• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Racism in society (or The Incredible Whiteness of Being) (or 50 Shades of Blackness)

What they mean is that racism hurt the nation as a whole. Granted, the white people still got all the opportunities, but those opportunities would have been a little better if there wasn't racism. Of course, some white people would have lost jobs to black people because they were less qualified, so it really is pretty ridiculous spin.
Second, if the current social and economic status of the families of those white high school seniors was improved in part by institutional racism, then they are beneficiaries of it.
Except that racism makes everyone worse off, not better.

White high school seniors, on average, are now worse off because of past racism against Blacks.
I'll take esoteric spin for $800 Alex.

And some whites lost farm and housekeeping jobs and other manual labor jobs due to slavery. They were made worse off as a result.
I know you did not just type that. Tell me did these white folk have their children sold from them, their wives raped, their husbands beaten? Or did they just not get the divine work opportunity of cleaning Miz Ann's floors and picking Mr. Charlie's cotton? FOR FREE!?
Also, the number of opportunities isn't fixed. If there are a larger number of qualified people, job opportunities tend to expand (though wages may fall some). To the extent that wages would fall in certain industries, white customers of the products of those industries were made worse off with higher prices.

That you ignore the suffering of additional victims due to slavery simply because their suffering is much smaller in comparison does not take away the suffering. I don't know if you are also motivated to ignore it due to the color of their skin, but it doesn't make you look good. Also, do you seriously think Southern farmers wouldn't have to pay anything in the absence of slavery?

"How dare you complain that your son was a victim of severe bullying in school, my daughelter was raped and your son still has his male privlidge. "

You are doing the equivalent here.
 
So racism, in the form of segregation used to hold black people down was good for white high school seniors but integration is bad for white high school seniors?
If Blacks had never been systematically discriminated against in America, the U.S. would be a far wealthier nation right now.
How so? How do you think the US becomes wealthy, much less wealthier without the trans Atlantic Slave Trade, without Jim crow, without various immigration laws? I would love to see your take on this.

By implementing labor productivity improvements via physical capital investment, human capital investment (education), employment in the most productive industries driven by wages, and plain old human motivation to be more productive when one is rewarded for being such. Slavery significantly held that back for the South, which was one contributing factor why the South has been poorer than the north for pretty much the entire history of the US, and, arguably, was the decisive factor in the North's victory in the civil war.

ok

We are not going to have slavery
And may I assume we aren't going kill natives either?

How does the US get either money or room to make these investments?

Understand, I am not making a pro slavery, pro genecide argument. I am foursquare against slavery and genecide. I simply need to know how you get the wealth of imperialism without the evil.
 
What they mean is that racism hurt the nation as a whole. Granted, the white people still got all the opportunities, but those opportunities would have been a little better if there wasn't racism. Of course, some white people would have lost jobs to black people because they were less qualified, so it really is pretty ridiculous spin.
Second, if the current social and economic status of the families of those white high school seniors was improved in part by institutional racism, then they are beneficiaries of it.
Except that racism makes everyone worse off, not better.

White high school seniors, on average, are now worse off because of past racism against Blacks.
I'll take esoteric spin for $800 Alex.

And some whites lost farm and housekeeping jobs and other manual labor jobs due to slavery. They were made worse off as a result.
I know you did not just type that. Tell me did these white folk have their children sold from them, their wives raped, their husbands beaten? Or did they just not get the divine work opportunity of cleaning Miz Ann's floors and picking Mr. Charlie's cotton? FOR FREE!?
Also, the number of opportunities isn't fixed. If there are a larger number of qualified people, job opportunities tend to expand (though wages may fall some). To the extent that wages would fall in certain industries, white customers of the products of those industries were made worse off with higher prices.

That you ignore the suffering of additional victims due to slavery simply because their suffering is much smaller in comparison does not take away the suffering. I don't know if you are also motivated to ignore it due to the color of their skin, but it doesn't make you look good.

"How dare you complain that your son was a victim of severe bullying in school, my daughelter was raped and your son still has his male privlidge. "

You are doing the equivalent here.

No I am not the making equivalences here.

