All things Racist...USA edition (4 Viewers)

[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

 

[Lapaz]

First off, the argument isn’t that one needs generational wealth to succeed, but having generational wealth makes things much easier and it provides cushion for the children. Denying that is simply laughable.

Second, no things are not favored for minorities in current policies. That’s a ridiculous assertion.

The problem isn’t cultural, either. Many immigrants do well here, indeed. But many do not despite the hard work and effort they put in. However, immigrants have not lived in the system that has been designed to keep them down for generations which has an effect.

Generational wealth provides a cushion, but it is an excuse that is used to explain success. Most people with enough desire will succeed to varying degrees. That is largely a cultural thing. Using what happened to your grandparents or earlier generations is also an excuse. My parents came without any money and never even reached beyond the lower middle class, yet all of my siblings and I have exceeded our parents. Every generation has a chance to succeed, regardless of what happened to their ancestors.

Sets asides, informal quotas, formal affirmative action, grants to aid economically poor zones, and societal pressure to advance minorities all benefit minorities. It is ridiculous to deny that.

 

[Lapaz]

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.

It is racist, since racism is using race from a position of power to negatively affect others.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

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

I’m not emotionally invested in the culture wars, so I don’t really give it much thought and I’m not passionate about it in either direction. In general it’s considered ok as a counter balance to historical oppression of minority groups that has denied them access, led to less of them being in certain industries and created a cultural perception that a good reporter looks like x (generally a 30+ white male). So many believe granting special access for women and minority groups is “ok”.

It’s not how I would handle it. I personally believe these types of things only causes those that are invested in grievance populism reasons to dig their heels in and pretend this is some form of oppression of their demographic group. So ultimately it’s counter productive and leads to more resistance to progress, not less. I believe in more subtle efforts to promote and encourage change.

 

[Farb]

I’m not emotionally invested in the culture wars, so I don’t really give it much thought and I’m not passionate about it in either direction. In general it’s considered ok as a counter balance to historical oppression of minority groups that has denied them access, led to less of them being in certain industries and created a cultural perception that a good reporter looks like x (generally a 30+ white male). So many believe granting special access for women and minority groups is “ok”.

It’s not how I would handle it. I personally believe these types of things only causes those that are invested in grievance populism reasons to dig their heels in and pretend this is some form of oppression of their demographic group. So ultimately it’s counter productive and leads to more resistance to progress, not less. I believe in more subtle efforts to promote and encourage change.

I agree with this. The only difference is that I admit I am invested in the culture war. Well said.

 

[coldseat]

It is racist, since racism is using race from a position of power to negatively affect others.

She's not trying to negatively affect anybody, and given the short nature of this directive of hers, it really would have no lasting impact on anybody. Just hurt some feelings.

But you're free to feel about it however you wish. I'm not invested in trying to convince anybody, it's just what I believe. I also understand why journalist and journalistic organizations would speak out against it. I take no issue with any of that.

 

[V Chip]

Every generation has a chance to succeed, regardless of what happened to their ancestors.

And if your prior generation (parents) have already succeeded, your chances of succeeding are greatly increased. Existing (i.e., generational) wealth is a huge factor in each new generation's chances at success.

Nobody is saying "without generational wealth, one cannot succeed." But if you cannot see that the better off your starting position vis-a-vis wealth, the more likely your success then...

Sets asides, informal quotas, formal affirmative action, grants to aid economically poor zones, and societal pressure to advance minorities all benefit minorities. It is ridiculous to deny that.

If a policy (or policies) benefits someone (or a group), that means "current policies (in general) *favor* minorities?" Maybe if you said "some policies" or "a few policies", but the implication was that, overall, the current policies favor minorities. That's simply not true.

 

[Lapaz]

And if your prior generation (parents) have already succeeded, your chances of succeeding are greatly increased. Existing (i.e., generational) wealth is a huge factor in each new generation's chances at success.

Nobody is saying "without generational wealth, one cannot succeed." But if you cannot see that the better off your starting position vis-a-vis wealth, the more likely your success then...

If a policy (or policies) benefits someone (or a group), that means "current policies (in general) *favor* minorities?" Maybe if you said "some policies" or "a few policies", but the implication was that, overall, the current policies favor minorities. That's simply not true.

Of course not every policy favors minorities. Most are neutral from a race perspective.

I never said that generational wealth doesn’t help. Of course children of wealthier people have a cushion that reduces their chance of poverty, but those kids also are not as motivated as poorer children. Opportunities are there in this country, so I do object to using lack of generational wealth as an excuse, since generations of immigrants have succeeded without it. Some policies are in place to help. I know people that seek out minority partners to take advantage of those policies.

 

[Lapaz]

She's not trying to negatively affect anybody, and given the short nature of this directive of hers, it really would have no lasting impact on anybody. Just hurt some feelings.

