Racism

[Strat]

Kind of revisiting a past question but it just popped up in the news again: Rakhyt, what do you think of this? https://news.wjct.org/post/i-m-not-r...t-stand-pledge

I like your perspective so it's always interesting to get your opinion.

[gs_powered]

I believe the US have the highest regards for teachers as a society stone. I'm thinking back to the presidential speech regarding the civil representant on the Challenger, a female teacher...

I think this goes deep into the American culture and is bound to have different people have different takes on the matter, specially due to the purpose of an educator versus the "politically correctness" he has to limit his teachings to

[Mark]

Posted by Strat (here)
Kind of revisiting a past question but it just popped up in the news again: Rakhyt, what do you think of this? https://news.wjct.org/post/i-m-not-r...t-stand-pledge

I like your perspective so it's always interesting to get your opinion.

I teach 9th Graders Reading Comprehension. The school I teach at is probably 90% LatinX, maybe 4% Black, 6% White. When we say the Pledge of Allegiance, almost all of the kids stand, almost none will say it out loud. My opinion about this article, I think the teacher was on point, from the perspective of someone who has taken on American nationalism as a way of being. I don't force my kids to say it. Because I understand that they don't necessarily come from a space of experiencing the United States the way the majority population has, or the way I have. A good number of them have parents who don't speak English, and some, in addition to their parents, are Undocumented. I hype America by educating them about it while teaching them to read, exhort its ideals while fully understanding where and how they fail. I prepare them for the world they are going to inhabit, because where they live is almost entirely LatinX and Black, so they have no idea what it's like in the rest of the country. I do.

Posted by Strat (here)
Rahkyt, I'm curious of your opinions on this: https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/...and-for-pledge

My opinion is that the teacher sunk himself here:

MY POINT? You are all extremely lucky to be living in the U.S.A. If you refuse to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance or our National Anthem (AS SOME PAMPERED ARROGANT CELEBRITIES AND ATHLETES TEND TO DO), are you revealing maturity and wisdom? Actually, you are displaying the opposite.

It is what it is. Some Americans have reason for being upset with the nation even as they live in it and partake of its bounties, blessings, curses and pratfalls daily. Others don't.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
What I'd really like to thank you for personally is how well you've presided over the discussion, even when some members have challenged or questioned you a little with their own perspectives. You've handled everything admirably.

This space is worth standing for. There is no other space like it in the AltCom. Thanks for keeping it inviolate.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Agape (here)
We are capable of about anything if we give it more Love

Agape, this entire post was filled with soul. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[Mark]

Posted by gs_powered (here)
I think this goes deep into the American culture and is bound to have different people have different takes on the matter, specially due to the purpose of an educator versus the "politically correctness" he has to limit his teachings to

I don't think it is political correctness. That is about done, in America, anyway, thank goodness. I personally like for people to say what they believe and stand by it, so I can see who they are. It is much more honest and lets folks know exactly where they stand. Folks lying and pretending to believe things they don't sucks. This teacher showed his disdain for a bunch of folks trying to peacefully protest police killings with his words, which was problematic. He has a right to believe that athletes can be dumb and he has a right to say that as well. But the childrens' parents also have a right to let the school district know that they don't approve of the nature of the lesson too.

[Mark]

It is a NYT article and, therefore, relatively mainstream. What it's import is in our discussion is the acknowledgement that the humanistic view of our oceanic homo sapien sapien family as being exactly the same outside of our group and individual differences, is problematic given the findings of modern DNA studies. That DNA research came out of WWII and Hitler's Germany as well as the Eugenics research done here in the United States during the era of slavery, the Black Codes and Jim Crow eras, continues to form the baseline of modern biological science and that is part of the cost of our current medicinal, genetic advances. It is a truism across the planet that good things come from bad, that a burnt out forest gives rise to new life and that disasters lead to better outcomes, eventually.

There are things in this article that some might want to debate, like the Holocaust and whether it happened or not. I'm more interested in the underlying belief this author seems to be putting forward; that there are real physiological differences that any sort of obscuration of will result in a difficult journey forward for us as a planet, if we can't get beyond the limitations of the past, together. I will add that, for that movement forward to happen, a reconciliation of the past must occur first and, it seems, that is where the world is currently headed, in one fashion or another.

How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’

In 1942, the anthropologist Ashley Montagu published “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race,” an influential book that argued that race is a social concept with no genetic basis. A classic example often cited is the inconsistent definition of “black.” In the United States, historically, a person is “black” if he has any sub-Saharan African ancestry; in Brazil, a person is not “black” if he is known to have any European ancestry. If “black” refers to different people in different contexts, how can there be any genetic basis to it?

