All things Racist...USA edition (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

I was looking for a place to put this so we could discuss but didn't really find a place that worked so I created this thread so we can all place articles, experiences, videos and examples of racism in the USA.

This is one that happened this week. The lady even called and filed a complaint on the officer. This officer also chose to wear the body cam (apparently, LA doesn't require this yet). This exchange wasn't necessarily racist IMO until she started with the "mexican racist...you will never be white, like you want" garbage. That is when it turned racist IMO

All the murderer and other insults, I think are just a by product of CRT and ACAB rhetoric that is very common on the radical left and sadly is being brought to mainstream in this country.

Another point that I think is worth mentioning is she is a teacher and the sense of entitlement she feels is mind blowing.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-teacher-berates-latino-la-221235341.html

 

[insidejob]

Since this is the ALL THINGS RACIST thread, I'll make a couple of smaller points that don't really apply as much today as they did at the times that these racist attitudes/policies existed.

In my family, we can trace our Acadian roots back to 1718 in Nova Scotia and know the pair of Arsenault's (now spelled Arceneaux) that settled in Louisiana and started that portion of the family tree. My great grandmother was an Arceneaux who married into an Irish family, the Comiskeys, whose roots we can trace back to the mid-to-end of the 18th Century. While there were many Arecenaux's whose bloodline will never be traced because they (the men) were massacred in Nova Scotia while the British told all the women and children to get on these boats and that their husbands would later be joining them, that wasn't the case. The husbands all got slaughtered in one final act of cowardice by the British and never saw their wives and children again, and vice versa.

As forked up as that is, the reasons for not being able to find as many of or trace back as far with the Comiskey part of my family is because of the Irish that were basically enslaved to build the railroads in the US. Countless people died while building those railroads - basically for the government - and were never given proper funerals nor were their families notified of their deaths. Thousands on top of thousands of women and children lost their fathers, and their families' main source of income. I'm sure we've all seen in either history classes or in some kind of older movies the "Irish Need Not Apply" signs from those times.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that even though both Acadian/Cajun and Irish people have been the victims of systemic oppression in American history, it was something their families were able to overcome because they were (ultimately) white. People would change the spelling of their surnames and work to lose an accent to then be accepted, generally, at large by the society they were trying to fit into. That isn't something that's possible to do with the color of your skin.

My Acadian roots are still large as hell in Carencro/Lafayette and my Irish roots never had to be hidden to the point of changing a name, as far as I know. My great grandfather was a boxer, then boxing promoter/bookmaker, bootlegger (then wholesale liquor distributor after prohibition), bail bondsman and the Assessor for Orleans Parish. And, trust me, he came from nothing. Grew up in a two bedroom house in Mid City with a bunch of brothers and sisters around his age all sharing the second bedroom. Tell me that any of that, on both sides, wouldn't be possible for someone of a different skin color, especially black, in America over the past 120 years. If you can, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Farb]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/poli...0210519-o6g2ksmaxjditmdainrfvrviia-story.html

I know this has gone around the news a bit lately but would this be considered racist by the board or another example of something that needs to be corrected?

https://www.businessinsider.com/chi...ly-interview-journalists-of-color-2021-5?op=1

At least one person has the courage to stand up and say something. Also notice that not many, if any Republicans are saying anything or condemning this.

 

[coldseat]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/poli...0210519-o6g2ksmaxjditmdainrfvrviia-story.html

I know this has gone around the news a bit lately but would this be considered racist by the board or another example of something that needs to be corrected?

https://www.businessinsider.com/chi...ly-interview-journalists-of-color-2021-5?op=1

At least one person has the courage to stand up and say something. Also notice that not many, if any Republicans are saying anything or condemning this.

I don't think it's racist, but can probably be called discriminatory towards white men. Still, considering she's only doing this with interviews surrounding our 2-year anniversary, it's seems more of a political stunt or just really wanting to fight for a cause.

