[This is a guest post from SWPD reader jw, who adds the following self-description: "As a white German I see it as my responsibility that history never again can repeat itself. Without ideology I am politically left, embracing humanism and trying to be a part in the fight against the system of white supremacy. Anti-racism is more than just being against racism." jw also wrote recently about how white people "sacrifice the selves of their children"]
The reality is that capital punishment in America is a lottery. It is a punishment that is shaped by the constraints of poverty, race, geography and local politics.
--Bryan Stevenson, Death Row lawyer
While it may seem that America is "tough on crime," the prison industry, along with the police and the judiciary, plays an important role of control and the demonstration of power.
The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world , at 737 persons imprisoned per 100,000. A report released Feb. 28, 2008 indicates that in the United States more than 1 in 100 adults is now confined in an American jail or prison. The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population.
According to the Bureau of Justice, Blacks are almost three times more likely than Hispanics and five times more likely than whites to be in jail.
And while white supremacists use such statistics to "prove" their argument that Black people are more prone to crime than white folks, the real reasons for such high incarceration rates are racial profiling and the so-called "War on Drugs."
Human Rights Watch writes that
African-Americans are arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned for drug offenses at far higher rates than whites. This racial disparity bears little relationship to racial differences in drug offending. For example, although the proportion of all drug users who are black is generally in the range of 13 to 15 percent, blacks constitute 36 percent of arrests for drug possession. Blacks constitute 63 percent of all drug offenders admitted to state prisons. In at least fifteen states, black men were sent to prison on drug charges at rates ranging from twenty to fifty-seven times those of white men.
After slavery, slave patrollers, the KKK and Jim Crow, white control over Black people took on a new dimension, which is not "tough on crime" but tough on non-white people (and also poor white people).
Thus it is no surprise that the USA still practices the death penalty as another way of demonstrating its utmost power. America is a nation that still believes it should decide who has the right to live and who does not. However, the right to live is a Human Right, and the application of the death penalty is violating a basic human right in the name of "justice."
One argument for the death penalty is that it deters homicide. But as a New York Times study discovered, statistics do not demonstrate the efficiency of the death penalty.
The dozen states that have chosen not to enact the death penalty since the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that it was constitutionally permissible have not had higher homicide rates than states with the death penalty, government statistics and a new survey by The New York Times show.
Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. In a state-by-state analysis, The Times found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.
The study by The Times also found that homicide rates had risen and fallen along roughly symmetrical paths in the states with and without the death penalty, suggesting to many experts that the threat of the death penalty rarely deters criminals.
The death penalty is also not actually used against the most brutal murderers. Instead, according to findings of Amnesty International,
a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. This confirms the findings of many other studies that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the victim.
Underlying the statistical evidence is the differential treatment of African-Americans at every turn in the criminal justice system. From initial charging decisions to plea bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when they are victims. Furthermore, all-white or virtually all-white juries are still commonplace in many localities.
That the justice system of America is seriously flawed is also proven by the many exonerations. "Since 1973, 129 people in 26 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence." (deathpenaltyinfo.org)
Also, Troy Davis was sentenced to death 1991 without proof of his guilt. There is no physical evidence against him and his conviction is based on witness testimony. His execution was halted, but "on Monday, March 17, 2008, the Georgia Supreme Court decided 4-3 to deny a new trial for Troy Anthony Davis, despite significant concerns regarding his innocence. Today's stunning decision by the Georgia Supreme Court to let Mr. Davis' death sentence stand means that the state of Georgia might soon execute a man who may well be innocent." (amnestyusa.org)
A criminal justice system where race becomes an influential factor is no system of justice. And a society that acts as a silent bystander, sides with the injustice. This is how white supremacy works--as a system in which the powerful decide who has a right to freedom and to life itself, and who does not.
Thank "god" for Justice Anthony Kennedy and his good sense to buck political correctness (which sometimes skews conservative) in saying that rape (even of children) is not commensurate as a crime to murder.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I've always wondered about uneven way in which not only the death penalty, but the entire justice system is executed. I just don't see using the death penalty for anything more than cases in which it is absolutely obvious that the accused is guilty (multiple witnesses to the actual crime with plenty of supporting evidence). Natually, that would make the death penalty incredibly rare, but it seems that that is the way it should be anyway.
ReplyDeleteAs for m@, I wouldn't have the death penalty for rape cases simply because they typically can't meet the sort of stringent standards one should require for verdict of death. But that doesn't make it somehow incommensurate with murder. One doesn't have to be politically correct to find it just as heinous a crime.
Please consider helping Troy Davis by signing the petition at savetroydavis.net
ReplyDeleteHis case is emblematic of how arbitrary the death penalty is.
Macon D -
ReplyDeleteMaybe you can discuss (in the future) the ways in which some have supported Obama's speech about MIA black fathers, saying that it's about time blacks blame themselves for crime and absentee parenting than blame 'whitey', completely forgetting the social events that lead to such a breakdown in family, and its connection to incarceration rates.
Thank you for the suggestion, Kandee, that's certainly an important topic, and I will think about whether it's really appropriate for me to attempt an explanation of black-father absenteeism. I'm wary of the topic, because I'm learning here about the dangers as a white person of trying to explain what's going on in non-white communities, and thus running the risk of being too presumptuous. But, I do want to expose and discuss here negative common white tendencies, and the uneducated condemnation of supposedly "irresponsible black fathers" certainly merits exposure and discussion, and as I guess you're saying, THAT could be the focus of such a post. So thanks again for a great suggestion.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone still reading this thread has preliminary explanations to offer for why white folks think about black fathers in the ways that they often do, writing them here would be helpful.
I guess you're count Obama as one of the "white folk" since the question was about what Obama said and the support he got which didn't just come from Whites. There's a social phenomenon (or two or more) here and I think that's what the question was about as well as the knee bone being connected to the thigh bone.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Kandee... Obama used the "common" rhetoric that we're not supposed to use that excuse even while paying lip service to the idea that things on the policy front need to change, presumably including something about mass incarceration, and that's why he's running for president.
There is a strange and ridiculous double-standard at play here. All we have to do is look at how the "breakdown of the family" never seemed to be part of the public discourse when it came to the drug epidemic in the Black community but the idea was front and center in discussions about the METH epidemic.
And, then, too... Obama is one of those people who subscribes to the idea that Black people are superhuman as opposed to human.
Macon, thinking about your question... I feel in our country a pervasive 'Judge rather than understand' attitude, that is part white supremacy, part fascim, part corporatism (some say fascism and corporatism are synonyms) oppressing all of us...
ReplyDelete... not just nonwhite fathers, judging them more while ignoring the problems of white fathers in white families, but overall judgmental of us all, though moreso towards nonwhites.
I've been thinking of it as a supply side mentality when recently, I heard Tom Hartman on the radio saying we've abandoned centuries-old logic of demand side economics, and instead are deciding what people should need or want and concentrating on the supply side --
-- similarly, it can be analogized that in the psychology of our country, we're ('we' being corporatism, corporate media, etc.) trying to 'supply' people with simplistic understandings, impose shallow images and verbalizations to drown out peoples' natural tendencies towards more depth of thought.
We're supplying a judgmental, shallow approach to people, black fathers being just one example, and more white people -- though definitely not all -- are buying into it rather than seeing complexity and depth, while nonwhite people seem to see through it much more.
A man told me recently, "I wish I could write... it would help me understand myself." But because of our ratrace supply side economy, people don't have luxury to write, think, to understand self, let alone understand anyone else --
-- and so they buy into the fast-food of superficial supply of psychology that is supplied, eating up shallow understandings like of problems of black fathers, understandings that aren't truly their own thoughts, if they had the encouragement, time, and luxury to think for themselves.
Nquest, it's better to ask for clarification than to become heated over something you misunderstand. Read what I said again, slowly, without brash judgement.
ReplyDeleteMacon D, thanks. No commentary is needed on what black fathers need to do, just on the relief I've heard some whites express over Obama finally saying what they've wanted to say all along, but adding their own ignorant spin to it, completely forgetting how racism, combined with classism, has contributed to this social situation.
Kandee, what are some of your thoughts on it?
ReplyDeleteA good question, very revealing of white thought patterns.
I agree that many white people don't want to see --
-- just don't want to see that effects, results, of the long legacy of racism and Jim Crow and white supremacy, are results of whites' oppression, are not flaws in black fathers.
By having to see the true causes of problems for many black fathers`-- they would have to, for one, become more educated, and two, give up conditionings in their brains since young childhood probably, and three, lose faith in aspects of their history and country.
They don't want to see white supremacy's deliberate incarceration of black men, why? How much of not wanting to see is TRULY not knowing things?
Many white people can't even name the vice president, or find Europe on a map, or think Africa is a country, etc. etc., so is their ignroance of the legacy of Jim Crow, and their ignornace of the injustice of the justice system, in large part many whites' true ignorance of the facts?
And white supremacy's destruction of black success -- innumerable examples are not known to most white people, such as destruction of black Wall Street in Tulsa, or the taking of black farmers' lands --
-- resulting from the Department of Agriculture not lending black farmers money at nearly the same occurrence as the lending to white farmers...
I see white ignorance of those absolute facts, for one thing.
And many white people don't see or don't want to see the other side, the lack of problems, the overcoming of problems, the fact that the black community is and has always been, despite the horrible manifestations of the results of racism, a community of greatness, brilliance, subtlety, wise accomodation and breakthrough against oppression, successes...
...and the stronger-than-white-fathers' strength of so many, many black fathers...
--and black businessess' strength, black churches's strength, is truth, too...
When white people are often blind to black success, only seeing the problems (while blind to the causes of the problems), I do think part of it is conditioning.
And lack of knowledge, and lack of education.
I think part of it is insecurity and fear and us-against-them mentality.
Do you think those are part of it? What other factors?
Karen - I agree. Well said. There are so many road blocks to acknowledgement; part of that being education, part of that being access to information (truthful information).
ReplyDeleteWhat "brash" judgment are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteThe first part of my comment was directed to Macon. I wasn't addressing you until I typed your name.
The rest of what I said made no judgments. I just added my thoughts to what you said and, in part, agreed with what you said.
But you can explain how my "social phenomenon" is a misunderstanding of your "social events." I'd appreciate it if you would.
Also, you can speak on what you think I need to be clear on.
NQuest - You're right. It is my misunderstanding of your comment. Serves me right for reading it on a mobile browser.
ReplyDeleteTo Kandee who said:
ReplyDelete"No commentary is needed on what black fathers need to do, just on the relief I've heard some whites express over Obama finally saying what they've wanted to say all along, but adding their own ignorant spin to it, completely forgetting how racism, combined with classism, has contributed to this social situation."
What Obama said about absentee Black father's is not new at all. Many Black leaders have made similar statements including Jesse Jackson and Bill Cosby, it's a hot topic in the Black community and has been for some time. As for whites, they have been making similar comments for decades, Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s Department of Labor report entitled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action" published in the 1965 made commentary about the rising tide of single mothers across all races but how this was acutely affecting Black Americans. As for the causes blaming them on racism seems a little absurd considering the dramatic increase in out of wedlock births to Black mothers: from 6% in 1940 to around 70% now, unless you believe racism was dramatically lower in 1940 than now.
Anon, what's absurd is trying to compare 1940 with the present or even 1970.
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of "social events" since 1940 that has impacted the surface level reflections on out-of-wedlock stats. In 1965, out-of-wedlock births among blacks was 26 percent. One of the biggest arguments is that the out-of-wedlock status correlates to poverty yet the Black poverty rate went in the opposite direction.
Hmmm... But now more than half of all women in America are not married. So it's, how do you say, "absurd" is to use marital status as measure that's suppose to tell us anything with any degree of certainty about the changing American family and the causes of those changes, which, the stat doesn't even pretend to anyway. People just project what they want to think about because of all the loaded morality inherent in the idea of marriage.
Now, when it come to the "social events" that impact the family, Anon, there is simply no way you can eliminate "racism" as being part of those "social events" especially those already alluded to here in this thread.
Just like the family can change (men used to be sole breadwinners for a lot of American families) so has 'racism.' So referencing 1940 is absurd because we can go back to slavery and contemplate what the out of wedlock birthrates were and I bet they would be higher than 6% among "Black" families.
So, unless you believe racism was dramatically lower in during the slavery period than it was in 1940, I would think you would reconsider whatever you thought was relevant by referencing the 1940 rates.
Yes, a lot of people ignorantly cite the stats but have little to say when it comes to explaining what the out-of-wedlock stat means, well, in terms of what contributes to the stat and the social changes and, yes, "social events" that inflate the number. For example:
ReplyDeleteBirth rates for married black women have declined even more than rates for unmarried black women and are now quite similar. As a result, the proportion of births to unmarried black women remains high...
From the 2000 CDC, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 16
Funny how will cite the out-of-wedlock stats and even dare to talk about how the rate has increased over time but hardly ever talk things beyond the surface.
To nquest:
ReplyDelete"Anon, what's absurd is trying to compare 1940 with the present or even 1970."
Why..? Kandee apparently believes that the high out of wedlock birthrates are due to racism. Certainly we still have racism but it would seem it markedly less than in 1940 yet the out of wedlock birth for Blacks (as well as other groups) has climbed every decade. I never stated that single parent households lead to children who are more prone to crime. I think there may be some correlation but there are multiple factors involved.
To Nquest:
"Funny how will cite the out-of-wedlock stats and even dare to talk about how the rate has increased over time but hardly ever talk things beyond the surface."
Are you referring to my comments...? Lower income people of all races in this country have more children per capita than higher income people. Is that what you think I am not willing to talk about..? Higher birthrates among unwed mothers of any race would be an interesting sociological discussion in and of itself, but going from a figure of 6% to 70% in 40 some odd years (the plateau was reached in the 80s..) is not explained away by higher birth rates among unwed mothers unless we are talking about dramatically higher fertility rates by several factors. Regardless whether 3 women are having 10 kids of out of wedlock for married 3 women who have two kids each, wouldn't that potentially still be a problem..?
To nquest:
ReplyDelete"There are a number of "social events" since 1940 that has impacted the surface level reflections on out-of-wedlock stats. In 1965, out-of-wedlock births among blacks was 26 percent. One of the biggest arguments is that the out-of-wedlock status correlates to poverty yet the Black poverty rate went in the opposite direction."
In a round about way you are supporting my rebuttal to Kandee. IE the out of wedlock birth rate does not have a strong correlation to racism (or for that matter poverty..)
To Nquest who said:
ReplyDelete"So referencing 1940 is absurd because we can go back to slavery and contemplate what the out of wedlock birthrates were and I bet they would be higher than 6% among "Black" families.
So, unless you believe racism was dramatically lower in during the slavery period than it was in 1940, I would think you would reconsider whatever you thought was relevant by referencing the 1940 rates."
What..? Slaves couldn't legally marry, they were encouraged to breed and their children could be sold off without any consultation of the parents. Because of their lack of rights every slave was born out of wedlock so your analogy doesn't make any sense.
Anon - you jumped from my comment about black fathers to 'out-of-wedlock' issues, which seems to be about a moral evaluation of people's actions than anything else (conservative rhetoric). No, that was not what I was saying at all. People can parent without being married. A breakdown in family occurs with or without marriage. I'm talking about the war-on-drugs, tenement housing projects, high unemployment, the crack epidemic, and countless other pivotal social events that occurred at or around the time of the civil rights movement that destroyed communities. "50% of marriages fail" is an indication of the changing social environment of marriage. It happens. Things change. But when people start to blame a whole group of people for their perceived inferior social positioning, it becomes imperative that they be given a crash course in sociology before their bull-ish takes flight.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I'm confused.
ReplyDeleteWe're all agreeing that the behavior of black fathers has changed since 1940. Right?
(White fathers' behavior has changed too, but we're talking here about black fathers because of Obama's remarks)
So do I understand you are saying: 'Because there was more racism in 1940 than now, the change in black fathers could not be due to racism".
But then, what ARE you saying the causes are, of changes in black fathers? The intrinsic character of black men, are you saying that somehow black men's intrinsic moral character has changed in these few decades?
If that's not what you're saying, then what socioeconomic or political or environmental factors are you saying are at play, in changing behavior of black fathers?
To Kandee:
ReplyDeleteI had thought when you referred to the "social situation" when you said: ""No commentary is needed on what black fathers need to do .... completely forgetting how racism, combined with classism, has contributed to this social situation." that you were talking about the Black family structure.
