Premmy's Big-Long Anti-Racism thread.

[Solid Snake]

Lately I feel like the personal circumstances of my own life and the lives of those I consider friends and acquaintances around me has blinded me somewhat from the very real existence and prevalence of racism. Growing up in suburbia, for example, led me to meet a number of minorities who seemed perfectly wealthy, well-educated, and content with their lives. I certainly didn't spend much time in urban areas where the demographics were substantially different. But recently, attending law school in an inner-city environment where nearly every homeless or impoverished person I've seen has been African American has altered my own perception somewhat. It's hard to continue to use the concept that "I know a few black friends from the suburbs who've succeeded" as somehow capable of countering the reality that this entire city feels like a racially segregated society.

There may be laws against segregation, but if I see someone who is on the streets late at night and white I am immediately able to (correctly) identify that he's a white college student, tourist, or suburbanite getting drunk in the city on the weekends. Whereas when I see an African American on the streets, occasionally they're also a student or a tourist or a wealthy suburbanite in a suit, but they're disproportionately residents of the city who are struggling to survive.
(That may sound like a stereotype, but the sad thing isn't the stereotype itself, it's the truth underlying said stereotype, and the disproportionate opportunities this evidence strongly points to.)

The real problem I have though is that there simply hasn't been a solution identified that actually addresses the problem. Part of this is politics. Republicans recently seem virulently anti-minorities and implicitly supportive of a status quo (nevermind the fact that several conservative positions, analyzed on their own merits or lack thereof, really should have nothing whatsoever to do with racial issues, and thus it's sad that our society has actually divided into partisan contingencies on such issues.)

But the Democrats -- who, mind you, have actually been the ones running the show in big cities (and now also, disproportionately run things in State and Federal offices) have an equally big issue relating to minorities, and it goes something like this: Because the Republican party is so blatantly anti-minorities, the Democrats are the only viable political option for minorities to vote for. Which leads to Democrats relying on minorities to consistently to vote for them. Which means that Democratic candidates for office no longer need to actually appeal to minority constituents. African Americans certainly would be foolish to vote Republican, but voting Democratic in overwhelming numbers simply reinforces the notion that Democrats can work on courting on white men, married women, and independents.

There's also the corruption problem, and that also stems from one-party control in major cities. Since no one seriously competes against the Democrats, the Democrats stay in power and no new ideas or concepts are introduced that could actually revolutionize inner cities. The one-party system in cities stems to executive agencies in such a way as to encourage the kinds of corruption scenarios that have been egregious lately in cities like Chicago and my hometown. And unfortunately, these kinds of scandals don't impact everyone equally.

Minorities and the poorer classes who disproportionately live in cities rely on government aid much more so than suburbanites, so when local governments become corrupt, it's those without stable salaries or established wealth who tend to be severely impacted. If you're rich you might technically lose more due to the taxes you're paying, but government corruption costs the rich a brand-new 72 inch television set, while government corruption can cost the poor vital money to improve schools and hospitals in desperate need. And when the government cuts back on service sector jobs due to poor financial wrangling, it's those on the bottom of the ladder who will suffer most.

But what can be done? What should be done? I can't really think of a great way for American society to address these issues. The best possible solution would involve the rise of a third party that could challenge Democrats in local elections but somehow agree to not screw around with Democrats on the federal level. I'll call this The New Liberal Party, or NLP. The way the NLP would have to work, in order to ensure that Republicans don't take advantage of the schism on a federal level to dominate the Presidency (and thus, dominate the Supreme Court) is to establish a system where local and state elections are exclusively contested. The NLP could subsequently work to keep Democrats "honest" by ensuring competition in districts that usually remain noncompetitive. You'd have corrupt Democrats who would still win elections and NLP members might succumb to corruption themselves, but the frequent party turnover and destabilization of the seats would hopefully prevent any truly disastrous corruption from undermining the inner cities, while the NLP's sheer existence and ability to greater address the needs of specific localities might increase minority representation and allow an increase in minority voices on the local and state levels.

Even then, would an NLP necessarily help more than, say, a Democratic primary? If the NLP truly becomes a leftist force, could their interests undermine the Democratic party in future national elections? Alternatively, could the NLP actually overtake and consume the Democrats as the Republicans once did to the Federalists and Whigs, and would the results drive the party to take a hard-left turn that would undermine their appeal to centrists in a way similar to how the Tea Party movement and the Bush II Administration have arguably undermined centrist Republican interests? I can't possibly say.

