Criticism of Josh Gordon and race relations

[Senethro]

Oh right, a literal net.

Ok, please correct me if I've misunderstood you: You're saying that the reason that recent African immigrants do better in American society than the descendants of African slaves is because the slave trade caught only the stupid Africans, thus removing them from their home population and raising their average intelligence?

 

[jackelgull]

Oh right, a literal net.

Ok, please correct me if I've misunderstood you: You're saying that the reason that recent African immigrants do better in American society than the descendants of African slaves is because the slave trade caught only the stupid Africans, thus removing them from their home population and raising their average intelligence?

Well if they to caught
Sorry, couldn't help myself.

No, I think he means the old guard are slaves to welfare.

 

[Domen]

Well I suppose that population which stayed home was on average more intelligent than population which became slaves - because when you are smarter, you probably have a better chance of avoiding slave hunters who chase you, and also intelligence is not a desirable trait for a slave - people wanted strong / handsome / beautiful / hard-working / healthy, etc. slaves, not intelligent ones (they were going to work on plantations, after all). Being smart also cannot help you in surviving travel across the ocean, while physical health can. And as we know many died while aboard of slave ships, before reaching the Americas.

 

[Senethro]

Oh really? Well perhaps the real racism is disregarding our views based on our skin colour and economic success? Thats just racebaiting and playing to the politics of envy, sowing division that we cannot afford.

Ok I regret this post. I made it to be sort of ironic and mocking the kind of things that the usual suspects say. But then Domen immediately comes along and outdoes it with... I don't even know what to call it, but its awful.

 

[luiz]

Such a hypothetical situation - in 1800 one hundred Africans were running away from slave hunters - assuming 50 of them were smart and 50 were dumb - people from which of the two groups were statistically more likely to get caught, those from the smart group or those from the dumb group ???

It's a myth though that there were slave hunters running around in Africa capturing random people. The slaves usually were either captured in battle (and of course sometimes the battle was fought to capture slaves) or sold by their families / tribes (often to pay a debt). So there's no reason to assume those who ended up enslaved were dumber.

 

[Domen]

It's a myth though that there were slave hunters running around in Africa capturing random people. The slaves usually were either captured in battle (and of course sometimes the battle was fought to capture slaves) or sold by their families / tribes (often to pay a debt). So there's no reason to assume those who ended up enslaved were dumber.

So assuming that you had to sell one of your children / tribesmen to pay a debt, would you sell the smartest one ???

 

[luiz]

So assuming that you had to sell one of your children to pay a debt, would you sell the smartest one ???

I have no idea what goes on in the minds of people who sell their children to pay debts.

But using your own logic, maybe the healthy and physically strong kids would be of more worth to their parents than the smart ones, so if forced to sell one they would maybe be more inclined to sell the smart but not that strong one.

Of course, there is no real trade-off between intelligence and health / strength, and we're just wildly speculating here.

 

[downtown]

Oh really? Well perhaps the real racism is disregarding our views based on our skin colour and economic success? Thats just racebaiting and playing to the politics of envy, sowing division that we cannot afford.

Yeah, I'm the real racist. :lol. WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE YOUNG, WEALTHY COLLEGE-EDUCATED WHITE MEN ON THE INTERNET

The topics discussed in Gordon's article here are exceptionally complex and contextual. From the years and years I've been on this forum, I've seen a US poster population that is spectacularly ignorant about what actually happens in inner cities. Not only do we have like, maybe one regular black OT poster, I doubt we have more than a handful that actually personally {know} many black people at all, let alone anybody with a life experience close to Gordon's.

When you combine all of that with the tunnel-vision of youth and the relative omgsological arrogance of the posters, and I think you're going to get some ignorant and misinformed comments. That's part of what Gordon is arguing, since the same can be true of the demographics of most US sportswriters.

 

[JollyRoger]

Josh Gordon just needs to get a mentor - perhaps Johnny Manziel.

 

[MobBoss]

Josh Gordon just needs to get a mentor - perhaps Johnny Manziel.

You mean rehab partner.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Josh Gordon just needs to get a mentor - perhaps Johnny Manziel.

