The problem with Black Lives Matter

[civver_764]

Black people are at a measurable disadvantage any time they interact with an institution, whether it is commercial, governmental, or educational. You are basically saying that this doesn't exist. Do you really deny the existence of institutional racism? Because if you do, this is never going to be a productive discussion.

Maybe I'm totally wrong, let's see. Can you show me an example of "institutional racism"?

BLM is actually not saying that interracial killings are of particular significance. You're saying that. But that's really not what BLM is about, at all.

I think it clearly is. The heroes of the movement are all victims of interracial police violence.

Also, come on with this. If she didn't say it in official capacity on behalf of the entirety of BLM, you can't attribute her ramblings about white inferiority to the entire movement. That's just dishonest.

She founded the movement, it gives you an idea of what they're about. There's other individual acts of hate from BLM members as well. But the obvious example is all the talk about "white supremacy". It implies that white people inherently think they are better and want to keep black people down. The idea that their woes are attributed to white people in their white society. Not only is that judging people based on their skin color, it very easily leads to animosity towards white people in general.

I'll only point out that all of the good music and most of the good food in America was not invented by white people. You are free to draw from that whatever conclusion you wish

Bollocks, white people have done lots for the development of music.

Also, way to prove my point. If someone had written that about "blackness" and "black people" I doubt you would have made a joke like that.

I'm no brain genius but aren't there like, a lot more white people in the United States. The fact that those lines are so close together doesn't say what I suspect you think it does.

It does. And the lines aren't "close together", the line at top is about three times as much as the one on bottom.

The number of white people vs. black people would affect both lines. For any given encounter between a black person and a white person, it could go either way as to who kills who. The fact is that when a killing does happen, there's about a 75% chance it will be the black person killing the white person.

 

[Senethro]

I dunno civver, white people have a nasty habit of committing genocide and stealing continents. There might be an inkling of truth to the white supremacy thing, even if its just recipients of stolen wealth and labour in denial about their origin.

 

[civver_764]

I dunno civver, white people have a nasty habit of committing genocide and stealing continents.

"I dunno Senethro, black people have a nasty habit of raping and murdering people." You see the problem here?

Also white people are the only who commit genocide? Please. Tell me, when are you going to apologize for this?

There might be an inkling of truth to the white supremacy thing, even if its just recipients of stolen wealth and labour in denial about their origin.

More racism. So any wealth that any white person has was "stolen"?

 

[metalhead]

Maybe I'm totally wrong, let's see. Can you show me an example of "institutional racism"?

I already cited many. Black people are twice as likely to drop out of college. Black people are more likely to be targeted by predatory lenders. More likely to be denied credit than a white person with the same credit score. More likely to be turned down for college admissions than a similarly situated white applicant. More likely to be turned down on a housing application. More likely to be denied a home loan. Black people receive harsher sentences for the same crime committed by a white person. They face more oppressive policing. Higher arrest rates. Lower social mobility. Less freedom of choice in housing.

Do you need more examples?

I think it clearly is. The heroes of the movement are all victims of interracial police violence.

She founded the movement, it gives you an idea of what they're about. There's other individual acts of hate from BLM members as well. But the obvious example is all the talk about "white supremacy". It implies that white people inherently think they are better and want to keep black people down. The idea that their woes are attributed to white people in their white society. Not only is that judging people based on their skin color, it very easily leads to animosity towards white people in general.

Black victims of police murder are used as symbols, because they are powerful symbols. And the point is not that a given officer is white and the victims are black. That's a very common misconception about the root causes of the problems BLM is bringing attention to. Black officers oppress black people too. It's a question of how institutions, most especially the institutions of criminal justice and law enforcement, treat black people. You're fixated on the race of the particular officer(s) involved, but that's not the issue. The issue is a culture that permits institutions to treat black people as inferior. To treat them as if their lives matter less.

Whether you like it or not, white people are the majority. We are 100% responsible for the governmental and financial institutions in this country. If you are not acting in a way that recognizes and works to mitigate racial inequality, then yeah, you're acting to protect the racist status quo. You might not like that, you might feel like that's an attack against you, but sorry snowflake. The issues are real, their effects are real, and whether you ever own up to your own role in it or not, it's a classic "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" situation.