Beginning in 1972, genetic findings began to be incorporated into this argument. That year, the geneticist Richard Lewontin published an important study of variation in protein types in blood. He grouped the human populations he analyzed into seven “races” — West Eurasians, Africans, East Asians, South Asians, Native Americans, Oceanians and Australians — and found that around 85 percent of variation in the protein types could be accounted for by variation within populations and “races,” and only 15 percent by variation across them. To the extent that there was variation among humans, he concluded, most of it was because of “differences between individuals.”

In this way, a consensus was established that among human populations there are no differences large enough to support the concept of “biological race.” Instead, it was argued, race is a “social construct,” a way of categorizing people that changes over time and across countries.

It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true, as Dr. Lewontin wrote, that human populations “are remarkably similar to each other” from a genetic point of view.

But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy maintains that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored.

The orthodoxy goes further, holding that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations. The concern is that such research, no matter how well-intentioned, is located on a slippery slope that leads to the kinds of pseudoscientific arguments about biological difference that were used in the past to try to justify the slave trade, the eugenics movement and the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews.

I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.

Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases. For example, we now know that genetic factors help explain why northern Europeans are taller on average than southern Europeans, why multiple sclerosis is more common in European-Americans than in African-Americans, and why the reverse is true for end-stage kidney disease.

I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims.

This is why it is important, even urgent, that we develop a candid and scientifically up-to-date way of discussing any such differences, instead of sticking our heads in the sand and being caught unprepared when they are found.

To get a sense of what modern genetic research into average biological differences across populations looks like, consider an example from my own work. Beginning around 2003, I began exploring whether the population mixture that has occurred in the last few hundred years in the Americas could be leveraged to find risk factors for prostate cancer, a disease that occurs 1.7 times more often in self-identified African-Americans than in self-identified European-Americans. This disparity had not been possible to explain based on dietary and environmental differences, suggesting that genetic factors might play a role.

Self-identified African-Americans turn out to derive, on average, about 80 percent of their genetic ancestry from enslaved Africans brought to America between the 16th and 19th centuries. My colleagues and I searched, in 1,597 African-American men with prostate cancer, for locations in the genome where the fraction of genes contributed by West African ancestors was larger than it was elsewhere in the genome. In 2006, we found exactly what we were looking for: a location in the genome with about 2.8 percent more African ancestry than the average.

When we looked in more detail, we found that this region contained at least seven independent risk factors for prostate cancer, all more common in West Africans. Our findings could fully account for the higher rate of prostate cancer in African-Americans than in European-Americans. We could conclude this because African-Americans who happen to have entirely European ancestry in this small section of their genomes had about the same risk for prostate cancer as random Europeans.

Did this research rely on terms like “African-American” and “European-American” that are socially constructed, and did it label segments of the genome as being probably “West African” or “European” in origin? Yes. Did this research identify real risk factors for disease that differ in frequency across those populations, leading to discoveries with the potential to improve health and save lives? Yes.

While most people will agree that finding a genetic explanation for an elevated rate of disease is important, they often draw the line there. Finding genetic influences on a propensity for disease is one thing, they argue, but looking for such influences on behavior and cognition is another.

But whether we like it or not, that line has already been crossed. A recent study led by the economist Daniel Benjamin compiled information on the number of years of education from more than 400,000 people, almost all of whom were of European ancestry. After controlling for differences in socioeconomic background, he and his colleagues identified 74 genetic variations that are over-represented in genes known to be important in neurological development, each of which is incontrovertibly more common in Europeans with more years of education than in Europeans with fewer years of education.

It is not yet clear how these genetic variations operate. A follow-up study of Icelanders led by the geneticist Augustine Kong showed that these genetic variations also nudge people who carry them to delay having children. So these variations may be explaining longer times at school by affecting a behavior that has nothing to do with intelligence.

This study has been joined by others finding genetic predictors of behavior. One of these, led by the geneticist Danielle Posthuma, studied more than 70,000 people and found genetic variations in more than 20 genes that were predictive of performance on intelligence tests.

Is performance on an intelligence test or the number of years of school a person attends shaped by the way a person is brought up? Of course. But does it measure something having to do with some aspect of behavior or cognition? Almost certainly. And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too.

You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed, the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century.

To understand why it is so dangerous for geneticists and anthropologists to simply repeat the old consensus about human population differences, consider what kinds of voices are filling the void that our silence is creating. Nicholas Wade, a longtime science journalist for The New York Times, rightly notes in his 2014 book, “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History,” that modern research is challenging our thinking about the nature of human population differences. But he goes on to make the unfounded and irresponsible claim that this research is suggesting that genetic factors explain traditional stereotypes.

