Microaggressions

Or, Has the World Gone Stark Raving Mad?

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Microaggressions

#501  Postby Oldskeptic » Jul 21, 2015 6:36 am

matthewharrison wrote:This ^

It's all faux-outrage, as best as I can tell.


I guess Matthewharrison was a bit faux himself.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Microaggressions

#502  Postby Oldskeptic » Jul 21, 2015 6:59 am

igorfrankensteen wrote:I am getting the distinct overall impression, that the thread starter here

a) is posting over-elaborate "arguments" and other peoples' cut and paste political rants, primarily because he wants to pretend this ISN'T entirely political for him, even though it clearly is. Otherwise, it wouldn't be entirely and narrowly focused on Universities.


The discussion is primarily about university policies and actions occurring on university campuses. What exactly are over elaborate arguments? When did posting sources and citations become cut and paste?

b) more importantly, refuses to recognize the possibility that ANYONE has the right to try to address the real problems of socially institutionalized human mistreatment of other humans.


Part of the debate is whether examples listed are actually mistreatment. But sure, anyone has the right to address them, and others have the right to question whether they are in fact socially institutionalized mistreatment, or solutions to imaginary problems.

Thus the entire thread, seems to be a VERY long and sneaky attempt to claim that prejudiced persecutors and those who ignorantly trample on other people as they rush about in pursuit of their own selfish goals, should NEVER told to stop doing so.


So, people with opinions that go against the grain of some social justice warriors should be told to stop having those opinions and not be allowed to express them. You would trample on the rights of people to express opinions in favor of some lager right of not ever being offended?
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#503  Postby ADParker » Jul 21, 2015 8:46 am


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
Oldskeptic,

The post you made here includes inflammatory posting bordering on a personal attack against a fellow forum member. Please remember to always stick to attacking the argument not the person.

ADParker

Do not discuss moderation in this thread. If you have any questions, comments, or wish to appeal this decision please PM me or any member of the moderation team.
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 49
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#504  Postby OlivierK » Jul 21, 2015 8:49 am

Oldskeptic wrote:So, people with opinions that go against the grain of some social justice warriors should be told to stop having those opinions and not be allowed to express them. You would trample on the rights of people to express opinions in favor of some lager right of not ever being offended?

Far better to trample on the right of SJW's to say "perhaps you might want to consider whether what you say could be taken as a bit racist", in favour of not having to think about that sort of icky stuff, eh?
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9828
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#505  Postby proudfootz » Jul 21, 2015 2:10 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:
proudfootz wrote:What I find disingenuous (if not deceitful) is when a document which bans nothing, censors nothing, and censures no one is misrepresented as doing any or all of those things.


Why continue reciting something that is not true?


That's what has me puzzled about the people who claim a voluntary seminar on the topic of microaggressions constitutes a draconian policy of censorship.

It's obviously not true - yet gets repeated endlessly.

Do you dispute that professor Rust was made to agree not to come onto the campus of the education department for the remainder of the academic year or face charges? Do you dispute that professor Sander was subjected to ridicule and investigation for writing a criticism of affirmative action? Do you dispute that professor Kipnis was investigated for writing a criticism of Northwester's new sexual conduct rules? Do you dispute that an Asian student organization at Brandeis was made to take down and apologize for a display of examples of microaggressions by other Asians citing microaggression triggering by the display? Vending machines and Sabra brand hummus have come under attack as microaggressive triggers by Middle Eastern students at Harvard and Wesleyan universities.


Are individuals capable of abusing something that exists? Sure they are.

Even if this handful of claims are exactly as depicted in editorials and other media entertainment pieces, it does nothing to show either of two contentions

a) microaggressions either do not exist or are not important
b) educating students and staff about microaggressions is censorship of free speech

But of course, there's no banning going on, no censorship or censure because nothing has been codified. It's all completely voluntary, right? Wrong! Recommendations from on high are to be ignored at your own peril.


