You think Barack Obama "identified" as black to gain benefits? You think the colour of his skin was an advantage during his presidential run in a country that had, until that point, only ever elected white men to the office of president or vice president? You have a pretty serious uphill battle to argue that one. 😅
You think Barack Obama "identified" as black to gain benefits? You think the colour of his skin was an advantage during his presidential run in a country that had, until that point, only ever elected white men to the office of president or vice president? You have a pretty serious uphill battle to argue that one. 😅
And more to the point, all of these people (with the exception of Dolezal obviously), is 50% black. That's hardly "passing for black." In fact, they'd have been legally required to categorise themselves as black for most of the 20th century. As was anybody with more than one eighth black ancestry (i.e. if they had even one black great-grandparent).
Black people are *identified* as black in America. Often even when it makes very little sense to do so. And bear in mind, it's been less than 60 years since black people were allowed to use the same water fountains as white people. I don't think there are many white people lining up for the "benefits" of being black. Certainly not in America.
I'm old enough (septuagenarian) to have personal memory of "Whites Only", "Colored in back" and interracial marriage being illegal. I've seen tremendous change in my lifetime. Those who deny it are disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
America is a 𝙨𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙡𝙖𝙬𝙨 and there is nothing that I can do by law that a black person cannot, so I sometimes quibble about "systemic racism." The system has been corrected, but at the same time some level of racial bias persists to a degree that it could be considered to be ubiquitous. People do find ways to get around the system and exercise discriminatory practices. 𝑰𝒕'𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒏𝒐𝒘.
When all is said and done, white people would overwhelmingly choose to stay white if a magic genie in a bottle offered them the opportunity to be black. I call bullshit on anyone denying that.
Man, I'm sorry, I know you'd rather I didn't "jump in" to your other conversations. But it's rare that I see somebody be so wrong with such utter confidence. It feels as if you've spent zero time talking to black people or thinking about what it's like to be black beyond a few silly stereotypes, but nonetheless formed all these firm opinions on the topic.
Yes, of course some black people wish they were white. Or, to least, have wished it when they were younger and figuring themselves out. Many black people have even written about it (though obviously, I think many others keep those thoughts to themselves). Here are a few examples.
I suspect this is true of any marginalised group. I'm sure some gay people wish they were straight just because it would make certain aspects of life easier. Many pubescent teenage girls wish they were boys, again, because life is easier in many ways. The sharp rise in trans and non binary identifying females is evidence of this.
Being a straight, white, man, even with the grief you'll occasionally get if you spend too much time on Twitter or Medium, is still the easiest configuration of traits to have. This isn't some kind of accusation. You're not a bad person because of this. I have two of those three myself. And of course, there are a bunch of other traits like being intelligent or good-looking or having a good family that factor in as well.
But yeah, seriously, I find it very difficult to believe you've ever had a conversation with a black person about race with any intention other than to explain why you're right about racism and they're wrong. And I'm not saying that black people have it all correct because they're black. But they have an experience that you lack. So at least give them an honest listen. And give what they say some honest thought.
"Hey, he’s probably been to LA and NYC. Thats like all of America"
😂I know what it's like to be black in America because I've spent a lot of time living in America. Most of my extended family is in America. And this, for the record, is an ad hominem. An ad hominem based on no actual knowledge of me or my life to boot. The only reason you know who I am is because I write about race, often about race in America, and I do so accurately enough that I've got quite a large audience.
I have to find links on the internet for you because how else am I supposed to demonstrate anything to you? Certainly you're not going to take my word for it. And clearly you've not spoken to any black people about it yourself. I didn't say that they spoke for everybody. That, as we're talking debate fallacies, is a straw man. You said that the number was zero percent. It's not.
But yes, you've reduced the entire black experience in America to college diversity admissions, rap music, and sagging pants. In the first of these areas, yes, there are some advantages to being black. But if this represents being black in America to you, I'm not sure I'll ever get through to you.
Stop treating this like a fight. Accept the possibility that you might be missing something here. Recognise that even if you are, nothing bad is going to happen. In fact, you'll come away with a broader understanding if you allow yourself to.
Your case? I'm not trying to debate with you. I think you are a troll so that would be an exercise in futility. I just remarked about something I've observed over the years.
It was an opinion ("I think"); I could be wrong. All opinions could be wrong. So far, I'm just observing how you came onto Steve's substack and said the stuff you have said to him thay seem a bit troll-like. Just my impression.
Perhaps too abstract since there is no genie to do the magic. What do you think the percentage of people (all of us, not restricted to one ethnicity) are who would say that they think it easier to be white in America? Notice that I said easier, not easy. There are poor white people and I see them sleeping homeless in the park in the morning when I go out for a walk, and I have friends in my circle who are black with more wealth and success than me. There is obviously a broad spectrum. The question again, what do you think the percentage of people are who would say that they think it easier to be white in America?
"You’re telling me a European American with almost no experience and pedigree could waltz into the presidency cause he gave one good speech (no red/blue America, just a purple America)"
How can you possibly ask this question after a Trump presidency?! He didn't even have to give a good speech!😅 What experience and pedigree did he have? Do you think for even a second that a black man could have behaved as Trump did and won the presidency? Obama "waltzed" into the presidency? Seriously? I'm not saying white people didn't vote for Obama. I'm saying it's wild to claim that being black gave him an advantage and then to admit that "pale faces pick presidents" in a largely pale face country. Obama lost the white vote, remember?
And are you saying that segregation only existed in the Deep South? Sure, de jure segregation was limited to the south. But de facto, it was practiced all over America. The fact that black people could drink at some water fountains isn't really the point is it? Considering the state sponsored discrimination they faced.
You wouldn't have wanted to be a black person anywhere in America before, at the very least, 1968. And realistically speaking much later than that. There is a lot of room between antebellum America and the civil rights act. And none of it was good for black people.
I'd be the first to admit that some people overstate claims of racism nowadays. Things today are nothing like 60 years ago. But it's mind-boggling to me that some people believe the playing field has been levelled. Never mind that black people now have the advantage.
As I've been at great pains to point out racial and trans issues are categorically different (I think I'll write an article specifically about this at some point soon). And one of the key reasons is identification. Trans people identify as something that, biologically speaking, they aren't. They have to ask to be referred to in the way they prefer and use makeup and hormones and surgery to appear more like the sex they identify as, because otherwise, everybody would refer to them by their biological sex.
The comparison here is Dolezal and only Dolezal. And she was widely vilified for her dishonesty.
Black people, even mixed-race people like Obama or Smullett, are identified *by other people* as black. If they asked to be referred to as white, they'd be seen as self-hating and dishonest by black *and* white people. African ancestry is visually obvious at a quarter or so (or an eighth sometimes, hence octoroons) and because of the black/white dichotomy in many people's thinking, people with that ancestry are usually categorised as black in America. Elsewhere in the world that's not so common. You're acting as if the classification is their choice and this is 100% backwards.
p.s. Thanks for the kind words. Don't worry, I only very rarely take disagreements personally.😁
Before the Proclamation to have a single black great-great grandparent, 1/16 black, meant that one was automatically a slave. People who from every appearance were as white as the plantation owner were still classified as black.