White folk losing the opportunity to be slaves was not the problem with slavery.
 
One thing I never understood about AA policies: if the pool of qualified students is larger than the number of slots available, why is the solution to bump one set of qualified students out so that some slightly less qualified students may have their place (as a remedy for past or present racial discrimination, or whatever)? Why isn't the solution instead to expand the overall number of slots until accepting one additional student is done based purely on lacking in qualifications alone? Is it impossible to increase the supply of high quality college education slots?

51IDnv2oYIL.jpg

The United States is a nation where every parent wants their kids to get all As in school but too many parents don't want to pay the money to provide the school.
 
So racism, in the form of segregation used to hold black people down was good for white high school seniors but integration is bad for white high school seniors?
If Blacks had never been systematically discriminated against in America, the U.S. would be a far wealthier nation right now.
How so? How do you think the US becomes wealthy, much less wealthier without the trans Atlantic Slave Trade, without Jim crow, without various immigration laws? I would love to see your take on this.

By implementing labor productivity improvements via physical capital investment, human capital investment (education), employment in the most productive industries driven by wages, and plain old human motivation to be more productive when one is rewarded for being such. Slavery significantly held that back for the South, which was one contributing factor why the South has been poorer than the north for pretty much the entire history of the US, and, arguably, was the decisive factor in the North's victory in the civil war.

ok

We are not going to have slavery
And may I assume we aren't going kill natives either?

How does the US get either money or room to make these investments?

Understand, I am not making a pro slavery, pro genecide argument. I am foursquare against slavery and genecide. I simply need to know how you get the wealth of imperialism without the evil.

By employing people in industries where they are the most productive, including industries involved in capital investment, and peacefully trading with your neighbors in mutually agreeable transactions for things you can't produce cheaply. If labor is a bottleneck, allow immigration. Invest in infrastructure. Also hire more teachers.
 
What they mean is that racism hurt the nation as a whole. Granted, the white people still got all the opportunities, but those opportunities would have been a little better if there wasn't racism. Of course, some white people would have lost jobs to black people because they were less qualified, so it really is pretty ridiculous spin.
Second, if the current social and economic status of the families of those white high school seniors was improved in part by institutional racism, then they are beneficiaries of it.
Except that racism makes everyone worse off, not better.

White high school seniors, on average, are now worse off because of past racism against Blacks.
I'll take esoteric spin for $800 Alex.
And some whites lost farm and housekeeping jobs and other manual labor jobs due to slavery. They were made worse off as a result.
How did they lose them? Slavery was an institution in The South. The jobs never existed.

Also, the number of opportunities isn't fixed. If there are a larger number of qualified people, job opportunities tend to expand (though wages may fall some). To the extent that wages would fall in certain industries, white customers of the products of those industries were made worse off with higher prices.
Yes. The poor white folks that were burdened by slavery.
 
What they mean is that racism hurt the nation as a whole. Granted, the white people still got all the opportunities, but those opportunities would have been a little better if there wasn't racism. Of course, some white people would have lost jobs to black people because they were less qualified, so it really is pretty ridiculous spin.
Second, if the current social and economic status of the families of those white high school seniors was improved in part by institutional racism, then they are beneficiaries of it.
Except that racism makes everyone worse off, not better.

White high school seniors, on average, are now worse off because of past racism against Blacks.
I'll take esoteric spin for $800 Alex.

And some whites lost farm and housekeeping jobs and other manual labor jobs due to slavery. They were made worse off as a result.
I know you did not just type that. Tell me did these white folk have their children sold from them, their wives raped, their husbands beaten? Or did they just not get the divine work opportunity of cleaning Miz Ann's floors and picking Mr. Charlie's cotton? FOR FREE!?
Also, the number of opportunities isn't fixed. If there are a larger number of qualified people, job opportunities tend to expand (though wages may fall some). To the extent that wages would fall in certain industries, white customers of the products of those industries were made worse off with higher prices.

That you ignore the suffering of additional victims due to slavery simply because their suffering is much smaller in comparison does not take away the suffering. I don't know if you are also motivated to ignore it due to the color of their skin, but it doesn't make you look good.