One of Mr. Wade’s key sources, for example, is the anthropologist Henry Harpending, who has asserted that people of sub-Saharan African ancestry have no propensity to work when they don’t have to because, he claims, they did not go through the type of natural selection for hard work in the last thousands of years that some Eurasians did. There is simply no scientific evidence to support this statement. Indeed, as 139 geneticists (including myself) pointed out in a letter to The New York Times about Mr. Wade’s book, there is no genetic evidence to back up any of the racist stereotypes he promotes.

Another high-profile example is James Watson, the scientist who in 1953 co-discovered the structure of DNA, and who was forced to retire as head of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories in 2007 after he stated in an interview — without any scientific evidence — that research has suggested that genetic factors contribute to lower intelligence in Africans than in Europeans.

At a meeting a few years later, Dr. Watson said to me and my fellow geneticist Beth Shapiro something to the effect of “When are you guys going to figure out why it is that you Jews are so much smarter than everyone else?” He asserted that Jews were high achievers because of genetic advantages conferred by thousands of years of natural selection to be scholars, and that East Asian students tended to be conformist because of selection for conformity in ancient Chinese society. (Contacted recently, Dr. Watson denied having made these statements, maintaining that they do not represent his views; Dr. Shapiro said that her recollection matched mine.)

What makes Dr. Watson’s and Mr. Wade’s statements so insidious is that they start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations, and then end with a claim — backed by no evidence — that they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes. They use the reluctance of the academic community to openly discuss these fraught issues to provide rhetorical cover for hateful ideas and old racist canards.

This is why knowledgeable scientists must speak out. If we abstain from laying out a rational framework for discussing differences among populations, we risk losing the trust of the public and we actively contribute to the distrust of expertise that is now so prevalent. We leave a vacuum that gets filled by pseudoscience, an outcome that is far worse than anything we could achieve by talking openly.

If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong. For example, my laboratory discovered in 2016, based on our sequencing of ancient human genomes, that “whites” are not derived from a population that existed from time immemorial, as some people believe. Instead, “whites” represent a mixture of four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago and were each as different from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today.

So how should we prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years, genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these traits will differ on average across human populations? It will be impossible — indeed, anti-scientific, foolish and absurd — to deny those differences.

For me, a natural response to the challenge is to learn from the example of the biological differences that exist between males and females. The differences between the sexes are far more profound than those that exist among human populations, reflecting more than 100 million years of evolution and adaptation. Males and females differ by huge tracts of genetic material — a Y chromosome that males have and that females don’t, and a second X chromosome that females have and males don’t.

Most everyone accepts that the biological differences between males and females are profound. In addition to anatomical differences, men and women exhibit average differences in size and physical strength. (There are also average differences in temperament and behavior, though there are important unresolved questions about the extent to which these differences are influenced by social expectations and upbringing.)

How do we accommodate the biological differences between men and women? I think the answer is obvious: We should both recognize that genetic differences between males and females exist and we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences.

It is clear from the inequities that persist between women and men in our society that fulfilling these aspirations in practice is a challenge. Yet conceptually it is straightforward. And if this is the case with men and women, then it is surely the case with whatever differences we may find among human populations, the great majority of which will be far less profound.

An abiding challenge for our civilization is to treat each human being as an individual and to empower all people, regardless of what hand they are dealt from the deck of life. Compared with the enormous differences that exist among individuals, differences among populations are on average many times smaller, so it should be only a modest challenge to accommodate a reality in which the average genetic contributions to human traits differ.

It is important to face whatever science will reveal without prejudging the outcome and with the confidence that we can be mature enough to handle any findings. Arguing that no substantial differences among human populations are possible will only invite the racist misuse of genetics that we wish to avoid.

David Reich is a professor of genetics at Harvard and the author of the forthcoming book “Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past,” from which this article is adapted.

[Strat]

Rahkyt, got another question for you. If you want to avoid this because it could potentially set off a firestorm I'll understand, maybe shoot me a PM if so. I think we're all mature enough to handle it though. This may have been addressed already. Anyway,

I've thought a lot about white privileged lately. Initially when this phrase started making the rounds it annoyed me as it does lots of other whites. The more I've thought about it though, I think it's just the word 'privilege' that threw me off. I think it throws off other whites as well. I think it was explained poorly by the media (go figure). At the moment I think I've come to a better understanding. I'll explain then I'd like your 2 cents.

So, being white I never have to experience what I'm about to say: It seems like when someone is born black, they are born into a kind of a club whether they like it or not. Said person will have to obviously deal with a lot, and I don't necessarily mean just racism. Things like being pressured by other blacks. You can be called an uncle tom, you can be too dark (I think this is more an issue with gals) or too light. You have to be part of a political affiliation. You can't do certain things, I've heard Terry Crews rail against this, "Black people don't _________." Like if you wanna go skydiving or whatever. Tracking your ancestry may be impossible. If you happen to like a song and you have good bass in your car and you crank it up, someone will look at you and think "makes sense" whereas for me it's "that guy's music is loud." You need to be a scholar on race relations and when whites ask about black stuff you need to have an informative answer.

