So we want to talk about individualism

[IM2]

Dear IM2
I think we agree more than disagree. Once the system is set up to reward ppl who have more knowledge and experience with the laws especially property and business ownership and management, of course this is going to discriminate against those with less, where race is a factor because black slaves were valued greater than White slaves and thus targeted, including forced "breeding" through rape and depriving generations of the same rights to own property while being treated as property themselves. There were proportionally the same percentage of slave owners who were black as the ratio of blacks to whites in the South. So yes the majority of slave and property owners were White and this was enforced by laws and govt.

I agree that this genocide and oppression was institutionalized through govt and laws on property ownership predominantly white. And the injustice and injuries have been passed down affecting us today and didn't end with emancipation, but take many more generations to correct the wrongs before healing and justice is done.

Where you lose me IM2 is when you reject and blame anyone who is either defending whites or individualism, because you associate that person with enabling or justifying that dynamic as a group. You can call this prejudice against people biased toward white or individualistic culture, but it's the similar dynamic that makes racism or makes individualism dangerous and harmful.

Every system every cultural approach has its faults and weaknesses that make it disastrous to apply in the wrong ways. If you look at the extreme opposite of individualism, and look at collective mentality that also has a bad side. I think it was in Machiavelli's The Prince or another source that stated the corrupt forms of each approach:
* monarchy when corrupted became tyranny
* aristocracy when corrupted became oligarchy
* Democracy when corrupted became anarchy as in lawless mob rule (not the type of anarchy that means autonomy)

When individualism is taken to abusive extremes and institutionalized , sure, it becomes selfish and destructive of others interests for the sake of special interests. And that same selfishness will justify voting in benefits and hoarding power to keep the status quo for convenience, expedience and political gain and profit.

But the way to correct that is not to collectively blame whole groups of people and think that will solve the problems. Yes it is good to educate ourselves and others on these problems, but through sharing not attacking. Otherwise the "divide and conquer" strategy you use, instead of uniting , only EMPOWERS the corrupt powermongers Even More who Profit and Benefit off keeping the people divided in factions, each blaming the other, and neither getting changes agreed on and done.

Attacking and blaming people as whole groups isn't as effective as teaming up and addressing the root issues and corrections needed. So that's my main criticism, not to alienate people who would otherwise be invaluable allies, just because they are coming from the opposite perspective . We need to form alliances and partnerships across all camps and classes.

Where we unite and agree on steps and solutions, we can more effectively educate and empower others to join in changing our approaches, to take the best advantages each has to offer instead of blaming and attacking each other for the worst sides and weaknesses .

Two wrongs don't make anything right but double the damages and division. So while I agree with you there are deeply engrained and institutionalized biases and disparity, including race class and culture, I do not encourage rejection and blame of people by their views but seeking to work WITH all people and groups, instead of working AGAINST each other.

Let's get on the same page first.
Let's push from the same side of the car to get it out of the ditch.
Pushing from opposite sides keeps us stuck wasting our energy cancelling out each other's efforts.

So I urge that we rethink our strategies and find where we can agree on points and principles and get behind common solutions that don't require attacking or rejecting each other's beliefs but capitalizing on the strengths and advantages each one can lend to the others while correcting the faults each has as well.

We are created with equal flaws as strengths. Why not take the best and make the most of what we have to offer , instead of tearing each other down divided against ourselves. We should learn from the field slaves pitted against house slaves so they couldn't unite ; and be more like the Hindus and Muslims who united, instead of fighting against each other. In their case the British were the common enemy keeping them divided and conquered.

At the level we need to unite,it's our own fear and Unforgiveness that is the commom enemy keeping us divided conquered and oppressed.

When we no longer look at each other through the eyes of fear blame ill will and Unforgiveness, when we are guided and look at our world and history through the eyes of love of truth and compassion and understanding , then we can see the bigger truth and the truth shall set us free.

No, it's bull. But you are free to believe whatever you want in this country. Unless you believe that white racism still continues then we have to hear all the crazy.

Racism and the other divides used to keep us at odds with each other is a well developed plan called "divide and conquer".

Whites created this, never fixed the damage caused by it, continue doing it and you act like it's a problem on both sides.

????
IM2
The white colonialists, imperialist and slave traders
may have established the slave trade and laws
that caused the genocide and damage to Africans
and their descendants (as well as the genocide
against Native Americans still seeking healing and restoration today as well)

But no, racism and tribalism started with human nature
and our collective "pack mentality" and pecking order.

The Native Americans will tell you their culture went through
tribal wars, slavery, genocides of tribe against tribe
LONG BEFORE the "white man" started this chapter in the saga
affecting all humanity. It goes in cycles until we learn
and break this cycle of war oppression and tribal bullying to dominate for power.

The same healing that it took Native Americans
to get over their wars and slavery and live in peace,
we all have to go through regardless of what cultural or personal experience
we share in this universal process.

This is about all of humanity, and no one group
is any more or less to blame. All groups have their
strong points and positive contributions to the whole of humanity,
and all have their faults and destruction they go through as well.

When you see the bigger picture IM2
it's like a huge overlapping and complex Symphony
where every section has a special part to play.
And we all have to learn to play our parts IN TUNE,
at the right timing, and in Harmony with others.

If there is a problem, we have to correct it.
That goes with everyone and every group.
We are all in this together and that's how we are going to overcome
the fear and unforgiveness for past injustice
that otherwise obstructs our ability to work together
toward solutions and create that perfect Symphony we are designed for.

I've seen the bigger picture. Racism and tribalism is not human nature.
Native Americans are still fighting.
If we all are in this together, then whites learn to listen to the grievances others have because of what they have done and keep doing instead of deciding you can tell everyone how to do things.

I think we might agree on many things but when you are in forums like these with the endless accusations and derogatory belies about backs, then the same people tell you how you should not see color? Sorry not falling for that.

Let me cite you an explanation of racism and prejudice from he study because I think you need to understand this.

Although people use the terms racism and prejudice interchangeably as if they mean the same thing, they do not (Bell, 1997; Hilliard, 1992). Prejudice is learned pre-judgment. It operates on the individual level and all people have prejudice; it is not possible to avoid absorbing misinformation circulating in the culture about social groups to which we do not belong (Harro, 2001; Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2009; Tatum, 2001). However, scholars define racism as race prejudice plus the social and institutional power to enforce that prejudice throughout the culture (Augoustinos & Reynolds, 2001; Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Dei, Karumanchery, & Karumanchery-Luik, 2004; Fine, 1997; Frankenberg, 1997; Hilliard, 1992; Hyland, 2009; Jones, 1997). Akintunde (1999) states, "Racism is a systemic, societal, institutional, omnipresent, and epistemologically embedded phenomenon that pervades every vestige of our reality" (p. 1). Racism encompasses economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources, and power between white people and people of color, with whites the beneficiaries of that unequal distribution (Hilliard, 1992). For example, in the U.S., which is the primary context for this analysis, only whites have the collective group power to benefit from their racial prejudices in ways that privilege all members of their racial group regardless of intentions (McIntosh, 2004; Trepagnier, 2007; Weber, 2009).

Blacks do not have the numbers enforce any prejudice into racism against whites but whites do and have done so even up to this moment whereby we have a blatant racist holding the highest office in the land, racists controlling the houses of congress and controlling most of t he law making processes in our state governments. So no there is no same dynamic. I don't know if you are black or not, I assume not but I could be wrong. But if you were, you could see through this charade because that's all this is. Whites have always been treated as individuals and we have recognized as blacks that not all whites are racists. .You cannot ignore the damage created by 241 years of racist policy by declaring that we don't see people as a group. We will not fix any damage caused by racist housing polices by whites that are still being practiced that created the conditions of blight that dominate many black communities by declaring how we don't define people by color. We will not close the reservations or alleviate the poverty and misery of the Native Americans by deciding we that we don't see people as groups.

We must fix the damage, provide the economic repairs needed to make everyone equal, then we can begin to talk about seeing people and individuals. But for one group to say that we must now see each other as individuals while still holding all the power, with all the economic advantages they took because they implemented the group plan, well, that is not something anyone should listen to or consider.

 

[IM2]

It's funny how whites want to talk about individualism when white racism is shown to them. So let's do it.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education

This is an article by Robin DeAngelo just so the trolls don't start whining.

In my years as a white person co-facilitating anti-racism courses for primarily white audiences in a range of academic, corporate, and government institutions across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, I have come to believe that the Discourse of Individualism is one of the primary barriers preventing well-meaning (and other) white people from understanding racism. Individualism is such a deeply entrenched discourse that it is virtually immovable without sustained effort. A recent interaction may illustrate the depth of this narrative.

I was co-facilitating a mandatory workplace training titled Race & Social Justice. Two key components of this training are my presentation, as a white person, on the dynamics of white privilege, and my co-facilitator's presentation, as a person of color, on the dynamics of internalized racial oppression. Included in my presentation is a list of common barriers for whites in seeing racism. One of these barriers is that we see ourselves as individuals, outside of social groups. I had just finished presenting this list and had called for a break, during which a white woman, “Sue,” who had been sitting next to a white man, “Bill,” approached me
and declared, “Bill and I think we should all just see each other as individuals.”

Although in my work moments like this occur frequently, they continue to disorient me on two interconnected levels. First, I had just stated that seeing each other as individuals was a perspective only available to the dominant group. Yet Sue's statement implied I had never heard or considered this most simple and popular of “solutions” to racism, much less just raised and critiqued it. I was left wondering, yet again, what happens cognitively for many whites in forums such as this that prevents them from actually hearing what is being presented. Second, why did she, as a white person, feel confident to declare the one-sentence
“answer” to a profoundly complex and perennial dilemma of social life? Why not consider my background in the field and instead engage me in a dialogue on the matter, or ask me to explain my point in more depth? I did my best to reiterate my previous position, but to no avail. By the afternoon break, Sue had walked out.

So what was Sue and Bill's point? In my experience, when white people insist on Individualism in discussions about racism, they are in essence saying: My race has not made a difference in my life, so why do we have to talk about race as if it mattered? It is talking about race as if it mattered that divides us. I don't see myself as a member of a racial group; you shouldn't see me that way either. In fact, by saying that my group membership matters, you are generalizing. Generalizing discounts my individuality; unless you know me, you can't profess to know anything about my life and all of the ways I am unique relative to any one else. Further, as an individual I am objective and view others as individuals and not as members of racial groups. For example if I were hiring I would hire the best person for the job no matter what their race
was. Racism will disappear when we all see each other as individuals. In fact, it has disappeared because I already see everyone as individuals—it's just misguided people such as yourself who refuse to see everyone as an individual and thus keep racism alive.

Obviously I disagree with these familiar dominant claims, as they stand in the face of all evidence to the contrary, both research-based evidence of racial discrimination and disparity on every measure (see Copeland, 2005; Hochschild & Weaver, 2007; Micceri, 2009; Wessel, 2005) and visible evidence of ongoing patterns of segregation in education, economics, and housing.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education - eScholarship

The argument of individualism is bogus and it's time that is recognized,.

Yes it's much better stereotype everyone

This post has no relation to the topic being discussed. I suggest you read the study.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's funny how whites want to talk about individualism when white racism is shown to them. So let's do it.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education

This is an article by Robin DeAngelo just so the trolls don't start whining.

In my years as a white person co-facilitating anti-racism courses for primarily white audiences in a range of academic, corporate, and government institutions across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, I have come to believe that the Discourse of Individualism is one of the primary barriers preventing well-meaning (and other) white people from understanding racism. Individualism is such a deeply entrenched discourse that it is virtually immovable without sustained effort. A recent interaction may illustrate the depth of this narrative.

I was co-facilitating a mandatory workplace training titled Race & Social Justice. Two key components of this training are my presentation, as a white person, on the dynamics of white privilege, and my co-facilitator's presentation, as a person of color, on the dynamics of internalized racial oppression. Included in my presentation is a list of common barriers for whites in seeing racism. One of these barriers is that we see ourselves as individuals, outside of social groups. I had just finished presenting this list and had called for a break, during which a white woman, “Sue,” who had been sitting next to a white man, “Bill,” approached me
and declared, “Bill and I think we should all just see each other as individuals.”

Although in my work moments like this occur frequently, they continue to disorient me on two interconnected levels. First, I had just stated that seeing each other as individuals was a perspective only available to the dominant group. Yet Sue's statement implied I had never heard or considered this most simple and popular of “solutions” to racism, much less just raised and critiqued it. I was left wondering, yet again, what happens cognitively for many whites in forums such as this that prevents them from actually hearing what is being presented. Second, why did she, as a white person, feel confident to declare the one-sentence
“answer” to a profoundly complex and perennial dilemma of social life? Why not consider my background in the field and instead engage me in a dialogue on the matter, or ask me to explain my point in more depth? I did my best to reiterate my previous position, but to no avail. By the afternoon break, Sue had walked out.