"How dare you complain that your son was a victim of severe bullying in school, my daughelter was raped and your son still has his male privlidge. "

You are doing the equivalent here.

No I am not the making equivalences here.

White folk losing the opportunity to be slaves was not the problem with slavery.

I have no idea how you read into what I said that they lost the opportunity to be a slave. I said they lost the opportunity to earn a wage (or as high of a wage as otherwise) because slave owners had someone to do it for free because of slavery. Are you under the illusion that unemployment and low wages didn't exist back then for whites or that social safety nets were around to help them out? We are talking about the most disadvantaged whites (and free blacks, I might add),literally having to compete with free labor. How you fail to see how that might make them worse off I have no idea. Extreme poverty literally meant death or starvation back then, or other significant hardship.
 
What they mean is that racism hurt the nation as a whole. Granted, the white people still got all the opportunities, but those opportunities would have been a little better if there wasn't racism. Of course, some white people would have lost jobs to black people because they were less qualified, so it really is pretty ridiculous spin.
Second, if the current social and economic status of the families of those white high school seniors was improved in part by institutional racism, then they are beneficiaries of it.
Except that racism makes everyone worse off, not better.

White high school seniors, on average, are now worse off because of past racism against Blacks.
I'll take esoteric spin for $800 Alex.
And some whites lost farm and housekeeping jobs and other manual labor jobs due to slavery. They were made worse off as a result.
How did they lose them? Slavery was an institution in The South. The jobs never existed.

Also, the number of opportunities isn't fixed. If there are a larger number of qualified people, job opportunities tend to expand (though wages may fall some). To the extent that wages would fall in certain industries, white customers of the products of those industries were made worse off with higher prices.
Yes. The poor white folks that were burdened by slavery.

We are talking about the most disadvantaged nonslaves in the South literally having to compete with free labor. You don't think that had any negative impact on them?
 
School to Prison Pipeline

Consider the case of Meridian Mississippi

What do these school kids have in common? The teenage girl with a bladder disorder who left class without permission, ignoring a teacher and racing for a bathroom rather than wet herself; the boy who was rude to a school administrator; another who was tardy. They are children of color who, as a result of breaking minor school rules, were allegedly arrested and thrown into a juvenile detention facility in Meridian, Mississippi. It appears to be the most blatant case in a nationwide phenomenon that the U.S. Department of Justice, in a 37-page lawsuit, calls a “school-to-prison pipeline.”

Following an eight-month investigation and a two-month warning period, the Justice Department in October filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city of Meridian, Lauderdale County, the Mississippi Department of Youth Services (DYS) and local Youth Court judges Frank Coleman and Veldore Young for violating the Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights of Meridian public school children.

For six years or so, at least 77 children, some as young as 10 – all of them “children of color,” says Jody Owens, with the Southern Poverty Law Center–were routinely arrested at Meridian schools allegedly on the say-so of teachers or administrators, handcuffed and taken to jail where they were held for days on end without benefit of a hearing, a lawyer, or understanding their Miranda rights. Their parents or guardians weren’t notified of the arrests until the children were in lockdown in a facility the SPLC says was a hellhole of abuse and neglect.
http://nation.time.com/2012/12/11/the-worst-school-to-prison-pipeline-was-it-in-mississippi/

Nowhere in school policy will you find any wording saying, "these policies must be used disproportionately against AA student," and yet that is what happening. When reading Zero Tolerance policies, there is never mention of race, these policies are essentially color blind, but the outcomes of their implementation are not.

Could such policies still be considered racist?
 
We are talking about the most disadvantaged nonslaves in the South literally having to compete with free labor. You don't think that had any negative impact on them?
It made the crap jobs unavailable and made the better paying jobs more available.
 
That is untrue (see below). And it is not relevant, since AA addresses relative gains not absolute gains.


If Blacks had never been systematically discriminated against in America, the U.S. would be a far wealthier nation right now.
Most likely. But your conclusion that everyone would be better off in the absence of racism does not follow because it requires that everyone would share in that increased wealth.