Johnny isn't old enough to be a mentor. Josh Gordon needs to be mentored by a fine upstanding successful white man, like Johnny's father. That should straighten him out.

 

[Archbob]

The topics discussed in Gordon's article here are exceptionally complex and contextual. From the years and years I've been on this forum, I've seen a US poster population that is spectacularly ignorant about what actually happens in inner cities. Not only do we have like, maybe one regular black OT poster, I doubt we have more than a handful that actually personally {know} many black people at all, let alone anybody with a life experience close to Gordon's.

When you combine all of that with the tunnel-vision of youth and the relative omgsological arrogance of the posters, and I think you're going to get some ignorant and misinformed comments. That's part of what Gordon is arguing, since the same can be true of the demographics of most US sportswriters.

The issue there is that one of the prominent sportscasters, Charles Barkley, does indeed know what its like to grow up in Poor black America being raised by one parent and he essentially says the same things about Josh Gordon as the white commentators.

The issue is that whenever we talk about the plight of African Americans(at least the ones that have been here forever) is that conservatives want to lay all the blame on them while the far left wants to pin 100% of the blame on everything except them. Maybe, just maybe, both are to blame. You can't say that society is blameless and you can't say they themselves are blameless. If this were 50 years ago, I'd pin 95% of the blame on society, but in today's day I'm at most go 50/50 when pinning the blame, especially since you have a new group of black people who prove that its not skin color that keeps people down.

 

[Domen]

I've found this, check:

http://szyymcio.tumblr.com/post/72699324951/how-a-plot-and-a-map-can-tell-you-how-much-is

How a plot and a map can tell you how much is Detroit racially segregated

We all know Detroit is bankrupt and decayed. We do also know Detroit is racially segregated even though it is half century since racial segregation officially ended in the United States. Yet, I doubt most people know how hard and deep is this segregation.

I took percent of African Americans in each census block in Detroit metro (by which I mean Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties) and confront it with median household income. Here’s the result:

It basically looks like I took data from two different continents and combined it into one dataset.

There are two shocking things you can see on this scatter plot:

1. Black neighborhoods tend to be more consolidated by income, i.e. there are no black neighborhoods with very high income and there is a lot black neighborhoods in (much) lower-middle-class income spectrum. Non-black neighborhoods on the other hand can be poor (although that ‘poor’ is actually the black average) and filthy rich and the majority would be considered middle-class.

2. There are literally just a few racially diversified neighborhoods. People in Metro Detroit tend to live either in white-only or black-only neighborhoods.

The latter is, in my opinion, important and scary.

Not-knowing any white or black person, not-having blacks or whites as neighbors certainly will not help in developing a race-blind society. If someone is born and raised in an all-black or all-white area that person obviously do not know much about the other race and therefore use stereotypes on daily basis.

If I was born in a white community I might think of blacks as of criminals and if I was born in a black community I might think of whites as of ruthless rich bastards. If I live in a multiracial community I see joyful and law-abiding blacks as well as whites barely making ends meet.

And here is how does racial division look on a map

(the more red -> the more whites; the more blue -> the more blacks)

As you can see, African Americans are gradually moving North of the infamous 8 Mile Road but Detroit city limits are still extremely visible. Hamtramck is also still clearly visible, though the Polish population was pretty much replaced with Middle-Easterners over last 20 years.

 

[Hygro]

who prove that its not skin color that keeps people down.

That's right, it's racism. It's never actually been about skin color.

Btw I had a couple of African immigrants come by my work delivering some electronics. They did not look like most black people in America. You really can't on average tell the difference between people who are extraordinarily ethnically mixed and people who are mono-ethnic? Like, dark skin overrides that for you?

Yeah, I'm the real racist. :lol. WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE YOUNG, WEALTHY COLLEGE-EDUCATED WHITE MEN ON THE INTERNET

The topics discussed in Gordon's article here are exceptionally complex and contextual. From the years and years I've been on this forum, I've seen a US poster population that is spectacularly ignorant about what actually happens in inner cities. Not only do we have like, maybe one regular black OT poster, I doubt we have more than a handful that actually personally {know} many black people at all, let alone anybody with a life experience close to Gordon's.

