Black Lives Matter Group Told Meeting Must Include Anyone

[metis]

Here's from the movement's own website on this:

The statement “black lives matter” is not an anti-white proposition. Contained within the statement is an unspoken but implied “too,” as in “black lives matter, too,” which suggests that the statement is one of inclusion rather than exclusion. However, those white people who continue to mischaracterize the affirmation of the value of black life as being anti-white are suggesting that in order for white lives to matter, black lives cannot. That is a foundational premise of white supremacy. It is antithetical to what the Black Lives Matter movement stands for, which is the simple proposition that “black lives also matter.” The Black Lives Matter movement demands that the country affirm the value of black life in practical and pragmatic ways, including addressing an increasing racial wealth gap, fixing public schools that are failing, combating issues of housing inequality and gentrification that continue to push people of color out of communities they have lived in for generations, and dismantling the prison industrial complex. None of this is about hatred for white life. It is about acknowledging that the system already treats white lives as if they have more value, as if they are more worthy of protection, safety, education, and a good quality of life than black lives are. This must change. -- http://blacklivesmatter.com/11-major-misconceptions-about-the-black-lives-matter-movement/

 

[Curious George]

Racism is not a black and white issue. (takes bow for the pun).
People are more or less racist, under different circumstances, while addressing different audiences, etc. etc.
"Categorization" is built in to us. Perhaps by evolution, maybe God, maybe something else. We use the information we have to get along, and reproduce our genes. Because that is what we are designed to do.
Morality is learning that we can do better. Pragmatism is learning that we generally won't.
Tom

Really. What definition of racism are you using for this apologetic piece?

You think it is built in to more or less think one is superior by virtue of race? What definition of race are you using? Categorization is built in, but this does not entail that which you suggest.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, and I do agree with this. To deny racism exists and that it's a problem is in turn actually racist itself.

Methinks you are confusing discrimination and racism.

 

[columbus]

Perhaps?
I hereby order it!

I'm on the verge of being banned by RF. Are you sure you want me to be honest?
Tom

 

[metis]

Actually it was my terrible wording, so let me restate it: "To deny racism exists is actually racist."

Thanks for the heads-up, and I'll correct it immediately.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm on the verge of being banned by RF. Are you sure you want me to be honest?
Tom

They always wanna ban me friends!
Dare to state your case.....just do so with the rules & spirit in mind.

 

[metis]

I'm on the verge of being banned by RF.
Tom

Why? You can p.m. if you'd like. You might be all too often wrong , but I don't see you as being offensive.

 

[Curious George]

To deny racism exists is actually racist

obviously, you think you think there is no mix-up. So please elaborate, how would the denial of racism be racist?

 

[metis]

obviously, you think you think there is no mix-up. So please elaborate, how would the denial of racism be racist?

Because racism is alive and well in the U.S., and no one group has a monopoly on it. Let me tell ya a true story that involved someone at another website.

This poster from Tennessee was making the claim that racism was pretty much absent in his state at this time. Not only didn't I believe him, but he had made some previous posts over the roughly 5-6 years that I knew him that pretty much told me he was quite racist-- you see the pattern after a while.

A few months after that, a close friend of mine came up from his home near Murfreesboro, Tn., to spend some time with us, and when I told him what this poster had written, my friend almost gave himself a hernia laughing.

 

[Curious George]

Because racism is alive and well in the U.S., and no one group has a monopoly on it. Let me tell ya a true story that involved someone at another website.

This poster from Tennessee was making the claim that racism was pretty much absent in his state at this time. Not only didn't I believe him, but he had made some previous posts over the roughly 5-6 years that I knew him that pretty much told me he was quite racist-- you see the pattern after a while.

A few months after that, a close friend of mine came up from his home near Murfreesboro, Tn., to spend some time with us, and when I told him what this poster had written, my friend almost gave himself a hernia laughing.

Ahh so you are drawing conclusions based on your personal experience and that which comes through media to determine something is generally true, and then you decide to make broad sweeping generalizations based on this anecdotal evidenc. In actuality, you have no logic to back up this seemingly analytic statement, and in fact there is nothing about declaring racism doesn't exist that entails racism?

