phenomena
Yes i can see this. And the police can be a huge issue far bigger then economic issues i can see that as well. Sometimes a head to head confrontation is the only way to go to change things and make things better. I dont think that aproach will work in the usa but maybe it will.
I don't really get how anyone on this forum doesn't know that GH has a dim view of white moderates. He's posted the exact sentiment dozens of times with exhaustively detailed reasons as to why.
Well, a head on confrontation is how almost everything have been able to change whenever any lower class or discriminated group have demanded equal footing.
On August 26 2020 21:53 iamthedave wrote: I don't really get how anyone on this forum doesn't know that GH has a dim view of white moderates. He's posted the exact sentiment dozens of times with exhaustively detailed reasons as to why.
Tends to happen when new people show up and GH's words rub them the wrong way.
EPT