Since you were talking about Black fathers and Obama's comments I thought the tie in with the changes in the Black family vis a' vis racism over time was relevant. As Nquest and I have already pointed out, discussion about family dynamics and specifically dynamics within the Black population have been discussed for decades by both Black and white commentators. So this is nothing new.. and whether we like or not generally these discussions revolve around Black male commitment to raising, supporting, and being involved in their children's lives, hence my segue into the discussion about out of wedlock births.
To Karen:
ReplyDelete"But then, what ARE you saying the causes are, of changes in black fathers? The intrinsic character of black men, are you saying that somehow black men's intrinsic moral character has changed in these few decades?"
Well I'd say the moral character for all men has changed for the better and worse to some degree. Better in that most men generally accept more equal footing (at least in the work place..) with women than they did in 1940. The opposite side of the coin that exists in all races is that more man are willing to not deal with children that they assisted in producing and are more willing to shirk responsibility. I have spoken to more than one elderly Black man who blames this on the welfare system, in so far as it affected the Black population. I know that sounds like a right wing ideology but that is what I heard from multiple sources. Whites are certainly not free of this but it seems to have struck the Black community more deeply. I do not know the exact cause for the difference. From 1940 to the mid 70s there was also a very large migration within the Black community from the rural Southeast to Northern cities. Racism may be the reason or one of the reasons but I would like to hear a detailed explanation as to why this is the case. On a side note, Nquest earlier made the comment that males were the sole providers in 1940. For the Upper and upper middle class that was generally the case but there were many women who worked especially among the poorer communities of which Blacks were over represented.
Anon, your history is off.
ReplyDelete"Most slave-owners encouraged their slaves to marry. It was believed that married men was less likely to be rebellious or to run away. Some masters favoured marriage for religious reasons..."
I would like to know where the idea of "jumping the broom" came from if every enslaved Africans/African Americans was born out of wedlock or didn't have the "rights" to marry. Your idea simply doesn't match the known and documented history:
Several slaves recorded in their autobiographies that they were reluctant to marry women from the same plantation.
As John Anderson explained: "I did not want to marry a girl belonging to my own place, because I knew I could not bear to see her ill-treated."
... A study of slave records by the Freedmen's Bureau of 2,888 slave marriages in Mississippi (1,225), Tennessee (1,123) and Louisiana (540), revealed that over 32 per cent of marriages were dissolved by masters as a result of slaves being sold away from the family home.
SOURCE
My point stands because Blacks did marry during slavery and because of the point you tried to make (even though you didn't know what you were talking about): that racism was dramatically "higher" during slavery.
Obviously, since slaves could/did marry, Black men could choose not to marry and the institution of slavery is a "social event" that has an impact on families just like the social events Kandee listed for you.
I have spoken to more than one elderly Black man who blames this on the welfare system, in so far as it affected the Black population
Then you agree with the "social events" critique. I do, however, wonder how you (and John McWhorter e.g.) only seem to think that welfare had that effect on Blacks.
Here, again, we have surface level analysis that explains nothing.
Note: McWhorter (and the elderly man you referenced) paints Blacks as VICTIMS and, worse, says "very few innocent people could have resisted" the welfare temptation but of all people who ever received welfare only Blacks are mentioned as crippled by it. Then it's funny how the Right (or McWhorter and his conservative pay-masters, in this case) tries to lay claim to arguments liberals made about welfare policies that changed and supposedly kept Black men out of their families.
Then there's the evidence that states in the U.S. with more Blacks /minorities have less generous welfare regimes in terms of benefits than mostly white states, let alone countries.
Anonymous, I have a feeling Kandee will write from a more sociological perspective, but I'll write from a personal one.
ReplyDeleteI've observed plenty of factors in my own life through the past decades, that would make black men have to fight to have the conditions to be good fathers, factors that did not apply to white men.
For example, when I was eighteen, I got a job in an ice cream parlor for the summer. Every time a black teenage boy came in to apply to be an ice cream scoop, the manager said we'd filled the job --
-- even though the 'help wanted' sign was in front and we really needed the help.
That little personal incident was multiplied all around the country, even then, 1972, even while affirmative action was supposedly helping to compensate for such common racism in hiring.
So I had spending money buying clothes for the fall semester in college, and a lack of worry about financial sustenance, while the black teens who couldn't find work, and didn't have parents with accumulated wealth for college, did not.
And I didn't have a sense of being rejected and unwanted in the work world and discouraged from the work world. I know many black teens at that time forged ahead, and found the companies that would hire them, but it was an uphill battle that I only saw from the top of the hill.
Then you've had a dramatic exponential increase over the last decades in black men put in jail for drug use or selling, even though whites statistically use and sell more drugs.
And the jailing of a black man for drugs is SO OFTEN based on the testimony of ONE person, who is himself in jail and is given an incentive to name someone else.
Many, many black men have been jailed in this way, based on one person lying and naming him, under pressure to name others for the incentive to get a reduced time in jail himself.
There's a documentary, "Snitch", which aired on PBS or NPR, which documents these practises especially in the southern states, if you can find a copy of the DVD.
Then you have the effects of generational lack of money, based on blacks having not been allowed to invest in the stock market back when our white fathers and grandfathers were building up our nest eggs.
And the lack of family wealth from that and all the other factors of racism that kept black families poorer, like discrimination in acceptances to college or grad school based on race etc.
There are so many detailed specifics I could name, will add in other posts.
I do acknowledge and know there's the other side too, all the progress, legal and otherwise, that people made during these decades, progress making it structurally harder for racism to be a factor, in college admissions, job hirings, etc. etc.
And many black men and black families succeed against structural racism and are actively creating conditions that are diminishing it, through their work in the positions they've attained in law, politics, business, etc., prominent men like John Conyers and men we've never heard of.
And black businesses are full of entrepreneurs who have learned to put out of mind the white racist businesses, and are building their own.
But there are both sides to what black men have been dealing with, the beautiful changes and progress, and the very ugly racism and impediments, many of which I bet I don't know and can't name, because much is hidden.
If you've never been stopped by a cop just because you are black, how can you or I even begin to understand the fear and harrassment?
To Nquest:
ReplyDeleteNever said slaves couldn't or didn't marry, my exact comment was: "What..? Slaves couldn't legally marry"
Which is correct...
Marriage during slavery
Marriage between slaves was not legally recognized. Whatever the nature of the wedding ceremony, slave marriages ultimately depended on the will of the masters. Some slaves were forced into "marriage" for breeding purposes.
Unlike 1940 or now, ultimately the marriage and the children from that marriage were subject to the whims of the master and not the slaves themselves.
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"I do, however, wonder how you (and John McWhorter e.g.) only seem to think that welfare had that effect on Blacks."
What I said was:
"Whites are certainly not free of this but it seems to have struck the Black community more deeply."
What I thought was implicit but I'll state clearly is that whites (and other groups) were affected by the widespread introduction of state assistance but it seems to have had a deeper on impact on the Black community. (At least according to several of the men I had conversations with..)
To Karen:
ReplyDelete"Then you have the effects of generational lack of money, based on blacks having not been allowed to invest in the stock market back when our white fathers and grandfathers were building up our nest eggs."
Well that would have been a very good thing in 1929... I am pretty sure that Blacks if they had the money, could and did invest in the stock market in the 1960s and on.. 1982, a time when Blacks (poor whites, Latinos, etc) could invest, marked a bottom almost as deep as 1932 (adjusted for inflation..) So they didn't miss the boat because of legal restrictions.
But really what you speak of is class privilege (that thing they used to talk about in poly sci classes until the Soviet Union fell apart..) My immigrant (paternal) grandfather was never invested in the market.. and basically Batelle screwed him out of a pension. My father quietly would send some money to him every year. I know my grandfather didn't like to accept it.. but he needed it.. Maternal grandfather was better off but not much ... I am pretty sure he never invested in the market.. My mother invested in the market in the 80s and like the majority of Americans lost money relative to inflation.. My father invested a little after he divorced my mom but whatever he made went to support his younger wife. So this guy didn't experience the largess of white folks making money in the stock market when he was younger. And I would say that applied to a large majority of white folk until the 1980s when Blacks were certainly able to invest.
"Every time a black teenage boy came in to apply to be an ice cream scoop, the manager said we'd filled the job"
Now it would probably be owned by Mr Wong, Mr Kumar, Mr Sanchez, or
Mr Ali and they would hire someone from their respective tribe or a Latino. At least that's the case in California. Yeah tribalism sucks.
PS I was turned down for a job in 1978. It was for the ARC (Asbestos Removal Corporation..) and paid $2.15 an hour. They said I didn't have experience. (In retrospect obviously a good thing..) I don't know how many jobs I was turned down for in the same manner only to see others employed when I was teenage. I ended up joining the military when I was 17. (You can go in when you are 17 if your parents sign for you or you are legally emancipated..) We called it the economic draft.
Not belittling the racist attitude of your former employer (did you ever ask him why he turned these kids down..?..) but in lower economic classes tend to be judged than the upper classes. From the age of 13 till 27 (aside from my stint in the military..) most of my jobs were grunt work: cook, dishwasher, janitor, truck driver.
The fact that I had very high scores on the SAT test (I beat Bush's, Kerry's, and Gore's scores) that I took in the military didn't mean squat. I was looking for a very long time for a career path that would pay. FWIW I experienced I guess institutional restrictions (not racism ..) when I applied (twice) to be a journeyman electrician. I was literally told by three white guys the second time that they looking for women or men who weren't white. Took a test for to be a firefighter several times. Always in the top 2%. Never called.
I was informed by an insider that other groups who had scored in 2nd quartile were called in. Such is life, I moved on.
Anon, whether or not the marriages were "legal" or not is irrelevant to the point of whether there were "out of wedlock" births during slavery. Legal or not, there were marriages. And where there were marriages, there were choices by men on whether to or not to marry which, by definition, determines how many children were born out of wedlock and "legal" recognition of those marriages is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point in referencing out of wedlock births is to determine whether the biological parents of a child are together in one household, in one family unit.
My point still stands and talking about slave marriages being subject to the whim of slave masters only goes to the point that racism was "higher" during slavery. Yet, even in the midst of it all, Black men still had the choice on whether to marry or not... the same way the Black men referenced by the narratives I linked to had the choice of whether to marry a women from his plantation or from another one.
So, my bet is that even accounting for all of the slave masters whims, that the percentage of out of wedlock births, whether legally recognized by a white man or not, were higher than 6%.
My point is simply this: you can neither eliminate racism as a factor in todays out of wedlock picture nor can you apply some hard and fast rule about racism and how it impacts family structure -- i.e. you can't say that when there is "more" racism or when racism is "higher" it necessarily means out of wedlock births correspond.
What you keep mentioning about slavery is the very targeted attack, so to speak, on the Black family. That, my friend, would only be one aspect of racism and, by itself, wouldn't say whether racism was high or low overall.
______________________________
really what you speak of is class privilege
No it was/is, indeed, White Privilege. Sure, some Whites were poor but none of that had anything to do with outside forces suppressing their wages or wealth.
And, no, the same old tired immigrant story doesn't work either. The issue isn't about "starting poor" but, as noted, having outside forces, the forces of racism NOT CLASSISM suppressing the potential/LIFE CHANCES of Blacks who to this day don't have as much wealth as their White counterparts, in large part, because of the racist history and its gifts that keep on giving.
the inheritance Baby Boomers received from their parents, is expected to be at least $41-trillion by the year 2052.
That's wealth that Blacks were largely shut out of not because of their class but because of their race and that racism of days gone by that your immigrant grandfather never was subjected to, apparently (or at least nowhere near the same degree).
Which hometown of his was destroyed by racist mobs? Which town of his was he forcibly removed from? When did any of those things happen on the basis of class here in the U.S.A.?
What restrictions educational or employment restrictions or discrimination did he face because of his race?
What part of an inheritance and centuries long headstart don't you understand?
What part of comparing like subjects to each other don't you understand? i.e. why are you trying to compare the whole group of African Americans as if they are one class with someone, your family, which was purportedly poor but faced no racism?
There is no way you can use that bogus (and uncreative) immigrant analogy to claim that it's about "class" when the history is replete with information about middle and upper class Blacks as a whole being far more limited by racism than their White the whole class of their White counterparts.
The class idea doesn't explain why middle and upper class Blacks AS A WHOLE weren't on par with their White counterparts in 1960... anytime before that or today.
Class doesn't erase the racist inheritance Whites, in general, benefited from when Blacks did not.
the lack of family wealth from that and all the other factors of racism that kept black families poorer
wow, that's a really interesting life!
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with what you say that different economic classes are judged differently.
And I do know of other white people who weren't hired due to an employer wanting diversity. And yet, I don't think any of those facts takes away from the devastating effects of racism on black men and how trauma can bring down every area of someone's life.
Black men are no different than white men in wanting to have a family and protect them so there are some very invidious factors going on.
Not belittling the racist attitude of your former employer but in lower economic classes tend to be judged than the upper classes.
ReplyDeleteYou know nothing about the class of the other employees at the ice cream shop nor do you really know anything about the class of the Black kids he always lied to.
They never even got a chance to apply for the type of entry level job you took for granted in the very post trying to deny what Karen reported to you as racism at work.
most of my jobs were grunt work: cook, dishwasher, janitor, truck driver.
Hmmm.... Funny how you have no stories about how you didn't get one of those jobs.
Somehow, Karen attesting to how they "really need help" still wasn't enough. You just know those Black male teens looked like they were low class and, therefore, subject to be summarily dismissed even when HELP was WANTED.
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"Legal or not, there were marriages."
Already linked a citation that the marriages weren't legal so I guess you agree with me there. The point about legality is that they would have some measure of control over their lives and lives of their children. Ultimately the white slave master was the final arbiter and they had very little control over the continuity of their union and certainly over the destiny of their children going into adulthood (certainly they didn't want their children to be slaves like them) When I read comments like the one from your citation that indicated marriage was a form of social control by the slave owners or mine that it was to encourage breeding, I tend to think a comparison to 1940 (or now) where both parties are free is specious.
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"nor can you apply some hard and fast rule about racism and how it impacts family structure -- i.e."
Not a hard fast rule but pinning it on racism with an eye on the history of free Black Americans indicates there has to be something else going on. .. if you want you can continue and I'll reply if I have the time but we are starting to beat a dead horse... basically we disagree. Anyway we went down the rabbit hole on the Black family issue.. the original subject matter was high crime.. I'll get to that in another post..
To Nquest:
ReplyDeletetook for granted in the very post trying to deny what Karen reported to you as racism at work.
Deny that racism was at work..? Huh..? When I state that he had a racist attitude..?
You know nothing about the class of the other employees at the ice cream shop..
Judging from her comments I am guessing Karen came from a family that was in the top 20% of wealth. That said I basicly threw in a non sequitur I'm at work responding in between meetings and other tasks so that my continuity is sometimes disjointed. My personal observations have been, at least since, I've been in the workforce that class plays an important role for employment.
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"....cook, dishwasher, janitor, truck driver. Hmmm.... Funny how you have no stories about how you didn't get one of those jobs."
Do you really want me to bore you..? Ok I'd say I didn't get about 95% of the jobs I applied for. AAAple Janitorial Services (they wanted to be first in the phone..) The Crabpot. Chanelo's. Able Janitorial Service. Got fired from Nick and Sully's after a week because I didn't have a positive attitude. (I was a dishwasher..) I mean.. these are the places where I didn't get a job and we are talking between 20 to 30 years ago.
To Nquest:
ReplyDeletethe inheritance Baby Boomers received from their parents, is expected to be at least $41-trillion by the year 2052.
Ummm that's more than 3 times the entire GDP of the US: GDP
And that figure does not take into account the huge debt load (public and private..) that the US is carrying.
that your immigrant grandfather never was subjected to, apparently (or at least nowhere near the same degree).
ReplyDeleteHis parents were murdered, he was imprisoned (where he lost 40lbs.)
Which hometown of his was destroyed by racist mobs? Which town of his was he forcibly removed from?
He was a Russian Jew, look up pogroms.
Anon, unless you got stories comparable to the one Karen told where HELP was WANTED and the employer took one look at you and said, "the job is already taken" then all you've done is shown how you can't compare your life to theirs. Your attempts to put that square peg in the clearly round hole won't work.
ReplyDeleteUmmm that's more than 3 times the entire GDP of the US
Ummm... Your point??
