Ending the Myth of Racism
I don't see how the two options you presented are exclusive to each other. I can make an unreasonable person happy and still preserve my business and profits. It is not an either or situation. But I can tell you that a customer had us install a new vinyl sign for his store, right next door to us. He then refused to pay the $2,000 bill citing "it just didn't look that good." We offered to redo it, redesign it, etc. and still he refused. So I let it go. It's one job, hardly enough to ruin me and I am under no obligation to continue dealing with him on a business level. I'm sure he is happy since its been over a year and he has done nothing to replace the sign "he just didn't like" and I'm happy because I am not wringing my hands about lost profits, or even a new enemy had I pursued it in civil court.
Solve' et coagula
VixensVengeance wrote: Your power to do business and make money and thus provide for yourself.
VixensVengeance wrote: You continue to put words in my mouth. Once again, I never said anything about fear. I choose my words quite carefully and I would appreciate it if you would heed that.
And what if they made a request that was unreasonable? Would your motivation still be one to make them smile and happy or would your motivation become one to preserve your business and its profits? Say they demanded to only pay 100 bucks for a 1000 dollar job because thats what they felt it was worth?
Wow. You are both making really good points. Really strong arguments, seriously.
Whether the motivation is fear or love (both are valid) you still need a request to spark that action. In this case, it's up to the business own, who, considering the request, decides what to do about it. Similarly, I work in the real estate sign business and we also do custom designs for customers. Filling in for someone in the art department for a month I had to design signs for some customers and if they didn't like something I had to change it. I couldn't simply not do it because they were paying for it. Therefore, I was obligated to a certain extent. Hold this thought.
This was at a stage where the design could easily be changed. Nothing was printed yet. Nothing was delivered. So at this point me changing "my design" is to fit their expectation of what they're buying into. And what they're buying is going to represent their business so they should be able to get satisfaction. Had we actually printed the sign then the decision about changing it also changes because now we've actually used materials and paid for transporting it. So now we could be operating at a loss. So... if the fault was ours then we take that loss. If the fault is theirs then we may or may not take that loss based on how we value them as a customer and value our customers in general. This motivation could be love, fear, or both.
American, you can say, is the business. Citizens are the customer. Black customers pay taxes just like white customers. However, being there are more white customers and they're making and spending more money, they're also putting more money into the nation. However, companies also have employees. I wont get as complicated as talking about employee discounts and benefits but I want to at least touch on the point that people have value beyond what they earn and spend (ex. the Military).
It is logical that there is a "design phase" when it comes to legislation where things are easier to change. Once things are constructed though and there is organization and salaries and all that, well now its harder to change. The same is true of people. Children are in the "design phase" while adults are "finished products". On a personal level, if there is no transaction, an adult who doesn't benefit by not being racist may simply not care enough to change their mind or opinions. If there is a transaction, but not an interracial transaction (ie. racist jokes, racist friends and family, membership to KKK or Nazis or one of may other groups), the adult may have more reason to be racist than reason to reconsider such an ideology.
So we can request things of the state, and we can request things at the personal level. No one at the personal level has to make that change; however, the worst they can do is... not change. So why not then make that request? They may interpret it as a complaint and it may make them uncomfortable. It may even make you uncomfortable. But if that's the worst that can happen... why not make the request? Is it going to make them even more racist? Doubtful.
Requesting things of the state is a little different because we have an expectation that comes with being equal citizens. That state is paid by us and is therefore required to provide the service that is advertised. If what is advertised is "freedom and justice for all" then what happens if you do not complain and hold them to that standard? There are many countries (ie. North Korea) where you're not even allowed to complain. Which country would you rather live in? The one where people can protest or the one where no one is allowed to complain? What is the result of not being able to complain? And is that beneficial? Again, the worst that could happen is the state says no. Because who works at those "customer service" jobs? Politicians, elected from different parts of the country who represent people, who on the personal level, may have no transactions or interactions or exposure or friendships or relationships of any kind with people of other races. So the personal level influences the corporate level and so simply complaining at the corporate level will never be as effective as getting people at the corporate level to represent people at the personal level who actually aren't racist (or as racist), who do have interactions with people of other races and consider them equal.
The more we have the conversation at the personal level (Again, considering the worst that could happen), and not wasting our time by talking to the KKK, at least as a forum or collective, the more that maybe racist ideas can be challenged and not make it into the design of the next generation. I think this is where a lot of America's improvement has been made.
But although new generations are saying no to racism there is also a resurgence of a minority viewpoint in that same population that listens to conspiracies and exaggerates the "threat" of minorities and fears losing the power of the majority because they think black people will not vote in favor of "their issues". But Obama didn't govern according to "black issues" (which made some black people upset) but did govern according to "American issues" and that's why the economy is/was still doing so well. However, many whites also blamed Obama for job losses when in reality their jobs were being threatened more by automation and outsourcing which are decisions made by corporations and companies, not the government. You can't keep companies from advancing in technology just to protect jobs. That's stupid. And if you try to penalize them too much they can simply move more of their business out of the US.
