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

[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.

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

Right. It's just people who don't know how to mind their own business.

 

[Gospel]

You realize the 70s ended 45 years ago?

You realize that some of those people are still alive today, and their descendants are still impacted by the horrific racism they endured? Just look at this "culture" that I've seen racist white people bitching about across the internet. Racists white people helped create that regardless of how hard many try to distance themselves from this reality.

 

[Politesse]

White southerners will still bear active grudges against the "Yankees" and "carpetbaggers" for supposed slights inflicted on them during Reconstruction. But if a black man brings up events from the end of the Jim Crow era, more than a century later, he's supposedly digging up history to no end except hatred. To a racist, taking down a statue of a slave owner is "forgetting history", but forcing a bank to pay someone back for predatory and blatantly racist redlining practices in 1982 is unfairly re-opening old wounds. Funny how historical memory works... for people who don't want to see what's right in front of their face any more than they genuinely want a history lesson.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

Glaciation ended 10,000+ years ago and the results of it still generally stand.

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.

Again, this is ignoring the issue of lack of institutional investment in the inner city, until it is so far gone, it is bought up for white people to live in.

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.

You mean a person who doesn't live close enough to 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.

If that was remotely accurate, there would be no poor dilapidated homes and areas in urban centers.

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.

Medina County is a red county. Ohio was a purple state.

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.)

Exactly, they are poor because they deserve it. We know they deserve it because they are poor.

 

[Gospel]

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.)

Wow, that's a perspective completely out of touch with reality. There are many successful people who choose to help uplift those still living in poverty (some of which who still live there). While you might not value them for the same reasons I do (such as their portrayal of violence- which I don't entirely blame on them because greedy white executives where and still are in control of what 'sells'), as a hip-hop fan, I can easily name at least five famous rappers who have done just that. These artists, often unfairly labeled as the 'low lives' of their communities, include Jay-Z, Nipsey Hussle (RIP), Chance the Rapper, Nas, and Kendrick Lamar. Even Jadakiss, Styles P, and Sheek Louch from The LOX continue to be deeply involved in their neighborhoods. I'm sure you can imagine many others, whom you might consider 'better role models,' like Spike Lee, Michael Jordan & Danny Glover doing the same—or maybe not. But to think that everyone who makes it just leaves is far from the truth.

Unfortunately, despite all their efforts, rebuilding the culture that racist white people spent 200 years destroying will take much longer than 200 years. This especially when like minded ignorant and/or bigoted folks continue to stand in the way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You realize the 70s ended 45 years ago?

You realize that some of those people are still alive today, and their descendants are still impacted by the horrific racism they endured? Just look at this "culture" that I've seen racist white people bitching about across the internet. Racists white people helped create that regardless of how hard many try to distance themselves from this reality.

And helping other blacks will do nothing to undo the damage they suffered. Unless you have a time machine you can't fix the past. All we can do is try to be fair going forward--and attempting to equal things out actually produces a very unfair result. We should be looking for equal going forward, but trying to shift existing things to "equal" actually is extremely unfair.

The fundamental problem here is that there should be no concept of equality with groups. It's individuals that matter. If Adam has $10, Amy has $10, Bob has $15 and Barbara has $5 the As are equal to the Bs, but the people certainly aren't equal. And creating a Bob in the name of fairness for the Barbara makes the situation more unfair, not less.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Again, this is ignoring the issue of lack of institutional investment in the inner city, until it is so far gone, it is bought up for white people to live in.

People rarely stay in the house they are born in for their whole life. Society isn't making them stay there.

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.

You mean a person who doesn't live close enough to a bank.

No bank anywhere near home? No bank on the route to work?

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.

If that was remotely accurate, there would be no poor dilapidated homes and areas in urban centers.

The point is there must be something else at work.

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.

Medina County is a red county. Ohio was a purple state.

Ok, red county. Same idea.

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.)

Exactly, they are poor because they deserve it. We know they deserve it because they are poor.

You're the one saying deserve, not me. I'm saying it's mostly self-inflicted. The reality is that those who choose to make big moves are different, even if there's no simple test.

