This is going to be my last post on this subject, because this is a thread to discuss the election and not to discuss racism, because whatever you believe about racism, I'm of the notion that you can have two people and three different opinions on racism.
I certainly can't say that a culture or civilization is superior to another. Who decide of the crrteria to be judged and how to judge them? As for the definition of races, I do not see how I validate your point. While the notion of races is mostly based on observable physical traits, those traits are chosen quite arbitrarily, while others are ignored just as arbitrarily. Saying that red horses are a single taxon for example is based on an observable trait, but it doesn't make it scientfically exact, just as saying that black people are a race doesn't make it biologically true. My point is this:
people use the words race
interchangeably, to mean the same thing, when in fact that they are not the same thing. Moreover, when people talk about racial superiority, they are not talking about superiority based on race
, they are talking about it based on ethnicity
. In short, people are dumb and imprecise and their stupidity should be accounted for.
Just because only a minority identify as racist doesn't mean the others are not. They ofent just won't admit it to themsleves and/or others. But it doesn't matter, because merely participating in the perpetuation of a racist system without challenging it is enough. What is more, that system is already in place, it doesn't need to develop from the local level, because the local situation exist within a greater whole, not in a vacuum. That minority of racists you mention exist within a system that is more lkely to enable and protect them that those victim of their racism.
In short, your entire argument is made by ignoring the fact that racism is part of both US(among many others) institutions and mentality. Want an example? http://aattp.org/new-study-whites-more-likely-to-support-harsher-laws-if-more-blacks-are-arrested/
So, if you can be racist without even actually knowing that you are, doesn't that technically mean that everyone
can be racist? And if you can be racist by simply failing to challenge a racist system, then doesn't that change the definition of what racism actually is? Because if you can be non-racist except for
failing to overturn systems that are, then again, everyone
can be racist. The Supreme Court overturned portions of the Voting Rights Act a few years ago which sparked a discussion on racism in America because the moment that happened, state governments started moving to disenfranchise. Does that make the SCOTUS racist?
I would like to ask: what's the solution here? Tear down all the institutions that participated in racism because they might be still be carrying racist portions of their structure and operation? The vast majority of institutions that exist in the United States today - local government, state governments, federal ones - were conceived of in an era were racism existed. Or have some of those institutions somehow purged themselves of that legacy and now operate free and clear? And, here's the big one: how do you tell which ones have and which ones haven't?
What are the criteria that need to be met for that?
As for your article, two things. One, I would actually like to see the study paper itself and read it, instead of the commentaries that are offered on it by non-academic outlets, before I make a call. Two, by the general setup of both scenarios - showing the mugshots of people arrested and in prison because of policies like Stop and Frisk - you at least would not have gotten me to agree to the petition in either case. Forget white vs black, if all those people are criminals, I don't want them back out on the street where they can do more harm to the community, I want them in jail. Now, if the study were to show that you had a higher rate of false
incarceration for minorities - say that 1/3rd of blacks compared to 1/10th of whites - then that would be something worth combating.
Also, one last thing on this. From the Stanford source: "Stanford psychology researchers Rebecca Hetey and Jennifer Eberhardt found that when white people were told about these racial disparities, they reported being more afraid of crime and more likely to support the kinds of punitive policies that exacerbate the racial disparities."
In short, if people are told that black people are more likely to commit crimes and break the law, then the more they want to lock up black people. That's not because they are black, that's because of the notion, the perception, that they are criminals. It's like feminists going around screaming that all men are potential rapists. If you believe that all men are potential rapists, then you aren't going to want men to be around, are you?
You do realize that what makes the ID laws racist is their calculated and disproportionate impact on PoC? Nobody said that white people were not also affected, just not in so important proportions.
As for Stop & Frisk, just because it wasn't explicitely aimed at PoC, doesn't mean it wasn't implicitely.
Show me your numbers for that. Show me the data that shows that a higher percentage of minorities are denied access to voting because of voter ID efforts. And I will remind you that, in quite a similar fashion to the drug war (done by that dirty, dirty communist Richard Nixon), racial crackdown is not the goal. The goal of voter ID laws is the political disenfranchisement of the people who are trying to replace you - and in a nation where political office is seen as a career and not a service, where the highest goal is not service but endless re-election, corruption aimed at enhancing these goals is inevitable.
Race ends up becoming a major portion of the complaint, however, because minorities tend to vote Democrat, and the people trying to institute these laws are largely Republicans. If the Democrats were behind a similar effort, you would not see them target minorities because those are the people who largely vote for them - you would instead see Democrats attempt to suppress the votes of the highly wealthy, Christian groups, and the elderly, because those are all groups who trend towards voting Republican.
In short, is race a part of it? Yes, but only insomuch as the fact that it dovetails into a general political aim.
S&F: That's kind of what I'm saying
. The law itself did not explicitly state that it was to be targeted against minorities, but when it was put into effect and enforced, it ended up targeting them more than others. Also, it's worth pointing out that the data usually used to decry Stop and Frisk as a totally racist policy were the records of arrests that came about as a result, and those records showed that the majority of persons arrested under the law were of minority status. I would also point out, however, that every person who was arrested under Stop & Frisk was also committing a crime
. This ends up being one of the idiot moments of our nation when it comes to law enforcement, because somehow we've got this idea that you shouldn't arrest people out of proportion to their portion of the population. Which either means you need to have either Precrime, or simply stop arresting people after you hit that population proportion, which means letting criminals continue their work unmatched.
As I repeatedly said, merely making racism illegal doesn't work, anymore than making alcohol illegal worked. People grew up thinking that their racists thoughts and comportments are normal and something they are entitled to.
I won't make measure about whether or not racist thoughts are 'normal,' because what normalcy is is not something easily defined, but I will say that they are absolutely entitled to think whatever they like, as long as it is thought. Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Is it wrong? Sure, but people are allowed to be wrong.
Just look at Colin Kaepernick.
Still while laws against racist thoughts are useless, appropriate laws in support of people vulnerable to racism could be used to break those patterns. They could allow more access to resources, more protection, more visibility, more credibility to those who need it. If racism is made ineffective, it becomes a waste of energy and is bound to collapse as a system.
You mean things like the social safety net, or affirmative action, or the Community Re-Investment Act, or Executive Order 10925, or Head Start, or body/dash cameras for cops?
I will say this much. Access means nothing
if you haven't the drive to go for it. I have Internet access that allows me to peruse the entire WWW. But for some strange reason, despite the fact that I have access to Fox News Online, I don't make regular use of it.
In a country where white supremacists are the greatest terrorist threat, where black and latinx people get accosted by police for standing in front of their own houses. Doesn't seem like they're powerless to me.
Name to me five massacres of people caused by white supremacists - and I'll be generous and say within the Western, developed world in the last 25 years - without using Google
White supremacists are a problem. But the number one terrorist threat
...and that's that. No more of this, this is a thread for talking about how terrible the two candidates are.
Well, unless you want to talk about this:
Because THAT is frickin' hilarious.