You brought up the history. It just wasn't accurate..
You'd have to be a tad more specific. What history did I bring up? And how was it inaccurate?
neither is the idea that discrimination causes the "gender pay gap"
what I said was...
but let's say we were having a discussion about equal pay for women. Talking about how women were treated in other societies has what to do with equal treatment in the present?
your response made me have to go back and look at what I said because I'm not sure how this response led to that. Can you act like I just asked the question again and provide a clear answer? The point was that shifting past blame doesn't negate what's happening in the present. As far as the gender pay gap not being caused by discrimination, if you mean discrimination isn't the sole cause then yes I'd agree. Just like discrimination has never been the singular sole cause of black unemployment. However it is 'a' cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
The reasons for lower pay include both individual choice and other innate and external factors. An example of a voluntary choice is choosing to work part-time when full-time employment is available. An example of an involuntary choice is working a low-skill job because of an inability to access higher education. An example of an external factor is discrimination.
and if you direct your attention to the right column of the page you'll see it is "Part of a series on Discrimination"
you've used this 'information' as an example of propaganda. However, in this instance you seem to be incorrect so is it possible that some things you have accepted as "propaganda" are actually true? Because if it's true then it isn't "bending reality" as you put it. But if you are convinced by "alternative facts" (alternate propaganda) then you might believe reality isn't real and become biased against facts, regarding them as propaganda. I'd like to reiterate I'm not saying this is true in your case. I'm merely pointing at the possibility that you could be wrong, just as the possibility exists that I could be wrong.
I never said get rid of your cultural identity,
Sorry, but that's how I interpreted you saying that you didn't identify as African American. If you say Texan American that reflects state pride and that's fine for you but although I was born in Ohio and am an "Ohioan", that's not my ethnic origin and usually words like "Italian American, Mexican American, African American, like French Canadian, signify an origin beyond and outside of North America (or Canada). I see no reason to change any of these. If you're Texan... you're American. So, not to be critical, but it seems a little redundant. If you say you're Texan everyone knows you're American because you can't be Texan without being American. I'm also Jamaican American on my father's side. The American part is what unites us all. If people feel divided because of the prefix then that would seem to be their problem, not mine. I love all types of Americans because it's the diversity that makes us stronger.
but you have to stop "group thinking" in order to understand my perspective.
Ouch. So now you're assuming that I'm group thinking.... not that its possible that certain opinions in the black community are shared because they are based on valid observations that we come to independent of each other. And that some people may not arrive at those same opinions. Does that make everyone else automatically some kind of monolithic borg collective?
Because institutionalized racism is illegal in America and has never been a federal policy.
okay? You're just not explaining to me why Federal law or policy should shape any discussion on racism and white supremacy. White supremacists don't really abide by the law at all times. That's why they wear hoods. Lynching was never legal. Of course if you can change policy to allow things like voter suppression then that does make racism legal in that particular instance. Black voters aren't suppressed because it is antithetical to the black agenda... obviously... so who's agenda then? If its purely about conservative values isn't one of those values to be conserved "democracy"? And how do you have democracy if at any time you can say who the mob is to who gets to rule and make it not about numbers? And sure you could argue that voter suppression isn't a policy. However redistricting is and there is no law to prevent doing so based on where African Americans are concentrated. Why not? Who would vote against such an attempt at improving equality?
There is also policy on drugs that treated cocaine differently from crack. Is there some significant reason for this, other than targeting minorities? And come on... we even have admissions that the drug policies were specifically aimed at the black community that go all the way up to the white house. So if you're looking for some "central master policy" okay... you got me. There isn't ONE. Rather there are "policies", plural, that targeted African Americans. Not to mention... you do have to understand federalism vs states rights which I'm sure you do. There was no federal law which prevented the Jim Crow laws at the state level. Remember that Slavery was more so about economics in the South. So by the time there was a "United States" we were too divided on the issue for there to be a federal policy in support of racism. Instead, what you have is the federal government not preventing STATE and LOCAL governments from such things as Jim Crow, segregation, etc. It was largely a state issue and if blacks couldn't get out of those states then... oh well?
In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, which legally ended discrimination and segregation that had been institutionalized by Jim Crow laws. And in 1965, the Voting Rights Act ended efforts to keep minorities from voting.
so basically these things were legally done previously to the extent that the federal government had to get involved. But this didn't happen until the mid 60s. I was born in 1979. So yeah... to me that wasn't that long ago; not to mention my mother was from Mobile Alabama.
Anybody can be racist. I know some racist black folks. Give them the power and they'd be just as oppressive..
Umm.... So... they don't have power then. So when you say anyone "can be" racist you can't really say you know racists if they don't have the power to oppress. You're saying they are something based on an assumption of what they'd do if they had power. But you say they don't have power. So how can they presently be the thing that takes power to be? But even if they had power. Let's say they were circuit court judges. Whites could appeal on such a basis. Let's say black officer shoots a white person because for some reason they were more afraid of their lives because of that person being white. Let's pretend that happened. What are the chances the case would then go to one of the racist black folk you know and how many of them would have to be in the judicial system for the family of that victim to receive justice? What are the chances that an all black jury would be selected to protect the police officer?
Racism and white supremacy isn't an individual sport. So the idea that black people can determine the future or be in the position to deal out "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control." maybe something your friends may fantasize about but simply do not have. You can't oppress or control people without the power to do so. Now if you want to say everyone can be racist by a definition of racist that is more like bigotry or discrimination or prejudice or something like that, I don't have a problem with that. Like I said before, I'm not calling the normal definition wrong for those who wish to use it. However, again, for me, that definition is lacking and doesn't capture the full context of "racism/white supremacy". So that's why **I**, while not forcing anyone else to use it, use a different definition. Someone wanted to argue with me based on the definition THEY were using and while true for THAT definition, as I said, is not true for the definition I am using and have used in this thread.
Propagandizing history was a huge part of that negative thinking
There is some truth to that, but if the truth was taught in school propaganda of this sort wouldn't be nearly as effective. People who are lied to are going to be hungry for truth and may not filter it because the lie was prevailing. Similar to distrust in government produces conspiracy theories. Many people are prone to one or more of them because they distrust the government. And while we can blame the individual the government does conceal information and operate outside the wishes of the majority of its citizens to serve private interests. So what are people supposed to think about that? Positive thoughts? Trump simply harnessed the negative thinking of everyone who distrusted the government, was worried about their jobs and money, and yes some who are racists and hated having a black president.
