RACISM SOLVED on IIDB! "This whole business about whether someone had ancestors who were a slave or slaveholder is just ridiculous. It means nothing."

[Gospel]

I could be wrong, but when women's issues are discussed, I've rarely seen or heard anyone in real-life conversations or online chiming in with "things are better now," as if that minimizes the severity of the issues, both past and present.

Anyway, I'm sure slavery is brought up when women discuss women's issues, so I guess it's a fitting entry for the conversation about cultural differences among Black people.

 

[Toni]

Oh, I know. I very definitely know. I very much know how I grew up, and how my mother and grandmother grew up. I know how disposable women are. How we can be eaten and raped into submission.

You see, this shit is new to me. And I get scared when I see old school Catholicism becoming popular among the right-wing.

We’re not going back. Men who try should sleep with one eye open.

That is quite optimistic. If Trump wins, you probably are going back, at least, depending on your state. If Harris wins, it'll be put on pause. America definitely appears to be becoming Two Americas. The one where people exist, and the one where demographics exist in a neatly arranged caste system.

Nope. Not going back. No matter how much they try.

I think nothing makes a man a feminist so much as having a daughter. My very conservative father strongly advocated for his daughters to excel in academics and to pursue STEM careers. Of course he expected we’d give up of that once we married and had children…..

Of course the part not written in Project 2025/Project47 is that black people abd indeed, anyone whose roots are not firmly rooted in Northern Europe are next.

Interestingly enough, Catholics seem not to realize that to Evangelicals, they are not Christian. And the reverse is true. They will learn.

 

[Toni]

I could be wrong, but when women's issues are discussed, I've rarely seen or heard anyone in real-life conversations or online chiming in with "things are better now," as if that minimizes the severity of the issues, both past and present.

Anyway, I'm sure slavery is brought up when women discuss women's issues, so I guess it's a fitting entry for the conversation about cultural differences among Black people.

Eh, it’s brought up. Not the same. I’ve raised both male and female children. I cannot wipe out of my memory the look of betrayal in my daughter’s face as I tried to justify my enhanced concerns for her physical safety compared with how I felt about her brothers’ safety. I worried about all my kids, but it was different for female children. Not the same as the concern black parents have for their sons: I was less worried about her being murdered —by police, random strangers, people who thought they looked at them a funny way, etc. than I was about her being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted.

No, it’s not the same thing. But it’s not 100% different.

And yeah, things are better for women. I was subjected to some unpleasantness for being good at math and science and my sons reported that everybody just assumed girls were better students in all areas than male students. An improvement for girls but for boys, not so much.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I could be wrong, but when women's issues are discussed, I've rarely seen or heard anyone in real-life conversations or online chiming in with "things are better now," as if that minimizes the severity of the issues, both past and present.

With women, the problem is "things are better now" for women... that is what conservatives want to "fix".

Anyway, I'm sure slavery is brought up when women discuss women's issues, so I guess it's a fitting entry for the conversation about cultural differences among Black people.

The trouble blacks have is that among many of the white folk who aren't actively racist, they don't perceive there being a problem for blacks because it is so outside their sphere of observations. So, because they don't see it... it doesn't exist. Black crime, black poverty, black drug abuse, black schools doing poorly are a result of culture (see Loren Pechtel's posts) not an open conspiracy of the urban population centers being neglected by big box banking corporations in lieu of funding white expansion into the suburbs. So the people you need to say that these inadequacies need to be addressed aren't because they don't get it because they are shielded by the firewall that was put up to protect whites from blacks between the 20s to the 70s.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The trouble blacks have is that among many of the white folk who aren't actively racist, they don't perceive there being a problem for blacks because it is so outside their sphere of observations. So, because they don't see it... it doesn't exist. Black crime, black poverty, black drug abuse, black schools doing poorly are a result of culture (see Loren Pechtel's posts) not an open conspiracy of the urban population centers being neglected by big box banking corporations in lieu of funding white expansion into the suburbs. So the people you need to say that these inadequacies need to be addressed aren't because they don't get it because they are shielded by the firewall that was put up to protect whites from blacks between the 20s to the 70s.

