Originally Posted By ecdc >>Poverty and civilian crimes seem to be much bigger problems in our country than the smaller, but terrible culture of racism<< Except poverty and civilian crimes are symptoms of the root cause of racism and white supremacy. >>Just do this, just do that. So easy to be dismissive of what other people are up against.<< It's a common argument, especially from white people, but even well-off African Americans like Bill Cosby. It's respectability politics--that is, act respectable and the problem goes away. I'll reiterate, it's the equivalent of saying let's cut funding for PBS to fix the deficit. It is a refusal to look at the real issue and instead blames the victim.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Why is it always about racism to some folks. Face it... POOR people are treated like crap in this country. You don't need to be black to be treated poorly. Yes, racism is a part of the problem but we have to look beyond that or a core part of the problem will never be resolved. And with the increasing disparity of wealth in the U.S. the problem is probably going to get much worse before it gets better.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Why is it always about racism to some folks.<< Because you are erroneously equating race with skin color. Race goes far beyond that. It's difficult for white Americans today to grasp this, but whiteness that is much, much broader than skin color. That's why in the 19th century, Irish Catholic immigrants were not considered white. Mormons were not considered white. Whiteness then--as now--was about much more than that. It's why we have the phrase "white trash." We use it to denote people who have white skin but are not living up to the standards of whiteness. Whiteness is seen as the default, as the norm, and that includes white behavior.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Hell, I haven't been in a "white church" in over 4 years. Why would I go to a black one? But you are making my point for me. I certainly don't have to go to ANY church to be pounded over the head with coverage of a cop shooting a black man.> I'm making a separate point. Responding to the "why don't blacks talk about crime in their neighborhoods" shibboleth/distraction. They most definitely do. And once again, it's the difference between a chronic problem and an acute problem. An acute action like the shooting of an unarmed kid is always going to get more media attention than something chronic. An act of terrorism will always get more attention than the drunk driving incidents which happen literally every day and take more lives. "EBOLA IN AMERICA!!!!" will get far more attention than diseases which kill far more.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ecdc... I think you are getting pretty "creative" in your definition of racism. Not that Webster is the end all and be all, but it says... <<Full Definition of RACISM 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2: racial prejudice or discrimination>> I think what you are talking about is more typically called classism. <<Full Definition of CLASSISM : prejudice or discrimination based on class>>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I think you are getting pretty "creative" in your definition of racism.<< Except your definition does not include any mention of skin color. You are starting with the assumption that race=skin color, looking up a definition, and mistakenly believing it supports your point. The definition of race (both Webster and academic) goes well beyond skin color. I'm aware of what class and classism is. Whiteness is a cultural construct of race that, yes, largely incorporates white skin, but also excludes people with white skin from being considered properly "white." You can go to Webster's all you like, but you haven't addressed my point about Americans for generations not considering members of certain religions or certain countries as white, even though they have white skin.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip No, I have never in my life of people being considered "not white" because of their being Catholic. Certainly they were viewed differently from mainstream Protestants just as Jews were. But that was always based on religion, not race. You seem to want to take skin color, ethnic background and religion, rolling it all into one "master category" called race. I've just never heard of anything like that before. I know skin color does not always equal race. The most common example of that is both Caucasians and Hispanics being considered "white". Although by your definition, Hispanics would never be considered white. You sure you're not just making this stuff up as you go along? ;-)
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I've just never heard of anything like that before.<< Which is fine, but it's an established fact among historians of the nineteenth century. And again, today it may be more subtle, but it exists. Look again at the label, "white trash." Think about why we'd have that phrase. What does it mean? It's basically a way of saying "Well, they're skin color is white, but they're trashy or lower class...you know, like non-white people."
Originally Posted By ecdc Here's a book from an acquaintance of mine that explores this entire phenomenon in terms of Mormonism. In political cartoons in the nineteenth century, Mormons were portrayed as non-white. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Different-Color-Struggle-Whiteness/dp/0199754071/">http://www.amazon.com/Religion...9754071/</a> But I don't want to stray too far from my point in post 100. Again, whiteness is seen as the default, and there are certain criteria for being "white." White Americans have reasserted this for generations in different ways, largely by denying that aspects of black culture are "white." It's not as if God decreed from the heavens that rap was bad and rock and roll was good, or that jeans with a belt was divine and sagging jeans are bad. These are cultural constructs, and those things that are considered white are given preference, and those things that are considered non-white are disparaged and labeled thuggish or worse. It affects everything from clothing styles to music to movies to speech patterns. Black scholars have rightly noted that for the Cosby Show to be so successful, it had to sound, look, and act white. But white Americans looked at the Cosby Show and said, "See? Racism's over, y'all! We love us some black people!"
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Don't buy it. Not for a minute... especially not with the examples you used. Rock was initially based on black music. People like Elvis were initially seen as rather dangerous for embracing it. Over time it became accepted as mainstream and and genres like rap were in effect a conscious decision to part from the mainstream. Same with the way jeans are worn. It is not the case that black men have traditionally worn their jeans half-way down to their knees. Again, it was a decision to part from the mainstream, in this case mimicking (and exaggerating) a style initiated in prisons by both white and black inmates. It is not so much that these things are viewed as innately wrong, but a recognition of what they are. A way of giving mainstream preferences and styles the finger.
Originally Posted By ecdc Except you've just marvelously proven my point. Those mainstream preferences and styles are synonymous with white preferences and styles. When you wonder why some people make things about race, it's because those things *are* about race. You just have the luxury of not thinking it is because you are white. Those things appropriated by whiteness--jazz and rock and roll, for example--quickly undergo a transformation to respectability. Those things that aren't, get stigmatized as bad, thuggish, criminal, etc. Of course black Americans try and stake out a space of uniqueness for themselves. That's not a surprise, all people do it, both at a micro and macro level. It's the response by whites that's telling. Take the use of the N word. Blacks have successfully reappropriated the word and reclaimed it as their own and it is hilarious to watch white heads explode everywhere as they say, "Why is it ok for black people to use that word and not white people!" They attempt to position themselves as some kind of reasonable colorblind ambassador, but what they are really doing is reinforcing whiteness and the status quo of white supremacy. Colorblindness is not some noble goal whites can lay claim to; it's a huge part of the problem.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt FWIW... https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=797569513642698&set=vb.100001689713368&type=2&theater
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ecdc... I am really trying to understand what you say. But is that racism or an example of "whiteness" or the natural tendency of any society to adopt a set of norms that is seen to be preferred? I see it many times around where I live. You have people that are white, generally poor, often quite racist and vote Republican all the way. Basically hillbillies. They are probably tolerated more here by most people than they would be anywhere else. But if they show up at a job interview being full on redneck hillbilly waving a Confederate flag they probably aren't going to be hired for any responsible position. Is that racism, classism, of just a well deserved WTF is wrong with you?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But is that racism or an example of "whiteness" or the natural tendency of any society to adopt a set of norms that is seen to be preferred?<< I honestly don't think those things are mutually exclusive. Every society sets out its norms, no question about it. But those norms are almost always shaped by the dominant group, and in the United States of America, that is based on whiteness. In other cultures, it might be based on religious affiliation, in most cultures it's also affected by gender and sexuality, etc. All those things certainly overlap and it's a complex issue. The norms in the United States are synonymous with white. And look, I'm not ignorant of what you're trying to get at. At my last job, I was responsible for hiring people. I'm not immune to the culture. If someone walked in with a bandana on their head and sagging jeans and a t-shirt with Tupac, vs. someone wearing a suit, you know which one made a better impression on me. But who did you picture when I gave those descriptions? I'd be willing to bet 90% of anyone reading this pictures a black American in the bandana and a white American in the suit. That's because we associate the norms or the respectable way of behaving with whiteness. I would argue that race in America is the defining feature of our country's tensions. I would argue that white supremacy is the overarching issue that guides our culture. Gender, sexual preference, religion, class, wealth--they all play a big role. But in this country, race tops them all, and that's why I harp on it so much. >>But if they show up at a job interview being full on redneck hillbilly waving a Confederate flag they probably aren't going to be hired for any responsible position.<< See, I think the label of "redneck hillbilly" says it all. It's another race category. We have these ways of dividing up white and black people beyond just skin color to indicate what kind of group or person they are and if they are closer to or farther away from the default standard of whiteness. We use the label of redneck in a similar way to white trash: these people have white skin but they're still not as "white" as, say, Mitt Romney. Honestly, what else is the point of the label "white trash?" We all know exactly what I mean by that label. So if this is exclusively about skin color, why do we have it? It's to say "they're white, but they aren't respectably white." If it were just classist, why the label? We could just say they're poor and be colorblind about it, because their are poor white and poor black people. Is it classism or racism? I'd say it's racism, because we are categorizing people based less on their affluence and more on their shared traits. White trash we associate with urban poor who don't quite know how to be respectable, redneck with rural poor who look and behave a certain way. Poverty is part of it, but it's definitely not all of it. But maybe trying to define it is splitting hairs. The ultimate result is the same: it's a culture where you and I are more privileged than we can possibly imagine because the things we do every single day are rarely questioned, rarely challenged, and rarely scrutinized because what we do is seen as the correct way of behaving. It's everything from the way we speak, to the way we dress, to the way we carry ourselves, to the way we look, to the cars we drive and the music we listen to. And we do it without effort because the correct way of behaving isn't some ideal that fell from God's lips to our ears, it's defined as being and behaving white. The worst I have to worry about is being considered a nerd or kinda dorky.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt The Missouri Attorney General confirms the Michael Brown grand jury was misled by St. Louis District Attorney: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349421/-Missouri-AG-Confirms-Michael-Brown-Grand-Jury-Misled-by-St-Louis-DA?detail=email">http://m.dailykos.com/story/20...il=email</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well, the problem here is that the Missouri law, although perhaps unconstitutional, remains the law of the state and legally determines what actions can be taken by police officers. The fact that the Tennessee law was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court would not invalidate the Missouri law. For that to happen the Missouri law would also have to be challenged and reviewed by the Court. The only way around the patchwork of laws presently in place is if there were a Federal law setting forth the conditions under which police can use deadly force. I am certainly not familiar enough with Constitutional law to know whether such a Federal law would be found Constitutional or if it would be found to take authority given by the Constitution to the states.