Beyond matters of governance, however, there's sort of a balancing act that minority advocacy groups need to be consider regarding advancing their social interests, and I can't think of a perfect solution there, either. The difficulty lies in convincing the "white majority" (or however you'd like to refer to it) that racism is prevalent and an issue of deep concern without encouraging the kind of "either/or" guilt politics that would only serve to heighten opposition or increase misguided feelings of persecution. It's a difficult issue minorities in general face: massive social change in a country requires some degree of participation by the numerical majority. There's no such thing as "white interest groups" (beyond crazy extremists like the KKK) because majoritarian processes like voting in general favor the white population.

On the one hand, the unequal bargaining power and racial blemishes in America's history (and present circumstances) can inflame the passions of minorities to cast whites as unknowing oppressors and to view "European culture" through the prism of malevolence. But a hard line of hostility only serves to further divide the majority and the minority and create schisms, some of which are artificial and result largely from the very "anti-racist" social commentaries sponsored by those with the best of intentions. Highlight the discrepancy of power among the races to children, and future generations might grow up believing that the boundaries exist, and might either react defensively to combat the politics of guilt (whites) or react with constant hostility to oppressors both real and imaginary (minorities.)

I wish there was a middle line to walk, a trapeze to cross over, but if it's out there, I'm certainly not the one qualified to identify it. Take me, personally, for instance: I love western culture. I love Roman, Greek, and medieval European history, whereas African history couldn't hold my interest in High School (I've discovered I'm a huge Mongolian history fan, though, so it's not entirely a racial thing.) I like western movies, I like western literature, I like my Eurocentric food, I believe in a religion with origins interwoven through Europe. It sucks to put it in that language insofar as it makes me sound racist, but there's some degree of truth to the fact that I'm very much a stereotypical white guy.

So, exactly how should I feel about racial inequality? Can I balance the trapeze walk in advocating minority rights without doing so in a way that leads me to discredit or despise the culture in which I am an active participant? Assuming that there's truly no such thing as a "post-racial" society, and assuming ethnic groups will always retain some degree of a unique identity, is there a way that fighting against white power or white establishment could be fulfilled that wouldn't lead me to toss stones at my own glass houses? These are questions I've struggled with, to some extent. Oh, it's easy to do the little things like volunteer to assist individual organizations impacting the lives of inner city minorities (I've done that.) But politicians who advocate minority rights in urban areas like where I presently live seem to take one of two tracts: there are the appeasers who claim to support minority ethnic groups but inevitably do virtually nothing but maintain the status quo, and then there are the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons, who make virulent arguments that seem to suggest that any true advancement of minority rights has to come with some expense to Caucasian culture -- after all, minorities must demand a greater slice of a pie that's inevitably limited due to scarce resources.

Is it possible that a political platform that concentrates on alleviating the plights of minorities and takes an actively anti-racial tone to somehow do so without alienating whites by seeming to attack or discredit them, or guilt them into believing Caucasians are "different" to such an extent as to be viewed as "enemies", as the OP himself seems to engage in by defining a worldview that emphasizes white dominance in a way with far-reaching negative connotations? Is there a way I can continue to like my "whiteness" (insofar as, again, I'm a stereotypical Caucasian with largely Eurocentric preferences) while simultaneously acknowledging its unfair advantage and striving to take political positions that arguably undermine it? Is there a way I can even say I like my Eurocentric values without coming off as "racist?" (After all, it's not as if an equally honest African American who proclaimed he "liked" the food, music, history, literature, etc. of his culture would be described as "racist.")

In other words: Is there a way we could separate the concept of ethnic bias in regards individual personal preferences from the larger and much more disconcerting issue of ethnic bias in broader society, manifesting itself through decisions made by the government, the media and corporations?

Fortunately, changing demographics will at least partially solve this problem for us: whites will not forever retain their majority in America.

And I just engaged in another lengthy rant, didn't I? Hopefully this rant doesn't manage to piss anyone off: it's just the honest opinion of one person struggling with racial issues in the same way nearly everyone else is these days. (Unless you want to claim you're perfectly unbiased when it comes to every issue of race and ethnicity, in which case, you're lying.)

[Funka Genocide]

I'd just like to point out that I am against the concept of cultural tradition. I feel that's one of the biggest divisive factors in interpersonal relationships. Also, nationalism is a bunch of bullshit too.