And their manumission documents were a simple small piece of paper and anyone was allowed to demand to see it. Whereupon the paper would be shredded or burned and poof! Back into slavery.
I'll get my facts from someone who doesn't think being black in America is some kind of sweet deal, thanks very much.
"The law code specifically addressed freed blacks."
Do you think this code was upheld diligently? Is it factually accurate to say that many freed black people ended up being sold back into slavery because having black skin was the only real issue? Do you think freed black people were treated with the same rights and dignity as white people?
You can't divorce the law from the cultural environment at the time or how the law was enforced. It feels as if you're being wilfully disingenuous here. So let's change tack. What's the proposition you're actually trying to defend? That conditions were fine for freed black people during slavery? That only the slave owners were racist and everybody else treated black people with respect? That the mistreatment of black people was limited to the south and black people in the north treated fairly? What do you think we're missing?
"What are you talking about? It’s not 1860 anymore. We were talking about today."
😅 What are *you* talking about? In this part of the comment tree you're and Chris were specifically talking about the law around freed black people in the north and south. I think we agree that this isn't relevant today.
And where's the ad hominem? It does feel to me as if you're being wilfully disingenuous. That's not an attack on you as a person, it's my honest impression of your arguments.
It's as if I pointed out that the Bill of Rights proves that the founding fathers recognised that all men are created equal. So obviously black people and white people were treated equally. Context matters. The reality of how the law was enforced matters. So if I continued to pretend the Bill of Rights was proof of foundational equality in America, and you assumed I wasn't an idiot, all that's left is that I'm being disingenuous.
"I can’t manage you jumping into every conversation I am having."
This is the only comment of yours I've replied to other than those in our original conversation. Take a breath my friend, I'm not attacking you. I just think you're ignoring important context.
You're trying to draw a conclusion from a single piece of numerical data in a field that is vastly more complex than that.
In 2008 the other choice was McCain/Palin. The choice of Palin as VP nominee did a lot to cast McCain's judgment into doubt. Had he chosen a less preposterous person to put a heartbeat away from the launch/Rapture codes, he might have won.
In 2012 Obama had the advantage of incumbency and had shown himself to not be the leftist firebrand that the right had never stopped howling about, and Romney was just too unpalatably "retail" for too many voters.
Yes I have left his race out of the formulation because it had the same effect on both elections so it kinda cancels out.
In spite of my other comment about race playing a role, I do believe that the things you mention also played a big role. Sadly, the "parties" are increasingly willing to display their contempt for the electorate with the choices we get. A megalomaniac vs a man in obvious cognitive decline. WTF!? We got rid of the offensive midnight tweeter and got a man who is a danger to all of humanity. He has made it clear that it purpose in Ukraine is regime change and the 101st is now there, ready to participate in active combat. I'll be amazed if Putin doesn't resort to nukes.
That is on top of the stupidity of voters. America is incredibly dumbed down. Flat earthers can vote! You only need to do a little Twitter reading of political comments to see that democracy is doomed to failure. A lottery might serve us better.
My father, a retired Navy Captain who became a Democrat as an answer to the Willie Horton ad, was one of your #3.
Yeah I don't want Biden to run again, were he only 25 years younger. I don't think his cognitive issues are all that serious yet but each passing year is going to take a worse toll on him. But I think Trump was a far greater danger to the country and world, I don't think he would have hesitated to get millions of Americans killed just to create another opportunity to boast about his magnificence. Every time I see him leading the applause to himself I am creeped out all over again.
If you really need to get depressed, watch that video of the GOP voters talking about how 1/6 was just freedom of speech, and BLM, and all that. I despair.
I'm not a doctor and if I was, I would not likely give a diagnosis on Biden's mental state on the internet. My grandfather lived with my mom while he had Alzheimer's until it was unmanageable. My mother lived with me for a time when she had Alzheimer's until we couldn't manage it. My non-authoritative opinion, based upon my experience with the tragedy of loved ones who are no longer cognitively competent is that Biden is unfit to be POTUS at this time.
25 years ago, he was Mr. Law & Order and too conservative to be in today's Democratic Party. We all change with age, I have, but my concerns about him are not just a matter of political view. We are in times too dangerous for him to be POTUS. My opinion of course.
I would not even dream of arguing with you. I had an uncle die of Alzheimers but the last time I spoke with him it had not begun yet. Then he asked his brother, my father, "are we related?"
But I have a special knack verging on paranormal for listening to and reading people and figuring how their minds work. And in my estimation Biden is not there yet. But he hasn't long.
I have always formed friendships with people who have common interests and politics has never been a factor. I don't forsake them when I fand that some of their views are in radical opposition to mine. They might not remain as close, but I maintain contract and communication even when it is depressing. As a result, I hear honest thoughts of people I know pertaining to other issues beyond the political or worldview, rather than some isolated thoughts they write on the internet. It keeps me out of echo chambers and gives me a lot to consider.
One of those things is that I get to see why they hold beliefs that I don't agree with and would consider them to be nutcases if I didn't know more about them. A common theme is that they live in an echo chamber where I am a turd in their punchbowl that they allow out of friendship.
I am not a mind reader, and I don't view members of racial, national or political tribes to be a monolith. My diverse group of friends reenforces that view strongly.
I should add that some of my MAGA friends are not just friends, they are kin. From a long line of Democrats, the party changed. They moved away from the city of their childhood, St. Louis, which became what Trump would properly call a shithole. In many ways what they see as a redeeming value of Trump falls under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The Democratic Party became what lower/middle class white people, even the ones with black children like in my family, now think of as their enemy as far as values go.
They know that the far right is not all that the left says that it is, but they believe that the far left is thanks to its own words. Things that you have mentioned about the right using. Call them racist, fascist, haters enough and Christan as they may be, they'd vote for Satan himself to vote against a Democrat. Along came Trump. They are the twins of the "vote blue no matter who" crowd.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War
and
“Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.” -unknown
Governments have refrained from using nuclear weapons because that has been a door nobody wanted to see opened. But using even low-yield tactical nukes would move that "window of propriety" toward their use and the chances for life on earth would be a lot more grim than they already are.
I could write something long and at risk of being classified, so I won't. I'll just say that all those low yield nukes exist because of the idea of proportional response.
Massive use of the big ones would result in a pyrrhic victory at best. Someday, someone is going to gamble that limited use will will not go there and response will be proportional and limited.
Very dangerous for the reason you gave. But when clowns are kings the palace becomes a circus. Disheartening indeed.
Yeah my father was a naval architect and confided in me about one project he worked on in the mid 60s, a sub repair whose cofferdam he designed, which I had to swear never to reveal. It had minor potential to kick off WWIII.
I didn't say it was minor, and it wasn't. I said it cancels out.
