Black Lives Matter organiser is white yet took a scholarship only for Black Students - Polidicks

Thanks for the clarity. [QUOTE=Flameon;48498465]So I thought that maybe it isn't so much that the data doesn't support the theory, but rather goes against your theory [and also Rangerxgi's and AlexConnor] that there has been a significant change in racial relations since the 60's. Yes, public acts of terror are on the decline and you can't say the N-Word in polite company anymore, but the system of racial inequality seems to be intact.[/QUOTE] This is what my statement was in reference to. When I asked based on what, I was asking what is the evidence of continued levels of racism? By every direct measure that I know of people are far less racist than they used to be. For example, 96% of people would vote for a black president compared to 38% in 1958 or 77% in 1978 ([URL]http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx[/URL]) Another example would be the massively huge decrease in the number of white people against being forced to sell their house to a black person: [t]http://i.imgur.com/xpoy29f.png[/t] I would say that this graph is less clear because some number may be saying no because they don't want to be forced to sell to anybody as opposed to not selling specifically to black people, but the trend is still clear. [editline]19th August 2015[/editline] Please note that I'm not arguing that no racism exists. I'm just saying that if racism is the major cause of differing stats between whites and blacks, then we should be seeing huge gains across the board over time, but we're not. In many ways black people are on average worse off than they were 20 or 30 years ago.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48498263]It would be an economic issue that affects a race that isn't being dealt with, making it a racist issue.[/QUOTE] Fighting this as a race issue (minority scholarships, affirmative action etc) is at best a bandaid over a chest wound, and at worst rubbing a handful of mud into the injury. Because a few more blacks going through college does exactly fuck all for the average black person who is still stuck in poverty with no exit, and racial discrimination is still racial discrimination so you are actively driving a wedge between races. No amount of affirmative action is going to make life any better for the average black person in america, it's just feelgood shit. Now, treat this an economic issue, which is to say that it's very hard to break out of poverty in America, and you might actually get somewhere. But that's a much harder battle so everyone wants to pretend this is a race issue which they can be seen to fight with easy but ultimately irrelevant measures.

As I said I don't think the shift from overt racism to covert modes have significantly altered racial dynamics in a meaningful way. I dunno how significant it is that someone says they will vote for a black president if the biases against black people remain in other forms. To sort of get what I'm saying [and bear in mind all of this is from the documentary], check out the strategy used to get the 'racial' vote by conservatives election pundits like Lee Atwater [quote]"Y•ou start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”" [/quote] I think increasingly today we live in a time of codes. It isn't black PEOPLE that are the problem, black people are fine - I just have a problem with black people who don't respect the law, or black people who wear certain clothes, or flash 'gang signs', or black people who expect the system is gonna be there for them, or won't get over systemic racism or -- and so on and so on. And so what we have is a system where a black president gets elected, but instead of being seen as another step in the road to ending racism, it gets construed as the end all be all, and now blacks need to stop making excuses. And on top of that, we start to unconciously assocate that inability to succeed at the highest levels with personal laziness on the part of the person - so we treat them a lil' worse, and the cycle continues. I guess what I'm trying to say sgman, Is I don't think those polling of opinions is really indicative of the reality of racial inequality. My mom always tells me she treats people equally (and she raised me to treat people like that), but if its a black person knocking at the door she speaks to them through the mailslot, she doesn't open it. [editline]20th August 2015[/editline] And ALEX you are right AA is a bandaid - but it is also something done by private institutions or decionmakers at only micro-levels. People who can't just pass a policy and fix the economy, so they are doing what they can.

[QUOTE=Flameon;48498727]As I said I don't think the shift from overt racism to covert modes have significantly altered racial dynamics in a meaningful way. I dunno how significant it is that someone says they will vote for a black president if the biases against black people remain in other forms. To sort of get what I'm saying [and bear in mind all of this is from the documentary], check out the strategy used to get the 'racial' vote by conservatives election pundits like Lee Atwater I think increasingly today we live in a time of codes. It isn't black PEOPLE that are the problem, black people are fine - I just have a problem with black people who don't respect the law, or black people who wear certain clothes, or flash 'gang signs', or black people who expect the system is gonna be there for them, or won't get over systemic racism or -- and so on and so on. And so what we have is a system where a black president gets elected, but instead of being seen as another step in the road to ending racism, it gets construed as the end all be all, and now blacks need to stop making excuses. And on top of that, we start to unconciously assocate that inability to succeed at the highest levels with personal laziness on the part of the person - so we treat them a lil' worse, and the cycle continues. I guess what I'm trying to say sgman, Is I don't think those polling of opinions is really indicative of the reality of racial inequality. My mom always tells me she treats people equally (and she raised me to treat people like that), but if its a black person knocking at the door she speaks to them through the mailslot, she doesn't open it.[/QUOTE] It seems to me that you're favoring anecdotes of racist white people over real hard stats that say otherwise. I know of no stat that doesn't show a massive drop in racism over time.

