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

 

[DaveXA]

Oh good lord. This is the definition of a straw man argument. Everyone acknowledges that we have improvement in race relations from the 1950s and 1960s.

And really, it's somewhat cyclical too. Overall, it's probably safe to say there's been significant progress. But there certainly are times and events that happen that make you wonder where the progress has gone. We're certainly not where we should be, but at the same time, there are opportunities that haven't been widely available to minority groups in the past.

 

[V Chip]

By the way the Civil Rights Act passed because of Republicans.

 

[Saintamaniac]

The concept of you are on your own does not work for all. In the same manner the concept of the state taking care of all is also flawed.

Yes but neither of those concepts are principles of what our society is built on. Both of those are concepts the right like to propagate to score points with their base.
"Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" while simultaneously taking steps to either make sure that certain people don't have boots or make it incredibly hard to acquire boots. "you are on your own" was never a founding principle of America.

Similarly, "the state taking care of all" has never been a concept of American society. That is a right-wing conservative talking point and has been for some time. The words "provide for the common defense and support the general welfare" are actually written into the constitution. Taxes are collected to provide basic services for all. No one has ever advocated for the government to completely take care of everyone. That's an idea that the right has used to keep their supporters voting against their own best interest.

You did not realize I was posting with tongue in check. Sure, poor people live in areas where it is hard to find healthy foods. Why is that? IN any event at least this is not like in the past where poor people were skinny and the rich were obese. No we have the reverse.

Well it definitely did not come across as tongue in cheek. There are plenty of places in poor areas to find healthy foods. The healthy food simply cost more than the other foods.

 

[samiam5211]

White privilege is like gravity.

It is a force that is so weak you barely notice, but it is so constant and pervasive that has a significant impact on everything.

 

[Paul]

But yes, there will always be poverty. Like racism, sexism, etc. It’s part of the human condition and can’t be eradicated.

There is intelligence in planet Houston. Take me to your leader!

 

[Saint by the Bay]

There is intelligence in planet Houston. Take me to your leader!

You're talking to him.

 

[Paul]

White privilege is like gravity.

It is a force that is so weak you barely notice, but it is so constant and pervasive that has a significant impact on everything.

I have to agree with that. As a Latin American that looks European I can see it. The question that begs an answer is: Would there be black privilege if AAs one day become the majority?

 

[samiam5211]

The question that begs an answer is: Would there be black privilege if AAs one day become the majority?

Said no one.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I have to agree with that. As a Latin American that looks European I can see it. The question that begs an answer is: Would there be black privilege if AAs one day become the majority?

If they control 86% of the wealth, 80% of hiring positions, 90% of Congress, etc. then yes. The privilege isn't in the numbers, it's in the power. For instance, during apartheid in South Africa, less than 10% of the population was white yet nobody reasonable would argue they didn't have privilege there.

 

[wardorican]

The Republican ideas have also failed, no argument from me. The concept of you are on your own does not work for all. In the same manner the concept of the state taking care of all is also flawed. I don't know what trickle down economics means. That is a term that seems more like a sound byte. Are you saying a strong economy is not good enough? That may be true for a segment of the population.

Yes, you acknowledged progress. I have now seen two posters that admit the progress. Why is that important? Form a psychological point of view we want to see that we are moving forward. Perennial pessimism leads to nihilism.

The out of wedlock children rate went up a lot in all segments of society. The only exception is among the rich. Yes, marriage remains high among high earners and is over 80%. Meanwhile marriage in low earners is quite low, 24%. IN the USA kids form single parent home tend to struggle academically and have a greater probability of poverty. Marriage among Indian and East Asians remains high and the benefits show.

You did not realize I was posting with tongue in check. Sure, poor people live in areas where it is hard to find healthy foods. Why is that? IN any event at least this is not like in the past where poor people were skinny and the rich were obese. No we have the reverse.

You've been quoting all kinds of US history, but you don't know the basics of trickle down economics, what it means? It's not anything new.

It is usually used as a descriptive critique of supply side economics or Reaganomics.

 

[Paul]

You've been quoting all kinds of US history, but you don't know the basics of trickle down economics, what it means? It's not anything new.

It is usually used as a descriptive critique of supply side economics or Reaganomics.

Could you explain Reaganomics? What do you mean by that? Are you talking about capitalism?