The reason for that, which I left unstated because of my elevated expectations for other readers on here, is because anyone who wouldn't vote for him because he was black was already someone who wouldn't vote for him because he was a Democrat.
1. There were black people who voted for him because he was considered to be black.
2. There were non-black (not just white people) people who against him because he was considered to be black.
3. There were white people who voted for him so they could be a part of the populace who elected the first black president.
4. There were also people who didn't vote race but voted "blue no matter who" or "never a commie Democrat."
5. All of that was filtered thru him having a white mother, having lived outside the US and while in the US raised by white ultra-leftists.
I don't know the percentages. Whatever it was, it worked for him, he won. The point being race did matter. It just didn't get everyone the result they wished for.
And Obama isn’t? Herschel Walker hasn’t behaved a tenth as badly as Trump. And wouldn’t stand a chance if he were running for president.
And come on now, my reference to water fountains (I didn't say "universal") was just an artful way of saying "segregation." This is just a casual conversation, I'm assuming a degree of common understanding here. And if you’re quibbling about how *many* water fountains black people weren’t allowed to drink from, might I suggest that you’re on the wrong side of this one? Again, you wouldn’t have wanted to be a black person anywhere in America during segregation. We both know this. Only bad faith or ignorance could tempt you to deny it.
And no, I don’t think the playing field is level today. I really don’t understand this, you said it yourself; America is a majority “pale faced” country and that leads to people with pale faces ending up in positions of power more often. I’m not mad about that. The same dynamic exists in majority Asian countries and majority black countries.
But I find it so weird that’s some white people try to deny that it’s the case in majority white countries. Being white in America is a socioeconomic advantage. Just as being male is an advantage and being presumed straight is an advantage and being a native English speaker is an advantage. Admitting this doesn’t make you a bad person.
There’s also the small percentage of white people who consciously discriminate against and/or hate black people. Even if you claim that there’s the same percentage of black people who feel the same about white people, that’s still a larger number of people by your own “pale faces” argument. Which means it’s a disadvantage to be black.
And lastly, yes, in America, there’s also the question of the legally enforced discrimination that black people faced until sixty years ago. It’s just ridiculous to argue that as soon as the ink was dry on the civil rights act, all of that discrimination and all of its impact just vanished.
Today, *I*, as an individual, don’t feel disadvantaged because I’m black. This is partly because I’m lucky enough to have a number of advantages that more than outweigh the very occasional racism I might encounter. And partly because, in 2022, racism is a far, far smaller problem than it once was. But that doesn’t mean that black people as a demographic aren’t discriminated against.
Black people are more likely to be poor (both in terms of wealth and income), more likely to live in high crime neighbourhoods (even though the overwhelming majority of black people aren't criminals), more likely to be rejected for employment (even when you control for education and qualifications), more likely to go to jail for longer terms (even when you control for the crime committed), on and on. And all of this can be traced, in part, to the discrimination black people as a demographic faced and still face. The idea that people who are 50% black opt-in to it because it’s “cool” is just such a wrongheaded take when you actually consider the real world.
Lumping Dolezal in with Obama even more so. Again, mixed race people are *identified* as black by other people just as often as they identify that way themselves. And Chatterton-Williams has stated numerous times that he doesn't want to be associated with race at all. So much for the "cool points" argument. At least as regards him.
BLM did more harm to black people than help. If you think BLM represents the reality of black people in general, you've been brainwashed by Fox News.
p.s. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I'm Nigerian and I’m not in England. You’ll make your head spin trying to figure out what time-zone I’m in at any given moment. I can barely keep up myself. Nice sleuthing though.😉
You use Commonwealth spelling. I figured you were in England as well. But that's just a default; I'm sure you write jewellery instead of jewlry and I know you write colour, honour, etc.
"Seriously We’re going to argue who is worse, trump or walker?"
What do you want from me here?😅 You brought Walker into this conversation! I responded, and you ridicule me for mentioning him? And you keep mentioning personal attacks and ad hominems. Where have I done this?
Pointing out that only bad faith or ignorance would tempt somebody to deny that it was uniquely awful to be black in America during segregation is not an ad hominem. It's the truth.
Nor is a single sarcastic reference to Fox News an ad hominem. I'm happy not to mention Fox News if it offends you. But given that I force myself to watch Fox News semi-regularly, it's hard not to notice the influence. Perhaps not first hand, but yeah.
Anyway, my apologies. No more Fox News references.
And yes, you're absolutely right, there were disadvantages to being any number of ethnicities in the past. Irish and Jewish in particular. But those disadvantages smoothed out in a few generations in ways that the disadvantages of being black didn't. Do you really not see that when you look at history? Do you really not understand why that is?
You say that being black had "challenges." What time period are you talking about here? Slavery? The Jim Crow era? Your use of the past tense suggests you're not talking about today. Would you describe sundown towns and lynchings and cross burnings or the very real fear of these things, as "challenges"? What degree of misery is necessary before we can admit that it was a terrible problem? And misery relative to whom? White people?
I know that white people aren't "at the top" by many metrics. I also know that white people are wildly disproportionately at the top by some others. And I *also* know that on the metrics where white people aren't at the top, black people aren't either.
Which brings us back to what we're *actually* discussing. Namely, the notion that people pretend to be black for all the "benefits." Or the fact that you don't seem to understand why mixed race people are often referred to as black in America. Yes, some white people mimic "black culture" because they think it makes them look cool (they're wrong 100% of the time by the way). But they're still white. Wearing saggy pants isn't "identifying" as black. And hey, don't blame me that country music sucks.😉
"I don’t know how calling someone ignorant and dishonest isn’t ad hominem"
1. There's a difference between valid criticism and an ad hominem. 2. I didn't call *you* ignorant or dishonest.
Again, pointing out that only bad faith or ignorance would tempt somebody, ANYBODY, to deny that it was uniquely awful to be black in America during segregation is not an ad hominem. It's the truth.
Depending on how you define lynching, the last one was Ahmed Arbery I guess? Do mass shootings like the Buffalo shooting or the Charleston church shooting count? Or if you want a case where there's absolutely no room for debate, try the murder of James Byrd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.).
The last cross burning that I'm aware of was in 2020 (https://www.wdbj7.com/2021/04/22/marion-man-pleads-guilty-following-2020-cross-burning/). You think this is all a century ago because you have no understanding of the experience of black people in America. And, frustratingly, seem uninterested in gaining an understanding. I'm guessing your first instinct as you read these was to try to think of counterexamples. I'd be happy to be wrong.
"Black people are at the top" *citation needed.
"Numerous really shitty journalists and fake intellectuals have jobs and megaphones because they are BLACK and bring the BLACK perspective."
Finally! We agree on something. Yes, Candace Owens and Ibram X Kendi are all the evidence you could need of this. But do you think there are no shitty white journalists and "intellectuals" out there? Do you think Alex Jones or Tucker Carlsen and many others would have their platforms if they weren't shouting the WHITE perspective? Do you think Trump would have become president?!