The problem here is that you assume a bunch of this stuff is racism when it generally is not. The research "showing" discrimination almost inevitably suffers for not considering whether socioeconomic status is a confounder. And when researchers consider if it's a confounder it usually turns up big time.

You list a bunch of conditions which cause problems--but you'll find the same problems in areas of white poverty. It's poverty, not skin color. Those big box stores go where they'll make money, they don't avoid black places but they do avoid places where people can't afford their products.

There are problems that need to be fixed. But there's no easy answer and no convenient bogeyman of racism to put the blame (and costs) on. You should no more obsess about racism than MAGAs should obsess about illegals.

 

[Gospel]

but you'll find the same problems in areas of white poverty.

Considering the inexplicable politics of southwest Virginia alone you have a point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The trouble blacks have is that among many of the white folk who aren't actively racist, they don't perceive there being a problem for blacks because it is so outside their sphere of observations. So, because they don't see it... it doesn't exist. Black crime, black poverty, black drug abuse, black schools doing poorly are a result of culture (see Loren Pechtel's posts) not an open conspiracy of the urban population centers being neglected by big box banking corporations in lieu of funding white expansion into the suburbs. So the people you need to say that these inadequacies need to be addressed aren't because they don't get it because they are shielded by the firewall that was put up to protect whites from blacks between the 20s to the 70s.

The problem here is that you assume a bunch of this stuff is racism when it generally is not.

But it was, it was baked into the system. This isn't up for debate. Between the 20s and 70s, intentional actions were taken to limit black access to housing, when the housing restrictions were tossed, the suburbs were invented, public pools and recreation were privatized. Money wasn't invested into the urban residential areas. This was all intentional. That isn't happening today, but the wounds are still open.

The research "showing" discrimination almost inevitably suffers for not considering whether socioeconomic status is a confounder. And when researchers consider if it's a confounder it usually turns up big time.

And you are doing a brilliant job of being the example of the people that I was mentioning in the post you quoted, but didn't bother to read.

You list a bunch of conditions which cause problems--but you'll find the same problems in areas of white poverty. It's poverty, not skin color. Those big box stores go where they'll make money, they don't avoid black places but they do avoid places where people can't afford their products.

I didn't say stores, I said banks. Institutional banks. Who cares about stores when you can't even get a bank account and large banks aren't investing in your neighborhood as it ages... a lot?

There are problems that need to be fixed.

Thanks for agreeing with the overall premise of my post. A simple LIKE would have been sufficient.

 

[bilby]

You list a bunch of conditions which cause problems--but you'll find the same problems in areas of white poverty. It's poverty, not skin color.

OK.

So, why are black people in the US disproportionately more likey to be in poverty?

I mean, if it's not "skin color", the proportion of white people in poverty and that of black people should be fairly similar, and therefore the proportion of white people suffering these "problems of poverty" should be roughly the same as the proportion of other races suffering these problems, right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The trouble blacks have is that among many of the white folk who aren't actively racist, they don't perceive there being a problem for blacks because it is so outside their sphere of observations. So, because they don't see it... it doesn't exist. Black crime, black poverty, black drug abuse, black schools doing poorly are a result of culture (see Loren Pechtel's posts) not an open conspiracy of the urban population centers being neglected by big box banking corporations in lieu of funding white expansion into the suburbs. So the people you need to say that these inadequacies need to be addressed aren't because they don't get it because they are shielded by the firewall that was put up to protect whites from blacks between the 20s to the 70s.

The problem here is that you assume a bunch of this stuff is racism when it generally is not.

But it was, it was baked into the system. This isn't up for debate. Between the 20s and 70s, intentional actions were taken to limit black access to housing, when the housing restrictions were tossed, the suburbs were invented, public pools and recreation were privatized. Money wasn't invested into the urban residential areas. This was all intentional. That isn't happening today, but the wounds are still open.

Back then it was. Doesn't mean it is now.

