Another White Guilt Post

[David Dennison 18658]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You're sort of missing the point. You're suggesting that because SOME owned slaves, even MANY owned slaves. the sole purpose they founded America and went to war with Britain was because they had to have power over black people. I'm saying that not only isn't the case, it's absurd. But you two clowns do you. 

That is not at all the argument we are making.

[StassneyHorn 6540]

NPR has actually had articles about this. PBS had the same discussion on newshour what felt like two weeks ago on “disproportionally affects people of color” line of reporting 

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/20/892943728/professor-criticizes-book-white-fragility-as-dehumanizing-to-black-people

Edited February 25, 2021 by StassneyHorn

[Celery Man 20886]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You're sort of missing the point. You're suggesting that because SOME owned slaves, even MANY owned slaves. the sole purpose they founded America and went to war with Britain was because they had to have power over black people. I'm saying that not only isn't the case, it's absurd. But you two clowns do you. 

just to interject some whatever - one could soundly argue that if people were breaking off and founding a new country for reasons different than "keep the black people down", and their declaration of this intent was something like this - 

and when they wrote those words, what was unspoken but understood by everyone is that "men = white men", the country was nevertheless founded on the notion of white supremacy.

you're adding stuff like "sole purpose", which changes the parameters

[Captainant 27463]

8 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You're sort of missing the point. You're suggesting that because SOME owned slaves, even MANY owned slaves. the sole purpose they founded America and went to war with Britain was because they had to have power over black people. I'm saying that not only isn't the case, it's absurd. But you two clowns do you. 

I'm not arguing that the FF were for white supremacy, but you're naive if you don't think that racism was enshrined in the constitution in some ways. Ever heard of the 3/5th compromise? It took us nearly 200 years from the adoption of the constitution just to ensure that black people had a right to vote for fucks sake!

You're misrepresenting or misunderstanding the argument to distil it down to "americans revolted because they wanted to own black people" - americans wanted economic freedom. It's just that that freedom was not equal, and a shitload of states wanted to KEEP AMERICA GREAT and preserve the supremacy of whites over blacks by way of slavery. 

[David Dennison 18658]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

I'm not arguing that the FF were for white supremacy, but you're naive if you don't think that racism was enshrined in the constitution in some ways. Ever heard of the 3/5th compromise? It took us nearly 200 years from the adoption of the constitution just to ensure that black people had a right to vote for fucks sake!

You're misrepresenting or misunderstanding the argument to distil it down to "americans revolted because they wanted to own black people" - americans wanted economic freedom. It's just that that freedom was not equal, and a shitload of states wanted to KEEP AMERICA GREAT and preserve the supremacy of whites over blacks by way of slavery. 

If your definition of "American" only includes white men, you might be a white supremacist.

[SydneyCarton 47884]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm not suggesting anything. Black folks were excluded from the American Experiment from the beginning. This was a nation whose fledgling government was limited to white, male landowners because the Founding Fathers believed that white, male landowners were superior to all others. That's white supremacy.

What you said, specifically, was that the nation was founded on the principle of White Supremacy. Just because what people were in power and had notions of supremacy is not the same thing as the nation being founded FOR/BECAUSE of white supremacy. 

Listen, I bet the framers liked pussy. Most of them, at least. And I bet lots of folks where having sex back in the day. But just because it was prevalent, and just because the framers believed it was great, doesn't mean it was the REASON America was fucking founded. The word choice and differences that result fucking matter when laying this out. 

[lemonlime 5503]

2 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I listen to too much NPR than is good for me and lately I've noticed a trend. If there is something terrible going on in the country, they invariably point out that "of course this disproportionately affects people of color," and then that's what we hear about. And they are forever dredging up monstrosities from the past for...not any great reason I can see. 

I think this is extremely misguided. Covid is not racist. Poor people of every hue are affected disproportionately, and while poverty rates are highest among people of color, they are not the only poor people in America.

Which is what NPR's reporting strongly suggests. POC=poverty. Nobody white is poor, and every person of color is somehow more susceptible to every social ill out there.

Which creates a problem in two ways -- I believe it causes compassion fatigue among some whites, who eventually wonder "Why can't these dang people of color get their shit together?" and resentment from poor whites who are always left out of this "conversation," as NPR would probably call it. 

NPR has bought in whole-hog to the idea that race is the sole determinant of social outcomes in this country and that class has nothing to do with it at all. It's a pernicious message and one that in the end only perpetuates racism and has created a whole industry of (mostly white) anti-racists who go around telling other white people they are all racists for the most gratuitous reasons.

