Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
/True, one person being turned down for a loan, regardless of race, doesn't mean someone else will get a loan because of their race.So that's it? Nothing? And I'm stupid? Lol
Yes you are. Read what you post. Here let me show you.
When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.
They got treated properly because they were white. You want excuse racism with the bank assessing something properly but history shows us that assessing t things properly by the banks relative to race doesn't happen. You seem unable to realize this. For example banks wee denying blacks guaranteed government backed loans. The ability to pay the loan was guaranteed by the government. That's what fueled the growth of suburbs and it also provided whites an increase in accumulated wealth they could pass to their children which affects whites today. These are realities you and every other white person here denies.
You seem unable to comprehend the specifics of what you read. I'm not excusing the racism of banks turning down black people based on race, that shit's horrific. What I'm saying is that I don't see how white people at large benefitted from this practice, just as I don't see how white people at large benefit from the incarceration of black people, insofar as that incarceration is unjust or unwarranted. I only see, in these two particular situations, how white people at large have benefited by being treated as individuals with basic human dignity, which doesn't, as far as I know, actually hinge on dehumanizing people who aren't white.
I could very well be wrong about that, and if you've got some reasoning as to how recognizing a white person as an individual with basic human dignity is facilitated by dehumanizing someone who isn't white, I'm open to it, but you've yet to offer it.
And stop with the constant string of assumptions, please. Your prejudices are so thick I almost can't bear to work through them to talk to your angry ass, which is a pretty typical reason why I never seem to get deep enough into this conversation to get straight answers. My pops is Scottish Irish and working class, my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and her family's land got swiped a couple generations back after the take over. I don't have any particular interest in white washing history or reality, just an interest in understanding it accurately, which means not just lumping events together under the general header of white privilege without thoroughly identifying them on a case by case basis. Just because an explanation would kinda fit with the general flow of history does not mean it's the accurate explanation. So please, stop assuming you know who I am and what I believe based on a couple short exchanges. It's insulting to me and it makes you look like a prick.
Seeing ourselves as individuals erases our history and hides the way in which wealth has accumulated over generations and benefits us, as a group, today. Our country was founded on the exploits of slavery (as well as genocide), and racism did not end when slavery ended. Legal exclusion of people of color, in addition to illegal acts of terrorism against them such as lynching, continued all the way through the 1960s. For example, people of color were denied Federal Housing Act (FHA) loans in the 1950s that allowed a generation of whites to attain middle class status through home ownership (Wise, 2005). Home ownership is critical in the U.S. because it is how the “average” person builds and passes down wealth, providing the starting point for the next generation (Yeung & Conley, 2008).
People of color were systematically denied this opportunity and today the average white family has eight times the wealth of the average black or Latino family (Conley, 1999; Federal Reserve Board, 2007). Excluding people of color from mechanisms of society that allow the building of wealth continues today through illegal but common practices such as higher mortgage rates, more difficulty getting loans, real estate agents steering them away from “good” neighborhoods, discrimination in hiring, and unequal school funding (Johnson & Shapiro, 2003; Oliver & Shapiro, 1995). Insisting on Individualism hides the reality of white advantage at every level of our past and present society through superficial and simplistic platitudes such as “I didn't own slaves so I have not benefited from racism.”
Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education
I agree that black people were denied a lot of things due to their race. What I was saying is that it did not guarantee that a white person would get the loan. Whites were turned down too.
And what if the arresting officer(s) are black? Some people don't compare apples to apples, if one person has a record or more drugs on them, they will face harsher sentences.It isn't always about race.That's actually not what I believe at all, and it's certainly not what I said or what I asked. And no, I haven't gotten plenty of straight answers. I keep getting answers like what you just posted, by which I mean not answers at all. Just deflections of my questions that accuse me of believing shit I don't believe rather than addressing what I've actually said.
Care to try again, or should I just add you to the list of ideologues who don't have the verbal intelligence to explain their own beliefs?
No I don't care to try again. If you cannot see how the 200 plus years of laws and policies denying non whites of opportunities have helped all whites, then you don't want to understand.
Wow, again you ignore what I've actually said and attribute to me some beliefs that I don't hold and never espoused. If you just refuse to have a conversation about the specific aspects of your beliefs, fine, say so, but don't put words in my mouth, use them to dismiss me out of hand, and then tell me -I'm- the one that's unwilling to try and understand.
I've ignored nothing. I answered your question. You do believe in teflon history. You are unable to understand the first thing of how laws and policies helped your family through the years, which in the end has benefitted you. I mean look at the stupid ass questions you ask. How did bios parents benefit from the shady way the banks treated blacks? They were able to own a home blacks could not. How did bob benefit from the black girl getting arrested? Really? Bob had the same drugs on him, did not get arrested and was only warned. No arrest record on the books for bob which increases his chances of getting jobs, apartments, homes, loans, etc. If the cops had not arrested that black girl they were not obligated to arrest bob. The fact is that Bob had drugs on him breaking the law ans he was not arrested while breaking the law. And you can't see how his race benefitted him. You want to assume these things because you wan to deny the fact that whites have benefitted from racism. For you to be so stupid as not to see these things means you are almost willful in your denial.
You are apparently naïve or willful, because banks are not less racist and they have provided loans to all kinds of whites who had questionable credit or did not repay. What your post is, is a rationalization of racism instead of an honest look at how racism has impacted blacks and whites. That cartoon was pretty straightforward. But you want to deny it's truth. Whites, all whites, have benefitted from racism in America. I know this shatters your little belief in how hard you whites work and how much you value education and that's why you got ahead, but unfortunately for you we can pull out supreme court cases that tell us the courts denied rights to non whites that whites had which created opportunities for ALL whites that ALL non whites could not get.
Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? Fuck it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.
When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.
Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at the girl's expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.
