The Big Picture: Skin Deep

[JDKJ]

@ DUKENUK3M

Although I understand what your saying, and agree with you on Jim Crow & slavery being intimately related I have to say, Sunrise and Sunset are 2 completly different things. Related, yes but utterly different in every important way.

double

 

[JDKJ]

Actually, what I said from the very get-go is "slavery, Jim Crow, etc." Which speaks to a historical continuum that extends beyond slavery (the Jim Crow era post-dates the era of slavery) and one that arguably continues to this day. It doesn't neatly stop at just slavery nor did anything I said attempt to limit it to just slavery. You're the one attempting to end the history of racial oppression and marginalization at slavery. So you can neatly say "that was yesterday, it's got nothing to do with me today." And, frankly, if that's the best you can come up with, I can't be bothered discussing the issue with you.

There are actually two seperate discussions here.

Discussion #1: should the severity of the SRs, SBs, or JRs be applied to JBs

In this discussion, set aside for a moment that I don't take responsibility for slavery or Jim Crow (see discussion #2).

Slavery and Jim Crow are two distinct things. When you describe people who were responsible for slavery and people responsible for Jim Crow, you are describing 2 different things, even if you believe both sets to have the same contents: all white people for example. Likewise the same applies when you describe people who benefit from slavery and Jim Crow. All together we end with four different sets that may not necessarily have the same contents and their definitions remain distinct even if they do have the same contents. There are of course overlaps between these sets.

The 4 sets:

SR = Responsible for slavery
SB = Benefited from slavery
JR = Responsible for Jim Crow
JB = Benefited from Jim Crow

It should obvious both that it is worse to do something bad than to inadvertently benefit from something bad and that slavery was more severe than Jim Crow. I would also contend that SRs and SBs represented a minority of whites in their time and they are also now long dead.

You claim that all white Americans are JBs and let's assume that is the case. The racial debt of JBs should limited specifically to being JBs and should not extend to those other more severe groups of which the JBs are not members. If who we are defines our racial debt then definition of our racial debt should remain static for the duration of the argument. You cannot, on the one hand, take a very loose definition of the racial debt to net as large a group as possible and then, on the other hand, take a very harsh of definition of the racial debt to come down on said group as hard a possible.

Discussion #2: are all white Americans JBs?

I'm not attempting to, in your words, "end history". I'm simply stating that I am not responsble for it. Everyone is born with a balance of 0. You say that I was born with this debt, it seems nuts to me. Would my children be born with the debt too? Grandchildren? Just for having white skin and being born in America?

I'm almost sorry that you took such pains to make a non-existent point. Aren't you aware that the enactment of Jim Crow laws by the South was an outgrowth of and a direct reaction to the abolition of slavery and was intended to keep the newly free slaves in their place? Slavery and Jim Crow aren't at all "two distinct things." No more than sunrise is distinct from sunset.

I never said that were not related, but that they were two different things. Distinct items that are related.

Yes, related in the way that sunrise is related to sunset. As in, indivisibly related.

 

[JDKJ]

Yeah but modern folks aren't responsible for that slavery so to use that as an excuse for double standards is also silly.

As an African American i get real tired of the "I didnt own any slaves" argument against the effects of slavery.

True, no one alive today owned any slaves, but whether you admit it or not, you are a direct benefactor of the institution of slavery, and institutionalized racism. And conversley those elements affect me and others on a daily basis.

I never said I didn't benefit I said I'm not responsible for it so you shouldn't try to make me feel guilty about it. Hell I highly doubt my ancestors owned slaves since it seems like most of them immigrated to the U.S. after slavery ended.

But the fact remains that you benefit from not only slavery, but the long history of America's institutionalized racism. No one's -- I don't think -- trying to send you off on a guilt trip. Rather, the point is that if, after all those years, you, as a member of the majority group, are now being made to carry the burden in the form of some sort of "affirmative action" which cuts you a bad deal so that the formerly marginalized groups can finally get a decent deal, then that seems to me entirely fair.

I don't think that's fair and I don't think the ends justify treating people unfairly.

What one thinks is "fair" or not is often a function of whose ox is being gored.

I don't think it's fair because I don't buy 'the ends justify the means'.

Little late to be introducing "morality" into the mix, ain't it?

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

slave ships = segregated school systems = choosing to move to a whiter part of town

They are all the same you see! Each of these is as bad of the others, at least when it is suitable for the argument![sarcasm]

 

[JDKJ]

slave ships = segregated school systems = choosing to move to a whiter part of town

They are all the same you see! Each of these is as bad of the others, at least when it is suitable for the argument![sarcasm]

Pure sophistry. All-natural, 100%, fat-free sophistry.