This is ugly but true, but when LBJ declared war on poverty, often as not he used little Deliverance kids in the posters and ads. He didn't want to allow the racists to contain poverty to the "people of color" of his day, so he put a snot-nosed, broken-teeth, tow-headed face on the problem, and you know what? That is not all that inaccurate. There are millions of poor white kids out there.

This is the kind of idea that gets people killed in this country though. So long as MLK kept to "his people," he was tolerated. But then once he started in on uniting the poor of all races, that was all she wrote. That was also Fred Hampton's idea, and he arrived it at is much sooner than MLK did. Here's a song from that era in Chicago -- "Mighty mighty children, unite yourself in power, for black and white power's gonna be the tower..."

"It really don't make no difference, if you cut, you gonna bleed..."

Same goes for covid and a whole bunch of other shit. 

I am not saying police brutality is not more of an issue in the Black community or anything like that. What I am saying is that this well-meaning white liberal message that the only poor people are people of color and that they are always in need of assistance is counterproductive at best and downright racism-producing at worst. It perpetuates the idea that "people of color" are "the other" and always basket cases. No good can come from that at all. 

 

Caveat, I haven't listened to NPR since Covid began and I'm not commuting .  But I don't think the message is that people of color need more assistance.  It's that people of color are more likely to not receive appropriate medical care than white people.  Hell, infant mortality for blacks in the US is more than double for whites.  And there's plenty of anecdotal stories and hard evidence of disparities in care.  Eg., black person goes to the ER acting strange and is treated as a psychiatric case, instead of testing for stroke.  There are huge disparities in how health care is administered depending on the race of the patient in the US.  It's not that race is determinative of outcomes, but your race makes you far more likely or less likely to be taken seriously by medical providers.

[SydneyCarton 47884]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'm not arguing that the FF were for white supremacy, but you're naive if you don't think that racism was enshrined in the constitution in some ways. Ever heard of the 3/5th compromise? It took us nearly 200 years from the adoption of the constitution just to ensure that black people had a right to vote for fucks sake!

You're misrepresenting or misunderstanding the argument to distil it down to "americans revolted because they wanted to own black people" - americans wanted economic freedom. It's just that that freedom was not equal, and a shitload of states wanted to KEEP AMERICA GREAT and preserve the supremacy of whites over blacks by way of slavery. 

Yes, I'm fully aware. I'm saying the country wasn't founded for the sake of White Supremacy, not that it didn't exist by many. 

Again, as I said earlier, if it was founded on the accepted notion of white supremacy, there wouldn't be an electoral college, we never would have fought a civil war, etc. 

[SydneyCarton 47884]

Ok, now I'm definitely stepping back from this fucking absurdity. 
 

[David Dennison 18658]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

What you said, specifically, was that the nation was founded on the principle of White Supremacy. Just because what people were in power and had notions of supremacy is not the same thing as the nation being founded FOR/BECAUSE of white supremacy. 

Listen, I bet the framers liked pussy. Most of them, at least. And I bet lots of folks where having sex back in the day. But just because it was prevalent, and just because the framers believed it was great, doesn't mean it was the REASON America was fucking founded. The word choice and differences that result fucking matter when laying this out. 

I never said that white supremacy was the reason it was founded.

I said it was founded on the notion that white people are superior. And it was. It it wasn't, black people would have been included in the American Experiment.

[Captainant 27463]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Ok, now I'm definitely stepping back from this fucking absurdity. 
 

Lmao when you're picking up rep from chicken sandwich for attacking a strawman, you definitely should take a chill pill. Nobody but you is claiming the nation was founded to extend white supremacy. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

To Sydney’s point, there will always be people in power (money) and people out of power (no money), and some difference, race, religion, sex, etc, is used to keep the power. I was watching the Stanley Tucci show about food in Italy. They went to a neighborhood called 100 jails, known for being super poor and full of crime, but it was being “gentrified”, or whatever the non-racial term is for non-poor people making sustainable vegetarian restaurants and yoga studios in some neighborhood. The point is this new fad restaurant, for hipsters or whatever was firebombed by the local poors or gangs. The hipsters renovated it again, and the gangs firebombed it again. They’re all Italians. They’re all the same race. This was about power and control. I’m sure someone will figure out a way to make it about race or religion or whatever. 

[SydneyCarton 47884]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lmao when you're picking up rep from chicken sandwich for attacking a strawman, you definitely should take a chill pill. Nobody but you is claiming the nation was founded to extend white supremacy. 

