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

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

To me, just based on the numbers implies a suspension policy that is inadequate and failing students, not necessarily because of race. From the numbers alone it could be a race ignorant issue, where as the policies don't negatively affect white students, therefore it is assumed the policies have to be fine and "black culture" is the problem.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

Why wouldn't they? are you saying they could not see their own circumstances?

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

Slaves couldn't vote and yet there were slave uprisings. And poor white folk already guns, so why no poor white folk rising up in rebellion?

BTW NC is only one state and even after the lifting of the restriction there was no rush to the polls to deman the right to work.

Third, those who are the most impoverished don't typically have much of a political voice.

They had weapons.

Especially back then, they probably focused almost every moment just trying to survive with no time or desire to get involved in politics.

And yet they had time to volunteer to fight for the CSA and the very system you say made their lives unbearable.

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

In case you have not noticed, I wasn't talking about voting.

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.

Why would they buy that?What would be their payoff?

 

[Derec]

All the confederate ones were white.

Wrong. There were black confederate soldiers.

So, what is your point, since the plantation system was in the CSA?

That many white people fought against slavery. Even before the war many abolitionists were white as well.

In any case that doesn't matter to the fact that all this happened a long time ago and should not result in preferential treatment of certain groups today.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Wrong. There were black confederate soldiers.

Where?

There was talk of negro conscription, but i doubt you will find reference of a battle where black soldiers fought and died for the south.

That many white people fought against slavery. Even before the war many abolitionists were white as well.

So, what is your point, since the plantation system was in the CSA?

That many white people fought against slavery. Even before the war many abolitionists were white as well.

And?

In any case that doesn't matter to the fact that all this happened a long time ago and should not result in preferential treatment of certain groups today.

And yet you felt the need to join in such a discussion. Hmmm.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Want racism? This story is absurdly disturbing! link

A Georgia judge has denied a push from civil rights groups to force the state's secretary of State to add 40,000 recently registered voters to the rolls, a setback for groups working to register minority voters that could have a big impact on Georgia's hotly contested races next week.

Judge Christopher Brasher has declined to issue a writ of mandamus filed by Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the New Georgia Project and the Georgia branch of the NAACP that would have forced Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp (R) and local counties to make sure the voters the New Georgia Project and the NAACP had registered can vote next week.

The suit was brought by the groups after roughly one third of the more than 100,000 mostly minority voters they'd registered hadn't appeared on the rolls, potentially disenfranchising thousands of mostly Democratic voters. The decision could lead to chaos next week as they try to vote and are forced to do so provisionally, and may well lead to additional legal challenges after the election.

 

[Axulus]

First of all, you assume they understood how slavery made them worse off.

Why wouldn't they? are you saying they could not see their own circumstances?

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

Slaves couldn't vote and yet there were slave uprisings. And poor white folk already guns, so why no poor white folk rising up in rebellion?

BTW NC is only one state and even after the lifting of the restriction there was no rush to the polls to deman the right to work.

Third, those who are the most impoverished don't typically have much of a political voice.

They had weapons.

Especially back then, they probably focused almost every moment just trying to survive with no time or desire to get involved in politics.

And yet they had time to volunteer to fight for the CSA and the very system you say made their lives unbearable.

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

In case you have not noticed, I wasn't talking about voting.

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.

Why would they buy that?What would be their payoff?

We are talking about uneducated, impoverished and illiterate people whose brains were deluded with racist attitudes regarding slavery with fear mongering about how ending slavery would make them worse off (lies that the newly freed slaves would somehow corrupt society, engage in rampant crime, that God was for slavery, you name it), and you ask how they could've fallen for it?

Regardless, this is a complete red harring. Do you accept that impoverished whites and free blacks were made worse off due to having to compete with literal slave labor or not? Why the evasiveness regarding this point?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why wouldn't they? are you saying they could not see their own circumstances?

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

Slaves couldn't vote and yet there were slave uprisings. And poor white folk already guns, so why no poor white folk rising up in rebellion?

BTW NC is only one state and even after the lifting of the restriction there was no rush to the polls to deman the right to work.

Third, those who are the most impoverished don't typically have much of a political voice.

They had weapons.

Especially back then, they probably focused almost every moment just trying to survive with no time or desire to get involved in politics.

And yet they had time to volunteer to fight for the CSA and the very system you say made their lives unbearable.

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

In case you have not noticed, I wasn't talking about voting.

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.

Why would they buy that?What would be their payoff?