Ummm... what part of the 2052 year mark confused you?
Ummm... Yeah, you see the difference now, don't you?
The quote came from the first thing I got back from Google on this subject I had posted about before (elsewhere). I was just looking for the figure and got the quote from here:
http://www.ahoranews.com/news.php?nid=1320
The figure is quoted in a number of sources and apparently came from estimates economists made for a 55 year period that started in 1998 and, before the recession, $41 trillion was considered to be on the low end of the estimate for the intergenerational transfer which finds its origin in one of America's most racist periods.
So, quibble over the how big the figure is all you want... My point will still stand given how that wealth being passed on started to be accumulated at a time when African-Americans were openly discriminated against in employment and wealth making opportunities along with government sponsored programs like the GI Bill that Macon talked about here that all contributed to the "wealth gap."
The fallacy of your "they didn't miss the boat" thinking was that, somehow, all the racism from the past just stopped... stopped having an impact on the present and, in this case, on the future. Karen specifically talked about the time when blacks were not allowed to invest in the stock market Whites like them Baby Boomers or the parents of the Boomers were "building up their nest eggs" which has been parlayed into an estimated $41 trillion in intergenerational wealth which, again, finds its origins in racism.
There is nothing for you to disagree with there. The truth and facts about how racism works aren't contingent on you agreeing or acknowledging them as true/facts.
_________________________________
Not a hard fast rule but pinning it on racism with an eye on the history of free Black Americans indicates there has to be something else going on.
No, the only thing indicated here is that you want to deny racism as a cause for anything that comes up... up to and including the Black male teens Karen talked about as you made all kinds of assumptions about Karen's class background and theirs.
Earlier, you said you didn't know what the "causes" were but the whole time you've been intent on saying it's not racism but at the same time unclear about what else is "going on." You just know you don't want it to be racism.
we went down the rabbit hole on the Black family issue.. the original subject matter was high crime..
No, "we" didn't do any such thing. You were invited to talk about and were reminded of the crime issue via the "social events" Kandee and I talked about but you wanted to avoid it apparently.
Ummm... Your point??
ReplyDeleteThe future is unwritten.. economic projections..I can find some fun quotes from economists from just before the 1929 stock market crash..
Ummm... what part of the 2052 year mark confused you?
Nothing.. but I think it's fantasy.. or it will be in dollars (or some other currency..) that is worth substantially less than today. I found a website that the estimated GDP of the US GDP 2050 would be around $35 Trillion in 2050. (Source Goldman Sachs.. they have the best..) Aside from that given today's wealth distribution trends a very large portion would be accorded to the top 1%. The rest can eat cake.
No, the only thing indicated here is that you want to deny racism as a cause for anything that comes up...
Nonsense.. that's your strawman...
HELP was WANTED and the employer took one look at you and said, "the job is already taken" then all you've done is shown how you can't compare your life to theirs.
Whatever dude.. I have definitely had people shut me down when there was a job available.. I don't doubt Karen's story from 36 years ago but it's one employer and one summer. It's a syllogism to believe that all white employers behaved that way then or now. Was there bias against Black youth for summer jobs then vs. whites..? I am sure there was. Is there bias now.. I believe it is much less. And there are institutional cases of whites having some restrictions on employment now (I have given you two examples and Karen has indicated she knew of some..) But the world is changing fast.. many employers in my area aren't white. They have their own prejudices and ways of going about hiring. The Black/White race thing is changing rapidly and many of the discussions
seem very dated to me in so far as demographics and racial attitudes have changed dramatically in the past 40s. White privilege in 1965. I don't doubt it. White privilege now.. and you talk about inherited wealth.. which is predominantly concentrated in the upper 1% of this country..?
Related to debt and such in the US, check out:
History of US money
And heavily related to US 41 Trillion figure:
Asset and Demographics
To Nquest:
ReplyDeletehe crime issue via the "social events" Kandee and I talked about but you wanted to avoid it apparently.
Naw, I had actually replied to Kandee's post but then my browser crashed. I basically find her comments a bit vague in their ties to racism.
Anyway here's another one of those statistics that will annoy you. Black Americans were incarcerated at a rate 2.5 times higher that whites in the 1920s vs 5 times higher. Given that the economic disparities between whites and blacks were substantially higher in the 1920s than now, there were members of the KKK openly sitting in congress, and the judicial and policing system was almost entirely white at that time (and openly racist) I wonder why the
rate of incarceration for Blacks has doubled to this point...? This does not preclude that racism as a descriptor for the disparity, I just don't see it as being the driving force. While we are at it, why do Asians (a group which has definitely less political clout than Black Americans) commit crime at lower rates than Whites?
To Karen:
ReplyDelete"Black men are no different than white men in wanting to have a family and protect them"
Well, I know brothers who have very different levels of commitment to their families. As for your statement describing two very large groups, I can't really rebut or support it. How would you go about proving or disproving such a statement..? Not trying to be contentious.. just wondering how you came to that conclusion. (Books, studies, observation..?)
I wonder why the
ReplyDeleterate of incarceration for Blacks has doubled to this point...?
"The disparity in
sentencing between crack and powder cocaine represents one of the most flagrant
examples of a law that, on its face, is neutral, but whose impact is discriminatory.
Although the U.S. judicial record is replete with a myriad of legal challenges to the
racially disparate impact of the crack-powder cocaine distinction in federal sentencing
statutes and guidelines, no federal appellate court has yet to hold the disparity
unconstitutional, whether the challenge was equal protection or due process, cruel and
unusual punishment or vagueness. This failure is due, in large part, to a rejection by the courts that Congress acted with racially discriminatory intent in differentiating between crack and powder cocaine when enacting the cocaine statutes in 1986 and 1988.
[...]
The 100-to-1 Quantity Ratio and Disproportionate Racial Impact
Federal criminal penalties for the possession and distribution of crack cocaine are
one hundred times more severe than penalties relating to the exact same amount of
powder cocaine.26 Thus, possession of five grams of crack cocaine carries the same
penalty as 500 grams of powder cocaine. This is commonly referred to as a “100-to-1
quantity ratio.” For example, if a first time offender tried in federal court is found in
possession of five grams of crack cocaine, she would be subject to a mandatory felony
sentence of at least five years in prison without parole. Possession of the same amount of powder cocaine, a misdemeanor, requires no prison time. A person convicted of fifty or even 499 grams of powder cocaine would face a maximum penalty of one year in prison
[...]
Despite the statistics on convictions and sentencing described above, there is
evidence that African Americans are less involved in crack use than whites. Statistics
from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) reveal that the greatest number of
documented crack users is white. Seventy-five percent of those reporting cocaine use in 1991 were white; 15% were black, and 10% Hispanic. Of those reporting crack use in the same year, 52% were white, 38% were black and 10% Hispanic.
Although there are larger numbers of documented white cocaine users, national
drug enforcement and prosecutorial policies and practices have resulted in the “war on drugs” being targeted almost exclusively at inner-city communities of color. This has caused the overwhelming number of prosecutions to be directed against African
Americans."
http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/KennedyCommission_statement.pdf
This does not preclude that racism as a descriptor for the disparity, I just don't see it as being the driving force.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you are intent on denying racism. PERIOD.
In other words, you do think there is some hard and fast rule and relationship between racism and disparities. There would be no reason for you to invoke the KKK as a way to say that the disparities that exist today can't be because of racism or that racism can't be a "driving force" WHATEVER THE HELL THAT MEANS because "the isn't KKK openly sitting in congress" as if it took the KKK to make America's race slavery work. As if the KKK signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution... as if the KKK is the end all, be all of American racism.
And this is all rather curious giving the story of your immigrant grandfather(s) whom you referenced as if his experience at a time when "the KKK was openly sitting in congress" was comparable to African-Americans or somehow how evidence that he didn't benefit from White Privilege.
That's just how clear it is that your intent is to deny racism.
Anyway here's another one of those statistics that will annoy you.
Why would I be annoyed?
Black Americans were incarcerated at a rate 2.5 times higher that whites in the 1920s vs 5 times higher.
Your point? What? That you hold to this idea of a hard and fast relationship between overall racism in society and what degree you can attribute something to racism?
You do know that's a very lazy way to look at things or, in this case, not to look at things. Instead of looking at what's happening with mass incarceration and determining if racism is present in how, all of a sudden, not only did the rate spike but the prison population flipped.... Nah!! You'll just say society was more racist in the 1920's so racism can't explain something that is happening today even though you have no other explanation.
You just know (without an actual argument) that it's not racism.
FYI, your assumption that I would be "annoyed" (again, why?) is born of your ignorance of what I've posted on this subject before.
Check out the comments in the "go along with racism instead of calling it what it is" thread and an interview Macon linked to in his "believe that the american civil war ended slavery" thread.
No reason for me to be "annoyed" when I'm underwhelmed by your ignorant assumptions, attempts to avoid things said about the connection between incarceration rates which was driven by the policy response to the drug epidemic and your lack of an argument against racism being prominent feature in the disparities seen today.
Oh and I guess 1998 - 2008 was "fantasy."
It's clear what you intent is...
Economists believe that bequests of this wealth will significantly boost the resources of the 76 million Baby Boomers. That means by the year 2052, an estimated $40.6 trillion will change hands as Baby Boomers and their parents pass on their accumulated assets to their heirs.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's a "fantasy" to believe that the Baby Boomers and their parents (two generations of people) won't pass on an inheritance to their kids and grandkids. Why it's much more credible to say that they will all die with their accumulated assets in the casket with them rather than pass on wealth that has its origins in one of America's most racist periods.
It clear that no inheritances have been passed on in the past decade. The idea that any Baby Boomers or the parents of Baby Boomers passed on anything to their kids or grandkids during 1998 to 2008 is just preposterous.
lol
Nquest:
ReplyDelete"Yeah, it's a "fantasy" to believe that the Baby Boomers and their parents (two generations of people) won't pass on an inheritance to their kids and grandkids."
Ummm no Nquest, that's another strawman. I said the fantasy is the figure of 41 Trillion passed on in 2052. Aside from the fact that they aren't taking into account the debt levels or what the estate or general tax rate might be, economic projections going forward just a few years have been notoriously off.
I repeat that whatever money or assets are left if we are taking straight line projections (a mistake in my opinion but we'll run with it since that's what the article you linked suggests..) will be controlled predominantly by the top 5% of the population as it is now.
"It clear that no inheritances have been passed on in the past decade. The idea that any Baby Boomers or the parents of Baby Boomers passed on anything to their kids or grandkids during 1998 to 2008 is just preposterous."
That's interesting.. and another strawman since I never made that statement... but seriously.. do you think baby boomers and their parents haven't passed ANYTHING (your words) to their kids or grandkids in the past decade..? What..? Take another look at the age groups you are talking about..the median age of the parents of baby boomers would be around 79.
"Your point? What? That you hold to this idea of a hard and fast relationship between overall racism"
ReplyDeleteSpecifically racism within the jurisprudence and legal system. With the police, judges, congress, and juries being overwhelmingly white (and male) in the 1920s and demonstrably more racist than now I find it odd that the rate of incarceration of Black Americans has doubled from that time if we are pinning the majority of the current incarceration rate on racism.
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"In other words, you are intent on denying racism. PERIOD."
Nonsense... you are using another strawman ... of course it exists.. I have already acknowledged that it exists with implicit and explicit statements. The question is how much of the incarceration rate of Black Americans is due to racism. How much is due to other factors. Why do groups like Asians (which do experience racism ) have lower crime rates than whites?
To JW:
ReplyDelete"racially disparate impact of the crack-powder cocaine distinction in federal sentencing
statutes"
The laws were initially passed in response to the death of Len Bias who used to play for the Celtics. At that time a large number of Black community leaders were urging something done about the Crack problem which had already impacted their neighborhoods for several years.
1) Do you know what percentage of Black Americans prisoners are in prison because of this law..? (this is a federal law..)
2) There are a lot not so smart laws on the books... why wouldn't someone switch from being a crack dealer to powder cocaine dealer in response to such a dramatic change in the law?
Which community of victims appears to have benefited the most from stronger sentencing laws..?
ReplyDeleteHomicide victimization by race
Homicide victimization has been cut in half for Black Americans in the advent of stronger sentencing. 8,000 fewer Black Americans killed a year.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteYou do realize it is rude and racist to compare minority groups?
It is a common tactic that my Asian friends detest and so do I.
I don't want to call you out or embarrass you but it is a lame and over used tactic to belittle blacks, and it stinks!
It's an apples and oranges comparsion.
To Lhunfindel:
ReplyDelete"You do realize it is rude and racist to compare minority groups?"
Why? Macon compared rate of incarceration for Latino rate to Blacks (and whites..) but we can not bring in the Asian incarceration rate?
"It is a common tactic that my Asian friends detest"
Hmm, well it was Asian people who pointed out to me the low rate of crime committed by Asians.
Which community of victims appears to have benefited the most from stronger sentencing laws..?
ReplyDeleteWrong question. Which community has benefited the most from unequal sentencing laws?
Simply put: White Privilege lives.
And, since you're boring me by ironically, "overlooking the racism of the justice system" and since you're obviously too lazy to do this yourself (from one of the threads I linked to):
1) Tim Wise video re: the curious spike in "Black" crime rates
2) Sen. Jim Webb's "key point" on how the "growth in the [Black] prison population [for example] is due to changing policy, not increased crime."
Now, with regard to Baby Boomers, the bottom line is the wealth and, therefore, the assets they will pass on have their origin in, began its accumulation in a time when racism was undeniable. That's wealth, however much it is, that others don't have, weren't able to accumulate and didn't have access to because of RACISM. Period.
But go ahead and tell me how 76 million calculate to be 5%. Go ahead and tell me how the wealth gap between the middle and upper class Black counterparts of those Whites who are overwhelmingly represented in the Baby Boomer group has to do with class as opposed to racism past impacting the present and future.
Your weird protest is like someone calling the 2050 Census projections "fantasy."
anon,
ReplyDeleteGood question. I would say that you have to look at the acceptance of Asians by whites vs. the acceptance of Blacks and Latinos by whites in society to get to the depth of that answer.
It is known historically even though Asians are oppressed there is a vast diffence in the levels of acceptance and access in our society.
Other than that I cannot discount what your Asian friends say, so like all of us there are different viewpoints and opinions all around.
Thanks for responding. I will research this some more. In my experience it is not nice to use the "model minority" against other groups. I could be wrong though.
Lhunfindel,
ReplyDeleteSince you said you want to research this issue further, I'll add that Frank Wu explains the problems with comparing Asian Americans to other minorities especially well in Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White, especially the chapter "The Model Minority: Asian American 'Success' as a Race Relations Failure."
Darn, I can't seem to quote. I'll just copy and paste.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
To Karen:
"Black men are no different than white men in wanting to have a family and protect them"
Well, I know brothers who have very different levels of commitment to their families. As for your statement describing two very large groups, I can't really rebut or support it. How would you go about proving or disproving such a statement..? Not trying to be contentious.. just wondering how you came to that conclusion. (Books, studies, observation..?)
Anonymous,
Not books, studies, or observation -- just logic, the logic that human nature is no different across races.
(I don't think you're saying either that there are intrinsic differences in human nature between races, so I'm not clear what you're saying when you say you know brothers who have very different levels of commitment to their families?)
It's just an absolute "given" to me -- the given logic that men of all races, colors, ethnicities, are intrinsically and instinctively the same, and any group differences are exogenous -- cultural, societal, environmental, etc.
I do think men everywhere have ambivalence to family obligations. I do think black men are no different than white men in wanting to have a family and protect them, and at the same time wanting to do anti-family behaviors.
Ambivalence to family obligations, I see much more in men than in women, because family obligations go against other natural inborn instinctive tendencies in males --
-- such as to spread their sperm endlessly far and wide to as many females as possible, though that seems to be changing somehow, in newer generations of men.
If fathering responsibilities are an issue in American black men, if that is what Obama is saying, it's due to non-intrinsic factors having nothing to do with race which, if those factors were societally and historically devastating a group of white men or any race of men, would produce the exact same results in white men.
When a group of men don't take personal responsibility for fathering, it's due to factors some of which are obvious and some of which aren't so visible...
... invisible harmful factors like environmental racism, unseen toxic wastes in poor and black communities which impact hormones and health, both physical and mental health.