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

slave ships = segregated school systems = choosing to move to a whiter part of town

They are all the same you see! Each of these is as bad of the others, at least when it is suitable for the argument![sarcasm]

Pure sophistry. All-natural, 100%, fat-free sophistry.

slavery was more severe than Jim Crow was more severe than non-institutional racism of individuals

Reality, how does it work again???

 

[JDKJ]

slave ships = segregated school systems = choosing to move to a whiter part of town

They are all the same you see! Each of these is as bad of the others, at least when it is suitable for the argument![sarcasm]

Pure sophistry. All-natural, 100%, fat-free sophistry.

slavery was more severe than Jim Crow was more severe non-institutional racism of individuals

Reality, how does it work again???

Where did you study History? Are you aware that upon abolition, when blacks, formerly slaves in the South, lost the status of valuable property, they were 10 times more likely to be killed by whites for the most trivial of "offenses" than they would have been under slavery? And that share-croppers (which many of the former slaves became upon abolition) were actually treated better when they were slaves? Arguably, life under Jim Crow was far worse for blacks than it was under slavery. The Ku Klux Klan was organized in response to the perceived need to ensure the Jim Crow status of Southern blacks.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

I still disagree. If I were to go to a country that was 90% black, and 10% white (somehow through the power of magical hypotheticalness there are no other minorities), I would not start demanding they change roles simply to suit "white people". I also wouldn't demand they keep roles within gender bounds either. I'd demand (or perhaps merely suggest) they go with what works. In the Thor example, it seemed to work quite well. There was nothing about the story that required him to be white, they are magical freakin' gods.

Uh, yeah. I don't think anyone is arguing that you shouldn't go with what works. I do believe saying "something that works is okay" is more or less implicit. The question is surrounding that pivotal "whatever works" part, and black Santa "works" a lot better (or at the very least, with more leniency) than white Panther. This is because, again, in practice there are numerically fewer suitable roles traditionally suited for white people than there are for black people, and so we tend to give the benefit of the doubt to traditionally white roles moreso than to traditionally black roles.

As for the Thor examples, the "magical freakin' gods" are traditionally envisioned as white. I don't think there would nearly be as much defense for a black Heimdall if Heimdall was the god of fair skin. The idea is that Heimdall was made by white Norse folk, envisioned as white Norse folk, and in Marvel comics, depicted as a white Norse folk. Again, we're arguing traditional depictions. If Oscar Schindler was played by a black guy, suspension of disbelief is thrown straight out the window.

I believe in meritocracy. Roles should be given to whomever can play them the best, irrespective of race. That goes both ways.

And how well you can play the roles is strongly dependent on the cultural sentiments on the time. If anyone from the 90's saw Heath Ledger's depiction of the Joker, a good "What the fuck!?" would be in order. The cultural relevance of The Dark Knight was what made it work. In the same vein, the cultural sentiments of our modern times evidence compensation for long, continuing effects of ethnic prejudice, so, again, black Karate Kid is more acceptable than white Beverly Hills Cop.

I'm not saying this is a logical absolute. I don't think anything I've said is a logical absolute. The fact of the matter is, that if a white guy plays a traditionally ethnic role, he's fighting an uphill battle. Moreso than vice-versa.

I'd say both are in fact equally acceptable. There was nothing about the blackness of Eddie Murphy's character that was necessary. Rocky, nor Apollo Creed, were defined by their race really, at least not to the point where the story would change otherwise.

All you need for a Beverly Hills Cop is a fast talking funny cop that can also play serious when the time is right. The Karate Kid . . . every race has little guys getting beat up.

You are right about cultural sentiments, but that only goes so far. In the example of Thor, we only have a small minority of people who cared. Same goes with DBZ and Avatar (frankly I don't see the Avatar connection, it was a cartoon, it wasn't played by an actual actor, there were no real races in that world, but I digress).

The question should always be "does it work". Not "has this group had it rough already so let's now in turn be unfair to another group".

 

[Cosplay Horatio]

Well done Bob. If you do ever dedicate an entire episode to a cartoon instead of Samurai Pizza Cats would you please start with Ronin Warriors / Samurai Troopers?

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

Where did you study History? Are you aware that upon abolition, when blacks, formerly slaves in the South, lost the status of valuable property, they were 10 times more likely to be killed by whites for the most trivial of "offenses" than they would have been under slavery? And that share-croppers (which many of the former slaves became upon abolition) were actually treated better when they were slaves? Arguably, life under Jim Crow was far worse for blacks than it was under slavery. The Ku Klux Klan was organized in response to the perceived need to ensure the Jim Crow status of Southern blacks.

My great grandfather was a sharecropper.

Also, it clearly didn't stop them from moving to the cities or other parts of the country or starting the civil rights movement.