The movement's statements and actions give me an idea of what they're about. What individuals who happen to be part of a movement do outside of it is not relevant to the movement. This is a classic red herring.

Bollocks, white people have done lots for the development of music.

Also, way to prove my point. If someone had written that about "blackness" and "black people" I doubt you would have made a joke like that.

I wouldn't make the joke because it wouldn't be factually accurate.

It does. And the lines aren't "close together", the line at top is about three times as much as the one on bottom.

The number of white people vs. black people would affect both lines. For any given encounter between a black person and a white person, it could go either way as to who kills who. The fact is that when a killing does happen, there's about a 75% chance it will be the black person killing the white person.

Most homicides are targeted. The vast majority, in fact. That's why you're dealing with so few interracial killings to begin with - murder victims are generally known to the murderer, and people tend to know mostly people of their own race. Hence, people tend to murder people of their own race.

However, if I am going to kill indiscriminately, because the large majority of people in most places are white, chances are I'm going to end up killing a white person if I am just choosing victims at random. That holds true whether I am black or white - there are so many more white people, so if I have it in my mind to kill someone at random, that person is most likely going to be white. It's simply a numbers game; you're trying to draw a conclusion from it, but it's a stretch to say the least.

 

[Senethro]

"I dunno Senethro, black people have a nasty habit of raping and murdering people." You see the problem here?

Also white people are the only who commit genocide? Please. Tell me, when are you going to apologize for this?

More racism. So any wealth that any white person has was "stolen"?

A lot of spanish and english speaking nations around the world. The historical activities of europeans are pretty blatant and difficult to deny.

The roots of the rwandan genocide begin in the colonial era where europeans used one ethnicity to enforce their rule over another. Damn white people and their racism again!

You're also not very good at reading. From my post you conjured up the idea that I said that all white owned wealth is stolen and only white people genocide. Or maybe you're just flailing defensively and throwing whatever you hope will stick.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Maybe I'm totally wrong, let's see. Can you show me an example of "institutional racism"?

Here's one: University of Southampton, 20 August 2015 - Study shows African-Americans discriminated against in access to US local public services

Requests for information from local public services, like sheriffs’ offices, school districts and libraries, across the United States are less likely to receive a reply if signed by ‘black-sounding’ names, according to new research conducted by economists at IZA and the University of Southampton.

The study finds that email queries coming from senders with distinctively African American names are four per cent less likely to receive an answer than identical emails signed by ‘white-sounding’ names.

The difference in response was most evident in correspondence to sheriffs’ offices, with ‘black-sounding’ names seven per cent less likely to receive a response than ‘white-sounding’ names.

I've only skimmed the study, and I only know U. of Southampton by reputation, so I can't vouch for this study personally, but it's certainly of a kind that I've seen before. The study was published (and I suppose co-funded) by the Forshunginstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit / Institute for the Study of Labor, which I've never heard of before.

There's a recently-published book I really want to read, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How the US Government Segregated America, which is about discrimination in housing and real estate. It's mainly about the era during which racial discrimination was open, legal, government-funded and -enforced. Still, we know that property ownership is one of the things that carries through from generation to generation, decade to decade. Too many books, too little time. Anecdotally, I remember driving through north Philly with a friend about 20 years ago. I'm not sure I knew what "redlining" or "the Detroit Wall" were back then, but even as young and as white as I was, the dearth of banks and the preponderance of check-cashing businesses jumped out at me. I don't know what that area looks like these days.

 

[civver_764]

I already cited many. Black people are twice as likely to drop out of college. Black people are more likely to be targeted by predatory lenders. More likely to be denied credit than a white person with the same credit score. More likely to be turned down for college admissions than a similarly situated white applicant. More likely to be turned down on a housing application. More likely to be denied a home loan. Black people receive harsher sentences for the same crime committed by a white person. They face more oppressive policing. Higher arrest rates. Lower social mobility. Less freedom of choice in housing.

Do you need more examples?

Let's focus on one issue at a time. Can you cite a source of (in your mind) the most convincingly terrible example of institutional racism?