So what was Sue and Bill's point? In my experience, when white people insist on Individualism in discussions about racism, they are in essence saying: My race has not made a difference in my life, so why do we have to talk about race as if it mattered? It is talking about race as if it mattered that divides us. I don't see myself as a member of a racial group; you shouldn't see me that way either. In fact, by saying that my group membership matters, you are generalizing. Generalizing discounts my individuality; unless you know me, you can't profess to know anything about my life and all of the ways I am unique relative to any one else. Further, as an individual I am objective and view others as individuals and not as members of racial groups. For example if I were hiring I would hire the best person for the job no matter what their race
was. Racism will disappear when we all see each other as individuals. In fact, it has disappeared because I already see everyone as individuals—it's just misguided people such as yourself who refuse to see everyone as an individual and thus keep racism alive.

Obviously I disagree with these familiar dominant claims, as they stand in the face of all evidence to the contrary, both research-based evidence of racial discrimination and disparity on every measure (see Copeland, 2005; Hochschild & Weaver, 2007; Micceri, 2009; Wessel, 2005) and visible evidence of ongoing patterns of segregation in education, economics, and housing.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education - eScholarship

The argument of individualism is bogus and it's time that is recognized,.

In the last pages of "Separate Pasts, Growing Up White in the Segregated South," Melton McLaurin shares his visit with an older Black gentleman he had known while growing up.

He asked him about how Wade's white folks liked Black men serving on the town council. "There are some who aren't happy with the situation, but they can't do nothing about it. For the most part, we get along. There's people of my race I don't want nothing to do with. And there's people of your race that you don't want nothing to do with. And there's people of your race that I'd rather be with than some of my race. But the racism is still there."

He pauses a beat in his response, glancing away, as if searching for just the right words to capture the way in which race and racism continue to impact the community. He faces me again and speaks slowly, forcefully, the words coming from deep within him. "It's in you, and it's in me, and that's the truth, down there inside us. That's just the way it it."

I get in the car and am filled with a deep, sorrowful anger. It does not diminish as I drive from Wade to Wilmington to continue to struggle with the difficult necessity of confronting our separate pasts."

I believe that since individuals form communities, those individuals must come together to honestly confront and deal with the racism that has been so ingrained in us. As Margaret Mead said,
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

I was cheering this tale on right on up to point where we find that some little remnant of racism festers inside all of us. That's a generalization that just devalues the tale. And it conflates racism with "confronting our separate pasts".. Well guess what -- LARGE fractions of either race didn't play a role in that past. Not the Caribbean blacks or the 20th century Euro immigrants for example. So stuff the "coming together as a community" deal if it's all about one big group harping on the other big group about history that is shared and causing the "It's in you" problem. THAT confrontation just FUELS racial divides. Which is of course what SOME folks get paid to do and go to college to be proficient at.

You want to UNWIND racism on BOTH sides? Meet some folks from the other side. Have a dialogue. Find out the long list of things that REALLY defines them. LOSE this racist concept of stereotyping by group... Which is all that happens when only "our separate pasts" are discussed.

For crying out loud -- fly free. LOSE the "my skin color defines me" and smell the 21st century.

From:

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education, pg. 7

"First however, let me be clear: I am not denying that we are all individuals in general. Rather, I am arguing that white insistence on Individualism in regards to racism in particular prevents crossracial understanding, denies the salience of race and racism in our lives, and serves to reinforce and maintain racist relations."

Read the study.

I read the abstract in OP, which is bad enough with white paid diversity tool telling blacks they can't afford to be individuals or they sacrifice some group cause. And then I skimmed the paper just to be able to get the gist of things.

It's the biggest platter of baloney that I've ever seen. Didn't know you could be educated as diversity trainer to spew garbage like that. The quote you pulled above is a good example. He's just pissed because he's constructed a paradigm in which blacks are inseparable, but whites get to be individuals. Which is a very faulty foundation to start a paper with.

And it makes him mad, that as individuals, whites have the ability to walk away from false accusations and demands for reparations and all that other crap. While blacks can't do that. Well CERTAINLY they can. And they SHOULD.

I don't see a black nurse and say "That's a black woman". I AM however intimidated somewhat to carefully ponder every word I say for fear of offending her. I can see where a black bar keep looks at a white boy walking in and says "Whats that cracker up to -- coming into my bar" That group identification is the VERY TRIGGER for bias and racism. Things are PRE-JUDGED. Hence the derivation of the word prejudice. And that is EXACTLY how racists and bigots roll.. Prejudging by group identity.

Need to get way the fuck over that and start meeting and discussing with individuals. They'll be people you dismiss because they are trolls or haters, but it WON'T be by race.

The main problem with your white professor -- is that

GROUPS DON'T HAVE DIALOGUES.. GROUPS have CONFLICTS
Individuals have dialogues. Hence the "di" in dialog. WHO SPEAKS FOR YOU? Certainly you're not gonna let this one deluded professor speak for who you are or what you believe. You just thought it convenient to ridicule individualism. Perhaps because of political leanings towards the collective or village.

This tool violates the definition of nearly important word used to discuss race relations. AND -- there's a big market for selling crap in "Big Diversity" biz.. The business that propagates itself for the next 4 generations or so.. By HINDERING any real resolutions to Race Relation problems.

Almost every assertion this guy makes is perfectly backwards.

 

[buttercup]

Thanks Natural Citizen and buttercup
I hope you stick around and find areas and posts to provide helpful
information and support where you can speed up the process
of getting past these conflicts and take productive steps toward solutions!

Yours truly, Emily

Thank you, Emily. TBH, I kind of feel like a fish out of water here sometimes. I have some views that are very controversial and since I am neither a Republican or a Democrat, it gets a bit tiresome to see people constantly bickering back-and-forth about Trump, Clinton, etc, etc. There is so much division in this country overall, and you can clearly see it here on this site. Thank you for being one of the few Democrats here who posts in a civil, mature way and and tries to find common ground.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's funny how whites want to talk about individualism when white racism is shown to them. So let's do it.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education

This is an article by Robin DeAngelo just so the trolls don't start whining.

In my years as a white person co-facilitating anti-racism courses for primarily white audiences in a range of academic, corporate, and government institutions across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, I have come to believe that the Discourse of Individualism is one of the primary barriers preventing well-meaning (and other) white people from understanding racism. Individualism is such a deeply entrenched discourse that it is virtually immovable without sustained effort. A recent interaction may illustrate the depth of this narrative.

I was co-facilitating a mandatory workplace training titled Race & Social Justice. Two key components of this training are my presentation, as a white person, on the dynamics of white privilege, and my co-facilitator's presentation, as a person of color, on the dynamics of internalized racial oppression. Included in my presentation is a list of common barriers for whites in seeing racism. One of these barriers is that we see ourselves as individuals, outside of social groups. I had just finished presenting this list and had called for a break, during which a white woman, “Sue,” who had been sitting next to a white man, “Bill,” approached me
and declared, “Bill and I think we should all just see each other as individuals.”

Although in my work moments like this occur frequently, they continue to disorient me on two interconnected levels. First, I had just stated that seeing each other as individuals was a perspective only available to the dominant group. Yet Sue's statement implied I had never heard or considered this most simple and popular of “solutions” to racism, much less just raised and critiqued it. I was left wondering, yet again, what happens cognitively for many whites in forums such as this that prevents them from actually hearing what is being presented. Second, why did she, as a white person, feel confident to declare the one-sentence
“answer” to a profoundly complex and perennial dilemma of social life? Why not consider my background in the field and instead engage me in a dialogue on the matter, or ask me to explain my point in more depth? I did my best to reiterate my previous position, but to no avail. By the afternoon break, Sue had walked out.

So what was Sue and Bill's point? In my experience, when white people insist on Individualism in discussions about racism, they are in essence saying: My race has not made a difference in my life, so why do we have to talk about race as if it mattered? It is talking about race as if it mattered that divides us. I don't see myself as a member of a racial group; you shouldn't see me that way either. In fact, by saying that my group membership matters, you are generalizing. Generalizing discounts my individuality; unless you know me, you can't profess to know anything about my life and all of the ways I am unique relative to any one else. Further, as an individual I am objective and view others as individuals and not as members of racial groups. For example if I were hiring I would hire the best person for the job no matter what their race
was. Racism will disappear when we all see each other as individuals. In fact, it has disappeared because I already see everyone as individuals—it's just misguided people such as yourself who refuse to see everyone as an individual and thus keep racism alive.

Obviously I disagree with these familiar dominant claims, as they stand in the face of all evidence to the contrary, both research-based evidence of racial discrimination and disparity on every measure (see Copeland, 2005; Hochschild & Weaver, 2007; Micceri, 2009; Wessel, 2005) and visible evidence of ongoing patterns of segregation in education, economics, and housing.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education - eScholarship

The argument of individualism is bogus and it's time that is recognized,.

Yes it's much better stereotype everyone

This post has no relation to the topic being discussed. I suggest you read the study.

Not going to waste my time.

 

[IM2]

It's funny how whites want to talk about individualism when white racism is shown to them. So let's do it.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education

This is an article by Robin DeAngelo just so the trolls don't start whining.

In my years as a white person co-facilitating anti-racism courses for primarily white audiences in a range of academic, corporate, and government institutions across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, I have come to believe that the Discourse of Individualism is one of the primary barriers preventing well-meaning (and other) white people from understanding racism. Individualism is such a deeply entrenched discourse that it is virtually immovable without sustained effort. A recent interaction may illustrate the depth of this narrative.

I was co-facilitating a mandatory workplace training titled Race & Social Justice. Two key components of this training are my presentation, as a white person, on the dynamics of white privilege, and my co-facilitator's presentation, as a person of color, on the dynamics of internalized racial oppression. Included in my presentation is a list of common barriers for whites in seeing racism. One of these barriers is that we see ourselves as individuals, outside of social groups. I had just finished presenting this list and had called for a break, during which a white woman, “Sue,” who had been sitting next to a white man, “Bill,” approached me
and declared, “Bill and I think we should all just see each other as individuals.”

Although in my work moments like this occur frequently, they continue to disorient me on two interconnected levels. First, I had just stated that seeing each other as individuals was a perspective only available to the dominant group. Yet Sue's statement implied I had never heard or considered this most simple and popular of “solutions” to racism, much less just raised and critiqued it. I was left wondering, yet again, what happens cognitively for many whites in forums such as this that prevents them from actually hearing what is being presented. Second, why did she, as a white person, feel confident to declare the one-sentence
“answer” to a profoundly complex and perennial dilemma of social life? Why not consider my background in the field and instead engage me in a dialogue on the matter, or ask me to explain my point in more depth? I did my best to reiterate my previous position, but to no avail. By the afternoon break, Sue had walked out.

So what was Sue and Bill's point? In my experience, when white people insist on Individualism in discussions about racism, they are in essence saying: My race has not made a difference in my life, so why do we have to talk about race as if it mattered? It is talking about race as if it mattered that divides us. I don't see myself as a member of a racial group; you shouldn't see me that way either. In fact, by saying that my group membership matters, you are generalizing. Generalizing discounts my individuality; unless you know me, you can't profess to know anything about my life and all of the ways I am unique relative to any one else. Further, as an individual I am objective and view others as individuals and not as members of racial groups. For example if I were hiring I would hire the best person for the job no matter what their race
was. Racism will disappear when we all see each other as individuals. In fact, it has disappeared because I already see everyone as individuals—it's just misguided people such as yourself who refuse to see everyone as an individual and thus keep racism alive.

Obviously I disagree with these familiar dominant claims, as they stand in the face of all evidence to the contrary, both research-based evidence of racial discrimination and disparity on every measure (see Copeland, 2005; Hochschild & Weaver, 2007; Micceri, 2009; Wessel, 2005) and visible evidence of ongoing patterns of segregation in education, economics, and housing.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education - eScholarship

The argument of individualism is bogus and it's time that is recognized,.

In the last pages of "Separate Pasts, Growing Up White in the Segregated South," Melton McLaurin shares his visit with an older Black gentleman he had known while growing up.

He asked him about how Wade's white folks liked Black men serving on the town council. "There are some who aren't happy with the situation, but they can't do nothing about it. For the most part, we get along. There's people of my race I don't want nothing to do with. And there's people of your race that you don't want nothing to do with. And there's people of your race that I'd rather be with than some of my race. But the racism is still there."

He pauses a beat in his response, glancing away, as if searching for just the right words to capture the way in which race and racism continue to impact the community. He faces me again and speaks slowly, forcefully, the words coming from deep within him. "It's in you, and it's in me, and that's the truth, down there inside us. That's just the way it it."

I get in the car and am filled with a deep, sorrowful anger. It does not diminish as I drive from Wade to Wilmington to continue to struggle with the difficult necessity of confronting our separate pasts."

I believe that since individuals form communities, those individuals must come together to honestly confront and deal with the racism that has been so ingrained in us. As Margaret Mead said,
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

I was cheering this tale on right on up to point where we find that some little remnant of racism festers inside all of us. That's a generalization that just devalues the tale. And it conflates racism with "confronting our separate pasts".. Well guess what -- LARGE fractions of either race didn't play a role in that past. Not the Caribbean blacks or the 20th century Euro immigrants for example. So stuff the "coming together as a community" deal if it's all about one big group harping on the other big group about history that is shared and causing the "It's in you" problem. THAT confrontation just FUELS racial divides. Which is of course what SOME folks get paid to do and go to college to be proficient at.