 

[RanceJustice]

slave ships = segregated school systems = choosing to move to a whiter part of town

They are all the same you see! Each of these is as bad of the others, at least when it is suitable for the argument![sarcasm]

Pure sophistry. All-natural, 100%, fat-free sophistry.

slavery was more severe than Jim Crow was more severe non-institutional racism of individuals

Reality, how does it work again???

Where did you study History? Are you aware that upon abolition, when blacks, formerly slaves in the South, lost the status of valuable property, they were 10 times more likely to be killed by whites for the most trivial of "offenses" than they would have been under slavery?

I believe you're waffling back and forth between institutionalized and illegal acts of individuals acting in accordance to their own beliefs.. If I'm in a Chinese prison as a dissident, I'm probably going to have a much lower chance of having my pockets picked or getting rolled for a kidney in the back allies of Hong Kong, but that doesn't make the two dangers the same. One is perpetrated by a government with the full legal knowledge of why I'm being held, the other is the result of a few aberrant individuals who act outside the law and are motivated to do so from a variety of distributed reasons.

 

[metalmanky306]

Because that "bais" isn't pointless. It serves the purpose, as you claim, of ensuring that there were some blacks cast in the movie. That's pointed, not pointless.

what exactly, then, is the point? how exactly does it sound to cast someone because of the colour of their skin? it doesn't sound good to me.

 

[JDKJ]

My great grandfather was a sharecropper.

And? My great-grandfather was a circus clown but I can't juggle three bowling pins to save my life. What's your point?

 

[JDKJ]

Because that "bais" isn't pointless. It serves the purpose, as you claim, of ensuring that there were some blacks cast in the movie. That's pointed, not pointless.

what exactly, then, is the point? how exactly does it sound to cast someone because of the colour of their skin? it doesn't sound good to me.

If you're an outta work actor, I'd imagine getting cast for any role, for any reason, sound gooder than ************.

 

[Ursinedriver]

slave ships = segregated school systems = choosing to move to a whiter part of town

They are all the same you see! Each of these is as bad of the others, at least when it is suitable for the argument![sarcasm]

Pure sophistry. All-natural, 100%, fat-free sophistry.

slavery was more severe than Jim Crow was more severe non-institutional racism of individuals

Reality, how does it work again???

Where did you study History? Are you aware that upon abolition, when blacks, formerly slaves in the South, lost the status of valuable property, they were 10 times more likely to be killed by whites for the most trivial of "offenses" than they would have been under slavery?

Yes, I knew that, although ill admit I didn't have a concrete number, but what does that have to do with the argument? In the past society was extremly unfair to my people. We all agree on that. The question is does that make even marginal unfairness against whites right going into the future? My answer is no.

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

My great grandfather was a sharecropper.

And? My great-grandfather was a circus clown but I can't juggle three bowling pins to save my life. What's your point?

Life is hard for a lot of people. I'm not as impressed as you seem to think I ought to be.

 

[JDKJ]

slave ships = segregated school systems = choosing to move to a whiter part of town

They are all the same you see! Each of these is as bad of the others, at least when it is suitable for the argument![sarcasm]

Pure sophistry. All-natural, 100%, fat-free sophistry.

slavery was more severe than Jim Crow was more severe non-institutional racism of individuals

Reality, how does it work again???

Where did you study History? Are you aware that upon abolition, when blacks, formerly slaves in the South, lost the status of valuable property, they were 10 times more likely to be killed by whites for the most trivial of "offenses" than they would have been under slavery?

I believe you're waffling back and forth between institutionalized and illegal acts of individuals acting in accordance to their own beliefs.. If I'm in a Chinese prison as a dissident, I'm probably going to have a much lower chance of having my pockets picked or getting rolled for a kidney in the back allies of Hong Kong, but that doesn't make the two dangers the same. One is perpetrated by a government with the full legal knowledge of why I'm being held, the other is the result of a few aberrant individuals who act outside the law and are motivated to do so from a variety of distributed reasons.

Who killed Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney? The Klan or the Sheriff's Office? Or both? Sheriff by day, Klansman by night. Sunrise, sunset.

 

[Tinybear]

... we are being forced down our throats that until children of all colours and religions dance under a rainbow, we need to be more tolerant.

You have earned the Button Pusher badge!
You got this badge by finding a button and pushing it.

The button was the word "tolerant" up there.

I'm tolerating the noise of a hedge-trimmer or chainsaw or leaf-blower or something like that.
I tolerate traffic.
I tolerate people walking those strange little creatures that they call dogs despite them being snack-sized to an ocelot.
I tolerate dandelions in the lawn because I'm too lazy to go round and get rid of them all.
I tolerate having to wait to use the microwave.
I tolerate bad weather.