I wouldn't exactly call a poll that asks someone how they would 'feel' about something *real hard stats* - especially given exactly what I was just saying about how in our society today it isn't proper for us to come out and say, 'Blacks are less than whites!' but we have a coded vocabulary that lets us say something pretty close to that. Why not look at the rates for black people applying for jobs vs white fellons? Or the unemployment rate for black college graduates vs their white counterparts? Police practices in arresting black vs white marijuana users? I could go on. Or hell, just in general black unemployment relative to whites which seems to have stayed relatively unchanged despite substantive gains in civil rights and shifting the rhetoric of this country. Those are the hard stats. I do think things have changed for blacks - for one they can vote without being attacked by the police, sit at the same lunch counters and so on, I'm just saying I think we often overstate the gains of the civil rights movement and forget that the movement is still happening today.

[QUOTE=Flameon;48498782]I wouldn't exactly call a poll that asks someone how they would 'feel' about something *real hard stats* - especially given exactly what I was just saying about how in our society today it isn't proper for us to come out and say, 'Blacks are less than whites!' but we have a coded vocabulary that lets us say something pretty close to that.[/QUOTE] The entire topic of racism is about how people 'feel' about other kinds of people. I'm not sure how you would measure individual racism without asking them how they feel about different issues relating to racism. So we have two possibilities: 1) The stats show a real change in opinion across society. 2) The stats have many invisible and underlying factors that consistently skew the results to be less and less accurate over time. (If racism is at a similar level to what it was in the past, then the decreasing line in the poll would be less and less accurate as it moves further from the original point) I think it's obvious which one is more likely and requires less hidden assumptions. [QUOTE]Why not look at the rates for black people applying for jobs vs white fellons? Or the unemployment rate for black college graduates vs their white counterparts? Police practices in arresting black vs white marijuana users? I could go on. Or hell, just in general black unemployment relative to whites which seems to have stayed relatively unchanged despite substantive gains in civil rights and shifting the rhetoric of this country. Those are the hard stats. I do think things have changed for blacks - for one they can vote without being attacked by the police, sit at the same lunch counters and so on, I'm just saying I think we often overstate the gains of the civil rights movement and forget that the movement is still happening today.[/QUOTE] Those stats are the exact kind that I'm questioning. By using them as your evidence for racism you're just positing a non-falsifiable argument. You're saying that racism is the cause of those stats, but are also saying that those very stats are the evidence for the racism in the first place. It's totally circular: 1) The stats show prevalent racism against black people in society. 2) Racism leads to negative outcomes for black people. 3) Therefore the stats are bad because of racism against black people. The conclusion is nothing more than a restatement of the first premise. We have a few facts: 1) Based on the available data, we know that white people are much less racist than they were in the past. (You can deny this, but you really haven't provided any real reason to doubt all the stats that show otherwise beyond vague unproven theories about coded language.) 2) Black people's socioeconomic position has either gotten worse or stayed relatively stagnant over time. I see no way to account for both of these facts and come to the conclusion that current racism is the major cause of the lack of progress within the black community.

"Black/women only scholarships are racist/sexist!!!" [url]http://www.collegescholarships.org/scholarships/[/url] [url]http://www.schoolsoup.com/scholarship-directory/race-minority/[/url] [url]http://www.collegescholarships.org/scholarships/interracial.htm[/url] [url]http://www.collegescholarships.org/scholarships/dwarfism.htm[/url] Thoughts?

[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48496753]Quotas and black scholarships are in place to give minorities an edge they need, the United States is still very racist (We're not Jim Crow laws anymore, but it could be better) and encouraging black youths through things like scholarships helps deal with those problem, just think of an inner-city black kid, instead of joining a gang, works hard and gets rewarded with a scholarship to college to help him pursue a high paying career. Without these scholarships in place, Black and Hispanic attendance to higher education would be much lower which would keeps blacks and Hispanics in the disadvantageous position they're in (Which is part of the reason that this systematic racism exists), it has more of an impact than "Feel-good measures" and calling it racist is silly.[/QUOTE] What about poor white kids in shitty impoverished areas? Or poor asians?