I think it's a poor political move myself, but I don't know what the politics are in Chicago. But it doesn't seem like alienating part of your electorate is a good move. I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the same things, like simply just giving more interviews to minorities and not making a big show of it.

 

[Farb]

I don't think it's racist, but can probably be called discriminatory towards white men. Still, considering she's only doing this with interviews surrounding our 2-year anniversary, it's seems more of a political stunt or just really wanting to fight for a cause.

I think it's a poor political move myself, but I don't know what the politics are in Chicago. But it doesn't seem like alienating part of your electorate is a good move. I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the same things, like simply just giving more interviews to minorities and not making a big show of it.

So, you are saying it is not racist to purposely exclude a group of people based solely on the color of their skin?

 

[coldseat]

So, you are saying it is not racist to purposely exclude a group of people based solely on the color of their skin?

I'm saying it's discrimination not necessarily racist. Is there a problem with my definition?

 

[DaveXA]

I don't think it's racist, but can probably be called discriminatory towards white men. Still, considering she's only doing this with interviews surrounding our 2-year anniversary, it's seems more of a political stunt or just really wanting to fight for a cause.

I think it's a poor political move myself, but I don't know what the politics are in Chicago. But it doesn't seem like alienating part of your electorate is a good move. I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the same things, like simply just giving more interviews to minorities and not making a big show of it.

If it's discrimination towards a race, it's racist imo. But, this issue is small potatoes in the big picture. I otherwise agree though. There are better ways to accomplish essentially the same goal.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I'm saying it's discrimination not necessarily racist. Is there a problem with my definition?

Agreed. Not everything involving race is racist. It goes back to my initial posy in this thread. We need a more nuanced discussion than the + - level of discourse that has become this countries bread and butter, especially on the right.

 

[DaveXA]

Agreed. Not everything involving race is racist. It goes back to my initial posy in this thread. We need a more nuanced discussion than the + - level of discourse that has become this countries bread and butter, especially on the right.

Sure, but treating an entire group (race) of people based on that criteria is by definition racist, I would think.

But certainly, not all discrimination is racist. It could be a host of other ists tho.

And I do agree with the subject not being treated with more nuance. It just seems like Mayor Lightfoot's comments conveys a racist policy.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Sure, but treating an entire group (race) of people based on that criteria is by definition racist, I would think.

But certainly, not all discrimination is racist. It could be a host of other ists tho.

And I do agree with the subject not being treated with more nuance. It just seems like Mayor Lightfoot's comments conveys a racist policy.

It conveys discriminatory policy, but there’s no indication it’s because she believes white reporters are not capable of proper reporting due to their race or that she wants to inhibit their ability to succeed. From the article it sounds like her reasoning has to do with what she believes is under representation of black reporters. It’s effectively journalist affirmative action, from her perspective. She’s not trying to hurt one race, she’s trying to help another.

Shes wrong, IMO, and I think this is an awful way to address what she perceives as an issue. However, that isn’t racist any more that racial quotas are racist. I think both are a terrible approach to address an issue, but neither are racist by definition.

 

[DaveXA]

It conveys discriminatory policy, but there’s no indication it’s because she believes white reporters are not capable of proper reporting due to their race or that she wants to inhibit their ability to succeed. From the article it sounds like her reasoning has to do with what she believes is under representation of black reporters. It’s effectively journalist affirmative action, from her perspective. She’s not trying to hurt one race, she’s trying to help another.

Shes wrong, IMO, and I think this is an awful way to address what she perceives as an issue. However, that isn’t racist any more that racial quotas are racist. I think both are a terrible approach to address an issue, but neither are racist by definition.

That makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Farb]

If this was applied differently, Say DeSantis was not going to grant interviews to only Latino reporters. Would the response be the same?

I doubt it, but if so, then I respect that, but I am highly doubtful.

 

[coldseat]

If this was applied differently, Say DeSantis was not going to grant interviews to only Latino reporters. Would the response be the same?

I doubt it, but if so, then I respect that, but I am highly doubtful.

It probably wouldn't be treated the same. Why would he be doing that? And for how long?