Oh fuck off with this. I hope someone you think unsavory  never repped one of your posts. If I dig through your posting history and find a Fozz or FakeBusiness thumbs up you must be a shit poster too. 
 

pretty sure the initial post said it was founded on white supremacy. It didn’t say it was founded by a bunch of white supremacists. Because those two things have very different meanings and only one of them is true. 

[Celery Man 20886]

13 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

To Sydney’s point, there will always be people in power (money) and people out of power (no money), and some difference, race, religion, sex, etc, is used to keep the power. I was watching the Stanley Tucci show about food in Italy. They went to a neighborhood called 100 jails, known for being super poor and full of crime, but it was being “gentrified”, or whatever the non-racial term is for non-poor people making sustainable vegetarian restaurants and yoga studios in some neighborhood. The point is this new fad restaurant, for hipsters or whatever was firebombed by the local poors or gangs. The hipsters renovated it again, and the gangs firebombed it again. They’re all Italians. They’re all the same race. This was about power and control. I’m sure someone will figure out a way to make it about race or religion or whatever. 

[TwiceHorn 31280]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

It absolutely was. No one except white men were included in the experiment. That was by design.

It's not like any place in the world was some marvel of diversity at the time.  People in that era mostly hung among themselves.  Most of the world at that time was largely preoccupied with fearing, hating, and where possible, conquering, killing, and enslaving "other."

[TexasEd 8064]

3 hours ago, NWBuck said:

My guess (and only a guess) is that there's such a correlation between race and socioeconomic status (due, in part, to unresolved and disregarded elements of America's history) that it's easier (and lazier) to have conversations about race. And, while these are important and urgent, they are (as OP identifies) incomplete.

I'd also guess that, as impossible as it is for America to deal with the racism and white supremacy in our past in present, dealing with issues of class would be even more challenging as long as we worship at the altar of capitalism. In fact, many scholars believe that the construct of race was created in the American context as a way to distract from issues of class... Poor white people wouldn't rebel against the gentry and landowners if they believe that they were on the same people due to some manufactured "racial" identity.

As it's been said- MLK wasn't assassinated when he was only working for racial equality. It wasn't until he pushed into the idea of socioeconomic equity that transcends race when he finally lost his life. 

Lots of good points.

• Switching from economics to race is lazy and it is also often counterproductive.
  • It plays into the R narrative
  • It ignores the root causes of many of the problems
  •  If we addressed it based on economic status then the triggers of reparations could not be leveraged
• Addressing fundamentally economic issues on an economic basis takes more effort and may not target the preferred ethnic/racial groups that the politicians pander to but it would be the color blind way to go.
• How would that impact things like affirmative action if the primary point was economic resources and not color of skin?

 

[Captainant 27463]

9 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Oh fuck off with this. I hope someone you think unsavory  never repped one of your posts. If I dig through your posting history and find a Fozz or FakeBusiness thumbs up you must be a shit poster too. 
 

pretty sure the initial post said it was founded on white supremacy. It didn’t say it was founded by a bunch of white supremacists. Because those two things have very different meanings and only one of them is true. 

Why do you keep jumping to attack positions people aren't taking? I didn't call you a shit poster, I said you should take a chill pill because you're attacking straw men. 

And for what it's worth, black people (aka- "non free peoples" when written) being worth 3/5 of white people is literally part of the constitution (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3) and was that way until the ratification of the 14th amendment. 

I don't know how you could argue that the nation was not founded with ideals of white supremacy engrained in it when it was literally part of the constitution. 

[Celery Man 20886]

(fucked up quoting, replying to twice)

historical whataboutism. whether other places were racial utopias or not is independent and irrelevant to the fact that white supremacy was baked into American democracy from the word "we". I would say that separating the argument of "Jefferson was a rapist who owned his children and Washington had dentures made out of slave teeth lets tear the statues down" from "America has yet to live up to what it pretends it is and we can't ignore that if we want to bring reality closer to those ideals" is probably a good idea. But the whole "other places were racist too" as a deflection to that criticism (which is probably not precisely what you're trying to do) is right smack dab in the middle of the concept of white fragility.

Edited February 25, 2021 by Celery Man

[TwiceHorn 31280]

3 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Lots of good points.

• Switching from economics to race is lazy and it is also often counterproductive.
  • It plays into the R narrative
  • It ignores the root causes of many of the problems
  •  If we addressed it based on economic status then the triggers of reparations could not be leveraged
• Addressing fundamentally economic issues on an economic basis takes more effort and may not target the preferred ethnic/racial groups that the politicians pander to but it would be the color blind way to go.
• How would that impact things like affirmative action if the primary point was economic resources and not color of skin?

 

I think this is largely true.

But I have also come to accept that there is excess economic disadvantage in the black community because of ingrained racism.  I'm still a bit uneasy with affirmative action, but I don't think it's illegitimate.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

What he said (c man) And any shitheel screaming about cancel culture can shut the fuck up until their culture experiences some cancel.  

Edited February 25, 2021 by Judge Roybeanbag

[TwiceHorn 31280]

21 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

(fucked up quoting, replying to twice)

historical whataboutism. whether other places were racial utopias or not is independent and irrelevant to the fact that white supremacy was baked into American democracy from the word "we". I would say that separating the argument of "Jefferson was a rapist who owned his children and Washington had dentures made out of slave teeth lets tear the statues down" from "America has yet to live up to what it pretends it is and we can't ignore that if we want to bring reality closer to those ideals" is probably a good idea. But the whole "other places were racist too" as a deflection to that criticism (which is probably not precisely what you're trying to do) is right smack dab in the middle of the concept of white fragility.

I don't think historical context, where any race that had the opportunity to be racially supreme exercised it and routinely dehumanized other races or ethnicities, is historical whataboutism. Most nations were formed around an "affinity" or "in" group and often to the detriment of local out groups.

That doesn't mean that supremacy should be excused or condoned, but it's a maximalist negative interpretation.

The other thing is that the "founded in white supremacy" narrative focuses unduly on the past when the real problem exists right now and is where "shame" and remedial efforts should be focused.  As Stephen King often says "done bun can't be undone."  Well, we're still cooking the bun so let's work on that.

Edited February 25, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[TexasEd 8064]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think this is largely true.

But I have also come to accept that there is excess economic disadvantage in the black community because of ingrained racism.  I'm still a bit uneasy with affirmative action, but I don't think it's illegitimate.

Right but should affirmative action benefit the Huxtable kids just because of the color of their skin or the kids growing up economically and educationally disadvantaged?  

Absent the problems of systemic racism, what is the point of affirmative action? Is it to make white people feel good about helping black people or is it to help people that are facing economic and educational disadvantages?

We can address the systemic racism with EEOC, Fair Lending Act, police and judicial reform, etc but things like college admissions and business loans might be better served based on economic status.  Stop playing poor whites and blacks against each other and make them an economic class to woo instead of racial factions.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

1 minute ago, TexasEd said:

Right but should affirmative action benefit the Huxtable kids just because of the color of their skin or the kids growing up economically and educationally disadvantaged?  

Absent the problems of systemic racism, what is the point of affirmative action? Is it to make white people feel good about helping black people or is it to help people that are facing economic and educational disadvantages?

We can address the systemic racism with EEOC, Fair Lending Act, police and judicial reform, etc but things like college admissions and business loans might be better served based on economic status.  Stop playing poor whites and blacks against each other and make them an economic class to woo instead of racial factions.

Those are some of the problems with affirmative action, which is why it still troubles me.  It's a very blunt tool that has unintended consequences and a tendency to make things into a zero sum game when I'm not sure that's a necessity.

[Celery Man 20886]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think historical context, where any race that had the opportunity to be racially supreme exercised it and routinely dehumanized other races or ethnicities, is historical whataboutism. Most nations were formed around an "affinity" or "in" group and often to the detriment of local out groups.

That doesn't mean that supremacy should be excused or condoned, but it's a maximalist negative interpretation.

I think if the discussion is around how harshly we should judge historical figures, sure. If the discussion is about where we are as a society, it's important that people understand reality. It doesn't matter if it was the norm for whole classes of people to be denied the inalienable rights that we supposedly based our society around - those people existed and their people are still here, and it's still not.. fine. And of course it's complex and race isn't the only thing and everything is multidimensional. "It was fine back then" (not trying to simplify the point you're making, but this is the point people who need reality the most are making when they talk about the same thing) goes hand in hand with "it is fine now", and it is new paint on rotten wood.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

12 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I think if the discussion is around how harshly we should judge historical figures, sure. If the discussion is about where we are as a society, it's important that people understand reality. It doesn't matter if it was the norm for whole classes of people to be denied the inalienable rights that we supposedly based our society around - those people existed and their people are still here, and it's still not.. fine. And of course it's complex and race isn't the only thing and everything is multidimensional. "It was fine back then" (not trying to simplify the point you're making, but this is the point people who need reality the most are making when they talk about the same thing) goes hand in hand with "it is fine now", and it is new paint on rotten wood.

I added a bit to my post and that reflects points of agreement.

"Whataboutism" is kind of a loaded term these days in that it is an attempt to justify one set of actions by another set of actions undertaken by someone else, usually an opponent.  Understanding the history, as well as the historical context, needn't or shouldn't be whataboutism.  And it's certainly not an excuse to ignore current problems, whatever their origins.

Also, the "founded on white supremacy" narrative expresses a kind of "born in sin" nihilism that I don't think is particularly productive to moving forward.  It may be that it is not possible to move forward, but I don't think we should stop trying.

Edited February 26, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[David Dennison 18658]

52 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Oh fuck off with this. I hope someone you think unsavory  never repped one of your posts. If I dig through your posting history and find a Fozz or FakeBusiness thumbs up you must be a shit poster too. 
 

pretty sure the initial post said it was founded on white supremacy. It didn’t say it was founded by a bunch of white supremacists. Because those two things have very different meanings and only one of them is true. 

The initial relevant post (mine) said it was founded on the notion of white supremacy. And it was. That is a historically accurate statement.

[David Dennison 18658]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Those are some of the problems with affirmative action, which is why it still troubles me.  It's a very blunt tool that has unintended consequences and a tendency to make things into a zero sum game when I'm not sure that's a necessity.

Setting aside affirmative action for the moment, what else can the United States do to minimize racial disparities?

[burntorangebongos 10681]

1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

Caveat, I haven't listened to NPR since Covid began and I'm not commuting .  But I don't think the message is that people of color need more assistance.  It's that people of color are more likely to not receive appropriate medical care than white people.  Hell, infant mortality for blacks in the US is more than double for whites.  And there's plenty of anecdotal stories and hard evidence of disparities in care.  Eg., black person goes to the ER acting strange and is treated as a psychiatric case, instead of testing for stroke.  There are huge disparities in how health care is administered depending on the race of the patient in the US.  It's not that race is determinative of outcomes, but your race makes you far more likely or less likely to be taken seriously by medical providers.

I listen to NPR often and I think the OP is a wuss for taking it the way he does. They are reporting the fact that it is affecting people of color more PERIOD.  Maybe you can take it with a sigh of relief because the numbers are in your favor. For whatever reason, middle class Hispanics and blacks(not just poors) are dying at higher numbers. Maybe because of their underlying health factors, how healthcare is administered to them or whatever the reason, the truth is the truth. Yet another one of my Hispanic brother-in-law's brothers is dying of covid. His lungs have collapsed in this past hour and he likely will not make it. In decent shape, about 58 and pretty much working middle class in a third world part of our third world state. I already had a different brother-in-law lose his brother too.  Them is the grim facts my peeps are dealing with and all NPR is doing is telling it like it is. If that fatigues you or gives you white guilt, you are living in this world wrong. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

This thread seems fitting for this which happened today. 
 

 

[Michael Knight 12898]

poor white people believe covid is a hoax so it doesn't impact them. nprs audience is upper middle class white people who are less impacted by covid and are less likely to know people impacted by covid so its good to get out of their bubble even if it annoys you.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Michael Knight

[TwiceHorn 31280]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Setting aside affirmative action for the moment, what else can the United States do to minimize racial disparities?

Well, it's not an easy problem.  TexasEd mentions a few things, like thoroughgoing review of all government programs for de jure and de facto racial advantages/disadvantages. We seem to be able to point these things out with regularity and frequency, but they never seem to get addressed.

I think "hearts and minds" are very important, but that's probably not something the government can deal with very effectively.  I think there are a lot of people that would accept that "blacks have gotten and continue to get a shitty deal here," but when you start hitting them up with assessment of blame narratives, they shut down.

A lot of people aren't ready to accept that the founding fathers were pretty flawed, and it's wholly unnecessary for them to do that in order to be inclusive and nondiscriminatory, or at least moreso.

[NWBuck 8547]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it's not an easy problem.  TexasEd mentions a few things, like thoroughgoing review of all government programs for de jure and de facto racial advantages/disadvantages. We seem to be able to point these things out with regularity and frequency, but they never seem to get addressed.

I think "hearts and minds" are very important, but that's probably not something the government can deal with very effectively.  I think there are a lot of people that would accept that "blacks have gotten and continue to get a shitty deal here," but when you start hitting them up with assessment of blame narratives, they shut down.

A lot of people aren't ready to accept that the founding fathers were pretty flawed, and it's wholly unnecessary for them to do that in order to be inclusive and nondiscriminatory, or at least moreso.

This is a great point... although I wonder if it's possible to have an equal playing field (by removing some of the de jure and de facto racial advantages/disadvantages) without also making sure that we're all at the same starting point (undoing the legacy of our racialized history). That's where we get overwhelmed and bogged down and just give up.

[Helobious 9481]

4 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I listen to too much NPR than is good for me and lately I've noticed a trend. If there is something terrible going on in the country, they invariably point out that "of course this disproportionately affects people of color," and then that's what we hear about. And they are forever dredging up monstrosities from the past for...not any great reason I can see. 

I think this is extremely misguided. Covid is not racist. Poor people of every hue are affected disproportionately, and while poverty rates are highest among people of color, they are not the only poor people in America.

Which is what NPR's reporting strongly suggests. POC=poverty. Nobody white is poor, and every person of color is somehow more susceptible to every social ill out there.

 

Stopped reading here, so much is wrong about what you say.

Covid fucks up POC worse than whites. Period. Genetics plays a big role in how it attacks the body. It’s actually the opposite of what you say. It doesn’t care how much money you have. It cares about your genetic makeup, a lot.
 

Your last paragraph brought the lulz. Talk about a strawman.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

Caveat, I haven't listened to NPR since Covid began and I'm not commuting .  But I don't think the message is that people of color need more assistance.  It's that people of color are more likely to not receive appropriate medical care than white people.  Hell, infant mortality for blacks in the US is more than double for whites.  And there's plenty of anecdotal stories and hard evidence of disparities in care.  Eg., black person goes to the ER acting strange and is treated as a psychiatric case, instead of testing for stroke.  There are huge disparities in how health care is administered depending on the race of the patient in the US.  It's not that race is determinative of outcomes, but your race makes you far more likely or less likely to be taken seriously by medical providers.

One of my trio of pandemic Internet girlfriends ([very] humblebrag, no pics) says the same things go for women of all colors. Our healthcare system is built on research conducted by and in large part on men, with women as an afterthought. It's not so much a problem at the level of caregiving as it is the R&D underpinning the whole system. She cited how women having heart attacks are very often misdiagnosed, how meds are scaled toward men, and so on. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

3 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Stopped reading here, so much is wrong about what you say.

Covid fucks up POC worse than whites. Period. Genetics plays a big role in how it attacks the body. It’s actually the opposite of what you say. It doesn’t care how much money you have. It cares about your genetic makeup, a lot.
 

Your last paragraph brought the lulz. Talk about a strawman.

Then why is not ravaging Africa and South America and Asia. Gonna need to see some links, hoss. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

23 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

I listen to NPR often and I think the OP is a wuss for taking it the way he does. They are reporting the fact that it is affecting people of color more PERIOD.  Maybe you can take it with a sigh of relief because the numbers are in your favor. For whatever reason, middle class Hispanics and blacks(not just poors) are dying at higher numbers. Maybe because of their underlying health factors, how healthcare is administered to them or whatever the reason, the truth is the truth. Yet another one of my Hispanic brother-in-law's brothers is dying of covid. His lungs have collapsed in this past hour and he likely will not make it. In decent shape, about 58 and pretty much working middle class in a third world part of our third world state. I already had a different brother-in-law lose his brother too.  Them is the grim facts my peeps are dealing with and all NPR is doing is telling it like it is. If that fatigues you or gives you white guilt, you are living in this world wrong. 

I've got family of all races and social classes. It hasn't hit any of us any harder than any of the rest of us. My daughter has it right now and it's almost certain that I do too. (Test pending.) I just don't buy that the Covid virus is objectively racist. That is one point I am making.

The other is by implying this daily multliple times over the course of three hours is not only false but fails to address the real issues -- poverty, shitty working conditions, cramped living space and so on.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

It absolutely was. No one except white men were included in the experiment. That was by design.

No it was designed by religion, and money.  Escaping persecution or wanting to strike it rich in the new world.

Exactly what % of English were black in 1600 ?  There's a good part of your answer.  The country was not founded on white supremacy as much as you fervently wish it to be.  

There was no grand design as much as you think there was.

 

 

[Helobious 9481]

4 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Then why is not ravaging Africa and South America and Asia. Gonna need to see some links, hoss. 

Diabetes, hypertension, & obesity rates in those places probably pale in comparison to here. Lots of poor white people have those issues here, yet their communities weren’t ravaged nearly as bad as poor minority communities.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-race-ethnicity.html

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

I'm not arguing that the FF were for white supremacy, but you're naive if you don't think that racism was enshrined in the constitution in some ways. Ever heard of the 3/5th compromise? It took us nearly 200 years from the adoption of the constitution just to ensure that black people had a right to vote for fucks sake!

You're misrepresenting or misunderstanding the argument to distil it down to "americans revolted because they wanted to own black people" - americans wanted economic freedom. It's just that that freedom was not equal, and a shitload of states wanted to KEEP AMERICA GREAT and preserve the supremacy of whites over blacks by way of slavery. 

It took women how many years to get the vote ?  White Europeans for sure felt they were the most civilized race in the world, Chinese believe Euros were savage, Arabs have their own thoughts on who's the most civilized / greatest race . Point is every race is racist in its history.  The notion that white people have a corner on it is a concept that is patently false.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

3 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Diabetes, hypertension, & obesity rates in those places probably pale in comparison to here. Lots of poor white people have those issues here, yet their communities weren’t ravaged nearly as bad as poor minority communities.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-race-ethnicity.html

True in some places but not in others, like the Pacific Islands, including Hawaii. You'd think that if Covid truly had it in for people of color Hawaii would be an epicenter or mortality, a perfect storm of tourists and drunken sailors superspreading their asses off, and a non-white population that very often is obese and diabetic suffering the consequences. But it's just not. 

[Nivek 16859]

Y'all are fucking dumb.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

True in some places but not in others, like the Pacific Islands, including Hawaii. You'd think that if Covid truly had it in for people of color Hawaii would be an epicenter or mortality, a perfect storm of tourists and drunken sailors superspreading their asses off, and a non-white population that very often is obese and diabetic suffering the consequences. But it's just not. 

Thank SPAM !!

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it's not an easy problem.  TexasEd mentions a few things, like thoroughgoing review of all government programs for de jure and de facto racial advantages/disadvantages. We seem to be able to point these things out with regularity and frequency, but they never seem to get addressed.

I think "hearts and minds" are very important, but that's probably not something the government can deal with very effectively.  I think there are a lot of people that would accept that "blacks have gotten and continue to get a shitty deal here," but when you start hitting them up with assessment of blame narratives, they shut down.

A lot of people aren't ready to accept that the founding fathers were pretty flawed, and it's wholly unnecessary for them to do that in order to be inclusive and nondiscriminatory, or at least moreso.

While good points, you didn’t get the one he’s hunting for. 

[tantric superman 4667]

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

The legacy of African slavery is the biggest issue this country faces and nothing else comes close. 

Sarcasm?

Which of these dangers would you eliminate first?

1) Climate change? 2) the threat of nuclear annihilation?, 3) The social disruption caused by the lessening need for human labor? 4) the legacy of African slavery in the US (presumably the elimination of wealth and income disparities between white and black)?

[TexasEd 8064]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Setting aside affirmative action for the moment, what else can the United States do to minimize racial disparities?

Define the disparities.  I think each of them needs to be addressed in a manner appropriate to the root cause.  Is it a color of skin discrimination issue, a disparity in educational opportunity, or a lack of economic opportunity?

I think the first one should be dealt with head on as a race issue.  The second two are not fundamentally racial issues.  The may be prevalent in communities with minorities but they can and do affect whites as well.  They should be dealt with as educational and economic problems not race problems.

For economic disparities the government has programs to support small businesses, minority owned businesses and woman owned businesses to try and create a more diverse business community but do they really?  In practice I have seen many cases where a wealthy family funds the startup of his wife or daughter to own a business.  Maybe they make a person of color a part owner.  That business gets an advantage in contract bids but it is essentially benefitting the wealthy family that had the means to set up the business to begin with while the guy starting his business from scratch with less money is at a disadvantage.  Sure there are success stories but the system is gamed because it is based on gender or racial terms. Can we find a better way to encourage small business entrepreneurs?

Same thing with Education.  Should the Huxtable kids (Cosby) or Banks kids (Fresh Prince) get preference at higher learning admissions when they went to private prep schools over the kids from lower economic standing working through public schools?  Do the programs to advance education for the poor need to have race as a component in deciding where the money goes or can it be based on educational opportunity only? Do scholarships need to have race as a component or just need based?

I think that when we treat educational or economic opportunity issues as race issues we create new problems as a result.

Edited February 26, 2021 by TexasEd

[tantric superman 4667]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Setting aside affirmative action for the moment, what else can the United States do to minimize racial disparities?

Eliminate all race based criteria in education and government contracting and replace with economic based affirmative action. All social programs should be designed to affirmatively help those in economic need.  To the extent persons of color make up a higher proportion of persons in need, they will receive a higher proportion of government aid.  (Poor people should get tuition and room and board and stipend to go to a public university/vocational college with no loan burdens.)

While this is occurring, establish programs in the Dept. of Education and DOL and other relevant executive departments that focus on how current economic affirmative action will fall short of combating disparities due to historic discrimination and injustice and create programs to resolve those shortfalls.

The idea would be that we would get massive consensus on color blind aid to the currently economically disadvantaged, and still have our pissing matches when we deal with more complex matters based on historical injustices that took root long before any of us were born and whose advantage or disadvantage due to that injustice are hard to measure.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

I mean if you WANT to have white guilt about something....go check out "Whose been vaxxed" thread and get back to me here.

(ducks and runs)

[gmr548 16513]

I listen to too much NPR than is good for me and lately I've noticed a trend. If there is something terrible going on in the country, they invariably point out that "of course this disproportionately affects people of color," and then that's what we hear about. And they are forever dredging up monstrosities from the past for...not any great reason I can see. 
I think this is extremely misguided. Covid is not racist. Poor people of every hue are affected disproportionately, and while poverty rates are highest among people of color, they are not the only poor people in America.
Which is what NPR's reporting strongly suggests. POC=poverty. Nobody white is poor, and every person of color is somehow more susceptible to every social ill out there.
Which creates a problem in two ways -- I believe it causes compassion fatigue among some whites, who eventually wonder "Why can't these dang people of color get their shit together?" and resentment from poor whites who are always left out of this "conversation," as NPR would probably call it. 
NPR has bought in whole-hog to the idea that race is the sole determinant of social outcomes in this country and that class has nothing to do with it at all. It's a pernicious message and one that in the end only perpetuates racism and has created a whole industry of (mostly white) anti-racists who go around telling other white people they are all racists for the most gratuitous reasons.
This is ugly but true, but when LBJ declared war on poverty, often as not he used little Deliverance kids in the posters and ads. He didn't want to allow the racists to contain poverty to the "people of color" of his day, so he put a snot-nosed, broken-teeth, tow-headed face on the problem, and you know what? That is not all that inaccurate. There are millions of poor white kids out there.
This is the kind of idea that gets people killed in this country though. So long as MLK kept to "his people," he was tolerated. But then once he started in on uniting the poor of all races, that was all she wrote. That was also Fred Hampton's idea, and he arrived it at is much sooner than MLK did. Here's a song from that era in Chicago -- "Mighty mighty children, unite yourself in power, for black and white power's gonna be the tower..."
"It really don't make no difference, if you cut, you gonna bleed..."
Same goes for covid and a whole bunch of other shit. 
I am not saying police brutality is not more of an issue in the Black community or anything like that. What I am saying is that this well-meaning white liberal message that the only poor people are people of color and that they are always in need of assistance is counterproductive at best and downright racism-producing at worst. It perpetuates the idea that "people of color" are "the other" and always basket cases. No good can come from that at all. 
 

You’re right about the root cause being poverty rather than skin color. However, in a terms of a macro level analysis of this country, “POC = poverty,” while obviously a rough generalization, is not untrue.

[David Dennison 18658]

On 2/25/2021 at 8:50 PM, tantric superman said:

Eliminate all race based criteria in education and government contracting and replace with economic based affirmative action. All social programs should be designed to affirmatively help those in economic need.  To the extent persons of color make up a higher proportion of persons in need, they will receive a higher proportion of government aid.  (Poor people should get tuition and room and board and stipend to go to a public university/vocational college with no loan burdens.)

While this is occurring, establish programs in the Dept. of Education and DOL and other relevant executive departments that focus on how current economic affirmative action will fall short of combating disparities due to historic discrimination and injustice and create programs to resolve those shortfalls.

The idea would be that we would get massive consensus on color blind aid to the currently economically disadvantaged, and still have our pissing matches when we deal with more complex matters based on historical injustices that took root long before any of us were born and whose advantage or disadvantage due to that injustice are hard to measure.

And when racial disparity, particularly between black and white, continues to plague this country, then what?

[David Dennison 18658]

On 2/25/2021 at 7:42 PM, tantric superman said:

Sarcasm?

Which of these dangers would you eliminate first?

1) Climate change? 2) the threat of nuclear annihilation?, 3) The social disruption caused by the lessening need for human labor? 4) the legacy of African slavery in the US (presumably the elimination of wealth and income disparities between white and black)?

And incarceration rates, arrest rates, infant mortality rates, life expectancy, etc., etc.