Sign at George Floyd Square gives list of special orders for white visitors

[Twilight Hue]

I think if Morgan Freeman saw your comment about being enslaved by a sign to a black master he'd LOL.

No he would suggest to the person who wrote it to stop talking about it.

Don't believe it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

...Puerto Ricans are American.

Definitely.

 

[Revoltingest]

My "repeated use of white people" was in response to questions about the sign that specifies a message to white people.

It's vile racism to presume that white (or any) people are
inherently inferior to blacks in certain ways, eg, conduct
that's merely anticipated based upon a stereotype.
We should not be defending racist signs & speech.
It's counter-productive.

 

[Left Coast]

I see that there are many white people that is referring to, and for good reason. Even with good intentions, some can be insufferable arselings.
I also see an increasing acceptance of racism that holds all white people guilty. Such as a sign singling out "white people in particular." As has been pointed out in this thread, white people aren't the only ones capable of misbehaving, and not the only with members who are crap when it comes to race.
People shouldn't have to tolerate constantly being called and singled out and assumed guilty from the start, either and any and all ways it goes. That's a tool also used by guilt ridden Catholics and Evangelicals.

No guilt is assumed by the sign, though. Privilege and lack of awareness are not reasons for guilt. They're reasons to learn. If you are a white person who already knows those things, cool.

 

[Left Coast]

It's vile racism to presume that white (or any) people are
inherently inferior to blacks in certain ways, eg, conduct
that's merely anticipated based upon a stereotype.
We should not be defending racist signs & speech.
It's counter-productive.

There's no assumption of inherent inferiority of a race in the sign. There's a request to be respectful and aware of one's privilege (which isn't inherent inferiority, it's cultural superiority) in a space set aside for recognition of anti-black racism.

 

[Left Coast]

No he would suggest to the person who wrote it to stop talking about it.

Don't believe it?

Cool, you found one rich black person who thinks race is irrelevant to people's lives. And so...?

 

[Revoltingest]

There's no assumption of inherent inferiority of a race in the sign. There's a request to be respectful and aware of one's privilege (which isn't inherent inferiority, it's cultural superiority) in a space set aside for recognition of anti-black racism.

I suppose that a sign cautioning blacks to avoid rioting,
looting, & arson would be OK by this standard, ie, to be
respectful & aware of their lack of privilege (& need to
behave as though they have it), eh.
Perhaps there should be separate drinking fountains for whites?

 

[Left Coast]

I suppose that a sign cautioning blacks to avoid rioting,
looting, & arson would be OK by this standard, ie, to be
respectful & aware of their lack of privilege (& need to
behave as though they have it), eh.

Sign at George Floyd Square gives list of special orders for white visitors

Perhaps there should be separate drinking fountains for whites?

There already are.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/segregation-us-cities/

What school segregation looks like in the US today, in 4 charts

 

[Revoltingest]

Sign at George Floyd Square gives list of special orders for white visitors



There already are.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/segregation-us-cities/

What school segregation looks like in the US today, in 4 charts

This response is confusing.
Are you now defending all such different treatment according to race?

 

[Left Coast]

This response is confusing.
Are you now defending different treatment according to race?

I linked you to my explanation earlier of why racism and responses to racism are not equivalent. (@It Aint Necessarily So also did so.)

I'm also explaining that the notion of "whites only areas" already de facto exists as a legacy of systemic racism (which quite obviously I oppose).

 

[Revoltingest]

I linked you to my explanation earlier of why racism and responses to racism are not equivalent. (@It Aint Necessarily So also did so.)

I'm also explaining that the notion of "whites only areas" already de facto exists as a legacy of systemic racism (which quite obviously I oppose).

I prefer a general approach....
Don't ban certain races from areas.
Don't create signs for certain races.
Treat people as individuals....not a stereotype.

Consider the effect of the sign in question.
It's bringing scorn on those who advocate it.
To argue that it's right (even if it were) misses
the better point, ie, that it's hostile & divisive.

Tis better to be useful than right.

 

[Left Coast]

I prefer a general approach....
Don't ban certain races from areas.
Don't create signs for certain races.
Treat people as individuals....not a stereotype.

As I tried to explain earlier, people are both unique individuals in some ways and also the product of their demographics in other ways. In Ameristan we have a tendency (specifically, white people have a tendency) to be blind to those demographic effects, because those effects tend to work in our favor.

Consider the effect of the sign in question.
It's bringing scorn on those who advocate it.

To be scorned on an anonymous corner of the internet by some white folks is probably not the metric of success or failure the creators of that sign would use.

To argue that it's right (even if it were) misses
the better point, ie, that it's hostile & divisive.

As a white person, I regard it as neither. If anything I see it as gently informative and constructive.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I tried to explain earlier, people are both unique individuals in some ways and also the product of their demographics in other ways. In Ameristan we have a tendency (specifically, white people have a tendency) to be blind to those demographic effects, because those effects tend to work in our favor.

Oh, you've succeeded in explaining your position.
I just disagree that it's correct or useful.

To be scorned on an anonymous corner of the internet by some white folks is probably not the metric of success or failure the creators of that sign would use.

They should tremble in their boots at our judgement.

As a white person, I regard it as neither. If anything I see it as gently informative and constructive.

I know.
Telling blacks to not riot & loot would
be just as informative & constructive.

 

[Left Coast]

Telling blacks to not riot & loot would
be just as informative & constructive.

Except it wouldn't, because it would ignore the entire racial history of how black and white people have been treated differently for 250 years in this country. Pretending we're all equal now and all that history is erased and has no effect on current behavior or outcomes would be remarkably ignorant and unhelpful.

Edit to add: Another way to say this - your counter-example falsely equivocates between something rare and done in response to police brutality and racism ("rioting and looting") and something else that is common and done as a result of inherited privilege.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except it wouldn't, because it would ignore the entire racial history of how black and white people have been treated differently for 250 years in this country. Pretending we're all equal now and all that history is erased and has no effect on current behavior or outcomes would be remarkably ignorant and unhelpful.

Au contraire, it would recognize recent historyof how
BLM protests play out, eg, violence, looting, arson.
But I agree that "remarkably ignorant & unhelpful" it
would be...like the sign addressed to whites only.

 

[Left Coast]

Au contraire, it would recognize recent historyof how
BLM protests play out, eg, violence, looting, arson.

It would decontextualize that recent history, which is the problem with the counter-example. It compares something rare and done in response to racist violence with something pervasive and culturally inherited to the benefit of white people. They're apples and oranges.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would decontextualize that recent history, which is the problem with the counter-example. It compares something rare and done in response to racist violence with something pervasive and culturally inherited to the benefit of white people. They're apples and oranges.

Those are insufficient reasons for racist signs.
But even worse than being wrong, it's hostile.

 

[Curious George]

What would have been a better sign?

 

[Revoltingest]

What would have been a better sign?

One addressing everyone....or no one.

 

[Left Coast]

Those are insufficient reasons for racist signs.

You can keep calling something racist but that doesn't make it so. It's literally anti-racist.

Anti-racism - Wikipedia

But even worse than being wrong, it's hostile.

As I said, as a white person I don't see how it's hostile.