(05-19-2021 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Speaking to the bolded (and this isn't dancing/avoiding the issues - like a lot of other posts I only have so much time and probably shouldn't be posting as much as I do anyways, so I respond to what I can in these long and tedious posts), I thought it was clear what my answer was, but apparently. not.
When I said "the issue to me" I was saying, the issue with having a "Whites Only Graduation" was two-fold. So, yes, I have a problem with a "Whites Only Graduation" ceremony at first glance and do not have a problem with a "Blacks Only Graduation" ceremony at first glance.
There are other issues that I have with your post, and a number stem from you making the worst assumptions about my intent, assuming that I am responding as a "progressive" or "liberal," or being set on what you think I've said and not asking for clarification.
Hope this cleared up at least one of your misunderstandings.
Nope. I don't think I misunderstand you at all. I think your intention is to make your point but not respond to a counterpoint. You all but admit it when you say 'the issue is to me'. Making he worst assumption of your intent? That's semantics Lad. You say you're trying to say 'What the issue is to you' and I'm saying 'you aren't the only person in this conversation'.
Not asking for clarification? This entire thread is in response to me very specifically and directly asking you to clarify your position by applying it to something BEYOND your single perspective. It was post 43 (We're now more than 100 posts BEYOND that) says:
Quote:Please square that with your comment that you're 'okay' (question 1) with an all black (race) graduation, which by definition would exclude/discriminate against any other race. The fact that it is in addition to doesn't make it non-discriminatory.
I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be... I'm trying to understand your distinction. Is it 'okay' because its not important (because there was another one?) Would that make it okay for there to be an all-white or all anglo graduation as well, as long as there was an 'open' one? Is it okay because its not important (because its just a celebration) or some other distinction?
For you to describe this as 'not seeking clarification' just baffles me. That's precisely what I did.... very clearly and obviously.
So let's start with the idea that once again, you've misrepresented what I did.... and now you've assigned all sorts of baggage to me... where I've accused you of responding as a progressive or liberal. No I have not. If anything, I've accused you of not responding at all.
You have refused to directly do that until now... and you seem to be saying it is because you are trying to confine the discussion to YOUR point. YOU don't think what is being asked is pertinent... YOU don't have time to listen to or consider other people's points or perspectives... they are long-winded and tedious.
I'd note that the post where I asked you to clarify yourself in a different context was about 4 lines. Your response telling me why you wouldn't was vastly longer, and from my perspective, equally tedious.
As to your final response... while I completely understand the desire to right the wrongs of the past, I don't see how making it okay for SOME people to discriminate, but not others does anything but create an inherently unequal situation.... and unequal situations all but by definition, risks resentment. There are meaningful numbers of black people who are significantly better off than meaningful numbers of people who are not black.... so this resentment from those people is not based on racism against black people, but on a lack of equal treatment. Telling a kid born to a crack addicted mom who spends his life in foster care that even though he worked harder and got better grades than another kid whose parents are engineers, the other kid gets to go to Harvard for free and you have to go to UH because 'people your color' who may or may not have been related to you at all were cruel to 'people his color' who may or may not have been related to him. These aren't majorities of either group... but people don't usually react as a group... they react as 'people'. I find it funny that you say I accuse you of 'responding as a progressive' and then you come back with this yourself.
I mean hell, even here OO and I are somewhat at odds in our positions and I'm closer to 93 than he is. I'm probably closer to him than I am to Tanq as well. You're probably in the same area, but for whatever reason, you don't seem to want to talk about the direct and obvious responses to it. Resentment.
Not every black person is poor or uneducated or had few opportunities. Not every white person has had it easy. I don't remotely think we've solved the 'equality of opportunity' issues, but we certainly aren't at 'zero' with it either. I think we're ARGUABLY to the point where assuming that race defines opportunity is patently false.
Let me say that more simply....
A poor white man is still arguably better off than a poor black man.... but being white doesn't guarantee you success nor does being black guarantee failure.... and a wealthy person of ANY color is better off than ANY of them.
(05-19-2021 01:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Of course. I mean... that's about as extreme an example as you could provide but I've consistently included the idea of giving consideration to under-served areas, low-income families.
I know you have and apologize for the tone of my comments. I chose them because they CLEARLY demonstrate the possibility for resentment... something we ALL might resent. I can see a poor white kid of a farm hand resenting the 'rich' black kid of doctor who gets a scholarship but he doesn't.... but that opens up so many 'whatabouts' that I wanted to avoid.
The bottom line is that 'not making up for wrongs of the past' is not the only potential source of resentment.... so I wanted to use an example that wasn't controversial or require much in the way of context.
Quote:Quote:So why foster resentment at all?
1) Decide first and foremost that we are all now equal going forward. Racism in any form or by any definition will not exist.
Huh?
How do you do this???
There was a study in 2004 that looked at hiring practices.
"Fictitious resumes with White-sounding names sent to help-wanted ads were more likely to receive callbacks for interviews compared to resumes with African-American sounding names. Resumes with White-sounding names received 50% more callbacks for interviews (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004)."
Those decision makers probably didn't think they were racist and their friends/family probably didn't think so either.
You can't just say... "OK... there is no race... we are all even" when these type of practices go on (and I'm not even mentioning the overt racism that is still out there).
Perhaps an inarticulate way of saying it... should have said 'racism by any definition
will not be allowed'.
Quote:Poor people have it harder than rich people for sure.
Do you not agree that there have been and continue to be specific hurdles in place when it comes to achieving success for black people compared to white people? It's not simply income-dependent.
Let's do this first.... I think that the differences in hurdles between a white and a black doctor is vastly less than the difference in hurdles between a doctor and a ditch digger.... using a scale of 1-10, I'd say the problems of being a white doctor are a 1 and a black doctor a 3, but a white and black ditch digger are an 8 and 10 respectively..... and I think the resentment that exists under your proposed solution (and was actually most of the cause of the rise of the Klan) is a large part of creating those remaining differences. Eliminate the resentment and a lot of those hurdles that remain in place (irrespective of income) go away. All of them? Of course not.... but certainly most all of them that aren't rooted in the 'inferiority' aspect of racism.
Being in the minority of ANY population, whether it be politically, racially, gender, thought, income... whatever will almost ALWAYS be more difficult than being in the majority of a democracy. Elections have consequences. In other forms of government, it can be being in a minority of weapons or cruelty or corruption etc etc etc.
To the above, empirically I'd say yes I agree... but I really struggle to name one of those specific hurdles. You can say something like educational opportunity which is generically true (and there are lots of examples like that) but there are millions for whom that isn't the case... hence my use of the Obamas. A situation where all black people are currently disadvantaged relative to their white counterparts, regardless of economic realities? Can you name one? If I could name one, I'd try and find a way to address it. That's what I try and do with my 'representation without geography' proposals. I eliminate the inherent disadvantage of losing racial minority representation if you leave an under-served district.... but that's a choice being made by the leaders of that race... not by racists trying to 'keep them down'.