None of this is an issue for me or other white folks. As I've thought about this I can understand that alone can be very crazy making. I imagine these are the more minor things. Whites want blacks to 'get over slavery'. Patrice O'Neal said it well, "do you want the Jews to 'get over' the Holocaust?"

-----------------

I suck at writing but some more thoughts:

Call me crazy, but I think whites have a kernel of racism that's hard to get out. The thing is white folks aren't aware of it because even when we truly, honestly think to ourselves if we're racist we don't see it. We think everyone should have equal rights and be nice to each other and enjoy each others company. So how could I be racist?

It doesn't always show itself. It sucks, I have it too to an extent I think. I don't mean being disrespectful or saying things I shouldn't, but just having opinions that are kinda ignorant. You're not aware of it until a circumstances arise.

When speaking of white privilege, whites unintentionally lump all blacks into a category of poor lazy blacks that say this. So the 'debunk' method is to drive through the hood and see how black folks on welfare are living: beer cans stacked up in the trash, rolling a blunt with kids running around and a brand new GMC with aftermarket wheels that have more value than my 20 year old truck. Maybe I get this impression because I live in the south? I dunno. But I think you wouldn't have to go far to find a white guy use that as a debunk method to being accused of being born into privileges.

--------------

Sorry this is all scattered but it's late. I'd be interested to hear your 2 cents. I'm not sure why I'm fascinated in all this, I think it's in part because I'm an armchair (American) historian as well as anthropologist.

[Catsquotl]

Posted by Strat (here)

Call me crazy, but I think whites have a kernel of racism that's hard to get out. The thing is white folks aren't aware of it because even when we truly, honestly think to ourselves if we're racist we don't see it.

White privileged male over here.
That said even though I did not ask for this, It seems these days I have to feel guilty for being one. I won't by the way.
Without ignoring past and present monstrosities taking place because of ethnical, gender or social place in the world. I honestly feel that many many many people are taking offense where none was intended.



It seems that every little politically incorrect view these days is blown out of proportion.
And we all know who the politicians that make the views are anyway..


With Love
Eelco

[Strat]

Posted by Catsquotl (here)
I honestly feel that many many many people are taking offense where none was intended.

Can you elaborate with an example?

EDIT: When I said whites have a kernel of racism I was specifically referring to US Americans. And I'm not sure about that, just a theory. Racism maybe too strong a word I'll admit.

[Ernie Nemeth]

You might be a racist in North America because here there is a mix of all races.

But in Europe, with the nations of pure racial stock, where the notion of nationhood was born, how can one be a racist?

That said, living under the specter of racism is uncomfortable and markedly demoralizing. But exactly when did the minority expect to have it any other way? They are the minority. And just like when the majority win an election, the minority must put up with the agenda they do not agree with. What else can be done - civil war every time the minority looses, which is every time, by definition?

And that said leaves one other point. There is no reason in the world why one should not be proud of their heritage. But, to seriously claim that one race is actually genetically superior is demonstrably wrong...and inaccurate.

Everyone belongs to a minority of one. How many are superior to yourself, in your own eyes? Does that make them right - and deserving of more? No.

We are all unique individuals, and as such it is healthy to promote your race. But, the comparison of one race to another and the stereotyping of a race of people is not.

[Catsquotl]

Posted by Strat (here)

Posted by Catsquotl (here)
I honestly feel that many many many people are taking offense where none was intended.

Can you elaborate with an example?

When I point out that black/white/yellow/red man over there, I am just using an obvious name to signify who or what I am pointing to.
From my end I mean no offense. When I am overheard however by the woke crowd however. It is enough to call me a racist.



In earlier feminist days when walkmans were becoming a thing. I have been called a sexist once or twice for calling a walkman a walkman.

When I (as a dutchman) want to celebrate a children's tradition with my kids. The world is falling over black faced helpers of s't nicholas without much regard for the way these helpers were looked upon in my younger years, but only projecting their own view of what they believe black face to represent.



These are just a few, However my views in this are not important. What is important is that all these "examples" seem to attract a larger and larger crowd who dichotomises over them than What was the case a decade ago.
The polarity and willingness to fight for either side is what is harmful in all these things. And yes I suspect an agenda there that is as old as we can remember divide and conquer.


The issues aren't new. Racism, sexism etc etc. Have been there for a long time, and I agree they are vile human traits. It just seems to me that we are fighting harder and harder to prove our point, where we used to discuss and find common grounds in these matters, Going as far as inventing whole new levels of personal guilt trips and Judgemental notions on how " others" should act.