I definitely do not deny all things racial, but you believe everything is racial when it is not.And what if the arresting officer(s) are black? Some people don't compare apples to apples, if one person has a record or more drugs on them, they will face harsher sentences.It isn't always about race.No I don't care to try again. If you cannot see how the 200 plus years of laws and policies denying non whites of opportunities have helped all whites, then you don't want to understand.
Wow, again you ignore what I've actually said and attribute to me some beliefs that I don't hold and never espoused. If you just refuse to have a conversation about the specific aspects of your beliefs, fine, say so, but don't put words in my mouth, use them to dismiss me out of hand, and then tell me -I'm- the one that's unwilling to try and understand.
I've ignored nothing. I answered your question. You do believe in teflon history. You are unable to understand the first thing of how laws and policies helped your family through the years, which in the end has benefitted you. I mean look at the stupid ass questions you ask. How did bios parents benefit from the shady way the banks treated blacks? They were able to own a home blacks could not. How did bob benefit from the black girl getting arrested? Really? Bob had the same drugs on him, did not get arrested and was only warned. No arrest record on the books for bob which increases his chances of getting jobs, apartments, homes, loans, etc. If the cops had not arrested that black girl they were not obligated to arrest bob. The fact is that Bob had drugs on him breaking the law ans he was not arrested while breaking the law. And you can't see how his race benefitted him. You want to assume these things because you wan to deny the fact that whites have benefitted from racism. For you to be so stupid as not to see these things means you are almost willful in your denial.
You are apparently naïve or willful, because banks are not less racist and they have provided loans to all kinds of whites who had questionable credit or did not repay. What your post is, is a rationalization of racism instead of an honest look at how racism has impacted blacks and whites. That cartoon was pretty straightforward. But you want to deny it's truth. Whites, all whites, have benefitted from racism in America. I know this shatters your little belief in how hard you whites work and how much you value education and that's why you got ahead, but unfortunately for you we can pull out supreme court cases that tell us the courts denied rights to non whites that whites had which created opportunities for ALL whites that ALL non whites could not get.
Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? Fuck it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.
When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.
Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at the girl's expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.
I know you want to deny all things racial but the evidence doesn't support you.
Black Applicants More Than Twice as Likely as Whites to be Denied Home Loans
Latest Zillow analysis shows minority groups struggle to access credit, and home values in minority neighborhoods were disproportionately affected in housing boom and bust
- In 2013, 27.6 percent of blacks and 21.9 percent of Hispanics who applied for a conventional mortgage were denied, while only 10.4 percent of white applicants were denied.
- Nationwide, home values in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods fell an average of 46.3 percent from the pre-recession peak to the bottom of the market. Over the same period of time, home values fell by 32.1 percent in largely black communities, by 23.6 percent in largely white areas, and by 19.2 percent in mostly Asian areas.
- Home values in both black and Hispanic communities nationwide also have farther to climb before getting back to peak levels, while home values in white and Asian neighborhoods have returned or nearly returned to their peak levels.
.
Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? Fuck it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.
When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.
Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at his expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.
You can't really be this stupid can you?
So that's it? Nothing? And I'm stupid? Lol
Yes you are. Read what you post. Here let me show you.
When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.
They got treated properly because they were white. You want excuse racism with the bank assessing something properly but history shows us that assessing t things properly by the banks relative to race doesn't happen. You seem unable to realize this. For example banks wee denying blacks guaranteed government backed loans. The ability to pay the loan was guaranteed by the government. That's what fueled the growth of suburbs and it also provided whites an increase in accumulated wealth they could pass to their children which affects whites today. These are realities you and every other white person here denies.
You seem unable to comprehend the specifics of what you read. I'm not excusing the racism of banks turning down black people based on race, that shit's horrific. What I'm saying is that I don't see how white people at large benefitted from this practice, just as I don't see how white people at large benefit from the incarceration of black people, insofar as that incarceration is unjust or unwarranted. I only see, in these two particular situations, how white people at large have benefited by being treated as individuals with basic human dignity, which doesn't, as far as I know, actually hinge on dehumanizing people who aren't white.
I could very well be wrong about that, and if you've got some reasoning as to how recognizing a white person as an individual with basic human dignity is facilitated by dehumanizing someone who isn't white, I'm open to it, but you've yet to offer it.
And stop with the constant string of assumptions, please. Your prejudices are so thick I almost can't bear to work through them to talk to your angry ass, which is a pretty typical reason why I never seem to get deep enough into this conversation to get straight answers. My pops is Scottish Irish and working class, my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and her family's land got swiped a couple generations back after the take over. I don't have any particular interest in white washing history or reality, just an interest in understanding it accurately, which means not just lumping events together under the general header of white privilege without thoroughly identifying them on a case by case basis. Just because an explanation would kinda fit with the general flow of history does not mean it's the accurate explanation. So please, stop assuming you know who I am and what I believe based on a couple short exchanges. It's insulting to me and it makes you look like a prick.
.I don't make assumptions. .
Black Applicants More Than Twice as Likely as Whites to be Denied Home Loans
Latest Zillow analysis shows minority groups struggle to access credit, and home values in minority neighborhoods were disproportionately affected in housing boom and bust
- In 2013, 27.6 percent of blacks and 21.9 percent of Hispanics who applied for a conventional mortgage were denied, while only 10.4 percent of white applicants were denied.
- Nationwide, home values in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods fell an average of 46.3 percent from the pre-recession peak to the bottom of the market. Over the same period of time, home values fell by 32.1 percent in largely black communities, by 23.6 percent in largely white areas, and by 19.2 percent in mostly Asian areas.
- Home values in both black and Hispanic communities nationwide also have farther to climb before getting back to peak levels, while home values in white and Asian neighborhoods have returned or nearly returned to their peak levels.