I really know about that because I've been impacted by chemical exposures and the main thing affected by many chemicals, is the nervous system/brain and hormones. It's really a real problem that people don't factor in, when talking about societal problems in poor black communities that are the target of the most environmental toxic dumping.
And I know a ton of white men too, who don't take fathering responsibilities in ways large and small, like my own dad in certain ways and not in other ways.
I'm not really sure that the difference between white and black fathers Obama is implying is real in certain parameters, and his statement wasn't very nuanced. What about all the black fathers who ARE committed to their families, they outnumber by far the ones who aren't (married or not).
I spend a lot of time in a poor black community where there aren't many fathers in the homes, but the fathers are involved in ways I've observed that don't get talked about or even noticed.
I like your giving divergent facts and views. Multiple perspectives added and sifted through together get closer to truth.
Thanks Macon,
ReplyDeleteI have added this to my Amazon reading list.
Maybe we can discuss it in a thread soon. I will let you know when I have finished it.
p.s. I'm sorry for that post, it makes sexist generalizations about men that I felt differently than I wrote somehow.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, Obama's comments about black fathers, I guess he felt them differently than they came across.
My confusion with Obama saying that the solution to black fathers who shirk parenting responsibilitiy is for them to simply take personal responsbility, is that shirking personal responsibility isn't the root cause of their shirking parenting responsibility.
Obama is telling someone to stop jogging to cure his headaches, and jogging isn't the cause of the headaches.
I think Obama implies the question, which is -- what is the CAUSE of (some) black men being unable to take personal responsibility?
Personal responsbility isn't odious; it's a privilege, it's a luxury. Who doesn't want the humanity of personal responsibility? Who wants his life to not be his own responsibility?
Obama shouldn't pontificate on personal responsibility as a root solution or as the root problem because ability to take personal responsibility is just another symptom of other causes.
To Karen:
ReplyDelete"Personal responsibility isn't odious; it's a privilege, it's a luxury. Who doesn't want the humanity of personal responsibility? Who wants his life to not be his own responsibility?"
Respectfully disagree... I can point to many people who pointedly shirk responsible behavior. At one point I was one of them, but over time I realized the impact of my behavior and made changes.
"Obama shouldn't pontificate on personal responsibility as a root solution or as the root problem because ability to take personal responsibility is just another symptom of other causes."
The cynical part of me thinks he is being a politician and appealing to white voters. That said, he is in tune with the sermons and posture of his former church so I don't think he is speaking out of character. What effect these type of speeches (or the speeches of Jackson, Cosby, or even Farrakhan) have on the Black community is another matter.
To Lhunfindel (and Macon)
ReplyDeleteI went to you blog and looked at some of the other blogs you linked. I thought the blog http://stuffblackpeoplehate.com was pretty funny. If you haven't already seen it I would suggest: http://undercoverblackman.blogspot.com
by David Mills who's written a few of screenplays for the HBO show "The Wire".
"Other than that I cannot discount what your Asian friends say, so like all of us there are different viewpoints and opinions all around."
Can't disagree with that..
I've read some of Frank Wu's stuff. Some of statistics in that book are already out of date but I tend to agree that some of the parts of the "Model Minority" stereotype are problematic.
If we wish we can compare people of the same phenotype. Per Tim Wise Haitian immigrants commit crime rates decidedly lower than the society average. From other sources the same applies to African immigrants.
Anonymous: "I tend to agree that some of the parts of the 'Model Minority' stereotype are problematic."
ReplyDeleteWhat parts do you find unproblematic?
Hi Anon,
ReplyDeleteJust saw your post today!
Thanks for the link. I will check it out!
Peace.
To Macon D:
ReplyDelete"What parts do you find unproblematic?"
Lumping all Asians together. (People who have been in the US since the 19th century (common in Hawaii..) Asian Indians, Hmong, Laotians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Malays, Filipinos, Indonesians, etc..)
*******Note to anyone who's just dropping in.. I am listing what I consider problematic Asian stereotypes***********
Women - Docile/Obedient (Which leads to some fetishism by non Asian males) which allegedly make good wives/girlfriends. (Strangely enough because of porn it's also assumed they are good in bed..) From my experience, Asian women in a relationship like to get their way just as much as Caucasian women. If they were born overseas they may be more indirect but the end goal is the same.
Men - Wimpy, sexless. This is even more problematic and it can leave Asian men out in the cold in the mating game. Normal Asian men have to be the most underrepresented demographic in US movies/TV.
Let's see sexless Asian men. Hmmmm Was the Kama Sutra written by the French..? Then there are Japanese and Chinese woodcuts which go back centuries showing all sorts of fun positions. And I guess all the people in Asian got there by mitosis.
Wimpy..? Bruce Lee.. rewrote that a little bit.. but the stereotype has come back.. Talk to any US Vet of the Pacific campaign, Korean, or Vietnam. Wimpy is not a word they use to describe Asian soldiers.
I could go on.. those are some of the highlights..
Thanks for the list, anonymous. I was wondering something a bit different, though. Since you wrote that you find SOME parts of the "model minority" stereotype problematic (which implies that for you, some parts are are not), which parts of it you find UNproblematic. So another description of that sort would be helpful, if you're willing.
ReplyDelete"and since you're obviously too lazy to do this yourself (from one of the threads I linked to)"
ReplyDeleteNo, you didn't clarify what you wanted me to read out of the more than 35 some odd comments.. now you have. (And since you are calling me lazy did you look at any of my links..?) I have now looked at all of the links you posted to me.
25,000 Homicides (roughly) in 2003, versus 2.5 million simple assaults (determined by survey samples..)
About half of the Homicides were committed by Blacks. The simple assaults were much more evenly distributed by the various population groups. But.. here's the kicker.. simple assault can be as little as me throwing a wadded up piece of paper at you. Do you think a cop or a prosecutor would take such a charge seriously..? Or how about the 2.5 million threats of violence? That could be things like you accidentally bumping into me in a bar while I am drunk and me saying "I'm going to kick your ass.." Again really nothing. More serious crimes where someone brandishes a weapon are classified differently.
So when Tim Wise talks about whites committing 60% of the violent crime.. he is including common and obnoxious but rarely prosecuted behavior. So I guess it proves that whites and Blacks are about equal when it comes to stupid behavior but not much else. I would like to see a more detailed breakdown on some of the other categories.
"Wrong question."
Why..? Black victims of crime count less to you than perpetrators..? I doubt that but there has been a reduction in crime in all communities especially the Black community.
"Which community has benefited the most from unequal sentencing laws?"
The unequal sentencing laws (I am assuming you mean the drug links that JW posted..) can apply to any race. I repeat, what is stopping any drug dealer from switching to powdered cocaine from crack.. (or not dealing at all..)?
"2) Sen. Jim Webb's "key point" on how the "growth in the [Black] prison population [for example] is due to changing policy, not increased crime."
There was a dramatic increase in crime from 1960 to the mid 80s. At first laws and enforcement were made more lenient. (Death penalty struck down, Miranda ruling, drug laws loosened..) Eventually after a few decades of high crime states and the federal government passed more stringent sentencing laws. The net result was a dramatic drop in crime in all categories: Crime rates. So crime was already high when the more stringent policy was passed. The sentencing laws had the desired effect of reducing crime. Are there flaws in the system and would I like some of the drug laws changed..? Sure, but I am not buying the idea that the majority of the disparity is related to a racist system. Since we are citing Tim Wise, if you go to his Myspace page he makes the argument that Haitian immigrants commit crime at lower rates than whites. I have read elsewhere that African immigrants commit crimes at very low rates. I wonder why they aren't so affected by the racist system..?
"But go ahead and tell me how 76 million calculate to be 5%."
I never said anything like that...I reiterate the 5% figure I cited applies to the top (five percent) portions of wealth. In other words
the top 5% of that 76 million will be the main beneficiaries of any inherited largess. The differences between the bottom 95% (and especially bottom 80%) are not great especially when you take into account issues like debt, taxation policy on estates, care for the elderly, etc. IE class privilege not white privilege.
"Your weird protest is like someone calling the 2050 Census projections "fantasy."
My weird protest as you call it is towards some economist trying to project exact dollar amounts for the wealth and economy of the US will look like in 44 years. Consider that 44 years ago (1964) the US was the worlds largest creditor nation, controlled 50% of the manufacturing, and imported 25% of its oil. 1964 represented the last year of 90% silver coinage, see what a 1964 silver quarter can buy you now: Silver Quarter
Wealth is very fleeting. Ask any German who was alive in the 1920s, (or 1940s) any Russian who remembers the Soviet Union of the 1980s, any Chinese person who remembers 1948, or almost anyone from Latin America.
What they all have in common is their currencies went kaput.. if that happens here, 401ks, Annuities, most stocks, bonds, aren't worth diddly. 44 years.. that's a long time for an economic system (especially one like ours which is showing severe sign of stress..) to continue unscathed.
"(which implies that for you, some parts are are not), which parts of it you find UNproblematic. So another description of that sort would be helpful, if you're willing."
ReplyDeleteWell I should say all stereotypes positive or negative are problematic since one is basically engaging in objectification but I have seen people of all races and ethnicities play up the positive ones within and outside of their ethnic group and this would include Asians.
So when Tim Wise talks about whites committing 60% of the violent crime.. he is including common and obnoxious but rarely prosecuted behavior.
ReplyDeleteWhere is your evidence of that? Coming up with bs on the fly is just not happening. And it's weird that you would claim you "would like to see a more detailed breakdown" when I linked to a detailed breakdown of violent crimes in the other thread.
Re: your simple assault nonsense... The numbers show that Whites commit almost 7 times as many SIMPLE ASSAULTS as Blacks and 5 times as many AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS. Whites commit 5.5 times as many RAPES/SEX ASSAULTS and 4.6 times as many crimes in the COMPLETED VIOLENCE category.
I am not buying the idea that the majority of the disparity is related to a racist system.
In other words, you full intend to deny racism. You looked this square in the face the still retreated back to your default position of denial:
SENATOR WEBB:
The growth in the prison population is only nominally related to crime rates. Just last week in the Washington Post [X] said...
WHO THE SENATOR REFERRED TO:
"The growth wasn't really about increasing crime but how we chose to respond to crime," said Allen J. Beck,[b] deputy director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics[/b].
Re: Haitians... Wise made the argument because the "immigration brings more crime" argument of anti-immigrationist and, over the years, Haitian immigrants have been denied entry at a higher rate than the lighter skin/white immigrants from the islands.
And why do you continue to play this "wonder why" game when you've already determine to deny racism which is the very reason why you're grasping at straws looking for anything and everybody to deny racism?
when you take into account issues like debt
What part of accumulated ASSETS - i.e. WEALTH - don't you understand?
What part of 76 million people, most/all White inheriting, not earning, money other people WITH DEBT, etc. can't by racist circumstance don't you understand?
Regardless of what concocted nonsense you dream up, those 76 million people, most/all White people will be have an racism derived ADVANTAGE over people who, again, can't inherit such WEALTH (wealth is not debt) due to the racist circumstances of the past that continue to give White ADVANTAGE in the present and future.
My weird protest as you call it is towards some economist trying to project exact dollar amounts for the wealth and economy of the US will look like in 44 years
Even more weird. The 41 trillion was on the lower end of the scale or RANGE estimated. A RANGE and an ESTIMATE, by definition, is not "exact." That's why your protest is weird. Because whenever you get through... Whites, by virtue of racism, will have an inheritance ADVANTAGE even if what they inherit will go towards debt which you have NOTHING but some bs assumption of yours to even begin to suggest in the first place.
So even if we play your game... Those 76 million people inherit money and pay off their debts with little of nothing left over. The simple fact that they would be debt-free or have less debt will put them in a better economic situation than Black people, e.g., who will still not only have their own debt to deal with... but their poorer family members too.
In 1999, 54% of African American families fell below the Asset Poverty Line. Only 25% of Whites did. So I don't know where you came up with this bogus 95% idea as it relates to the 76 million mostly/all White Baby Boomers who stand to gain much from their familial Whiteness and America's racist past that keeps on giving.
In general, immigrants have lower crime rates than average. Not all Asians are immigrants, but a larger percentage of them are compared to within whites. This is why Asians, Haitians, Africans all have lower crime rates than the national average.
ReplyDeleteTo Restructure:
ReplyDelete"In general, immigrants have lower crime rates than average. Not all Asians are immigrants, but a larger percentage of them are compared to within whites. This is why Asians, Haitians, Africans all have lower crime rates than the national average."
If that's the case, in my opinion we should examine why the disparate crime occur within native born and immigrant communities. It doesn't sound like it's because of a racist system. (although it doesn't preclude racism in the justice system..)
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"Over half of black American families fell below the Asset Poverty Line in 1999. This represents a positive trend for black families, as it was 67 percent in 1984 and has declined steadily over 15 years. This downward trend is encouraging, although an asset poverty rate of 54 percent is shamefully high and more than twice the rate of white families. In 1984 one in four white families fell below the Asset Poverty Line; this rate remained steady in 1989, rose in 1994 to 33 percent, and then fell back to 25 percent in 1999."
There's the exact quote from the article you linked. 1) I'd like to know what the asset poverty line is... they don't give a figure. 2) It's pretty clear that it's been dropping for Blacks and it's relatively fluid for Whites. As I said projecting forward 44 years and trying to determine who will have what while ignoring public and private debt, taxation, the general state of the economy seems a farce. It's clear you didn't look at any of my links. I'll repeat the bulk of the wealth will likely be held in the top 5% of the population. IE Class privilege.
"In other words, you full intend to deny racism." Nonsense, look at my statement again, I am saying I am not buying that the majority of the disparity is due to racism. Especially when there was clearly more racism in the country when the disparity was lower. I'll repeat why aren't Haitian and African immigrants impacted in the same manner..? It points to the possibility that race is not the prime factor.
"The growth wasn't really about increasing crime but how we chose to respond to crime"
And the response was effective:
Violent crime rates by race of victim
Note the gap for victimization of Black Americans is now much closer to the rate of victimization for White Americans. IE it looks like police are responding more quickly and effectively to crimes against Black Americans.
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"Re: your simple assault nonsense... The numbers show that Whites commit almost 7 times as many SIMPLE ASSAULTS as Blacks and 5 times as many AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS. Whites commit 5.5 times as many RAPES/SEX ASSAULTS and 4.6 times as many crimes in the COMPLETED VIOLENCE category."
You might want to ease up on your ad hominem, your math is wrong. In the other thread you linked to: Crime victimization survey 2003
Here are the ratios of percentages of Blacks and Whites in the US per the US census bureau:
White alone: 74% or 221.3 million
Black or African American alone: 13.4% or 40.9 million. A 5.4 to 1 ratio.
From the website above I found:
Simple assault ratio:
Ratio = 3.57 to 1 white to Black
(Not 7 to 1 as you claimed..)
(A minor crime which occurs often and is frequently not reported to the police, hence no legal action..)
Aggravated Assault:
Ratio = 2.869 white to Black.
(Not 5 to 1 as you claimed..)
But in both cases whites are committing these crimes at lower rates than Blacks.
Aggravated assault:
From the survey and the numbers in the census population Blacks are 1.886 times more likely to commit aggravated assault in 2003 than whites. (0.364% of the Black population committing aggravated assault in 2003 versus 0.193% of the white populace..)
Simple assault:
For simple assault I get 0.838% of the white population committing simple assault in 2003 and 1.27% of the Black population committing simple assault. So per the survey you previously linked Blacks were 1.51 times more likely to commit simple assault than whites. Once again simple assault is very common and minor crime that is frequently not prosecuted hence skewing the overall numbers for violent crimes for whites higher. I'll crunch more numbers later when I have time after work.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteEspecially when there was clearly more racism in the country when the disparity was lower.
You make the mistake like many do that you believe, that racism can only be measured by what you can see.
Laws like under Jim Crow just made it legally accepted to discriminate openly against Black people.
Laws changed, making today many direct discriminating acts illegal, but this doesn't mean, that there is today less racism. The face of racism changed.
When you believe that Black people benefited from the high incarceration rate and would just turn to powder cocain you forget one important question to ask: Why is dealing with drugs even necessary.
And being addicted is no crime, but is treated as such, most of all when it comes to Black drug addicts.
There are very different approaches when it comes to Meth, a predominantly white drug.
Ghettoization which happens because of racist housing practices, leads to areas without access to jobs etc.
Poor whites can integrate much better into main-stream society with access to resources necessary to leaf poverty behind.
This means jobs, education for example.
The high incarceration rate of Black non-violent drug offenders may according to you benefit the community, but incarceration does have an immense impact on the children.
To JW:
ReplyDelete"The high incarceration rate of Black non-violent drug offenders may according to you benefit the community, but incarceration does have an immense impact on the children."
No, JW I never said the incarceration rate of Black non-violent offenders benefits the community. What I specifically said was that overall increased enforcement for all crimes has dramatically reduced crime for all communities but in particular the Black community. The link is available for you to examine. I have already stated I would like to see some adjustment in drug policy.
"but this doesn't mean, that there is today less racism. The face of racism changed."
Elaborate on this if you could. Basically as racism has gone latent
incarceration for Blacks has increased..? And why does this not apply to Black immigrants from Haiti or Africa..?
"Laws like under Jim Crow just made it legally accepted to discriminate openly against Black people."
Blacks can now sit on juries, are involved in the justice system as police officers, parole officers, judges, prosecutors (and defense attorneys...) legal clerks, but somehow because of latent racism incarceration rates have increased..?
"Ghettoization which happens because of racist housing practices, leads to areas without access to jobs etc."
Ghettoization is lower and access to employment is higher than during the Jim Crow era.
Do you have a breakdown on data where people are being arrested just for possession as opposed to possession with intent to distribute...?
"There are very different approaches when it comes to Meth, a predominantly white drug."
There are?:
Meth in Montana
"In 2005, Montanans were leaving home – not because they were fleeing the state for better prospects; they were going to prison. The Treasure State had the fastest-growing prison population in the United States, fueled largely by a methamphetamine epidemic. Half of its male inmates and two-thirds of its female inmates were incarcerated for meth-related crimes."
That said better interdiction and education has seemed to have lowered Meth use in Montana, but I know there have been anti-Crack campaigns for a long time.
Anon, what exactly is your point
ReplyDeleteI thought I would try to determine what the Black vs. white incarceration would be without drug charges. Whether the "drug war" is racist or not, I do agree it is problematic. So what I found is that 40% of Blacks entering prison are for drug charges, for whites it's 25%. Let's remove all Black and white people in prison for drugs then and see what the ratio of incarceration would be. From Macon's link: Incarceration rates by race and ethnicity
ReplyDeleteI come up with a Black vs white rate of 3.83 to 1 versus 5 to 1 with drug charges included.
Alright I really have to get back to work.
To JW:
ReplyDelete"Anon, what exactly is your point"
Which point..?
Anon, there is a lot of information for you:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sentencingproject.org/
If that's the case, in my opinion we should examine why the disparate crime occur within native born and immigrant communities.
ReplyDeleteThis is a separate issue. Immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens for just about every country. It's an international pattern, but it's also an international pattern that the native-born citizens believe immigrants bring more crime. This is called 'racism' and 'xenophobia'.
It doesn't sound like it's because of a racist system. (although it doesn't preclude racism in the justice system..)
I don't understand your leap in logic.
You might want to ease up on your ad hominem, your math is wrong.
ReplyDeleteHere we go with another person who doesn't know what an ad hom is... And, no. My math is spot-on.
Here are the ratios of percentages of Blacks and Whites in the US per the US census bureau
What are the population figures for? lol I performed simple division to determine how many TIMES Whites committed the listed offense more than Blacks. You wanted to dispute Wise's claim that Whites commit 60% of violent crime. You have yet to offer an actual, substantive counterargument which says that his figure is not true.
I simply pointed to federal stats that are in line with Wise's claim and, just like the HUGE RACISM TAINTED WEALTH TRANSFERS, you can't logically or factually dispute what I've presented, no matter how hard or desperately you try.
Note: MY MATH IS SPOT ON... I said nothing about rates. That's your predictable and underwhelming bit of subterfuge. I drew the numbers I posted from the aggregate figures that are easily verified at face value alone:
SIMPLE ASSAULT
White only _____ 2,390,650
Black only _____ 348,330
(Whites almost 7 times as many)
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
White only _____ 578,070
Black only _____ 115,780
(Whites almost 5 times as many)
RAPE/SEX ASSAULT
White only _____ 131,030
Black only _____ 24,010
(Whites almost 5.5 times as many)
COMPLETED VIOLENCE
White only _____ 879,830
Black only _____ 190,170
(Whites almost 4.6 times as many)
(Overall) CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
White only _____ 3,283,030
Black only _____ 556,140
(Whites almost 5.9 times as many)
So, since you want to add the population differential... Everytime Whites commit more than 5.4 times more of the specified violent crimes then they are overrepresented or committing more than their share of the population and vice versa.
But, really? What is your point because, again, you ignorantly wanted to dispute Wise's claim that Whites commit 60% of violent crime but, given the link I provided, it's easy to see how his claim is well grounded.
So what are you trying to argue? That you will do anything to deny indisputable/well-established facts?
_______________________________
1) I'd like to know what the asset poverty line is
Stop lying. If you did you could find it on your own or via the link I posted. All you're doing is obfuscating and trying to use subterfuge. The same kind of subterfuge that has you calling familial WEALTH that began it's accumulation IN OPENLY RACIST TIMES the product of class inequality as if your denial wasn't already pegged as you trying your desperate best to DENY RACISM.
From the link: "The Asset Poverty Line (APL) helps us understand the asset condition of American families. The fundamental idea is to determine an amount of assets a family needs to meet its basic needs over a specified period, under the extreme condition that no other sources of income are available. We decided to tie this figure to the official income-poverty standard. In 1999 the official U.S. government poverty line for a family of four stood at $1,392 a month. In order to live at that poverty line for three months, a family of four needs a private safety net of at least $4,175. Families with less than $4,175 in net financial assets in 1999, then, are "asset-poor."..."
And, wow!!! Wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_Poverty
Now calculate them fluctuations and you still get White families reaping the ADVANTAGES of racism past living and contributing to the present and future. That is undisputable and you grab the 5% figure straight out your azz.
But, go ahead, feel free to underwhelm me some more with your desperate arguments against facts, history and common sense (and simple, unadulterated math).
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"I posted from the aggregate figures that are easily verified at face value alone:
SIMPLE ASSAULT
White only _____ 2,390,650
Black only _____ 348,330
(Whites almost 7 times as many)"
Ahhh dude...! you're quoting the ratio of white victims to black victims not perpetrators. Try again. If you had downloaded the figures into a spreadsheet you would see that the heading for the figures you cited says "Number of single-offender victimizations"
The figures (by percentages) of perpetrators by race are off to the right of the spreadsheet. I'll find some PDFs on the matter. The layout of the PDFs makes it abundantly clear.
To restructure:
ReplyDelete"This is a separate issue. Immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens for just about every country. It's an international pattern.."
Not necessarily true.. either presently or historically. Although I can agree that African (aside from some refugees..) and Asian Indian immigrants are often part of a cognitive elite which can give them distinct advantages.
By the way I have read that US born Asians commit crime at lower rates than whites, not just the immigrants.
"I don't understand your leap in logic."
I thought it was pretty straightforward... look beyond phenotype and race..
And the leap in logic springboards off of faulty logic to begin with:
ReplyDeleteFrom 1960 to 1989, an estimated 70,000-100,000, highly skilled African workers and professionals left their countries to go to Europe or, secondarily, the United States. This amounts to 30% of Sub-Saharan Africa's highly skilled labor stock. Kane adds that a third of all college graduates have left the continent.
It may seem odd that it is not the more impoverished and desperate who migrate to countries like the U.S. (i.e., the "huddled masses") but the educated and skilled. Understanding the dynamics of economic globalization can explain this seeming conundrum...
--------------------------
...a larger proportion of those who came to the U.S. were Africa's most educated...
A major concern is that because the migrants tend to be young, skilled, and educated, a large-scale "brain drain" is occurring that will hinder African development efforts.
It makes no sense to even begin to try to compare groups that are different in so many ways... And most immigrant groups are a lot less diverse, education/socio-economic wise, than native populations.
Anon apparently can't tell us anything about these immigrants before they come here and probably can't tell us anything about where they live (ethnic enclaves) and what they do when they get here.
To Restructure:
ReplyDeleteImmigrants are less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens for just about every country.
Not necessarily:
Foreign Prisoners
But I can partially see your point that it's getting off the subject.
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"...a larger proportion of those who came to the U.S. were Africa's most educated..."
Yep, that was my point about a cognitive elite from Africa (and India..)
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteSorry about that. Thanks for letting me know that I was wrong. I thought I read about that in some news article, but it might have been talking about only certain countries, and I generalized to all countries or warped the memory somehow.
I tried to find the article again, and I couldn't, but I found this talk comparing immigration and crime rates across 7 countries. Among other things, it says:
The most consistently available data on criminal involvement of aliens cross-nationally come from incarceration rates. This is the case because there is generally more information available on persons at the time of incarceration than at earlier stages in system processing such as arrest. Consequently, we are better able to determine who is a citizen and who is not at the incarceration stage. Thus, the crime data I refer to are based on incarceration rates.
Comparing incarceration rates, the pattern that emerges across the
seven nations is that overall immigrants in the United States, Canada, and Australia, the traditional immigrant receiving countries have lower crime rates than natives; but immigrants in France, Germany and Japan have higher crime rates than natives. Great Britain is in-between immigrant nations and non-immigrant nations but closer to immigrant nations in the ratio of immigrant to native rates of
incarceration.
There is one offense, however, for which immigrants in all seven countries have higher incarceration rates than natives: drug offenses.
[...]
I don't understand this person's argument about "sojourning foreigners", though.
First generation immigrants are less likely to commit crime - I'm pretty sure. I know that's the case for immigrants coming from Latin America.
ReplyDeleteThe disparity in the justice system is more than just about the rate of crime, but racial profiling and disparities once in the judicial system. White defendants are more likely to be acquitted, if found guilty they're more likely to receive a lighter punishment, so on and so forth.
There is a disparity in wealth accumulation that is caused by present and historical racism. Legal racism only ended in the 60s and 70s. Even after racism in the labor and financial markets became illegal, they were still widespread. Redlining. Charging more for loans even with equal income and credit score and collateral. Then you have to take into account access to better quality education. Etc, etc, etc. The disparity in wealth accumulation is all about racism.
Even during slavery, white Americans refused to acknowledge the extent of racism. This was the case at the turn of the century, after WWI, after WWII, during the 60x and 70s. So all claims that racism doesn't have a large an impact as whatever fall on deaf ears with this blogger. Mainstream America is in denial when it comes to race. Period.
The argument that blacks are somehow more prone to crime is centuries old, too. Once you hold for socioeconomic levels, the rates are the same; and socioeconomic level affects the rate of crime among other social markers. Hence socioeconomics. Besides, in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, most crimes in the South were commited by whites (Slave by Another Name).
Really, even the fact that so many feel it's reasonable for the privileged to question the account of the disadvantaged has to do with racism.
And a quick comment about MIA black fathers. Two "colorblind" changes have been made affects the pure numbers. 1-A single woman with a child who lives with her parents is consider her own household giving the census a count of two household whereas previously, it would've counted for only one. 2-Married couples are having children at a lower rate.
Then once you consider the racial discrimination in the justice system, labor and financial markets, education and curricula, it numbers are no shook.
But here's a shock. "The Coley study also found that black fathers who don't reside in the home are more likely to sustain regular contact with their children than fathers of any other racial group."
If I missed some issue, I apologize. The discussion got bogged down in irrelevant issues like 5percent and rate of criminality.
"Yep, that was my point..." - Anon
ReplyDelete(*10 whole minutes of laughter*)
(*1st attempt to gain composure*)
(*another 3 minutes of laughter*)
(*2nd attempt to gain composure*)
(*another 1 minutes of laughter*)
Okay. So what's your argument again?
(*uncontrolled burst of laughter; 3 mins*)
THE ACTUAL POINT YOU TRIED TO MAKE:
*I have read elsewhere that African immigrants commit crimes at very low rates. I wonder why they aren't so affected by the racist system..?
*It doesn't sound like it's because of a racist system.
*I'll repeat why aren't Haitian and African immigrants impacted in the same manner..? It points to the possibility that race is not the prime factor.
You were pegged a long time ago. Your intent, no matter what kind of stupid arguments you had to make, was to deny racism. And on top of that, you made asinine statements, making phantom arguments like:
I am saying I am not buying that the majority of the disparity is due to racism.
As if ANY amount of racism that cause ANY degree of disparity is excusable as long as it doesn't account for the majority (50% +1) of the disparity. So, by whatever weird science of calculating the percentage of which racism contributes to the disparities... if racism, e.g., accounted from anywhere to 10% to 49% of the disparity that's something for you to stake your argument on.
(*another uncontrolled burst of laughter*)
To: no1kstate
ReplyDelete"Once you hold for socioeconomic levels, the rates are the same; and socioeconomic level affects the rate of crime among other social markers."
Then that statement would run counter to the notion that racism is rampant in our justice system would it not..? Seems like it comes back primarily to a class issue.
"And a quick comment about MIA black fathers." As I have already stated the out of wedlock birthrate rate has from the more racist 1940s (at 6%) for Black Americans to around (70%) now. (It has risen also for whites..) So blaming it on racism..? A component perhaps but other factors seem to point in other directions. But raising a child in a stable environment does not necessarily require a mother and a father in the Black community I have known a number of Black children (some now adults..) raised by their grandparents.
To Restructure:
ReplyDeleteAfrican immigrants generally would be considered a cognitive elite so I took your point that bringing them up was a bit of a non sequitur.
As for "sojourning foreigners". Ummm yeah I'm not sure either.
To Nquest:
ReplyDeleteGlad I made you laugh.
Well I guess you realize that the numbers you posted for the ratio of crime by race are wrong but no matter. (at least from the data you linked.. which by the way has a few major flaws which I'll go into it if you choose..that data has been misused by white racists for one statistic)
"... arguments you had to make, was to deny racism."
Nonsense... when I make pointed statements that I implicitly understand racism exists you continue to use strawmen. I have asked why the incarceration rate has gone up when Jim Crow went away. Seems like a straightforward question. The response from the Tim Wise and I think from JW is that it is a form of social control rooted in racism. If so I would like that argument expanded.
"As if ANY amount of racism that cause ANY degree of disparity is excusable ..."
No.. another strawman... if we could quantify it, (I know we can't easily do so..) 20% would be better than 60% but still very problematic yet the solutions inherently would be more multifaceted.
As no1kstate says: "Once you hold for socioeconomic levels, the rates are the same; and socioeconomic level affects the rate of crime among other social markers." That sounds heavily like class issues does it not..? Let's address all points of the problem.
Yes, crime rates hold steady based on socioeconomic level. So, it's wrong to suggest that blacks are more prone to crime than anyone else.
ReplyDeleteHowever, though crime rates hold steady, the rate of incarceration is still affected by racism. Racial profiling before actually being in the court. And whites get better treatment once in the court systems.
And another point I'm pretty sure you missed is that historically, the impact of racism has been underplayed. If we really seek a just society, we're going to have start listening to those who have a more accurate view of racism - and, sorry, it does seem that those most affected by racism and its ramifications would have a better take on it than those who's skin privilege protects them.
@anon:
ReplyDeleteI think from JW is that it is a form of social control rooted in racism. If so I would like that argument expanded.
Whiteness and the way whiteness could be expressed throughout history. In the past whiteness was protected by laws (slavery, Jim Crow).
Whiteness doesn't mean that every single white can benefit as an individual from all advantages of whiteness, but every white benefits in terms of collective power from whiteness.
And while in the past there have been laws to keep the 'other' under controll, this what you call "more racism", only changed it's face. It changed out of a political necessity, political pressure, the response was the CRA. Discrimination became illigal, but racism didn't decrease.
Whiteness [as a social construct] didn't become illegal, the power construct of whiteness remained intact, but the ways to express and maintain this power changed. Today you have a "war on drugs", police shootings - the killing of unarmed Black men. Every Black person murdered by police for example is a message to the entire Black population.
There is a shift as it seems, shootings become "too visible", now it's becoming the taser, where people die "accidentially", "not intended".
Imprisonment is also modern slavery. When in the past there was official slavery and Black people were exploited, today it's the prison. There are many jobs done by prisoners without payment or only very little. The prison complex itself is an entire industry. It is the modern way to control the 'othered' collective.
Thats the reason why the prison population is so high today.
once I read a good article about Foucault and 'Disciplinary Power', if I find it again I can post it.
bottomline:
ReplyDeleteRIGHTS-US: U.N. Panel Finds Two-Tier Society
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41556
"Imprisonment is also modern slavery." Charles Manson, Jeffry Dalmer, John Allen Muhammad, Ted Bundy..?
ReplyDeleteTo No1kstate:
ReplyDelete"However, though crime rates hold steady, the rate of incarceration.."
What is the rate of crimes committed for various populations versus incarceration...? What is it absent the drug charges...?
With all the new private prisons and the fact that as a nation, we spend more money on prisons than in schools - your comment about serial killers in nonsense.
ReplyDeleteWhat difference does it make? You can look it up yourself. Racism in the judicial system negatively impacts the lives of millions of African Americas.
@Anon
ReplyDelete"Imprisonment is also modern slavery." Charles Manson, Jeffry Dalmer, John Allen Muhammad, Ted Bundy..?
Exactly Anon, I said, it is ALSO modern slavery, not ONLY. You asked how there is social control, I answered that question.
Thank you for listening
But since you insist on being difficult,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/excusesexcusescjs.html
Whatever you think of Tim Wise, numbers are numbers.
I make pointed statements that I implicitly understand racism exists you continue to use strawmen. ANON
ReplyDeleteThou dost PROJECT too much. You can't understand racism by paying lip service to it. To simply say "racism exists" is a meaningless statement when you have yet to identify a situation where you admit it exist and has anything more than a negligible impact or importance worth mentioning.
When Karen talked about the Ice Cream shop, your response to whatever racism that existed was a big fat 'so what' (figuratively speaking) because "Such is life."
You DENIED RACISM then by describing everything she talked about as a matter of CLASS -- i.e. it was not racism, you DENIED that explicitly and said it was CLASS even though none of what you said be trying to make it a class issue made sense or could be sustained as such.
another strawman... if we could quantify it ANON
There must have been a one cent sale on strawmen because you got your full $10.00 worth. That's about the only response you have to arguments you can't contend with. But, you know, every time you try to point that strawman finger... you have a bunch of your own STRAWMEN pointing right at you:
I find it odd that the rate of incarceration of Black Americans has doubled from that time if we are pinning the majority of the current incarceration rate on racism. July 16, 2008 11:34 AM
I just don't see it as being the driving force. July 15, 2008 10:06 PM
I am not buying the idea that the majority of the disparity is related to a racist system. July 20, 2008 9:39 PM
It points to the possibility that race is not the prime factor. July 21, 2008 8:53 AM
Not only have you been trying to quantify racism but you've completely created this argument, an actual STRAWMAN ARGUMENT (you erected it out of thin air and it isn't based on anything I've said) that somebody else besides you have ever tried to quantify it in such absurd terms as "the driving force" and "the prime factor."
What??? WTF are you trying to say/do? (other than DENYING RACISM)
You can't find a single thing I've said that says racism is "the prime factor", accounts for "the majority of the disparity", is "the driving force", etc., etc. WHICH MAKES NO SENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
********************************
The fact that racism is a factor at all is the issue in and of itself.
********************************
Oh but your clear intent, again, is to say that it isn't a factor or at least not one that's has any particular significance or relevance. So, racism -- this thing you say is out there, just not anywhere where you can see it -- can exist in your mind and you can pay lip service to it, in some vague, detached generalities, but when it comes time to acknowledge its actual existence, impact and importance in real life... Well, instead of you pointing out when and where you actually see it, you want someone to prove it exists all while trying that backtrack, double-speak claiming you acknowledge that it does:
Racism may be the reason or one of the reasons but I would like to hear a detailed explanation as to why this is the case. July 14, 2008 8:37 PM
Simply put, no one who actually believes racism exists needs anyone to explain anything about it to them in terms of proving it's existence. And the last thing someone who actually believes racism exist -- a person who should never be confused with someone merely paying lip service to the idea that racism exists -- needs is a "detailed explanation" before they can "buy" whether racism does exist.
And speaking of buying... Allow me to reiterate how you can't find a single statement of mine trying to quantify racism to depict it as a "driving force" or something that's present in the "majority" of this or that which is IRRELEVANT. The only reason your erected that STRAW MAN is for you to conveniently stare facts about racism in the face and DENY THEM.
That's the only way you can look at inheritance, intergenerational wealth transfers from the time When Affirmative Action Was White (or, rather, when WHITE FIRST, WHITE ONLY was the order day), call assets debts -- acting like White people are the only people with debt -- and pretend like an inheritance that would address said debt would be insignificant when the debt-freeing inheritance will be exclusive to a primarily/all WHITE class of 76 million people will acquire money they didn't earn that others won't.
Exactly how you fixed you mouth to say...
White privilege in 1965. I don't doubt it. White privilege now... July 15, 2008 9:51 PM
... is the clearest indication of many a mental somersaults you're willing to turn to DENY RACISM and WHITE PRIVILEGE even when it stares you in the face.
And, of course, I didn't forget...
why do Asians (a group which has definitely less political clout than Black Americans) commit crime at lower rates than Whites? July 15, 2008 10:06 PM
Tim Wise... makes the argument that Haitian immigrants commit crime at lower rates than whites. I have read elsewhere that African immigrants commit crimes at very low rates. I wonder why they aren't so affected by the racist system..? July 20, 2008 9:39 PM
The obvious purpose was to DENY RACISM.
Then more of the STRAWMAN and double-speak absurd:
It doesn't sound like it's because of a racist system. (although it doesn't preclude racism in the justice system..) July 21, 2008 8:23 AM
So my point stands... It's as if ANY amount of racism that cause ANY degree of disparity is excusable so long as you can say that it isn't "a racist system."
Now, if you believe "racism exist" and you're not bullsh*ttin' then go ahead and point out when and where you see it existing and I'm talking about racism against African-Americans/Blacks.
And let's do it like this:
* Racism in education
* Racism in employment
* Racism in criminal justice system
Stipulate to when and where you see the existence and significant presence of racism in those areas if you do.
Nquest:
ReplyDelete"You can't find a single thing I've said that says racism is "the prime factor", accounts for "the majority of the disparity", is "the driving force."
I was addressing the general audience, including Macon who wrote the article, not you in particular. Those are rhetorical devices to elicit a response or debate position from blog participants. I suspect there are multiple points of view on the degree of racism in the US criminal justice system. I wanted to see what people's opinions were and how they supported those opinions.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteAgain, crime rate and incarceration rate are two different things.
I stand by what I said about MIA fathers. And that's the one time I don't blame the whole situation on racism. As you'll see if you read to understand and not try look for ways to score points in your argument, I said there were 2 colorblind factors affecting the numbers. For the record, yes. After holding the numbers steady, I do believe racism is playing a part. We can't simultaneously say as a society that manhood is based on the ability to provide for one's family and then throw up barriers to black men's ability to provide for their families.
I also think the mainstream's focus on the issue is racist in itself. The myth about the sexually irresponsible black man has been around since the 16th century. Mainstream society doesn't offer any solutions, they just use it to point and say, "See. Black people do have pathologies."
After all, I haven't heard anyone preach to white Americans about "personal responsibility" and their 50% divorce rate, their high rate of drug use, or any such thing. Who's lecturing MRA members on personal responsibility and vasectomies?
Moreover, black America hear's "personal responsibility" every Sunday. The fact that white folks aren't around when it happens doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Get a grip, anon. Racism is pervasive in the country. The only people who don't know that are the ones who don't face it. And exactly who are you to think you can better explain what people of color experience than people of color can explain themselves?
I was addressing the general audience...
ReplyDeleteOkay. Cite where the 'general audience' said/did something to warrant your repeated STRAWMEN.
Also, professing belief in something (the belief that racism exists, particular the racism relevant to this conversation) all while trying to DENY it is via expressing doubt or outright claiming it's CLASS, e.g., and not RACE/RACISM is also a rhetorical device.
It's not that hard. If you believe "racism exists" and you're not bullsh*ttin' when you say it does -- and you repeatedly go on record DENYING it's existence; repeatedly go on record saying its something (class, e.g.) other than race/racism; and from the on-set call for a "detailed explanation" which can't be about anything but your debelief -- then go ahead and point out when and where you see it existing and I'm talking about racism against African-Americans/Blacks.
Go ahead and tell us, the general audience, when and where you see racism against African-Americans, e.g., in the following areas, especially the last since you want to claim, over and above your own internal contradictory logic, that you believe racism exists:
* Racism in education
* Racism in employment
* Racism in criminal justice system
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"'general audience' said/did something to warrant your repeated STRAWMEN."
What strawmen..? I misunderstood a post when I initially responded to Kandee, but to you or anyone else?
"Also, professing belief in something .... all while trying to DENY it"
Because I question statistics and figures posted here.. that's denying racism...? Hmmm, such as determining that the figures you posted from the DOJ website was the data for the victims not the perpetrators. That's rich.
to anon:
ReplyDeleteNo. Denying racism. So you ask for proof. Proof is provided, then you question its validity or its interpretation.
Let's try this. How about you get some proof, numbers, and stats that prove racism doesn't exist.
Cause at the end of the day, you probably know less than the UN.
Everytime you said things like this:
ReplyDeleteI find it odd that the rate of incarceration of Black Americans has doubled from that time if we are pinning the majority of the current incarceration rate on racism. July 16, 2008 11:34 AM
I just don't see it as being the driving force. July 15, 2008 10:06 PM
I am not buying the idea that the majority of the disparity is related to a racist system. July 20, 2008 9:39 PM
It points to the possibility that race is not the prime factor. July 21, 2008 8:53 AM
You used a strawman argument.
MACON said:
"A criminal justice system where race becomes an influential factor is no system of justice."
I said:
My point is simply this: you can neither eliminate racism as a factor in todays out of wedlock picture nor can you apply some hard and fast rule about racism and how it impacts family structure... What you keep mentioning about slavery is the very targeted attack, so to speak, on the Black family. That, my friend, would only be one aspect of racism and, by itself, wouldn't say whether racism was high or low overall.
That was stuff said in the initial post and earlier in the thread well before I said:
The fact that racism is a factor at all is the issue in and of itself.
Yet, no matter what anybody's actual position was, in pure strawman fashion, you felt compelled to exaggerate and carried on about "driving forces", "prime factors" this and that. For someone who slings the term around as much as you do, surely you should know a strawman when you see one. If not, here's your mirror.
And it's like an addiction with you... your death grip, teddy bear love affair with the STRAWMAN and other assorted disingenuousness:
No1KState: "Once you hold for socioeconomic levels, the rates are the same; and socioeconomic level affects the rate of crime among other social markers."
YOU: "Then that statement would run counter to the notion that racism is rampant in our justice system would it not..? Seems like it comes back primarily to a class issue."
Hmmm... Whose notion is countered, Anon? (The answer is obvious.)
END OF STORY. Another one of your strawmen burned to the ground right along with your pretense that you haven't been trying to "quantify" the degree or level of racism because you "know we can't easily do so" though that's what you've been doing the entire time.
But it's not that hard:
If you believe "racism exists" and you're not bullsh*ttin' then go ahead and point out when and where you see it negatively impacting African-Americans/Blacks, e.g., in the following areas:
* Racism in education
* Racism in employment
* Racism in criminal justice system
(Don't tell me I called your bluff that easy...)
That sounds heavily like class issues does it not..? Let's address all points of the problem.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Poor Blacks are in the position they are in, in part, because of race. You mentioned welfare... Well, if I didn't mention it here, it's been shown that states that are all White or nearly all White have more generous welfare benefits than those with significant percentages of Blacks...
And, you have been intent on denying racism just as I've said because if you were genuinely concerned about "addressing all points of the problem":
(1) You wouldn't feel compelled to call things were race/racism are clearly implicated "CLASS" issues AND I'm talking about the Ice Cream parlor story and the straight out of Jim Crow intergenerational transfer of wealth that Whites overwhelmingly will benefit from, reaping the advantaging gifts of America's recent racist past.
(2) You would have never started on the track you did. On July 14, 2008 at 2:16 PM, you quoted Kandee who said:
No commentary is needed on what black fathers need to do, just on the relief I've heard some whites express over Obama finally saying what they've wanted to say all along, but adding their own ignorant spin to it, completely forgetting how racism, combined with classism,
, has contributed to this social situation.
Your body of posts here betrays you. When Kandee opened the door for you to talk about "all points of the problem" the only thing you found yourself talking about, the only thing you focused on with your many assorted and contorted denials was racism.
You claim you acknowledge that racism exists... Well, it's not that hard:
If you're not bullsh*ttin', go ahead and point out when and where you see racism negatively impacting African-Americans/Blacks, e.g., in the following areas:
* Racism in education
* Racism in employment
* Racism in criminal justice system
To No1kstate:
ReplyDelete"No. Denying racism. So you ask for proof. Proof is provided, then you question its validity or its interpretation."
You mean Nquest's post about the ratio of crime rates that he cite from the DOJ..? His interpretation of the data was simply incorrect... as for Tim Wise.. he's a White guy isn't he...? Does questioning his information make me in denial of racism? As for the UN report I tried to find the exact 11 page publication using google. I am sure it's on the web but I didn't find it. I'd like to read the full report and not the interpretation before I reply. This organization may be excellent.. don't know but just citing the UN as a final authority... I mean the resolutions before the invasion of Iraq .. the move to squelch calling what was happening in Rwanda genocide until it was too late. It's a political organization like any other. With some brilliant but also some flawed personnel. In 2005 the UN Commission on Human Rights had such members as Saudi Arabia (a country that disallows women to drive by themselves or to even leave the country without the permission of close male relative..) and The Sudan (I don't think I need to elaborate there. In 2006 and 2007 the name was changed to the Human Rights Council and Saudi Arabia was part of it again. (It's nice to have all that oil..)
By the way there is a deep flaw in some of the DOJ date which has misused by White supremacists. I'll get to that in another post.
Nquest:
Sure I'll answer your questions, but first I would like to hear your experiences of racism if you'd like to share. If you don't want to then fine, I understand. No1kstate seems to think I am not interested in hearing about the experiences of people of color impacted by racism. Not true. So far we've been tossing around statistics, let's hear the human side. If you want to stay in attack mode that's your prerogative.
To Nquest:
ReplyDeleteKandee has been off the thread for a while. As for her post you and I both pointed that what Obama said was certainly not new for the the Black community and that it's common theme in Black churches. (That's a reply also to No1kstate recent comments to me about what's said in many Black churches on Sunday.. yes and I basically said something similar in an earlier reply to Karen..)
I wrote an earlier post to No1kstate about my observations of a higher level of extended relatives involved in child rearing
(Grandparents and such..) in Black community as compared to whites but it seems to have gotten lost in the bit bucket.
Anon-
ReplyDeleteIt's not who wrote the info that makes you a racism-denier. It's your resistance to accept the truth that makes you a racism denier.
The UN's Iraq resolution had more to do with Bush's lies than the UN.
You're just denying racism. Period.
Nquest,
ReplyDeleteSure I'll answer your questions...
Go right ahead. You say you believe racism exists and you're not denying racism exists...
So, go right ahead and, instead of saying this is not racism, it's class , AND that's not racism, it's class... Talk about when and where you see racism negatively impacting the lives of African-Americans.
My question is a natural extension of the conversation here and it is FIRST. Also, I referenced the DOJ stats because you wanted to dispute Tim Wise's statement about Whites committing 60% of (all) violent crimes.
Let that STRAWMAN go, deal with what I've actually said and stop trying to use a conversation that wasn't about racism (Wise's claim that Whites commit 60% of violent) as your excuse not to deal with what I clearly alluded to -- i.e. you trying to claim things where race/racism was implicated were about class.
Nowhere when we talked about the DOJ stats or Wise's statement about Whites committing violent crime were we discussing racism vs. class.
You're making that mirror crack.
Kandee has been off the thread for a while.
ReplyDeleteAnd you've been denying racism with or without her being present. Again, instead of taking her statement as an attempt to "address all points of the problem", the one thing you focused in on was racism and you did that to the exclusion of acknowledging that anyone had or could acknowledge class as an issue, including Kandee.
Yet, this thread is about STUFF WHITE PEOPLE DO and here you are making Macon a prophet because the whole time you've fully intended to OVERLOOK THE RACISM OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
It shouldn't take 100 entries in this thread for you to turn around and STALL saying "I'll answer your question" AFTER this or that when it's incumbent on you, someone who claims to acknowledge that racism exists, to do more than pay lip service to the idea and do nothing but prove Macon right.
To: No1kstate
ReplyDelete"You're just denying racism. Period."
Below are two of my "denials" previously posted:
Certainly we still have racism
I have already acknowledged that it exists with implicit and explicit statements.
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"in this thread for you to turn around and STALL saying"
Aside from experiences I could cite
I could easily find information on the web as a source. No need to stall. I thought you were baiting me and it appears you confirmed it when you mentioned "calling my bluff".
"I'll answer your question" AFTER this or that when it's incumbent on you, someone who claims to acknowledge that racism exists"
Well at least now you are not saying that I am denying racism exists.
Thanks.
Here's what I want you to try accepting, Anon.
ReplyDeleteThe country is built and based upon white supremacy. We live in a country where white is right. And the closer you can get to it, the better. If you don't have a "black" name, you have a better chance of getting the job/house/loans you want.
Though, because a person is still black, they will be underpaid/redlined/and given a loan more expensive than your credit score, income, and collateral would indicate were you white.
Cops will check the black person for drugs, even though it's more likely that the random white person the cops passed by has drugs on them than the black person has. People think of "drug abuse" as a black pathology, even though whites have a higher rate of drug abuse.
And, the biggie. From racial profiling to trial to verdict to sentencing, white defendants receive better treatment than black defendants. White drug abusers are often given probation and sent to rehap while black drug abusers are jailed and given no help to kick the habit.
Now, rates of committing crime is effected by a community's socio-economic. But two things - 1, socio-economics alone doesn't explain how people of color make up the majority of this country's prison population; - 2, if it weren't for historical and present racism, a group of people that makes up 13% of the national population would not account for 29% of those living at or below poverty. Racism, racism, racism.
And we haven't even started talking about discrimination in the job market. Racism in schools, ie black children being disciplined more often and more harshly than white children even though black children are equally as likely to misbehave as white children. Or, the fact that even when a black child's score on a standardized test indicates s/he should be in/taking higher level class, s/he is still more likely to be tracked for regular classes. And if a child's score indicates s/he should be in regular classes, s/he is still more likely to be tracked into special ed classes. It's precisely the opposite for white students.
Nquest made a point I think you should strongly consider. This discussion is only taking up 110 and now 111 comments because you refuse to accept the depth and pervasiveness of racism in America.
I'm sure Revs. Wright and Fleger shocked you. You may even think they're racist, though no one has been able to explain what they said or did that was so racist. What they did was tell the truth. And people whose sense of worth and value is based on the lie that racism exists but isn't a major factor in anyone's life are stung by the truth.
And if that's too much for you to accept, Anon, then the only thing I have left to say is, "Good day, Sir. You are in denial of the perverse power racism has in this country. To continue to act as though people of color have to prove the negative impact and extent of racism to the satisfaction of white people before anything is done about racism is racist. Historically, there's been nothing people of color could do to prove to whites that they whites were collectively treating people of color unjustly. Not during slavery, or the peonage-slavery the existed up to WWII. Not the concentration camps for Japanese Americans. And so on and so forth. We, as a country, will not progress to true equality and justice until white Americans stop insisting on dictating the terms of discussion and the terms of reconciliation. Especially when for white America, racial harmony has historically meant that people of color stop complaining about the injustice in their lives and quietly accept the status quo.
If you're not bullsh*ttin', go ahead and point out when and where you see racism negatively impacting African-Americans/Blacks, e.g., in the following areas:
ReplyDelete* Racism in education
* Racism in employment
* Racism in criminal justice system
Throughout this thread, whenever and wherever someone has suggested there is racism you've said it is not racism.
When you said:
But really what you speak of is class privilege... My immigrant (paternal) grandfather was never invested in the market...
July 15, 2008 1:52 PM
That showed how you were willing to stop at nothing to DENY RACISM. Not unless you're saying your grandfather is 30-40 years old or something...
"Below are two of my "denials" previously posted..."
ReplyDeleteAnd George H. W. Bush said "read my lips." Your point??
It's really not that hard. You've spent the entire thread saying racism wasn't here or there whenever and wherever someone suggested it was.
You created all these STRAWMEN of DENIAL. While other posters, Macon included, said race/racism was a factor, you wanted to DENY RACISM so bad that you tried to create the illusion that people were "pinning the majority of the current incarceration rate on racism", said racism is the "driving force", the "prime factor" and that "the majority of the disparity is related to a racist system" when none of that is necessary to say what Macon and I said from the very beginning: that racism is a factor, even an influential factor.
And that fact alone, the race/racism is a factor AT ALL, is enough of a reason to say what's been said here. But not only did you ignore that on your way to launching a series of STRAWMAN arguments but you also ignored Kandee when she talked about racism and classicism combined being the issue.
But that wasn't good enough for you. Even when it came to your grandfather's days and times you wanted to DENY RACISM and claim that the issue was CLASS and not race/racism.
When you go to that extreme, you can bet that people aren't just going to "read your lips." They are going to look at the whole body of posts you've put together here and... Well, I'll be... they won't find you saying, "this is where I see racism in the criminal justice system..."
No, instead they find vague, superfluous rhetoric like this:
It doesn't sound like it's because of a racist system. (although it doesn't preclude racism in the justice system..) July 21, 2008 8:23 AM
And, you know, that should make it easy. When and where do you see racism in the justice system, if your "it doesn't preclude racism" statement was just bs.
Anon, I wrote the post about "racism of the justice system", not Macon.
ReplyDeleteYour lip-service that 'yes, racism exists' but is less than 1940 is proven wrong by many studies.
According to this (your) opinion, racism can only be measured via laws. Blatant racist laws = more racism.
This is a very simplyfied approach and doesn't reflect reality but of course it's for you a comfortable excuse not to question the criminal justice system.
To No1kstate:
ReplyDelete"I'm sure Revs. Wright and Fleger shocked you."
Why should they? Apparently they shocked the Obama campaign. I am wondering if Wright's ego got the best of him or if he's angling for a book deal.
"What they did was tell the truth."
So Obama's statement: "All it was, was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth." is false...?
Obama's statement on Wright
Whatever, those guys aren't important to me I'm voting for Obama over McCain, the Neocon dinner is quite stale.
"...even though it's more likely that the random white person the cops passed by has drugs on them than the black person has. People think of "drug abuse" as a black pathology, even though whites have a higher rate of drug abuse."
Well according to this study:
Drug usage by race and ethnicity
Blacks have a higher use drugs at higher rates than whites.
Therein lies the problem of relying on people like Tim Wise who preach to the choir. They will shop around to find a study that suits their needs.
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"That showed how you were willing to stop at nothing to DENY RACISM."
Well that's interesting since I don't deny that racism exists...but since you don't believe me....
we are left with a snipe hunt.
"Not unless you're saying your grandfather is 30-40 years old or something..."
Karen stated that she had an advantage because her family had money because they were white. I stated that my family was white but that my grandfather didn't have money to leave a legacy. So, yes Karen's grandfather's advantage over my grandfather was due to class, not race, unless my grandfather had been a different race or ethnicity than her grandfather which he wasn't.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLet's try this anon.
ReplyDeleteTake 200 random people. About 140 will be white, 26 black. According to the stats you present, about 11 white people abuse drugs. About 2 black people abuse drugs.
That doesn't account for the fact that black people make up close to, if not, the majority of all drug arrests and incarcerations. Nor, does it account for the fact that mainstream America carries on as if the black community is just riddle with drugs and there're definitely a lot more white drug abusers than black.
That's racism. Get out of denial.
And as far as difference between your grandfather and Karen's, yes, that's probably about class, cause there're different economic classes within racial groups.
But read a history book. Black people were denied the same opportunities to accumulate wealth. Period. That's racism.
Anon, I can't believe you're citing a survey on drug USE when No1KState's statement talked about drug ABUSE.
ReplyDeleteNow, if Tim Wise's intent was to just shop and pick out things to suit him (you're PROJECTING again), I need a serious explanation why he ever even bothered to state this: "...other data suggests that drug use is slightly higher among black adults..."
And I'm still trying to figure out what exactly is your issue and objection with the idea that Whites commit 60% of violent crime. You've NEVER proved otherwise. What? Are you trying to hold onto or justify stereotypes you believe that make that unbelievable?
Seriously? What is your problem?
You keep raising non-issues, repeatedly make STRAWMEN arguments (though you like to accuse other people of doing it) and now... I just don't know what you think you're doing other than DUCKING and RUNNING:
If you're not bullsh*ttin', go ahead and point out when and where you see racism negatively impacting African-Americans/Blacks, e.g., in the:
* Racism in criminal justice system
You say it exists... Yet for any and every statement that stipulate to its existence made by every posters here or those referenced via Tim Wise or whoever... you take issue with. Mere LIP SERVICE is not going to do it.
No one should have to or, worse, need to "bait" you into solidifying and substantiating your statement that you believe racism exists and exists in the context of the criminal justice system (you know, the topic).
You cited immigrants to make your point that the justice system is not racist. Your point was bs.
At no point have you addressed the disparities in arrests and sentencing and the small percentage point differences from the well 'shopped'(your term) NSDUH Report can in no way account for the huge differences. It's like you want to make the point for us.
Do you have information that poor Whites and poor Blacks have similar arrests and sentencing rates? Apparently, you don't.
See, you've haven't effectively disputed what's been said and you damn sure haven't provided evidence that the racism people say is present actually is not.
Anon, when you say, yes, racism exists, tell me, why you think that this racism doesn't impact the criminal justice system.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of racism exists according to you?
I'm really beginning to wonder about you, Anon...
ReplyDeleteSo Obama's statement: "All it was, was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth." is false...?
You ask that question on a thread where Obama's statement about Black fathers has already been called into question and you obviously ask the question without wanting to actually discuss the issue (Rev. Wright's statements at the NPC in bold).
What part of this isn't grounded in truth?
Now, in the 1960s, the term “liberation theology” began to gain currency with the writings and the teachings of preachers, pastors, priests, and professors from Latin America.
Is this a rant and a non-truth?
Black preaching is different from European and European-American preaching.
Nothing constructive (per Obama) from this?
Our congregation has had an HIV-AIDS ministry for over two decades.
There "wasn't anything constructive" in this?
God does not desire for us, as children of God, to be at war with each other, to see each other as superior or inferior, to hate each other, abuse each other, misuse each other, define each other, or put each other down.
God wants us reconciled, one to another.
This?
The prophetic theology of the black church has always seen and still sees all of God’s children as sisters and brothers, equals who need reconciliation, who need to be reconciled as equals in order for us to walk together into the future which God has prepared for us.
See, the last person you can mention is Obama. He is no authority here and as you ascribe a motive to Wright... Well, when Obama first claimed he didn't see the NPC address then pretended as if he went back that night to look at it and then responded (in his press conference), it's clear Obama either purposely didn't pay attention to anything but what the media put out there on spin or Obama purposely ignored things Wright said from Moyers, to NAACP to the NPC that didn't fit the Obama or the media demonizing description.
Now, Obama is caught in his own bs. Speaking about Wright, Obama said:
I believe [Wright's statements] end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate
That's exactly what the anti-black stereotypes Obama coughs up in lines in speeches like his 2008 Father's Day speech which was completely different in tone and emphasis than his 2007 FD speech AND in his 2004 convention speech (the "Acting White" stereotype).
_________________________________
no1kstate:
You may even think they're racist, though no one has been able to explain what they said or did that was so racist.
Well, to Macon's credit, he went back and changed it when he attempted to characterize Wright's statements as racist.
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"You ask that question on a thread where Obama's statement about Black fathers has already been called into question"
Ummm, Obama made statements similar to things said by Jesse Jackson, Bill Cosby, and Farrakhan among many other Black ministers (as No1kstate pointed out..) for decades. To me, what he said was neither new nor unique.
"you obviously ask the question without wanting to actually discuss the issue (Rev. Wright's statements at the NPC in bold)"
There are probably many things that Wright said in his many years of preaching that I can agree with, there are things even in Final Call that I agree with. But I think Obama knows Wright better than I do. But bascially I don't care what Mr. Wright said, the post from No1kstate that I responded to, indicated he thought I did.
To JW:
ReplyDelete"Anon, when you say, yes, racism exists, tell me, why you think that this racism doesn't impact the criminal justice system.
What kind of racism exists according to you?"
First likely racism exits in every facet of US (well world) culture to some degree including the criminal justice system. You and I clearly differ on the degree (I think it's been reduced substantially in the US since 1940, and if I understand you correctly you believe it's the same level but has changed form)
Briefly in my opinion in descending order of prevalence in society:
Housing (renting)
Employment
Criminal Justice system.
Education - I have had little experience with public education since the 1970s so I am very out of the loop.
Finance - (Mortgages..) I scratch my head about this one.(I have purchased several properties and refinanced many times..) I'll get to this later.
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"Anon, I can't believe you're citing a survey on drug USE when No1KState's statement talked about drug ABUSE."
In legal parlance illicit drug use is called drug abuse. (The survey I linked covered the use of illicit drugs..)
One of the articles that JW linked (drugpolicy.org) used the term drug use not drug abuse and has a figure that mirrors closely the survey I posted. Tim Wise in multiple articles has also used the term drug use in the same context.
"I think it's been reduced substantially in the US since 1940"
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm loathe to re-engage you in discussion, Anon, I hope this will allow a sort of "break through," if you will.
Since the first years of the 1900s, mainstream America has been engaged in sanitizing its history and overlooking important facts of the present. Historically, white America has underestimated the impact of racism, even during slavery. People of color, and generally the most radical of people of color, have always been accurate in their perception of racism. That makes sense, doesn't it? That those most affected by racism know best its impact.
The same is true today. White/mainstream America is underestimating racism's impact. Mostly because they aren't its primary targets. And even when they become its target, they have to be "tutored," if you will, in understanding what's going on.
If you are truly interested in equality and justice and not just easing your conscience or protecting your patriotism, stop arguing. Be quiet. And listen.
Consider this: white America has never been accurate in its assessment of racism. What should lead anyone, including you, to believe it's accurate now?
Obama made statements similar to things said by Jesse Jackson, Bill Cosby, and Farrakhan among many other Black ministers
ReplyDeleteNon-sequitur.
My statement wasn't about what Obama said but about you invoking Obama like he's E.F.Hutton (lol). You like them rabbit holes...
White racist conservatives (and White liberals) say "similar" things and no one is confused about what that is all about. And for you to put Farrakhan and Bill Cosby in the same sentence is ridiculous. False Consensus or false reference to something you apparently have no clue about.
Mentioning Farrakhan, the convener of the Million Man March in the context of Obama's stereotype laden remarks adds even more to the "you must be dumb as hell" quotient to your remarks invoking Obama. Objective people can readily discern a difference. There is a clear distinction even when different people say "similar" things -- for different reasons, in different contexts/settings.
There are probably many things that Wright said in his many years of preaching that I can agree with
Non-sequitur.
Your statement of agreement with "many things" Wright has said is irrelevant to trying to bluff your way through this invoking Obama and the supposed "truth", as you see it, to his idiotic statement claiming, ignorantly, that Wright's NPC address (if not all the public appearances in those few days) was "all rants" and there "wasn't anything constructive" in it.
Talking about things you agree with Wright on... talking about Obama knowing Wright well or better than either one of us...
ALL THAT IS IRRELEVANT!!!
You were stupid enough to ask if Obama's statement was (true or) false. I demonstrated how it was false. Your comments, avoiding talk about the truth-value of Obama's remarks you cited, are NON-SEQUITURS.
To Nquest:
ReplyDeleteI'll make this simple I really don't care what Wright said that riled Obama. (Since Wright was Obama's pastor for many years I am assuming he agreed with him on many past statements..) No1kstate seemed to think I cared what Wright said. I didn't care about Wright a few months ago and I don't care about him now. If you have a big issue with Obama and his relationship with Wright, take it up with someone from his campaign. It's no skin off my back.
Re: Obama and his speech
"His themes have also been sounded by the comedian Bill Cosby"
"The Rev. Al Sharpton called the remarks on absent black fathers “courageous and important"
NYT
"You're not a man because you can kill somebody. You are not a man because you can make a baby.… You're a man only if you can raise a baby, protect a baby and provide for a baby."