With Love
Eelco

[Mark]

Posted by Strat (here)
Rahkyt, got another question for you. If you want to avoid this because it could potentially set off a firestorm I'll understand, maybe shoot me a PM if so. I think we're all mature enough to handle it though. This may have been addressed already.

I don't mind firestorms. I've been center-adjacent to quite some few here and in other parts and times of my life. In this context, I welcome dissenting views on this topic because the world is watching and this is a conversation little addressed by "both sides" in the AltCom these days. That is increasing, thanks to the balanced nature of PA and the continuing polarization of populations. Clear and direct conversations are necessary with all issues aired and points of contention present for all to see and assess for themselves.

I don't think so, at least, not directly. Thanks for the opening to do so. This is the most important aspect of the question as it addresses the underlying reason why people don't want to accept the overall ramifications of generations of white nationalism and overt supremacy doctrines. Because they feel personally involved and conflicted by association and not by individual merit, and who wants to be at fault for something that began long before they were born, let alone feel responsible for it!

Posted by Strat (here)
I've thought a lot about white privileged lately. Initially when this phrase started making the rounds it annoyed me as it does lots of other whites. The more I've thought about it though, I think it's just the word 'privilege' that threw me off. I think it throws off other whites as well. I think it was explained poorly by the media (go figure).

It is in the media's interest to create conflict as we in this space know very well. And, they have utilized a programmatic structure to address racial issues just as they have economic issues, for the very simple reason that these are the fundamental dividing forces not only in American society but in global society. Using the word "privilege" as you've determined, is a way to create an automatic "us vs. them" mentality, those with privilege and those without. And for most whites, who are ALSO under the thumb of the 1%, to call their lives privileged is a direct affront, especially because most people consider themselves hard workers or to have earned everything in their lives, so to hear that they didn't, strikes to the very core of their self-esteem and worth.

Posted by Strat (here)
So, being white I never have to experience what I'm about to say: It seems like when someone is born black, they are born into a kind of a club whether they like it or not.

Ok. Got that. Consider also, that to be born white is to be born into a club. Whether they like it or not.

There are a couple of things to this point that I generally mention when I have this conversation, the first is that how white people experience individuality is generally illusory. The way I know this is because of the many many people I have had the exact same conversations with, almost to the word, about racial issues and individual culpability. "I don't see color", "I'm not like those others", "I was raised to treat everyone equal" and "I treat everybody the same". There are many many others but they all fall into a well-meaning range of comments that show commiseration but little understanding either of the overt signs of racism, its institutional aspect or qualities of expression from the perspective of those experiencing it.

All of these comments speak to a range of thoughts that fall within a well-defined context shared by folks of white skin at cultural, national and international levels. The "individual" thought and behavior intended to show solidary is, in fact, showing collusion with the system and cultural complex that is apparently sub-conscious.

Secondly, such comments are indeed indicative of belonging, of being in the same club as others like you, even if that means there are rooms in that club you don't like to go to, you're still in the general vicinity. White people not doing the work to move beyond it see the world a certain way and in particular see black and brown folks in a certain way which invariably extends to consideration and treatment of said folk. In the same fashion, I am lumped in with gangbangers, drug dealers and professional athletes in the eyes of someone who doesn't know me. I share a sub-culture with them (Hip Hop), I sometimes dress approximately similar (hoodies, high tops, boots), etc.

These clubs are very real and even when we are hanging out of the window looking forward at a new world, some part of ourselves is still adjacent to those other rooms, attitudes and beliefs. At least, we recognize and are familiar with them and their ways by association. This is not guilt by association, it is just club membership. Most people treat folks as individuals in one-on-one interactions. As that number increases though, as the other members of the club coalesce, something happens to that interaction, invariably.

Posted by Strat (here)
Said person will have to obviously deal with a lot, and I don't necessarily mean just racism. Things like being pressured by other blacks. You can be called an uncle tom, you can be too dark (I think this is more an issue with gals) or too light. You have to be part of a political affiliation. You can't do certain things, I've heard Terry Crews rail against this, "Black people don't _________." Like if you wanna go skydiving or whatever. Tracking your ancestry may be impossible. If you happen to like a song and you have good bass in your car and you crank it up, someone will look at you and think "makes sense" whereas for me it's "that guy's music is loud." You need to be a scholar on race relations and when whites ask about black stuff you need to have an informative answer.

None of this is an issue for me or other white folks. As I've thought about this I can understand that alone can be very crazy making. I imagine these are the more minor things. Whites want blacks to 'get over slavery'. Patrice O'Neal said it well, "do you want the Jews to 'get over' the Holocaust?"