If the US federal gov't collected an additional $500 per capita in taxes anually, holding tax law constant, due to higher GDP per capita, do you think it likely that there would be widespread public benefit as a result of the additional funds?
There is a good chance, but I hardly think that is relevant. What wealth (and its distribution) might have been in utopian vision of the USA is irrelevant to the issues that drive AA.
 
What they mean is that racism hurt the nation as a whole. Granted, the white people still got all the opportunities, but those opportunities would have been a little better if there wasn't racism. Of course, some white people would have lost jobs to black people because they were less qualified, so it really is pretty ridiculous spin.
Second, if the current social and economic status of the families of those white high school seniors was improved in part by institutional racism, then they are beneficiaries of it.
Except that racism makes everyone worse off, not better.

White high school seniors, on average, are now worse off because of past racism against Blacks.
I'll take esoteric spin for $800 Alex.

And some whites lost farm and housekeeping jobs and other manual labor jobs due to slavery. They were made worse off as a result.
I know you did not just type that. Tell me did these white folk have their children sold from them, their wives raped, their husbands beaten? Or did they just not get the divine work opportunity of cleaning Miz Ann's floors and picking Mr. Charlie's cotton? FOR FREE!?
Also, the number of opportunities isn't fixed. If there are a larger number of qualified people, job opportunities tend to expand (though wages may fall some). To the extent that wages would fall in certain industries, white customers of the products of those industries were made worse off with higher prices.

That you ignore the suffering of additional victims due to slavery simply because their suffering is much smaller in comparison does not take away the suffering. I don't know if you are also motivated to ignore it due to the color of their skin, but it doesn't make you look good.

"How dare you complain that your son was a victim of severe bullying in school, my daughelter was raped and your son still has his male privlidge. "

You are doing the equivalent here.

No I am not the making equivalences here.

White folk losing the opportunity to be slaves was not the problem with slavery.

I have no idea how you read into what I said that they lost the opportunity to be a slave. I said they lost the opportunity to earn a wage (or as high of a wage as otherwise) because slave owners had someone to do it for free because of slavery. Are you under the illusion that unemployment and low wages didn't exist back then for whites or that social safety nets were around to help them out? We are talking about the most disadvantaged whites (and free blacks, I might add),literally having to compete with free labor. How you fail to see how that might make them worse off I have no idea. Extreme poverty literally meant death or starvation back then, or other significant hardship.

there would have been no jobs without slavery. The plantation system of the south does not exist without slavery. If there were no slaves, there would be no plantations therefore no plantation jobs for white folk to be paid. The only way there would be plantation jobs for white folk is if they are enslaved.
 
We are talking about the most disadvantaged nonslaves in the South literally having to compete with free labor. You don't think that had any negative impact on them?
It made the crap jobs unavailable and made the better paying jobs more available.

How does the better jobs being made more available help those who remain unqualified? This is the group I am referring to here. A group that is already disadvantaged being made worse off due to slavery.

Also, since a large percent of the population had farming jobs and did not own any slaves, the prices of the crops they sold were reduced due to competition from slave farms. Rural improvished farmers were probably the most numerous victims here.
 
We are talking about the most disadvantaged nonslaves in the South literally having to compete with free labor. You don't think that had any negative impact on them?

Then why didn't poor white folk rise up and demand an end to slavery and to be able to replace the slaves with their paid labor?
 
Consider the case of Meridian Mississippi

What do these school kids have in common? The teenage girl with a bladder disorder who left class without permission, ignoring a teacher and racing for a bathroom rather than wet herself; the boy who was rude to a school administrator; another who was tardy. They are children of color who, as a result of breaking minor school rules, were allegedly arrested and thrown into a juvenile detention facility in Meridian, Mississippi. It appears to be the most blatant case in a nationwide phenomenon that the U.S. Department of Justice, in a 37-page lawsuit, calls a “school-to-prison pipeline.”

Following an eight-month investigation and a two-month warning period, the Justice Department in October filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city of Meridian, Lauderdale County, the Mississippi Department of Youth Services (DYS) and local Youth Court judges Frank Coleman and Veldore Young for violating the Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights of Meridian public school children.