If people stopped identifying themselves with artificially reinforced organizations they'd probably have an easier time identifying with their fellow man.

But as a very basic example, let's take Tommy and Billy.

Let's say that Tommy and Billy had very similar lives. Tommy grew up in a one bedroom apartment with his 2 other siblings, his mother raising him mainly on government welfare programs and a few brief spurts of employment. Tommy never knew his father and as a consequence of general neglect from his only parent coupled with poverty, he grew up a rather angry young man. He got in a lot of fights as a child and, since his mother never emphasized the importance of education, he did poorly in school. He dropped out of high school at the age of 16 and, with very few professional prospects he took to selling drugs in his community to support himself.

Let's say that Billy grew up in a mobile home with his physically abusive alcoholic father and mother. Let's assume that his mother left when he was 8 years old and that his father became progressively more abusive over the years. Billy as a consequence of general neglect and poverty was a very angry young man who did poorly in school because his father never emphasized the importance of education. Billy too dropped out of high school at 16 after falling in with a gang, subsequently he became involved in petty crimes and occasionally armed robbery of convenience stores.

Lets say that Tommy is white and Billy is black.

Where will they be at 30?

If you're assuming that the Association of Concerned White People is going to mail Tommy a check to bail him out you're wrong. The truth is both of these boys are fucked because nobody gave a shit about them. It's has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a cycle of poverty. The fact that Tommy and Billy's parents never had it together enough to offer them the support they needed for success had infinitely more to do with their subsequent failures than the color of their skin ever did, and to assume otherwise is ridiculous.

I'm of the opinion that personal responsibility is something a lot of people living in poverty don't understand fully. Regardless of race or ethnicity, people who spend their entire lives in poverty while churning out babies like fucking churros are wrong. I suppose from a macro level, top-down perspective one might assume that Racism is to blame for all those downtrodden minorities (by and large ignoring the majority that are also living in poverty) and say "something needs to be done!' with that something remaining as mysterious and elusive as ever.

That something is people growing the fuck up and living up to their responsibilities.

[Premmy]

It's just occurred to me that you've not addressed my original post at all, and just expressed your anger on the subject. And I just played into your hands. Silly me, finding some nice links though.

[Funka Genocide]

Originally Posted by Premonitions

It's just occurred to me that you've not addressed my original post at all, and just expressed your anger on the subject. And I just played into your hands. Silly me, finding some nice links though.

You specifically said "white people rule the world."

So what you're basically saying is that there's some global network that all white people have access to, where ostensibly they discuss ways of staying on top and keeping those filthy minorities down?

That's as preposterous as assuming all black people are friends.

Rich people rule the world. Poor white people are just as fucked as anyone.

Maybe I'm just thinking too literally here though, as racism to me is discrimination based on genetics. To be precise, your genetic makeup and physical traits are the things you are being judged on and complex social behaviors or dispositions are being attributed to your physical makeup.

What we have today (barring a few extreme examples) is not actually racism. It's is classism and cultural discrimination. A middle class family with a mortgage and 2 kids living in the suburbs that happens to be black isn't going to face any substantial racial backlash unless they live in some weird ass fucked up racist community. A grown man wearing a t-shirt 3 sizes too big that walks into a boutique shop is probably going to suffer a great deal of discrimination however, regardless of his race (unless of course he's covered in diamonds and platinum, in which case I suppose he's precisely the sort of clientele such stores would be looking for.)

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

Rich people rule the world. Poor white people are just as fucked as anyone.

The correct answer is really "a few rich white men with citizenship in certain nation-states north of the equator rule a vastly disproportionate percentage of the world."

And that's disappointing news to everyone...even a majority of white men north of the equator are worse off under such facts, insofar as a conglomeration of wealth effectively prevents something like 4 or 5 billion unique minds from participating in the economic, scientific, artistic, and political development of Earth's society.

(Communism, even in its idealized form, sure as hell isn't the answer to these problems, though. We need to eliminate scarcity of resources by finding more resources for everyone, not by arbitrarily limiting everyone's resources to a select amount that is too small. Funding scientific advancements over defense budgets and funding things like space exploration will help address these issues. The further humanity advances scientifically, the less scarce our resources will become, and the more everyone in future generations can be equally enriched to a far greater extent than we could possibly imagine. The alternative...dividing our scarce present amount of resources among 6 billion people...would have disastrous consequences and cannot seriously be considered.)