Well, sure. At least you're honest. Now, if I may have a turn... Racism is deals with belief of superiority and inferiority. Racial discrimination however, deals with both disparate treatment and disparate impact based on race. We have clear evidence that both of these occur today...I would even venture so far as to say we have clear evidence that these occur in part from feelings of superiority and inferiority (i.e. racism--yes it does exist). However, the statement that racism does not exist itself carries no inherent feelings of either superiority or inferiority, however, one could and obviously should argue that such statements cause both disparate treatment and create a disparate impact on people based on racial characteristics (I.e. discrimination). Thus, the statement racism doesn't exist is discriminatory or at least leads to discrimination, but is not inherently racist.

 

[metis]

Ahh so you are drawing conclusions based on your personal experience and that which comes through media to determine something is generally true, and then you decide to make broad sweeping generalizations based on this anecdotal evidenc. In actuality, you have no logic to back up this seemingly analytic statement, and in fact there is nothing about declaring racism doesn't exist that entails racism?

Well, sure. At least you're honest. Now, if I may have a turn... Racism is deals with belief of superiority and inferiority. Racial discrimination however, deals with both disparate treatment and disparate impact based on race. We have clear evidence that both of these occur today...I would even venture so far as to say we have clear evidence that these occur in part from feelings of superiority and inferiority (i.e. racism--yes it does exist). However, the statement that racism does not exist itself carries no inherent feelings of either superiority or inferiority, however, one could and obviously should argue that such statements cause both disparate treatment and create a disparate impact on people based on racial characteristics (I.e. discrimination). Thus, the statement racism doesn't exist is discriminatory or at least leads to discrimination, but is not inherently racist.

I appreciate your response even though we don't appear to agree on your disagreement with what I posted. And, btw, my opinion was not just based on an experience as this is an issue I've been involved with for many, many years, including covering it in my anthropology and political science courses. That doesn't mean nor imply that I'm always right, however.

 

[Curious George]

I appreciate your response even though we don't appear to agree on your disagreement with what I posted. And, btw, my opinion was not just based on an experience as this is an issue I've been involved with for many, many years, including covering it in my anthropology and political science courses. That doesn't mean nor imply that I'm always right, however.

Your response to my request for an explanation seemed to indicate personal experience is what you were using as your guide. If you have a different explanation that your personal experience corroborates I would love to hear it. I thought, because of personal frustration with dealing with people who say such things as "I don't see race, or I'm colorblind concerning race, that I should let your statement stand unchallenged. However, the failure to make a distinction between racial discrimination and racism has led to horrible equivocation which is demonstrated by the "affirmative action," or any other attempt at trying to remedy current consequences of past racism, is racist groups.

And it is also apparent in the relatively rare belief that blacks can't be racist. Not every discriminatory practice is racist. Some, are even justified. Such justification must pass scrutiny, and the level we employ to determine whether the discrimination is justified is very high when dealing with race.

 

[metis]

Your response to my request for an explanation seemed to indicate personal experience is what you were using as your guide. If you have a different explanation that your personal experience corroborates I would love to hear it. I thought, because of personal frustration with dealing with people who say such things as "I don't see race, or I'm colorblind concerning race, that I should let your statement stand unchallenged. However, the failure to make a distinction between racial discrimination and racism has led to horrible equivocation which is demonstrated by the "affirmative action," or any other attempt at trying to remedy current consequences of past racism, is racist groups.

And it is also apparent in the relatively rare belief that blacks can't be racist. Not every discriminatory practice is racist. Some, are even justified. Such justification must pass scrutiny, and the level we employ to determine whether the discrimination is justified is very high when dealing with race.

I really don't have the time to deal with this today, but type something and I'll get back with ya tomorrow.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...at-private-event-in-south-carolina/ar-BBpYTeN

Two Black Lives Matter activists interrupted a private Hillary Clinton fundraising event Wednesday night in Charleston, South Carolina.

Youth activist Ashley Williams protested Clinton, demanding that the Democratic presidential candidate account for inconsistencies on her record on race, specifically around her comments made about crime in 1996.

Williams and her colleague, whom she did not identify, contributed $500 to attend the Clinton event, which was held at a private residence with around 100 people, she estimated.

Williams said she and her colleague strategically placed themselves at the front of the crowd and waited until Clinton appeared. Speakers introducing Clinton around 9:30 p.m. Wednesday night spoke of Walter Scott, the Charleston A.M.E. shootings and how Clinton had a strong record of racial justice.