I'd like to see what the reaction would be if DeSaintis only granted interviews Latino/a reporters for a week because he wanted to highlight Hispanic reporters during Hispanic Heritage month or something like that. I don't think people would call him racist because of it (maybe an opportunist if they really didn't like him and had reason to doubt his motives, but not racist).

 

[DaveXA]

It probably wouldn't be treated the same. Why would he be doing that? And for how long?

I'd like to see what the reaction would be if DeSaintis only granted interviews Latino/a reporters for a week because he wanted to highlight Hispanic reporters during Hispanic Heritage month or something like that. I don't think people would call him racist because of it (maybe an opportunist if they really didn't like him and had reason to doubt his motives, but not racist).

Oh, he'll get called a racist just like Lightfoot is, even if the accusation isn't correct. It's what people do.

 

[DaveXA]

It conveys discriminatory policy, but there’s no indication it’s because she believes white reporters are not capable of proper reporting due to their race or that she wants to inhibit their ability to succeed. From the article it sounds like her reasoning has to do with what she believes is under representation of black reporters. It’s effectively journalist affirmative action, from her perspective. She’s not trying to hurt one race, she’s trying to help another.

Shes wrong, IMO, and I think this is an awful way to address what she perceives as an issue. However, that isn’t racist any more that racial quotas are racist. I think both are a terrible approach to address an issue, but neither are racist by definition.

Here's my question though. Is this some personal policy or an organizational discriminatory policy? I get that her motive is more likely that she's wanting to address the underrepresentation of black reporters, but if the directive came from her, I think it's reasonable to question her motives. After reading your explanation, I agree, but I don't think we know enough from this to know if she's acting with racist intent, but while not the same, a 'shoes on the other foot' comparison would probably generate a lot of "he/she's racist" backlash. The reason I think it's different is that one is in the majority and has a legacy, and the other, not so much. Does that make sense?

I'm thinking out loud, so I'm more asking than making a definitive statement.

 

[Farb]

I personally think if an elected official denies information or access to information (follow up questions) based on race, creed or sexual orientation then that is possibly illegal or at the very least should be brought up on ethic charges.

But racist will racist.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Here's my question though. Is this some personal policy or an organizational discriminatory policy? I get that her motive is more likely that she's wanting to address the underrepresentation of black reporters, but if the directive came from her, I think it's reasonable to question her motives. After reading your explanation, I agree, but I don't think we know enough from this to know if she's acting with racist intent, but while not the same, a 'shoes on the other foot' comparison would probably generate a lot of "he/she's racist" backlash. The reason I think it's different is that one is in the majority and has a legacy, and the other, not so much. Does that make sense?

I'm thinking out loud, so I'm more asking than making a definitive statement.

If it’s the “policy” of the mayor to only give interviews to black reporters it’s an organizational discriminatory policy by default. She is the Chief Executive of her city. If she denies access it means the city is denying access to its chief executive.

I doubt this would stand a legal challenge. I guess an argument could be made that this is her personally allowing access, but her position means it’s really her government allowing access. Race is a protected class, so legally she can’t deny access based on race.

Her comments from the article make it abundantly clear what her intent is to me. However, people do the wrong thing with good intent all the time. In this case I’d take it a step forward and say she’s being down right ignorant and doesn’t really understand the actual circumstances she treading in to.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

It probably wouldn't be treated the same. Why would he be doing that? And for how long?

I'd like to see what the reaction would be if DeSaintis only granted interviews Latino/a reporters for a week because he wanted to highlight Hispanic reporters during Hispanic Heritage month or something like that. I don't think people would call him racist because of it (maybe an opportunist if they really didn't like him and had reason to doubt his motives, but not racist).

I don’t know that he’d receive that kind of criticism if they were Latino. White, yes, but giving access to minorities is generally considered ok.

 

[Farb]

I don’t know that he’d receive that kind of criticism if they were Latino. White, yes, but giving access to minorities is generally considered ok.

Should it be generally considered 'ok'? If so, why?