World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[jp1]

"Race" can be considered a "concept," but skin tone and ethnic background are biologically determined, coded into DNA. So "race," as a lot of people view it, is never going to go away. There will always be people of different skin tones and ethnic backgrounds (at least until we get to where we all look exactly alike, like in that one South Park episode).

I wish we could reach a point where instead of denigrating others about it or pretending that we're above it all, we can celebrate all the variety and difference that individual racial/ethnic/whatever-you-wanna-call-it experiences and cultures have to offer the world. I think that's what they call "diversity."

But I'm just a "privileged" white guy, so what the fuck do I know?

You don't think you have enjoyed some benefits based on the color of your skin? Of course we should celebrate diversity, that doesn't mean we need to pretend that racism doesn't still exist. I witness racism all the time, and that's just as a white man who is paying attention.

[marurun]

Ooooo.... Bringing the power quotes. Mr. Coates has a way with words (and ideas).

[TSTR]

When did I say to pretend racism doesn't exist? As a matter of fact, I think I suggested that we actually pay attention to it.

That last line was a bit of snark, anyhow. Maybe I should have blue-texted it.

[jp1]

When did I say to pretend racism doesn't exist? As a matter of fact, I think I suggested that we actually pay attention to it.

That last line was a bit of snark, anyhow. Maybe I should have blue-texted it.

The last bit was counter-intuitive to the rest of the post, at least to me, it made the whole thing read differently. The part about "pretending we are above it" was vague from my point of view. When in conjunction with the last snarky line, the message seemed different.

Anyway, I disagree with the attitude towards the term "white privilege" as it absolutely exists. I think people take it as an insult, as if they haven't earned something, when it simply points out some advantages you have had since birth and take for granted when compared with the life experiences of someone who didn't enjoy those same advantages.

Sorry for the misinterpretation.

[CRTGAMER]

I posted that Litmus Test a couple pages back to get dialog on this sensitive issue. Nice to see well mannered solid comments concerning race in at least a few posts without judging another persons point of view. Having known about the test for some time, I was unsure how the reaction would be and held off posting it.

I kicked the idea around of holding back the spoiler until a later Reply, but that would have been unfair. I think the reactions would certainly had been much more passionate. When Time did that story concerning the "misplaced MLK bust", I though about posting it back then. It is absolutely nuts how so many of the News jumped on that. Do we also do this at times yell out racist just to brag that we are not racist?

I am curious and have questions for the ones that did look at the test tease.

1. Ask yourself honestly. What was your first reaction before opening the Spoiler?

2. With the spoiler opened, how did your reaction change?

3. Do past injustices justify creating unbalanced groups or situations such as shown in the Litmus test?

4. In that test showing a real event, Should that Tenessee White Congressman representing 60% black constituents be allowed to join the Black Caucus to have an equal representation for his district?

5. Should anyone be allowed to join any designated Caucus including Black, Asian, Hispanic, etc; if for positive purpose to get and give all the data for their constituents?

[prfsnl_gmr]

1. Ask yourself honestly. What was your first reaction before opening the Spoiler?

"Oh, no! Another CRTGAMER post!"

2. With the spoiler opened, how did your reaction change?

It didn't.

3. Do past injustices justify creating unbalanced groups or situations such as shown in the Litmus test?

Sometimes

4. Should the White Congressman representing 60% black constituents be allowed to join the Black Caucas to have an equal representation?

Maybe

5. Should anyone be allowed to join any designated Caucas including Black, Asian, Hispanic agenda if for positive purpose to get and give all the data for their constituents?

No

[marurun]

1. I found the idea of a white caucus highly problematic.
2. I still found the idea of a white caucus highly problematic, but when the word white was transposed to black, I found that the black caucus serves a very important purpose in helping an oppressed minority.
3. If past injustices have ongoing consequences that persist today, absolutely groups like the black caucus are justified. It's not like the abolition of slavery and the civil rights act magically fixed society to make it all hunky-dory even-keel.
4. If the caucus is designed for black lawmakers, and that white lawmaker is not a black lawmaker, then no. That he represents a district that is 60% black doesn't help fix the under-representation of black lawmakers in congress.
5. If the caucus is intended to support minority lawmakers who are under-represented in congress, no, the caucus should not be open to other lawmakers, even "if for positive purpose to get and give all the data for their constituents."