Exactly - anyone who's ever held a job dealing with the public knows that you can't just say any random thing that pops into your head to fellow staff and customers. If you generate complaints you may get a talking to.

Even on this voluntary forum one could get a warning about how freely one expresses oneself.

Can a good thing be misused? Sure they can - look at guns, cars, medicine, and alcohol.


And we as a society try as hard as possible to see that those things are abused as little as possible.


Yes, one might attend a voluntary seminar to learn about how to keep abuse of things to a minimum.

Does it make any sense to forbid good things because a few douchenozzles abuse them? No.


Something of a false analogy here. In the cases of guns, cars, medicine, and alcohol it's individuals doing the abusing not government organizations.


I'm sorry - I was under the impression it was individuals who were lodging complaints.

Is the claim now that it isn't students and staff who are lodging complaints?
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10978

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#506  Postby Oldskeptic » Jul 22, 2015 3:14 am

OlivierK wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:So, people with opinions that go against the grain of some social justice warriors should be told to stop having those opinions and not be allowed to express them. You would trample on the rights of people to express opinions in favor of some lager right of not ever being offended?


Far better to trample on the right of SJW's to say "perhaps you might want to consider whether what you say could be taken as a bit racist", in favour of not having to think about that sort of icky stuff, eh?


Who's saying that anyone can't say, "Perhaps you might want to consider whether what you say could be taken as a bit racist?" Not I. I'm not even apposed to anyone saying it, in fact I'm all for it. People should consider what they say before they say anything. What I'm not for is telling people what they can and cannot say or should and should not say. Especially being told what they cannot or should not say by the people at universities that do the hiring, firing, promotions, decide tenure, and vote on post graduate dissertations.

So, social justice warriors can go around telling people that they are racists but don't know it all they want. And they can continue to tell other people that they are being insult even when those people don't realize it. But people should also have the right to deny or attempt to refute, in writing or verbally, those opinions without fear of reprisals that effect their careers and or academic status. On university campuses today calling someone a racist is a big deal and shouldn't be condoned much less promoted where it arises over differences of opinion or where whether there actually was a racist remark is ambiguous.

Something that concerns me about the list of microaggressive racist examples is that in a conversation with a racist that tries to claim that there are genetic differences between "races", such as intelligence, the counter argument that there is only one race, and that is the human race, is now also considered racist.

The child of immigrant parents saying that their parents came to the US because it is the land of opportunity can be considered to be uttering racist remarks.

The person complaining about or pointing out racism when the more qualified ethnic minority doesn't get the job is committing racism by saying that the best qualified person should get the job.

My apologies to professor Sue, but in my opinion his list or racist microaggressions wasn't very well thought through. It's full of contradictions, inoffensive phrases made offensive by who uses them, and phrases that would probably never come up in a realistic conversation.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#507  Postby OlivierK » Jul 22, 2015 3:54 am

Oldskeptic wrote:So, social justice warriors can go around telling people that they are racists but don't know it all they want. And they can continue to tell other people that they are being insult even when those people don't realize it. But people should also have the right to deny or attempt to refute, in writing or verbally, those opinions without fear of reprisals that effect their careers and or academic status. On university campuses today calling someone a racist is a big deal and shouldn't be condoned much less promoted where it arises over differences of opinion or where whether there actually was a racist remark is ambiguous.

Again, the blue bit is an appeal for "free speech without consequences". I agree it's a big deal to call someone out as a racist, which is presumably why the policy does no such thing, but merely concerns itself with trying to avoid small remnants of casual racism, sexism or homophobia (note the "micro" in microagressions) that persist in the speech of even those who intend no offence and harbour no overt bigotry. We all do it. I find it hard to let go of words like "gypped" for getting a raw deal, and still occasionally use "hysterical" out of habit, despite deploring its origin.