Although, of course, it's not the white perspective, it's the racist perspective. Same as the black grifters. Tucker Carlsen doesn't speak for white people in general. Ibram X Kendi doesn't speak for black people in general. And lest we forget, the number one best-selling grifter on anti-racism is, you guessed it, a white woman.
But yes, as I said, finally we agree. Thoroughly mediocre black people are now also able to be successful. What you don't seem to understand is that white people have had the monopoly on that mediocre success for quite some time now. As the saying goes, when you're used to 100%, having to share feels like oppression.
And lastly, I care about Daniel Shaver and Duncan Lemp and Tony Timpa. I've written about them. I'd be the first to admit that the media falls over themselves to report white cops shooting black people and says nothing when cops shoot white people. Or, especially when black people shoot black people. I've written about this problem many times.
I admit, I just read the introduction and the conclusion because, yeah, 42 pages. But, did you read it?
Yes, the paper states that there are no income gaps between black and white women, but also states categorically that a) black males experience significantly worse outcomes and receive lower incomes than white males, even after controlling for education, ability etc. And b) that neighbourhood disparities, lack of equal opportunity, and racial bias are the main drivers of these disparities.
The whole paper is basically a study on the impact of racism on black men and boys.
From the conclusion:
"The black-white gap – the largest gap among those we study – is driven entirely by sharp differences in the outcomes of black and white men who grow up in families with comparable incomes [...] Closing the gap in opportunities between black and white children at a given parental income level could therefore eliminate much of the black-white income gap within two generations.
[...] our results suggest that efforts that cut within neighborhoods and schools and improve environments for specific racial subgroups, such as black boys, may be more effective in reducing the black-white gap.
Examples include mentoring programs for black boys, efforts to reduce racial bias among whites, or efforts to facilitate social interaction across racial groups within a given area."
"I would say the holocaust was uniquely horrible. I would say the Cambodian genocide was uniquely horrible."
Did either of these happen in America? Okay then. I think I was very clear that I was talking about segregation being uniquely horrible for black people in America. Disappointed to see that I *wasn't* wrong when I suspected that the first thing you'd do is look for counterexamples. Even irrelevant ones.
It's funny, I've never seen a white person talk about how horrible slavery was when somebody brings up the Holocaust. But strangely enough, it happens all the time in reverse.
No. Lynching does not "literally" mean hanging (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching). It relates to any extrajudicial killing, usually as a form of intimidation. It's often associated with hanging, but black people were often lynched by dragging behind horses, for example, in the days of slavery. You know I write about this stuff for a living, right? I'm obviously not going to be ignorant about it. You could at least check Wikipedia before assuming I'm wrong.
Yes, I'm making assumptions about you. But they're based on what you're saying here. And more, the things your'e dodging or trying to minimise. Reading MLK, as wonderful as he was, won't tell you anything about the state if racism today. Though I'd have thought it would give you a deeper understanding than you've shown about race relations in the sixties.
Man, I'm not trying to demean you. As I said, you're just ignoring really important context. And you seem determined not to acknowledge that, even a little bit. I admit this is frustrating. I've asked plenty of questions. You just haven't answered them because they don't help you with the narrative you want to believe.
But sure, let me try some more questions:
You say I'm exaggerating greatly about mediocre success. At what point do you think employment opportunity equalised for black people and white people? What do you think, for example, of studies that show a black man with a clean record had roughly the same chances of a callback as a white felon in 2009 (https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/annals_sequencingdisadvantage.pdf)?
Given that we can hopefully agree that during segregation and for some time afterwards, a mediocre white man would have had a much easier time getting a managerial job, say, than an exceptional black man, when do you think this part of the playing field equalised? Do you think the fact that ~86% of Fortune 500 CEOs are white men (compared to ~1% black men) is just race-blind meritocracy at work?
What makes you say that the widely quoted statistics are manipulated? By whom? And why does income matter if we're taking about the ability to get a job. I don't know if white and black women get paid the same amount for the same job. I'd be a little surprised if they didn't. But the issue is whether it's much harder for one to get a job than the other, no? Also, are you aware that white women have been largest beneficiaries of affirmative action (https://time.com/4884132/affirmative-action-civil-rights-white-women/)?
Now that you know that the last cross burning was just two years ago, can you admit that there may be a greater climate of racism today than you previously realised? Does this do anything to change your perceptions? Or do you find yourself trying to dismiss it?
Again, more interesting than the answers to these questions, (though I am interested) is your reaction to them. Is your knee-jerk reaction to try to "debunk" them instead of thinking about them seriously? If so, why? What happens if it's true that racism is still a problem that affects black people more than white people?
Is it possible that the reason you've got pushback from numerous people here, black and white, and probably get pushback most of the time when you express ideas like these, is that you're missing something?
It's very difficult to take you seriously, Jason, in fact I am not going to make the attempt.
If you think being nonwhite confers some sort of advantage in American politics then you need to stop watching Tucker Carlson and read about the intensity of opposition to Obama. You might start with McConnell leaving a Supreme Court bench empty for a year.
You probably think that affirmative action was intended to give unfair advantage to academically and occupationally (if not intrinsically) inferior black people. You'd be wrong. It was intended to compensate for unfair admissions and hiring practices that didn't allow blacks and others to be fairly treated. There were a lot of black men with doctorate degrees who couldn't get better than janitorial work.
To "beat a straw man" means to rebut a point that the other has not made. Where did I do that? You mean the paragraph that opens with "you probably think?"
Politics in America is a sick joke. I write in a protest "no acceptable candidate" so often it is hardly worthwhile for me to vote. The only thing that could fix it is for that to be a valid choice and if no acceptable candidate got the most votes, they vacated the office until the next election. That might cause them to take the voters seriously.
As for how black people are doing now, while my circle is too small to be a statistic, but it includes people from the Caribbean islands. Their ancestors arrived on slave ships liked the ones in America. Two observations about them. (1) They are on average more successful. (2) They are on average less inclined to wear a chip on their shoulder.
One might be left to wonder, is there a relationship and if there is an element of cause and effect, in which direction?
I've started muting the Medium authors who write a new article nearly every day and always with the world "white" in the title, so I don't start thinking they are the real voice of black people and go out and find a klu Klux Klan claverin to join. (O,K, that's hyperbole, but not by enough to feel good about)
You think Barack Obama "identified" as black to gain benefits? You think the colour of his skin was an advantage during his presidential run in a country that had, until that point, only ever elected white men to the office of president or vice president? You have a pretty serious uphill battle to argue that one. 😅
And more to the point, all of these people (with the exception of Dolezal obviously), is 50% black. That's hardly "passing for black." In fact, they'd have been legally required to categorise themselves as black for most of the 20th century. As was anybody with more than one eighth black ancestry (i.e. if they had even one black great-grandparent).
See the one-drop rule (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule).
Black people are *identified* as black in America. Often even when it makes very little sense to do so. And bear in mind, it's been less than 60 years since black people were allowed to use the same water fountains as white people. I don't think there are many white people lining up for the "benefits" of being black. Certainly not in America.