Press Releases
Now how do you think denying loans to blacks and giving them to whites have benefitted whites in gaining access to credit and wealth accumulation? It is very difficult o have these discussions with you uneducated amateurs. When I say this I say this from the perspective of a person educated in sociology, a man w has studied for more than 30 years the impact of policy upon minority communities. It is apparent you haven't done that but you want to argue like you really have a valid premise on which to vase your disagreement with me on. Blacks did not create the term or define the term white privilege. Whites did that. So you go get mad at Peggy McIntosh. Have her explain to you what she means by the term white privilege. OK?
For you to not see how a whites nor being incarcerated for crimes but blacks are benefits whites shows a willful ignorance. You are telling me how not having a criminal record doesn't benefit you even though you committed a crime.You saw two cases and want to argue. I have seen several thousand personally and in my research have seen here have been millions of similar instances. So then your argument becomes invalid to me because you have not done the necessary research to understand how I come t my conclusion, nor have you done the necessary research to make an unformed opinion on this matter..
True, one person being turned down for a loan, regardless of race, doesn't mean someone else will get a loan because of their race.You can't really be this stupid can you?
So that's it? Nothing? And I'm stupid? Lol
Yes you are. Read what you post. Here let me show you.
When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.
They got treated properly because they were white. You want excuse racism with the bank assessing something properly but history shows us that assessing t things properly by the banks relative to race doesn't happen. You seem unable to realize this. For example banks wee denying blacks guaranteed government backed loans. The ability to pay the loan was guaranteed by the government. That's what fueled the growth of suburbs and it also provided whites an increase in accumulated wealth they could pass to their children which affects whites today. These are realities you and every other white person here denies.
You seem unable to comprehend the specifics of what you read. I'm not excusing the racism of banks turning down black people based on race, that shit's horrific. What I'm saying is that I don't see how white people at large benefitted from this practice, just as I don't see how white people at large benefit from the incarceration of black people, insofar as that incarceration is unjust or unwarranted. I only see, in these two particular situations, how white people at large have benefited by being treated as individuals with basic human dignity, which doesn't, as far as I know, actually hinge on dehumanizing people who aren't white.
I could very well be wrong about that, and if you've got some reasoning as to how recognizing a white person as an individual with basic human dignity is facilitated by dehumanizing someone who isn't white, I'm open to it, but you've yet to offer it.
And stop with the constant string of assumptions, please. Your prejudices are so thick I almost can't bear to work through them to talk to your angry ass, which is a pretty typical reason why I never seem to get deep enough into this conversation to get straight answers. My pops is Scottish Irish and working class, my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and her family's land got swiped a couple generations back after the take over. I don't have any particular interest in white washing history or reality, just an interest in understanding it accurately, which means not just lumping events together under the general header of white privilege without thoroughly identifying them on a case by case basis. Just because an explanation would kinda fit with the general flow of history does not mean it's the accurate explanation. So please, stop assuming you know who I am and what I believe based on a couple short exchanges. It's insulting to me and it makes you look like a prick.
Seeing ourselves as individuals erases our history and hides the way in which wealth has accumulated over generations and benefits us, as a group, today. Our country was founded on the exploits of slavery (as well as genocide), and racism did not end when slavery ended. Legal exclusion of people of color, in addition to illegal acts of terrorism against them such as lynching, continued all the way through the 1960s. For example, people of color were denied Federal Housing Act (FHA) loans in the 1950s that allowed a generation of whites to attain middle class status through home ownership (Wise, 2005). Home ownership is critical in the U.S. because it is how the “average” person builds and passes down wealth, providing the starting point for the next generation (Yeung & Conley, 2008).
People of color were systematically denied this opportunity and today the average white family has eight times the wealth of the average black or Latino family (Conley, 1999; Federal Reserve Board, 2007). Excluding people of color from mechanisms of society that allow the building of wealth continues today through illegal but common practices such as higher mortgage rates, more difficulty getting loans, real estate agents steering them away from “good” neighborhoods, discrimination in hiring, and unequal school funding (Johnson & Shapiro, 2003; Oliver & Shapiro, 1995). Insisting on Individualism hides the reality of white advantage at every level of our past and present society through superficial and simplistic platitudes such as “I didn't own slaves so I have not benefited from racism.”
Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education
True, one person being turned down for a loan, regardless of race, doesn't mean someone else will get a loan because of their race.So that's it? Nothing? And I'm stupid? Lol
Yes you are. Read what you post. Here let me show you.
When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.
They got treated properly because they were white. You want excuse racism with the bank assessing something properly but history shows us that assessing t things properly by the banks relative to race doesn't happen. You seem unable to realize this. For example banks wee denying blacks guaranteed government backed loans. The ability to pay the loan was guaranteed by the government. That's what fueled the growth of suburbs and it also provided whites an increase in accumulated wealth they could pass to their children which affects whites today. These are realities you and every other white person here denies.
You seem unable to comprehend the specifics of what you read. I'm not excusing the racism of banks turning down black people based on race, that shit's horrific. What I'm saying is that I don't see how white people at large benefitted from this practice, just as I don't see how white people at large benefit from the incarceration of black people, insofar as that incarceration is unjust or unwarranted. I only see, in these two particular situations, how white people at large have benefited by being treated as individuals with basic human dignity, which doesn't, as far as I know, actually hinge on dehumanizing people who aren't white.
I could very well be wrong about that, and if you've got some reasoning as to how recognizing a white person as an individual with basic human dignity is facilitated by dehumanizing someone who isn't white, I'm open to it, but you've yet to offer it.
And stop with the constant string of assumptions, please. Your prejudices are so thick I almost can't bear to work through them to talk to your angry ass, which is a pretty typical reason why I never seem to get deep enough into this conversation to get straight answers. My pops is Scottish Irish and working class, my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and her family's land got swiped a couple generations back after the take over. I don't have any particular interest in white washing history or reality, just an interest in understanding it accurately, which means not just lumping events together under the general header of white privilege without thoroughly identifying them on a case by case basis. Just because an explanation would kinda fit with the general flow of history does not mean it's the accurate explanation. So please, stop assuming you know who I am and what I believe based on a couple short exchanges. It's insulting to me and it makes you look like a prick.