Oldskeptic wrote:Something that concerns me about the list of microaggressive racist examples is that in a conversation with a racist that tries to claim that there are genetic differences between "races", such as intelligence, the counter argument that there is only one race, and that is the human race, is now also considered racist.

The child of immigrant parents saying that their parents came to the US because it is the land of opportunity can be considered to be uttering racist remarks.

The person complaining about or pointing out racism when the more qualified ethnic minority doesn't get the job is committing racism by saying that the best qualified person should get the job.

My apologies to professor Sue, but in my opinion his list or racist microaggressions wasn't very well thought through. It's full of contradictions, inoffensive phrases made offensive by who uses them, and phrases that would probably never come up in a realistic conversation.

Yeah, it's almost as if context is important :roll:
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9828
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Microaggressions

#508  Postby proudfootz » Jul 22, 2015 10:47 am

OlivierK wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:So, social justice warriors can go around telling people that they are racists but don't know it all they want. And they can continue to tell other people that they are being insult even when those people don't realize it. But people should also have the right to deny or attempt to refute, in writing or verbally, those opinions without fear of reprisals that effect their careers and or academic status. On university campuses today calling someone a racist is a big deal and shouldn't be condoned much less promoted where it arises over differences of opinion or where whether there actually was a racist remark is ambiguous.

Again, the blue bit is an appeal for "free speech without consequences". I agree it's a big deal to call someone out as a racist, which is presumably why the policy does no such thing, but merely concerns itself with trying to avoid small remnants of casual racism, sexism or homophobia (note the "micro" in microagressions) that persist in the speech of even those who intend no offence and harbour no overt bigotry. We all do it. I find it hard to let go of words like "gypped" for getting a raw deal, and still occasionally use "hysterical" out of habit, despite deploring its origin.

Oldskeptic wrote:Something that concerns me about the list of microaggressive racist examples is that in a conversation with a racist that tries to claim that there are genetic differences between "races", such as intelligence, the counter argument that there is only one race, and that is the human race, is now also considered racist.

The child of immigrant parents saying that their parents came to the US because it is the land of opportunity can be considered to be uttering racist remarks.

The person complaining about or pointing out racism when the more qualified ethnic minority doesn't get the job is committing racism by saying that the best qualified person should get the job.

My apologies to professor Sue, but in my opinion his list or racist microaggressions wasn't very well thought through. It's full of contradictions, inoffensive phrases made offensive by who uses them, and phrases that would probably never come up in a realistic conversation.

Yeah, it's almost as if context is important :roll:


Context? Don't be silly. Context can't change the impact of a statement.

What do the experts say?

"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10978

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#509  Postby Forty Two » Jul 22, 2015 4:49 pm

OlivierK wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:So, people with opinions that go against the grain of some social justice warriors should be told to stop having those opinions and not be allowed to express them. You would trample on the rights of people to express opinions in favor of some lager right of not ever being offended?

Far better to trample on the right of SJW's to say "perhaps you might want to consider whether what you say could be taken as a bit racist", in favour of not having to think about that sort of icky stuff, eh?


Of course, in reviewing the items put forth of microaggressions, we all are, in fact, considering whether they could be taken as a bit racist. Determining that the answer to that question is "no" is not a failure to consider the question.
Forty Two
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#510  Postby OlivierK » Jul 22, 2015 11:34 pm

Forty Two wrote:
OlivierK wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:So, people with opinions that go against the grain of some social justice warriors should be told to stop having those opinions and not be allowed to express them. You would trample on the rights of people to express opinions in favor of some lager right of not ever being offended?

Far better to trample on the right of SJW's to say "perhaps you might want to consider whether what you say could be taken as a bit racist", in favour of not having to think about that sort of icky stuff, eh?


Of course, in reviewing the items put forth of microaggressions, we all are, in fact, considering whether they could be taken as a bit racist. Determining that the answer to that question is "no" is not a failure to consider the question.