I'm old enough (septuagenarian) to have personal memory of "Whites Only", "Colored in back" and interracial marriage being illegal. I've seen tremendous change in my lifetime. Those who deny it are disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
America is a 𝙨𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙡𝙖𝙬𝙨 and there is nothing that I can do by law that a black person cannot, so I sometimes quibble about "systemic racism." The system has been corrected, but at the same time some level of racial bias persists to a degree that it could be considered to be ubiquitous. People do find ways to get around the system and exercise discriminatory practices. 𝑰𝒕'𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒏𝒐𝒘.
When all is said and done, white people would overwhelmingly choose to stay white if a magic genie in a bottle offered them the opportunity to be black. I call bullshit on anyone denying that.
Man, I'm sorry, I know you'd rather I didn't "jump in" to your other conversations. But it's rare that I see somebody be so wrong with such utter confidence. It feels as if you've spent zero time talking to black people or thinking about what it's like to be black beyond a few silly stereotypes, but nonetheless formed all these firm opinions on the topic.
Yes, of course some black people wish they were white. Or, to least, have wished it when they were younger and figuring themselves out. Many black people have even written about it (though obviously, I think many others keep those thoughts to themselves). Here are a few examples.
http://shalominthecity.com/2013/10/25/sometimes-i-wish-i-were-white/
https://julianayaz.medium.com/sometimes-i-wish-i-was-white-704c2d7c5055
https://secure.wesleyan.org/6597/shes-4-years-old-and-wishes-she-was-white
https://theracecardproject.com/wish-white/
https://www.npr.org/sections/bryantpark/2007/11/sometimes_i_wish_i_was_white_y.html
I suspect this is true of any marginalised group. I'm sure some gay people wish they were straight just because it would make certain aspects of life easier. Many pubescent teenage girls wish they were boys, again, because life is easier in many ways. The sharp rise in trans and non binary identifying females is evidence of this.
Being a straight, white, man, even with the grief you'll occasionally get if you spend too much time on Twitter or Medium, is still the easiest configuration of traits to have. This isn't some kind of accusation. You're not a bad person because of this. I have two of those three myself. And of course, there are a bunch of other traits like being intelligent or good-looking or having a good family that factor in as well.
But yeah, seriously, I find it very difficult to believe you've ever had a conversation with a black person about race with any intention other than to explain why you're right about racism and they're wrong. And I'm not saying that black people have it all correct because they're black. But they have an experience that you lack. So at least give them an honest listen. And give what they say some honest thought.
"Hey, he’s probably been to LA and NYC. Thats like all of America"
😂I know what it's like to be black in America because I've spent a lot of time living in America. Most of my extended family is in America. And this, for the record, is an ad hominem. An ad hominem based on no actual knowledge of me or my life to boot. The only reason you know who I am is because I write about race, often about race in America, and I do so accurately enough that I've got quite a large audience.
I have to find links on the internet for you because how else am I supposed to demonstrate anything to you? Certainly you're not going to take my word for it. And clearly you've not spoken to any black people about it yourself. I didn't say that they spoke for everybody. That, as we're talking debate fallacies, is a straw man. You said that the number was zero percent. It's not.
But yes, you've reduced the entire black experience in America to college diversity admissions, rap music, and sagging pants. In the first of these areas, yes, there are some advantages to being black. But if this represents being black in America to you, I'm not sure I'll ever get through to you.
Stop treating this like a fight. Accept the possibility that you might be missing something here. Recognise that even if you are, nothing bad is going to happen. In fact, you'll come away with a broader understanding if you allow yourself to.
When someone refers to "black people" as "blacks", it's a tell. I'm not talking political correctness, just something I've noticed over the years.
“When someone refers to "black people" as "blacks"”
100%.
I never felt that to be racist but then I am so far off the grid that I can't keep up.
Your case? I'm not trying to debate with you. I think you are a troll so that would be an exercise in futility. I just remarked about something I've observed over the years.
No, it does not. It is an accurate appraisal of your behavior.
It was an opinion ("I think"); I could be wrong. All opinions could be wrong. So far, I'm just observing how you came onto Steve's substack and said the stuff you have said to him thay seem a bit troll-like. Just my impression.
Perhaps too abstract since there is no genie to do the magic. What do you think the percentage of people (all of us, not restricted to one ethnicity) are who would say that they think it easier to be white in America? Notice that I said easier, not easy. There are poor white people and I see them sleeping homeless in the park in the morning when I go out for a walk, and I have friends in my circle who are black with more wealth and success than me. There is obviously a broad spectrum. The question again, what do you think the percentage of people are who would say that they think it easier to be white in America?
"You’re telling me a European American with almost no experience and pedigree could waltz into the presidency cause he gave one good speech (no red/blue America, just a purple America)"
How can you possibly ask this question after a Trump presidency?! He didn't even have to give a good speech!😅 What experience and pedigree did he have? Do you think for even a second that a black man could have behaved as Trump did and won the presidency? Obama "waltzed" into the presidency? Seriously? I'm not saying white people didn't vote for Obama. I'm saying it's wild to claim that being black gave him an advantage and then to admit that "pale faces pick presidents" in a largely pale face country. Obama lost the white vote, remember?
And are you saying that segregation only existed in the Deep South? Sure, de jure segregation was limited to the south. But de facto, it was practiced all over America. The fact that black people could drink at some water fountains isn't really the point is it? Considering the state sponsored discrimination they faced.
You wouldn't have wanted to be a black person anywhere in America before, at the very least, 1968. And realistically speaking much later than that. There is a lot of room between antebellum America and the civil rights act. And none of it was good for black people.
I'd be the first to admit that some people overstate claims of racism nowadays. Things today are nothing like 60 years ago. But it's mind-boggling to me that some people believe the playing field has been levelled. Never mind that black people now have the advantage.
As I've been at great pains to point out racial and trans issues are categorically different (I think I'll write an article specifically about this at some point soon). And one of the key reasons is identification. Trans people identify as something that, biologically speaking, they aren't. They have to ask to be referred to in the way they prefer and use makeup and hormones and surgery to appear more like the sex they identify as, because otherwise, everybody would refer to them by their biological sex.
The comparison here is Dolezal and only Dolezal. And she was widely vilified for her dishonesty.
Black people, even mixed-race people like Obama or Smullett, are identified *by other people* as black. If they asked to be referred to as white, they'd be seen as self-hating and dishonest by black *and* white people. African ancestry is visually obvious at a quarter or so (or an eighth sometimes, hence octoroons) and because of the black/white dichotomy in many people's thinking, people with that ancestry are usually categorised as black in America. Elsewhere in the world that's not so common. You're acting as if the classification is their choice and this is 100% backwards.
p.s. Thanks for the kind words. Don't worry, I only very rarely take disagreements personally.😁
Before the Proclamation to have a single black great-great grandparent, 1/16 black, meant that one was automatically a slave. People who from every appearance were as white as the plantation owner were still classified as black.