For six years or so, at least 77 children, some as young as 10 – all of them “children of color,” says Jody Owens, with the Southern Poverty Law Center–were routinely arrested at Meridian schools allegedly on the say-so of teachers or administrators, handcuffed and taken to jail where they were held for days on end without benefit of a hearing, a lawyer, or understanding their Miranda rights. Their parents or guardians weren’t notified of the arrests until the children were in lockdown in a facility the SPLC says was a hellhole of abuse and neglect.
http://nation.time.com/2012/12/11/the-worst-school-to-prison-pipeline-was-it-in-mississippi/

Nowhere in school policy will you find any wording saying, "these policies must be used disproportionately against AA student," and yet that is what happening. When reading Zero Tolerance policies, there is never mention of race, these policies are essentially color blind, but the outcomes of their implementation are not.

Could such policies still be considered racist?
I'd need more info on the race of all involved, and the general breakdown of race in the school. Hard to tell if it is racism or an attempt to make more money for detention facilities. Either way, it is grossly disturbing.
 
Consider the case of Meridian Mississippi

http://nation.time.com/2012/12/11/the-worst-school-to-prison-pipeline-was-it-in-mississippi/

Nowhere in school policy will you find any wording saying, "these policies must be used disproportionately against AA student," and yet that is what happening. When reading Zero Tolerance policies, there is never mention of race, these policies are essentially color blind, but the outcomes of their implementation are not.

Could such policies still be considered racist?
I'd need more info on the race of all involved, and the general breakdown of race in the school. Hard to tell if it is racism or an attempt to make more money for detention facilities. Either way, it is grossly disturbing.

Then consider this as well

Students who are forced out of school for disruptive behavior are usually sent back to the origin of their angst and unhappiness—their home environments or their neighborhoods, which are filled with negative influence. Those who are forced out for smaller offenses become hardened, confused, embittered. Those who are unnecessarily forced out of school become stigmatized and fall behind in their studies; many eventually decide to drop out of school altogether, and many others commit crimes in their communities.

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact reason for the school-to-prison pipeline. Many attribute it to the zero tolerance policies that took form after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. Others blame educators, accusing them of pushing out students who score lower on standardized tests in order to improve the school’s overall test scores. And some blame overzealous policing efforts. The reasons are many, but the solutions are not as plentiful.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/tsr/education-under-arrest/school-to-prison-pipeline-fact-sheet/

and this
The sealing of the school-to-prison pipeline in Meridian, Miss. has officially started after a U.S. District Court judge approved what the Department of Justice is calling “a landmark consent decree” that features a “far-reaching plan to reform discipline practices … that unlawfully channel black students out of their classrooms and, too often, into the criminal justice system.

In March, the Justice Department reached agreement with the Meridian Public School District to decrease excessive suspensions and expulsions of mostly young black students for trivial infractions like wearing the wrong colored socks. Kids were lucky if they were only suspended — in many of these cases, schools called the police to arrest the students, as young as 10 years old, and send them to juvenile facilities, as reporter Julianne Hing found last November.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/05/good_news_in_miss_school-to-prison_pipeline_closed.html
 
Then why didn't poor white folk rise up and demand an end to slavery and to be able to replace the slaves with their paid labor?

Most Union soldiers were white.

All the confederate ones were white. So, what is your point, since the plantation system was in the CSA?
 
We are talking about the most disadvantaged nonslaves in the South literally having to compete with free labor. You don't think that had any negative impact on them?

Then why didn't poor white folk rise up and demand an end to slavery and to be able to replace the slaves with their paid labor?

First of all, you assume they understood how slavery made them worse off. We are talking about folks who had no more than about a 4th grade education, many of whom were illiterate.

Second of all, it wasn't until 1856 that the last state, North Carolina, removed its property ownership requirements to vote.

Third, those who are the most impoverished don't typically have much of a political voice. Especially back then, they probably focused almost every moment just trying to survive with no time or desire to get involved in politics.

Fourth, you assume that individuals always or even mostly vote for their own self interests.

Fifth, many probably fell for the fear mongering done by racists who made ending slavery sound like it would lead to a downfall of society. Such preachments were prevalent in the pulpits, for example.
 
Back
Top Bottom