Seeing ourselves as individuals erases our history and hides the way in which wealth has accumulated over generations and benefits us, as a group, today. Our country was founded on the exploits of slavery (as well as genocide), and racism did not end when slavery ended. Legal exclusion of people of color, in addition to illegal acts of terrorism against them such as lynching, continued all the way through the 1960s. For example, people of color were denied Federal Housing Act (FHA) loans in the 1950s that allowed a generation of whites to attain middle class status through home ownership (Wise, 2005). Home ownership is critical in the U.S. because it is how the “average” person builds and passes down wealth, providing the starting point for the next generation (Yeung & Conley, 2008).
People of color were systematically denied this opportunity and today the average white family has eight times the wealth of the average black or Latino family (Conley, 1999; Federal Reserve Board, 2007). Excluding people of color from mechanisms of society that allow the building of wealth continues today through illegal but common practices such as higher mortgage rates, more difficulty getting loans, real estate agents steering them away from “good” neighborhoods, discrimination in hiring, and unequal school funding (Johnson & Shapiro, 2003; Oliver & Shapiro, 1995). Insisting on Individualism hides the reality of white advantage at every level of our past and present society through superficial and simplistic platitudes such as “I didn't own slaves so I have not benefited from racism.”
Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education
On the other hand, NOT seeing ourselves (and more importantly, others) as individuals denies the existence of individuals whose families didn't benefit from generations of wealth creation, who inherited no wealth and no property from families who never had any to leave them, whether acquired historically or otherwise (this includes MOST white people). Not viewing people as individuals leads us to take punitive action against people who have not only done nothing to deserve it, but don't have access to any wealth that was denied to black people over their race.
Furthermore, not viewing people as individuals leads us to take negative attributes of shitty people we've encountered from other races, and apply them to all members of that race, despite that they don't factually describe many of the individuals to which we apply them. It leads us to look at statistical differences and make stupid generalizations about criminality, which leads to racial profiling, police with itchy trigger fingers when dealing with individuals from certain demographics, irrational expectations of terrorism.
Essentially, taking an individual or a collectivist view breaks down, at some point, along roughly the same lines as guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty. I tend to side with the latter, as punishing the wicked isn't as important to me as leaving the innocent unharmed. Perhaps you feel differently, in which case I can see swearing by a racial, collectivist viewpoint as though it's a moral imperative. Personally, though, I think it's a fucking horrific idea that only encourages deep rifts in racial relations, and that the only "benefit" to such thinking is that it offers a simple way to satiate hatred and bloodlust without actually have to seek out a deserving target.
Black Applicants More Than Twice as Likely as Whites to be Denied Home Loans
Latest Zillow analysis shows minority groups struggle to access credit, and home values in minority neighborhoods were disproportionately affected in housing boom and bust
- In 2013, 27.6 percent of blacks and 21.9 percent of Hispanics who applied for a conventional mortgage were denied, while only 10.4 percent of white applicants were denied.
And what was the average income level, credit score, and debt to income ratio of those groups? Without that data this is a meaningless statistic.
- Nationwide, home values in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods fell an average of 46.3 percent from the pre-recession peak to the bottom of the market. Over the same period of time, home values fell by 32.1 percent in largely black communities, by 23.6 percent in largely white areas, and by 19.2 percent in mostly Asian areas.- Home values in both black and Hispanic communities nationwide also have farther to climb before getting back to peak levels, while home values in white and Asian neighborhoods have returned or nearly returned to their peak levels.
Home values in white and Asian neighborhoods are bouncing back faster because those neighborhoods are generally a more desirable place to live. Higher demand equals higher prices. It's basic economics.
I definitely do not deny all things racial, but you believe everything is racial when it is not.And what if the arresting officer(s) are black? Some people don't compare apples to apples, if one person has a record or more drugs on them, they will face harsher sentences.It isn't always about race.Wow, again you ignore what I've actually said and attribute to me some beliefs that I don't hold and never espoused. If you just refuse to have a conversation about the specific aspects of your beliefs, fine, say so, but don't put words in my mouth, use them to dismiss me out of hand, and then tell me -I'm- the one that's unwilling to try and understand.
I've ignored nothing. I answered your question. You do believe in teflon history. You are unable to understand the first thing of how laws and policies helped your family through the years, which in the end has benefitted you. I mean look at the stupid ass questions you ask. How did bios parents benefit from the shady way the banks treated blacks? They were able to own a home blacks could not. How did bob benefit from the black girl getting arrested? Really? Bob had the same drugs on him, did not get arrested and was only warned. No arrest record on the books for bob which increases his chances of getting jobs, apartments, homes, loans, etc. If the cops had not arrested that black girl they were not obligated to arrest bob. The fact is that Bob had drugs on him breaking the law ans he was not arrested while breaking the law. And you can't see how his race benefitted him. You want to assume these things because you wan to deny the fact that whites have benefitted from racism. For you to be so stupid as not to see these things means you are almost willful in your denial.
You are apparently naïve or willful, because banks are not less racist and they have provided loans to all kinds of whites who had questionable credit or did not repay. What your post is, is a rationalization of racism instead of an honest look at how racism has impacted blacks and whites. That cartoon was pretty straightforward. But you want to deny it's truth. Whites, all whites, have benefitted from racism in America. I know this shatters your little belief in how hard you whites work and how much you value education and that's why you got ahead, but unfortunately for you we can pull out supreme court cases that tell us the courts denied rights to non whites that whites had which created opportunities for ALL whites that ALL non whites could not get.
Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? Fuck it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.
When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.
Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at the girl's expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.
I know you want to deny all things racial but the evidence doesn't support you.