You list a bunch of conditions which cause problems--but you'll find the same problems in areas of white poverty. It's poverty, not skin color. Those big box stores go where they'll make money, they don't avoid black places but they do avoid places where people can't afford their products.

I didn't say stores, I said banks. Institutional banks. Who cares about stores when you can't even get a bank account and large banks aren't investing in your neighborhood as it ages... a lot?

And you think the banks care about the race of someone trying to open an account???

No, banks care about your history. They don't like it when you bounce checks and don't make it good.

20-something years ago there was a big flap about supposed redlining. I can't address it on a national level but what the local paper had showed a very obvious pattern to me: you could pretty much swap the "redlining" map for the price appreciation map.

By Occam's Razor the logical explanation was that banks were looking at expected appreciation and the discrimination warriors were not. Otherwise you would have to explain why banks would discriminate only on low-down mortgages only in areas with low appreciation.

There are problems that need to be fixed.

Thanks for agreeing with the overall premise of my post. A simple LIKE would have been sufficient.

The problem with your post is that you're blaming racism rather than socioeconomic factors.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You list a bunch of conditions which cause problems--but you'll find the same problems in areas of white poverty. It's poverty, not skin color.

OK.

So, why are black people in the US disproportionately more likey to be in poverty?

I mean, if it's not "skin color", the proportion of white people in poverty and that of black people should be fairly similar, and therefore the proportion of white people suffering these "problems of poverty" should be roughly the same as the proportion of other races suffering these problems, right?

Yet another instance of disparate outcomes prove discrimination.

Want a real predictor of problems: unwed mothers/absent fathers.

 

[Gospel]

unwed mothers/absent fathers.

Golly gee, I wonder where Black people learned these "family values" from? It's not like our culture was completely destroyed for over 240 years straight and only ended 159 years ago. Then it took another 100 years to achieve equal rights, only to endure the horrors of Jim Crow for 90 years.

Now, we have to deal with people calling it our culture. as if America had nothing to do with it. Claiming we're not the victims but the perpetrators, and insisting that white American's are the ones suffering because we've manufactured this culture of ours all by ourselves & supposedly play the "race card to excuse it.

Jesus Christ people!!

 

[Gospel]

And you think the banks care about the race of someone trying to open an account???

No, banks care about your history. They don't like it when you bounce checks and don't make it good.

20-something years ago there was a big flap about supposed redlining. I can't address it on a national level but what the local paper had showed a very obvious pattern to me: you could pretty much swap the "redlining" map for the price appreciation map.

By Occam's Razor the logical explanation was that banks were looking at expected appreciation and the discrimination warriors were not. Otherwise you would have to explain why banks would discriminate only on low-down mortgages only in areas with low appreciation.

So the inability for black communities to borrow against equity for improvements, education, or other investments played no roll in the "expected appreciation" banks were looking for? You seem to be claiming the banks didn't expect appreciation to be slowed when they were the ones slowing them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The trouble blacks have is that among many of the white folk who aren't actively racist, they don't perceive there being a problem for blacks because it is so outside their sphere of observations. So, because they don't see it... it doesn't exist. Black crime, black poverty, black drug abuse, black schools doing poorly are a result of culture (see Loren Pechtel's posts) not an open conspiracy of the urban population centers being neglected by big box banking corporations in lieu of funding white expansion into the suburbs. So the people you need to say that these inadequacies need to be addressed aren't because they don't get it because they are shielded by the firewall that was put up to protect whites from blacks between the 20s to the 70s.

The problem here is that you assume a bunch of this stuff is racism when it generally is not.

But it was, it was baked into the system. This isn't up for debate. Between the 20s and 70s, intentional actions were taken to limit black access to housing, when the housing restrictions were tossed, the suburbs were invented, public pools and recreation were privatized. Money wasn't invested into the urban residential areas. This was all intentional. That isn't happening today, but the wounds are still open.

Back then it was. Doesn't mean it is now.

So when I said "That isn't happening today", that would imply I feel the active institutional racism isn't happening "now". Now and today are equivalent. So please, stop disagreeing with me when you agree with what I said. It makes conversations tedious.

