White Liberals Present Themselves as Less Competent in Interactions with African-Americans

[ZiprHead]

Wait, all those people complaining about cultural appropriation are right wingers?

I did not know that.

I mean the people complaining about Hillary quoting a gospel song. Do you have an example of someone other than a right-winger complaining about it?

So you’re saying people on the left are hypocrites for not complaining about Hillary’s cultural appropriation?

No, I'm saying right wingers decry the concept of cultural appropriation but are more than willing to yell out "CULTURAL APPROPRIATION!!!" when it suits them to attack perceived enemies, thus displaying their hypocrisy.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

People on the right pointing out hypocrisy is now in itself hypocrisy? That's very meta.

 

[Derec]

Most white liberals are indeed less racist than Republicans (although some are just as racist or nearly so), but that's not the same thing as not racist at all. Most white people suffer from white fragility, liberal and conservative alike. If you simply bring up the topic of racism, many white people get offended or defensive or both and complain about the fact that you brought up the topic at all. Instead of talking about the racism and figuring out what anyone can do about it, they change the topic to whether or not the topic should have been brought up in the first place.

So called "white fragility" is a racist concept. It is basically used by black racists every time their racism is pointed out by a white person.

Given that black race-baiters take offense at any "microaggression", I would say they are the fragile ones.

 

[Jarhyn]

People on the right pointing out hypocrisy is now in itself hypocrisy? That's very meta.

More, people on the right attaching "hypocrisy" of rare and nonrepresentative individuals to the whole of the left, in order to scream "BOTH SIDES", ignoring the fact that most people on the left also decry 'cultural appropriation' assholes.

 

[laughing dog]

Most white liberals are indeed less racist than Republicans (although some are just as racist or nearly so), but that's not the same thing as not racist at all. Most white people suffer from white fragility, liberal and conservative alike. If you simply bring up the topic of racism, many white people get offended or defensive or both and complain about the fact that you brought up the topic at all. Instead of talking about the racism and figuring out what anyone can do about it, they change the topic to whether or not the topic should have been brought up in the first place.

So called "white fragility" is a racist concept. It is basically used by black racists every time their racism is pointed out by a white person.

I suspect your comment is an example of white fragility due to its OT nature.

[
Given that black race-baiters take offense at any "microaggression", I would say they are the fragile ones.

Again, the OT nature of this comment makes it an example of white fragility.

 

[Derec]

I suspect your comment is an example of white fragility due to its OT nature.

It's not OT. Under mentioned a term widely used by black racists, and I commended on it. Perfectly on topic.

 

[Rhea]

Nice job of missing the point. I'm saying that's the leftist position, not mine

I got that when I read your post. I mean, I got that _you_ think that, because you seem very invested in results that show liberals are just as racist as you are, therefore racism is okay.

What I don't see is being able to draw that conclusion from the behavior of liberals.

I think what you miss is the point someone brought up above is that if the measures were studied among particular groups, like black voters in a certain area, rather than black peers, for example, then you might be seeing someone's bias (prejudice?) that systemic racism has caused a difference in educational opportunities, though that does not translate at all to liberals feeling that black people are inferior. That part is your projection.

In view of the results of those studies, I think there is room to say that Loren P made a valid point.

What would be good would be more data to back up saying (as he put it) "an awful lot of the liberal ideas about racial issues actually amount to saying we should ignore the inferiority of minorities rather than saying they are equal".

Because that is going much further than saying that to some extent, even liberals may unconsciously be applying racial bias, prejudice and stereotyping, which I would imagine is true of many liberals, including myself. I think nearly everyone whoever lived does this sort of thing one way or another. That doesn't make it a good thing of course. It's not a good thing.

Admitting it is not entirely unlike unpacking one's invisible privileges generally, in relation to all sorts of things. I wonder what a set of studies on how men talk to women might throw up (and vice versa).

I absolutely agree that liberal white people continue to harbor biases that are hidden even from ourselves. And being "open minded," becomes a condition of being willing to find them and root them out, even though that may take a very long time. While not being open-minded will prevent any progress at all.


We all code switch. As an engineer I dumb down my descriptions of technical stuff when I am talking to non-technical people. Not because I think they are inferior, but because conversing with me doesn't need to be vocabulary lesson and I recognize they occupy a different jargon landscape.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, doing something for disadvantaged groups can be justified, but it can be taken too far. The tricky part, as with almost everything, is working out where to reasonably draw the line.

Why can't you "do for groups" by doing for individuals? You want to help the poor? That's noble. You do so by assisting individuals who lack financial resources and making them more available to all.

Because that can't be used to support do-gooder racism.

 

[ruby sparks]

In other words, doing something for disadvantaged groups can be justified, but it can be taken too far. The tricky part, as with almost everything, is working out where to reasonably draw the line.

Why can't you "do for groups" by doing for individuals? You want to help the poor? That's noble. You do so by assisting individuals who lack financial resources and making them more available to all.