Black Applicants More Than Twice as Likely as Whites to be Denied Home Loans
Latest Zillow analysis shows minority groups struggle to access credit, and home values in minority neighborhoods were disproportionately affected in housing boom and bust
- In 2013, 27.6 percent of blacks and 21.9 percent of Hispanics who applied for a conventional mortgage were denied, while only 10.4 percent of white applicants were denied.
And what was the average income level, credit score, and debt to income ratio of those groups? Without that data this is a meaningless statistic.
- Nationwide, home values in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods fell an average of 46.3 percent from the pre-recession peak to the bottom of the market. Over the same period of time, home values fell by 32.1 percent in largely black communities, by 23.6 percent in largely white areas, and by 19.2 percent in mostly Asian areas.- Home values in both black and Hispanic communities nationwide also have farther to climb before getting back to peak levels, while home values in white and Asian neighborhoods have returned or nearly returned to their peak levels.
Home values in white and Asian neighborhoods are bouncing back faster because those neighborhoods are generally a more desirable place to live. Higher demand equals higher prices. It's basic economics.
Actually that's not true.
True, one person being turned down for a loan, regardless of race, doesn't mean someone else will get a loan because of their race.Yes you are. Read what you post. Here let me show you.
When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.
They got treated properly because they were white. You want excuse racism with the bank assessing something properly but history shows us that assessing t things properly by the banks relative to race doesn't happen. You seem unable to realize this. For example banks wee denying blacks guaranteed government backed loans. The ability to pay the loan was guaranteed by the government. That's what fueled the growth of suburbs and it also provided whites an increase in accumulated wealth they could pass to their children which affects whites today. These are realities you and every other white person here denies.
You seem unable to comprehend the specifics of what you read. I'm not excusing the racism of banks turning down black people based on race, that shit's horrific. What I'm saying is that I don't see how white people at large benefitted from this practice, just as I don't see how white people at large benefit from the incarceration of black people, insofar as that incarceration is unjust or unwarranted. I only see, in these two particular situations, how white people at large have benefited by being treated as individuals with basic human dignity, which doesn't, as far as I know, actually hinge on dehumanizing people who aren't white.
I could very well be wrong about that, and if you've got some reasoning as to how recognizing a white person as an individual with basic human dignity is facilitated by dehumanizing someone who isn't white, I'm open to it, but you've yet to offer it.
And stop with the constant string of assumptions, please. Your prejudices are so thick I almost can't bear to work through them to talk to your angry ass, which is a pretty typical reason why I never seem to get deep enough into this conversation to get straight answers. My pops is Scottish Irish and working class, my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and her family's land got swiped a couple generations back after the take over. I don't have any particular interest in white washing history or reality, just an interest in understanding it accurately, which means not just lumping events together under the general header of white privilege without thoroughly identifying them on a case by case basis. Just because an explanation would kinda fit with the general flow of history does not mean it's the accurate explanation. So please, stop assuming you know who I am and what I believe based on a couple short exchanges. It's insulting to me and it makes you look like a prick.
Seeing ourselves as individuals erases our history and hides the way in which wealth has accumulated over generations and benefits us, as a group, today. Our country was founded on the exploits of slavery (as well as genocide), and racism did not end when slavery ended. Legal exclusion of people of color, in addition to illegal acts of terrorism against them such as lynching, continued all the way through the 1960s. For example, people of color were denied Federal Housing Act (FHA) loans in the 1950s that allowed a generation of whites to attain middle class status through home ownership (Wise, 2005). Home ownership is critical in the U.S. because it is how the “average” person builds and passes down wealth, providing the starting point for the next generation (Yeung & Conley, 2008).
People of color were systematically denied this opportunity and today the average white family has eight times the wealth of the average black or Latino family (Conley, 1999; Federal Reserve Board, 2007). Excluding people of color from mechanisms of society that allow the building of wealth continues today through illegal but common practices such as higher mortgage rates, more difficulty getting loans, real estate agents steering them away from “good” neighborhoods, discrimination in hiring, and unequal school funding (Johnson & Shapiro, 2003; Oliver & Shapiro, 1995). Insisting on Individualism hides the reality of white advantage at every level of our past and present society through superficial and simplistic platitudes such as “I didn't own slaves so I have not benefited from racism.”
Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education
On the other hand, NOT seeing ourselves (and more importantly, others) as individuals denies the existence of individuals whose families didn't benefit from generations of wealth creation, who inherited no wealth and no property from families who never had any to leave them, whether acquired historically or otherwise (this includes MOST white people). Not viewing people as individuals leads us to take punitive action against people who have not only done nothing to deserve it, but don't have access to any wealth that was denied to black people over their race.
Furthermore, not viewing people as individuals leads us to take negative attributes of shitty people we've encountered from other races, and apply them to all members of that race, despite that they don't factually describe many of the individuals to which we apply them. It leads us to look at statistical differences and make stupid generalizations about criminality, which leads to racial profiling, police with itchy trigger fingers when dealing with individuals from certain demographics, irrational expectations of terrorism.
Essentially, taking an individual or a collectivist view breaks down, at some point, along roughly the same lines as guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty. I tend to side with the latter, as punishing the wicked isn't as important to me as leaving the innocent unharmed. Perhaps you feel differently, in which case I can see swearing by a racial, collectivist viewpoint as though it's a moral imperative. Personally, though, I think it's a fucking horrific idea that only encourages deep rifts in racial relations, and that the only "benefit" to such thinking is that it offers a simple way to satiate hatred and bloodlust without actually have to seek out a deserving target.
You can dey the history of America all you want. That is your right. I'm not going to.