Indeed it isn't, it's just a failure to listen to the people who say they take such statements as microaggressive. It's like you just sat there and decided that "All lives matter" can not be taken as racist, even if in a certain context some people have taken it to be so, and explained why.

If you have a good reason why we should take your word that such things could not be taken as as racist, over the word of people who attest that they are taken that way, perhaps you could give it?
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9828
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#511  Postby THWOTH » Jul 23, 2015 3:55 pm

You know what OK, you're quite eloquent for and Aussie.


:whistle:
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37113
Age: 56

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#512  Postby laklak » Jul 23, 2015 4:00 pm

Some of 'em can even read, I'm told. When they're not drinking and punching sharks, that is.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#513  Postby Forty Two » Jul 23, 2015 5:29 pm

OlivierK wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
OlivierK wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:So, people with opinions that go against the grain of some social justice warriors should be told to stop having those opinions and not be allowed to express them. You would trample on the rights of people to express opinions in favor of some lager right of not ever being offended?

Far better to trample on the right of SJW's to say "perhaps you might want to consider whether what you say could be taken as a bit racist", in favour of not having to think about that sort of icky stuff, eh?


Of course, in reviewing the items put forth of microaggressions, we all are, in fact, considering whether they could be taken as a bit racist. Determining that the answer to that question is "no" is not a failure to consider the question.

Indeed it isn't, it's just a failure to listen to the people who say they take such statements as microaggressive.


No, it's listening, but considering the complaint unreasonable, or too rare/insignificant to matter. Listening doesn't mean agreeing.

OlivierK wrote:

It's like you just sat there and decided that "All lives matter" can not be taken as racist, even if in a certain context some people have taken it to be so, and explained why.


Anything can be "taken as" anything. I can walk into a room full of people and say "hey guys" and that can make someone really upset, because they don't like being lumped in with "guys." In my culture, however, the word "guys" is used to refer to mixed groups. If someone is offended by it, I can't help that and it's really not my responsibility to have to worry about every tiny little thing that might cause someone somewhere to take offense.

That's even more true with a comment like "all lives matter." All lives DO matter. It's a true statement -- in our culture, all born persons are supposed to matter the same, we're all supposed to have equal protection of the laws (in the US). All lives matter. So, now, I have to make sure that when I say that there isn't someone around who'll be offended by it?

How is this supposed to be done, short of just never saying it?

OlivierK wrote:

If you have a good reason why we should take your word that such things could not be taken as as racist, over the word of people who attest that they are taken that way, perhaps you could give it?


Well, first, I never said they "could not" be taken as racist. Anything can be "taken" any way. Offense is not given, it's always taken.

And, at bottom, if someone "takes" the phrase "all lives matter" as racist, because they think the only thing that should be said is that "black lives matter," then I really wouldn't care even if they were offended or upset. All lives DO matter. I mean, look at this ludicrous example we're even talking about. "All lives matter" - we have to consider that racist, but "black lives matter" which explicitly refers to one race, and no others, is not racist?

What if people out there think the term "black lives matter" is racist, just as racist as "all lives matter?" Are we to ignore that?
Forty Two
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#514  Postby proudfootz » Jul 23, 2015 6:19 pm

'Black lives matter' is a thing in the US because it is blatantly obvious that they generally don't.

Racism is alive and well in the US, and the 'black lives matter' is there to point up the fact.

People who insist on diluting it with platitudes are simply trying to stifle the message that America needs to hear.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10978

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#515  Postby Oldskeptic » Jul 23, 2015 9:18 pm

proudfootz wrote:'Black lives matter' is a thing in the US because it is blatantly obvious that they generally don't.

Racism is alive and well in the US, and the 'black lives matter' is there to point up the fact.

People who insist on diluting it with platitudes are simply trying to stifle the message that America needs to hear.


If the numbers of young black men being murdered every year points to racism being alive and well in the US then who is it pointing at? Nearly half of deaths of young black men 16-24 are homicides and a third of the deaths of black men 24-35 are. So, the question should be who's doing the killing? The answer is young black men around 90% of the time.