And their manumission documents were a simple small piece of paper and anyone was allowed to demand to see it. Whereupon the paper would be shredded or burned and poof! Back into slavery.
I'll get my facts from someone who doesn't think being black in America is some kind of sweet deal, thanks very much.
"The law code specifically addressed freed blacks."
Do you think this code was upheld diligently? Is it factually accurate to say that many freed black people ended up being sold back into slavery because having black skin was the only real issue? Do you think freed black people were treated with the same rights and dignity as white people?
You can't divorce the law from the cultural environment at the time or how the law was enforced. It feels as if you're being wilfully disingenuous here. So let's change tack. What's the proposition you're actually trying to defend? That conditions were fine for freed black people during slavery? That only the slave owners were racist and everybody else treated black people with respect? That the mistreatment of black people was limited to the south and black people in the north treated fairly? What do you think we're missing?
"What are you talking about? It’s not 1860 anymore. We were talking about today."
😅 What are *you* talking about? In this part of the comment tree you're and Chris were specifically talking about the law around freed black people in the north and south. I think we agree that this isn't relevant today.
And where's the ad hominem? It does feel to me as if you're being wilfully disingenuous. That's not an attack on you as a person, it's my honest impression of your arguments.
It's as if I pointed out that the Bill of Rights proves that the founding fathers recognised that all men are created equal. So obviously black people and white people were treated equally. Context matters. The reality of how the law was enforced matters. So if I continued to pretend the Bill of Rights was proof of foundational equality in America, and you assumed I wasn't an idiot, all that's left is that I'm being disingenuous.
"I can’t manage you jumping into every conversation I am having."
This is the only comment of yours I've replied to other than those in our original conversation. Take a breath my friend, I'm not attacking you. I just think you're ignoring important context.
Very very few people use "ad hominem" correctly. Sorry to say, you aren't one of them.
Example:
"You can't possibly have a valid opinion on any moral issue because you're in favor of abortion'
Ad hominem = "to the man."
It refers to attacking the person instead of rebutting the issue under discussion.
It does not refer to dismissive talk, disagreement, or insult.
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies
You're trying to draw a conclusion from a single piece of numerical data in a field that is vastly more complex than that.
In 2008 the other choice was McCain/Palin. The choice of Palin as VP nominee did a lot to cast McCain's judgment into doubt. Had he chosen a less preposterous person to put a heartbeat away from the launch/Rapture codes, he might have won.
In 2012 Obama had the advantage of incumbency and had shown himself to not be the leftist firebrand that the right had never stopped howling about, and Romney was just too unpalatably "retail" for too many voters.
Yes I have left his race out of the formulation because it had the same effect on both elections so it kinda cancels out.
In spite of my other comment about race playing a role, I do believe that the things you mention also played a big role. Sadly, the "parties" are increasingly willing to display their contempt for the electorate with the choices we get. A megalomaniac vs a man in obvious cognitive decline. WTF!? We got rid of the offensive midnight tweeter and got a man who is a danger to all of humanity. He has made it clear that it purpose in Ukraine is regime change and the 101st is now there, ready to participate in active combat. I'll be amazed if Putin doesn't resort to nukes.
That is on top of the stupidity of voters. America is incredibly dumbed down. Flat earthers can vote! You only need to do a little Twitter reading of political comments to see that democracy is doomed to failure. A lottery might serve us better.
My father, a retired Navy Captain who became a Democrat as an answer to the Willie Horton ad, was one of your #3.
Yeah I don't want Biden to run again, were he only 25 years younger. I don't think his cognitive issues are all that serious yet but each passing year is going to take a worse toll on him. But I think Trump was a far greater danger to the country and world, I don't think he would have hesitated to get millions of Americans killed just to create another opportunity to boast about his magnificence. Every time I see him leading the applause to himself I am creeped out all over again.
If you really need to get depressed, watch that video of the GOP voters talking about how 1/6 was just freedom of speech, and BLM, and all that. I despair.
I'm not a doctor and if I was, I would not likely give a diagnosis on Biden's mental state on the internet. My grandfather lived with my mom while he had Alzheimer's until it was unmanageable. My mother lived with me for a time when she had Alzheimer's until we couldn't manage it. My non-authoritative opinion, based upon my experience with the tragedy of loved ones who are no longer cognitively competent is that Biden is unfit to be POTUS at this time.
25 years ago, he was Mr. Law & Order and too conservative to be in today's Democratic Party. We all change with age, I have, but my concerns about him are not just a matter of political view. We are in times too dangerous for him to be POTUS. My opinion of course.
I would not even dream of arguing with you. I had an uncle die of Alzheimers but the last time I spoke with him it had not begun yet. Then he asked his brother, my father, "are we related?"
But I have a special knack verging on paranormal for listening to and reading people and figuring how their minds work. And in my estimation Biden is not there yet. But he hasn't long.
I have always formed friendships with people who have common interests and politics has never been a factor. I don't forsake them when I fand that some of their views are in radical opposition to mine. They might not remain as close, but I maintain contract and communication even when it is depressing. As a result, I hear honest thoughts of people I know pertaining to other issues beyond the political or worldview, rather than some isolated thoughts they write on the internet. It keeps me out of echo chambers and gives me a lot to consider.
One of those things is that I get to see why they hold beliefs that I don't agree with and would consider them to be nutcases if I didn't know more about them. A common theme is that they live in an echo chamber where I am a turd in their punchbowl that they allow out of friendship.
I am not a mind reader, and I don't view members of racial, national or political tribes to be a monolith. My diverse group of friends reenforces that view strongly.
When it comes to Trump and MAGA, I have to respectfully disagree there. I don't want to hear from them at all.
The smartest Trump supporter I ever spoke with told me that he liked Trump because the world was afraid of America again.
I should add that some of my MAGA friends are not just friends, they are kin. From a long line of Democrats, the party changed. They moved away from the city of their childhood, St. Louis, which became what Trump would properly call a shithole. In many ways what they see as a redeeming value of Trump falls under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The Democratic Party became what lower/middle class white people, even the ones with black children like in my family, now think of as their enemy as far as values go.
They know that the far right is not all that the left says that it is, but they believe that the far left is thanks to its own words. Things that you have mentioned about the right using. Call them racist, fascist, haters enough and Christan as they may be, they'd vote for Satan himself to vote against a Democrat. Along came Trump. They are the twins of the "vote blue no matter who" crowd.
Perhaps my military mindset.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War
and
“Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.” -unknown
We like Dave around here.
I've never wanted to be wrong about something as badly as I do about this.
Governments have refrained from using nuclear weapons because that has been a door nobody wanted to see opened. But using even low-yield tactical nukes would move that "window of propriety" toward their use and the chances for life on earth would be a lot more grim than they already are.
I could write something long and at risk of being classified, so I won't. I'll just say that all those low yield nukes exist because of the idea of proportional response.
Massive use of the big ones would result in a pyrrhic victory at best. Someday, someone is going to gamble that limited use will will not go there and response will be proportional and limited.