Never made these claims and you know it. Your knowledge base is skewed and one sided. I never said blacks weren't discrimination nated against. I simply said not all whites are approved for loans.I definitely do not deny all things racial, but you believe everything is racial when it is not.And what if the arresting officer(s) are black? Some people don't compare apples to apples, if one person has a record or more drugs on them, they will face harsher sentences.It isn't always about race.I've ignored nothing. I answered your question. You do believe in teflon history. You are unable to understand the first thing of how laws and policies helped your family through the years, which in the end has benefitted you. I mean look at the stupid ass questions you ask. How did bios parents benefit from the shady way the banks treated blacks? They were able to own a home blacks could not. How did bob benefit from the black girl getting arrested? Really? Bob had the same drugs on him, did not get arrested and was only warned. No arrest record on the books for bob which increases his chances of getting jobs, apartments, homes, loans, etc. If the cops had not arrested that black girl they were not obligated to arrest bob. The fact is that Bob had drugs on him breaking the law ans he was not arrested while breaking the law. And you can't see how his race benefitted him. You want to assume these things because you wan to deny the fact that whites have benefitted from racism. For you to be so stupid as not to see these things means you are almost willful in your denial.
You are apparently naïve or willful, because banks are not less racist and they have provided loans to all kinds of whites who had questionable credit or did not repay. What your post is, is a rationalization of racism instead of an honest look at how racism has impacted blacks and whites. That cartoon was pretty straightforward. But you want to deny it's truth. Whites, all whites, have benefitted from racism in America. I know this shatters your little belief in how hard you whites work and how much you value education and that's why you got ahead, but unfortunately for you we can pull out supreme court cases that tell us the courts denied rights to non whites that whites had which created opportunities for ALL whites that ALL non whites could not get.
Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? Fuck it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.
When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.
Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at the girl's expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.
I know you want to deny all things racial but the evidence doesn't support you.
I don't believe everything is racial but the things I have attributed to race are due to race because there is at east 30 years of evidence I have seen that says it is due to race. If 1,000 whites are provided an opportunity they only get to have and 100 of them do not take that opportunity doesn't mean that the opportunity did not exist for all 1,000 whites. And if the 900 whites benefitted, out of that 1,000 it does mean that the majority of whites did benefit. Now just because they had that choice means they were allowed to he opportunity others could not get which provided them a chance they chose not to take which is better than not getting to male that choice at all. You do not have the knowledge base to be trying to argue with me about this.
For example you do not see how unequal formulas for education based on property values that are really artificially created by realtors based on race has impacted the quality of education for blacks and whites. So a poor white child whose parents did not inherit anything and rents their home ends up with a better education in the school in the white community because even as they rent, the property is owned and has a value. Them the school has more resources to spend in order to increase educational outcomes.
You see Molly whtes such as you at real quick to make claims of how things have benefitted all blacks, such as affirmative action. But when its time to look athe 241 years of government efforts that hae provided whites opportunities, whites like you want to akways try saying it doesn't apply to all whites. We call that a double standard.
Never made these claims and you know it. Your knowledge base is skewed and one sided. I never said blacks weren't discrimination nated against. I simply said not all whites are approved for loans.I definitely do not deny all things racial, but you believe everything is racial when it is not.And what if the arresting officer(s) are black? Some people don't compare apples to apples, if one person has a record or more drugs on them, they will face harsher sentences.It isn't always about race.Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? Fuck it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.
When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.
Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at the girl's expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.
I know you want to deny all things racial but the evidence doesn't support you.
I don't believe everything is racial but the things I have attributed to race are due to race because there is at east 30 years of evidence I have seen that says it is due to race. If 1,000 whites are provided an opportunity they only get to have and 100 of them do not take that opportunity doesn't mean that the opportunity did not exist for all 1,000 whites. And if the 900 whites benefitted, out of that 1,000 it does mean that the majority of whites did benefit. Now just because they had that choice means they were allowed to he opportunity others could not get which provided them a chance they chose not to take which is better than not getting to male that choice at all. You do not have the knowledge base to be trying to argue with me about this.
For example you do not see how unequal formulas for education based on property values that are really artificially created by realtors based on race has impacted the quality of education for blacks and whites. So a poor white child whose parents did not inherit anything and rents their home ends up with a better education in the school in the white community because even as they rent, the property is owned and has a value. Them the school has more resources to spend in order to increase educational outcomes.
You see Molly whtes such as you at real quick to make claims of how things have benefitted all blacks, such as affirmative action. But when its time to look athe 241 years of government efforts that hae provided whites opportunities, whites like you want to akways try saying it doesn't apply to all whites. We call that a double standard.
Black Applicants More Than Twice as Likely as Whites to be Denied Home Loans
Latest Zillow analysis shows minority groups struggle to access credit, and home values in minority neighborhoods were disproportionately affected in housing boom and bust
- In 2013, 27.6 percent of blacks and 21.9 percent of Hispanics who applied for a conventional mortgage were denied, while only 10.4 percent of white applicants were denied.
And what was the average income level, credit score, and debt to income ratio of those groups? Without that data this is a meaningless statistic.
- Nationwide, home values in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods fell an average of 46.3 percent from the pre-recession peak to the bottom of the market. Over the same period of time, home values fell by 32.1 percent in largely black communities, by 23.6 percent in largely white areas, and by 19.2 percent in mostly Asian areas.- Home values in both black and Hispanic communities nationwide also have farther to climb before getting back to peak levels, while home values in white and Asian neighborhoods have returned or nearly returned to their peak levels.
Home values in white and Asian neighborhoods are bouncing back faster because those neighborhoods are generally a more desirable place to live. Higher demand equals higher prices. It's basic economics.
Actually that's not true.
How do you know?
True, one person being turned down for a loan, regardless of race, doesn't mean someone else will get a loan because of their race.You seem unable to comprehend the specifics of what you read. I'm not excusing the racism of banks turning down black people based on race, that shit's horrific. What I'm saying is that I don't see how white people at large benefitted from this practice, just as I don't see how white people at large benefit from the incarceration of black people, insofar as that incarceration is unjust or unwarranted. I only see, in these two particular situations, how white people at large have benefited by being treated as individuals with basic human dignity, which doesn't, as far as I know, actually hinge on dehumanizing people who aren't white.