Those are stereotypes for the most part and the thing that isn't, like the tracking of ancestry, has technological solutions that weren't available not so long ago as far as most of us here are concerned. Genetic testing is a relatively recent development. Many black Americans in particular have extensive oral history, these days confirmable by records research at courthouses and in online databases.

I would actually say that all of this (that you mention) is an issue for you and other white folks as well. Check it:

"Said person will have to obviously deal with a lot, and I don't necessarily mean just prejudice. Things like being pressured by other whites. You can be called a N*gger lover, you can be too pale (I think this is more an issue with gals) or too dark. You have to be part of a poltiical affiliation. You can't do certain things, I've heard Robin Williams rail against this, "White people can't ________." Like if you want to go dancing or whatever. Tracking your ancestry may be impossible. If you happen to like a song and you have good tweeters in your car and you crank it up, someone will look at you and think "Makes sense" whereas for me it's "That guy's rock music is blowing out my eardrums." You need to be a scholar on how to be successful and when blacks ask about white stuff you need to have an informative answer."

What do you think of that?

Posted by Strat (here)
Call me crazy, but I think whites have a kernel of racism that's hard to get out. The thing is white folks aren't aware of it because even when we truly, honestly think to ourselves if we're racist we don't see it. We think everyone should have equal rights and be nice to each other and enjoy each others company. So how could I be racist?

It doesn't always show itself. It sucks, I have it too to an extent I think. I don't mean being disrespectful or saying things I shouldn't, but just having opinions that are kinda ignorant. You're not aware of it until a circumstances arise.

When speaking of white privilege, whites unintentionally lump all blacks into a category of poor lazy blacks that say this. So the 'debunk' method is to drive through the hood and see how black folks on welfare are living: beer cans stacked up in the trash, rolling a blunt with kids running around and a brand new GMC with aftermarket wheels that have more value than my 20 year old truck. Maybe I get this impression because I live in the south? I dunno. But I think you wouldn't have to go far to find a white guy use that as a debunk method to being accused of being born into privileges.

You stated that well enough that I have nothing else to add. Thank for the convo, man.

[Mark]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
That said, living under the specter of racism is uncomfortable and markedly demoralizing. But exactly when did the minority expect to have it any other way? They are the minority. And just like when the majority win an election, the minority must put up with the agenda they do not agree with. What else can be done - civil war every time the minority looses, which is every time, by definition?

That is the Darwinian perspective, yes, and it has worked in many case studies of similar situations in the past, of a cultural nature, generally speaking. Making this argument, you'd think that, if the tables were turned by the previous minority when they become a majority, they would do the same thing to the people who are currently in the minority.

So ... do y'all believe that black folks across the world will enslave, murder, rape and experiment on white people, if the tables were turned?

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
There is no reason in the world why one should not be proud of their heritage. But, to seriously claim that one race is actually genetically superior is demonstrably wrong...and inaccurate.

Everyone belongs to a minority of one. How many are superior to yourself, in your own eyes? Does that make them right - and deserving of more? No.

We are all unique individuals, and as such it is healthy to promote your race. But, the comparison of one race to another and the stereotyping of a race of people is not.

Unique huh. Sure. In some ways. But not all.

[Strat]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)
I would actually say that all of this (that you mention) is an issue for you and other white folks as well. Check it:

"Said person will have to obviously deal with a lot, and I don't necessarily mean just prejudice. Things like being pressured by other whites. You can be called a N*gger lover, you can be too pale (I think this is more an issue with gals) or too dark. You have to be part of a poltiical affiliation. You can't do certain things, I've heard Robin Williams rail against this, "White people can't ________." Like if you want to go dancing or whatever. Tracking your ancestry may be impossible. If you happen to like a song and you have good tweeters in your car and you crank it up, someone will look at you and think "Makes sense" whereas for me it's "That guy's rock music is blowing out my eardrums." You need to be a scholar on how to be successful and when blacks ask about white stuff you need to have an informative answer."

What do you think of that?

To be honest, I've never experienced any of these things. When did Robin Williams say white people can't do certain things? A few of my white friends went to clubs to get girls, one of my best friends found his (hispanic) wife there. I don't like clubs, but I wouldn't feel pressured against it or whatever. I don't have tweeters in my truck and I have indeed been planning on upgrading my sound system, but I have never ever felt any criticism/racial stereotyping for blasting my music. Which I do btw. If The Ocean by Zep comes on then god help my eardrums.

I think I would feel a bit of pressure from 1 cousin of mine if I ended up with a black gal, but he can eat a dick if that's the case. I think 50years ago, this would've been more of an issue but where I live in Jax it's very multi cultural.