We are talking about uneducated, impoverished and illiterate people whose brains were deluded with racist attitudes regarding slavery with fear mongering about how ending slavery would make them worse off (lies that the newly freed slaves would somehow corrupt society, engage in rampant crime, that God was for slavery, you name it), and you ask how they could've fallen for it?

Do you think there are White folk today who are falling for a similar line of reasoning?

Regardless, this is a complete red harring. Do you accept that impoverished whites and free blacks were made worse off due to having to compete with literal slave labor or not? Why the evasiveness regarding this point?

Free black men in the south were generally craftsmen of some sort and did better economically than poor whites who lacked skills. Most freemen were also blood kin to the more powerful white families in their area, hence their education and freedom.

Now as for slavery being bad for poor white folk, of course it was, economically. But they had whiteness. And whiteness for wealth was a trade they willingly made.

 

[Axulus]

Why wouldn't they? are you saying they could not see their own circumstances?

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

Slaves couldn't vote and yet there were slave uprisings. And poor white folk already guns, so why no poor white folk rising up in rebellion?

BTW NC is only one state and even after the lifting of the restriction there was no rush to the polls to deman the right to work.

Third, those who are the most impoverished don't typically have much of a political voice.

They had weapons.

Especially back then, they probably focused almost every moment just trying to survive with no time or desire to get involved in politics.

And yet they had time to volunteer to fight for the CSA and the very system you say made their lives unbearable.

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

In case you have not noticed, I wasn't talking about voting.

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.

Why would they buy that?What would be their payoff?

We are talking about uneducated, impoverished and illiterate people whose brains were deluded with racist attitudes regarding slavery with fear mongering about how ending slavery would make them worse off (lies that the newly freed slaves would somehow corrupt society, engage in rampant crime, that God was for slavery, you name it), and you ask how they could've fallen for it?

Do you think there are White folk today who are falling for a similar line of reasoning?

Regardless, this is a complete red harring. Do you accept that impoverished whites and free blacks were made worse off due to having to compete with literal slave labor or not? Why the evasiveness regarding this point?

Free black men in the south were generally craftsmen of some sort and did better economically than poor whites who lacked skills. Most freemen were also blood kin to the more powerful white families in their area, hence their education and freedom.

Now as for slavery being bad for poor white folk, of course it was, economically. But they had whiteness. And whiteness for wealth was a trade they willingly made.

Their whiteness did not automatically entitle them to some piece of wealth sitting at a white club somewhere. You got your wealth by either earning it or inheriting it. Yes, slavery did allow some whites opportinities to earn more wealth which they would've otherwise been unqualified for in a meritocratic society, that has already been acknowledged previously. For those whites and only those who were unqualified for the good jobs and who inherited no wealth, they were made worse off due to slavery, agreed? Many of them would've been better off had slavery not existed, yes? No one is saying that their situation was equivalent to the harm caused by slavery or racism (although little comfort to those whose children or themselves died from preventable conditions due to their poverty, some deaths which would not have occurred had their poverty been a little less deep without slavery in society.)

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why wouldn't they? are you saying they could not see their own circumstances?

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

Slaves couldn't vote and yet there were slave uprisings. And poor white folk already guns, so why no poor white folk rising up in rebellion?

BTW NC is only one state and even after the lifting of the restriction there was no rush to the polls to deman the right to work.

Third, those who are the most impoverished don't typically have much of a political voice.

They had weapons.

Especially back then, they probably focused almost every moment just trying to survive with no time or desire to get involved in politics.

And yet they had time to volunteer to fight for the CSA and the very system you say made their lives unbearable.

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

In case you have not noticed, I wasn't talking about voting.

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.

Why would they buy that?What would be their payoff?

We are talking about uneducated, impoverished and illiterate people whose brains were deluded with racist attitudes regarding slavery with fear mongering about how ending slavery would make them worse off (lies that the newly freed slaves would somehow corrupt society, engage in rampant crime, that God was for slavery, you name it), and you ask how they could've fallen for it?

Do you think there are White folk today who are falling for a similar line of reasoning?

Regardless, this is a complete red harring. Do you accept that impoverished whites and free blacks were made worse off due to having to compete with literal slave labor or not? Why the evasiveness regarding this point?

Free black men in the south were generally craftsmen of some sort and did better economically than poor whites who lacked skills. Most freemen were also blood kin to the more powerful white families in their area, hence their education and freedom.