I recall reading about an experiment in Mexico. They came into a village, the people there were eating as their ancestors did--pre-colonial, so it can't be pinned on that. The study group received multi-vitamins until IIRC age 10. The difference was phenomenal. But if you went back you would see it's just as it was--because they had gone to where there was opportunity.

The people who have it go to where there's opportunity, those that don't stay put. I don't know how to measure it but any place where a substantial amount of the population has left will be some degree of shit hole.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.)

Wow, that's a perspective completely out of touch with reality. There are many successful people who choose to help uplift those still living in poverty (some of which who still live there). While you might not value them for the same reasons I do (such as their portrayal of violence- which I don't entirely blame on them because greedy white executives where and still are in control of what 'sells'), as a hip-hop fan, I can easily name at least five famous rappers who have done just that. These artists, often unfairly labeled as the 'low lives' of their communities, include Jay-Z, Nipsey Hussle (RIP), Chance the Rapper, Nas, and Kendrick Lamar. Even Jadakiss, Styles P, and Sheek Louch from The LOX continue to be deeply involved in their neighborhoods. I'm sure you can imagine many others, whom you might consider 'better role models,' like Spike Lee, Michael Jordan & Danny Glover doing the same—or maybe not. But to think that everyone who makes it just leaves is far from the truth.

Unfortunately, despite all their efforts, rebuilding the culture that racist white people spent 200 years destroying will take much longer than 200 years. This especially when like minded ignorant and/or bigoted folks continue to stand in the way.

I said nothing about not trying to help. I'm saying the problem is complex and simple solutions do not work.

 

[Toni]

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.)

Yes, people without much money tend to have less of a say about what happens to their neighborhoods, schools, community, housing, etc. Not only are black people overly represented among the low income population in the US (along with Hispanics and Native Americans) but the effects of poverty are exacerbated by skin color when people with power (almost always white) want something that someone else has.

It IS changing now but it is still the case that most places, white people hold more of the power and people of color have considerably less power, even at the same economic levels as white people.

 

[Gospel]

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.)

Wow, that's a perspective completely out of touch with reality. There are many successful people who choose to help uplift those still living in poverty (some of which who still live there). While you might not value them for the same reasons I do (such as their portrayal of violence- which I don't entirely blame on them because greedy white executives where and still are in control of what 'sells'), as a hip-hop fan, I can easily name at least five famous rappers who have done just that. These artists, often unfairly labeled as the 'low lives' of their communities, include Jay-Z, Nipsey Hussle (RIP), Chance the Rapper, Nas, and Kendrick Lamar. Even Jadakiss, Styles P, and Sheek Louch from The LOX continue to be deeply involved in their neighborhoods. I'm sure you can imagine many others, whom you might consider 'better role models,' like Spike Lee, Michael Jordan & Danny Glover doing the same—or maybe not. But to think that everyone who makes it just leaves is far from the truth.

Unfortunately, despite all their efforts, rebuilding the culture that racist white people spent 200 years destroying will take much longer than 200 years. This especially when like minded ignorant and/or bigoted folks continue to stand in the way.

I said nothing about not trying to help. I'm saying the problem is complex and simple solutions do not work.

You said they all pack up and leave, and I'm saying not all of them.

 

[Gospel]

You realize the 70s ended 45 years ago?

You realize that some of those people are still alive today, and their descendants are still impacted by the horrific racism they endured? Just look at this "culture" that I've seen racist white people bitching about across the internet. Racists white people helped create that regardless of how hard many try to distance themselves from this reality.

And helping other blacks will do nothing to undo the damage they suffered. Unless you have a time machine you can't fix the past. All we can do is try to be fair going forward--and attempting to equal things out actually produces a very unfair result. We should be looking for equal going forward, but trying to shift existing things to "equal" actually is extremely unfair.

The fundamental problem here is that there should be no concept of equality with groups. It's individuals that matter. If Adam has $10, Amy has $10, Bob has $15 and Barbara has $5 the As are equal to the Bs, but the people certainly aren't equal. And creating a Bob in the name of fairness for the Barbara makes the situation more unfair, not less.

If racism didn't exist, there wouldn't be a demand for DEI programs that you and many others dislike so much. How about focusing on addressing racism within your own community, just as Black people have to work on ours? That way, there would be no need for DEI initiatives in the first place.