The only pressure I feel is that I can't criticize or make an observation of a black person without being crucified. Like the no tipping thing at the bar. People want to call bs on that but I would put money on it. Come with me to the pool hall and when a black person tips upon checkout I give you $5, if said person doesn't tip you give me $5. You will go broke. I feel like the eyes are on me now just for making this observation. A hot iron with the word 'racist' is being readied to brand my forehead. Yet it's just an observation. I mean no harm.

Posted by Rahkyt (here)
Thank for the convo, man.

Absolutely, and right back at ya!

EDIT: While this is an interesting dialogue, and does touch on things that I want to learn about, I inadvertently turned this into a racism thing when I was more curious about the concept of white privilege.

I could've gotten more to the point if I simply asked you if you believed in white privilege, and how would you describe it?

[Catsquotl]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)

So ... do y'all believe that black folks across the world will enslave, murder, rape and experiment on white people, if the tables were turned?

About as many, As the whites or yellows or red would.
Under the colors of our skins each and every one of us is capable of humanities best and worst.


I do suspect that if the tables were turned. whites would call out racism the same as blacks do now, And after the dust settled many a black person would feel ill at ease when racism becomes an excuse to call out the so the called privileged whomever is the current ruling color on perceived racism where none was intended and feel .offended by their own perception, same as is happening a lot lately.





WIth Love
Eelco

[Catsquotl]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)

All of these comments speak to a range of thoughts that fall within a well-defined context shared by folks of white skin at cultural, national and international levels. The "individual" thought and behavior intended to show solidary is, in fact, showing collusion with the system and cultural complex that is apparently sub-conscious.

Secondly, such comments are indeed indicative of belonging, of being in the same club as others like you, even if that means there are rooms in that club you don't like to go to, you're still in the general vicinity. White people not doing the work to move beyond it see the world a certain way and in particular see black and brown folks in a certain way which invariably extends to consideration and treatment of said folk. In the same fashion, I am lumped in with gangbangers, drug dealers and professional athletes in the eyes of someone who doesn't know me. I share a sub-culture with them (Hip Hop), I sometimes dress approximately similar (hoodies, high tops, boots), etc.

These clubs are very real and even when we are hanging out of the window looking forward at a new world, some part of ourselves is still adjacent to those other rooms, attitudes and beliefs. At least, we recognize and are familiar with them and their ways by association. This is not guilt by association, it is just club membership. Most people treat folks as individuals in one-on-one interactions. As that number increases though, as the other members of the club coalesce, something happens to that interaction, invariably.

Is an "involuntairy" club membership such a bad thing per se?
When I say I thing people get way too offended these days it is exactly that they deny the very club they belong to. Sure as human beings we are all one, But within this realm of existence we do belong to a specific gender, a skin color, a social layer. And even though as individuals we may believe we are not defined by such trivial differences in our humanity they do give us some sense of who or what we are as we try to grow up and start noticing how these differences shape the way we act, behave and feel about ourselves and the clubs that are familiar to us.


With Love
Eelco

[James Newell]

Who benefits from racism? Think about it. One could say the racist group that makes the other group(s) wrong or inferior. Then again has a victim ever blamed anyone for an advantage?

Who benefits from racism? Well from my viewpoint it is a person or group that likes to leave mankind divided. That is usually done to keep and assume power and control.

An interesting part of history was mentioned by David Icke on a segment of Infowars.com today. He brought up an interesting point about a satanic cult that spawned from the Jews, than infected Islam, then Christianity, and the West. Keeping people divided by race is just one part of the agenda. The end product is no more humans on this planet. It won't really matter what race you are.
https://banned.video/watch?id=5de7054d4e3b00001cd3545d

[Catsquotl]

Posted by James Newell (here)
An interesting part of history was mentioned by David Icke on a segment of Infowars.com today. He brought up an interesting point about a satanic cult that spawned from the Jews, than infected Islam, then Christianity, and the West. Keeping people divided by race is just one part of the agenda.

Or by belief system of course.
Any which way to divide is serving the cause. whether Icke's or those in power.

[Strat]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)
So ... do y'all believe that black folks across the world will enslave, murder, rape and experiment on white people, if the tables were turned?

The phrasing of the question is somewhat throwing me off but assuming you mean that if it were blacks that took over the world (a la Guns Germs and Steel route) would they enslave whites assuming they had the ability then I assume so. I think this goes with all cultures.

If you mean blacks become the majority, would they suddenly start enslaving whites? Then absolutely not. Times have changed kinda thing. I don't think people have it in them. Well some do but those are like the 1%, ya know, Epstein like folks. I don't necessarily mean wealth but sick in the head.