You list a bunch of conditions which cause problems--but you'll find the same problems in areas of white poverty. It's poverty, not skin color. Those big box stores go where they'll make money, they don't avoid black places but they do avoid places where people can't afford their products.

I didn't say stores, I said banks. Institutional banks. Who cares about stores when you can't even get a bank account and large banks aren't investing in your neighborhood as it ages... a lot?

And you think the banks care about the race of someone trying to open an account???

I'm saying institutional banks weren't investing in these areas until they became so dilapidated, they started helping rich white folk investors turn the area around into places white people could live. I'm saying banks aren't common in the residential areas of poor urban centers. Getting out of poverty is hard because some of these issues make it self-perpetuating.

20-something years ago there was a big flap about supposed redlining. I can't address it on a national level but what the local paper had showed a very obvious pattern to me: you could pretty much swap the "redlining" map for the price appreciation map.

It is called a self-perpetuating problem. The new local dump goes by the black neighborhood. Not because of racism, but because the land is cheaper. Why is it cheaper, because it was neglected by banking institutions. Resources, stores, banks weren't common. As a result, fewer people lived there, and almost no one of affluence. So the new dump goes there because of a cascading effect of decisions that were made by institutions and people over the period of a century.

And this is ignoring passive white racism against blacks in the last 20 to 30 years, when it comes to access to better areas among successful blacks. In Medina county (Cleveland / Akron suburb), it is heavily white, relatively wealthier area, and the locals are passive racists. It was a culture shock to me when I moved out here. I grew up in a heavily white area (South Short Massachusetts) but generally liberal attitude, then college in NYC which was still a lot of white, but a lot more minorities than before, to white Medina County where her neighbors were vocally assholes on race. And we are talking middle class white collar white folks. I knew I did not want to live among them. I moved to Summit County.

There are problems that need to be fixed.

Thanks for agreeing with the overall premise of my post. A simple LIKE would have been sufficient.

The problem with your post is that you're blaming racism rather than socioeconomic factors.

I'm blaming racism. But you aren't bothering to read what I'm saying about racism and its role in the current socioeconomic state.

 

[Gospel]

The word racism has caused more people to go def than aging.

 

[BH]

There are two families in my county with my grandfathers last name. One is the white family my grandfather is from and the other is a black family. I know members of the black and they told me it turns out I'm related to them. I had a great great great great grandfather that jumped the color line with a black lady after his wife died and he started a second family with her. I don't know if she was a former slave or not or if this many greats grandfather had slaves but family lore on their side says he loved her and treated her well. Whitey didn't worry too much about traditional moral values even way that then.

 

[BH]

I have it on good authority that racist white men are conflicted. When I'm out and about I watch people. Also, everyone in town knows me and I them and being white the racists share their opinion about blacks. But when I see those same men at Walmart or HEB and a fine looking black woman walks by you can tell they want her. Lol

 

[Gospel]

I have it on good authority that racist white men are conflicted. When I'm out and about I watch people. Also, everyone in town knows me and I them and being white the racists share their opinion about blacks. But when I see those same men at Walmart or HEB and a fine looking black woman walks by you can tell they want her. Lol

 

[Loren Pechtel]

unwed mothers/absent fathers.

Golly gee, I wonder where Black people learned these "family values" from? It's not like our culture was completely destroyed for over 240 years straight and only ended 159 years ago. Then it took another 100 years to achieve equal rights, only to endure the horrors of Jim Crow for 90 years.

Now, we have to deal with people calling it our culture. as if America had nothing to do with it. Claiming we're not the victims but the perpetrators, and insisting that white American's are the ones suffering because we've manufactured this culture of ours all by ourselves & supposedly play the "race card to excuse it.

Jesus Christ people!!

1) Same thing happens in poor white areas.

2) The unwed mothers/absent fathers is more a product of how our welfare system works. It's going to take a long time to fix the damage.