 

[Gospel]

And before anyone jumps in claiming that racism isn't a big issue today, consider this: why are Black farmers still not receiving the same treatment from the federal government as their white counterparts? To me, it seems that racist white individuals in key positions are still very much a reality. I strongly doubt that racism has been eradicated in banking and real estate. Can you blame me?

Black Farmers Finally Get Relief After Years Of Federal Discrimination

After decades of federally backed mistreatment and a lack of access to aid, Black and minority farms finally get some recourse from Washington.

www.forbes.com

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Unfortunately, there will always be racism as long as there are any group differences at all. Even when humans transplant our conscious minds into robot bodies we will have racism. The Androids will think they are better than the iRobots because their adapters are shaped differently. So we will always need some people (or robot people) to try to counteract the effects of racism.

 

[zorq]

Every time I see this thread title I remain confused and frustrated about exactly what point Janice Rael was trying to make. Thebeave was as confused as I was and asked her about her point in post #12 but a response was never posted.

It has always been obvious to me that a person should be judged only by their actions. Involuntary associations with other people (like ancestors and other family members) have no actual bearing on my judgement of any individual's quality.

Your father died saving 50 kids trapped in a burning building? So what? Please pay your delinquent child support instead of racking up a bigger tab at your favorite dive bar, dirtbag.

Your mom helped a serial killer hide the bodies and still visits him in prison? So what? Thank you so much for bringing me a doughnut this morning, you always make my day brighter.

 

[thebeave]

Every time I see this thread title I remain confused and frustrated about exactly what point Janice Rael was trying to make. Thebeave was as confused as I was and asked her about her point in post #12 but a response was never posted.

It has always been obvious to me that a person should be judged only by their actions. Involuntary associations with other people (like ancestors and other family members) have no actual bearing on my judgement of any individual's quality.

Your father died saving 50 kids trapped in a burning building? So what? Please pay your delinquent child support instead of racking up a bigger tab at your favorite dive bar, dirtbag.

Your mom helped a serial killer hide the bodies and still visits him in prison? So what? Thank you so much for bringing me a doughnut this morning, you always make my day brighter.

You and me both. I don't get it either. I can't say I'm thrilled about seeing this ridiculous thread title here day after day attached to my name and being labeled a white supremecist by JR because of it. I already complained about it here and...well, nuthin'.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Its title is taken out of context from a post I made here regarding a discussion of Kamala Harris' slave/slave owner ancestral background.

I think the problem is the statement that you made:

Finally, this whole business about whether someone had ancestors who were a slave or slaveholder is just ridiculous. It means nothing, other than a mildly curious footnote in someone's ancestry that might make for interesting cocktail party conversation. But that's it.

You made it about more than a narrow context of specifically Kamala Harris by saying it was about "this WHOLE business" about "someone" and "someone's ancestry" and a "footnote" "that might make for interesting cocktail party conversation. But that's it." You are making it sound as if you wrote this:

Finally, this specific business about whether Kamala Harris had ancestors who were a slave or slaveholder is just ridiculous. It means nothing, other than a mildly curious footnote in Kamala Harris's ancestry that might make for interesting cocktail party conversation. But that's it.

You tried to sneak in your ideological propositions by using Kamala Harris's situation. You did that by expanding the context way larger than Kamala Harris. At a minimum, this seems to imply the pattern you discuss is commonplace and through this implication, it reduces discussion of ancestors owning slaves in all the varieties of how this applies to modern racism that NORMALLY interacts with other facets of life into a "yeah, that's nothing." BUT, even IF it were only a discussion of Kamala Harris and you had not made it into a principled proposition regarding nameless SOMEONE's, there are still aspects of _RECENT_ slave-owning ancestry that you skip over and how that really is not a footnote.

Do you not think that recent ancestry often impacts descendants' power, privilege and wealth? Do you not think that subsequent generations try to maintain those things, generally speaking?

 

[Toni]

You realize the 70s ended 45 years ago?

You realize that some of those people are still alive today, and their descendants are still impacted by the horrific racism they endured? Just look at this "culture" that I've seen racist white people bitching about across the internet. Racists white people helped create that regardless of how hard many try to distance themselves from this reality.

