Dapper Andy
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2013
- Messages
- 913
- Reaction score
- 310
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Institutional racism is an assumption that any black person who achieves something in life probably got it through racial preferences unless unlike his white counterparts has figured out how to do his job 1000 times better than anybody else leaving no question in anybody's mind he's not just good, he's the best ever. Institutional racism is assuming anybody who looks Hispanic should be suspected of illegal immigration and unlike other Americans should give himself an extra 30 minutes travel time in case he's spotted and interrogated to make sure he's legit and maybe carry his birth certificate and a utility bill along with his driver's license at all times.
So you have two factions - one of folks who view any incident where a member of their race is victimized as racism, and one of folks who only view the most extreme situations as racism. That sets up a situation where neither side budges as to what is and isn't racism.
e.g., Sharpton, Jackson
So you have two factions - one of folks who view any incident where a member of their race is victimized as racism, and one of folks who only view the most extreme situations as racism. That sets up a situation where neither side budges as to what is and isn't racism.
I think most everyone would oppose legitimate racism if they saw it
Who determines what is and isn't "legitimate" racism? You? Is that like "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape?
Who determines what is and isn't "legitimate" racism? You? Is that like "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape?
Who determines what is and isn't "legitimate" racism? You? Is that like "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape?
And this is exactly what I was talking about.
Rather than having an intelligent conversation about the left's use of the race card, you decide to up the ante and insinuate I must hate women and want to see them raped. This is what racism, genderism, sexism, etc. is in today's United States and you're living proof why we can't have an intelligent conversation about things like racism.
Sadly, that's the big problem. Who really determines it? I think the "big" instances are things that, generally across the board, you have wide agreement in terms of racism save for those on the far end of the extreme. The issue is of course those instances that aren't as blatant. While I don't think every instance of "discreet" racism that is claimed is legitimate, I also think it's foolish for some who act like almost none of them are. There are undoubtably many situations that exist in this country every day where there's grey area and where a determination either direction could be made. The problem is that some see it and despite the greyness decide that its definitively "legitimate" and others who see it and think its definitively "illegitimate"; whereas often it's almost impossible to say. For those situations I wish I had a good answer on how, as a society, we should be able to tackle it in a reasonable way but sadly I don't. In part becuase the two extremes will always be the loudest, and their battle will always bleed into the minds of others in some fashion and to some degree.
I suppose it can be subjective but in my thinking a real race problem is something that causes a tangible adverse affect on someone's life caused by institutional conditions, systemic conditions or deliberate and malicious treatment because of the race of the person affected. I know some people have a different view but unless its blatant and intentionally calloused, I have to see real harm before I'm willing make a big deal out of it. If the cause for the harm is institutional or systemic, I also try to be careful to make sure I'm clear no person is at fault but rather a condition needs to be addressed.
Sadly, that's the big problem. Who really determines it? I think the "big" instances are things that, generally across the board, you have wide agreement in terms of racism save for those on the far end of the extreme. The issue is of course those instances that aren't as blatant. While I don't think every instance of "discreet" racism that is claimed is legitimate, I also think it's foolish for some who act like almost none of them are. There are undoubtably many situations that exist in this country every day where there's grey area and where a determination either direction could be made. The problem is that some see it and despite the greyness decide that its definitively "legitimate" and others who see it and think its definitively "illegitimate"; whereas often it's almost impossible to say. For those situations I wish I had a good answer on how, as a society, we should be able to tackle it in a reasonable way but sadly I don't. In part becuase the two extremes will always be the loudest, and their battle will always bleed into the minds of others in some fashion and to some degree.
According to the report, sentences for black males were 19.5 percent longer than those for similarly situated white males between December 2007 and September 2011, the most recent period covered in the report. The commission also found that black males were 25 percent less likely than whites to receive a sentence below the sentencing guidelines.
The analysis also found that black males were 25% less likely than whites in the same period to receive a sentence below the guidelines' range.
[...]he then broke it down to 21 cases - including that of Buck's - which were most similar in circumstances.
He found that seven out of the ten men sent for capital trial were black African American.
This compares with just one of the five white defendant.
In his report he writes: 'The probability that the district attorney will advance a case to a [death] penalty trial is more than three times as high when the defendant is African American than for white defendants.'
In Texas the jury decides whether those convicted will face execution. Of those facing trial Harris County juries sent four of the seven black defendants to execution and also the white defendant.
He said this slightly redressed the balance as 100 per cent of the white capital defendants in the sample were given death penalty compared with 57 per cent of the African American sample.