But other than by doing this as individuals how do you "do something for a group", without acting on prejudice or mistreating individuals? Using particular races as proxies for poverty is an example.

Do you see it as a good thing to do what Loren spoke against, and give a benefit to somebody because they share a trait with somebody else who was wronged?

When a group is disadvantaged because of prejudice based on [insert almost any group feature] then it is justified to redress that in terms of the same group feature. If blacks, for example, are and have been the targets and recipients of institutional and structural discrimination (which in the US they are and have been) then we can say that the USA should offer to do more for them, for that reason.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In other words, doing something for disadvantaged groups can be justified, but it can be taken too far. The tricky part, as with almost everything, is working out where to reasonably draw the line.

Why can't you "do for groups" by doing for individuals? You want to help the poor? That's noble. You do so by assisting individuals who lack financial resources and making them more available to all.

But other than by doing this as individuals how do you "do something for a group", without acting on prejudice or mistreating individuals? Using particular races as proxies for poverty is an example.

Do you see it as a good thing to do what Loren spoke against, and give a benefit to somebody because they share a trait with somebody else who was wronged?

When a group is disadvantaged and discriminated against because of [insert almost any group feature] then it is justified to address that in terms of the same group feature.

Do explain. Does my having had a Chinese grandmother, and the fact that Chinese people (not her) were exploited in building the TransCanada railway entitle me to a discount on train tickets? Or does the fact that I am only 1/4 Chinese disentitle me?

What about Obama's kids? Does the fact that lots of black kids are held back by racism entitle them to lower entrance standards to medical school because as privileged as they are, they too are black?

 

[ruby sparks]

As with the issues regarding what you call the Regressive Left, Feminism, and probably others that I can't recall right now, you have a point, but it is very overstated.

 

[Rhea]

When a group is disadvantaged and discriminated against because of [insert almost any group feature] then it is justified to address that in terms of the same group feature.

Do explain. Does my having had a Chinese grandmother, and the fact that Chinese people (not her) were exploited in building the TransCanada railway entitle me to a discount on train tickets? Or does the fact that I am only 1/4 Chinese disentitle me?

What about Obama's kids? Does the fact that lots of black kids are held back by racism entitle them to lower entrance standards to medical school because as privileged as they are, they too are black?

I think the relevant part is is pervasive ongoing discrimination and disadvantage. What Canada and the US did to the Chinese workers on the railroads was terrible and needed to be addressed at a very minimum through citizenship and full civil rights. And to make sure there were no systemic policies and laws that continued the disadvantage. One issue the Americans who are black endure is that they are treated differently (badly) if they have the merest hint of black features. Whereas my perception of people of mixed asian descent is that they are not visually identified as Asian so frequently and therefore do not as systemically suffer the discrimination that is still thrown at them.

I could be wrong, and I cannot speak to what you face in Canada as a person who is 1/4 Chinese - I am only sharing a perspective on why I would agree with Ruby for these things in the US. IN the US, there are not voter purges for Chinese Americans, there are not rampant police stops, there are not school districts with overcrowded schools and poor funding. There does not tend to be discrimination from teachers and administrators and Chinese American students are not targeted for detentions and suspensions (and jail) over infractions that would only be a note home for a white student.

In other words, the redress is not for the slavery that happened to grandparents, it is for the ONGOING discrimination that happens to black americans personally.

 

[dismal]

So you’re saying people on the left are hypocrites for not complaining about Hillary’s cultural appropriation?

No, I'm saying right wingers decry the concept of cultural appropriation but are more than willing to yell out "CULTURAL APPROPRIATION!!!" when it suits them to attack perceived enemies, thus displaying their hypocrisy.

Tip: it’s mockery. It’s what people do to assholes and idiots.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice job of missing the point. I'm saying that's the leftist position, not mine

I got that when I read your post. I mean, I got that _you_ think that, because you seem very invested in results that show liberals are just as racist as you are, therefore racism is okay.

What I don't see is being able to draw that conclusion from the behavior of liberals.

I think what you miss is the point someone brought up above is that if the measures were studied among particular groups, like black voters in a certain area, rather than black peers, for example, then you might be seeing someone's bias (prejudice?) that systemic racism has caused a difference in educational opportunities, though that does not translate at all to liberals feeling that black people are inferior. That part is your projection.

In view of the results of those studies, I think there is room to say that Loren P made a valid point.

What would be good would be more data to back up saying (as he put it) "an awful lot of the liberal ideas about racial issues actually amount to saying we should ignore the inferiority of minorities rather than saying they are equal".

Because that is going much further than saying that to some extent, even liberals may unconsciously be applying racial bias, prejudice and stereotyping, which I would imagine is true of many liberals, including myself. I think nearly everyone whoever lived does this sort of thing one way or another. That doesn't make it a good thing of course. It's not a good thing.