Now as for slavery being bad for poor white folk, of course it was, economically. But they had whiteness. And whiteness for wealth was a trade they willingly made.

Their whiteness did not automatically entitle them to some piece of wealth sitting at a white club somewhere.

Did someone say it did?

You got your wealth by either earning it or inheriting it. For those whites and only those who were unqualified for the good jobs and who inherited no wealth, they were made worse off due to slavery, agreed?

asked and answered

Many of them would've been better off had slavery not existed, yes?

Not necessarily. too many other factors at play. without slavery, most would have never left Europe and the colonies probably never would have rebelled against England. All kinds of things change once you eliminate slavery from American History

No one is saying that their situation was equivalent to the harm caused by slavery or racism (although little comfort to those whose children or themselves died from preventable conditions due to their poverty, some deaths which would not have occurred had their poverty been a little less deep without slavery in society.)

uh huh

care to answer

Do you think there are White folk today who are falling for a similar line of reasoning?

 

[Axulus]

Do you think there are White folk today who are falling for a similar line of reasoning?

Similar logical fallacies and emotional appeals based on fear and ignorance leading to racist attitudes and beliefs? Yes, but not nearly to the extent as in the past and typically not near as nasty/damaging the types of claims/lies that used to be routinely made. They can't get away with the worst of the lies anymore.

I participate from time to time on a right wing Christian forum, and the racism oozes out from a good number of the participants there, and it is indeed ugly, so I'm not under any illusion that nasty attitudes and nasty racist lies and delusions are all but gone and that such attitudes do not lead to many victims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

And you're not proving that they are being used disproportionately against blacks.

This looks like one school with a problem of very heavy-handed discipline, not a racial issue.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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?

And you're not proving that they are being used disproportionately against blacks.

This looks like one school with a problem of very heavy-handed discipline, not a racial issue.

And as usual, you are not answering the question

 

[AthenaAwakened]

About that consent decree

“Today, together with the school district and private plaintiffs in the case we are filing a proposed consent decree that addresses claims of racial discrimination in student discipline in Meridian County schools,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. “As part of efforts to enforce a longstanding desegregation decree we investigated complaints that the district implemented a harsh and punitive discipline policy that resulted in the disproportionate suspension, expulsion and school-based arrest of black students in Meridian public schools.”

And even when controlling for other factors, racial disparities persisted, “even when students were at the same school, were of similar ages, and had similar disciplinary histories,” Samuels said. It had the effect of shoving youth out of school and into youth jails, and marking kids indelibly. The decree, pending approval by the court, will address exactly this pattern of practices that the DOJ documented in a multi-year investigation of the school district and the local school.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2013...meridian_misss_school-to-prison_pipeline.html

 

[Trausti]

About that consent decree

“Today, together with the school district and private plaintiffs in the case we are filing a proposed consent decree that addresses claims of racial discrimination in student discipline in Meridian County schools,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. “As part of efforts to enforce a longstanding desegregation decree we investigated complaints that the district implemented a harsh and punitive discipline policy that resulted in the disproportionate suspension, expulsion and school-based arrest of black students in Meridian public schools.”

And even when controlling for other factors, racial disparities persisted, “even when students were at the same school, were of similar ages, and had similar disciplinary histories,” Samuels said. It had the effect of shoving youth out of school and into youth jails, and marking kids indelibly. The decree, pending approval by the court, will address exactly this pattern of practices that the DOJ documented in a multi-year investigation of the school district and the local school.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2013...meridian_misss_school-to-prison_pipeline.html

It's all in how you do the numbers.

At state and national levels, black students are more likely to be suspended from
school, and conditional on misbehavior, receive stiffer penalties when compared with
white students. Racial bias is often cited as a primary contributor to these gaps. Using
infraction data from North Carolina, I investigate gaps in punishment within and across
schools, and explore how student-teacher and student-principal race interactions affect
discipline. I find a significant statewide gap in discipline that is largely generated by
cross-school variation in punishment. In addition, there is little evidence that black
students are treated differentially according to teacher or principal race.

http://www.econ.rochester.edu/people/Kinsler/understanding_black_white.pdf

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you make an extra effort to search for qualified candidates of one "group" but not make the same effort to find qualified candidates of other "groups"... and you do this based on race... that is certainly racist indeed.

Suppose it is easy to search for qualified candidates for one group but not others? Or suppose that historically, you only search for qualified candidates from one group but no others?

Yes, that is still racist.