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48496863][img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Opp3_e73ejg/U-UTPl5da1I/AAAAAAAAAS0/0JHzwPjpxqk/s1600/Equality+Doesn't+Mean+Justice+Baseball.jpg[/img] Don't tell me that minorities generally have the same opportunities as Anglos.[/QUOTE] There is nothing wrong with this image. The problem is when people start demanding that the tall guy help the short guys to stack the boxes, or when the short guys demand the tall guy to squat down to their level.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48496863][img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Opp3_e73ejg/U-UTPl5da1I/AAAAAAAAAS0/0JHzwPjpxqk/s1600/Equality+Doesn't+Mean+Justice+Baseball.jpg[/img] Don't tell me that minorities generally have the same opportunities as Anglos.[/QUOTE] That picture would apply if things like AA and black only scholarships were actually giving people boxes. The only thing they do is cut the fence shorter in front of some of the short people. All it does is make the average numbers look good. You're not helping all short people grow, and you're not solving any problem. It's just a short cut to make the numbers look good. If you want to think it helps the root problem, you are mis-informed.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;48499292]What about poor white kids in shitty impoverished areas? Or poor asians?[/QUOTE] Apparently, they're irrelevant, because they're a minority A minority that the "minority supporters" in this thread don't want to support, or even acknowledge for that matter Ironic, isn't it?

[QUOTE=NotMeh;48499674]Apparently, they're irrelevant, because they're a minority A minority that the "minority supporters" in this thread don't want to support, or even acknowledge for that matter Ironic, isn't it?[/QUOTE] Dunno. I think poor whites matter just as much as any poor asian or black person. A scholarship for poor whites however would probably not be welcomed.

BEING poor and white is not the same as being poor and black. Both suck, one sucks harder. Many reports in places like Baltimore and Furgeson have shown this. We have minority scholarships that reward people for getting through the suckyness of their life. You can't claim to be "Colorblind" and think that helps when it has been shown racism is still very prevalent today, saying you're colorblind is just dismissing the problem. It's almost but not quite as bad as saying the problem lies within something like "Black Culture".

[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48499827]BEING poor and white is not the same as being poor and black. Both suck, one sucks harder. Many reports in places like Baltimore and Furgeson have shown this. We have minority scholarships that reward people for getting through the suckyness of their life.[/QUOTE] Give scholarships out for being poor and from a shitty neighborhood. Why focus on the color? Being a middleclass black person is better than being at the bottom as a white person.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48498852]The entire topic of racism is about how people 'feel' about other kinds of people. I'm not sure how you would measure individual racism without asking them how they feel about different issues relating to racism. So we have two possibilities: 1) The stats show a real change in opinion across society. 2) The stats have many invisible and underlying factors that consistently skew the results to be less and less accurate over time. (If racism is at a similar level to what it was in the past, then the decreasing line in the poll would be less and less accurate as it moves further from the original point) I think it's obvious which one is more likely and requires less hidden assumptions. Those stats are the exact kind that I'm questioning. By using them as your evidence for racism you're just positing a non-falsifiable argument. You're saying that racism is the cause of those stats, but are also saying that those very stats are the evidence for the racism in the first place. It's totally circular: 1) The stats show prevalent racism against black people in society. 2) Racism leads to negative outcomes for black people. 3) Therefore the stats are bad because of racism against black people. The conclusion is nothing more than a restatement of the first premise. We have a few facts: 1) Based on the available data, we know that white people are much less racist than they were in the past. (You can deny this, but you really haven't provided any real reason to doubt all the stats that show otherwise beyond vague unproven theories about coded language.) 2) Black people's socioeconomic position has either gotten worse or stayed relatively stagnant over time. I see no way to account for both of these facts and come to the conclusion that current racism is the major cause of the lack of progress within the black community.[/QUOTE] Sure, I'm not going to say that the United States isn't as racist as it was fifty years ago. [I]However,[/I] it would be incredibly naiive to say every region of the US has advanced forward as fast as others. [url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/04/living/integrated-prom-wilcox-county-georgia/]Like this county in Georgia with it's first interracial prom in 2014.[/url] [quote]I see no way to account for both of these facts[/quote] People have become less racist, however that doesn't mean that people are accommodating for black issues. I think they're being outright ignored in a lot of circumstances, just like a number of difficult social issues like mental health. They're not being dealt with. That's what I believe is the problem. You can say, "Well, we've only become more supportive of people with mental health issues" but that doesn't mean we're still so, so far behind in research and providing help. You can say, "Well, we've only become better at providing better education!" but that doesn't mean that the United States is in an agreed stance of how education should be dealt with or taught. Saying, "Well, we like X" is ultimately irrelevant in that grand scheme of things when liking X does not translate into actions for X. Referring to my Business Insider source: [t]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/08/concentrated-poverty.png&w=1484[/t] They still live in the worst housing. [t]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/08/wealth-urban.png&w=1484[/t] They still have the biggest wealth disparity. [t]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/08/children-single-parent.png&w=1484[/t] They're the most likely to live in single-parent homes. [t]https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/08/SDT-racial-relations-08-2013-03-11.png[/t] Their incarceration rates are more awful than in the 1960's. So there comes this point where you look at the data and you have to consider if this is merely an effect of poverty or an effect of older, institutionalized racism. (or something else too - I don't rule out everything!) My personal belief is that the effects of older racism has forced black people into worse housing, and the current racism that infects a lot of our police force - even through legislation like the stop and frisk laws in New York - call for cyclical incarceration rates. There's just too many black people that are affected to say otherwise, really. I'm not arguing that everyone's going around with the intentions of being racist, however we as a society are failing our black people in not helping with the problems that plague them regardless of intentions.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48496518]I thought it was called affirmative action?[/QUOTE] Yeah it means positive racism

[QUOTE=sgman91;48498852]The entire topic of racism is about how people 'feel' about other kinds of people. I'm not sure how you would measure individual racism without asking them how they feel about different issues relating to racism. So we have two possibilities: 1) The stats show a real change in opinion across society. 2) The stats have many invisible and underlying factors that consistently skew the results to be less and less accurate over time. (If racism is at a similar level to what it was in the past, then the decreasing line in the poll would be less and less accurate as it moves further from the original point) I think it's obvious which one is more likely and requires less hidden assumptions. Those stats are the exact kind that I'm questioning. By using them as your evidence for racism you're just positing a non-falsifiable argument. You're saying that racism is the cause of those stats, but are also saying that those very stats are the evidence for the racism in the first place. It's totally circular: 1) The stats show prevalent racism against black people in society. 2) Racism leads to negative outcomes for black people. 3) Therefore the stats are bad because of racism against black people. The conclusion is nothing more than a restatement of the first premise. We have a few facts: 1) Based on the available data, we know that white people are much less racist than they were in the past. (You can deny this, but you really haven't provided any real reason to doubt all the stats that show otherwise beyond vague unproven theories about coded language.) 2) Black people's socioeconomic position has either gotten worse or stayed relatively stagnant over time. I see no way to account for both of these facts and come to the conclusion that current racism is the major cause of the lack of progress within the black community.[/QUOTE] I don't understand what you think is circular reasonng? It is more like: 1.) There are a bunch of strong arguements about why in a racist society we would see stats like that. 2.) We have stats like that. 3.) Ergo, seems pretty probable that racism is the cause for those things. I guess my question for you would be: what standards or proof/evidence would you need to think that racism is the cause for those things? Or are you going for David Hume's the problem of induction right now? And I don't think polling people about how they feel about black people is a pretty good standard to prove racism exists - I dunno what more to tell you than people like to present themselves as tolerant individuals even if in practice the things they do aren't very tolerant. So when you say, "white people are much less racist than they were in the past" - I dunno if polls asking white folks their opinion about black people is actually a good test for this given things like unconcious biases. NOTE: yes, things have gotten serously better in terms of legal rights for black folks, and outright acts of terror against them have declined, but other trends continue to stay the same. Being racist is not about one's intentions, its about the repeated practices. And there is pretty damn good scholarly evidence that folks unconciously prefer whites over blacks [also in the documentary]. The important thing to realize is that this practice does not restrict itself to white communities, it is also present in black communities too. We live in the same cultural soup, so we absorb the same cultural biases.

People who rationalise racial/sex discrimination as being somehow fair and just never cease to amaze me. It also takes a lot of guts to accuse someone of being a "right-winger conservative" for opposing that policy when supporting it requires one to have a very skewed perspective of social justice to begin with.

Something I'd like to emphasize is that I'm claiming that our nation as a whole is in many ways racist, however I'm not trying to make the claim that anyone in this thread is racist. I think there's an important distinction there.