You want to UNWIND racism on BOTH sides? Meet some folks from the other side. Have a dialogue. Find out the long list of things that REALLY defines them. LOSE this racist concept of stereotyping by group... Which is all that happens when only "our separate pasts" are discussed.

For crying out loud -- fly free. LOSE the "my skin color defines me" and smell the 21st century.

From:

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education, pg. 7

"First however, let me be clear: I am not denying that we are all individuals in general. Rather, I am arguing that white insistence on Individualism in regards to racism in particular prevents crossracial understanding, denies the salience of race and racism in our lives, and serves to reinforce and maintain racist relations."

Read the study.

I read the abstract in OP, which is bad enough with white paid diversity tool telling blacks they can't afford to be individuals or they sacrifice some group cause. And then I skimmed the paper just to be able to get the gist of things.

It's the biggest platter of baloney that I've ever seen. Didn't know you could be educated as diversity trainer to spew garbage like that. The quote you pulled above is a good example. He's just pissed because he's constructed a paradigm in which blacks are inseparable, but whites get to be individuals. Which is a very faulty foundation to start a paper with.

And it makes him mad, that as individuals, whites have the ability to walk away from false accusations and demands for reparations and all that other crap. While blacks can't do that. Well CERTAINLY they can. And they SHOULD.

I don't see a black nurse and say "That's a black woman". I AM however intimidated somewhat to carefully ponder every word I say for fear of offending her. I can see where a black bar keep looks at a white boy walking in and says "Whats that cracker up to -- coming into my bar" That group identification is the VERY TRIGGER for bias and racism. Things are PRE-JUDGED. Hence the derivation of the word prejudice. And that is EXACTLY how racists and bigots roll.. Prejudging by group identity.

Need to get way the fuck over that and start meeting and discussing with individuals. They'll be people you dismiss because they are trolls or haters, but it WON'T be by race.

The main problem with your white professor -- is that

GROUPS DON'T HAVE DIALOGUES.. GROUPS have CONFLICTS
Individuals do. Hence the "di" in dialog. This tool violates the definition of nearly important word used to discuss race relations. AND -- there's a big market for selling crap in "Big Diversity" biz.. The business that propagates itself for the next 4 generations or so.. By HINDERING any real resolutions to Race Relation problems.

Almost every assertion this guy makes is perfectly backwards.

r

Until you read he entire study we can't discuss the OP. The writer s a she. .Individuals do have conflicts. Individuals also don't have dialogues.

No the female professor leading this class was not teaching backs that whites can be individuals but blacks are inseparable. Black demands are not false. You walk away because you don't want to accept responsibility. And why would you be intimidated to speak for fear of offending the black woman who you don't see as a black woman? Is it just that you are a racist who wants to be careful as to not reveal your negative beliefs about blacks? Because this is the only reason why you should feel as you say.

Group identification is not the basis for racism. .The basis of the belief about Africa was not based upon any group interaction. It was based in the observation of individuals. The claims being made about Africa being a continent full of people living in mud huts aren't based upon any understanding of the entire African population but a few individuals living in rural areas. What you believe is simply bogus. You are not going to solve any race relations problems by telling people to stop seeing color or by ignoring they are part of a group. That's a lie. No one cares what you don't see when you see a black nurse. Apparently you have seen a black nurse or you would not be saying what you did. And you did notice she was black and not just that she was a nurse. Again your story fails.

There is not one of the over 245 million whites who live in this nation who will admit to being racists but racism goes on here in this country by whites. So how do you figure that flacaltenn? We are just to believe that no whites are racists even as we see whites doing it. What you believe is bullshit. Do you know what it's like to have trusted a white person who you thought was not a racist and who you thought was a friend then to find out he actually thought you were inferior to him as a human being? NO YOU DON'T. I do. But I have to endure you preaching to me about looking at people as individuals. We've been meeting as individuals for decades. Where have you been? .

You want to argue the OP by reading the abstract in order to declare things that are not so. In this study it is shown that your belief ignores 8 specific real life things. So if what you believe ignores real life experiences it cannot be a solution to real life dilemmas.

So try reading the study.

 

[IM2]

It's funny how whites want to talk about individualism when white racism is shown to them. So let's do it.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education

This is an article by Robin DeAngelo just so the trolls don't start whining.

In my years as a white person co-facilitating anti-racism courses for primarily white audiences in a range of academic, corporate, and government institutions across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, I have come to believe that the Discourse of Individualism is one of the primary barriers preventing well-meaning (and other) white people from understanding racism. Individualism is such a deeply entrenched discourse that it is virtually immovable without sustained effort. A recent interaction may illustrate the depth of this narrative.

I was co-facilitating a mandatory workplace training titled Race & Social Justice. Two key components of this training are my presentation, as a white person, on the dynamics of white privilege, and my co-facilitator's presentation, as a person of color, on the dynamics of internalized racial oppression. Included in my presentation is a list of common barriers for whites in seeing racism. One of these barriers is that we see ourselves as individuals, outside of social groups. I had just finished presenting this list and had called for a break, during which a white woman, “Sue,” who had been sitting next to a white man, “Bill,” approached me
and declared, “Bill and I think we should all just see each other as individuals.”

Although in my work moments like this occur frequently, they continue to disorient me on two interconnected levels. First, I had just stated that seeing each other as individuals was a perspective only available to the dominant group. Yet Sue's statement implied I had never heard or considered this most simple and popular of “solutions” to racism, much less just raised and critiqued it. I was left wondering, yet again, what happens cognitively for many whites in forums such as this that prevents them from actually hearing what is being presented. Second, why did she, as a white person, feel confident to declare the one-sentence
“answer” to a profoundly complex and perennial dilemma of social life? Why not consider my background in the field and instead engage me in a dialogue on the matter, or ask me to explain my point in more depth? I did my best to reiterate my previous position, but to no avail. By the afternoon break, Sue had walked out.

So what was Sue and Bill's point? In my experience, when white people insist on Individualism in discussions about racism, they are in essence saying: My race has not made a difference in my life, so why do we have to talk about race as if it mattered? It is talking about race as if it mattered that divides us. I don't see myself as a member of a racial group; you shouldn't see me that way either. In fact, by saying that my group membership matters, you are generalizing. Generalizing discounts my individuality; unless you know me, you can't profess to know anything about my life and all of the ways I am unique relative to any one else. Further, as an individual I am objective and view others as individuals and not as members of racial groups. For example if I were hiring I would hire the best person for the job no matter what their race
was. Racism will disappear when we all see each other as individuals. In fact, it has disappeared because I already see everyone as individuals—it's just misguided people such as yourself who refuse to see everyone as an individual and thus keep racism alive.

Obviously I disagree with these familiar dominant claims, as they stand in the face of all evidence to the contrary, both research-based evidence of racial discrimination and disparity on every measure (see Copeland, 2005; Hochschild & Weaver, 2007; Micceri, 2009; Wessel, 2005) and visible evidence of ongoing patterns of segregation in education, economics, and housing.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education - eScholarship

The argument of individualism is bogus and it's time that is recognized,.

Yes it's much better stereotype everyone

This post has no relation to the topic being discussed. I suggest you read the study.

Not going to waste my time.

Then don't comment.

 

[LOIE]

I was cheering this tale on right on up to point where we find that some little remnant of racism festers inside all of us.

When I read this story I did not think that the old man was speaking about everyone. He was talking to a young man who had grown up in a racially segregated southern town and he knew what had been taught there both by words and actions. I believe he was talking about himself and the author only when he said, "It's in you and it's in me."

In an earlier chapter the author said, "It was Bobo, a child I often looked down upon because of his blackness and his poverty, who showed me the emotional power that racial prejudice and segregation held over whites as well as blacks." Then he says about a basketball game they played together, "I had struggled to remain king to prove my strength, my power as a male, without any conscious understanding of a need to best Bobo because he was black, or to triumph because I was white. Such racial innocence, or perhaps naivete', soon departed, and with its departure came the realization that segregation fundamentally affected everyone in Wade, whites and blacks, and that no one was immune, and that it was a constant force, controlling our present and dictating our future."

The racism that existed in that town was indeed planted in each person who lived there. Fortunately, the author found a way to weed it out rather than water it.

 

[LOIE]

It's funny how whites want to talk about individualism when white racism is shown to them. So let's do it.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education

This is an article by Robin DeAngelo just so the trolls don't start whining.

In my years as a white person co-facilitating anti-racism courses for primarily white audiences in a range of academic, corporate, and government institutions across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, I have come to believe that the Discourse of Individualism is one of the primary barriers preventing well-meaning (and other) white people from understanding racism. Individualism is such a deeply entrenched discourse that it is virtually immovable without sustained effort. A recent interaction may illustrate the depth of this narrative.

I was co-facilitating a mandatory workplace training titled Race & Social Justice. Two key components of this training are my presentation, as a white person, on the dynamics of white privilege, and my co-facilitator's presentation, as a person of color, on the dynamics of internalized racial oppression. Included in my presentation is a list of common barriers for whites in seeing racism. One of these barriers is that we see ourselves as individuals, outside of social groups. I had just finished presenting this list and had called for a break, during which a white woman, “Sue,” who had been sitting next to a white man, “Bill,” approached me
and declared, “Bill and I think we should all just see each other as individuals.”

Although in my work moments like this occur frequently, they continue to disorient me on two interconnected levels. First, I had just stated that seeing each other as individuals was a perspective only available to the dominant group. Yet Sue's statement implied I had never heard or considered this most simple and popular of “solutions” to racism, much less just raised and critiqued it. I was left wondering, yet again, what happens cognitively for many whites in forums such as this that prevents them from actually hearing what is being presented. Second, why did she, as a white person, feel confident to declare the one-sentence
“answer” to a profoundly complex and perennial dilemma of social life? Why not consider my background in the field and instead engage me in a dialogue on the matter, or ask me to explain my point in more depth? I did my best to reiterate my previous position, but to no avail. By the afternoon break, Sue had walked out.

So what was Sue and Bill's point? In my experience, when white people insist on Individualism in discussions about racism, they are in essence saying: My race has not made a difference in my life, so why do we have to talk about race as if it mattered? It is talking about race as if it mattered that divides us. I don't see myself as a member of a racial group; you shouldn't see me that way either. In fact, by saying that my group membership matters, you are generalizing. Generalizing discounts my individuality; unless you know me, you can't profess to know anything about my life and all of the ways I am unique relative to any one else. Further, as an individual I am objective and view others as individuals and not as members of racial groups. For example if I were hiring I would hire the best person for the job no matter what their race
was. Racism will disappear when we all see each other as individuals. In fact, it has disappeared because I already see everyone as individuals—it's just misguided people such as yourself who refuse to see everyone as an individual and thus keep racism alive.

Obviously I disagree with these familiar dominant claims, as they stand in the face of all evidence to the contrary, both research-based evidence of racial discrimination and disparity on every measure (see Copeland, 2005; Hochschild & Weaver, 2007; Micceri, 2009; Wessel, 2005) and visible evidence of ongoing patterns of segregation in education, economics, and housing.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education - eScholarship

The argument of individualism is bogus and it's time that is recognized,.

Dear IM2
Individualism can go both ways.
The best way I know to stop racism is to hold individuals accountable
for their own beliefs, and quit justifying collective generalizations passed on by others!

The key strategy taught by Dialogue:Racism facilitators with
the Center for the Healing of Racism is to
respect each person's right to their own feelings and
represent their own experiences. And NOT to "see people
as REPRESENTING an ENTIRE group"

So this application of individualism HELPS to break through
the racial conditioning, where people associate groups
with people and start blaming the actions of one person
on another just because they are affiliated and 'seen as representing that group.'

SEE: http://www.houstonprogressive.org

GUIDELINES FOR SHARING

• We have come together to try to learn about the disease of racism and promote a healing process.

• Sharing is voluntary.

• We want to create a safe, loving and respectful atmosphere.

• Sharing is about one's own feelings, experiences, perceptions, etc.

• We are not always going to agree or see everything the same way and that's O.K.

• Each person has a right to and responsibility for his or her own feelings, thoughts, and beliefs.

• It is important to avoid criticism or judgement about another person's sharing, point of view, and/or feelings.

• Avoid getting tied up in debate and argument. It rarely changes anything or anyone and tends to ultimately inhibit the sharing.

• We can only change ourselves. Our change and growth may, however, inspire someone else.

• Refrain from singling out any individual as "representing" his or her group or issue.

• It is important to give full attention to whomever is talking.

• Feelings are important.

• We will surely make mistakes in our efforts, but mistakes are occasions for learning and forgiving.

• We may laugh and cry together, share pain, joy, fear, or anger.

• Hopefully we will leave these meetings with a deeper understanding and a renewed hope for the future of humanity.

I

Hopefully we will leave these meetings with a deeper understanding and a renewed hope for the future of humanity.

I have attended many seminars/workshops/discussions and many people make what I call "God Almighty" statements instead of "I feel" statements. The "I feel" statement leaves the door open for discussion where the "God Almighty" statement shuts it.

I have also wished that people leaving the meetings would take each other's phone numbers, then meet on their own without a set format, so they could really get to know each other and have unlimited time for discussion. These things always have to begin and end on time and go according to schedules.

It's funny how whites want to talk about individualism when white racism is shown to them. So let's do it.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education

This is an article by Robin DeAngelo just so the trolls don't start whining.