Black victims of police murder are used as symbols, because they are powerful symbols. And the point is not that a given officer is white and the victims are black. That's a very common misconception about the root causes of the problems BLM is bringing attention to. Black officers oppress black people too. It's a question of how institutions, most especially the institutions of criminal justice and law enforcement, treat black people. You're fixated on the race of the particular officer(s) involved, but that's not the issue. The issue is a culture that permits institutions to treat black people as inferior. To treat them as if their lives matter less.

Not buying it. When one of their slogans is "white silence is violence" it's pretty clear that race is the issue. "Black officers oppress black people too" -- what does that even mean? That black people are tricked into being racist against their own race? Besides that, you're just making these sweeping claims that are hard to really nail down and talk about. Let's really get to the bottom of this. If there is institutional racism, show me concrete examples of it (ie. cite your sources).

Whether you like it or not, white people are the majority. We are 100% responsible for the governmental and financial institutions in this country.

Ok, one your numbers don't even match up. At best white people are 70% responsible. But even that's not true, because there's no logic behind this "collective guilt" nonsense. You can't say white people are collectively responsible for the actions of any white person unless you're also willing to do the same for black people. But that would be racist.

If you are not acting in a way that recognizes and works to mitigate racial inequality, then yeah, you're acting to protect the racist status quo. You might not like that, you might feel like that's an attack against you, but sorry snowflake. The issues are real, their effects are real, and whether you ever own up to your own role in it or not, it's a classic "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" situation.

What does that mean? What concrete actions do you want me to take to "mitigate racial inequality"?

A lot of spanish and english speaking nations around the world. The historical activities of europeans are pretty blatant and difficult to deny.

Never did. You clearly have a lot of hostility towards white people and Europeans, that might be something for you to reflect on.

The roots of the rwandan genocide begin in the colonial era where europeans used one ethnicity to enforce their rule over another. Damn white people and their racism again!

LOL. When in doubt, blame whitey.

 

[metalhead]

Let's focus on one issue at a time. Can you cite a source of (in your mind) the most convincingly terrible example of institutional racism?

Redlining. I don't know that I would term it "the most convincingly terrible," whatever that means, but it's pretty terrible and is depressingly common to this day.

Not buying it. When one of their slogans is "white silence is violence" it's pretty clear that race is the issue. "Black officers oppress black people too" -- what does that even mean? That black people are tricked into being racist against their own race? Besides that, you're just making these sweeping claims that are hard to really nail down and talk about. Let's really get to the bottom of this. If there is institutional racism, show me concrete examples of it (ie. cite your sources).

The problem is you don't even understand the issue you are trying to discuss. White people run society. Look at Congress or any state legislature. Being the majority means you are responsible for inequality that exists, be it income inequality, racial inequality, what have you. Again, the slogan might be hyperbolic, but the underlying conclusion is spot on - if you are in the majority and not contributing to the fight against inequality - one which benefits you as part of the majority - you are permitting the status quo of racial inequality to persist.

"White" names get 50% more callbacks for jobs than "black" names.
A craigslist ad for an iPod with a black hand gets 13% fewer responses and 17% fewer offers than that showing a white hand, black sellers get less money.
Black and Hispanic students drop out of college at significantly higher rates than white students.
Blacks and Latinos face significantly higher mortgage rejection rates, even when controlled for credit and income; when accepted they often pay higher fees or have higher interest rates.
Pew finds the same in surveying mortgages, and Black and Latino people have significantly lower rates of home ownership.

So, I mean, this is only a few things to start with. I could dig up study after study that confirms this bias in everything from criminal justice to the availability of neighborhood grocery stores. Read the Wikipedia entry on redlining above as it touches on some of the same themes. Implicit bias is real and it has persistent negative effects on the way black people are treated. It's not a matter of people being tricked, or anything like that, it's the way institutions perceive people of color. They are systematically devalued as human beings compared to white people. This is an incontrovertable fact.

Ok, one your numbers don't even match up. At best white people are 70% responsible. But even that's not true, because there's no logic behind this "collective guilt" nonsense. You can't say white people are collectively responsible for the actions of any white person unless you're also willing to do the same for black people. But that would be racist.

Do you not understand how majority rule works? If you're in the majority, then yes, you are partly responsible for what the majority does. Welcome to democracy.

What does that mean? What concrete actions do you want me to take to "mitigate racial inequality"?