If the "Black Lives Matter" movement is really sincere why aren't they pointing the finger at the demographic that is doing the vast majority of the killing? Instead of addressing the real source of the problem they invade a conference and shout down speakers who are, as far as I can see, on their side. It's as if they can't see or smell the garbage in their own house.

Where is the rage and indignance that erupts when one young black man is killed by a non-black when nine young black men are killed by other young black men? Where are the angry demonstrations and protests against the perpetrators of the bulk of the killings? Why isn't Al Sharpton, and those like him, these "black leaders", agitating for change where change is really really needed? I have no answer for these things other than it's easier to blame someone else than yourself. Especially if the problem seems implacable.

So, who is it diluting black problems with trite and overused harangues? Big changes have happened since I was a boy, and more changes need to be made, but it's not all all about "whites" changing. The burden rests on everyone's shoulders, but there's only so much that anyone else can do about some "black" problems, and shouting down politicians that have a track record of trying to solve these problems isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Microaggressions

#516  Postby OlivierK » Jul 23, 2015 9:45 pm

Oldskeptic, your trite and overused harangue above ignores the fact that homicide rates are strongly linked with disadvantage, as is being black in America.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9828
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#517  Postby laklak » Jul 23, 2015 9:46 pm

OS, I think it's all the fault of the patriarchy, or white privilege, or maybe GW Bush.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#518  Postby OlivierK » Jul 23, 2015 9:47 pm

THWOTH wrote:You know what OK, you're quite eloquent for and Aussie.


:whistle:

:roll: :lol:

laklak wrote:Some of 'em can even read, I'm told. When they're not drinking and punching sharks, that is.

:smoke: :grin:
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9828
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#519  Postby OlivierK » Jul 23, 2015 10:09 pm

Forty Two wrote:No, it's listening, but considering the complaint unreasonable, or too rare/insignificant to matter. Listening doesn't mean agreeing.

Sure. People are saying that they experience racism through an accumulation of small, each not particularly serious by itself, instances of casual racism, and they'd like that addressed. You've listened to that, and don't agree that it should be addressed, as each instance by itself is not particularly serious. We get that.

Forty Two wrote:
OlivierK wrote: It's like you just sat there and decided that "All lives matter" can not be taken as racist, even if in a certain context some people have taken it to be so, and explained why.

Anything can be "taken as" anything. I can walk into a room full of people and say "hey guys" and that can make someone really upset, because they don't like being lumped in with "guys." In my culture, however, the word "guys" is used to refer to mixed groups. If someone is offended by it, I can't help that and it's really not my responsibility to have to worry about every tiny little thing that might cause someone somewhere to take offense.

That's even more true with a comment like "all lives matter." All lives DO matter. It's a true statement -- in our culture, all born persons are supposed to matter the same, we're all supposed to have equal protection of the laws (in the US). All lives matter. So, now, I have to make sure that when I say that there isn't someone around who'll be offended by it?

How is this supposed to be done, short of just never saying it?

Well, some people seem to manage, so perhaps if you wanted to know you could listen to them, and then not decide they're wrong.

Forty Two wrote:
OlivierK wrote:
If you have a good reason why we should take your word that such things could not be taken as as racist, over the word of people who attest that they are taken that way, perhaps you could give it?


Well, first, I never said they "could not" be taken as racist.

Yeah, you sort of did. Here's you saying it:
Forty Two wrote:Of course, in reviewing the items put forth of microaggressions, we all are, in fact, considering whether they could be taken as a bit racist. Determining that the answer to that question is "no" is not a failure to consider the question.


Forty Two wrote:Anything can be "taken" any way. Offense is not given, it's always taken.