Admitting it is not entirely unlike unpacking one's invisible privileges generally, in relation to all sorts of things. I wonder what a set of studies on how men talk to women might throw up (and vice versa).

I absolutely agree that liberal white people continue to harbor biases that are hidden even from ourselves. And being "open minded," becomes a condition of being willing to find them and root them out, even though that may take a very long time. While not being open-minded will prevent any progress at all.


We all code switch. As an engineer I dumb down my descriptions of technical stuff when I am talking to non-technical people. Not because I think they are inferior, but because conversing with me doesn't need to be vocabulary lesson and I recognize they occupy a different jargon landscape.

Note that this study showed liberals are much more racist than others. Conservatives were capable of not dumbing themselves down when talking to racial minorities.

 

[untermensche]

Note that this study showed liberals are much more racist than others. Conservatives were capable of not dumbing themselves down when talking to racial minorities.

Is it racist to dumb yourself down?

How exactly does that cause minorities harm?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As with the issues regarding what you call the Regressive Left, Feminism, and probably others that I can't recall right now, you have a point, but it is very overstated.

What is over stated? You still haven't answered Loren's point. Do you or do you not support treating people differently based on their racial grouping, rather than based on them as individuals? And if you don't, then how do you "do something for a group" other than actually doing it for individuals, without entering into this prejudice and unfairness to individuals?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think the relevant part is is pervasive ongoing discrimination and disadvantage. What Canada and the US did to the Chinese workers on the railroads was terrible and needed to be addressed at a very minimum through citizenship and full civil rights. And to make sure there were no systemic policies and laws that continued the disadvantage.

Sure. We agree on that. There should be no laws against Chinese people (or partially Chinese people if you want to look at it that way). And people who were ACTUALLY abused should have that redressed, unlike my grandmother, much less myself or other Chinese people who came to Canada later.

Whereas my perception of people of mixed asian descent is that they are not visually identified as Asian so frequently and therefore do not as systemically suffer the discrimination that is still thrown at them.

Discrimination isn't baked into the law. I'm also half Filipino. Did you know that as an American there are laws to hinder or even outright forbid you from owning property or a business or becoming a practicing lawyer in the Philippines? Did you know that even if you immigrate to the Philippines this will be held against you so long as you are white, black, etc, and not ethnically Filipino? We don't have laws like that in Canada based on race, and we shouldn't.

Yes, racists exist and can act like racists and treat you unfairly. There are laws against discriminatory hiring, etc, and there should be. But as Loren said, giving one person some benefit because some other person of the same race suffered a loss due to racism is not justice. It is prejudice and bigotry, and it fans the flames of other prejudice and bigotry rather than extinguishing them.

In other words, the redress is not for the slavery that happened to grandparents, it is for the ONGOING discrimination that happens to black americans personally.

There are laws against these things and they should be upheld. That has nothing to do with what Loren and I were talking about. If by "redress" you mean giving any sort of benefit or air to people based on their racial grouping instead of based on their personal history or need, you are part of the problem and not the cure.

 

[laughing dog]

We all code switch. As an engineer I dumb down my descriptions of technical stuff when I am talking to non-technical people. Not because I think they are inferior, but because conversing with me doesn't need to be vocabulary lesson and I recognize they occupy a different jargon landscape.

Exactly - code switching does not necessarily imply inferiority. Yet, LP immediately jumped to that conclusion. Which means he must feel that there is something about minorities that induce liberals to consider them inferior.

 

[Trausti]

We all code switch. As an engineer I dumb down my descriptions of technical stuff when I am talking to non-technical people. Not because I think they are inferior, but because conversing with me doesn't need to be vocabulary lesson and I recognize they occupy a different jargon landscape.

Exactly - code switching does not necessarily imply inferiority. Yet, LP immediately jumped to that conclusion. Which means he must feel that there is something about minorities that induce liberals to consider them inferior.

Do you speak to your Black clients differently than your White or Asian clients? That's what the OP is about. Not how a professional explains things to a client.

 

[ruby sparks]

What is over stated?

I am tempted to say nearly all the issues you raise in the politics subforum.

Do you or do you not support treating people differently based on their racial grouping, rather than based on them as individuals?

Too simplistic. It's not an either or.

And if you don't, then how do you "do something for a group" other than actually doing it for individuals, without entering into this prejudice and unfairness to individuals?

Too simplistic. Not all discriminations are equal.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And if you don't, then how do you "do something for a group" other than actually doing it for individuals, without entering into this prejudice and unfairness to individuals?

Too simplistic. Not all discriminations are equal.

Total dodge. Its a simple question that can be answered with one example. What can you do "for a group" that you can't do by doing it for individuals and seeing that your "doing" actually makes sense for them individually? You said sometimes you need to do things for groups? What? And try not answering with a vague adhom that I overblow everything.

How about this one. Do you believe in using racial proxies for anything?