And helping other blacks will do nothing to undo the damage they suffered. Unless you have a time machine you can't fix the past. All we can do is try to be fair going forward--and attempting to equal things out actually produces a very unfair result. We should be looking for equal going forward, but trying to shift existing things to "equal" actually is extremely unfair.

The fundamental problem here is that there should be no concept of equality with groups. It's individuals that matter. If Adam has $10, Amy has $10, Bob has $15 and Barbara has $5 the As are equal to the Bs, but the people certainly aren't equal. And creating a Bob in the name of fairness for the Barbara makes the situation more unfair, not less.

That’s like saying that if you break your leg, don’t bother going to the doctor because even if your bones are set and properly casted and you do all the things you’re supposed to do: elevate, rest, use crutches, etc. until your bone heals, you will still have had a broken leg.

Or like telling an abused person that their spouse doesn’t hit people anymore (usually) since they (mostly) gave up drinking.

It’s ever so much easier for white people who do not deal with racism on a regular basis to believe that there is no more racism and if there is, it’s not really that bad and anyways it’s all in the past. It is shocking how much casual racism exists today, no matter the professional, educational and economic success a person has achieved. I’m ashamed that I was shocked when a friend who is a university professor talked about the absolute crap she dealt with from students! who could not deal with some not-white, preferably blonde/blue eyed professor thinking she knew more than they did. Or absolute shit I’ve heard from white people I liked directed towards non-white people they had some kind of beef with—or not! It was not that long ago when I told a white male colleague that if I heard him refer to a black coworker as boy one more time I was going straight to the director of the lab. FFS, Serena Williams almost died because her doctors did not listen to this famous, wealthy, deeply talented and accomplished athlete whose livelihood depends upon her keeping her body in tip top shape and being extremely knowledgeable and familiar with her own health.

Just because it doesn’t happen to you personally, doesn’t mean it does not happen.

 

[Gospel]

You realize the 70s ended 45 years ago?

You realize that some of those people are still alive today, and their descendants are still impacted by the horrific racism they endured? Just look at this "culture" that I've seen racist white people bitching about across the internet. Racists white people helped create that regardless of how hard many try to distance themselves from this reality.

And helping other blacks will do nothing to undo the damage they suffered. Unless you have a time machine you can't fix the past. All we can do is try to be fair going forward--and attempting to equal things out actually produces a very unfair result. We should be looking for equal going forward, but trying to shift existing things to "equal" actually is extremely unfair.

The fundamental problem here is that there should be no concept of equality with groups. It's individuals that matter. If Adam has $10, Amy has $10, Bob has $15 and Barbara has $5 the As are equal to the Bs, but the people certainly aren't equal. And creating a Bob in the name of fairness for the Barbara makes the situation more unfair, not less.

That’s like saying that if you break your leg, don’t bother going to the doctor because even if your bones are set and properly casted and you do all the things you’re supposed to do: elevate, rest, use crutches, etc. until your bone heals, you will still have had a broken leg.

Or like telling an abused person that their spouse doesn’t hit people anymore (usually) since they (mostly) gave up drinking.

It’s ever so much easier for white people who do not deal with racism on a regular basis to believe that there is no more racism and if there is, it’s not really that bad and anyways it’s all in the past. It is shocking how much casual racism exists today, no matter the professional, educational and economic success a person has achieved. I’m ashamed that I was shocked when a friend who is a university professor talked about the absolute crap she dealt with from students! who could not deal with some not-white, preferably blonde/blue eyed professor thinking she knew more than they did. Or absolute shit I’ve heard from white people I liked directed towards non-white people they had some kind of beef with—or not! It was not that long ago when I told a white male colleague that if I heard him refer to a black coworker as boy one more time I was going straight to the director of the lab. FFS, Serena Williams almost died because her doctors did not listen to this famous, wealthy, deeply talented and accomplished athlete whose livelihood depends upon her keeping her body in tip top shape and being extremely knowledgeable and familiar with her own health.

Just because it doesn’t happen to you personally, doesn’t mean it does not happen.

No, I think a clearer way to put it is that the Constitution and all its amendments should be enforced when someone breaks the social contract—except when it involves Black people. In that case, the expectation is to endure the injustice and figure it out without any assistance from the government, whether state or federal. This response comes after being told that things are still messed up due to past wrongdoings, and we're still working on fixing them. The last thing we need is to allow the same types of people who caused these problems to continue doing so without interference from the U.S. government. Unfortunately, some people, who are oblivious, think this is just a fight for handouts.