 

[DaveXA]

Could you explain Reaganomics? What do you mean by that? Are you talking about capitalism?

Essentially trickle down or supply side economics. The idea was lower taxes wod lead to businesses passing down the savings in taxes to their employees, or increase hiring. But, in reality, it didn't quite work out that way as most businesses didn't follow through on that concept. It's an oversimplification of Reaganomics, but that's one of the central tenets.

This is a subset of a subset of capitalism.

 

[Paul]

If they control 86% of the wealth, 80% of hiring positions, 90% of Congress, etc. then yes. The privilege isn't in the numbers, it's in the power. For instance, during apartheid in South Africa, less than 10% of the population was white yet nobody reasonable would argue they didn't have privilege there.

Measuring the average white American Joe Blow with the yardstick that 90% of men in congress are white is not a good analogy. In reality, most average white people will not make it to congress. Measuring people according to the exception to the rule is not sound.

 

[Paul]

Essentially trickle down or supply side economics. The idea was lower taxes wod lead to businesses passing down the savings in taxes to their employees, or increase hiring. But, in reality, it didn't quite work out that way as most businesses didn't follow through on that concept. It's an oversimplification of Reaganomics, but that's one of the central tenets.

This is a subset of a subset of capitalism.

It sounds like capitalism.

Capitalism does not help everybody. If Reagan said that he was lying. Capitalism is highly imperfect and the very poor people are better off in a socialist system.

 

[SystemShock]

I am from Latin America

You keep saying you are from "Latin America", as if "Latin America" was some monolithic bloc.

and did not live in the USA during that era. After some research it is seems LBJ used the N word regularly, but perhaps you are correct regarding his quest to end poverty with his 1965 bill.

A lot of words were used back then. My FIL, having worked in Africa for the World Bank for over a decade in the 60's and 70;s, was as progressive as they came... still used the term "the coloreds" to the day he died.

By the way the Civil Rights Act passed because of Republicans. The bill was opposed by the Democrats of that era as they were the party of the KKK.

Crude (there was a bipartisan effort to pass the CRA) but yeah, we all know this. Fox News talking heads keep reminding us of that. I am a bit surprised you didn't mention Lincoln. But never mind the shift from the 70's on.

IN 1960 the rate of children out of wedlock in black America was 23%% and today it is over 70%. Among whites out of wedlock births were extremely low around 3% and today is over 25%. In the USA single motherhood is a sentence for poverty. Kids from two parent homes have a low rate of poverty. The LBJ war on poverty failed and yet some politicians want more of that. On the other side the Republicans have no answers either. They preach responsibility and hard work to people that cannot do such things as they mostly come from a single parent dysfunctional home. The unintended consequences of the 1965 Bill were massive and predicted by Moynihan.

What the Republicans preach is "pull yourself from your boot straps" while they try to kill every social program that could possibly benefit anyone not rich.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Measuring the average white American Joe Blow with the yardstick that 90% of men in congress are white is not a good analogy. In reality, most average white people will not make it to congress. Measuring people according to the exception to the rule is not sound.

That wasn't the question you asked. You move goalposts so often I'm not sure what stadium we are in anymore. It also makes it absolutely impossible to have a conversation with any kind of continuity of ideas.

That was a response to you asking the very elementary question if blacks were the majority in the country population-wise would they have privilege. The answer is no, they would also have to control the levers of power (fiscal and political). It's actually pretty simple and basic.

 

[V Chip]

By the way the Civil Rights Act passed because of Republicans. The bill was opposed by the Democrats of that era as they were the party of the KKK.

Crude (there was a bipartisan effort to pass the CRA) but yeah, we all know this. Fox News talking heads keep reminding us of that. I am a bit surprised you didn't mentioned Lincoln. But never mind the shift from the 70's on.

This is a false narrative commonly pushed by the right to cover up their current horrible record on civil rights.

Democrats were more likely to support the Civil Rights Act across the board than the Republicans. Republicans had to be convinced to support it in order to get it past cloture.

Yes, the Dixiecrats were against it as nearly all southern politicians were. But more southern Democrats voted in favor than southern republicans, and more non-southern democrats supported it than non-southern republicans.

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten

Harry J Enten: Once you control for region, it turns out that Democrats were actually more likely to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act

www.theguardian.com

 

[SystemShock]

I'm not sure what stadium we are in anymore.

You may not know which stadium, but surely it is in Latin America