As Clinton spoke to the crowd, Williams stood to her side and held a sign quoting controversial statements made in 1996 when she said "we have to bring them to heel" in reference to at-risk youth.

 

[metis]

Your response to my request for an explanation seemed to indicate personal experience is what you were using as your guide. If you have a different explanation that your personal experience corroborates I would love to hear it. I thought, because of personal frustration with dealing with people who say such things as "I don't see race, or I'm colorblind concerning race, that I should let your statement stand unchallenged. However, the failure to make a distinction between racial discrimination and racism has led to horrible equivocation which is demonstrated by the "affirmative action," or any other attempt at trying to remedy current consequences of past racism, is racist groups.

And it is also apparent in the relatively rare belief that blacks can't be racist. Not every discriminatory practice is racist. Some, are even justified. Such justification must pass scrutiny, and the level we employ to determine whether the discrimination is justified is very high when dealing with race.

First of all, I think we need to define terms here because our disconnect may relate to that. So:

discrimination: always an action that involves differential treatment; it is neither intrinsically "good" or "bad".

racism: usually an action that is used to deny a "racial" or nationality group fair treatment, but in some cases it may refer to a mindset, depending on context; it may at times even be unintentional, such as with what is referred to as "institutionalized racism".

So, when I wrote "To deny racism exists is actually racist", that is really a correct statement that fits the definition I was using above. The only exception that I can conjure up is if a person is so uneducated that they never read the papers, watch news on t.v., or observe any racist actions in their lives, plus never taking racist actions themselves, maybe they could be oblivious to it all and not be racist.

Therefore, discrimination may or my not be racism, nor does racism, if only an attitude that's not put into action, always lead to discrimination.

 

[metis]

What definition of race are you using? .

As an anthropologist, I don't believe in "race" in the human context, but there's no doubt that the word "racism" prevails in our language, so that's why I'm using it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As an anthropologist, I don't believe in "race" in the human context, but there's no doubt that the word "racism" prevails in our language, so that's why I'm using it.

Too bad there aren't more of us who delve into anthropology and take its observations to heart. But, unfortunately, I think many people probably couldn't emotionally handle such revelations, because having some of their deeply held views would cause intense cognitive dissonance as these views are shattered.

 

[metis]

Too bad there aren't more of us who delve into anthropology and take its observations to heart. But, unfortunately, I think many people probably couldn't emotionally handle such revelations, because having some of their deeply held views would cause intense cognitive dissonance as these views are shattered.

Absolutely, and I saw that happen with literally most of my students in anthropology. The discussions at the end of the course we so different than at the beginning, and I warned students on the very first day that they were going to hear, read, and/or see things that will really get under their skin at times.

 

[Curious George]

First of all, I think we need to define terms here because our disconnect may relate to that. So:

discrimination: always an action that involves differential treatment; it is neither intrinsically "good" or "bad".

racism: usually an action that is used to deny a "racial" or nationality group fair treatment, but in some cases it may refer to a mindset, depending on context; it may at times even be unintentional, such as with what is referred to as "institutionalized racism".

So, when I wrote "To deny racism exists is actually racist", that is really a correct statement that fits the definition I was using above. The only exception that I can conjure up is if a person is so uneducated that they never read the papers, watch news on t.v., or observe any racist actions in their lives, plus never taking racist actions themselves, maybe they could be oblivious to it all and not be racist.

Therefore, discrimination may or my not be racism, nor does racism, if only an attitude that's not put into action, always lead to discrimination.

A statement by a person cannot be institutional racism. The idea behind institutional racism is certainly disparate impact similar to discrimination, however, we look at institutional racism because the institution treats, as superior or inferior, specific races. Perhaps if this is to what you are referring then we can agree that the statement can perpetuate racism, but the statement still does not entail such, as the speaker needs influence over the institution.

 

[Curious George]

As an anthropologist, I don't believe in "race" in the human context, but there's no doubt that the word "racism" prevails in our language, so that's why I'm using it.

I haven't questioned your use, but thank you for the aside. We can without doubt establish that perception of race, however difficult to pin down is consequential. I am not saying that it is not. I am questioning the assertion that the racism is "built in." If you think this is true then you can explain.