I agree that there shouldn't be laws that specifically benefit certain groups. However, I don't believe any current laws are designed to do that. While it's true that some officials might enforce laws in biased ways, the laws themselves are not inherently discriminatory.

Lets take Affirmative Action, for example—I believe it's outdated and wouldn't have been necessary if proven acts of racism led to jail time rather than just fines from the start (ya know, the hate crime law birthed in 1998 - fucking as late as mutha fucking nineteen and ninety fucking eight!). If that were the case, many racists might have naturally aligned with the behaviors promoted in DEI initiatives cried about today.

All that said, Affirmative Action isn't a law but a set of policies implemented under various laws, executive orders, and court decisions (this is the 'some officials might enforce laws in biased ways' thing I mentioned earlier) back in the 1960s. Again if hate crime laws were implemented instead, affirmative action wouldn't be a thing. Anyway, the laws associated with it were intended to benefit everyone, as civil rights are meant for all. In my opinion, it was an emergency response to widespread racism that should have ended once enough racist white people got the message.

But here we are, frustrated with it benefiting Black people for policies that were originally created in response to wicked actions of white people. Go ahead, be angry with them. It’s their fault. And their views and attitudes still persist around you today. But naaaaaw, heeeell naw. I'd rather shake my first in the general direction of black peoples.


I’m not even going to entertain that bullshit about helping other Black people doing nothing to fix the past, or that time machine head ass argument. Nobody is talking about that, thinking that, or even suggesting it. Where the hell did you even come up with that Loren? What I’m saying is that Black people are still struggling because of what happened in the past, and we’re working on it. The last thing we need is ignorant or racist people (who are a continuation of that past) getting in the way— focusing only on the criminals in our community, arguing like we all want a free ride, or thinking our success is just because of Affirmative Action or DEI. Bitch, those things were meant for YOU, not us.

Edit for Clarity: Affirmative action policies were created in response to racist white people, not because of Black people. They were put in place due to the actions of white people, not as a result of Black people. So don’t go around blaming Black people for affirmative action policies. Blame the racist members of your community.

 

[TomC]

You tried to sneak in your ideological propositions by using Kamala Harris's situation. You did that by expanding the context way larger than Kamala Harris. At a minimum, this seems to imply the pattern you discuss is commonplace and through this implication

In other words,
@thebeave didn't post it, but posters like you and @Janice Rael want to talk about it. So you misrepresented the beave, and added things to his post that he didn't say.(probably because he didn't mean) and went on with your screed.

I would say I don't understand why this thread isn't in Elsewhere, but I do understand it. I understand that the beave isn't part of the ideological bubble that dominates the forum. So the thread remains in the "Politics" subforum.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You tried to sneak in your ideological propositions by using Kamala Harris's situation. You did that by expanding the context way larger than Kamala Harris. At a minimum, this seems to imply the pattern you discuss is commonplace and through this implication

In other words,

In other words, you are adding words.

@thebeave didn't post it,

thebeave did post it.

but posters like you and @Janice Rael want to talk about it.

I don't want to talk about it, but I don't like thebeave OR YOU blaming JR for something thebeave wrote.

So you misrepresented the beave,

I did not misrepresent thebeave.

and added things to his post that he didn't say.

I did not add anything to his post.

(probably because he didn't mean) and went on with your screed.

I don't have a screed.

I would say I don't understand why this thread isn't in Elsewhere, but I do understand it. I understand that the beave isn't part of the ideological bubble that dominates the forum.

You can certainly tell his ideology is incongruent with Janice's and you can tell that BECAUSE OF WHAT HE WROTE.

So the thread remains in the "Politics" subforum.

Commenting on moderation is unnecessary drama since there is a post that has been explained. Your post uses drama to obfuscate the meat of the discussion. We can tell by the nature of your post, what you respond to, how, and what you snipped, ... like snipping this:

Do you not think that recent ancestry often impacts descendants' power, privilege and wealth? Do you not think that subsequent generations try to maintain those things, generally speaking?