Jackson
From No1kstate:
"Moreover, black America hear's "personal responsibility" every Sunday."
You want to parse and hash out the differences, that's your prerogative.
I really don't care what Wright said that riled Obama.
ReplyDeleteYou cared enough to pose the question. I didn't care that it was rhetorical bluff and stuff. I answered your question anyway, calling your bluff.
Obama's "all rants" statements was FALSE, resoundingly so, and I cared enough to say it any and every time someone -- YOU, not Obama's campaign... YOU -- wants to bring it up, especially when they do like you and try to position Obama as someone who was being truthful.
You asked whether his statement was false, obviously suggesting that you thought it was true and I demonstrated to you how it was false. Simple as that.
It's no skin off my back.
NON-SEQUITUR. I don't care whether it is or it isn't. And I'm all laughs re: you quoting Sharpton, Jackson, etc.
Your point?
It's clearly different from No1KState's.
Moreover, black America hear's "personal responsibility" every Sunday. The fact that white folks aren't around when it happens doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I REPEAT:
"There is a clear distinction even when different people say "similar" things -- for different reasons, in different contexts/settings."
You wanted to ascribe self-serving motives to Wright... Do that stuff for Obama who just so happen to change the very tone and tenor of his Father's Day speech to flip the emphasis.
And where is the Farrakhan quote? lol
It's clear No1KState was saying there was no reason for Obama -- a POLITICIAN whose job is POLICY -- to say something that's said "every Sunday." Quoting Sharpton, Jackson, etc. only solidifies the point that there was no reason for Obama to do it.
I also expect, fully expect, a politician like Obama to do more than engage in barbershop level rhetoric. Like Wright said: he's a politician. I expect him to do his job and do what he's done before every other demographic or constituency group: talk policy, even promises. He can keep the stereotypes... no matter where they are said "every Sunday" or any other day of the week.
And, so... A round of laughs for you talking No1KState's statement OUT OF CONTEXT for what reason, for what actual point (you thought you were making)... I don't know.
The CONTEXT and SETTING (which includes their whole body of work) for each and every person you named AND the entire content of their remarks doesn't get separated from what they say. Obviously you understand that. You didn't and won't post "similar" things racist White conservative (or liberals) have said.
Regardless, none of that had anything to do with you invoking Obama and even trying, pathetically, to say "he said what they did" when, again, Obama's speech was called into question from the very beginning:
Macon D, Maybe you can discuss (in the future) the ways in which some have supported Obama's speech about MIA black fathers, saying that it's about time blacks blame themselves for crime and absentee parenting than blame 'whitey', completely forgetting the social events that lead to such a breakdown in family, and its connection to incarceration rates.
And you simply can't be stupid enough to mention Bill Cosby as if the mere idea that he said "similar things" didn't have people calling his stereotyping, etc. into question... let alone the "don't blame Whitey" theme Obama latched onto.
And illicit drug use in "legal parlance" simply refers to ILLEGAL drug use, not ABUSE, Anon. This wouldn't make sense is USE and ABUSE were the same thing:
* Adults who first used
drugs at a younger age were more likely to be classified with dependence on or abuse of drugs than adults who initiated use at a later age. Among those who first tried marijuana at age 14 or younger, 10.2 percent were classified with dependence on or abuse of
an illicit drug in the past year compared with only 2.0 percent of adults who had first used marijuana at age 18 or older...
Hello Nquest:
ReplyDelete"And illicit drug use in "legal parlance" simply refers to ILLEGAL drug use, not ABUSE, Anon. This wouldn't make sense is USE and ABUSE were the same thing"
There are several definitions of drug abuse. There is a legal definition which I have already described, then there is a definition that is used by public health officials which sounds like the one you are describing. But, as I have already pointed out both the article linked by JW and Tim Wise use the term "Drug use" not "Drug abuse".
Drug Abuse
Nquest:
ReplyDeleteFarrakhan:
TIME: Bill Cosby has been attacked for criticizing inner-city black youth and blaming their parents for bad parenting. Do you agree with him?
Farrakhan: The sad thing about what Bill Cosby said is that it was taken out of context. Cosby was chiding a black audience about accepting responsibility. We have to accept the responsibility to change our condition, whether white folks did it or government did it.
Farrakan
This man sees similarities between Cosby and Farrakhan:
Cosby
Nquest:
ReplyDelete"And I'm all laughs re: you quoting Sharpton, Jackson, etc.
Your point?"
Same as it was the first time I stated it... you wanted supporting quotes.. I gave them to you.
As for No1kstate comments.. well.. black preachers talking about personal responsibility.. well yeah.. that's what Obama was discussing...so...
The divergence on the original discussion started because No1kstate assumed I was shocked by Jeremiah's Wright's (and Phleger's(sp?))statements....
well nope..... although you may get me to pay attention to them at some point.. I suppose..
I have already pointed out both the article linked by JW and Tim Wise use the term "Drug use" not "Drug abuse".
ReplyDeleteNone of which have anything to do with what No1KState (who is not JW or Tim Wise) said and your response to it.
No1KState: Cops will check the black person for drugs, even though it's more likely that the random white person the cops passed by has drugs on them than the black person has. People think of "drug abuse" as a black pathology, even though whites have a higher rate of drug abuse.
Hmmm... I see no Tim Wise or JW citations from No1KState in that statement. Spare me the non-sequiturs up to and including your Farrakhan-Cosby entry.
If Farrakhan and Cosby said the "same thing" then White folks would be esteem Farrakhan as highly as the do Cosby and Obama for "finally" saying what Black folks need to hear but that was most definitely NOT what White America did when the Million Man March happened.
So it's clear what all the "personal responsibility" talk is all about when it comes from people like Cosby, Obama, Jason Whitlock and Juan Williams (let alone Black conservatives) who White America and the White media portray as courageous for "finally" saying what needs to be said.
You simply don't have a point. You invoked Obama as if his use of the rhetoric wasn't questioned or questionable. Again, White racist conservatives have said the "same" thing too but you aren't quoting them = your point is bankrupt and so is Obama's.
When the Rev. Wright drama was happening, nobody but Obama in his convoluted and contradictory race speech was extolling Wright for preaching "personal responsibility."
So this angle of yours is DOA. No1KState obviously referenced the fact that Black preachers talk about "personal responsibility" all the time for a different reason than you do. You're trying to say "they said it, why can't Obama" when No1KState suggests that the rhetoric used in those questionable political settings are getting old and is not necessary because, frankly, since it's said all the time then Obama is doing nothing more than adding to the noise or trying to boost his image by being "tough" on Blacks ESPECIALLY when the tone and emphasis of his Father's Day speeches from 2007 and 2008 are in stark contrast to each other and the whole Rev. Wright thing and how that supposedly has Whites wondering just "how black" is Obama and why he stayed in that church for 20 years (a church that, no doubt, preached "personal responsibility" the whole time).
So yeah... Since all these people you've been quoting have said the same thing Obama has said, explain why the fact that Jesse Jackson has said the same thing as Obama didn't dominate the conversation when Jackson got caught criticizing Obama on Fox with the hot mic.
You and I both know the dominate narrative was that Obama is for personal responsibility while Jackson is not. The same goes for Al Sharpton and Min. Farrakhan no matter how many times they emphasis so-called personal responsibility.
Again, Farrakhan didn't get the kind of reaction Obama did from Blacks and especially Whites when it came to the Million Man March. So the different reception shows how the context differs.
Obama knows better than to talk personal responsibility to any other group and he hasn't. Instead, he's done what he's supposed to do when talking to a constituency group: be a politician and talk about government policies; his campaign promises to the given group.
So invoking Obama as you did, again, when his speech was called into question, was a mistake on your part. Obama gets no respect from me for ramping up the "personal responsibility" rhetoric because he can't even respect African-Americans as voters and treat them/us THE SAME WAY he does other voting constituencies.
He goes before AIPAC and says nothing about "personal responsibility." He goes before LULAC and, even when referring to dismal stats that show Latinos doing poor, he says NOTHING about "personal responsibility." He does the same thing before Native Americans and has constantly tried to paint poor, working and middle class Whites as VICTIMS. No talk of "personal responsibility" for any of them.
So take that against the backdrop of Obama having to distance himself from Wright whose indictment of America's racist was so loud and clear in all the video loops... Well, it's clear the picture that's painted by changing the emphasis in his Father's Day speech...
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"Hmmm... I see no Tim Wise or JW citations from No1KState in that statement."
No1kstate's remarks:
"Cops will check the black person for drugs, even though it's more likely that the random white person the cops passed by has drugs on them than the black person has."
This statement refers to the response from the police not public health or mental health practitioners, hence since the term "drug abuse" = "illicit drug use" in legal terms, the data I linked backs up my rebuttal and is in context with the link from the article that JW (IE the article which we are responding to..) which uses the term "Drug use" and with various Tim Wise articles which use the term "Drug use".
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"So invoking Obama as you did, again, when his speech was called into question, was a mistake on your part. "
Well one, I wasn't the first to invoke Obama here, two, I threw out Obama after No1kstate assumed I was in a group of people who were shocked by Wright. Yes it was a debate technique because I am not concerned enough about Wright to look into the matter.
Here's my first statement on Obama:
"Many Black leaders have made similar statements including Jesse Jackson and Bill Cosby.."
Here's the beginning of the second:
"The cynical part of me thinks he is being a politician and appealing to white voters"
As for Jackson's comments.. I don't know ... it's almost like a family feud that got aired in public, considering Jackson's son works for Obama and Michelle Obama used to baby sit for Jackson.
"You and I both know the dominate narrative was that Obama is for personal responsibility while Jackson is not. The same goes for Al Sharpton and Min. Farrakhan no matter how many times they emphasis so-called personal responsibility."
Well I can't say I know the totality of Jackson's Farrakhan's, or Sharpton's speeches (preachings..) over their many decades of public speaking compared to Obama. I just didn't think what Obama said was unique. Obama may say something on the matter 100 times to every time Jackson has said it once.
Yes. I was citing Tim Wise.
ReplyDeleteNquest, let anon go. It's clear he has not interest in changing neither his mind nor the status quo. He's quite comfortable with white supremacy and white privilege. For all his questions and assertions, he's still anonymous.
So my suggestion to you: some people refuse to change. Let them wallow were they lay.
This statement refers to the response from the police not public health or mental health practitioners, hence since the term "drug abuse" = "illicit drug use" in legal terms
ReplyDeleteAnon, the *link* you posted in your July 24, 2008 - 1:52 PM post was from the National Survey on Drug Use and ***Health*** which is connected to the Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration which was part of the domain name in the link. Scaled down this is what you get:
www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov
******************************
END OF YOUR BROKE ARGUMENT
******************************
As for the your "debate tactics"... They are still lacking. "Obama may..." won't help you. Since you don't know what Jackson has said and how many times he's done what you noted he has (dying on your own sword) then you got nothing but bs in your mealy mouth statement.
There's one constant among Jackson and the rest of the Black ministers White America loves to hate and despise no matter how much 'personal responsibility' they preach: the are all loud, vocal critics of America's racism past and present. And until Obama calls a Million Man March and get Black men from all across the country to come together as Farrakhan did... Well, your "debate tactic" of "100 to every one time" is pre-empted and pre-debunked.
It's because neither Obama or Cosby are "tough" on America or White America that they don't share the same public anguish fate as the 4 Black ministers -- Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan and Wright.
Obama and Cosby on their best day can't measure up with Farrakhan and Wright in terms practicing and extolling the values of so-called 'personal responsibility.'
(Notice how Obama 'had' to denounce Farrakhan. That's a clear indication that it's not about 'personal responsibility' but rather being "soft" vs. "hard" on America when it comes to pointing out racism.)
Obama and Cosby on their best day can't measure up with Farrakhan and Wright in terms practicing and extolling the values of so-called 'personal responsibility.'
ReplyDeleteNquest - I agree with that.
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"END OF YOUR BROKE ARGUMENT"
Nope
From No1kstate:
"Yes. I was citing Tim Wise."
Who uses the term "Drug use"
And as I said Nquest, in legal terms Drug abuse = illicit drug use.
"Notice how Obama 'had' to denounce Farrakhan."
Dr. Yacub, UFOs, and some inflammatory statements about Jews didn't play a small part.
"100 to every one time"
It's pretty simple... what I said was that Obama said things that were similar to what other Black leaders have said.. which is correct.. how many times each of them said it doesn't negate my statement... and it's not like Obama makes "personal responsibility" statements in every speech. Sharpton affirmed Obama's speech among others.
To No1kstate:
I actually plan on emigrating from the US in a couple of years, take that how you may. As for books I've read, the authors include Zinn, Sun Tzu, Chomsky, Malcolm X, Lao Tze, and Clausewitz among many others.
If this is you No1kstate sorry to hear about your CFIDS, I know someone who had it.
I forgot all about odemagazine! Yeah, that's me. Thanks for the condolenses. CFIDS sucks!!
ReplyDeleteIf you're serious about challenging the status quo, what are you doing besides arguing the extent of the effect of racism?
how many times each of them said it doesn't negate my statement
ReplyDeleteYou came up with the lame debate tactic. So, go ahead, talk at length about how something you said, suggesting that Obama has said something some 100 times to Jackson's 1 time, doesn't negate your statement that doesn't deal with the fact that it's all about the degree to which the people named are upfront and outspoken about racism which was AGAIN something indicated at the beginning of this thread which, obviously, was the very thing that made you skip right over Kandee's statement about classism.
All you saw was race and dove in idiotic just like you did over the "legal parlance" bs when you yourself quoted from a public health source. And so what Tim Wise used "drug use"...? He didn't claim the use = abuse and I know I've read commentaries of his citing surveys that dealt with "binge" drinking and the frequency of drug use as a way to determine drug abuse or addiction.
You brought a knife to a gun and I got a sniper rifle.
At every stage, you have erected bogus argument after bogus and you're still talking because the denials got you. The denials got your tangled up in your own web of stupidity.
"Obama may say something on the matter 100 times to every time Jackson has said it once."
____________ vs. ____________
"...how many times each of them said it"
Better brush up on your debate tactics. That one got you all twisted up.
To Nquest:
ReplyDelete"I got a sniper rifle."
That's nice but shooting your monitor gets expensive doesn't it..?
"All you saw was race"
Well I mentioned class multiple times.. I'll bring it up again.. I think it is wise to address issues of poverty for all races in the US but this isn't very popular among the power elite since it smells too much like socialism.
"And so what Tim Wise used "drug use"...?"
Because No1kstate, the person I responded to, later stated that she was citing Tim Wise (as I thought), hence my reply was in context. Simple as that.
"Obama etc.."
"it's all about the degree to which the people named are upfront and outspoken about racism"
Obama was a civil rights lawyer, he
has not only spoken out against racism he won legal battles in court. But, seriously dude, do you think Obama would have a hope in hell of winning the election if he discussed racism as much as Jackson or Farrakhan..? McSame and his campaign managers would love it.
To No1kstate:
ReplyDelete"If you're serious about challenging the status quo, what are you doing besides arguing the extent of the effect of racism?"
Good question. as for arguing about the extent of racism... it's more that I have a issue with Tim Wise. Maybe because we are the same ethnicity and he has many female admirers...
But seriously it seems as if with the collapse of the Soviet Union discussion of class issues has been placed way behind racial issues in the US among the left. I understand the moral arguments why people take this tact but I think potential for a seriously dangerous demagogue is
arising among rural whites. Perhaps I am paranoid but that's how fascists tend to come to power.
"challenging the status quo"
Well mentoring (computer training, I'm in the IT industry..) younger people. (almost all of which are people of color)
Recently I got a very close view of what's it like for someone to go through the criminal justice system. I helped someone (a POC, FWIW) I know get out of prison. (She had been in the county lock up for 11 months (some of her family couldn't help her (no money) the other members of her after hemming and hawing family refused to help so I finally stepped in..) I put up property for bail, paid for an apartment for two months, and assisted her with finding a job..)
So, I've got some idea of how screwed things up are with the criminal justice system.
I commend your volunteerism, anon, but open your eyes and realize that a lot of what those poc folks are going through is due to their poc-status.
ReplyDeleteAnd blacks have tried for centuries to work with white people on issues of class: wages, work place safety, unionizing, ect. All we've asked is to be treated as equals. That's still all we ask.
So, let's not pretend racism isn't pervasive when the very reason the white working class and black working class can't agitate together for the betterment of all is the white working class's racism.