I don't tolerate litter building up in my garden. I get rid of it.
I don't tolerate drakes raping ducks in my garden. I chase them off, and am getting closer and closer to shooting one of the bastards.
I don't tolerate pigeons, grey squirrels or rats. I shoot them. (Yes, "*boom* headshot" and all that.)
I won't tolerate people raiding the birds' nests around here. It's going to be hard to climb a tree with both your arms dislocated and broken, isn't it, kid?
I don't tolerate crap radio stations when I'm driving. Don't push it.

I don't tolerate homosexuality or black people or inter-racial marriages or Buddhists because I don't see anything there to tolerate. Do you tolerate rivers existing on other continents? Do you tolerate the fact there are planets orbiting other stars? Do you tolerate birdsong a hundred miles away?

WHAT? What is it with this forum's users and always interpreting everything to the extreme or literal sense? seriously...

Do you know what I am talking about when it comes to "forced tolerance"? Do you?

No, you don't.

We aren't forced to tolerate homosexuals, most people don't care about homosexuality, and the rest have usually learned to tolerate, or at least object in a civil manner. We are being forced to tolerate that in the east side of the capital of Norway, Oslo, homosexuals can't walk safely because the muslim majority in that part of the city will throw rocks at them. We are forced to tolerate that the count of assault and rape has skyrocketed the last 20 years thanks to asylum-applicants from countries like Somalia and some other north-east african countries and middle eastern countries. These aren't racist opinions, these are statistics provided by the police themselves, most probably made public to give a proper kick to the balls of the politicians who have made the situation what it is.

We saw the main street of Oslo get a full blown looting spree during an anti-Israel protest. The remaining "indigenous" population of the east side is moving out at alarming speeds. Some elementary schools have over 90% un-indigenous children, and the staff at these schools say that they have given up trying to help them integrate and learn Norwegian language, norms and culture, and instead just try their best to make sure the basic skills are taught as well as possible.

This is what we need to be "tolerant" of. A state of affairs, that if left the way it is, can with large probability become a major crisis in the end of this century. "Tolerance" in Europe is more of a denial of affairs than it is to be lenient towards differences. I can tolerate people giving me the finger, people listening to crap music these days, and people being shitty drivers. I am told that I am supposed to tolerate the fact that the whole "multicultural project" has made the streets of my city dangerous again (well, they weren't exactly the safest to begin with, but they have become so much worse lately), and you know what, I can't tolerate that. I can't tolerate women being raped on their way home from a party. Does that make me a bad person? Because in this country, the media and left wing government (and half of the right wing as well sadly enough) is saying that it's all racism, and that we shouldn't let things like an increase from 0-2 yearly enforced rapes to 30-40 influence us, because we gain so much by importing uneducated people from a culture that believes women to be worth half of what men are.

And yet again, if you're American and replying to this, understand that the situation in Europe is quite opposite of the one in the US. Americans screaming "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" are usually just jerks, brainwashed fox news watchers, or racists. In Europe, there is more of a 20/80 blend of racists and actually concerned people. (well, that depends a bit on definitions of racism and the location).

I am not a racist, but I'm not a believer in the whole hippie philosophy that "everyone can change" either. If a person is raised in a culture where beating the wife is a normal thing, and having absolute authority over the family is self explanatory, I doubt that person will change at age 30 from being a violent semi-psychopath to a friendly wife respecting individual just because we show him that it's what we want him to become.

Oh and btw, I am a firm believer in the right for homosexuals to marry and all that. Don't really give a shit, not as if marriage is sacred anyway, or ever has been.

Truth be told, I don't give a shit about any marriage or belief as long as it is with full consent from all concerned parties (like no forced marriages or that shit, that's just messed up, and no forcing religious values onto other people, like some more fanatical Muslims wanting to stone all homosexuals).

So yeah, learn to read.

 

[JDKJ]

slave ships = segregated school systems = choosing to move to a whiter part of town

They are all the same you see! Each of these is as bad of the others, at least when it is suitable for the argument![sarcasm]

Pure sophistry. All-natural, 100%, fat-free sophistry.

slavery was more severe than Jim Crow was more severe non-institutional racism of individuals

Reality, how does it work again???

Where did you study History? Are you aware that upon abolition, when blacks, formerly slaves in the South, lost the status of valuable property, they were 10 times more likely to be killed by whites for the most trivial of "offenses" than they would have been under slavery?

Yes, I knew that, although ill admit I didn't have a concrete number, but what does that have to do with the argument? In the past society was extremly unfair to my people. We all agree on that. The question is does that make even marginal unfairness against whites right going into the future? My answer is no.

The point was made in response to the erroneous statement that "slavery was more severe than Jim Crow." ^^