Yes, but we are not living under those laws and in those decades. We are living in the present, a very different time and place with a very different culture. Those laws were there, and there are racists now. But to use them as a club to beat any white person is not logical.
Take Arkdrey for example. He experienced Soviet oppression, yet is part of “global white supremacy”.
Also, thanks for your clarifications. I’ll add one more.
I’m confident, at this point, that you are correct, regarding what your responses would probably contribute.
But I’m going to stress the following, because it’s actually something untrue that you keep saying:
I have never accused you of racism. I’ve never accused any white person of racism. I know I’ve never done this, because doing so doesn’t conform to the way I talk about race; an approach that @Arkdrey referred to as “verbal chess.”
(You called his metaphor “actually quite good…very clever.” Of course, @Arkdrey’s error is imagining that I am doing some such thing rather “than having an honest discussion,” as if speaking purposefully, and engaging in a deferential conversation, were mutually exclusive.)
What I did accuse you of was being “a tad obsessed” with Black crime.
What’s odd about your charge is I am probably the only the person on Spectrum who has repeatedly said that Black people should not call white people racists. I don’t even think that there are white people here who urge this.
If there’s anything that you should take away from our infrequent exchanges, Allen, it’s that I’m at least “decent” at stating exactly what I mean to say; “I didn’t stutter,” as my people often quip.
This means that if I thought you were a racist, I would simply say, “Allen Shepherd, you are a racist.” That I have not said this should tell you that, to some degree, I think that the matter is undecided.
Do you really need to state “Allen is a racist” to mean it?
You have already said that I am obsessed with black crime. If I admit it, I am, and if I deny it I still am. Called a “Catch 22”. So that is why I did not decide to post. But you persist. Well, guess I just can’t help myself.
Typically, in these racism debates, I ignore other exchanges between those writing, just to keep my own comments and statements clear and linear.
But this was your response to @Carmen Lau; a thoughtful and intuitive thinker and writer, and it just jumped out at me.
What Carmen is saying are, in the simplest terms, is that, “in America,” white people and non-white people do not share a history of being treated justly.
Now, not only does she state this, but she immediately follows up her statement with supportive, current examples:
This seems like a simple, even uncontroversial statement. There are, possibly, hectares of studies that would support her conclusions.
However, when you respond, you do not quote her contemporary examples.
You cite her original statement, about history. Then you say this:
This statement suggests that you are a skilled writer, but that, again, when it comes to race, you either a) simply don’t know what you’re talking about, or, b) that you hide the truth by selectively telling it.
I’m going to fall on b). “You have something to hide” was my earlier charge. I said it because I could not see another possible vector. (I’ve asked @Arkdrey if he saw one. His response was to ask me if I saw one. I’ve re-asked him, below. Let’s see with what he comes up.)
However, in this case, I say it because the very statement that would befoul your response to Carmen is right there, next, in her text: She literally states facts—racial stress, police brutality, vigilante justice—that would falsify your statement that “we are not living under those laws and in those decades. We are living in the present, a very different time and place with a very different culture.”
You didn’t repeat Carmen’s falsifying text, and you didn’t respond to it. Instead, you left it out, and made a nonsensical statement about a present that supposedly exists…and that was somehow shaped into our current world, despite its miscreant past.
“We are not living under those laws and in those decades. We are living in the present, a very different time and place with a very different culture.”
I’d like you tell us all how this was done, by whom, and when.
Then, you said this:
In other words, according to you, these two sets cannot overlap:
Just a word of caution…
This “globalization” sounds very extreme to me. Yes, white supremacy is alive and well - which is a disgrace! - but it is also imperative to keep in mind that not all whites are white supremacists or racists. It’s also wise to remember that racism is a social disease that is contracted by some people of any color, not all people of one certain color. To “globalize” racism around white people only would be a travesti to observable facts. It’s racism that needs to be eliminated, not the white people…
option 3 - You are looking at this issue through the narrow lens of your own generalizations.
How about that one?
In any aspect of that “system” you tend to ignore the context of representational majority as it relates to the developed word that it represents. Most of these people are not there because their grandfathers owned slaves and exploited black labor. They are there because they grew up in circumstances they wanted to change, and they are better at organizing people than an average bloke. So, most of their wealth and influence is in the organizational skills… the same as the wealth and influence of the Adventist church structure, since people merely join together to produce.
They have nothing apart from their organization. Elon Musk actually made a point about it as he sold most of his stuff, and he rents an apartment now. His wealth is in the organization. And if you think he will intentionally keep black engineers from working at Tesla because he’s black… you need more thinking to do. This isn’t 1950s. Racism actually hurts the bottom line if racists ignore competent people, and hire incompetent just to support their views.
Your assumptions simply don’t work in context of reality. The only way these work if in fact you are refer to the poor population that does need help, but you would be shifting categories to a dimension that would be apples and oranges. You can’t compare educated white people to uneducated black people. It’s absurd comparison. We can certainly discuss why they are uneducated, but that’s not a problem bound to race.
Likewise, when you focus on White Supremacy, you are unintentionally make “white people” to be the measure of all things.
Your view seems to be… since I don’t have something, and then other people do… then it’s injustice. But no one prohibits you in this day and age to get out and learn, or work and accumulate. That’s the only way to resolve these difference. Become entrepreneur, like many of people are. Hire minorities. Empower people.
No, you won’t be Jeff Bezos… but, guess what… neither will I, and neither will be the rest of the white population, many of which have substantially different worldview and aspirations. So, let’s not consolidate “whiteness” under those who tend to rise to the top due to circumstances that are not available to all, and most of the people wouln’t want.
Pointing finger at a person like Jeff Bezos and screaming “White Supremacy”… is incredibly ignorant.
I don’t. That’s what you end up inadvertently doing, because you are certainly not pointing to the lower-class people living in trailer parks of West Virginia, or the lower-class population of Ukraine which would switch with you right this moment and assume your skin color, history of oppression and all.
I am sorry Harry, but that definition of “racism” is narrow, biased, and directed against only one race, It sounds like a racist statement in itself. Are you saying that racism is “a white thing,” that a black person - or any color for the matter - cannot be a racist?
Racism does not have a “color.” It is a malaise that anyone can contract, or be brainwashed into it. Trying to make it a “one color fits all”… would be a very racist attempt in itself!