Bit of a change of topic here:

Do you have any recommended reading for early black history in America? As to the date I'm not sure, but I'm thinking pre 1900s. I'm going to read Uncle Tom's Cabin probably next week. I never got around to it and I just finished HBS's Palmetto Leaves, I never knew she lived like 5min from where I work.

Anyway, I ask cause I'm interested in little cultural tidbits. Like why/how did blacks become so fervently Christian? I would think a Voodoo tradition would be carried over. In the book I just mentioned, she (HBS) says this: "Here, then, they all settled down; and finding, accidentally, that a small central lot was not enclosed in any of the allotments, they took it as an indication that there was to be their church, and accordingly erected there a prayer-booth, where they could hold those weekly prayer-meetings which often seem with the negroes to take the place of all other recreations."

This book is more of a love letter to the Florida outdoors, written in 1872. Still, it made me think that even in movies you do often see blacks erecting their own church and praying to God just as much as other Christians.

Like I said earlier, that's just an interesting 'tidbit' and I'd like to know more. So if you know of any books that have similar information I'd definitely like to know. I plan on getting Michael Twitty's book 'The Cooking Gene'. Heard of it? I'm looking forward to that read.

Oh, and I wanted to promote this guy's youtube channel. It's interesting to hear his perspective on things. From his about page: "Search for Uhuru is a platform which was created to bridge the gap between the Diaspora and Africa."
https://www.youtube.com/user/SearchforUhuru/featured

[Mark]

Posted by Strat (here)
To be honest, I've never experienced any of these things. When did Robin Williams say white people can't do certain things?

You may not have, but others have. I just pulled a comedian out of my hat as an example. It could be any of a number of comedians.

Posted by Strat (here)
A few of my white friends went to clubs to get girls, one of my best friends found his (hispanic) wife there. I don't like clubs, but I wouldn't feel pressured against it or whatever. I don't have tweeters in my truck and I have indeed been planning on upgrading my sound system, but I have never ever felt any criticism/racial stereotyping for blasting my music. Which I do btw. If The Ocean by Zep comes on then god help my eardrums.

I think I would feel a bit of pressure from 1 cousin of mine if I ended up with a black gal, but he can eat a dick if that's the case. I think 50years ago, this would've been more of an issue but where I live in Jax it's very multi cultural.

Ok, this is kind of a case in point. You're taking everything I said as talking about you personally. Individually. When I was making blanket statements. Generalizations. There are always, always, exceptions. It's ok, but this is the problem, writ large. If I'm in a group and people start to talk in generalizations about black people, or tall people, or Vets, since I have experience in those groups I will probably have something to say too. In some sense, a lot of this seems unavoidable just because of how we are as people. So this conversation is a never-ending one. And we will always have individualized examples of how something is not so in general because it is not so for me individually.

Posted by Strat (here)
The only pressure I feel is that I can't criticize or make an observation of a black person without being crucified. Like the no tipping thing at the bar. People want to call bs on that but I would put money on it. Come with me to the pool hall and when a black person tips upon checkout I give you $5, if said person doesn't tip you give me $5. You will go broke. I feel like the eyes are on me now just for making this observation. A hot iron with the word 'racist' is being readied to brand my forehead. Yet it's just an observation. I mean no harm.

I'm a good tipper. Just like you have never experienced any of the things in my examples. There may be some truth to the reality that a lot of poor people don't tip. A lot of poor people just so happen to be minorities. Multigenerational poverty implants some ways of being. I'll bet if you check that truism across racial lines, you would find a lot of poor indigenous and white folks don't tip well either. The great thing about generalizations is that they are contextually true to a certain extent, but never always and particularly true to every person within the group. Which is true of majority American and minority populations as well as people in nations across the planet.

No harm taken.

[Mark]

Posted by Strat (here)
EDIT: While this is an interesting dialogue, and does touch on things that I want to learn about, I inadvertently turned this into a racism thing when I was more curious about the concept of white privilege.

I could've gotten more to the point if I simply asked you if you believed in white privilege, and how would you describe it?

What they call white privilege is the intergenerational culture of in-group benefit, which happens in all cultures where there are majority and minority groups. Here in the USA and in other nations, even in Europe where darker-skinned populations are relatively new (in this era, ALL of Europe was originally populated with dark-skinned Homo Sapiens), the minority groups face the stigma of darker skin in the context of over 100 years of direct and indirect pseudo-scientific categorizations of dehumanization. I would argue that there are subliminal and subconscious imperatives that ALL residents of these nations possess that reinforce these understands across generations so that now, in these days, when tests like the Harvard implicit bias test are taken, even those minorities who are considered to be inferior test positively for belief in their inherent inferiority.

Since that is the case, white privilege is particularly seditious, because the people who want to help others improve their lot in life possess these beliefs as do those whose lot is desirous of improvement!

It is a Machiavellian situation we face and live.