At the end of the day, we're all paying for "freedom and justice for all". We all therefore deserve a reasonable expectation of what that means. Freedom naturally comes with restrictions because your freedom shouldn't take away someone else's freedoms. This is why the gun debate is so strong even though people are constantly dying. The freedom to earn wealth, for example, doesn't mean you can steal. Whites should be able to hate black people freely. However, Black people shouldn't have to be forced to tolerate that hate or have their lives, their freedoms, their finances, etc. affected by it. Therefore, in my humble opinion, WHATEVER we can do to effect positive change, we should do it. It's that simple.
People sometimes make problems so big that they are afraid to do anything. We should be bigger than our perception of our problems.
I think that's how one "uses" the Force.
People sometimes make problems so big that they are afraid to do anything. We should be bigger than our perception of our problems.
I think that's how one "uses" the Force.
Wise words my friend!
Solve' et coagula
ZealotX wrote: You'd have to be a tad more specific. What history did I bring up? And how was it inaccurate?
Well, the bit about the United States labeling blacks 3/5ths a person. When, constitutionally, that's not the fact. In reality, the US Constitution is anti-slavery. Also, historically, slavery has been outlawed in some colonies since the Revolution. Also, you said the racial nature of its laws was unique which is specifically comparing us with outside nations. Which would also be false. Since Spain was first to make race laws during the colonial period..
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.
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.
You judge Propaganda by its affect on the target. In this case, discrimination isn't the main, or even major, cause behind the pay gap. Choice is the biggest factor. However, what would be the answer of the average person unaware of the numbers? That's the Propaganda.. then what would be your solution?? Would your solution take choice away?..
You also can't have alternative facts, just alternative points of view..
Besides, discrimination is natural. Humans do it all the time when exercising their freedom of association. Laws won't get rid of it. Because even though institutionalized Racism has been illegal for decades now. Racists still find ways to selectively enforce blanket laws and create laws that target the common habits of certain demographics.. that's what happens when govermnent has too much power, though..
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.
American is the same as African, it's a reference to the Continent.. Neither are actual nationalities.. Mexicans from Mexico are American as well..
I didn't refer to culture. I specifically pointed to the societal and legal as the things this change would affect. Because nationality isn't an idea, it's a function of the Law FIRST and foremost. I'm not referring to your ethnic identity nor mine. My ancestry goes back to Africa more than likely and I relate wholly to the "Black" experience. However, Texan is my nationality, by right. Because Texas was the nation I was born to.. as Ohio is for you.. according to Law, not culture, you are Ohioan.. by right.. in the USA, that nationality comes with sovereignty that makes you the State, instead of the govermnent.
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?[/quote]
There's nothing wrong with shared opinions or shared experience.. but to identify with that experience, or more specifically a certain interpretation of that experience, is dangerous. Because our interpretations can be wrong, those conclusions could be misguided.. and they could have a person react or act in ways that are counterproductive to peace or justice..
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?[/quote]
Something that is institutionalized is inescapable. Jim Crowe and Slavery were inescapable. Voter and Drug laws are escapable because you can get ID or not sell crack.. that's the key difference..
States' rights still exist. That's why slavery was acknowledged by the federal constitution. In a Federal Republic, the States joining themselves together voluntarily don't cease to be States or relinquish any sovereignty thereof save for what the delegate.. federalism IS states rights.. there couldnt be a federal law of Racism unless it was unanimous among the States themselves.. especially when some northern states had already outlawed slavery before the current Constitution was written..
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.
I'm saying anyone is capable of being racist by having prejudice thoughts based on race. Same with bigoted thoughts. When categorized by race, it becomes racism. Prejudice can be based on gender, class, nationality, etc.. but racial prejudice is RACISM.. no power needed, what you're speaking on is racial oppression or racial discrimination.. it's all racism.. so, black people who are prejudice against those of European decent are racists.. plain and simple, you can't use your own "alternative facts" when talking about these things..
Racism comes down to the individual. That's all it's ever been. Groups aren't racist, individuals are.. when individuals who share the same opinion or ideas get together. They can cause great good or great evil..
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.
The fact that Conspiracy theories do sometimes become Conspiracy Facts gave rise to conspiracy theorists..
Using the definition of your choice instead of the proper definition is an effect of Propaganda. Now you're aiming at an ideology that is defunct instead of the actual crimes of our treasonous govermnent. REAL White Supremacy was started by the likes of Cecil Rhodes and Margaret Sanger. Eugenicists and Anglophiles. You've heard of Rhodes Scholars, I'm sure.. and Planned Parenthood.. that caricature of a good ol boy with a Confederate Flag is useful Propaganda.. but it isn't "White Supremacy" in the ACTUAL historical sense of the movement..
The United States of America, being a Union of Nations founded on Racism is a lie.. but if you can get people to think that about the past. They'll misinterpret their present situation and possibly react wrongly in the future..
Because Eugenics and State Supremacy are still a thing..
Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem
By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty.