Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT

[David Dennison 18922]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It was in a thread with the word in the subject line (who was also quoting someone else).  Started by one of our resident liberals.  Some selective outrage about me responding in kind.  I don’t use the word.  It’s disgusting and makes the user look like trash.  No one I know does either.  

You are an upper middle class country club white boy from Houston and you expect people to believe that?

Come on.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

You are an upper middle class country club white boy from Houston and you expect people to believe that?

Come on.

You think people in the last couple decades use that word in locker rooms?  You have a lot of misperceptions of people.   

[mchookem 16336]

most of us thought most people didn't use that word anymore, i know i did. 

that was frankly my biggest shock from 2015-16 onward...i was one of those apparently naive people who really thought this country had moved beyond the ugly racist (and sexist and homophobic) shadows of our past.

sure, backwoods enclaves in MS and ID and whatnot still existed, we all knew that. but in public? in polite society? nooo, we're way past that!

except not. it has been horrifying and shocking just how quickly the human muck bubbled up to the surface.

all it took was a leader to set the tone.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, mchookem said:

most of us thought most people didn't use that word anymore, i know i did. 

that was frankly my biggest shock from 2015-16 onward...i was one of those apparently naive people who really thought this country had moved beyond the ugly racist (and sexist and homophobic) shadows of our past.

sure, backwoods enclaves in MS and ID and whatnot still existed, we all knew that. but in public? in polite society? nooo, we're way past that!

except not. it has been horrifying and shocking just how quickly the human muck bubbled up to the surface.

all it took was a leader to set the tone.

If you were around that then you should find better people to associate with.  I wouldn’t tolerate that.  

[mchookem 16336]

 

i didn't watch the weekly pep rallies but i still knew they were happening. and apparently still are. 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

8 minutes ago, mchookem said:

 

i didn't watch the weekly pep rallies but i still knew they were happening. and apparently still are. 

 

You said it was happening in polite society.  You need to choose better people to be around if that was happening in your polite society.  I have difficulty believing you actually heard anyone say it in your company unless you hang out with trash.   Maybe you do.  Or maybe you’re making shit up about what’s said in your “polite society”.  

Edited March 28, 2022 by Johnny Sack

[David Dennison 18922]

15 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If you were around that then you should find better people to associate with.  I wouldn’t tolerate that.  

How many black members does your country club have right now?

[mchookem 16336]

im not playing your stupid game. you know exactly what im talking about and so does everyone else reading this. 

fine, i concede it's a stretch to call Trumplandia 'polite society'. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

10 minutes ago, mchookem said:

im not playing your stupid game. you know exactly what im talking about and so does everyone else reading this. 

fine, i concede it's a stretch to call Trumplandia 'polite society'. 

Where are you hearing racial slurs?  Random Trumpers are saying it around you?  I’m really curious about this?

How do you know they are trump supporters?  Do they wear red hats and say “this is MAGA country”?

[Patron 230]

13 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Where are you hearing racial slurs?  Random Trumpers are saying it around you?  I’m really curious about this?

How do you know they are trump supporters?  Do they wear red hats and say “this is MAGA country”?

I hunt in the panhandle every year and hear the n-word and worse. Nobody bats an eye upon those expressions. Hell, one afternoon I walked into a cafe and this idiot had his face in front of the tv repeating monkey at the screen. Nothing but laughs from onlookers.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

11 minutes ago, Patron said:

I hunt in the panhandle every year and hear the n-word and worse. Nobody bats an eye upon those expressions. Hell, one afternoon I walked into a cafe and this idiot had his face in front of the tv repeating monkey at the screen. Nothing but laughs from onlookers.

You routinely or at least annually hear random people you don’t know dropping n bombs in front of you while you’re on a hunting trip?

Do you not speak up?  Or find different places to hang out?

 

[Thatguy 8747]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Enough died off.  People don’t live forever.  

   Bwhahahaha

 

[Patron 230]

31 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You routinely or at least annually hear random people you don’t know dropping n bombs in front of you while you’re on a hunting trip?

Do you not speak up?  Or find different places to hang out?

 

It gets taken care of.

[workswithseed 2112]

51 minutes ago, Patron said:

It gets taken care of.

[Patron 230]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Ha, I"m not usually a loose cannon but I will speak my mind. That's enough to corral racist pussy's.

[Nivek 16945]

12 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

It was in a thread with the word in the subject line (who was also quoting someone else).  Started by one of our resident liberals.  Some selective outrage about me responding in kind.  I don’t use the word.  It’s disgusting and makes the user look like trash.  No one I know does either.  

Not even the black friend?  

Link  If this is what you are commenting on?  Which started because the poster was mocking the right wing guy whining about not being able to use hateful language?  Yet, you felt compelled to write the word out in that sentence which you do not cite and claim is a quote (Post #22).   Gil typed it out to make a point, and while I see what he was trying to do, I also do not think it was necessary in that context.   And then you responded with it again (Post #38) in the thread.  That time you weren't even quoting someone, it just seemed to flow naturally from you.   In every instance where you typed it on here, it was unnecessary which is contrary to what I underlined in your quote above.  That was 2 instances in one search with about 2 minutes of effort, which seems to belie your claim. 

I personally do not see a reason to use a word that hurts and insults or demeans people (or groups of people) at their intrinsic identity-level.   

 

  

 

[wildcat09 29355]

It's still very funny to see the (probably fake) black crime stats guy get very angry about the idea that he or his friends would ever use the n word. 

[TurkeyChew 383]

19 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, no.  That's not true at all.  While it might be true that financial class has historically been the causal differentiator, those who discriminate see it largely as an issue of skin color.  They are ignorant and they don't know the difference.

You know that.

Negged.

I don't agree with you. I don't think that we see today, in general, has its roots in old school racism of "the white skin race is inherently and genetically superior to the black skin race" as supported by fraud science like phrenology and eugenics and the like. I think what we see today is more a discrimination based on behaviors and culture that have its root cause in poverty and a lack of resources (e.g. vulgarity, antisocial behaviors and thinking, crime, violence, lack of social mores and decorum, etc.). 

The problem is we too easily conflate this classism with racism because, ironically, of real racism. There is a big overlap and intersectionality of poor people who are black because of a past society which was racist (again, the real racism that said whites were better than blacks by virtue of just being white in a sort of begged question, backed up by what is overwhelmingly accepted as pseudo-science).

I hope that explains my point better so you don't continue thinking I wasn't serious. Further, to you point, I'm sure there are still people or populations in the deep south or Orange, Texas or other places like that who still are traditional racists, but for the general population and society I think it's this classism that is the real culprit.

Pivoting a bit now:

@Catdaddyhorn I read this article today and thought it was up your alley. A good read involving the intersection between food desserts, poor black people in the south and a "red lining" of healthcare availability that has this zip code in South Carolina being the capital of amputations. From what I've read about your posts and interests, I thought you'd appreciate the read (if you haven't already read it): https://www.thestate.com/news/state/south-carolina/article258302413.html

[wildcat09 29355]

Racism existed for hundreds of years before anyone figured out how to use fake science to justify it.

[TurkeyChew 383]

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Racism existed for hundreds of years before anyone figured out how to use fake science to justify it.

I don't think you'd see so many racists throwing out the well-worn cliche of "and I'm not racist, I have black friends" if racism in America today was based on the idea that blacks are inferior to whites for genetic/skin/biology reasons versus what is perceived as intolerable poor people behaviors and baggage. 

IMO, when someone says "I'm not a racist, I have a black friend or I dated a black person" what they are essentially saying is that black people who are like me in behavior and values, etc. are cool-- it's the "other ones" with the confusing and scary foreign behaviors that are inferior because they just don't get it and something must be wrong with them. That's seems classist.

[wildcat09 29355]

All you're actually saying is that racists don't like acknowledging that they're racist.

[Captainant 27680]

22 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

IMO, when someone says "I'm not a racist, I have a black friend or I dated a black person" what they are essentially saying is that black people who are like me in behavior and values, etc. are cool-- it's the "other ones" with the confusing and scary foreign behaviors that are inferior because they just don't get it and something must be wrong with them. That's seems classist.

"You're one of the good ones" is a classic racist trope, whether or know you're aware of it lol. Further, your substitution of economic status for class is literally the entire point of the southern strategy. Here's your boy Lee Atwater himself laying it out (primary source citation)

Quote

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****r, n****r, n****r." By 1968 you can't say "n****r"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N****r, n****r."

The Reagan-era attacks on all things social welfare, and the goddamn war on drugs, were designed to harm black people more than it harmed white people. Because more black people live in poverty conditions than white people in the US. But let's not start examining why black folks in the US have a worse starting hand than white folks, otherwise that may hurt your fee-fees

Edited March 28, 2022 by Captainant

[Catdaddyhorn 3446]

51 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

I don't agree with you. I don't think that we see today, in general, has its roots in old school racism of "the white skin race is inherently and genetically superior to the black skin race" as supported by fraud science like phrenology and eugenics and the like. I think what we see today is more a discrimination based on behaviors and culture that have its root cause in poverty and a lack of resources (e.g. vulgarity, antisocial behaviors and thinking, crime, violence, lack of social mores and decorum, etc.). 

The problem is we too easily conflate this classism with racism because, ironically, of real racism. There is a big overlap and intersectionality of poor people who are black because of a past society which was racist (again, the real racism that said whites were better than blacks by virtue of just being white in a sort of begged question, backed up by what is overwhelmingly accepted as pseudo-science).

I hope that explains my point better so you don't continue thinking I wasn't serious. Further, to you point, I'm sure there are still people or populations in the deep south or Orange, Texas or other places like that who still are traditional racists, but for the general population and society I think it's this classism that is the real culprit.

Pivoting a bit now:

@Catdaddyhorn I read this article today and thought it was up your alley. A good read involving the intersection between food desserts, poor black people in the south and a "red lining" of healthcare availability that has this zip code in South Carolina being the capital of amputations. From what I've read about your posts and interests, I thought you'd appreciate the read (if you haven't already read it): https://www.thestate.com/news/state/south-carolina/article258302413.html

I think what you're saying is a part of it, but people don't distill information or reason in a nuanced manner like that. They make assumptions prior to any supporting evidence being put forth. They attach what they see to what they already believe. So while classist reaction to poverty may be a core component to anti-blackness, people aren't exactly asking for W2s before they react and discriminate as evidenced by the article you linked, by Wells Fargo handing out rejection mortgage rejection letters like they're Dikembe Mutumbo, or by any of the myriad of examples we see in American society where black skin causes a negative reaction from everyone else (including black people).

Edited March 28, 2022 by Catdaddyhorn

[TurkeyChew 383]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

"You're one of the good ones" is a classic racist trope, whether or know you're aware of it lol. Further, your substitution of economic status for class is literally the entire point of the southern strategy. Here's your boy Lee Atwater himself laying it out (primary source citation)

The Reagan-era attacks on all things social welfare, and the goddamn war on drugs, were designed to harm black people more than it harmed white people. Because more black people live in poverty conditions than white people in the US. But let's not start examining why black folks in the US have a worse starting hand than white folks, otherwise that may hurt your fee-fees

I did consider socio-economic status and class as synonyms. Apparently, academics draw a fine-lined distinction so that is technically not correct. Sorry for that and I learned something.

I see nothing wrong with anything you've said, so if you are trying to nit-pick a fight, I'm not sure it will be eventful.

[TurkeyChew 383]

4 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

I think what you're saying is a part of it, but people don't distill information or reason in a nuanced manner like that. They make assumptions prior to any supporting evidence being put forth. They attach what they see to what they already believe. So while classist reaction to poverty may be a core component to anti-blackness, people aren't exactly asking for W2s before they react and discriminate as evidenced by the article you linked, Well Fargo handing out rejection mortgage rejection letters like they're Dikembe Mutumbo, or any of the myriad of examples we see in American society where black skin causes a negative reaction from everyone else (including black people).

Agree, which is kinda what I was saying. "Racism" is really today black skin being a heuristic or mental short cut for "poor" which then equals = inferior and undesirable. The irony being that racism/systematic racism is what has created the situation where this is the case today (e.g. black people being more likely to be poor).

At any rate, did you read that article? Did my "manual algorithm" work in that it was interesting and up your alley based off what I've read you post?

Edited March 28, 2022 by TurkeyChew

[jimmyjazz 45975]

No.  Some of the most virulent white racists are poor.  This is not a class issue at its root.  Stop it.

[Catdaddyhorn 3446]

10 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

Agree, which is kinda what I was saying. "Racism" is really today black skin being a heuristic or mental short cut for "poor" which then equals = inferior and undesirable. The irony being that racism/systematic racism is what has created the situation where this is the case today (e.g. black people being more likely to be poor).

At any rate, did you read that article? Did my "manual algorithm" work in that it was interesting and up your alley based off what I've read you post?

Yeah but you forget all the preprogramming in American society. You can literally go back over 400 years of propaganda libeling "black behavior". Whether it's the docile and servile nature of black people that America was fed for the 1st 200 years of its existence. Or the violent and raping propaganda that has been fed to America over it's post slavery existence. All of that nonsense plays into American views on black people, not just a reflexive reaction to the dysfunction sustained poverty induces within people. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Catdaddyhorn

[TurkeyChew 383]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

No.  Some of the most virulent white racists are poor.  This is not a class issue at its root.  Stop it.

Of course some are. I said as much before and said of course that is the case, especially in the poor south.

But we are talking about at the macro level and in aggregate of what racism looks like today. If you are stuck in first gear and your main conceptualization of racism is the 1950's stars-and-bars in Bamachick's hometown, then conversations around racism in the workplace and at banks is going to be lost on you. So you stop or continue to try and dismiss my point, which catdaddy has cosigned, but it's weird you are so declarative on this issue and think your opinion is definitive. 

[TurkeyChew 383]

2 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Yeah but you forget all the preprogramming in American society. You can literally go back over 400 years of propaganda libeling "black behavior". Whether it's the docile and servile nature of black people that America was fed for the 1st 200 years of its existence. Or the violent and raping propaganda that has been fed to America over it's post slavery existence. All of that nonsense plays into American views on black people, not just a reflexive reaction to the dysfunction sustained poverty induces within people. 

Well said, thank you. What did you think about that article?

[Catdaddyhorn 3446]

1 minute ago, TurkeyChew said:

Well said, thank you. What did you think about that article?

Havent read it all yet. Just skimmed through it. 

[wildcat09 29355]

4 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Yeah but you forget all the preprogramming in American society. You can literally go back over 400 years of propaganda libeling "black behavior". Whether it's the docile and servile nature of black people that America was fed for the 1st 200 years of its existence. Or the violent and raping propaganda that has been fed to America over it's post slavery existence. All of that nonsense plays into American views on black people, not just a reflexive reaction to the dysfunction sustained poverty induces within people. 

The key point is that, while all of that plays into white peoples' views on black people, it's a rationalization of, not a reason for racism. If you showed Johnny Sack a bunch of verified statistics tomorrow that white people are actually more violent than black people, it wouldn't change anything. Even if he didn't dismiss the validity of the evidence you showed him, he'd just come up with a new rationalization.

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

On 3/27/2022 at 9:14 AM, Catdaddyhorn said:

The idea that one would view himself as white or biracial and the other would view himself as black as if they are 2 distinct species of human is just a ridiculous and obviously socially constructed distinction.

Darwin published On The Origin of Species in 1859. Before that no one knew we were all the same species and many people continued to believe we weren’t the same species long after that. Some believe it still. It’s more a construct of ignorance than a social one. Maybe I’m missing your point but for a very long time people simply believed that differences in outward appearance and differences in culture were indications of differences in speciation. 

[Catdaddyhorn 3446]

8 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Darwin published On The Origin of Species in 1859. Before that no one knew we were all the same species and many people continued to believe we weren’t the same species long after that. Some believe it still. It’s more a construct of ignorance than a social one. Maybe I’m missing your point but for a very long time people simply believed that differences in outward appearance and differences in culture were indications of differences in speciation. 

You cut off some additional context to the post of mine that you quoted

On 3/27/2022 at 8:14 AM, Catdaddyhorn said:

And using that lone phenotype to mark difference is absolute nonsense. Take the new coach of the Miami Dolphins, Mike McDaniel and someone like say Malcom Gladwell. The idea that one would view himself as white or biracial and the other would view himself as black as if they are 2 distinct species of human is just a ridiculous and obviously socially constructed distinction. Or take someone from Eritrea or Ethiopia and someone from Nigeria or the Cameroon. Most people would base their skin color as the most important connecting factor between these people from East and West Africa. Whereas genetic inquiry would probably result in the Ethiopian having closer kinship with someone from Italy and the Nigerian having closer kinship with someone from Puerto Rico like Jennifer Lopez than they would with each other despite their skin color.

I'm referring to 2 specific people.  Both of whom have 1 black grand parent, yet because of the difference in their socialization they identify as 2 different races. 

 

[Sawbonz 27577]

[TwiceHorn 31495]

17 hours ago, TurkeyChew said:

black skin being a heuristic or mental short cut for "poor"

But you see, that is racism in its purest form right there.  Prejudgment based on skin color.

It might not be quite as invidious as "N*gg*r, n*gg*r," and it's a bit more nuanced, if you will, but it's still a harmful way of thinking.

I still wrestle with judgment based on dialect and other "undesirable" elements of underclass culture and making judgments based on those things, independent of skin color.  I may have inherited that from my parents, who came from the country (SW Arkansas) and went to college then moved to Dallas, and tried to eradicate the "aint's" and "caint's"  and other elements of hick dialect from their speech and behavior and tended to be critical of family and others that continued to speak that way.  The irony of it is that Dallas, and Texas more generally, are full of that sort of ignorance, but they feared being labeled rubes and hicks.

Right here on surly, fucking with people because of their grammar and spelling mistakes is big business and we're pretty much all whitey.  And I tend to approve of that.  And disapprove of the "elevation" of some elements of culture that are identified with underclasses, and often the black underclass.  Ironically, the black underclass got most of that from poor southern white trash.

At some point, that line of thinking crosses from some sort of elitism or classism into white supremacy thinking.  Not Klan white supremacy thinking, but an insidious form nevertheless.

Long story short, I think I get what you're trying to say, but I think you're off a bit.

Edited March 29, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31495]

Kind of a question for @Catdaddyhorn and those more familiar with the scholarship.

Earlier, you stated that race, as a basis for "otherism," was "invented" some 5-600 years ago when tribalism began to dissolve, or probably more accurately, tribes lost their significance as more modern territorial governments came to power.

I think I kind of object to using the term "invented," because it implies some evil conspiracy, or something beyond a less desirable characteristic of human nature.  I think it's human nature to see differences and to ascribe otherness to them.  At one point, the main basis for that was tribe/not tribe.  But, I'm going to guess that in most regions of the world, the tribes were all pretty ethnically similar.  North Africa and the Middle East being exceptions.

So, in places like northern Europe, where tribes dissolved, those folks had fewer bases for othering locals.  But throw in some Mongol or Moorish invaders, and boom, you have otherism based on ethnicity/appearance, and hostility. And off we go.

Also, I think the proximity of larger groups of different ethnicities makes otherism between those groups easier than if there is a gradual assimilation, or the presence of a spectrum of ethnicities not necessarily associated with a particular tribe, as was often the case in North Africa and the eastern Med/Middle East.  But if the ethnicity is associated with a tribe and there is hostility between those tribes, look out.

Which all goes back to my theory (that I am sure is not original, but I didn't get it anywhere), that the American experience with racism is unique and uniquely awful because we had a whole tribe, slaves, composed entirely of black people, that were othered and subjugated by the dominant tribe, and "overnight," the subjugated tribe was dissolved and "made equal," yet you had this skin color that immediately identified them as former members of the tribe.  And, a whole line of thought dedicated to and justifying the belief that that tribe was inferior to the dominant tribe.  That just wasn't going to go down well, I don't care where it happened or who the tribes/ethnic groups were.

None of which justifies or excuses any of it.  And the dominant tribe is responsible for creating those conditions.  But I don't think Americans were any more "evil" about it than most of the rest of the world, certainly the western world.  But circumstances made it a shit sandwich of epic proportions.

Edited March 29, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[TurkeyChew 383]

But you see, that is racism in its purest form right there.  Prejudgment based on skin color.
 

^no. That’s prejudice via classism, not racism. That is because prejudgment of poor people behaviors based off skin is not intrinsic to skin and is fluid, as well as can change in context (not to be confused with “context switching”)

Edited March 29, 2022 by TurkeyChew

[Nivek 16945]

And look at that, Johnny Sack got called out by me again and ran away. This seems like a trend.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

On 3/28/2022 at 9:19 AM, Nivek said:

Not even the black friend?  

Link  If this is what you are commenting on?  Which started because the poster was mocking the right wing guy whining about not being able to use hateful language?  Yet, you felt compelled to write the word out in that sentence which you do not cite and claim is a quote (Post #22).   Gil typed it out to make a point, and while I see what he was trying to do, I also do not think it was necessary in that context.   And then you responded with it again (Post #38) in the thread.  That time you weren't even quoting someone, it just seemed to flow naturally from you.   In every instance where you typed it on here, it was unnecessary which is contrary to what I underlined in your quote above.  That was 2 instances in one search with about 2 minutes of effort, which seems to belie your claim. 

I personally do not see a reason to use a word that hurts and insults or demeans people (or groups of people) at their intrinsic identity-level.   

 

  

 

And I quoted a left wing guy who was using the term on national tv to mock him and to mock lefties who ignore racism so long as the racist dickhead acting racist is on the left.  All in a thread started by a cloak room lefty who used the term in the title.  You should aim some of your criticism at that poster.

[Satchel 6938]

Sack, in what way would it be accurate to say you experience more than the normal amount of racial anxiety?

[Guest Lobo]

I'd be anxious too were I him.  Apparently he sits on busses with armed black people on the reg.  

[Nivek 16945]

21 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

And I quoted a left wing guy who was using the term on national tv to mock him and to mock lefties who ignore racism so long as the racist dickhead acting racist is on the left.  All in a thread started by a cloak room lefty who used the term in the title.  You should aim some of your criticism at that poster.

So you quote hurtful language that you despise, but do not cite it and act surprised that people think it reflects on you after you do it repeatedly?  

You should own your own culpability not try to direct others with whataboutisms.   You wrote it.  And it wasn't necessary nor was it particularly powerful, insightful,  nor warranting a moment of self-reflection.   

 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

On 3/29/2022 at 8:30 AM, TurkeyChew said:

But you see, that is racism in its purest form right there.  Prejudgment based on skin color.
 

^no. That’s prejudice via classism, not racism. That is because prejudgment of poor people behaviors based off skin is not intrinsic to skin and is fluid, as well as can change in context (not to be confused with “context switching”)

You yourself said it was an heuristic.  Racism is an heuristic.  Doesn't matter that the ultimate analysis is based on something else.  Employing the heuristic is racist.

You're tying yourself in knots trying to justify the unjustifiable.

[TurkeyChew 383]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

You yourself said it was an heuristic.  Racism is an heuristic.  Doesn't matter that the ultimate analysis is based on something else.  Employing the heuristic is racist.

You're tying yourself in knots trying to justify the unjustifiable.

If I am wrong here, then I think it's because my fundamental understanding of what constitutes racism is wrong. My understanding was it was simply a belief that superiority and inferiority were defined solely on skin color, or race. For example, Jim who is black is automatically inferior to Jim who is white, because of the skin tone.

That core belief was perpetuated in order to justify the inhumane violence of slavery, etc. and was supported by charlatans (probably some in good faith, as well) who believed in, what we now know is pure junk science, like phrenology and eugenics and the like. This was a more mainstream and common belief pattern of white Americans in the past.

At some point in the last half-a-dozen decades or thereabouts, I think the mainstream and common belief pattern of white America changed. No longer is there a core belief that blacks and whites (or any other number of colors and races) are different in specimen and characteristics and potential as defined by nature (racism). I think the shift is that the characteristics and abilities and potential is defined by environment, which is dictated by social class and/or socio-economics (remember, I was conflating the two upthread).