I could very well be wrong about that, and if you've got some reasoning as to how recognizing a white person as an individual with basic human dignity is facilitated by dehumanizing someone who isn't white, I'm open to it, but you've yet to offer it.
And stop with the constant string of assumptions, please. Your prejudices are so thick I almost can't bear to work through them to talk to your angry ass, which is a pretty typical reason why I never seem to get deep enough into this conversation to get straight answers. My pops is Scottish Irish and working class, my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and her family's land got swiped a couple generations back after the take over. I don't have any particular interest in white washing history or reality, just an interest in understanding it accurately, which means not just lumping events together under the general header of white privilege without thoroughly identifying them on a case by case basis. Just because an explanation would kinda fit with the general flow of history does not mean it's the accurate explanation. So please, stop assuming you know who I am and what I believe based on a couple short exchanges. It's insulting to me and it makes you look like a prick.
Seeing ourselves as individuals erases our history and hides the way in which wealth has accumulated over generations and benefits us, as a group, today. Our country was founded on the exploits of slavery (as well as genocide), and racism did not end when slavery ended. Legal exclusion of people of color, in addition to illegal acts of terrorism against them such as lynching, continued all the way through the 1960s. For example, people of color were denied Federal Housing Act (FHA) loans in the 1950s that allowed a generation of whites to attain middle class status through home ownership (Wise, 2005). Home ownership is critical in the U.S. because it is how the “average” person builds and passes down wealth, providing the starting point for the next generation (Yeung & Conley, 2008).
People of color were systematically denied this opportunity and today the average white family has eight times the wealth of the average black or Latino family (Conley, 1999; Federal Reserve Board, 2007). Excluding people of color from mechanisms of society that allow the building of wealth continues today through illegal but common practices such as higher mortgage rates, more difficulty getting loans, real estate agents steering them away from “good” neighborhoods, discrimination in hiring, and unequal school funding (Johnson & Shapiro, 2003; Oliver & Shapiro, 1995). Insisting on Individualism hides the reality of white advantage at every level of our past and present society through superficial and simplistic platitudes such as “I didn't own slaves so I have not benefited from racism.”
Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education
On the other hand, NOT seeing ourselves (and more importantly, others) as individuals denies the existence of individuals whose families didn't benefit from generations of wealth creation, who inherited no wealth and no property from families who never had any to leave them, whether acquired historically or otherwise (this includes MOST white people). Not viewing people as individuals leads us to take punitive action against people who have not only done nothing to deserve it, but don't have access to any wealth that was denied to black people over their race.
Furthermore, not viewing people as individuals leads us to take negative attributes of shitty people we've encountered from other races, and apply them to all members of that race, despite that they don't factually describe many of the individuals to which we apply them. It leads us to look at statistical differences and make stupid generalizations about criminality, which leads to racial profiling, police with itchy trigger fingers when dealing with individuals from certain demographics, irrational expectations of terrorism.
Essentially, taking an individual or a collectivist view breaks down, at some point, along roughly the same lines as guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty. I tend to side with the latter, as punishing the wicked isn't as important to me as leaving the innocent unharmed. Perhaps you feel differently, in which case I can see swearing by a racial, collectivist viewpoint as though it's a moral imperative. Personally, though, I think it's a fucking horrific idea that only encourages deep rifts in racial relations, and that the only "benefit" to such thinking is that it offers a simple way to satiate hatred and bloodlust without actually have to seek out a deserving target.
You can dey the history of America all you want. That is your right. I'm not going to.
I didn't deny any event that you've proposed. What I've said is that you have yet to demonstrate a causal relationship between black people being oppressed in these two examples and white people benefitting. Should I take your complete refusal to acknowledge anything I've said as your concession that you cannot, in fact, present any such relationship?
True, one person being turned down for a loan, regardless of race, doesn't mean someone else will get a loan because of their race.
Seeing ourselves as individuals erases our history and hides the way in which wealth has accumulated over generations and benefits us, as a group, today. Our country was founded on the exploits of slavery (as well as genocide), and racism did not end when slavery ended. Legal exclusion of people of color, in addition to illegal acts of terrorism against them such as lynching, continued all the way through the 1960s. For example, people of color were denied Federal Housing Act (FHA) loans in the 1950s that allowed a generation of whites to attain middle class status through home ownership (Wise, 2005). Home ownership is critical in the U.S. because it is how the “average” person builds and passes down wealth, providing the starting point for the next generation (Yeung & Conley, 2008).
People of color were systematically denied this opportunity and today the average white family has eight times the wealth of the average black or Latino family (Conley, 1999; Federal Reserve Board, 2007). Excluding people of color from mechanisms of society that allow the building of wealth continues today through illegal but common practices such as higher mortgage rates, more difficulty getting loans, real estate agents steering them away from “good” neighborhoods, discrimination in hiring, and unequal school funding (Johnson & Shapiro, 2003; Oliver & Shapiro, 1995). Insisting on Individualism hides the reality of white advantage at every level of our past and present society through superficial and simplistic platitudes such as “I didn't own slaves so I have not benefited from racism.”
Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education
On the other hand, NOT seeing ourselves (and more importantly, others) as individuals denies the existence of individuals whose families didn't benefit from generations of wealth creation, who inherited no wealth and no property from families who never had any to leave them, whether acquired historically or otherwise (this includes MOST white people). Not viewing people as individuals leads us to take punitive action against people who have not only done nothing to deserve it, but don't have access to any wealth that was denied to black people over their race.
Furthermore, not viewing people as individuals leads us to take negative attributes of shitty people we've encountered from other races, and apply them to all members of that race, despite that they don't factually describe many of the individuals to which we apply them. It leads us to look at statistical differences and make stupid generalizations about criminality, which leads to racial profiling, police with itchy trigger fingers when dealing with individuals from certain demographics, irrational expectations of terrorism.
