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 ass…
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."
Sure, racism *is* a complex discussion. But, you seem heavily biased towards the “racism isn’t an issue” end of the spectrum whilst citing a study that clearly highlights the impact of racism. What was your aim in linking this? Why aren’t you weighing that conclusion heavily?
"What was your aim in linking this? Why aren’t you weighing that conclusion heavily?"
You complained that I don't ask you questions (even though I do) and then ignore them when I ask them.
Also, please stop misrepresenting what I say, I didn't say you said there was no racism. I said you seem heavily biased towards one end of a spectrum. You keep taking offence because you're not reading what I'm writing.
"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?
You can Google “James Byrd lynching” for numerous others. You could do the same for Ahmaud Arbery. Yes, I know what strange fruit was about. I don’t think anybody ever claimed it was a definitive definition of lynching. Did you notice the word “often” in that wall quote?
Man, this isn’t a presidential debate. What exactly do you feel like the stakes of this conversation are? I’m not pulling rank, I’m not lecturing you. Forget my skin colour, I’m somebody who has spent years writing and learning about race and race history. I’ve had thousands of conversations about it with black and white people (come on now, I’m not bragging, but do you seriously think you’ve spent as much time as I have on this topic? Really?). Where’s your decorum? Where’s your respect?
I’m not arguing that black Americans, as a population, want to be white. That would be ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as saying that white Americans want to be black.
I’m saying, and showing you with the testimony of real
human beings, that just as with members of any marginalised group, some black people have wished they didn’t face the discrimination levelled at their group. That usually means being part of the majority group instead.
Finally, and I mean this with no disrespect, your insights aren’t different. I’ve heard them from hundreds of people I’ve already spoken to. They’re the insights of somebody who has given a great deal of thought to how racial discourse impacts white people in America and very little thought to how racism affects black people in America.
They’re the insights of somebody who is sick and tired of being told that they’re racist simply because of the colour of their skin, this is perfectly understandable. But who hasn’t truly considered that some of the pushback they receive isn’t about the colour of their skin but the fact that they do have some racist attitudes.
They’re the insights of somebody who treats the idea that racism affects black people as an accusation they need to defend themselves from.
So sure, here’s a question: why do you think you receive the pushback you do for your insights? Not just from black people either.
"Steve, I don’t generally get pushback from black people"
You're the one told me you have black people trying to "pull rank" on you. I'd categorise that as pushback. Man, I'm not finger wagging. I'm not bullying you. I'm not asking you to submit. This is absolutely ridiculous.
I'm not interested in compliments if they're followed up with rudeness and, especially, mischaracterisations. I'm not perfect. I've never claimed to be. If you have a problem with something I've actually said, not your misreading, let me know, and I'll apologise. As I already did about the Fox News comment. But don't lie about me. And don't play the victim when you've been quite rude over the course of this conversation.
If you think I have nothing of value to say because I'm not American enough for you, no problem. Let's just drop it in that case. Again, just for the record, *this* is an ad hominem.
“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."
Sure, racism *is* a complex discussion. But, you seem heavily biased towards the “racism isn’t an issue” end of the spectrum whilst citing a study that clearly highlights the impact of racism. What was your aim in linking this? Why aren’t you weighing that conclusion heavily?
"What was your aim in linking this? Why aren’t you weighing that conclusion heavily?"
You complained that I don't ask you questions (even though I do) and then ignore them when I ask them.
Also, please stop misrepresenting what I say, I didn't say you said there was no racism. I said you seem heavily biased towards one end of a spectrum. You keep taking offence because you're not reading what I'm writing.
"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?
“Wikipedia is your source? Give me a historic headline about a lynching that wasn’t a hanging.”
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/john-william-king-executed-in-infamous-lynching-case-said-attorneys-had-violated-his-right-to-present-innocence-defense
You can Google “James Byrd lynching” for numerous others. You could do the same for Ahmaud Arbery. Yes, I know what strange fruit was about. I don’t think anybody ever claimed it was a definitive definition of lynching. Did you notice the word “often” in that wall quote?
Man, this isn’t a presidential debate. What exactly do you feel like the stakes of this conversation are? I’m not pulling rank, I’m not lecturing you. Forget my skin colour, I’m somebody who has spent years writing and learning about race and race history. I’ve had thousands of conversations about it with black and white people (come on now, I’m not bragging, but do you seriously think you’ve spent as much time as I have on this topic? Really?). Where’s your decorum? Where’s your respect?
I’m not arguing that black Americans, as a population, want to be white. That would be ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as saying that white Americans want to be black.
I’m saying, and showing you with the testimony of real
human beings, that just as with members of any marginalised group, some black people have wished they didn’t face the discrimination levelled at their group. That usually means being part of the majority group instead.
Finally, and I mean this with no disrespect, your insights aren’t different. I’ve heard them from hundreds of people I’ve already spoken to. They’re the insights of somebody who has given a great deal of thought to how racial discourse impacts white people in America and very little thought to how racism affects black people in America.
They’re the insights of somebody who is sick and tired of being told that they’re racist simply because of the colour of their skin, this is perfectly understandable. But who hasn’t truly considered that some of the pushback they receive isn’t about the colour of their skin but the fact that they do have some racist attitudes.
They’re the insights of somebody who treats the idea that racism affects black people as an accusation they need to defend themselves from.
So sure, here’s a question: why do you think you receive the pushback you do for your insights? Not just from black people either.
"Steve, I don’t generally get pushback from black people"
You're the one told me you have black people trying to "pull rank" on you. I'd categorise that as pushback. Man, I'm not finger wagging. I'm not bullying you. I'm not asking you to submit. This is absolutely ridiculous.
I'm not interested in compliments if they're followed up with rudeness and, especially, mischaracterisations. I'm not perfect. I've never claimed to be. If you have a problem with something I've actually said, not your misreading, let me know, and I'll apologise. As I already did about the Fox News comment. But don't lie about me. And don't play the victim when you've been quite rude over the course of this conversation.
If you think I have nothing of value to say because I'm not American enough for you, no problem. Let's just drop it in that case. Again, just for the record, *this* is an ad hominem.