But of the original group of 21 cases, the black defendants were more than twice as likely to be sentenced to death than their white counterparts, he said.
Read more: Black people are three times more likely to face the death sentence in Houston than whites, study finds | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The phrase "race card" exists only for the purpose of covering up legitimate examples of racism. It is the cry to pretend that issues with racial implications don't matter unless they come from overt racist intentions. It is the wishful fantasy that racial problems in this country went away in the 1960s and that white people are now immune to criticism for the racial consequences of their actions. There is no reason to have a blanket term for "unfounded assertion that race is a factor in this issue", because only a tiny fraction of such assertions are unfounded. That there is even such a tactic as "playing the race card" exists only the minds of people who want to pretend that the choices they make and the policies they support do not prop white people up over black people.
I've been black my whole life. For almost my entire adult life I'm been a registered republican, drawn to the GOP because of a perception I had of the Republicans being the party that stood for doing the right things; God, family and country. I have almost always voted Republican in every election with a handful of exceptions prior to 2012 where I saw my role as making a statement of protest over things like holding the President to ridiculous double standards, voter suppression and other troubling problems I see with the current GOP culture. Up until recently I've thought of myself as a conservative in good standing. I say all that to lay a foundation on who I am and where I stand.
One thing that's like fingernails on a chalkboard for me is when I hear people, almost always conservative in my experience, complain that someone is "using the race car." I happen to believe America does have a racist history and holdovers from that unfortunate aspect of history still occasionally can be seen today. But I think I'm fair about it. I defended and supported President Bush when he was accused of having less concern for Katrina victims because of race, which was a complete untruth. I stood up for Don Imus, realizing all he did was tell a joke that hurt no one but himself. I stood up for Paula Deen reasoning she has quite an imagination, wanted to create an early south ambiance at an event then apologized once she realized she'd offended people she loves.
That all said I do think racism exists today and think it needs to be called out as such, especially what I call institutional racism so that it can be discussed and hopefully corrected. Institutional racism isn't some guy making a joke somebody got offended by or a 5 second sound bite from a speech that's magnified to try to define a person's entire life or the characters of his friends. Institutional racism is an assumption that any black person who achieves something in life probably got it through racial preferences unless unlike his white counterparts has figured out how to do his job 1000 times better than anybody else leaving no question in anybody's mind he's not just good, he's the best ever. Institutional racism is assuming anybody who looks Hispanic should be suspected of illegal immigration and unlike other Americans should give himself an extra 30 minutes travel time in case he's spotted and interrogated to make sure he's legit and maybe carry his birth certificate and a utility bill along with his driver's license at all times.
I take exception to the politically correct culture that some seek to create by immediately demonizing any complaint of possible racism often even before investigating the facts. It seems they'll acknowledge racism if its blatantly obvious...sometimes... but then probably define it as an isolated case. However, less severe cases of racism should never be spoken of or the speaker will be vilified as "using the race card." The net result is since only major cases of racism end up being addressed while less serious cases are overlooked under political correctness pressures, then society is perpetually slightly racist because is non-PC to talk about the "slightly racist" stuff.
My question is what's worse: running the risk of someone using the race card where in essence false assertions of racism are made or creating a culture where all assertions of racism are dismissed including legitimate racism?
The first poll option should be "Society should NOT mention race..." Sorry.
Why is it either-or?
Shouldn't we both reject cynical "race card" manipulations and resist racism whenever it rears its ugly head?
Here is the origin and first usage of the term. And I challenge your assertion that "only a tiny fraction of such assertions are unfounded". Playing the race card by all the names it's been known is a time honored distraction technique. Pretty much comes down to the equivilent of, "Heh everybody, look over there!".
I don't think the situation is grey or subjective at all.
Men lie, women lie, numbers don't.
And what is behind THE RACE CARD that gives it power?
Why is it either-or?
Shouldn't we both reject cynical "race card" manipulations and resist racism whenever it rears its ugly head?
It gets it's power because the vast majority of people think racism is bad, think being racist is bad, and think racist actions should be avoided and/or stopped. Thus an accusation of an action/comment/person/system being "racist", or a variation there of, bestows upon that entity a negative connotatoin.
In a more micro comparison, it is similar to a "Bias Card" when talking about political news. In general, people believe Bias is a bad thing...thus, accusing something of "bias" instantly connotates a negative notion towards that entity.
This basic thought process is actually the basis behind "Godwin's Law". Hitler and Nazi's have a negative connotation, and thus attempting to compare Nazi's or Hitler to something you're arguing against is an attempt to impart to others that said thing is also negative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?