As I've stated, legacy racism is a reason or cause for the modern day intersectionality of black people and a lower social/socio-economic class, but what America is discriminating and prejudicing against isn't the race, it's the class (poor people behaviors).

The biggest distinction here being one can't change their race (despite the weirdos who have tried like Michael Jackson and Sammy Sosa and Rachel Dolezel), but one's socio-economic and social standing is dynamic and fluid.

 

[wildcat09 29355]

Phrenology wasn't really a thing in America until the 1800s. Slavery came first, racism developed to justify it, and then they embraced ideas like phrenology to reinforce the justification. As phrenology crumbled under the immense evidence of its falseness, they turned to other reinforcements, such as "it's their culture to be violent and to hate education." But the racism came first and it's not based on anything but insecurity and hatred. Ideas that come to be associated with it are just rationalizations, not reasons. 

[Captainant 27680]

23 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

As I've stated, legacy racism is a reason or cause for the modern day intersectionality of black people and a lower social/socio-economic class, but what America is discriminating and prejudicing against isn't the race, it's the class (poor people behaviors).

Congratulations! You're buying into the southern strategy hook line and sinker! The entire point is to reframe things as being socio-economic, while pulling the ladder up on those who are lower socio-economically. Weird how the black and minority population is WAY overrepresented in those demographics right? TOTALLY just a happy coincidence.

25 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

The biggest distinction here being one can't change their race (despite the weirdos who have tried like Michael Jackson and Sammy Sosa and Rachel Dolezel), but one's socio-economic and social standing is dynamic and fluid.

That's a lovely lie to tell yourself as you continue to reap the benefits of corporate socialism and support regressive anti-worker policies.

[Macanudo 12989]

On 3/27/2022 at 8:46 PM, Johnny Sack said:

You think people in the last couple decades use that word in locker rooms?  You have a lot of misperceptions of people.   

You been hanging around a lot of locker rooms here, Johnny?

[TurkeyChew 383]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Phrenology wasn't really a thing in America until the 1800s. Slavery came first, racism developed to justify it, and then they embraced ideas like phrenology to reinforce the justification. As phrenology crumbled under the immense evidence of its falseness, they turned to other reinforcements, such as "it's their culture to be violent and to hate education." But the racism came first and it's not based on anything but insecurity and hatred. Ideas that come to be associated with it are just rationalizations, not reasons. 

I think that's what I said: Racism (blacks naturally subspecies and inferior to whites) was a rationalization for inhumane violence like slavery and then psuedo-science was a hope and attempt to codify racism via science. That stuff fell apart because it's not true and most people** accept that, thereby most people who are "racists" today are really people who object to behaviors and culture that offend them and are associated with class (again, intersectionality of race and class due to racism is real, but not tightly coupled).

[Guest Lobo]

3 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

You been hanging around a lot of locker rooms here, Johnny?

I read that in Captain Oveur's voice.  

"Johnny, do you like to hang around the gymnasium?  You ever spent time in a...in a Turkish prison?"  

[TurkeyChew 383]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Congratulations! You're buying into the southern strategy hook line and sinker! The entire point is to reframe things as being socio-economic, while pulling the ladder up on those who are lower socio-economically. Weird how the black and minority population is WAY overrepresented in those demographics right? TOTALLY just a happy coincidence.

That's a lovely lie to tell yourself as you continue to reap the benefits of corporate socialism and support regressive anti-worker policies.

Let me unpack what you are saying here because I wouldn't mind an update to my education:

It is not weird that the black and minority population is WAY overrepresented. I've said no less than 4 times that the intersectionality for poor and BIPOCs in modern America is a real result of real (systematic) racism. My only point was that in modern times today, the majority of folks aren't racist against BIPOCs as they were in the past. Today it has more to do with class than color.

(Of course there are populations who still believe blacks are inherently biologically inferior to white people, but they are not the mainstream and the backwaters of Alabama and Vidor aren't germane to the conversation so let's agree they exist but are not statistically significant to discuss)

And to your last point; I don't even know what you are trying to say other than use your political hammer because all problems look like political nails.