3) The productive people got out of the inner cities. Heavy emigration is very bad for an area. Any area. (Including businesses--when you encourage your people to leave it's the best ones that tend to go first.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it was, it was baked into the system. This isn't up for debate. Between the 20s and 70s, intentional actions were taken to limit black access to housing, when the housing restrictions were tossed, the suburbs were invented, public pools and recreation were privatized. Money wasn't invested into the urban residential areas. This was all intentional. That isn't happening today, but the wounds are still open.

Back then it was. Doesn't mean it is now.

So when I said "That isn't happening today", that would imply I feel the active institutional racism isn't happening "now". Now and today are equivalent. So please, stop disagreeing with me when you agree with what I said. It makes conversations tedious.

You realize the 70s ended 45 years ago?

Yes, a lot of bad things happened under Jim Crow. Few people get a meaningful inheritance, what the housing market back then was will have little effect on the current situation.

You list a bunch of conditions which cause problems--but you'll find the same problems in areas of white poverty. It's poverty, not skin color. Those big box stores go where they'll make money, they don't avoid black places but they do avoid places where people can't afford their products.

I didn't say stores, I said banks. Institutional banks. Who cares about stores when you can't even get a bank account and large banks aren't investing in your neighborhood as it ages... a lot?

And you think the banks care about the race of someone trying to open an account???

I'm saying institutional banks weren't investing in these areas until they became so dilapidated, they started helping rich white folk investors turn the area around into places white people could live. I'm saying banks aren't common in the residential areas of poor urban centers. Getting out of poverty is hard because some of these issues make it self-perpetuating.

There aren't as many, doesn't mean there are zero. You said "can't even get a bank account"--that's not someone living in a poor area, that's someone who stiffed a bank.

20-something years ago there was a big flap about supposed redlining. I can't address it on a national level but what the local paper had showed a very obvious pattern to me: you could pretty much swap the "redlining" map for the price appreciation map.

It is called a self-perpetuating problem. The new local dump goes by the black neighborhood. Not because of racism, but because the land is cheaper. Why is it cheaper, because it was neglected by banking institutions. Resources, stores, banks weren't common. As a result, fewer people lived there, and almost no one of affluence. So the new dump goes there because of a cascading effect of decisions that were made by institutions and people over the period of a century.

Disagree. If it was cheaper because of what happened a couple of generations ago time would have erased that. When what cratered an area goes away it recovers and we call it gentrification--and people object.

And this is ignoring passive white racism against blacks in the last 20 to 30 years, when it comes to access to better areas among successful blacks. In Medina county (Cleveland / Akron suburb), it is heavily white, relatively wealthier area, and the locals are passive racists. It was a culture shock to me when I moved out here. I grew up in a heavily white area (South Short Massachusetts) but generally liberal attitude, then college in NYC which was still a lot of white, but a lot more minorities than before, to white Medina County where her neighbors were vocally assholes on race. And we are talking middle class white collar white folks. I knew I did not want to live among them. I moved to Summit County.

That's what a red state will get you.

There are problems that need to be fixed.

Thanks for agreeing with the overall premise of my post. A simple LIKE would have been sufficient.

The problem with your post is that you're blaming racism rather than socioeconomic factors.

I'm blaming racism. But you aren't bothering to read what I'm saying about racism and its role in the current socioeconomic state.

I'm reading you, I just don't agree. Time will have erased most of what you're talking about.

And it's not like people are trapped in a neighborhood. Move to greener pastures! (But for the most part they are trapped--because the ones who have what it takes do move to greener pastures. The neighborhoods are made up of those who don't.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are two families in my county with my grandfathers last name. One is the white family my grandfather is from and the other is a black family. I know members of the black and they told me it turns out I'm related to them. I had a great great great great grandfather that jumped the color line with a black lady after his wife died and he started a second family with her. I don't know if she was a former slave or not or if this many greats grandfather had slaves but family lore on their side says he loved her and treated her well. Whitey didn't worry too much about traditional moral values even way that then.

The reality is most people don't care. It's just the ones that do care tend to be loud about it.