[video=youtube;b0Ti-gkJiXc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc[/video]

It's the same problem that Axel was debating with Flameon on a previous thread. People seem to think that it's OK to advantage black people because on average, black people have it worse. And completly ignore the fact that there are white people that may be in the same situation of a black person. But it's OK to disadvantage them because on average white people have it better. Putting people in little boxes and ignoring individuals, the mark of a Marxist.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48500807]Putting people in little boxes and ignoring individuals, the mark of a Marxist.[/QUOTE]That's a pretty bold name-call you got there, and it sounds like you're not looking for a friendly discussion. You're not going to solve poverty with blanket acts alone. There's causes for poverty. I already gave you some. Part of it is racism. Part of it is mental health. There's other parts too. Solve [I]those[/I] problems. Poverty can easily be broken into sections and should be broken into sections. Otherwise, you're not curing the cause but masking the symptoms.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48500824]That's a pretty bold name-call you got there, and it sounds like you're not looking for a friendly discussion. You're not going to solve poverty with blanket acts alone. There's causes for poverty. I already gave you some. Part of it is racism. Part of it is mental health. There's other parts too. Solve [I]those[/I] problems. Poverty can easily be broken into sections and should be broken into sections. Otherwise, you're not curing the cause but masking the symptoms.[/QUOTE] I think he's referring to Flameon who identifies as a Marxist. I'm completely in support of the method you propose. The thing is, AA or other well-meant racist or sexist initiatives don't follow that method: They simply hide the symptoms while committing further injustices.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48500824]That's a pretty bold name-call you got there, and it sounds like you're not looking for a friendly discussion.[/QUOTE] He's defined himself as a Marxist, not me. You think calling someone Marxist is offensive? I think it's just a way to identify his ideology. Putting people in boxes (class, race, sex) and ignoring individual experiences is a mark of Marxism. [QUOTE=wauterboi;48500824]You're not going to solve poverty with blanket acts alone. There's causes for poverty. I already gave you some. Part of it is racism. Part of it is mental health. There's other parts too. Solve those problems.[/QUOTE] It it's silly to thing that black people are alone in poverty. Helping them without helping other races based on the fact that on average other races have it better is stupid.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48500873]It it's silly to thing that black people are alone in poverty. Helping them without helping other races based on the fact that on average other races have it better is stupid.[/QUOTE] Not to mention that black people don't all suffer from racism to the same extent, so assuming they all do de facto means that you're disadvantaging those who suffer the most. Some white people also suffer from racism to the same extent than your average black person, so AA is unfair to them too.

[QUOTE=_Axel;48500887]Not to mention that black people don't all suffer from racism to the same extent, so assuming they all do de facto means that you're disadvantaging those who suffer the most. Some white people also suffer from racism to the same extent than your average black person, so AA is unfair to them too.[/QUOTE] Apologies for the confusion on the Marxist claim, however I thought it seemed a bit venomous. It's like saying "Typical Republican" in my eyes. The way I view poverty is kind of like a venn diagram. Everything in the middle is poverty, and all intersecting circles represent different groups of people with different problems. I think those problems hold people back from prosperity. I think there should be stuff to help poor in general and stuff to help specific segments of poor people as well. Sure, not all black people are poor, but a significant portion of poverty is made up by minorities, including black people. It's disproportionate.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48500904]Apologies for the confusion on the Marxist claim, however I thought it seemed a bit venomous. It's like saying "Typical Republican" in my eyes. The way I view poverty is kind of like a venn diagram. Everything in the middle is poverty, and all intersecting circles represent different groups of people with different problems. I think those problems hold people back from prosperity. I think there should be stuff to help poor in general and stuff to help specific segments of poor people as well. Sure, not all black people are poor, but a significant portion of poverty is made up by minorities, including black people. It's disproportionate.[/QUOTE] Yeah, obviously if you want to get rid of poverty alleviation around you need to get rid of all its causes. If racism is one of them tackling this issue is necessary.

[QUOTE=taipan;48496204]Why do black only scholarships even exist?[/QUOTE] I agree. Scholarships imo should focus on giving disadvantaged kids who have grown up under poor socio-economic conditions a chance to succeed academically regardless of their race. Should black people happen to make to make up a large proportion of these disadvantaged kids, then the scholarships would then be allocated accordingly in a fair manner. Linking the award of scholarships to a person's racial identity only serves to increase or at they very least maintain the racial divisions within society, and is completely unhelpful in that regard.

scholarships and loans technically can't discriminate, though they can be aimed in purpose. This was exemplified at my high school when we applied for all the sponsorships and scholarships, apparently the only person to apply for a ($200 or something) little bonus from some form of african american students foundation was a white kid who applied to literally everything (and happened to be the only one to apply for this one), and they couldn't turn him down

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48500290] [t]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/08/concentrated-poverty.png&w=1484[/t] [/QUOTE] That 12% of white children in communities of crippling poverty matter just as much as the "people of color". Why exclude them because of their lack of being "diverse"?