There's a certain reasoning underlying that the totality of the statement must be addressed and isolating just the "white" or "male" or "rich" or "few" or "certain nation-states" components on their own only partially addresses the problem. But "white," "male," "rich," and "few" are all almost certainly parts of the problem. We can address the individual components while acknowledging that the full breadth of the fundamental issue cannot be accurately summed in a single argument.

EDIT: Aww man, everyone ignored my massively long post. =P

[Archbio]

You specifically said "white people rule the world."

So what you're basically saying is that there's some global network that all white people have access to, where ostensibly they discuss ways of staying on top and keeping those filthy minorities down?

That's as preposterous as assuming all black people are friends.

It is preposterous. A preposterous reading of Premonition's statement.

You're just handwaving racism away by saying that it's all about socioeconomics... and then handwaving socioeconomic issues away by saying that it's all about personal responsability. Repeating these things isn't going to make them true.

[Funka Genocide]

Originally Posted by Archbio

It is preposterous. A preposterous reading of Premonition's statement.

You're just handwaving racism away by saying that it's all about socioeconomics... and then handwaving socioeconomic issues away by saying that it's all about personal responsability. Repeating these things isn't going to make them true.

Well, I believe that there are lingering effects from ACTUAL racism that still hamper society today. (You know, the kind of racism where white people owned other people as property after kidnapping them and transporting them across oceans, or the kind of racism where "separate but equal" was considered a step forward, or basically the real "holy shit this is evil and ruining people's lives" kind of racism that civil rights leaders have been fighting since they first had the right to do so.) but the tools are in place to allow anyone to dig themselves out of poverty and into a decent life.

I am not saying the elevating yourself out of poverty is easy, but I would consider it necessary. Necessary and entirely feasible.

I am saying that poverty is the major concern, not racism. What you need to do is funnel more money into poverty stricken communities and somehow reeducate people into accepting that education is a positive thing. How many young underprivileged children go through their school careers hating the system and performing poorly due to apathy and frustration? Where are their parents? I mean every kid at one point or another gets fed up with school, that's why parents are there to keep their children focused and positive, where the fuck are the parents?

I mean, I don't know what you propose to do. Throw money at the problem until it goes away I guess?

No, I'm not going to put the blinders on and accept that everyone is just a hapless victim with no way out, that's the kind of bullshit drug dealers and murderers pull out of their ass when they're caught. I didn't have a choice, society made me do it.

Fuck that. There's always a choice, and where there's a choice there's the possibility of making the wrong one, and that's your own god damn fault.

Sure, you could sum it up as me hand waving all societies evils away with a simplistic answer, but I believe personal responsibility and accountability aren't all that simplistic at all.

Also, poor people are poor because they're born that way, they remain poor because they lack the tools necessary to succeed. As to why they lack these tools, it is mainly the fault of their parents in early development, after which point it becomes their own responsibility into adulthood.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

I mean, I don't know what you propose to do. Throw money at the problem until it goes away I guess?

Well, I wouldn't advocate throwing too much money into the pockets of the impoverished, if that's what you're implying.

I would advocate encouraging higher taxes on the wealthy and having those taxes be funneled into programs that improved educational opportunities for the poor, ensured they were at least clothed and fed, and (perhaps most importantly) ensured that scientific organizations received funds to engage in some serious research and development into new technologies that improved all our lives and made resources less scarce in the first place, thus assisting in alleviating the scarcity of goods and resources that is the fundamental factor contributing to impoverishment.

...Fuck. I really am sounding like a liberal these days.

[DFM]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

...Fuck. I really am sounding like a liberal these days.

The Liberal is a creature from beyond the black marsh, a wrong thing of shadows and spiders. It moves with a gurgling, half sickening lurch, corrupting all it lays its festering yellow eyes upon. Beware the bite of the Liberal, Solid Snake, lest you find yourself horribly transformed. You will become a hollow mirror, a cruel mockery of every right and noble thing you once stood for. As its poison bile festers in your veins its sight will repel you less, its stench will no longer repulse you. You will begin to see the world through its dim, hating eyes and then, Solid Snake, in the final throws of your too-short life, your dying mind will realize that you are now the Liberal, and you have much work to do.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

...Fuck. I really am sounding like a liberal these days.

no snake you are the zombies liberals