The reason a white caucus that excludes other members is offensive is because white lawmakers are already present in congress in numbers that far outweigh the makeup of general society. They do not need additional support. It would be the same if there were a men's caucus that excluded women. Men are already over-represented in congress.

"Nonwhites" make up only 19% of congress despite making up 38% of the general American population. That means that nonwhite representation in government is only half of what it should be for our government to be truly representative of the populace. Sadly, this is a historical high point for congressional diversity.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... diversity/

Women also make up only 19% of congress despite being 48 or 49% of the US population. That representation is even worse (and hasn't improved any in the 115th congress).

Now, I think it would be foolish to argue that congress is always going to be a perfect representation of society. But this degree of imbalance is concerning, and is the result of long-lasting impacts of ongoing discrimination embedded often in the very structures of our society. We cannot with a straight face say that our society is color or gender blind. It isn't, and it'll be a long time before it is. It means that that white men are going to just have to get used to being exasperated that women and minorities just won't let the issue drop. (If the problem still exists in such obvious and prolific form, why should they let it drop?)

Now, why don't you answer your own 5 questions?

[TSTR]

"Pretending we are above it" means, to me, acting like racial (and I'm using this term as a catch all so I don't have to type 500 different things or use a bunch of quotation marks) differences don't exist when they clearly do. There is no value judgement here, only acknowledgement of said differences.

And my snark is more directed at those who would say that someone like me, a middle-class white male, can't join in the discussion of sensitive topics or have an opinion worth some merit without "checking my privilege" constantly. Of course I have shit easier being white. There are very specific instances I can recall, mainly in interactions with law enforcement, where I am quite sure things would have ended much worse for me if I wasn't white. Acknowledge privilege exists, that should be a given, but harping on it or discounting people because of it is just as ignorant and short-sighted as sheet-wearing, cross-burning, old fashioned racism (just like Grandma used to make).

In the end, nobody is objectively worse or better than anyone else simply based on the color of their skin or their ethnic background. If more people would just fucking realize that, then we'd really start to have an end to racism.

[Sarge]

1. Ask yourself honestly. What was your first reaction before opening the Spoiler?

If this group exists (something I questioned well before hitting the spoiler tab), I'm sure it's been painted as inherently racist, regardless of whether it is or not.

2. With the spoiler opened, how did your reaction change?

It didn't, honestly. I've known about the CBC for a long time, and there are other comparable groups. I understand why they exist, although I oppose many of the policies they believe are helping their constituency at this point in time.

3. Do past injustices justify creating unbalanced groups or situations such as shown in the Litmus test?

They can, yes. If I take this from a different view, not on race but on religion, I would want the ability to form a group that looks out for the rights of Christians (or other religions).

4. In that test showing a real event, Should that Tenessee White Congressman representing 60% black constituents be allowed to join the Black Caucus to have an equal representation for his district?

Not sure. It gets messy, because I do think groups have the right to control their own memberships. An argument could probably be made, if they are representing a majority-black district, but it's up to that caucus to make the decision.

5. Should anyone be allowed to join any designated Caucus including Black, Asian, Hispanic, etc; if for positive purpose to get and give all the data for their constituents?

It shouldn't be forced. Again, groups like this should have control over their membership. If a group wishes to allow anyone to join, that is their prerogative. There are groups that I would want to maintain exclusive membership in as well.

[MrPopo]

Anyway, I disagree with the attitude towards the term "white privilege" as it absolutely exists. I think people take it as an insult, as if they haven't earned something, when it simply points out some advantages you have had since birth and take for granted when compared with the life experiences of someone who didn't enjoy those same advantages.

As was pointed out on the earlier abortion debate regarding the naming of each side, language has a power all of its own in someone's approach to an abstract idea. "White privilege" is definitely a hostile phrase, and it's no wonder that white people respond negatively to it. "White advantage" might be a better phrase in terms of conveying the idea that if you were building a character in America: The RPG and you get to the last step of character creation and have to choose your skin color then the consequence of choosing "white" is to make your time through the rest of the game easier than if you had chosen "black".

There's a part in the novella "If this goes on-" by Heinline (which, incidentally, is about a revolution in a theocratic America that came about after a demagogue won the Presidency and then abolished elections) that talks about the emotional impact of words. The example used in the text wasn't spelled out (it was clearly massively profane) but the response was the narrator getting indignant and saying "Don't you dare say that about my mother!" And the character demonstrating the example says, "What? All I said was that you were the legitimate child of two people legally in wedlock." How a thing is said is just as important as what is said.