But you're free to feel about it however you wish. I'm not invested in trying to convince anybody, it's just what I believe. I also understand why journalist and journalistic organizations would speak out against it. I take no issue with any of that.

It is racist even if she doesn’t keep it up. Just because a person only does a racist thing once, like denying an opportunity to someone due to their race, it doesn’t mean it isn’t racist. To excuse her racist act only encourages others to do likewise.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

@Lapaz l’m curious if you consider something like the Disenfranchised Business Enterprise program to be “racist”. I’m not asking if it’s right or wrong, but is it a racist program?

 

[coldseat]

It is racist even if she doesn’t keep it up. Just because a person only does a racist thing once, like denying an opportunity to someone due to their race, it doesn’t mean it isn’t racist. To excuse her racist act only encourages others to do likewise.

I don't think it's racist not matter how many times you affirmatively assert that it definitley is and I already explained why. If I actually thought is was racist, then I'd say you have a point.

I'm also not excusing anything.

 

[Lapaz]

O

@Lapaz l’m curious if you consider something like the Disenfranchised Business Enterprise program to be “racist”. I’m not asking if it’s right or wrong, but is it a racist program?

O

@Lapaz l’m curious if you consider something like the Disenfranchised Business Enterprise program to be “racist”. I’m not asking if it’s right or wrong, but is it a racist program?

Of course it is race based, but it is a well intentioned program to help, so it is not racist.

 

[samiam5211]

If something is "racist" then it works regardless of which races are involved. If you reverse the races on anything that is racist, then it remains racist.

Preference given to a certain race, is racist.

I think in context, there are acceptable instances of racism (affirmative action for example), but affirmative action is racist.

Lori Lightfoot's choice to exclude white journalists should be criticized. She is being racist, and she is a government actor. it is not acceptable.

 

[coldseat]

If something is "racist" then it works regardless of which races are involved. If you reverse the races on anything that is racist, then it remains racist.

Preference given to a certain race, is racist.

I think in context, there are acceptable instances of racism (affirmative action for example), but affirmative action is racist.

Lori Lightfoot's choice to exclude white journalists should be criticized. She is being racist, and she is a government actor. it is not acceptable.

That's not really true. At least not if we consider the Oxford Dictionary definition of racism. Key in the definition below is "directed against". That's why I don't think that what Lightfoot did qualifies as racism. It doesn't seem like she "directed" this "against" white male reporters, even though it excludes them. But again, I understand that different people can have different interpretations of that. So I'm not saying that my view of it is some how superior to anybody else. I think the criticism is well deserved, none the less.

 

[samiam5211]

That's not really true. At least not if we consider the Oxford Dictionary definition of racism. Key in the definition below is "directed against". That's why I don't think that what Lightfoot did qualifies as racism. It doesn't seem like she "directed" this "against" white male reporters, even though it excludes them. But again, I understand that different people can have different interpretations of that. So I'm not saying that my view of it is some how superior to anybody else. I think the criticism is well deserved, none the less.

So if a white mayor said they would only take questions from white reporters, that wouldn't be racist?

it isn't directed against any certain race.

That is the exact semantical game that allowed Jim Crow laws to exist.

 

[coldseat]

So if a white mayor said they would only take questions from white reporters, that wouldn't be racist?

it isn't directed against any certain race.

That is the exact semantical game that allowed Jim Crow laws to exist.

My comment is just to this particular situation. Not meant to cover every hypothetical ever.

All things aren't the same.

 

[DaveXA]

That's not really true. At least not if we consider the Oxford Dictionary definition of racism. Key in the definition below is "directed against". That's why I don't think that what Lightfoot did qualifies as racism. It doesn't seem like she "directed" this "against" white male reporters, even though it excludes them. But again, I understand that different people can have different interpretations of that. So I'm not saying that my view of it is some how superior to anybody else. I think the criticism is well deserved, none the less.

It seems to me excluding a group can be easily construed as an action taken against that group of people. I get the argument that it's not a racist action, but I see how it's perceived that way. I don't know that it's splitting hairs here, but if she was a white mayor excluding Hispanic reporters, it seems to me that would be pretty clearly racist. So...I dunno what the right answer is.

Clearly most of us here think what she's doing isn't helping anything. But she made it an issue, so she's gotta own it for whatever it's worth.

 

[samiam5211]

My comment is just to this particular situation. Not meant to cover every hypothetical ever.

All things aren't the same.

This is why i think the context is important.

In a vacuum, all racism is bad.

In context, racism doesn't have to be bad.

Affirmative action is racism, but in the context of a culture where white privilege is prevalent, it could be argued that affirmative action is an acceptable version of racism.

 

[Farb]

key word :argued