Very dangerous for the reason you gave. But when clowns are kings the palace becomes a circus. Disheartening indeed.
Ever read that short story by Norman Spinrad, "The Big Flash?"
Almost every time in my life other than a thunderstorm when I've seen a distant flash I have wondered if it's starting.
Yeah my father was a naval architect and confided in me about one project he worked on in the mid 60s, a sub repair whose cofferdam he designed, which I had to swear never to reveal. It had minor potential to kick off WWIII.
I didn't say it was minor, and it wasn't. I said it cancels out.
The reason for that, which I left unstated because of my elevated expectations for other readers on here, is because anyone who wouldn't vote for him because he was black was already someone who wouldn't vote for him because he was a Democrat.
Thank you for agreeing.
Race played a role in that election.
1. There were black people who voted for him because he was considered to be black.
2. There were non-black (not just white people) people who against him because he was considered to be black.
3. There were white people who voted for him so they could be a part of the populace who elected the first black president.
4. There were also people who didn't vote race but voted "blue no matter who" or "never a commie Democrat."
5. All of that was filtered thru him having a white mother, having lived outside the US and while in the US raised by white ultra-leftists.
I don't know the percentages. Whatever it was, it worked for him, he won. The point being race did matter. It just didn't get everyone the result they wished for.
“Trump is a unique political figure”
And Obama isn’t? Herschel Walker hasn’t behaved a tenth as badly as Trump. And wouldn’t stand a chance if he were running for president.
And come on now, my reference to water fountains (I didn't say "universal") was just an artful way of saying "segregation." This is just a casual conversation, I'm assuming a degree of common understanding here. And if you’re quibbling about how *many* water fountains black people weren’t allowed to drink from, might I suggest that you’re on the wrong side of this one? Again, you wouldn’t have wanted to be a black person anywhere in America during segregation. We both know this. Only bad faith or ignorance could tempt you to deny it.
And no, I don’t think the playing field is level today. I really don’t understand this, you said it yourself; America is a majority “pale faced” country and that leads to people with pale faces ending up in positions of power more often. I’m not mad about that. The same dynamic exists in majority Asian countries and majority black countries.
But I find it so weird that’s some white people try to deny that it’s the case in majority white countries. Being white in America is a socioeconomic advantage. Just as being male is an advantage and being presumed straight is an advantage and being a native English speaker is an advantage. Admitting this doesn’t make you a bad person.
There’s also the small percentage of white people who consciously discriminate against and/or hate black people. Even if you claim that there’s the same percentage of black people who feel the same about white people, that’s still a larger number of people by your own “pale faces” argument. Which means it’s a disadvantage to be black.
And lastly, yes, in America, there’s also the question of the legally enforced discrimination that black people faced until sixty years ago. It’s just ridiculous to argue that as soon as the ink was dry on the civil rights act, all of that discrimination and all of its impact just vanished.
Today, *I*, as an individual, don’t feel disadvantaged because I’m black. This is partly because I’m lucky enough to have a number of advantages that more than outweigh the very occasional racism I might encounter. And partly because, in 2022, racism is a far, far smaller problem than it once was. But that doesn’t mean that black people as a demographic aren’t discriminated against.
Black people are more likely to be poor (both in terms of wealth and income), more likely to live in high crime neighbourhoods (even though the overwhelming majority of black people aren't criminals), more likely to be rejected for employment (even when you control for education and qualifications), more likely to go to jail for longer terms (even when you control for the crime committed), on and on. And all of this can be traced, in part, to the discrimination black people as a demographic faced and still face. The idea that people who are 50% black opt-in to it because it’s “cool” is just such a wrongheaded take when you actually consider the real world.
Lumping Dolezal in with Obama even more so. Again, mixed race people are *identified* as black by other people just as often as they identify that way themselves. And Chatterton-Williams has stated numerous times that he doesn't want to be associated with race at all. So much for the "cool points" argument. At least as regards him.
BLM did more harm to black people than help. If you think BLM represents the reality of black people in general, you've been brainwashed by Fox News.
p.s. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I'm Nigerian and I’m not in England. You’ll make your head spin trying to figure out what time-zone I’m in at any given moment. I can barely keep up myself. Nice sleuthing though.😉
You use Commonwealth spelling. I figured you were in England as well. But that's just a default; I'm sure you write jewellery instead of jewlry and I know you write colour, honour, etc.
"Seriously We’re going to argue who is worse, trump or walker?"
What do you want from me here?😅 You brought Walker into this conversation! I responded, and you ridicule me for mentioning him? And you keep mentioning personal attacks and ad hominems. Where have I done this?
Pointing out that only bad faith or ignorance would tempt somebody to deny that it was uniquely awful to be black in America during segregation is not an ad hominem. It's the truth.
Nor is a single sarcastic reference to Fox News an ad hominem. I'm happy not to mention Fox News if it offends you. But given that I force myself to watch Fox News semi-regularly, it's hard not to notice the influence. Perhaps not first hand, but yeah.
Anyway, my apologies. No more Fox News references.
And yes, you're absolutely right, there were disadvantages to being any number of ethnicities in the past. Irish and Jewish in particular. But those disadvantages smoothed out in a few generations in ways that the disadvantages of being black didn't. Do you really not see that when you look at history? Do you really not understand why that is?
You say that being black had "challenges." What time period are you talking about here? Slavery? The Jim Crow era? Your use of the past tense suggests you're not talking about today. Would you describe sundown towns and lynchings and cross burnings or the very real fear of these things, as "challenges"? What degree of misery is necessary before we can admit that it was a terrible problem? And misery relative to whom? White people?
I know that white people aren't "at the top" by many metrics. I also know that white people are wildly disproportionately at the top by some others. And I *also* know that on the metrics where white people aren't at the top, black people aren't either.
Which brings us back to what we're *actually* discussing. Namely, the notion that people pretend to be black for all the "benefits." Or the fact that you don't seem to understand why mixed race people are often referred to as black in America. Yes, some white people mimic "black culture" because they think it makes them look cool (they're wrong 100% of the time by the way). But they're still white. Wearing saggy pants isn't "identifying" as black. And hey, don't blame me that country music sucks.😉
"I don’t know how calling someone ignorant and dishonest isn’t ad hominem"
1. There's a difference between valid criticism and an ad hominem. 2. I didn't call *you* ignorant or dishonest.
Again, pointing out that only bad faith or ignorance would tempt somebody, ANYBODY, to deny that it was uniquely awful to be black in America during segregation is not an ad hominem. It's the truth.
Depending on how you define lynching, the last one was Ahmed Arbery I guess? Do mass shootings like the Buffalo shooting or the Charleston church shooting count? Or if you want a case where there's absolutely no room for debate, try the murder of James Byrd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.).
The last cross burning that I'm aware of was in 2020 (https://www.wdbj7.com/2021/04/22/marion-man-pleads-guilty-following-2020-cross-burning/). You think this is all a century ago because you have no understanding of the experience of black people in America. And, frustratingly, seem uninterested in gaining an understanding. I'm guessing your first instinct as you read these was to try to think of counterexamples. I'd be happy to be wrong.