For starters, stop trying to argue that it doesn't exist. Stop trying to tear down other people who are trying to shine a spotlight on it. Recognize your privileged place in American society and stop heaping scorn on people who just want the same fair shake that you and I enjoy.

 

[Narz]

I dunno civver, white people have a nasty habit of committing genocide and stealing continents. There might be an inkling of truth to the white supremacy thing, even if its just recipients of stolen wealth and labour in denial about their origin.

Human history is the history of genocide. The Europeans just had better weapons and understanding of how to dominate during one critical period (1500-1900). We all have the capacity for evil inside us and all our ancestors are murderers.

No one likes a self-hating whitie, except maybe people who hate you too.

 

[Senethro]

Its not self-hatred, its injustice. We profited from it greatly and are now seemingly desperate to pull the ladder up after us by being too greedy to begrudge even 1% of GDP as foreign aid in most cases. Meanwhile hands are wrung with no irony about economic migrants and the vices of failed post-colonial states are decried.

The attitude of unquestioning complacency and entitlement gets me too. No examination of if there is any merit to the way the chips have fallen. It is difficult to even discuss the subject without the accusations of self-hatred, secret reverse racism and other defensive responses that are probably about protecting a privileged position.

 

[Berzerker]

Whether you like it or not, white people are the majority. We are 100% responsible for the governmental and financial institutions in this country. If you are not acting in a way that recognizes and works to mitigate racial inequality, then yeah, you're acting to protect the racist status quo. You might not like that, you might feel like that's an attack against you, but sorry snowflake.

During the 1970s, snowflake was used as a derogatory term for white or black people who were perceived as acting white.

http://college.usatoday.com/2017/02/01/the-origin-of-the-term-snowflake-may-surprise-you/

Racism is based on collective guilt too, but aren't the Democrats and Republicans responsible for government?

 

[Farm Boy]

By co-founder of BLM she seems to be involved in founding/running the Toronto chapter. It isn't a centralized thing. I suck at Twitter, it's beyond my competency scope: can we even verify that's real? It's bad enough I'd almost assume it's somebody that hates her putting words in her mouth, or maybe gross satire. Or maybe something stupid as hell written by an undergraduate who has just figured out smearing feces on the wall gets a response, there's no date on it. If not, well, then every group has interesting individuals. Or people who are from time to time.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yikes, she's nuts.

It's not quite hate speech as defined in Canadian law, but she's awfully close.

 

[Truthy]

During the 1970s, snowflake was used as a derogatory term for white or black people who were perceived as acting white.

http://college.usatoday.com/2017/02/01/the-origin-of-the-term-snowflake-may-surprise-you/

I don't buy the implication here that metalhead's usage of the term has racist connotations. The slang term "snowflake," as pretty much always used nowadays, has way more to do with the uniqueness and fragility of snowflakes, Fight Club, and school motivational posters. I'd guess there's very little connection between the 1970s usage you mention and the contemporary right wing slang term. The idea that the contemporary slang term is derived from the 1970s one seems to be a bit of meme for the left.

 

[luiz]

Its not self-hatred, its injustice. We profited from it greatly and are now seemingly desperate to pull the ladder up after us by being too greedy to begrudge even 1% of GDP as foreign aid in most cases. Meanwhile hands are wrung with no irony about economic migrants and the vices of failed post-colonial states are decried.

The attitude of unquestioning complacency and entitlement gets me too. No examination of if there is any merit to the way the chips have fallen. It is difficult to even discuss the subject without the accusations of self-hatred, secret reverse racism and other defensive responses that are probably about protecting a privileged position.

Have you heard of Barbary slavery, where millions of Europeans were enslaved by Africans? And sold to die in galleys, mines, or be sexually exploited?

Have you heard about the unprovoked Arab invasion and occupation of Spain, or Sicily, or Malta? The ottoman domination (and atrocities) in Europe?

Have you heard of the Mongol empire? Of the Tatar yoke that oppressed Russia for centuries, that brought destruction as far as Poland and Hungary?

Of course not. In the SJW history books, Europeans are always the oppressors.

Self -hating indeed. Sad.

 

[Senethro]

Have you heard of Barbary slavery, where millions of Europeans were enslaved by Africans? And sold to die in galleys, mines, or be sexually exploited?