If there are more easy to find white qualified candidates than easy to find black candidates, does that make the easy to find black candidates preferable to the easy to find white ones? Does it make hard to find black candidates preferable to hard to find white ones?
Are you confusing group norms with individuals?

Because a disadvantaged person shares characteristics with people who are advantaged, does that make it fair to treat that disadvantaged person as if they were advantaged? If you did it based on race alone, that is racism.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Suppose it is easy to search for qualified candidates for one group but not others? Or suppose that historically, you only search for qualified candidates from one group but no others?

Yes, that is still racist.

If there are more easy to find white qualified candidates than easy to find black candidates, does that make the easy to find black candidates preferable to the easy to find white ones? Does it make hard to find black candidates preferable to hard to find white ones?
Are you confusing group norms with individuals?

Because a disadvantaged person shares characteristics with people who are advantaged, does that make it fair to treat that disadvantaged person as if they were advantaged? If you did it based on race alone, that is racism.

Should History not be considered when discussing racism?

- - - Updated - - -

About that consent decree

http://colorlines.com/archives/2013...meridian_misss_school-to-prison_pipeline.html

It's all in how you do the numbers.

At state and national levels, black students are more likely to be suspended from
school, and conditional on misbehavior, receive stiffer penalties when compared with
white students. Racial bias is often cited as a primary contributor to these gaps. Using
infraction data from North Carolina, I investigate gaps in punishment within and across
schools, and explore how student-teacher and student-principal race interactions affect
discipline. I find a significant statewide gap in discipline that is largely generated by
cross-school variation in punishment. In addition, there is little evidence that black
students are treated differentially according to teacher or principal race.

http://www.econ.rochester.edu/people/Kinsler/understanding_black_white.pdf

When did Meridian Mississippi move to NC?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Should History not be considered when discussing racism?

In terms of how racism came to be, the history of it, etc? Sure.

In terms of if we should discriminate against people today? Not so much. Racist treatment against a person's ancestors does not justify racism in their favour today. And racist treatment against somebody else's ancestors, who happen to have had the same skin pigmentation as your ancestors, doesn't either, especially as against people who have no family relation to anybody that participated in that racism against that other person's ancestor (ie, recent white immigrants) or who don't even belong to the same "race" (ie, asians).

It just gets nonsensical. If you want equal and fair treatment, then I think you can get support for that. If you want special treatment, or to pretend you yourself are incapable of racism, etc, I don't think many will or should support you.

 

[Metaphor]

That is untrue (see below). And it is not relevant, since AA addresses relative gains not absolute gains.

Except it doesn't do anything of the sort -- it does not attempt to measure anyone's relative gain or loss, so it can hardly address it.

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.

Everyone would be better off on average, so it follows that everyone is worse off on average because the racism happened.

Living in a country with a higher GDP tends to be beneficial, even if you did not directly share in the gains from the higher GDP

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Should History not be considered when discussing racism?

In terms of how racism came to be, the history of it, etc? Sure.

In terms of if we should discriminate against people today? Not so much. Racist treatment against a person's ancestors does not justify racism in their favour today. And racist treatment against somebody else's ancestors, who happen to have had the same skin pigmentation as your ancestors, doesn't either, especially as against people who have no genetic relation to anybody that participated in that racism against that other person's ancestor (ie, recent white immigrants) or who don't even share their skin colour (ie, asians).

It just gets nonsensical. If you want equal and fair treatment, then I think you can get support for that. If you want special treatment, or to pretend you yourself are incapable of racism, etc, I don't think many will or should support you.

How would you close the various gaps between the races, or would you? Do you think it is necessary?

 

[Trausti]

Should History not be considered when discussing racism?

In terms of how racism came to be, the history of it, etc? Sure.

In terms of if we should discriminate against people today? Not so much. Racist treatment against a person's ancestors does not justify racism in their favour today. And racist treatment against somebody else's ancestors, who happen to have had the same skin pigmentation as your ancestors, doesn't either, especially as against people who have no genetic relation to anybody that participated in that racism against that other person's ancestor (ie, recent white immigrants) or who don't even share their skin colour (ie, asians).

It just gets nonsensical. If you want equal and fair treatment, then I think you can get support for that. If you want special treatment, or to pretend you yourself are incapable of racism, etc, I don't think many will or should support you.

Is there a person among us who doesn't have an ancestor who did wrong to someone else's ancestor? All of us have ancestors who were saints and sinners.

- - - Updated - - -

How would you close the various gaps between the races, or would you? Do you think it is necessary?

And what if you can't?