"Black people are at the top" *citation needed.
"Numerous really shitty journalists and fake intellectuals have jobs and megaphones because they are BLACK and bring the BLACK perspective."
Finally! We agree on something. Yes, Candace Owens and Ibram X Kendi are all the evidence you could need of this. But do you think there are no shitty white journalists and "intellectuals" out there? Do you think Alex Jones or Tucker Carlsen and many others would have their platforms if they weren't shouting the WHITE perspective? Do you think Trump would have become president?!
Although, of course, it's not the white perspective, it's the racist perspective. Same as the black grifters. Tucker Carlsen doesn't speak for white people in general. Ibram X Kendi doesn't speak for black people in general. And lest we forget, the number one best-selling grifter on anti-racism is, you guessed it, a white woman.
But yes, as I said, finally we agree. Thoroughly mediocre black people are now also able to be successful. What you don't seem to understand is that white people have had the monopoly on that mediocre success for quite some time now. As the saying goes, when you're used to 100%, having to share feels like oppression.
And lastly, I care about Daniel Shaver and Duncan Lemp and Tony Timpa. I've written about them. I'd be the first to admit that the media falls over themselves to report white cops shooting black people and says nothing when cops shoot white people. Or, especially when black people shoot black people. I've written about this problem many times.
I admit, I just read the introduction and the conclusion because, yeah, 42 pages. But, did you read it?
Yes, the paper states that there are no income gaps between black and white women, but also states categorically that a) black males experience significantly worse outcomes and receive lower incomes than white males, even after controlling for education, ability etc. And b) that neighbourhood disparities, lack of equal opportunity, and racial bias are the main drivers of these disparities.
The whole paper is basically a study on the impact of racism on black men and boys.
From the conclusion:
"The black-white gap – the largest gap among those we study – is driven entirely by sharp differences in the outcomes of black and white men who grow up in families with comparable incomes [...] Closing the gap in opportunities between black and white children at a given parental income level could therefore eliminate much of the black-white income gap within two generations.
[...] our results suggest that efforts that cut within neighborhoods and schools and improve environments for specific racial subgroups, such as black boys, may be more effective in reducing the black-white gap.
Examples include mentoring programs for black boys, efforts to reduce racial bias among whites, or efforts to facilitate social interaction across racial groups within a given area."
"I would say the holocaust was uniquely horrible. I would say the Cambodian genocide was uniquely horrible."
Did either of these happen in America? Okay then. I think I was very clear that I was talking about segregation being uniquely horrible for black people in America. Disappointed to see that I *wasn't* wrong when I suspected that the first thing you'd do is look for counterexamples. Even irrelevant ones.
It's funny, I've never seen a white person talk about how horrible slavery was when somebody brings up the Holocaust. But strangely enough, it happens all the time in reverse.
No. Lynching does not "literally" mean hanging (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching). It relates to any extrajudicial killing, usually as a form of intimidation. It's often associated with hanging, but black people were often lynched by dragging behind horses, for example, in the days of slavery. You know I write about this stuff for a living, right? I'm obviously not going to be ignorant about it. You could at least check Wikipedia before assuming I'm wrong.
Yes, I'm making assumptions about you. But they're based on what you're saying here. And more, the things your'e dodging or trying to minimise. Reading MLK, as wonderful as he was, won't tell you anything about the state if racism today. Though I'd have thought it would give you a deeper understanding than you've shown about race relations in the sixties.
Man, I'm not trying to demean you. As I said, you're just ignoring really important context. And you seem determined not to acknowledge that, even a little bit. I admit this is frustrating. I've asked plenty of questions. You just haven't answered them because they don't help you with the narrative you want to believe.
But sure, let me try some more questions:
You say I'm exaggerating greatly about mediocre success. At what point do you think employment opportunity equalised for black people and white people? What do you think, for example, of studies that show a black man with a clean record had roughly the same chances of a callback as a white felon in 2009 (https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/annals_sequencingdisadvantage.pdf)?
Given that we can hopefully agree that during segregation and for some time afterwards, a mediocre white man would have had a much easier time getting a managerial job, say, than an exceptional black man, when do you think this part of the playing field equalised? Do you think the fact that ~86% of Fortune 500 CEOs are white men (compared to ~1% black men) is just race-blind meritocracy at work?
What makes you say that the widely quoted statistics are manipulated? By whom? And why does income matter if we're taking about the ability to get a job. I don't know if white and black women get paid the same amount for the same job. I'd be a little surprised if they didn't. But the issue is whether it's much harder for one to get a job than the other, no? Also, are you aware that white women have been largest beneficiaries of affirmative action (https://time.com/4884132/affirmative-action-civil-rights-white-women/)?
Now that you know that the last cross burning was just two years ago, can you admit that there may be a greater climate of racism today than you previously realised? Does this do anything to change your perceptions? Or do you find yourself trying to dismiss it?
Again, more interesting than the answers to these questions, (though I am interested) is your reaction to them. Is your knee-jerk reaction to try to "debunk" them instead of thinking about them seriously? If so, why? What happens if it's true that racism is still a problem that affects black people more than white people?
Is it possible that the reason you've got pushback from numerous people here, black and white, and probably get pushback most of the time when you express ideas like these, is that you're missing something?
It's very difficult to take you seriously, Jason, in fact I am not going to make the attempt.
If you think being nonwhite confers some sort of advantage in American politics then you need to stop watching Tucker Carlson and read about the intensity of opposition to Obama. You might start with McConnell leaving a Supreme Court bench empty for a year.
You probably think that affirmative action was intended to give unfair advantage to academically and occupationally (if not intrinsically) inferior black people. You'd be wrong. It was intended to compensate for unfair admissions and hiring practices that didn't allow blacks and others to be fairly treated. There were a lot of black men with doctorate degrees who couldn't get better than janitorial work.
Why do I even bother?
To "beat a straw man" means to rebut a point that the other has not made. Where did I do that? You mean the paragraph that opens with "you probably think?"
I guess that was my mistake.
Politics in America is a sick joke. I write in a protest "no acceptable candidate" so often it is hardly worthwhile for me to vote. The only thing that could fix it is for that to be a valid choice and if no acceptable candidate got the most votes, they vacated the office until the next election. That might cause them to take the voters seriously.
As for how black people are doing now, while my circle is too small to be a statistic, but it includes people from the Caribbean islands. Their ancestors arrived on slave ships liked the ones in America. Two observations about them. (1) They are on average more successful. (2) They are on average less inclined to wear a chip on their shoulder.
One might be left to wonder, is there a relationship and if there is an element of cause and effect, in which direction?
I've started muting the Medium authors who write a new article nearly every day and always with the world "white" in the title, so I don't start thinking they are the real voice of black people and go out and find a klu Klux Klan claverin to join. (O,K, that's hyperbole, but not by enough to feel good about)
This is not just about wives: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+21%3A9&version=ESV