Essentially, taking an individual or a collectivist view breaks down, at some point, along roughly the same lines as guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty. I tend to side with the latter, as punishing the wicked isn't as important to me as leaving the innocent unharmed. Perhaps you feel differently, in which case I can see swearing by a racial, collectivist viewpoint as though it's a moral imperative. Personally, though, I think it's a fucking horrific idea that only encourages deep rifts in racial relations, and that the only "benefit" to such thinking is that it offers a simple way to satiate hatred and bloodlust without actually have to seek out a deserving target.
You can dey the history of America all you want. That is your right. I'm not going to.
I didn't deny any event that you've proposed. What I've said is that you have yet to demonstrate a causal relationship between black people being oppressed in these two examples and white people benefitting. Should I take your complete refusal to acknowledge anything I've said as your concession that you cannot, in fact, present any such relationship?
Except I did. I don't know how you can't see it, but that's your problem not mine.
Seeing ourselves as individuals erases our history and hides the way in which wealth has accumulated over generations and benefits us, as a group, today. Our country was founded on the exploits of slavery (as well as genocide), and racism did not end when slavery ended. Legal exclusion of people of color, in addition to illegal acts of terrorism against them such as lynching, continued all the way through the 1960s. For example, people of color were denied Federal Housing Act (FHA) loans in the 1950s that allowed a generation of whites to attain middle class status through home ownership (Wise, 2005). Home ownership is critical in the U.S. because it is how the “average” person builds and passes down wealth, providing the starting point for the next generation (Yeung & Conley, 2008).
People of color were systematically denied this opportunity and today the average white family has eight times the wealth of the average black or Latino family (Conley, 1999; Federal Reserve Board, 2007). Excluding people of color from mechanisms of society that allow the building of wealth continues today through illegal but common practices such as higher mortgage rates, more difficulty getting loans, real estate agents steering them away from “good” neighborhoods, discrimination in hiring, and unequal school funding (Johnson & Shapiro, 2003; Oliver & Shapiro, 1995). Insisting on Individualism hides the reality of white advantage at every level of our past and present society through superficial and simplistic platitudes such as “I didn't own slaves so I have not benefited from racism.”
Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education
On the other hand, NOT seeing ourselves (and more importantly, others) as individuals denies the existence of individuals whose families didn't benefit from generations of wealth creation, who inherited no wealth and no property from families who never had any to leave them, whether acquired historically or otherwise (this includes MOST white people). Not viewing people as individuals leads us to take punitive action against people who have not only done nothing to deserve it, but don't have access to any wealth that was denied to black people over their race.
Furthermore, not viewing people as individuals leads us to take negative attributes of shitty people we've encountered from other races, and apply them to all members of that race, despite that they don't factually describe many of the individuals to which we apply them. It leads us to look at statistical differences and make stupid generalizations about criminality, which leads to racial profiling, police with itchy trigger fingers when dealing with individuals from certain demographics, irrational expectations of terrorism.
Essentially, taking an individual or a collectivist view breaks down, at some point, along roughly the same lines as guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty. I tend to side with the latter, as punishing the wicked isn't as important to me as leaving the innocent unharmed. Perhaps you feel differently, in which case I can see swearing by a racial, collectivist viewpoint as though it's a moral imperative. Personally, though, I think it's a fucking horrific idea that only encourages deep rifts in racial relations, and that the only "benefit" to such thinking is that it offers a simple way to satiate hatred and bloodlust without actually have to seek out a deserving target.
You can dey the history of America all you want. That is your right. I'm not going to.
I didn't deny any event that you've proposed. What I've said is that you have yet to demonstrate a causal relationship between black people being oppressed in these two examples and white people benefitting. Should I take your complete refusal to acknowledge anything I've said as your concession that you cannot, in fact, present any such relationship?
Except I did. I don't know how you can't see it, but that's your problem not mine.
No, you just kept showing how black people were denied loans, and then explaining how white people benefitted from getting loans. You never showed how the latter was actually dependent, or effected in any way by the former. Never even tried.
On the other hand, NOT seeing ourselves (and more importantly, others) as individuals denies the existence of individuals whose families didn't benefit from generations of wealth creation, who inherited no wealth and no property from families who never had any to leave them, whether acquired historically or otherwise (this includes MOST white people). Not viewing people as individuals leads us to take punitive action against people who have not only done nothing to deserve it, but don't have access to any wealth that was denied to black people over their race.
Furthermore, not viewing people as individuals leads us to take negative attributes of shitty people we've encountered from other races, and apply them to all members of that race, despite that they don't factually describe many of the individuals to which we apply them. It leads us to look at statistical differences and make stupid generalizations about criminality, which leads to racial profiling, police with itchy trigger fingers when dealing with individuals from certain demographics, irrational expectations of terrorism.
Essentially, taking an individual or a collectivist view breaks down, at some point, along roughly the same lines as guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty. I tend to side with the latter, as punishing the wicked isn't as important to me as leaving the innocent unharmed. Perhaps you feel differently, in which case I can see swearing by a racial, collectivist viewpoint as though it's a moral imperative. Personally, though, I think it's a fucking horrific idea that only encourages deep rifts in racial relations, and that the only "benefit" to such thinking is that it offers a simple way to satiate hatred and bloodlust without actually have to seek out a deserving target.
You can dey the history of America all you want. That is your right. I'm not going to.
I didn't deny any event that you've proposed. What I've said is that you have yet to demonstrate a causal relationship between black people being oppressed in these two examples and white people benefitting. Should I take your complete refusal to acknowledge anything I've said as your concession that you cannot, in fact, present any such relationship?
Except I did. I don't know how you can't see it, but that's your problem not mine.
No, you just kept showing how black people were denied loans, and then explaining how white people benefitted from getting loans. You never showed how the latter was actually dependent, or effected in any way by the former. Never even tried.
The color of skin was the determining factor. The color of the skin was what actually depended upon and affected the out come of the decision to loan. Anyone with any intelligence can see that and it doesn't need any further explanation.