In my years as a white person co-facilitating anti-racism courses for primarily white audiences in a range of academic, corporate, and government institutions across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, I have come to believe that the Discourse of Individualism is one of the primary barriers preventing well-meaning (and other) white people from understanding racism. Individualism is such a deeply entrenched discourse that it is virtually immovable without sustained effort. A recent interaction may illustrate the depth of this narrative.

I was co-facilitating a mandatory workplace training titled Race & Social Justice. Two key components of this training are my presentation, as a white person, on the dynamics of white privilege, and my co-facilitator's presentation, as a person of color, on the dynamics of internalized racial oppression. Included in my presentation is a list of common barriers for whites in seeing racism. One of these barriers is that we see ourselves as individuals, outside of social groups. I had just finished presenting this list and had called for a break, during which a white woman, “Sue,” who had been sitting next to a white man, “Bill,” approached me
and declared, “Bill and I think we should all just see each other as individuals.”

Although in my work moments like this occur frequently, they continue to disorient me on two interconnected levels. First, I had just stated that seeing each other as individuals was a perspective only available to the dominant group. Yet Sue's statement implied I had never heard or considered this most simple and popular of “solutions” to racism, much less just raised and critiqued it. I was left wondering, yet again, what happens cognitively for many whites in forums such as this that prevents them from actually hearing what is being presented. Second, why did she, as a white person, feel confident to declare the one-sentence
“answer” to a profoundly complex and perennial dilemma of social life? Why not consider my background in the field and instead engage me in a dialogue on the matter, or ask me to explain my point in more depth? I did my best to reiterate my previous position, but to no avail. By the afternoon break, Sue had walked out.

So what was Sue and Bill's point? In my experience, when white people insist on Individualism in discussions about racism, they are in essence saying: My race has not made a difference in my life, so why do we have to talk about race as if it mattered? It is talking about race as if it mattered that divides us. I don't see myself as a member of a racial group; you shouldn't see me that way either. In fact, by saying that my group membership matters, you are generalizing. Generalizing discounts my individuality; unless you know me, you can't profess to know anything about my life and all of the ways I am unique relative to any one else. Further, as an individual I am objective and view others as individuals and not as members of racial groups. For example if I were hiring I would hire the best person for the job no matter what their race
was. Racism will disappear when we all see each other as individuals. In fact, it has disappeared because I already see everyone as individuals—it's just misguided people such as yourself who refuse to see everyone as an individual and thus keep racism alive.

Obviously I disagree with these familiar dominant claims, as they stand in the face of all evidence to the contrary, both research-based evidence of racial discrimination and disparity on every measure (see Copeland, 2005; Hochschild & Weaver, 2007; Micceri, 2009; Wessel, 2005) and visible evidence of ongoing patterns of segregation in education, economics, and housing.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education - eScholarship

The argument of individualism is bogus and it's time that is recognized,.

Dear IM2
Individualism can go both ways.
The best way I know to stop racism is to hold individuals accountable
for their own beliefs, and quit justifying collective generalizations passed on by others!

The key strategy taught by Dialogue:Racism facilitators with
the Center for the Healing of Racism is to
respect each person's right to their own feelings and
represent their own experiences. And NOT to "see people
as REPRESENTING an ENTIRE group"

So this application of individualism HELPS to break through
the racial conditioning, where people associate groups
with people and start blaming the actions of one person
on another just because they are affiliated and 'seen as representing that group.'

SEE: http://www.houstonprogressive.org

GUIDELINES FOR SHARING

• We have come together to try to learn about the disease of racism and promote a healing process.

• Sharing is voluntary.

• We want to create a safe, loving and respectful atmosphere.

• Sharing is about one's own feelings, experiences, perceptions, etc.

• We are not always going to agree or see everything the same way and that's O.K.

• Each person has a right to and responsibility for his or her own feelings, thoughts, and beliefs.

• It is important to avoid criticism or judgement about another person's sharing, point of view, and/or feelings.

• Avoid getting tied up in debate and argument. It rarely changes anything or anyone and tends to ultimately inhibit the sharing.

• We can only change ourselves. Our change and growth may, however, inspire someone else.

• Refrain from singling out any individual as "representing" his or her group or issue.

• It is important to give full attention to whomever is talking.

• Feelings are important.

• We will surely make mistakes in our efforts, but mistakes are occasions for learning and forgiving.

• We may laugh and cry together, share pain, joy, fear, or anger.

• Hopefully we will leave these meetings with a deeper understanding and a renewed hope for the future of humanity.

 

[flacaltenn]

.Individuals do have conflicts. Individuals also don't have dialogues.

Critical thinking skills and intellectual honesty is sorely lacking with cast off assertions like that. Those are easily proven false. Since NOT all individuals have conflicts.Most groups are formed over conflict. And Individuals have BETTER success at dialogue than random group leaderships speaking for EVERYONE.

Most groups like NARAL or NRA or the Dem/Repub parties are ALL about conflict.

And why would you be intimidated to speak for fear of offending the black woman who you don't see as a black woman? Is it just that you are a racist who wants to be careful as to not reveal your negative beliefs about blacks? Because this is the only reason why you should feel as you say.

Your hopeless. Can't think beyond your racial stereotyping of whites and "their inert racial biases".. I'm totally comfortable in the fact that I AM NOT a racist. Doesn't matter to me what YOU THINK -- if you jump my ass about a comment like that and CALL me one.

No --- I don't have a different dialogue with the Black Nurse ONLY because she is Black.

Group identification is not the basis for racism.

This is common courtesy to folks with a recognized requirement for measured conversation when you don't them. And I'm simply respecting their "sensitivities" to things that MIGHT pop up inadvertently in a quick meeting. Like I said, it's because I'M the one intimidated into respecting their sensitivities. Got nothing to do with bigot or racist..

Group identification is not the basis for racism.

Of course it is .. It's what racists do and how they operate. By SMEARING an ENTIRE group, everytime they open their mouths. It's the fundamental cause of prejudice and STEREOTYPING. You're flat ass wrong. There were examples of that from folks in this thread. YOU PEOPLE ---- is their favorite phrase to start a "race dialogue". Or in YOUR case -- it's "WHITE PEOPLE".. Same deal -- same racism..

Clear thinking, NON racists don't stereotype. The work off examples of personal INDIVIDUAL experiences with people of various backgrounds and races and NEVER make assertions about the entire group. And I got to say, many of our black Race Forum participants are giving non-racists a bad experience. You in particular as an INDIVIDUAL are doing more harm than good. But that won't change MY COMMITMENT --- not to prejudiced or stereotype the ENTIRE Black race.

 

[flacaltenn]

When I read this story I did not think that the old man was speaking about everyone. He was talking to a young man who had grown up in a racially segregated southern town and he knew what had been taught there both by words and actions. I believe he was talking about himself and the author only when he said, "It's in you and it's in me."

Well maybe I distorted the context then... If they both lived and survived times of racial conflict, and the relationship goes back that far, I can see it was more a statement about them. But then what you have is example of how INDIVIDUAL dialogue is a lot more honest and productive than group identification and conflict.

The collapse of OVERT SYSTEMIC racism in the South actually occurred very quickly. DESPITE whatever Washington did after the CRA. There was HONEST and open life discussions and ties develop all over the cultural map. Charlie Pride and the great R&B artists converted more redneck haters than the DOJ or govt. SPORTS was another beachhead where in the South, it provided great opportunities to smash a lot of racial stereotypes. When your star running back gets carried off the field on a stretcher and happens to be black, no one rejoices. The South largely did not have the Govt Designed and Funding segregated cities and neighborhoods that the Feds foisted on people from the 20s thru the 60s. Towns were segregated, but those lines were NOT institutionalized and the boundaries came down more easily.

In an earlier chapter the author said, "It was Bobo, a child I often looked down upon because of his blackness and his poverty, who showed me the emotional power that racial prejudice and segregation held over whites as well as blacks." Then he says about a basketball game they played together, "I had struggled to remain king to prove my strength, my power as a male, without any conscious understanding of a need to best Bobo because he was black, or to triumph because I was white.

Love it. Trying to tell your friend IM2 about the VALUE of viewing folks as individuals. And that's a beautiful example. ESPECIALLY the value of integrated sports and culture. If you don't want SEGREGATION, you gotta accept INTEGRATION. And I've told you before, it would be really constructive to see some flight from those segregated cities to the REST of America. Living cloistered by race may be a convenience for some. But they are screwing themselves by remaining in places that abuse them thru the legal system and cheat them out of opportunities for education and jobs.

I fear all this polarization is pushing the black community to REMAIN segregated by choice. In which case, they suffer the consequences of NOT integrating. They should not blame those consequences on me or "white people". And I fear INTEGRATION" may be a dying cause. There are many other places that welcome all folks who want the same values. They need to learn they are FREE to leave Baltimore, Philly, or the killing fields of Chicago..

 

[IM2]

.Individuals do have conflicts. Individuals also don't have dialogues.

Critical thinking skills and intellectual honesty is sorely lacking with cast off assertions like that. Those are easily proven false. Since NOT all individuals have conflicts.Most groups are formed over conflict. And Individuals have BETTER success at dialogue than random group leaderships speaking for EVERYONE.

Most groups like NARAL or NRA or the Dem/Repub parties are ALL about conflict.

And why would you be intimidated to speak for fear of offending the black woman who you don't see as a black woman? Is it just that you are a racist who wants to be careful as to not reveal your negative beliefs about blacks? Because this is the only reason why you should feel as you say.

Your hopeless. Can't think beyond your racial stereotyping of whites and "their inert racial biases".. I'm totally comfortable in the fact that I AM NOT a racist. Doesn't matter to me what YOU THINK -- if you jump my ass about a comment like that and CALL me one.

No --- I don't have a different dialogue with the Black Nurse ONLY because she is Black.

Group identification is not the basis for racism.

This is common courtesy to folks with a recognized requirement for measured conversation when you don't them. And I'm simply respecting their "sensitivities" to things that MIGHT pop up inadvertently in a quick meeting. Like I said, it's because I'M the one intimidated into respecting their sensitivities. Got nothing to do with bigot or racist..

Group identification is not the basis for racism.

Of course it is .. It's what racists do and how they operate. By SMEARING an ENTIRE group, everytime they open their mouths. It's the fundamental cause of prejudice and STEREOTYPING. You're flat ass wrong. There were examples of that from folks in this thread. YOU PEOPLE ---- is their favorite phrase to start a "race dialogue". Or in YOUR case -- it's "WHITE PEOPLE".. Same deal -- same racism..

Clear thinking, NON racists don't stereotype. The work off examples of personal INDIVIDUAL experiences with people of various backgrounds and races and NEVER make assertions about the entire group. And I got to say, many of our black Race Forum participants are giving non-racists a bad experience. You in particular as an INDIVIDUAL are doing more harm than good. But that won't change MY COMMITMENT --- not to prejudiced or stereotype the ENTIRE Black race.

Read the study.

 

[IM2]

When I read this story I did not think that the old man was speaking about everyone. He was talking to a young man who had grown up in a racially segregated southern town and he knew what had been taught there both by words and actions. I believe he was talking about himself and the author only when he said, "It's in you and it's in me."

Well maybe I distorted the context then... If they both lived and survived times of racial conflict, and the relationship goes back that far, I can see it was more a statement about them. But then what you have is example of how INDIVIDUAL dialogue is a lot more honest and productive than group identification and conflict.

The collapse of OVERT SYSTEMIC racism in the South actually occurred very quickly. DESPITE whatever Washington did after the CRA. There was HONEST and open life discussions and ties develop all over the cultural map. Charlie Pride and the great R&B artists converted more redneck haters than the DOJ or govt. SPORTS was another beachhead where in the South, it provided great opportunities to smash a lot of racial stereotypes. When your star running back gets carried off the field on a stretcher and happens to be black, no one rejoices. The South largely did not have the Govt Designed and Funding segregated cities and neighborhoods that the Feds foisted on people from the 20s thru the 60s. Towns were segregated, but those lines were NOT institutionalized and the boundaries came down more easily.

In an earlier chapter the author said, "It was Bobo, a child I often looked down upon because of his blackness and his poverty, who showed me the emotional power that racial prejudice and segregation held over whites as well as blacks." Then he says about a basketball game they played together, "I had struggled to remain king to prove my strength, my power as a male, without any conscious understanding of a need to best Bobo because he was black, or to triumph because I was white.

Love it. Trying to tell your friend IM2 about the VALUE of viewing folks as individuals. And that's a beautiful example. ESPECIALLY the value of integrated sports and culture. If you don't want SEGREGATION, you gotta accept INTEGRATION. And I've told you before, it would be really constructive to see some flight from those segregated cities to the REST of America. Living cloistered by race may be a convenience for some. But they are screwing themselves by remaining in places that abuse them thru the legal system and cheat them out of opportunities for education and jobs.

I fear all this polarization is pushing the black community to REMAIN segregated by choice. In which case, they suffer the consequences of NOT integrating. They should not blame those consequences on me or "white people". And I fear INTEGRATION" may be a dying cause. There are many other places that welcome all folks who want the same values. They need to learn they are FREE to leave Baltimore, Philly, or the killing fields of Chicago..

Maybe you start seeing the value of looking at people as individuals. ..

You always have a mouthful of crap t say about what blacks should do. So you can blame blacks but we can't say anything about what the almighty whites should be doing. People do not have t leave cities their families have lived in for generations because some idiot thinks that the only way for blacks to improve is to move into white communities. I say that since blacks pay taxes that social service, infrastructure money and tax abatements should be given to blacks to rebuild and redevelop their communities. If a white business can get a 40 year tax abatement so should a business owned by someone black in the black community.

Blacks in Chicago have been asking for the past 30 years for resources that can be used to rebuild their communities and reduce the violence,. This idiot doesn't want anyone to blame whites but then who do we blame when we see the facts?

How Chicago's White Donor Class Distorts City Policy

Chicago’s 2015 mayoral race was one of the most expensive in the nation’s history, with big donors playing an outsized role in financing both candidates’ campaigns. In fact, over 90 percent of the money raised by the two major candidates came from donors giving more than $1,000, and more than half (52%) came from donors outside of the city.[1] Both the Chicago mayoral and council elections are primarily financed by white, male donors who don’t reflect the racial and class diversity of the city’s residents. The experience in Chicago is emblematic of national elections, where a small cadre of white major donors—.01 percent—accounted for over 40 percent of all campaign contributions.[2]

New research provides disturbing evidence that the financing of our elections by a small group of big donors has very real consequences in terms of the public policies that get enacted.[3] In fact, when the preferences of the donor class diverge with those of the average voter, it is the donor class’s preferences that win. But donors and voters don’t always agree. For example, while 34% of non-donors living in Chicago support the Bowles-Simpson austerity plan, 62% of Chicago donors do. The preferences of the white, male and rich donor class diverge strongly from ordinary Chicagoans but it’s their agenda that’s being implemented. The solution is a robust public financing system that empowers the more diverse small donor pool and brings more diverse voices to the political system.

www.demos.org/publication/how-chicagos-white-donor-class-distorts-city-policy

This means that programs necessary to non white communities are ignored.. Programs and opportunities that would reduce the violence and crime.

The report’s key findings:
•The 2015 mayoral election was dominated by big money, with candidates raising more than 92% of their funds from donors giving $1,000 or more.
•These big donors are disproportionately white. Though whites make up 39% of the population of Chicago, they make up 88% of donors giving more than $1,000. While only 6% of Emanuel’s donors were people of color, 39% of Garcia’s donors were.
•Chicago donors are overwhelmingly high-income. Though only 15% of Chicagoans make more than $100,000, 63% of donors did and 74% of those giving more than $1,000 did.
•The donor class is more supportive of budget cuts than average Chicagoans and more opposed to policies that would bolster opportunity.
•In the council races there were also deep disparities. In these races, 79% of donors were men, 82% were white and 54% had an income over $100,000.
•Only five overwhelmingly white wards accounted for 13 percent of Chicago’s population, but 42 percent of donors to the Chicago mayoral and aldermanic races.

Note the underlined information. The people ask questions about why things are in Chicago and idiots like our president don't know these facts and want to present simple minded temporary solutions like threatening to send in the national guard.

In 2012, three political scientists performed a survey of wealthy Chicagoans (called the Survey of Economically Successful Americans, or SESA) and compared their preferences to those of the general population. Those surveyed had a median wealth of $7.5 million and two-thirds of them were political donors. he authors use the sample to examine the policy preferences of the wealthy in general, but given that the survey was Chicago-based it offers insights into how the donor class influences policy. As the table shows, the wealthy are far less likely to support a living wage and the government ensuring a decent standard of living.

While more than three-quarters of the general public agree that the government should “make sure everyone who wants to go to college can do so,” only 28% of the wealthy agree. While nearly nine in 10 average Americans agree that the government should spend whatever necessary to ensure all children attend a good public school, only 35% of the rich agree.

Although the questions are not identical to the SESA survey, a poll of Illinois residents finds that only 16 percent favor cuts to K-12 education, and less than a quarter support cuts to programs for poor people.[12] Only 13 percent of Illinois residents support cuts to programs for those with mental health problems.[13] There are deep divides between the donor class and the general public. The current path Chicago is following, with cuts to mental health services, infrastructure and public schools, is responsive to the preferences of the donor class, not average Chicagoans. Chicago has closed 49 schools, predominantly in black neighborhoods.

I live in Kansas and if I take US 24 to KC I will pass through about 20 all white tows. Yet we won't be hearing how whites are cloistered in segregated communities. Many of these towns are not in good economic shape, but you won't hear our individualist here talk bout how these people should more. But he is sure able to run his mouth off about Baltimore. So when one looks at Baltimore and when one sees the facts, what are we supposed to think?

Baltimore’s Economic Devastation Goes Back To Racist Housing Policy

While the uprisings in Baltimore stem perhaps most directly from a long history of unchecked police brutality, sparked by the death of Freddie Gray in policy custody, it also comes in a city that has long suffered economically. Today, the city’s unemployment rate is about 8.5 percent, compared to a national rate of 5.5 percent. It has a 24 percent poverty rate. The city’s median income is $41,385, compared to a median income of $73,538 for the state of Maryland.

There are stark racial differences in these numbers, too. The share of the city’s employed black men of working age dropped 15 percent between 1970 and 2010, while white men only saw a drop of 4.2 percent. By 2013, less than 60 percent of black men ages 25 to 54 were working, compared to nearly 80 percent of white men. Black Baltimore county residents earned a median income of $58,131 in 2013, compared to $68,112 for white people.

There are many causes of a city’s economic decline, and much of Baltimore’s job loss is tied to the falling fortunes of the manufacturing sector. But the fate of the city’s black population has much to do with deliberate policy choices related to housing

Baltimore’s Economic Devastation Goes Back To Racist Housing Policy

So this guy doesn't want whites to be blamed for this, but who made the deliberate racist housing policies? I guess blacks did this to themselves.

What this man needs to did get rid of the white fragility and stop playing the victim whereby he thinks everyone is blaming him when they say whites. I am not going to post a disclaimer every time I post saying not all whites are responsible just to please whites. I don't care if whites are tired and don't like what is said. I've lived 56 years with this bullshit. I don't get to tell it to stop and it stops just because I'm tired of it. I see things as I see hem. And I see them based upon study and evaluation of fact.

Because I do deal with whites as individuals and I know plenty of whites who don't spend time crying about how I should not make things about groups, who understand why things are said, who have shared their opinions with me and we have been able to work and construct positive solutions to problems. So I know when I am being confronted by a white person who is full of it.


.

 

[IM2]

I fear all this polarization is pushing the black community to REMAIN segregated by choice. In which case, they suffer the consequences of NOT integrating. They should not blame those consequences on me or "white people". And I fear INTEGRATION" may be a dying cause. There are many other places that welcome all folks who want the same values. They need to learn they are FREE to leave Baltimore, Philly, or the killing fields of Chicago..

"Just move, that's the ticket", he says. Black choose to stay segregated while whites. well they see everyone as individuals and don't have all white gated and planned communities .

The Worst Cities for Black Americans

Nationwide, the typical black household earns just 61 cents for every dollar the typical white household earns. Despite the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement more than five decades ago, there exist substantial inequalities along racial lines in America.

Lower incomes, educational attainment, and homeownership among black Americans, as well as higher poverty, unemployment, incarceration, and mortality all contribute to racial inequality in the United States. In some of America’s largest metro areas, discriminatory policy, racial bias, and a history of oppression have deepened such inequalities and widened the gap among black and white residents in a variety of socioeconomic measures.

To determine the worst cities for black Americans, 24/7 Wall St. created an index based on disparities in each city between black and white residents in various socioeconomic measures. Many of the cities with the worst racial inequalities are in the Midwest and Northeast.

The Worst Cities for Black Americans

 

[emilynghiem]

It's funny how whites want to talk about individualism when white racism is shown to them. So let's do it.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education

This is an article by Robin DeAngelo just so the trolls don't start whining.

In my years as a white person co-facilitating anti-racism courses for primarily white audiences in a range of academic, corporate, and government institutions across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, I have come to believe that the Discourse of Individualism is one of the primary barriers preventing well-meaning (and other) white people from understanding racism. Individualism is such a deeply entrenched discourse that it is virtually immovable without sustained effort. A recent interaction may illustrate the depth of this narrative.

I was co-facilitating a mandatory workplace training titled Race & Social Justice. Two key components of this training are my presentation, as a white person, on the dynamics of white privilege, and my co-facilitator's presentation, as a person of color, on the dynamics of internalized racial oppression. Included in my presentation is a list of common barriers for whites in seeing racism. One of these barriers is that we see ourselves as individuals, outside of social groups. I had just finished presenting this list and had called for a break, during which a white woman, “Sue,” who had been sitting next to a white man, “Bill,” approached me
and declared, “Bill and I think we should all just see each other as individuals.”

Although in my work moments like this occur frequently, they continue to disorient me on two interconnected levels. First, I had just stated that seeing each other as individuals was a perspective only available to the dominant group. Yet Sue's statement implied I had never heard or considered this most simple and popular of “solutions” to racism, much less just raised and critiqued it. I was left wondering, yet again, what happens cognitively for many whites in forums such as this that prevents them from actually hearing what is being presented. Second, why did she, as a white person, feel confident to declare the one-sentence
“answer” to a profoundly complex and perennial dilemma of social life? Why not consider my background in the field and instead engage me in a dialogue on the matter, or ask me to explain my point in more depth? I did my best to reiterate my previous position, but to no avail. By the afternoon break, Sue had walked out.

So what was Sue and Bill's point? In my experience, when white people insist on Individualism in discussions about racism, they are in essence saying: My race has not made a difference in my life, so why do we have to talk about race as if it mattered? It is talking about race as if it mattered that divides us. I don't see myself as a member of a racial group; you shouldn't see me that way either. In fact, by saying that my group membership matters, you are generalizing. Generalizing discounts my individuality; unless you know me, you can't profess to know anything about my life and all of the ways I am unique relative to any one else. Further, as an individual I am objective and view others as individuals and not as members of racial groups. For example if I were hiring I would hire the best person for the job no matter what their race
was. Racism will disappear when we all see each other as individuals. In fact, it has disappeared because I already see everyone as individuals—it's just misguided people such as yourself who refuse to see everyone as an individual and thus keep racism alive.

Obviously I disagree with these familiar dominant claims, as they stand in the face of all evidence to the contrary, both research-based evidence of racial discrimination and disparity on every measure (see Copeland, 2005; Hochschild & Weaver, 2007; Micceri, 2009; Wessel, 2005) and visible evidence of ongoing patterns of segregation in education, economics, and housing.

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education - eScholarship

The argument of individualism is bogus and it's time that is recognized,.

Dear IM2
I am slowly reviewing all the points that are included under the problems with Individualism.

So far I already ran into clashing explanations on these 2 points, and I assume there will be more

1. the point stated as individualism means not teaching how race and affiliation with a group affects individual success or identity

I disagree. the whites ARE taught this, but it's usually through institutions
such as culture or relgion that teaches "respect for elders" or parents.
This naturally is going to affect people by race because their parents/elders are the same race.

It's also taught in terms of business work ethics,
that you ahve to work hard and serve others if you are going to succeed in business.
the ABUNDANCE mentality is taught, which does teach that
responsibility and connection with people and community
IS the key to effective sustainable GROWTH.

So I disagree that individualism doesn't teach respect or connection with others.

If you want to question this, I'd say it's more a GENDER issue or CULTURAL issue.
Men are more conditioned than women to defend their autonomy
while women are conditions to care for others equally or more than themselves
and rely on that support system to stabilize oneself in the process.

Culturally yes the Asian African and Latino cultures focus on family name first,
community and collective representation.

Because the White Eurolinear approach focuses on individual responsibility,
the first name and identity comes first as what we can control and then
from there, we have to remember to respect our parents and authority'as
OUR individual responsibility.

So IM2 I would say this individualism has both a strength and a weakness.
It does teach individual responsibilty so people have to act and can't rely on others.
But yes, we also need to balance that with collective effect, relations and responsibility.

2. this article also brought up the issue of whites being uncomfortable with being blamed
as a race or group, because of "individualistic" culture or bias.
See below where I copied this summarized explanation.

I disagree this is White. The natural laws that all humans respond to
include something called DUE PROCESS.
NOBODY I know feels comfortable being accused of wrongs by association with a GROUP.

So this is a human reaction, not just white

So those are the first two points I have found.
Well three. I already posted to you that I believe the good
approach and advantages of individualism that doesn't preclude collective relations and perceptions.
First we include and hear each other as individuals.
Then we can understand how collective and cultural conditioning affects
how we see and say things! So that isn't against either individualism or collectivism.
But using one to understand the other level.

Here's the summarized article from another link
that says Whites don't feel comfortable when I argue all people react
when accused of racist prejudice because of group identity and affiliation:

Individualism: Whites are taught to see themselves as individuals, rather than as part of a racial group. Individualism enables us to deny that racism is structured into the fabric of society. This erases our history and hides the way in which wealth has accumulated over generations and benefits us, as a group, today. It also allows us to distance ourselves from the history and actions of our group. Thus we get very irate when we are “accused” of racism, because as individuals, we are “different” from other white people and expect to be seen as such; we find intolerable any suggestion that our behavior or perspectives are typical of our group as a whole.

My argument: all people react when we are accused without due process to defend ourselves.
the difference in response is when Blacks aren't taken as seriously unless they are protesting in groups collectively, while white men tend to be respected and expected to speak for themselves as leaders.
Women also have this problem of their grievances not being heard unless they get a group behind them.

So the reaction is universal, it's human to reject and feel uncomfortable when confronted negatively.

But as for defense, we don't have equal access to legal resources, media, political representation
etc. so there is cultural economic political and social disparity.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It's funny how whites.....blah blah blah

No, it is funny how you create numerous threads a day about how terrible whites are...all the while trying to point out how whites are racist.

Now THAT is funny.
At the same time, sad. Sad how empty your life must be that you spend hours a day on the internet making long ass threads that maybe-maybe one person actually reads.
You should re-examine your life. You live once. Everyday you waste here you will never get back.

 

[emilynghiem]

When I read this story I did not think that the old man was speaking about everyone. He was talking to a young man who had grown up in a racially segregated southern town and he knew what had been taught there both by words and actions. I believe he was talking about himself and the author only when he said, "It's in you and it's in me."

Well maybe I distorted the context then... If they both lived and survived times of racial conflict, and the relationship goes back that far, I can see it was more a statement about them. But then what you have is example of how INDIVIDUAL dialogue is a lot more honest and productive than group identification and conflict.

The collapse of OVERT SYSTEMIC racism in the South actually occurred very quickly. DESPITE whatever Washington did after the CRA. There was HONEST and open life discussions and ties develop all over the cultural map. Charlie Pride and the great R&B artists converted more redneck haters than the DOJ or govt. SPORTS was another beachhead where in the South, it provided great opportunities to smash a lot of racial stereotypes. When your star running back gets carried off the field on a stretcher and happens to be black, no one rejoices. The South largely did not have the Govt Designed and Funding segregated cities and neighborhoods that the Feds foisted on people from the 20s thru the 60s. Towns were segregated, but those lines were NOT institutionalized and the boundaries came down more easily.

In an earlier chapter the author said, "It was Bobo, a child I often looked down upon because of his blackness and his poverty, who showed me the emotional power that racial prejudice and segregation held over whites as well as blacks." Then he says about a basketball game they played together, "I had struggled to remain king to prove my strength, my power as a male, without any conscious understanding of a need to best Bobo because he was black, or to triumph because I was white.

Love it. Trying to tell your friend IM2 about the VALUE of viewing folks as individuals. And that's a beautiful example. ESPECIALLY the value of integrated sports and culture. If you don't want SEGREGATION, you gotta accept INTEGRATION. And I've told you before, it would be really constructive to see some flight from those segregated cities to the REST of America. Living cloistered by race may be a convenience for some. But they are screwing themselves by remaining in places that abuse them thru the legal system and cheat them out of opportunities for education and jobs.

I fear all this polarization is pushing the black community to REMAIN segregated by choice. In which case, they suffer the consequences of NOT integrating. They should not blame those consequences on me or "white people". And I fear INTEGRATION" may be a dying cause. There are many other places that welcome all folks who want the same values. They need to learn they are FREE to leave Baltimore, Philly, or the killing fields of Chicago..

Maybe you start seeing the value of looking at people as individuals. ..

You always have a mouthful of crap t say about what blacks should do. So you can blame blacks but we can't say anything about what the almighty whites should be doing. People do not have t leave cities their families have lived in for generations because some idiot thinks that the only way for blacks to improve is to move into white communities. I say that since blacks pay taxes that social service, infrastructure money and tax abatements should be given to blacks to rebuild and redevelop their communities. If a white business can get a 40 year tax abatement so should a business owned by someone black in the black community.

Blacks in Chicago have been asking for the past 30 years for resources that can be used to rebuild their communities and reduce the violence,. This idiot doesn't want anyone to blame whites but then who do we blame when we see the facts?

How Chicago's White Donor Class Distorts City Policy

Chicago’s 2015 mayoral race was one of the most expensive in the nation’s history, with big donors playing an outsized role in financing both candidates’ campaigns. In fact, over 90 percent of the money raised by the two major candidates came from donors giving more than $1,000, and more than half (52%) came from donors outside of the city.[1] Both the Chicago mayoral and council elections are primarily financed by white, male donors who don’t reflect the racial and class diversity of the city’s residents. The experience in Chicago is emblematic of national elections, where a small cadre of white major donors—.01 percent—accounted for over 40 percent of all campaign contributions.[2]

New research provides disturbing evidence that the financing of our elections by a small group of big donors has very real consequences in terms of the public policies that get enacted.[3] In fact, when the preferences of the donor class diverge with those of the average voter, it is the donor class’s preferences that win. But donors and voters don’t always agree. For example, while 34% of non-donors living in Chicago support the Bowles-Simpson austerity plan, 62% of Chicago donors do. The preferences of the white, male and rich donor class diverge strongly from ordinary Chicagoans but it’s their agenda that’s being implemented. The solution is a robust public financing system that empowers the more diverse small donor pool and brings more diverse voices to the political system.

www.demos.org/publication/how-chicagos-white-donor-class-distorts-city-policy

This means that programs necessary to non white communities are ignored.. Programs and opportunities that would reduce the violence and crime.

The report’s key findings:
•The 2015 mayoral election was dominated by big money, with candidates raising more than 92% of their funds from donors giving $1,000 or more.
•These big donors are disproportionately white. Though whites make up 39% of the population of Chicago, they make up 88% of donors giving more than $1,000. While only 6% of Emanuel’s donors were people of color, 39% of Garcia’s donors were.
•Chicago donors are overwhelmingly high-income. Though only 15% of Chicagoans make more than $100,000, 63% of donors did and 74% of those giving more than $1,000 did.
•The donor class is more supportive of budget cuts than average Chicagoans and more opposed to policies that would bolster opportunity.
•In the council races there were also deep disparities. In these races, 79% of donors were men, 82% were white and 54% had an income over $100,000.
•Only five overwhelmingly white wards accounted for 13 percent of Chicago’s population, but 42 percent of donors to the Chicago mayoral and aldermanic races.

Note the underlined information. The people ask questions about why things are in Chicago and idiots like our president don't know these facts and want to present simple minded temporary solutions like threatening to send in the national guard.

In 2012, three political scientists performed a survey of wealthy Chicagoans (called the Survey of Economically Successful Americans, or SESA) and compared their preferences to those of the general population. Those surveyed had a median wealth of $7.5 million and two-thirds of them were political donors. he authors use the sample to examine the policy preferences of the wealthy in general, but given that the survey was Chicago-based it offers insights into how the donor class influences policy. As the table shows, the wealthy are far less likely to support a living wage and the government ensuring a decent standard of living.

While more than three-quarters of the general public agree that the government should “make sure everyone who wants to go to college can do so,” only 28% of the wealthy agree. While nearly nine in 10 average Americans agree that the government should spend whatever necessary to ensure all children attend a good public school, only 35% of the rich agree.

Although the questions are not identical to the SESA survey, a poll of Illinois residents finds that only 16 percent favor cuts to K-12 education, and less than a quarter support cuts to programs for poor people.[12] Only 13 percent of Illinois residents support cuts to programs for those with mental health problems.[13] There are deep divides between the donor class and the general public. The current path Chicago is following, with cuts to mental health services, infrastructure and public schools, is responsive to the preferences of the donor class, not average Chicagoans. Chicago has closed 49 schools, predominantly in black neighborhoods.

I live in Kansas and if I take US 24 to KC I will pass through about 20 all white tows. Yet we won't be hearing how whites are cloistered in segregated communities. Many of these towns are not in good economic shape, but you won't hear our individualist here talk bout how these people should more. But he is sure able to run his mouth off about Baltimore. So when one looks at Baltimore and when one sees the facts, what are we supposed to think?

Baltimore’s Economic Devastation Goes Back To Racist Housing Policy

While the uprisings in Baltimore stem perhaps most directly from a long history of unchecked police brutality, sparked by the death of Freddie Gray in policy custody, it also comes in a city that has long suffered economically. Today, the city’s unemployment rate is about 8.5 percent, compared to a national rate of 5.5 percent. It has a 24 percent poverty rate. The city’s median income is $41,385, compared to a median income of $73,538 for the state of Maryland.

There are stark racial differences in these numbers, too. The share of the city’s employed black men of working age dropped 15 percent between 1970 and 2010, while white men only saw a drop of 4.2 percent. By 2013, less than 60 percent of black men ages 25 to 54 were working, compared to nearly 80 percent of white men. Black Baltimore county residents earned a median income of $58,131 in 2013, compared to $68,112 for white people.

There are many causes of a city’s economic decline, and much of Baltimore’s job loss is tied to the falling fortunes of the manufacturing sector. But the fate of the city’s black population has much to do with deliberate policy choices related to housing

Baltimore’s Economic Devastation Goes Back To Racist Housing Policy

So this guy doesn't want whites to be blamed for this, but who made the deliberate racist housing policies? I guess blacks did this to themselves.

What this man needs to did get rid of the white fragility and stop playing the victim whereby he thinks everyone is blaming him when they say whites. I am not going to post a disclaimer every time I post saying not all whites are responsible just to please whites. I don't care if whites are tired and don't like what is said. I've lived 56 years with this bullshit. I don't get to tell it to stop and it stops just because I'm tired of it. I see things as I see hem. And I see them based upon study and evaluation of fact.

Because I do deal with whites as individuals and I know plenty of whites who don't spend time crying about how I should not make things about groups, who understand why things are said, who have shared their opinions with me and we have been able to work and construct positive solutions to problems. So I know when I am being confronted by a white person who is full of it.


.

Dear IM2 because Blacks DO identify as a group and empower each other
with Black leaders and Black-led programs as models, that's why Blacks leading
Blacks can get the reforms done by working as unified communities and movement.

You can't have it both ways.

If you want to complain and point out injustices affecting this culture and population
as a collective identity then the solutions will also be implemented collectively and unified!

I agree with you that we should address individuals if we are so big on individual success and failure.

We should use both individual and collective approaches to their best advantage,
not use them in contradictory ways that defeat the very arguments we are trying to resolve

 

[IM2]

When I read this story I did not think that the old man was speaking about everyone. He was talking to a young man who had grown up in a racially segregated southern town and he knew what had been taught there both by words and actions. I believe he was talking about himself and the author only when he said, "It's in you and it's in me."

Well maybe I distorted the context then... If they both lived and survived times of racial conflict, and the relationship goes back that far, I can see it was more a statement about them. But then what you have is example of how INDIVIDUAL dialogue is a lot more honest and productive than group identification and conflict.

The collapse of OVERT SYSTEMIC racism in the South actually occurred very quickly. DESPITE whatever Washington did after the CRA. There was HONEST and open life discussions and ties develop all over the cultural map. Charlie Pride and the great R&B artists converted more redneck haters than the DOJ or govt. SPORTS was another beachhead where in the South, it provided great opportunities to smash a lot of racial stereotypes. When your star running back gets carried off the field on a stretcher and happens to be black, no one rejoices. The South largely did not have the Govt Designed and Funding segregated cities and neighborhoods that the Feds foisted on people from the 20s thru the 60s. Towns were segregated, but those lines were NOT institutionalized and the boundaries came down more easily.

In an earlier chapter the author said, "It was Bobo, a child I often looked down upon because of his blackness and his poverty, who showed me the emotional power that racial prejudice and segregation held over whites as well as blacks." Then he says about a basketball game they played together, "I had struggled to remain king to prove my strength, my power as a male, without any conscious understanding of a need to best Bobo because he was black, or to triumph because I was white.

Love it. Trying to tell your friend IM2 about the VALUE of viewing folks as individuals. And that's a beautiful example. ESPECIALLY the value of integrated sports and culture. If you don't want SEGREGATION, you gotta accept INTEGRATION. And I've told you before, it would be really constructive to see some flight from those segregated cities to the REST of America. Living cloistered by race may be a convenience for some. But they are screwing themselves by remaining in places that abuse them thru the legal system and cheat them out of opportunities for education and jobs.

I fear all this polarization is pushing the black community to REMAIN segregated by choice. In which case, they suffer the consequences of NOT integrating. They should not blame those consequences on me or "white people". And I fear INTEGRATION" may be a dying cause. There are many other places that welcome all folks who want the same values. They need to learn they are FREE to leave Baltimore, Philly, or the killing fields of Chicago..

Maybe you start seeing the value of looking at people as individuals. ..

You always have a mouthful of crap t say about what blacks should do. So you can blame blacks but we can't say anything about what the almighty whites should be doing. People do not have t leave cities their families have lived in for generations because some idiot thinks that the only way for blacks to improve is to move into white communities. I say that since blacks pay taxes that social service, infrastructure money and tax abatements should be given to blacks to rebuild and redevelop their communities. If a white business can get a 40 year tax abatement so should a business owned by someone black in the black community.

Blacks in Chicago have been asking for the past 30 years for resources that can be used to rebuild their communities and reduce the violence,. This idiot doesn't want anyone to blame whites but then who do we blame when we see the facts?

How Chicago's White Donor Class Distorts City Policy

Chicago’s 2015 mayoral race was one of the most expensive in the nation’s history, with big donors playing an outsized role in financing both candidates’ campaigns. In fact, over 90 percent of the money raised by the two major candidates came from donors giving more than $1,000, and more than half (52%) came from donors outside of the city.[1] Both the Chicago mayoral and council elections are primarily financed by white, male donors who don’t reflect the racial and class diversity of the city’s residents. The experience in Chicago is emblematic of national elections, where a small cadre of white major donors—.01 percent—accounted for over 40 percent of all campaign contributions.[2]

New research provides disturbing evidence that the financing of our elections by a small group of big donors has very real consequences in terms of the public policies that get enacted.[3] In fact, when the preferences of the donor class diverge with those of the average voter, it is the donor class’s preferences that win. But donors and voters don’t always agree. For example, while 34% of non-donors living in Chicago support the Bowles-Simpson austerity plan, 62% of Chicago donors do. The preferences of the white, male and rich donor class diverge strongly from ordinary Chicagoans but it’s their agenda that’s being implemented. The solution is a robust public financing system that empowers the more diverse small donor pool and brings more diverse voices to the political system.

www.demos.org/publication/how-chicagos-white-donor-class-distorts-city-policy

This means that programs necessary to non white communities are ignored.. Programs and opportunities that would reduce the violence and crime.

The report’s key findings:
•The 2015 mayoral election was dominated by big money, with candidates raising more than 92% of their funds from donors giving $1,000 or more.
•These big donors are disproportionately white. Though whites make up 39% of the population of Chicago, they make up 88% of donors giving more than $1,000. While only 6% of Emanuel’s donors were people of color, 39% of Garcia’s donors were.
•Chicago donors are overwhelmingly high-income. Though only 15% of Chicagoans make more than $100,000, 63% of donors did and 74% of those giving more than $1,000 did.
•The donor class is more supportive of budget cuts than average Chicagoans and more opposed to policies that would bolster opportunity.
•In the council races there were also deep disparities. In these races, 79% of donors were men, 82% were white and 54% had an income over $100,000.
•Only five overwhelmingly white wards accounted for 13 percent of Chicago’s population, but 42 percent of donors to the Chicago mayoral and aldermanic races.

Note the underlined information. The people ask questions about why things are in Chicago and idiots like our president don't know these facts and want to present simple minded temporary solutions like threatening to send in the national guard.

In 2012, three political scientists performed a survey of wealthy Chicagoans (called the Survey of Economically Successful Americans, or SESA) and compared their preferences to those of the general population. Those surveyed had a median wealth of $7.5 million and two-thirds of them were political donors. he authors use the sample to examine the policy preferences of the wealthy in general, but given that the survey was Chicago-based it offers insights into how the donor class influences policy. As the table shows, the wealthy are far less likely to support a living wage and the government ensuring a decent standard of living.

While more than three-quarters of the general public agree that the government should “make sure everyone who wants to go to college can do so,” only 28% of the wealthy agree. While nearly nine in 10 average Americans agree that the government should spend whatever necessary to ensure all children attend a good public school, only 35% of the rich agree.

Although the questions are not identical to the SESA survey, a poll of Illinois residents finds that only 16 percent favor cuts to K-12 education, and less than a quarter support cuts to programs for poor people.[12] Only 13 percent of Illinois residents support cuts to programs for those with mental health problems.[13] There are deep divides between the donor class and the general public. The current path Chicago is following, with cuts to mental health services, infrastructure and public schools, is responsive to the preferences of the donor class, not average Chicagoans. Chicago has closed 49 schools, predominantly in black neighborhoods.

I live in Kansas and if I take US 24 to KC I will pass through about 20 all white tows. Yet we won't be hearing how whites are cloistered in segregated communities. Many of these towns are not in good economic shape, but you won't hear our individualist here talk bout how these people should more. But he is sure able to run his mouth off about Baltimore. So when one looks at Baltimore and when one sees the facts, what are we supposed to think?

Baltimore’s Economic Devastation Goes Back To Racist Housing Policy

While the uprisings in Baltimore stem perhaps most directly from a long history of unchecked police brutality, sparked by the death of Freddie Gray in policy custody, it also comes in a city that has long suffered economically. Today, the city’s unemployment rate is about 8.5 percent, compared to a national rate of 5.5 percent. It has a 24 percent poverty rate. The city’s median income is $41,385, compared to a median income of $73,538 for the state of Maryland.

There are stark racial differences in these numbers, too. The share of the city’s employed black men of working age dropped 15 percent between 1970 and 2010, while white men only saw a drop of 4.2 percent. By 2013, less than 60 percent of black men ages 25 to 54 were working, compared to nearly 80 percent of white men. Black Baltimore county residents earned a median income of $58,131 in 2013, compared to $68,112 for white people.

There are many causes of a city’s economic decline, and much of Baltimore’s job loss is tied to the falling fortunes of the manufacturing sector. But the fate of the city’s black population has much to do with deliberate policy choices related to housing

Baltimore’s Economic Devastation Goes Back To Racist Housing Policy

So this guy doesn't want whites to be blamed for this, but who made the deliberate racist housing policies? I guess blacks did this to themselves.

What this man needs to did get rid of the white fragility and stop playing the victim whereby he thinks everyone is blaming him when they say whites. I am not going to post a disclaimer every time I post saying not all whites are responsible just to please whites. I don't care if whites are tired and don't like what is said. I've lived 56 years with this bullshit. I don't get to tell it to stop and it stops just because I'm tired of it. I see things as I see hem. And I see them based upon study and evaluation of fact.

Because I do deal with whites as individuals and I know plenty of whites who don't spend time crying about how I should not make things about groups, who understand why things are said, who have shared their opinions with me and we have been able to work and construct positive solutions to problems. So I know when I am being confronted by a white person who is full of it.


.

Dear IM2 because Blacks DO identify as a group and empower each other
with Black leaders and Black-led programs as models, that's why Blacks leading
Blacks can get the reforms done by working as unified communities and movement.

You can't have it both ways.

If you want to complain and point out injustices affecting this culture and population
as a collective identity then the solutions will also be implemented collectively and unified!

I agree with you that we should address individuals if we are so big on individual success and failure.

We should use both individual and collective approaches to their best advantage,
not use them in contradictory ways that defeat the very arguments we are trying to resolve

Emily, Try making sense. Whites see each other as a group and for 241 years have enacted laws and policies the benefit their group. You are far too old to let whites manipulate your mind as it appears is being manipulated now. These things you talk about have been tried, but whites have not changed. Spend your time telling whites what they need to do. Your way does not work, and for you tell us trying to stop whites from continuing their racism as defeating something is perhaps a thought you need to re consider.

 

[Lastamender]

When I read this story I did not think that the old man was speaking about everyone. He was talking to a young man who had grown up in a racially segregated southern town and he knew what had been taught there both by words and actions. I believe he was talking about himself and the author only when he said, "It's in you and it's in me."

Well maybe I distorted the context then... If they both lived and survived times of racial conflict, and the relationship goes back that far, I can see it was more a statement about them. But then what you have is example of how INDIVIDUAL dialogue is a lot more honest and productive than group identification and conflict.

The collapse of OVERT SYSTEMIC racism in the South actually occurred very quickly. DESPITE whatever Washington did after the CRA. There was HONEST and open life discussions and ties develop all over the cultural map. Charlie Pride and the great R&B artists converted more redneck haters than the DOJ or govt. SPORTS was another beachhead where in the South, it provided great opportunities to smash a lot of racial stereotypes. When your star running back gets carried off the field on a stretcher and happens to be black, no one rejoices. The South largely did not have the Govt Designed and Funding segregated cities and neighborhoods that the Feds foisted on people from the 20s thru the 60s. Towns were segregated, but those lines were NOT institutionalized and the boundaries came down more easily.

In an earlier chapter the author said, "It was Bobo, a child I often looked down upon because of his blackness and his poverty, who showed me the emotional power that racial prejudice and segregation held over whites as well as blacks." Then he says about a basketball game they played together, "I had struggled to remain king to prove my strength, my power as a male, without any conscious understanding of a need to best Bobo because he was black, or to triumph because I was white.

Love it. Trying to tell your friend IM2 about the VALUE of viewing folks as individuals. And that's a beautiful example. ESPECIALLY the value of integrated sports and culture. If you don't want SEGREGATION, you gotta accept INTEGRATION. And I've told you before, it would be really constructive to see some flight from those segregated cities to the REST of America. Living cloistered by race may be a convenience for some. But they are screwing themselves by remaining in places that abuse them thru the legal system and cheat them out of opportunities for education and jobs.

I fear all this polarization is pushing the black community to REMAIN segregated by choice. In which case, they suffer the consequences of NOT integrating. They should not blame those consequences on me or "white people". And I fear INTEGRATION" may be a dying cause. There are many other places that welcome all folks who want the same values. They need to learn they are FREE to leave Baltimore, Philly, or the killing fields of Chicago..

Maybe you start seeing the value of looking at people as individuals. ..

You always have a mouthful of crap t say about what blacks should do. So you can blame blacks but we can't say anything about what the almighty whites should be doing. People do not have t leave cities their families have lived in for generations because some idiot thinks that the only way for blacks to improve is to move into white communities. I say that since blacks pay taxes that social service, infrastructure money and tax abatements should be given to blacks to rebuild and redevelop their communities. If a white business can get a 40 year tax abatement so should a business owned by someone black in the black community.

Blacks in Chicago have been asking for the past 30 years for resources that can be used to rebuild their communities and reduce the violence,. This idiot doesn't want anyone to blame whites but then who do we blame when we see the facts?

How Chicago's White Donor Class Distorts City Policy

Chicago’s 2015 mayoral race was one of the most expensive in the nation’s history, with big donors playing an outsized role in financing both candidates’ campaigns. In fact, over 90 percent of the money raised by the two major candidates came from donors giving more than $1,000, and more than half (52%) came from donors outside of the city.[1] Both the Chicago mayoral and council elections are primarily financed by white, male donors who don’t reflect the racial and class diversity of the city’s residents. The experience in Chicago is emblematic of national elections, where a small cadre of white major donors—.01 percent—accounted for over 40 percent of all campaign contributions.[2]

New research provides disturbing evidence that the financing of our elections by a small group of big donors has very real consequences in terms of the public policies that get enacted.[3] In fact, when the preferences of the donor class diverge with those of the average voter, it is the donor class’s preferences that win. But donors and voters don’t always agree. For example, while 34% of non-donors living in Chicago support the Bowles-Simpson austerity plan, 62% of Chicago donors do. The preferences of the white, male and rich donor class diverge strongly from ordinary Chicagoans but it’s their agenda that’s being implemented. The solution is a robust public financing system that empowers the more diverse small donor pool and brings more diverse voices to the political system.

www.demos.org/publication/how-chicagos-white-donor-class-distorts-city-policy

This means that programs necessary to non white communities are ignored.. Programs and opportunities that would reduce the violence and crime.

The report’s key findings:
•The 2015 mayoral election was dominated by big money, with candidates raising more than 92% of their funds from donors giving $1,000 or more.
•These big donors are disproportionately white. Though whites make up 39% of the population of Chicago, they make up 88% of donors giving more than $1,000. While only 6% of Emanuel’s donors were people of color, 39% of Garcia’s donors were.
•Chicago donors are overwhelmingly high-income. Though only 15% of Chicagoans make more than $100,000, 63% of donors did and 74% of those giving more than $1,000 did.
•The donor class is more supportive of budget cuts than average Chicagoans and more opposed to policies that would bolster opportunity.
•In the council races there were also deep disparities. In these races, 79% of donors were men, 82% were white and 54% had an income over $100,000.
•Only five overwhelmingly white wards accounted for 13 percent of Chicago’s population, but 42 percent of donors to the Chicago mayoral and aldermanic races.

Note the underlined information. The people ask questions about why things are in Chicago and idiots like our president don't know these facts and want to present simple minded temporary solutions like threatening to send in the national guard.

In 2012, three political scientists performed a survey of wealthy Chicagoans (called the Survey of Economically Successful Americans, or SESA) and compared their preferences to those of the general population. Those surveyed had a median wealth of $7.5 million and two-thirds of them were political donors. he authors use the sample to examine the policy preferences of the wealthy in general, but given that the survey was Chicago-based it offers insights into how the donor class influences policy. As the table shows, the wealthy are far less likely to support a living wage and the government ensuring a decent standard of living.

While more than three-quarters of the general public agree that the government should “make sure everyone who wants to go to college can do so,” only 28% of the wealthy agree. While nearly nine in 10 average Americans agree that the government should spend whatever necessary to ensure all children attend a good public school, only 35% of the rich agree.

Although the questions are not identical to the SESA survey, a poll of Illinois residents finds that only 16 percent favor cuts to K-12 education, and less than a quarter support cuts to programs for poor people.[12] Only 13 percent of Illinois residents support cuts to programs for those with mental health problems.[13] There are deep divides between the donor class and the general public. The current path Chicago is following, with cuts to mental health services, infrastructure and public schools, is responsive to the preferences of the donor class, not average Chicagoans. Chicago has closed 49 schools, predominantly in black neighborhoods.

I live in Kansas and if I take US 24 to KC I will pass through about 20 all white tows. Yet we won't be hearing how whites are cloistered in segregated communities. Many of these towns are not in good economic shape, but you won't hear our individualist here talk bout how these people should more. But he is sure able to run his mouth off about Baltimore. So when one looks at Baltimore and when one sees the facts, what are we supposed to think?

Baltimore’s Economic Devastation Goes Back To Racist Housing Policy

While the uprisings in Baltimore stem perhaps most directly from a long history of unchecked police brutality, sparked by the death of Freddie Gray in policy custody, it also comes in a city that has long suffered economically. Today, the city’s unemployment rate is about 8.5 percent, compared to a national rate of 5.5 percent. It has a 24 percent poverty rate. The city’s median income is $41,385, compared to a median income of $73,538 for the state of Maryland.

There are stark racial differences in these numbers, too. The share of the city’s employed black men of working age dropped 15 percent between 1970 and 2010, while white men only saw a drop of 4.2 percent. By 2013, less than 60 percent of black men ages 25 to 54 were working, compared to nearly 80 percent of white men. Black Baltimore county residents earned a median income of $58,131 in 2013, compared to $68,112 for white people.

There are many causes of a city’s economic decline, and much of Baltimore’s job loss is tied to the falling fortunes of the manufacturing sector. But the fate of the city’s black population has much to do with deliberate policy choices related to housing

Baltimore’s Economic Devastation Goes Back To Racist Housing Policy

So this guy doesn't want whites to be blamed for this, but who made the deliberate racist housing policies? I guess blacks did this to themselves.

What this man needs to did get rid of the white fragility and stop playing the victim whereby he thinks everyone is blaming him when they say whites. I am not going to post a disclaimer every time I post saying not all whites are responsible just to please whites. I don't care if whites are tired and don't like what is said. I've lived 56 years with this bullshit. I don't get to tell it to stop and it stops just because I'm tired of it. I see things as I see hem. And I see them based upon study and evaluation of fact.

Because I do deal with whites as individuals and I know plenty of whites who don't spend time crying about how I should not make things about groups, who understand why things are said, who have shared their opinions with me and we have been able to work and construct positive solutions to problems. So I know when I am being confronted by a white person who is full of it.


.

Dear IM2 because Blacks DO identify as a group and empower each other
with Black leaders and Black-led programs as models, that's why Blacks leading
Blacks can get the reforms done by working as unified communities and movement.

You can't have it both ways.

If you want to complain and point out injustices affecting this culture and population
as a collective identity then the solutions will also be implemented collectively and unified!

I agree with you that we should address individuals if we are so big on individual success and failure.

We should use both individual and collective approaches to their best advantage,
not use them in contradictory ways that defeat the very arguments we are trying to resolve

Emily, Try making sense. Whites see each other as a group and for 241 years have enacted laws and policies the benefit their group. You are far too old to let whites manipulate your mind as it appears is being manipulated now. These things you talk about have been tried, but whites have not changed. Spend your time telling whites what they need to do. Your way does not work, and for you tell us trying to stop whites from continuing their racism as

defeating something is perhaps a thought you need to re consider.

Whites see each other as a group and for 241 years have enacted laws and policies the benefit their group.

Laws were enacted to improve the lives of citizens. The majority of citizens have always been white. That is a baseless argument.

 

[IM2]

When I read this story I did not think that the old man was speaking about everyone. He was talking to a young man who had grown up in a racially segregated southern town and he knew what had been taught there both by words and actions. I believe he was talking about himself and the author only when he said, "It's in you and it's in me."

Well maybe I distorted the context then... If they both lived and survived times of racial conflict, and the relationship goes back that far, I can see it was more a statement about them. But then what you have is example of how INDIVIDUAL dialogue is a lot more honest and productive than group identification and conflict.

The collapse of OVERT SYSTEMIC racism in the South actually occurred very quickly. DESPITE whatever Washington did after the CRA. There was HONEST and open life discussions and ties develop all over the cultural map. Charlie Pride and the great R&B artists converted more redneck haters than the DOJ or govt. SPORTS was another beachhead where in the South, it provided great opportunities to smash a lot of racial stereotypes. When your star running back gets carried off the field on a stretcher and happens to be black, no one rejoices. The South largely did not have the Govt Designed and Funding segregated cities and neighborhoods that the Feds foisted on people from the 20s thru the 60s. Towns were segregated, but those lines were NOT institutionalized and the boundaries came down more easily.

In an earlier chapter the author said, "It was Bobo, a child I often looked down upon because of his blackness and his poverty, who showed me the emotional power that racial prejudice and segregation held over whites as well as blacks." Then he says about a basketball game they played together, "I had struggled to remain king to prove my strength, my power as a male, without any conscious understanding of a need to best Bobo because he was black, or to triumph because I was white.

Love it. Trying to tell your friend IM2 about the VALUE of viewing folks as individuals. And that's a beautiful example. ESPECIALLY the value of integrated sports and culture. If you don't want SEGREGATION, you gotta accept INTEGRATION. And I've told you before, it would be really constructive to see some flight from those segregated cities to the REST of America. Living cloistered by race may be a convenience for some. But they are screwing themselves by remaining in places that abuse them thru the legal system and cheat them out of opportunities for education and jobs.

I fear all this polarization is pushing the black community to REMAIN segregated by choice. In which case, they suffer the consequences of NOT integrating. They should not blame those consequences on me or "white people". And I fear INTEGRATION" may be a dying cause. There are many other places that welcome all folks who want the same values. They need to learn they are FREE to leave Baltimore, Philly, or the killing fields of Chicago..

Maybe you start seeing the value of looking at people as individuals. ..

You always have a mouthful of crap t say about what blacks should do. So you can blame blacks but we can't say anything about what the almighty whites should be doing. People do not have t leave cities their families have lived in for generations because some idiot thinks that the only way for blacks to improve is to move into white communities. I say that since blacks pay taxes that social service, infrastructure money and tax abatements should be given to blacks to rebuild and redevelop their communities. If a white business can get a 40 year tax abatement so should a business owned by someone black in the black community.

Blacks in Chicago have been asking for the past 30 years for resources that can be used to rebuild their communities and reduce the violence,. This idiot doesn't want anyone to blame whites but then who do we blame when we see the facts?

How Chicago's White Donor Class Distorts City Policy

Chicago’s 2015 mayoral race was one of the most expensive in the nation’s history, with big donors playing an outsized role in financing both candidates’ campaigns. In fact, over 90 percent of the money raised by the two major candidates came from donors giving more than $1,000, and more than half (52%) came from donors outside of the city.[1] Both the Chicago mayoral and council elections are primarily financed by white, male donors who don’t reflect the racial and class diversity of the city’s residents. The experience in Chicago is emblematic of national elections, where a small cadre of white major donors—.01 percent—accounted for over 40 percent of all campaign contributions.[2]

New research provides disturbing evidence that the financing of our elections by a small group of big donors has very real consequences in terms of the public policies that get enacted.[3] In fact, when the preferences of the donor class diverge with those of the average voter, it is the donor class’s preferences that win. But donors and voters don’t always agree. For example, while 34% of non-donors living in Chicago support the Bowles-Simpson austerity plan, 62% of Chicago donors do. The preferences of the white, male and rich donor class diverge strongly from ordinary Chicagoans but it’s their agenda that’s being implemented. The solution is a robust public financing system that empowers the more diverse small donor pool and brings more diverse voices to the political system.

www.demos.org/publication/how-chicagos-white-donor-class-distorts-city-policy

This means that programs necessary to non white communities are ignored.. Programs and opportunities that would reduce the violence and crime.

The report’s key findings:
•The 2015 mayoral election was dominated by big money, with candidates raising more than 92% of their funds from donors giving $1,000 or more.
•These big donors are disproportionately white. Though whites make up 39% of the population of Chicago, they make up 88% of donors giving more than $1,000. While only 6% of Emanuel’s donors were people of color, 39% of Garcia’s donors were.
•Chicago donors are overwhelmingly high-income. Though only 15% of Chicagoans make more than $100,000, 63% of donors did and 74% of those giving more than $1,000 did.
•The donor class is more supportive of budget cuts than average Chicagoans and more opposed to policies that would bolster opportunity.
•In the council races there were also deep disparities. In these races, 79% of donors were men, 82% were white and 54% had an income over $100,000.
•Only five overwhelmingly white wards accounted for 13 percent of Chicago’s population, but 42 percent of donors to the Chicago mayoral and aldermanic races.

Note the underlined information. The people ask questions about why things are in Chicago and idiots like our president don't know these facts and want to present simple minded temporary solutions like threatening to send in the national guard.

In 2012, three political scientists performed a survey of wealthy Chicagoans (called the Survey of Economically Successful Americans, or SESA) and compared their preferences to those of the general population. Those surveyed had a median wealth of $7.5 million and two-thirds of them were political donors. he authors use the sample to examine the policy preferences of the wealthy in general, but given that the survey was Chicago-based it offers insights into how the donor class influences policy. As the table shows, the wealthy are far less likely to support a living wage and the government ensuring a decent standard of living.

While more than three-quarters of the general public agree that the government should “make sure everyone who wants to go to college can do so,” only 28% of the wealthy agree. While nearly nine in 10 average Americans agree that the government should spend whatever necessary to ensure all children attend a good public school, only 35% of the rich agree.

Although the questions are not identical to the SESA survey, a poll of Illinois residents finds that only 16 percent favor cuts to K-12 education, and less than a quarter support cuts to programs for poor people.[12] Only 13 percent of Illinois residents support cuts to programs for those with mental health problems.[13] There are deep divides between the donor class and the general public. The current path Chicago is following, with cuts to mental health services, infrastructure and public schools, is responsive to the preferences of the donor class, not average Chicagoans. Chicago has closed 49 schools, predominantly in black neighborhoods.

I live in Kansas and if I take US 24 to KC I will pass through about 20 all white tows. Yet we won't be hearing how whites are cloistered in segregated communities. Many of these towns are not in good economic shape, but you won't hear our individualist here talk bout how these people should more. But he is sure able to run his mouth off about Baltimore. So when one looks at Baltimore and when one sees the facts, what are we supposed to think?

Baltimore’s Economic Devastation Goes Back To Racist Housing Policy

While the uprisings in Baltimore stem perhaps most directly from a long history of unchecked police brutality, sparked by the death of Freddie Gray in policy custody, it also comes in a city that has long suffered economically. Today, the city’s unemployment rate is about 8.5 percent, compared to a national rate of 5.5 percent. It has a 24 percent poverty rate. The city’s median income is $41,385, compared to a median income of $73,538 for the state of Maryland.

There are stark racial differences in these numbers, too. The share of the city’s employed black men of working age dropped 15 percent between 1970 and 2010, while white men only saw a drop of 4.2 percent. By 2013, less than 60 percent of black men ages 25 to 54 were working, compared to nearly 80 percent of white men. Black Baltimore county residents earned a median income of $58,131 in 2013, compared to $68,112 for white people.

There are many causes of a city’s economic decline, and much of Baltimore’s job loss is tied to the falling fortunes of the manufacturing sector. But the fate of the city’s black population has much to do with deliberate policy choices related to housing

Baltimore’s Economic Devastation Goes Back To Racist Housing Policy

So this guy doesn't want whites to be blamed for this, but who made the deliberate racist housing policies? I guess blacks did this to themselves.

What this man needs to did get rid of the white fragility and stop playing the victim whereby he thinks everyone is blaming him when they say whites. I am not going to post a disclaimer every time I post saying not all whites are responsible just to please whites. I don't care if whites are tired and don't like what is said. I've lived 56 years with this bullshit. I don't get to tell it to stop and it stops just because I'm tired of it. I see things as I see hem. And I see them based upon study and evaluation of fact.

Because I do deal with whites as individuals and I know plenty of whites who don't spend time crying about how I should not make things about groups, who understand why things are said, who have shared their opinions with me and we have been able to work and construct positive solutions to problems. So I know when I am being confronted by a white person who is full of it.


.

Dear IM2 because Blacks DO identify as a group and empower each other
with Black leaders and Black-led programs as models, that's why Blacks leading
Blacks can get the reforms done by working as unified communities and movement.

You can't have it both ways.

If you want to complain and point out injustices affecting this culture and population
as a collective identity then the solutions will also be implemented collectively and unified!
o
I agree with you that we should address individuals if we are so big on individual success and failure.

We should use both individual and collective approaches to their best advantage,
not use them in contradictory ways that defeat the very arguments we are trying to resolve

Emily, Try making sense. Whites see each other as a group and for 241 years have enacted laws and policies the benefit their group. You are far too old to let whites manipulate your mind as it appears is being manipulated now. These things you talk about have been tried, but whites have not changed. Spend your time telling whites what they need to do. Your way does not work, and for you tell us trying to stop whites from continuing their racism as

defeating something is perhaps a thought you need to re consider.

Whites see each other as a group and for 241 years have enacted laws and policies the benefit their group.

Laws were enacted to improve the lives of citizens. The majority of citizens have always been white. That is a baseless argument.

Laws were enacted that excluded citizens because of color. So much for your silly excuses.