And, at bottom, if someone "takes" the phrase "all lives matter" as racist, because they think the only thing that should be said is that "black lives matter," then I really wouldn't care even if they were offended or upset. All lives DO matter. I mean, look at this ludicrous example we're even talking about. "All lives matter" - we have to consider that racist, but "black lives matter" which explicitly refers to one race, and no others, is not racist?

What if people out there think the term "black lives matter" is racist, just as racist as "all lives matter?" Are we to ignore that?

Proudfootz has already given a reasonable enough response to this, but it someone thinks that "black lives matter" is racist, then I think they deserve a bit of patient dialogue to explain why others feel differently, just as O'Malley is receiving after his comments. Fair's fair.

I note in passing that even after I emphasized that the racism in that statement was context-dependent, your defence of it ignores context. It's almost as if these problems stem from a failure to consider context.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9828
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Microaggressions

#520  Postby proudfootz » Jul 23, 2015 10:41 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:
proudfootz wrote:'Black lives matter' is a thing in the US because it is blatantly obvious that they generally don't.

Racism is alive and well in the US, and the 'black lives matter' is there to point up the fact.

People who insist on diluting it with platitudes are simply trying to stifle the message that America needs to hear.


If the numbers of young black men being murdered every year points to racism being alive and well in the US then who is it pointing at? Nearly half of deaths of young black men 16-24 are homicides and a third of the deaths of black men 24-35 are. So, the question should be who's doing the killing? The answer is young black men around 90% of the time.

If the "Black Lives Matter" movement is really sincere why aren't they pointing the finger at the demographic that is doing the vast majority of the killing? Instead of addressing the real source of the problem they invade a conference and shout down speakers who are, as far as I can see, on their side. It's as if they can't see or smell the garbage in their own house.

Where is the rage and indignance that erupts when one young black man is killed by a non-black when nine young black men are killed by other young black men? Where are the angry demonstrations and protests against the perpetrators of the bulk of the killings? Why isn't Al Sharpton, and those like him, these "black leaders", agitating for change where change is really really needed? I have no answer for these things other than it's easier to blame someone else than yourself. Especially if the problem seems implacable.

So, who is it diluting black problems with trite and overused harangues? Big changes have happened since I was a boy, and more changes need to be made, but it's not all all about "whites" changing. The burden rests on everyone's shoulders, but there's only so much that anyone else can do about some "black" problems, and shouting down politicians that have a track record of trying to solve these problems isn't going to get anyone anywhere.


You don't know black leaders address this very issue you've mentioned?

It's mostly because 'mainstream media' apparently doesn't give a flying fuck about black folks.

...it’s easy to find examples of marches and demonstrations against crime. In the last four years, blacks have held community protests against violence in Chicago; New York; Newark, New Jersey; Pittsburgh; Saginaw, Michigan; and Gary, Indiana. Indeed, there’s a whole catalog of movies, albums, and sermons from a generation of directors, musicians, and religious leaders, each urging peace and order. You may not have noticed black protests against crime and violence, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t happened. Black Americans—like everyone else—are concerned with what happens in their communities, and at a certain point, pundits who insist otherwise are either lying or willfully ignorant.

To that point, it’s worth noting the extent to which “what about black-on-black crime” is an evasion, an attempt to avoid the fundamental difference between being killed by a citizen and being killed by an agent of law. And it’s not new. “When Ida B. Wells … tried to explain to a wealthy suffragist in Chicago that anti-black violence in the nation must end,” writes historian Khalil Gibran Muhammad for The Nation, “Mary Plummer replied: Blacks need to “drive the criminals out” of the community. ‘Have you forgotten that 10 percent of all the crimes that were committed in Chicago last year were by colored men [less than 3 percent of the population]?’ ”

Regardless of cause or concern, a community doesn’t forfeit fair treatment because it has crime. That was true then when the scourge was lynching, and it’s true now that the scourge is unjust police violence. Say what you will about “black-on-black crime,” just don’t pretend it has anything to do with unfair killings at the hands of the state.

<link to full article>

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... rwise.html


"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10978

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest