Debate Now White Privilege and an Institution of Racism

[Foxfyre]

White privilege is another made up term by some left loon. I'm sick of it all. Just stop already

I hardly think the writer of the essay exerpted in the OP can be classified as a 'left loon' (and please be careful with that kind of ad hominem as we don't want to engage in it in this thread.)

Read again that third paragraph in the excerpted portion. That is what he meant by White Privilege. And it definitely does exist.

I never called the writer a left loon. I said the term was made up by a left loon.

I know, and I wasn't even necessarily disagreeing with you, but for purposes of maintaining a constructive, objective, and civil discussion, the thread rules specify no ad hominem and 'left loon' is sufficient ad hominem to be against Rule No. 2 for the discussion.

And the writer of the essay uses the term 'white privilege' as does the curriculum to which he was referring. It is a valid term and has a definable meaning, though I'm sure all of us probably wouldn't define it in the same way if we were asked to define it. His essay, excerpted in the OP--the third paragraph excerpted--provides his observation of what 'white privilege' involves. And I think any of us would have to agree with him there.

 

[Swagger]

White privilege certainly exists - and should be encouraged/preserved for future generations of Whites in countries and territories where Whites are the demographic majority - due to instincts buried in our subconscious; but its conceptualisation has mainly been used as a means of polarising and aggitating the masses to sell headlines.

I can't really agree with that Swagger, though I do believe us white people should be no more ashamed to be white than persons of other races should be ashamed of being born who and what they are.

But until we start treating skin color as of no more consequence than hair color or eye color, I am afraid the white race will continue to be demonized by racist opportunists and racism will remain alive and well because it is so easily used for fun and profit and political advantage.

Why?

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think "focus" (whatever we might mean by that term) on white privilege and/or racism either helps or hurts black people, no.

But I do think knowing our history -- which is the context of the world in which we live -- helps everybody equally. You can't know where you're going if you don't know how you got where you are now.

Yes. And those of Irish and Chinese and Italian and Jewish and Japanese and Mexican et al ancestry all have really ugly histories at some time in their stories of life in America.

But the point is we now have non discrimination based on race laws on the books at the federal level and every state in the union. Affirmative Action laws were probably necessary for a short period to break down cultural barriers and allow black and white people to get used to living and working side by side. That is mostly accomplished now.

Segregation was a reality but it has been abolished. Nobody has to sit in the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain because of who or what they are any more. Everybody has full access to all public facilities and all institutions of learning etc.

So isn't it time to demand a color blind society and really allow all people to be seen and treated equally? No more of the political correctness nonsense that tends to generate more hostility than it corrects? No more protected class stuff that does put black people at a disadvantage because it forces people to treat them as more fragile and vulnerable and even inferior and incapable of achievement on their own merit. Nobody deserves that.

I agree with most all of that, if not all completely. Though I do wonder why you left out black people from the list at the top -- they suffered the worst. And they've also suffered the worst whitewashing (no pun intended) of the history books about it. I think we've all been schooled in the "no Irish need apply" signs, the treatment of Chinese railroad workers, even to some extent that of Native Americans, but how may of us have been taught of the Red Summer of 1919 and all the race riots of that time? How many are aware that beginning in the aftermath of the Civil War black people were being regularly accosted, beaten, raped, hanged, burned alive, skinned, (skinned), dragged behind vehicles, cut into pieces sold as souvenirs, and that this went on for nearly a century? Our schoolbooks somehow find a way to leave all that out, the omission of which bestows on us a great distortion. And such distortions, even in their omission, influence our perspectives and thereby our judgment. Context is vital.

I agree with all you've posted here about affirmative action and segregation laws. But those are laws. We got over the legal part, yes. What we have yet to get past is the cultural part. That's what this question is today -- a cultural one. And without knowing -- and acknowledging -- that history, cultural development can't move forward. Because culture carries its own context. It has no choice but to carry it; it's part of what makes it culture.

I was about to add that examples of ignoring context in favor of deliberately and self-servingly muddying the waters of rational discussion would appear in this thread as exhibit A - but it's already here:

Racism and other things, are tools of the left to create hate and division in the country so that people look to the government for answers thus giving it more power to create more division and hate to get more power to create division and hate to get more......

I left black people off the list because it was black people that prompted the comments and because it is racism affecting black people that is the focus of this thread. Black people are unique in that they lived here during a period of slavery, and did suffer historically more than others in degree, but they were not the only people who have suffered mistreatment by society as a whole.

And now we have a choice--a choice implied in McWhorter's essay. We can continue to live in the past and hold it up as a justification for keeping the issue of racism alive and well now--which is exactly what race baiters and opportunists do--or we can breathe a deep sigh of relief that we have dealt with it, eliminated it as an institutional policy, and opened the doorway to achieve true equal opportunity for all.

And the basis of the OP is that we don't allow people equal opportunity if we continue to keep the focus on racism which in turn suggests black people are more needy, fragile, damaged, incapable than everybody else, most especially when that is blamed on anybody who is white.

 

[Foxfyre]

White privilege certainly exists - and should be encouraged/preserved for future generations of Whites in countries and territories where Whites are the demographic majority - due to instincts buried in our subconscious; but its conceptualisation has mainly been used as a means of polarising and aggitating the masses to sell headlines.

I can't really agree with that Swagger, though I do believe us white people should be no more ashamed to be white than persons of other races should be ashamed of being born who and what they are.

But until we start treating skin color as of no more consequence than hair color or eye color, I am afraid the white race will continue to be demonized by racist opportunists and racism will remain alive and well because it is so easily used for fun and profit and political advantage.

Why?

Because racism these days assumes black people can't make it on their own and must have protection from government and other defenders. And it is effective to use for fun and profit. And one way that is accomplished is by pointing to "white privilege' as the reason things are so bad for black people.

 

[Swagger]

White privilege certainly exists - and should be encouraged/preserved for future generations of Whites in countries and territories where Whites are the demographic majority - due to instincts buried in our subconscious; but its conceptualisation has mainly been used as a means of polarising and aggitating the masses to sell headlines.

I can't really agree with that Swagger, though I do believe us white people should be no more ashamed to be white than persons of other races should be ashamed of being born who and what they are.

But until we start treating skin color as of no more consequence than hair color or eye color, I am afraid the white race will continue to be demonized by racist opportunists and racism will remain alive and well because it is so easily used for fun and profit and political advantage.

Why?

Because racism these days assumes black people can't make it on their own and must have protection from government and other defenders. And it is effective to use for fun and profit. And one way that is accomplished is by pointing to "white privilege' as the reason things are so bad for black people.

Aside from its weaponised application, White privilege clearly exists due to America's demographic majority favouring their own race (for the most part). Every other race practices ethnic favouritism, and Whites should too. Why shouldn't Whites put the interests of other Whites over those of minorities?

 

[LoneLaugher]

White privilege certainly exists - and should be encouraged/preserved for future generations of Whites in countries and territories where Whites are the demographic majority - due to instincts buried in our subconscious; but its conceptualisation has mainly been used as a means of polarising and aggitating the masses to sell headlines.

I can't really agree with that Swagger, though I do believe us white people should be no more ashamed to be white than persons of other races should be ashamed of being born who and what they are.

But until we start treating skin color as of no more consequence than hair color or eye color, I am afraid the white race will continue to be demonized by racist opportunists and racism will remain alive and well because it is so easily used for fun and profit and political advantage.

Why?

Because racism these days assumes black people can't make it on their own and must have protection from government and other defenders. And it is effective to use for fun and profit. And one way that is accomplished is by pointing to "white privilege' as the reason things are so bad for black people.

No. Racism does not assume that black people cannot make it on their own. That is not something that anyone with an honest look at racism would ever conclude.

 

[Carla_Danger]

What a skewed set of questions...

Nobody really focuses on "white privilege" it's just something that is taken for granted.

Well I think McWhorter is very definitely somebody and he did focus on "white privilege" in his essay and that is the topic of this discussion. So let's discuss it okay?

McWhorter listed his concept of 'white privilege' in the third paragraph that I excerpted in the OP:

. . . .Being white does offer a freedom not easily available to others. You can underperform without it being ascribed to your race. And when you excel, no one wonders whether Affirmative Action had anything to do with it. Authority figures are likely to be your color, and no one associates people of your color with a propensity to violence. No one expects you to represent your race in a class discussion or anywhere else. . . .

Is he wrong?

He hasn't touched the tip of the iceberg. Not only are authority figures likely to be white, but black people are more likely to get pulled over, they will more likely get longer sentencing for the same crime, their neighborhoods are more likely to be heavily patrolled...and the list goes on and on.

Affirmative Action would not have been necessary without racism/white privilege to begin with.

I agree that Affirmative Action was necessary back in the 1960's to break down cultural barriers and get people used to working with each other. But that has been accomplished. Nobody is saying that racism wasn't/isn't real and it never hurt black people.

But we have fixed racism as institutional discrimination. That hasn't been allowed for a long time now.

So why not start treating people like they really are equal?

Instead of asking me why not treat people as equal, I think you need to first find out who are not treating them as equals.

Civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said Thursday that voter ID laws are a modern-day version of poll taxes once used by Southern states to disenfranchise black and poor people.

In a piece called "The Unfinished Work of Selma," Lewis reflected on the Supreme Court's decision in June 2013 to strike down a core piece of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That provision, Section 4, determined which states and localities with a history of suppressing minority voters had to get permission from the Justice Department to change their voting laws. In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the section was outdated, and left it to Congress to come up with a new formula for designating which regions of the country warrant special scrutiny.

Congress hasn't done anything since. As Lewis noted in his piece, published on Mic, Republicans in statehouses around the country have moved quickly to pass laws making it harder for people to vote.

"Couched in language about 'protecting the ballot box,' Republicans have pushed voter ID laws that disproportionately impact certain blocks of voters -- African-Americans, women, Latinos, the poor and young people -- who tend to vote against them," he wrote. "In Texas alone, 600,000 voters were at risk of being disenfranchised by the new voter ID requirements."

Lewis said it's important to call those laws what they are.

"We should not mince words: These are poll taxes by another name, the very types of discrimination we marched against 50 years ago," he said.

Since the Supreme Court ruling, states that previously required pre-clearance from the federal government -- Mississippi and Texas, to name two -- have been able to pass laws that make voting more difficult for people who are poor, disabled or a minority, through such means as requiring a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. More than half the states in the country have introduced voter ID laws since 2011.

Lewis was at the center of last week's 50th anniversary commemoration of the civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama. He led some of those marches back in 1965, and said being in Selma 50 years later reminded him how much work there is still to do when it comes to protecting voting rights.

On that day in 1965 that President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, "I would have been in utter disbelief to know that in 2015, the VRA would still be a point of debate," Lewis wrote.

The Georgia congressman is among a group of lawmakers trying to pass legislation to restore the law, but they've struggled to find GOP supporters. Their bill would update Section 4 of the law to make it apply to states and jurisdictions with voting violations in the past 15 years. So far, the House bill has just a handful of Republican cosponsors. The forthcoming Senate bill has none.

John Lewis Says Voter ID Laws Are Poll Taxes By Another Name

 

[Pogo]

I don't think "focus" (whatever we might mean by that term) on white privilege and/or racism either helps or hurts black people, no.

But I do think knowing our history -- which is the context of the world in which we live -- helps everybody equally. You can't know where you're going if you don't know how you got where you are now.

Yes. And those of Irish and Chinese and Italian and Jewish and Japanese and Mexican et al ancestry all have really ugly histories at some time in their stories of life in America.

But the point is we now have non discrimination based on race laws on the books at the federal level and every state in the union. Affirmative Action laws were probably necessary for a short period to break down cultural barriers and allow black and white people to get used to living and working side by side. That is mostly accomplished now.

Segregation was a reality but it has been abolished. Nobody has to sit in the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain because of who or what they are any more. Everybody has full access to all public facilities and all institutions of learning etc.

So isn't it time to demand a color blind society and really allow all people to be seen and treated equally? No more of the political correctness nonsense that tends to generate more hostility than it corrects? No more protected class stuff that does put black people at a disadvantage because it forces people to treat them as more fragile and vulnerable and even inferior and incapable of achievement on their own merit. Nobody deserves that.

I agree with most all of that, if not all completely. Though I do wonder why you left out black people from the list at the top -- they suffered the worst. And they've also suffered the worst whitewashing (no pun intended) of the history books about it. I think we've all been schooled in the "no Irish need apply" signs, the treatment of Chinese railroad workers, even to some extent that of Native Americans, but how may of us have been taught of the Red Summer of 1919 and all the race riots of that time? How many are aware that beginning in the aftermath of the Civil War black people were being regularly accosted, beaten, raped, hanged, burned alive, skinned, (skinned), dragged behind vehicles, cut into pieces sold as souvenirs, and that this went on for nearly a century? Our schoolbooks somehow find a way to leave all that out, the omission of which bestows on us a great distortion. And such distortions, even in their omission, influence our perspectives and thereby our judgment. Context is vital.

I agree with all you've posted here about affirmative action and segregation laws. But those are laws. We got over the legal part, yes. What we have yet to get past is the cultural part. That's what this question is today -- a cultural one. And without knowing -- and acknowledging -- that history, cultural development can't move forward. Because culture carries its own context. It has no choice but to carry it; it's part of what makes it culture.

I was about to add that examples of ignoring context in favor of deliberately and self-servingly muddying the waters of rational discussion would appear in this thread as exhibit A - but it's already here:

Racism and other things, are tools of the left to create hate and division in the country so that people look to the government for answers thus giving it more power to create more division and hate to get more power to create division and hate to get more......

I left black people off the list because it was black people that prompted the comments and because it is racism affecting black people that is the focus of this thread. Black people are unique in that they lived here during a period of slavery, and did suffer historically more than others in degree, but they were not the only people who have suffered mistreatment by society as a whole.

And now we have a choice--a choice implied in McWhorter's essay. We can continue to live in the past and hold it up as a justification for keeping the issue of racism alive and well now--which is exactly what race baiters and opportunists do--or we can breathe a deep sigh of relief that we have dealt with it, eliminated it as an institutional policy, and opened the doorway to achieve true equal opportunity for all.

And the basis of the OP is that we don't allow people equal opportunity if we continue to keep the focus on racism which in turn suggests black people are more needy, fragile, damaged, incapable than everybody else, most especially when that is blamed on anybody who is white.

But the phrase "keeping the focus on racism" is fatally undefined. It could mean a lot of different things.

Continuing AA policies, legally and rhetorically with the idea "I'm black so society owes me" is one thing it could mean, and I agree, those are counterproductive. But knowing our cultural context -- also defined as 'history' -- is another thing the phrase could mean, and taking that focus off would be even more counterproductive.

So perhaps we need to define what we mean by "focus", and what we don't mean.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Recommended reading.

The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander Cornel West 9781595586438 Amazon.com Books

 

[Foxfyre]

Recommended reading.

The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander Cornel West 9781595586438 Amazon.com Books

Please refer to Rule 3 of the Thread rules.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think "focus" (whatever we might mean by that term) on white privilege and/or racism either helps or hurts black people, no.

But I do think knowing our history -- which is the context of the world in which we live -- helps everybody equally. You can't know where you're going if you don't know how you got where you are now.

Yes. And those of Irish and Chinese and Italian and Jewish and Japanese and Mexican et al ancestry all have really ugly histories at some time in their stories of life in America.

But the point is we now have non discrimination based on race laws on the books at the federal level and every state in the union. Affirmative Action laws were probably necessary for a short period to break down cultural barriers and allow black and white people to get used to living and working side by side. That is mostly accomplished now.

Segregation was a reality but it has been abolished. Nobody has to sit in the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain because of who or what they are any more. Everybody has full access to all public facilities and all institutions of learning etc.

So isn't it time to demand a color blind society and really allow all people to be seen and treated equally? No more of the political correctness nonsense that tends to generate more hostility than it corrects? No more protected class stuff that does put black people at a disadvantage because it forces people to treat them as more fragile and vulnerable and even inferior and incapable of achievement on their own merit. Nobody deserves that.

I agree with most all of that, if not all completely. Though I do wonder why you left out black people from the list at the top -- they suffered the worst. And they've also suffered the worst whitewashing (no pun intended) of the history books about it. I think we've all been schooled in the "no Irish need apply" signs, the treatment of Chinese railroad workers, even to some extent that of Native Americans, but how may of us have been taught of the Red Summer of 1919 and all the race riots of that time? How many are aware that beginning in the aftermath of the Civil War black people were being regularly accosted, beaten, raped, hanged, burned alive, skinned, (skinned), dragged behind vehicles, cut into pieces sold as souvenirs, and that this went on for nearly a century? Our schoolbooks somehow find a way to leave all that out, the omission of which bestows on us a great distortion. And such distortions, even in their omission, influence our perspectives and thereby our judgment. Context is vital.

I agree with all you've posted here about affirmative action and segregation laws. But those are laws. We got over the legal part, yes. What we have yet to get past is the cultural part. That's what this question is today -- a cultural one. And without knowing -- and acknowledging -- that history, cultural development can't move forward. Because culture carries its own context. It has no choice but to carry it; it's part of what makes it culture.

I was about to add that examples of ignoring context in favor of deliberately and self-servingly muddying the waters of rational discussion would appear in this thread as exhibit A - but it's already here:

Racism and other things, are tools of the left to create hate and division in the country so that people look to the government for answers thus giving it more power to create more division and hate to get more power to create division and hate to get more......

I left black people off the list because it was black people that prompted the comments and because it is racism affecting black people that is the focus of this thread. Black people are unique in that they lived here during a period of slavery, and did suffer historically more than others in degree, but they were not the only people who have suffered mistreatment by society as a whole.

And now we have a choice--a choice implied in McWhorter's essay. We can continue to live in the past and hold it up as a justification for keeping the issue of racism alive and well now--which is exactly what race baiters and opportunists do--or we can breathe a deep sigh of relief that we have dealt with it, eliminated it as an institutional policy, and opened the doorway to achieve true equal opportunity for all.

And the basis of the OP is that we don't allow people equal opportunity if we continue to keep the focus on racism which in turn suggests black people are more needy, fragile, damaged, incapable than everybody else, most especially when that is blamed on anybody who is white.

But the phrase "keeping the focus on racism" is fatally undefined. It could mean a lot of different things.

Continuing AA policies, legally and rhetorically with the idea "I'm black so society owes me" is one thing it could mean, and I agree, those are counterproductive. But knowing our cultural context -- also defined as 'history' -- is another thing the phrase could mean, and taking that focus off would be even more counterproductive.

So perhaps we need to define what we mean by "focus", and what we don't mean.

I will refer you to McWhorter's essay and the Thread topic. Let's focus on that --meaning that is what we will be discussing--and not get bogged down in a war of semantics and definitions okay?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Recommended reading.

The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander Cornel West 9781595586438 Amazon.com Books

Please refer to Rule 3 of the Thread rules.

You have a problem with me recommending a source? I didn't cite anything from it. I just suggested that it be read. Within the rules.

 

[Andylusion]

Recommended reading.

The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander Cornel West 9781595586438 Amazon.com Books

The moment someone complains about criminals being locked up for criminal acts, I no longer care what else they have to say.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Recommended reading.

The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander Cornel West 9781595586438 Amazon.com Books

The moment someone complains about criminals being locked up for criminal acts, I no longer care what else they have to say.

Nice reply. Read the book.

 

[Andylusion]

Wish there was, then I'd be doing a heck of a lot better in life. Oh well. Darn anti-white racists.

 

[Pogo]

I don't think "focus" (whatever we might mean by that term) on white privilege and/or racism either helps or hurts black people, no.

But I do think knowing our history -- which is the context of the world in which we live -- helps everybody equally. You can't know where you're going if you don't know how you got where you are now.

Yes. And those of Irish and Chinese and Italian and Jewish and Japanese and Mexican et al ancestry all have really ugly histories at some time in their stories of life in America.

But the point is we now have non discrimination based on race laws on the books at the federal level and every state in the union. Affirmative Action laws were probably necessary for a short period to break down cultural barriers and allow black and white people to get used to living and working side by side. That is mostly accomplished now.

Segregation was a reality but it has been abolished. Nobody has to sit in the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain because of who or what they are any more. Everybody has full access to all public facilities and all institutions of learning etc.

So isn't it time to demand a color blind society and really allow all people to be seen and treated equally? No more of the political correctness nonsense that tends to generate more hostility than it corrects? No more protected class stuff that does put black people at a disadvantage because it forces people to treat them as more fragile and vulnerable and even inferior and incapable of achievement on their own merit. Nobody deserves that.

I agree with most all of that, if not all completely. Though I do wonder why you left out black people from the list at the top -- they suffered the worst. And they've also suffered the worst whitewashing (no pun intended) of the history books about it. I think we've all been schooled in the "no Irish need apply" signs, the treatment of Chinese railroad workers, even to some extent that of Native Americans, but how may of us have been taught of the Red Summer of 1919 and all the race riots of that time? How many are aware that beginning in the aftermath of the Civil War black people were being regularly accosted, beaten, raped, hanged, burned alive, skinned, (skinned), dragged behind vehicles, cut into pieces sold as souvenirs, and that this went on for nearly a century? Our schoolbooks somehow find a way to leave all that out, the omission of which bestows on us a great distortion. And such distortions, even in their omission, influence our perspectives and thereby our judgment. Context is vital.

I agree with all you've posted here about affirmative action and segregation laws. But those are laws. We got over the legal part, yes. What we have yet to get past is the cultural part. That's what this question is today -- a cultural one. And without knowing -- and acknowledging -- that history, cultural development can't move forward. Because culture carries its own context. It has no choice but to carry it; it's part of what makes it culture.

I was about to add that examples of ignoring context in favor of deliberately and self-servingly muddying the waters of rational discussion would appear in this thread as exhibit A - but it's already here:

Racism and other things, are tools of the left to create hate and division in the country so that people look to the government for answers thus giving it more power to create more division and hate to get more power to create division and hate to get more......

I left black people off the list because it was black people that prompted the comments and because it is racism affecting black people that is the focus of this thread. Black people are unique in that they lived here during a period of slavery, and did suffer historically more than others in degree, but they were not the only people who have suffered mistreatment by society as a whole.

And now we have a choice--a choice implied in McWhorter's essay. We can continue to live in the past and hold it up as a justification for keeping the issue of racism alive and well now--which is exactly what race baiters and opportunists do--or we can breathe a deep sigh of relief that we have dealt with it, eliminated it as an institutional policy, and opened the doorway to achieve true equal opportunity for all.

And the basis of the OP is that we don't allow people equal opportunity if we continue to keep the focus on racism which in turn suggests black people are more needy, fragile, damaged, incapable than everybody else, most especially when that is blamed on anybody who is white.

But the phrase "keeping the focus on racism" is fatally undefined. It could mean a lot of different things.

Continuing AA policies, legally and rhetorically with the idea "I'm black so society owes me" is one thing it could mean, and I agree, those are counterproductive. But knowing our cultural context -- also defined as 'history' -- is another thing the phrase could mean, and taking that focus off would be even more counterproductive.

So perhaps we need to define what we mean by "focus", and what we don't mean.

I will refer you to McWhorter's essay and the Thread topic. Let's focus on that --meaning that is what we will be discussing--and not get bogged down in a war of semantics and definitions okay?

"Focus" is fatally vague. We cannot declare "yes we should focus on race" or "no we should not focus on race" without first defining what we mean by "focus on race".

One can "focus on" a positive; one can "focus on" a negative; one can "focus on" the irrelevant. The term simply cannot be assessed without having a definition for the purpose of discussion. Any conclusion without such definition would be meaningless.

 

[Foxfyre]

What a skewed set of questions...

Nobody really focuses on "white privilege" it's just something that is taken for granted.

Well I think McWhorter is very definitely somebody and he did focus on "white privilege" in his essay and that is the topic of this discussion. So let's discuss it okay?

McWhorter listed his concept of 'white privilege' in the third paragraph that I excerpted in the OP:

. . . .Being white does offer a freedom not easily available to others. You can underperform without it being ascribed to your race. And when you excel, no one wonders whether Affirmative Action had anything to do with it. Authority figures are likely to be your color, and no one associates people of your color with a propensity to violence. No one expects you to represent your race in a class discussion or anywhere else. . . .

Is he wrong?

He hasn't touched the tip of the iceberg. Not only are authority figures likely to be white, but black people are more likely to get pulled over, they will more likely get longer sentencing for the same crime, their neighborhoods are more likely to be heavily patrolled...and the list goes on and on.

Affirmative Action would not have been necessary without racism/white privilege to begin with.

I agree that Affirmative Action was necessary back in the 1960's to break down cultural barriers and get people used to working with each other. But that has been accomplished. Nobody is saying that racism wasn't/isn't real and it never hurt black people.

But we have fixed racism as institutional discrimination. That hasn't been allowed for a long time now.

So why not start treating people like they really are equal?

Instead of asking me why not treat people as equal, I think you need to first find out who are not treating them as equals.

Civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said Thursday that voter ID laws are a modern-day version of poll taxes once used by Southern states to disenfranchise black and poor people.

In a piece called "The Unfinished Work of Selma," Lewis reflected on the Supreme Court's decision in June 2013 to strike down a core piece of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That provision, Section 4, determined which states and localities with a history of suppressing minority voters had to get permission from the Justice Department to change their voting laws. In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the section was outdated, and left it to Congress to come up with a new formula for designating which regions of the country warrant special scrutiny.

Congress hasn't done anything since. As Lewis noted in his piece, published on Mic, Republicans in statehouses around the country have moved quickly to pass laws making it harder for people to vote.

"Couched in language about 'protecting the ballot box,' Republicans have pushed voter ID laws that disproportionately impact certain blocks of voters -- African-Americans, women, Latinos, the poor and young people -- who tend to vote against them," he wrote. "In Texas alone, 600,000 voters were at risk of being disenfranchised by the new voter ID requirements."

Lewis said it's important to call those laws what they are.

"We should not mince words: These are poll taxes by another name, the very types of discrimination we marched against 50 years ago," he said.

Since the Supreme Court ruling, states that previously required pre-clearance from the federal government -- Mississippi and Texas, to name two -- have been able to pass laws that make voting more difficult for people who are poor, disabled or a minority, through such means as requiring a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. More than half the states in the country have introduced voter ID laws since 2011.

Lewis was at the center of last week's 50th anniversary commemoration of the civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama. He led some of those marches back in 1965, and said being in Selma 50 years later reminded him how much work there is still to do when it comes to protecting voting rights.

On that day in 1965 that President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, "I would have been in utter disbelief to know that in 2015, the VRA would still be a point of debate," Lewis wrote.

The Georgia congressman is among a group of lawmakers trying to pass legislation to restore the law, but they've struggled to find GOP supporters. Their bill would update Section 4 of the law to make it apply to states and jurisdictions with voting violations in the past 15 years. So far, the House bill has just a handful of Republican cosponsors. The forthcoming Senate bill has none.

John Lewis Says Voter ID Laws Are Poll Taxes By Another Name

Carla, the Thread Topic is very specific as to what the discussion topic is. I will ask all members to please address McWhorter's essay and the question that is the topic of the OP. I don't want to get into all the other issues or pending legislation or past legislation. Your lengthy cut and paste probably violates DP site rules about quoting whole articles and I will refer you to Rule 3 for discussion in this thread.

 

[Andylusion]

Recommended reading.

The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander Cornel West 9781595586438 Amazon.com Books

The moment someone complains about criminals being locked up for criminal acts, I no longer care what else they have to say.

Nice reply. Read the book.

I read several pages available online, they are filled with the leftist bull crap that I expected to get just from the title. Not a chance I'm giving so much as a penny to support that propaganda crap filled book. Thanks for the recommendation, sorry not dumb enough to buy it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wish there was, then I'd be doing a heck of a lot better in life. Oh well. Darn anti-white racists.

Say, friend....what's that symbol in your avatar? I've never seen it before. It's very unique.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. And those of Irish and Chinese and Italian and Jewish and Japanese and Mexican et al ancestry all have really ugly histories at some time in their stories of life in America.

But the point is we now have non discrimination based on race laws on the books at the federal level and every state in the union. Affirmative Action laws were probably necessary for a short period to break down cultural barriers and allow black and white people to get used to living and working side by side. That is mostly accomplished now.

Segregation was a reality but it has been abolished. Nobody has to sit in the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain because of who or what they are any more. Everybody has full access to all public facilities and all institutions of learning etc.

So isn't it time to demand a color blind society and really allow all people to be seen and treated equally? No more of the political correctness nonsense that tends to generate more hostility than it corrects? No more protected class stuff that does put black people at a disadvantage because it forces people to treat them as more fragile and vulnerable and even inferior and incapable of achievement on their own merit. Nobody deserves that.

I agree with most all of that, if not all completely. Though I do wonder why you left out black people from the list at the top -- they suffered the worst. And they've also suffered the worst whitewashing (no pun intended) of the history books about it. I think we've all been schooled in the "no Irish need apply" signs, the treatment of Chinese railroad workers, even to some extent that of Native Americans, but how may of us have been taught of the Red Summer of 1919 and all the race riots of that time? How many are aware that beginning in the aftermath of the Civil War black people were being regularly accosted, beaten, raped, hanged, burned alive, skinned, (skinned), dragged behind vehicles, cut into pieces sold as souvenirs, and that this went on for nearly a century? Our schoolbooks somehow find a way to leave all that out, the omission of which bestows on us a great distortion. And such distortions, even in their omission, influence our perspectives and thereby our judgment. Context is vital.

I agree with all you've posted here about affirmative action and segregation laws. But those are laws. We got over the legal part, yes. What we have yet to get past is the cultural part. That's what this question is today -- a cultural one. And without knowing -- and acknowledging -- that history, cultural development can't move forward. Because culture carries its own context. It has no choice but to carry it; it's part of what makes it culture.

I was about to add that examples of ignoring context in favor of deliberately and self-servingly muddying the waters of rational discussion would appear in this thread as exhibit A - but it's already here:

Racism and other things, are tools of the left to create hate and division in the country so that people look to the government for answers thus giving it more power to create more division and hate to get more power to create division and hate to get more......

I left black people off the list because it was black people that prompted the comments and because it is racism affecting black people that is the focus of this thread. Black people are unique in that they lived here during a period of slavery, and did suffer historically more than others in degree, but they were not the only people who have suffered mistreatment by society as a whole.

And now we have a choice--a choice implied in McWhorter's essay. We can continue to live in the past and hold it up as a justification for keeping the issue of racism alive and well now--which is exactly what race baiters and opportunists do--or we can breathe a deep sigh of relief that we have dealt with it, eliminated it as an institutional policy, and opened the doorway to achieve true equal opportunity for all.

And the basis of the OP is that we don't allow people equal opportunity if we continue to keep the focus on racism which in turn suggests black people are more needy, fragile, damaged, incapable than everybody else, most especially when that is blamed on anybody who is white.

But the phrase "keeping the focus on racism" is fatally undefined. It could mean a lot of different things.

Continuing AA policies, legally and rhetorically with the idea "I'm black so society owes me" is one thing it could mean, and I agree, those are counterproductive. But knowing our cultural context -- also defined as 'history' -- is another thing the phrase could mean, and taking that focus off would be even more counterproductive.

So perhaps we need to define what we mean by "focus", and what we don't mean.

I will refer you to McWhorter's essay and the Thread topic. Let's focus on that --meaning that is what we will be discussing--and not get bogged down in a war of semantics and definitions okay?

"Focus" is fatally vague. We cannot declare "yes we should focus on race" or "no we should not focus on race" without first defining what we mean by "focus on race".

One can "focus on" a positive; one can "focus on" a negative; one can "focus on" the irrelevant. The term simply cannot be assessed without having a definition for the purpose of discussion. Any conclusion without such definition would be meaningless.

Pogo, I love you dearly. But if you are going to try to make this thread into another thread haranguing over definitions, then I will ask you to start your own thread and discuss definitions. I will very politely ask you to accept the obvious intent and content of the OP as is. If you don't like the definitions anybody else is using then define whatever terms you are using as you use them. Thanks.