When you combine all of that with the tunnel-vision of youth and the relative omgsological arrogance of the posters, and I think you're going to get some ignorant and misinformed comments. That's part of what Gordon is arguing, since the same can be true of the demographics of most US sportswriters.

Yeah this has been getting weirder and weirder for me. This forum talks about black people in a very other'd sense on a level that even women don't get here. At this point "some of my best friends are black" is starting to look like it counts for something :facepalm: Imagine being black and reading these threads. I wouldn't even bother. I'd probably just leave.

A couple months ago, one of us asked me if I was black in fiftychat a bit ago, asked it in a PM ostensibly so there'd be no room for offense. The quietness of the question made it go from being a reasonable but unexpected question to something that felt weird. Like being black was something to be hush about.

I try to offer a more reasonable voice in the discussion of race here but sometimes I can't help but feel like until we actually have black civvers in OT, I'm contributing to the alienation. I don't like any of it.

btw omgsological is awesome, I'll be using it.

Such a hypothetical situation - in 1800 one hundred Africans were running away from slave hunters - assuming 50 of them were smart and 50 were dumb - people from which of the two groups were statistically more likely to get caught, those from the smart group or those from the dumb group ???

The empathetic ones got caught and the sociopaths got away...? Am I playing your game right?

 

[Archbob]

That's right, it's racism. It's never actually been about skin color.

And for black people, its mostly determined on how you look, which means skin color.

Why do you think Dr. King specifically said that he wishes that his Children would not be judged by the Color of their Skin but instead on the content of their character.

The KKK doesn't care whether your a recent immigrant or an old-guard. When you apply for financial aid, their aren't separate boxes for "recent black" or "old black", its just "black" or "African American". Very few people make that distinguishment. No, I can't tell just by looking at a black person and tell which category they come from because on first site, its physical characteristics that you notice like skin color. Its not until they actually tell me that I know. And there are very educated blacks from the old guard as well, its not like they don't exist.

 

[Zack]

I don't believe its precisely discrimination keeping African Americans down, but rather a lack of opportunity in the ghetto. I mean, just the fact that they were born in a ghetto is one strike against the "old guard" African Americans. Then the lack of businesses there contributes to lack of opportunity which leads to African Americans in the ghetto joining gangs because those are the only options for money which continues the lack of businesses. i won't mention the police, because police- ghetto relations are a tricky business and I don't want to bad mouth cops, but I feel the police don't help the situation.

Allow me to shatter your argument into a million pieces with a single picture:

Spoiler :

But yeah, African immigrants come from wealthier backgrounds than black people who have been living in the US for generations. People from wealthier backgrounds tend to be wealthier. The end.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Spoiler :

Marthin Luther King happened.

 

[Archbob]

Marthin Luther King happened.

Are you saying that Dr King transformed the content of their character from respectable to dispicable ghetto-gangster?

 

[Hygro]

And for black people, its mostly determined on how you look, which means skin color.

Why do you think Dr. King specifically said that he wishes that his Children would not be judged by the Color of their Skin but instead on the content of their character.

The KKK doesn't care whether your a recent immigrant or an old-guard. When you apply for financial aid, their aren't separate boxes for "recent black" or "old black", its just "black" or "African American". Very few people make that distinguishment. No, I can't tell just by looking at a black person and tell which category they come from because on first site, its physical characteristics that you notice like skin color. Its not until they actually tell me that I know. And there are very educated blacks from the old guard as well, its not like they don't exist.

Your thesis is that because dark skin in of itself does not preclude success, the problem is not racism.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And for black people, its mostly determined on how you look, which means skin color.

Why do you think Dr. King specifically said that he wishes that his Children would not be judged by the Color of their Skin but instead on the content of their character.

Maybe Dr King could anticipate the day when racism would be a social taboo and the racists could no longer talk openly about skin color but instead would judge people by the clothes they wear so they could call them thugs and dismiss them just as readily as they used to dismiss them as [deleted racial epithet].