Have you heard about the unprovoked Arab invasion and occupation of Spain, or Sicily, or Malta? The ottoman domination (and atrocities) in Europe?

Have you heard of the Mongol empire? Of the Tatar yoke that oppressed Russia for centuries, that brought destruction as far as Poland and Hungary?

Of course not. In the SJW history books, Europeans are always the oppressors.

Self -hating indeed. Sad.

Yes I've heard of them, but I notice you haven't explicitly said your point and invite you to do so. I'm hoping its not "But they did it too!" because that is a defense for children.

Europeans got lucky that when the wheel turned with them on top they were able to build the infrastructure and institutions of industrialized developed nations. I'd argue the two "smart" responses from this position are to dominate or cooperate. One perpetuates historical grudges in the style that you listed and the other is protections against future ones.

 

[luiz]

Yes I've heard of them, but I notice you haven't explicitly said your point and invite you to do so. I'm hoping its not "But they did it too!" because that is a defense for children.

Europeans got lucky that when the wheel turned with them on top they were able to build the infrastructure and institutions of industrialized developed nations. I'd argue the two "smart" responses from this position are to dominate or cooperate. One perpetuates historical grudges in the style that you listed and the other is protections against future ones.

My point is that Europeans didn't do anything different than any other human group or society. You made several posts in this very thread about white people's supposed propensity to dominate, exploit and oppress others. I gave multiple examples of white people being oppressed by non-whites throughout history, from the early middle ages all the way to the 19th century.

SJWs like to pretend that the nasty things Europeans did to others are somehow unique, but they're sadly the rule. That's what humans have done to each other since the dawn of civilization (in the Middle East).

This speech that Europeans / whites did uniquely horrible things is not just teenage ignorance, though, as it actually fuels the kind of hate speech we see from the BLM activist posted on last page, and perpetuates hatred among groups. The sooner we accept that humans of all colors and origins have brutally oppressed others, the sooner we can move on. But of course, SJWs don't want to move on, because their sole raison d'être are grudges. Look for instance how SJWs are enthusiastic about "reparations" for transatlantic slavery, but never mention reparations for Barbary slavery (or that fact that African slaves sold to Europeans were actually captured by other Africans).

 

[Senethro]

I'm hearing a lot of "they did it too!!!" and no actual recommended courses of action.

What would "moving on" look like as you see it? A lot like unchallenged maintenance of the status quo?

It would also be useful to know who SJWs are in this context if I am going to be assigned as occupying their position and making the same claims as whoever they are. (which I'm probably not, btw)

An aside: I consider this tangential and you can ignore it if you want but what do you mean by stating the fact that some africans sold other africans? How does it make something else ok?

 

[luiz]

I'm hearing a lot of "they did it too!!!" and no actual recommended courses of action.

What would "moving on" look like as you see it? A lot like unchallenged maintenance of the status quo?

It would also be useful to know who SJWs are in this context if I am going to be assigned as occupying their position and making the same claims as whoever they are. (which I'm probably not, btw)

An aside: I consider this tangential and you can ignore it if you want but what do you mean by stating the fact that some africans sold other africans? How does it make something else ok?

It's not "they did it too", it's a general point about there being nothing unique about the way Europeans treated non-European peoples.

Moving on means getting over this disgusting self-pity and victim mentality that aflicts some people. It means letting bygones be bygones and treating people based on how they act, not on the color of their skin. It means not asking for completely idiotic things like reparations for stuff that happened before anyone alive was born, and which was not in anyway unique to a single group anyway.

If by supporting the status quo you mean supporting a Republic where all citizens have the exact same legal rights and obligations, then damn straight I support the status quo. And damn straight I oppose any schemes to give special privileges to groups based on their ethnic origin, be it in the name of moronic and a-historic reparations or anything else.

As for your aside, I don't mean at all that it made it ok. I just pointed out a historical fact to show how the anti - white resentment of people like the BLM leader of last page is misguided.

 

[Borachio]

I'm still waiting for my claim for reparations due me from the Norman Conquest.

With interest I make that....

.... a quite interesting amount.

It wasn't a minor conquest, btw.

25% of my fellow nationals were obliterated (some would say, ahem, a harrowing experience), and ALL the land confiscated without a by-your-leave or penny piece in exchange.