George Zimmerman, race and the NAACP

[Sander]

Do you have any idea how much money the federal government already puts into education? (Hint: it's WAAAAAAAAY more than the rest of the world). While private schools and universities have to beg for loans. Since I work in this field and you don't, I can comfortably say your proposal is the exact opposite of what is needed. I even explained earlier in this thread what the problem is and why college tuition is going up. I live it. You don't.

Interesting. I'll defer to your judgment as I don't have the time to go through research on the subject right now. I was referring more to primary schools anyway, which is where a lot of the problems do start. And there's some interesting research that suggests pre-school education can even have a large effect on long-term achievements.

Dumping more money into public education doesn't fix the problem that the majority of black students just have no interest in learning. You can keep throwing money at the problem, but as you can see that doesn't really change anything.

Obviously, the money has to be spent smartly. But when schools outside poor neighborhoods are better than those inside, when people pull their kids from schools to put them in private education, there are obviously quality problems you want to address.

One part of the solution might be making funding for each high school equal. By creating standardized tests and allowing parents to choose schools based on those standardized tests (as I understand it, you can't just pull your kid from one school and put it in another school unless it's within the same district -- correct me if I'm wrong). That has shown considerable results in other countries by creating competition for students.

But, as with all these solutions, this is a complicated issue and there are no easy, quick-fix solutions. It takes long-term investment.

So you're an advocate of having the middle class foot the bill so that black families get a free ride to a nice neighborhood, while they themselves are struggling to pay the bills and deal with debt? No fucking thanks.

That's a pretty weird way to put it. I'm a fan of alleviating poverty and getting people out of the poverty trap. Looking sternly at them and punishing people for being poor obviously isn't working.

I also never said "having the middle class foot the bill". In fact, I'd say that having the upper class (the top 20%) foot most of the bill would fit nicely with a lot of other goals as well. And yes, you could easily do that -- and most people would support it if they understood the actual wealth distribution. This video neatly illustrates that.

The USA spent around 12% of its GDP on social transfers in 1995, per Peter H. Lindert's Growing Public. Most of Western Europe spent 25-30%. The latter is clearly doing better at avoiding poverty traps, and has much fairer income distribution. I would say that that is preferable to the problem the USA has now.

And yes, that means giving poor people more money/support.

They're treated differently because they commit more violent crimes than any other racial group. They are more criminal than any other portion of the population. You can't get around those statistics.

This is a circular problem, right? When you start treating a portion of your population as criminal and that population is a lot less wealthy than the rest of the nation, then you shouldn't be surprised to see more crime.

So then you need to find a breakthrough, somewhere. And the easiest breakthrough is to stop profiling. That will help achieve a cultural shift -- because you do believe that culture is the problem, right? You can't achieve that cultural shift by doing nothing and you certainly won't help make any part of the population actually part of the population in general by treating people differently.

A lot of those policies are also problematic because they tend to not actually work. Like the incredibly punitive drug laws, or the infamous New York stop-and-frisk laws. Or the fact that a black man in an expensive car is likely to get pulled over. Those policies don't work, they tend to single out one population group -- so why would you want them?

Another part of this problem is laws that do affect the black community more than others. Such as Voter ID laws, gerrymandering, the limiting of early-voting in black districts, limiting/moving voting locations etc. etc. etc. Whether or not there are valid reasons for those laws (and there isn't any real evidence that voter fraud is a big problem -- especially with the relatively low voter turnouts the US has anyway), the reality is that they do affect one portion of the population more than the other. And that portion of the population sees that, and reacts predictably: with a feeling that they are being treated differently.

Agreed, but that's never going to happen. The two party system isn't going anywhere.

Most of these propositions aren't going to be implemented for a variety of reasons. But they are what is needed.

My view's a little pessimistic in that sense: you need massive reforms to fix this shit. And you're not going to get them in the near future.

Expanding welfare isn't what I would call a reasonable solution. The middle class is already being crushed under the weight of the poor/lazy. The system is broken beyond belief (see: welfare cliff), and further expanding it discourages people from actually working. Why slave away at a 9-5 job when you can sit at home all day, eating free food, watching free tv, doing drugs paid for by bartering with your EBT, and fucking and plopping out more kids to neglect and abuse to receive more benefits?

Sure, your welfare system is shitty and needs a massive overhaul. And there are some nasty negative incentives at points. But the overall system is that you are giving much, much less money to the poor than nearly any other developed country. 12% of GDP vs 25-30% of GDP in Western Europe.

Part of the problem is that perception, by the way. It makes it much harder to expand a welfare system even when it's needed. For instance, you seem to think that the problem right now is that poor people don't want to get a job. But evidence suggests that the issue right now is that there are no jobs for those people to get whether or not they want them. Living on welfare isn't fun, either.

Don't tell me you can't see the difference between looking up to doctors and astronauts vs thug rappers/football/basketball players.

Baseball players? Guitar players? Singers? Models? Pilots? That shit happens all across the group.


And what do you think people in poor white communities look up to?

That doesn't mean there isn't a cultural problem, but anecdotal evidence isn't very convincing specifically because it tends to be filled with confirmation bias.

 

[Mad Max RW]

OK, who do poor white kids look up to? How about their fathers? Statistically more children who grow up in a single parent household end up falling into a life of crime and have a much harder chance at escaping poverty. Additionally, they have their own kids too young and repeat the cycle. 75% of black children do not have a father in their lives. I explained earlier why this is the case: the junk public education and victim mentality progressive culture brainwashed into them.

Seriously, watch Larry Elder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ywauUc-ZhbA
He gets it. Now he's receiving death threats for having the balls to talk about the truth.

 

[Sander]

OK, who do poor white kids look up to? How about their fathers? Statistically more children who grow up in a single parent household end up falling into a life of crime and have a much harder chance at escaping poverty. Additionally, they have their own kids too young and repeat the cycle. 75% of black children do not have a father in their lives.

Sure, that's part of the issue. Or rather, that's an issue of a lack of investment in youth. But it's also a reflection of a nationwide trend of people simply raising children by themselves more frequently.

To distill it to that is to oversimplify something that is much, much more complicated though.

Also, your statistics are actually off by a bit. 33.4% of black children live with both their parents according to this. 4.2% live with their father only, which would mean 62.6% live without their father (though maybe they have a father figure). Of course, single-mother households tend to do significantly better than single-father households. That's still higher, but the difference is much smaller.

Also, interestingly, the percentage of unmarried births has remained stagnant within the black population since the early '90s, while it has risen in every other population. The gap is closing, though perhaps not in the way you would want. That seems to suggest that perhaps that isn't really the issue. And, of course, if you look at way back when blacks did have more intact families, things were much worse for them overall.

Also, there's some research suggesting that those effects can be mitigated significantly by schools with better socioeconomic status and more social capital. Which then goes back to the whole point of poverty, the poverty trap and problems with primary education.

I explained earlier why this is the case: the junk public education and victim mentality progressive culture brainwashed into them.

You stated that that was the case and continue to state it, but you haven't ever actually explained how this would work. Are black people having kids when they're too young because they think they're victims? Are parents leaving their kids because they think they're victims? How do you think this works? To me, it mostly sounds like a rationalization to cut down welfare rather than a well-reasoned causal relationship.

It also doesn't change a thing about the solutions. Specifically the "junk public education" thing just means improve education. Which has been my point -- whether you do that through private or public education doesn't really matter, but providing students with real equal access to real equal education does matter -- and that tends to be harder in a private education system. Public education is just a tool, not a goal.

Larry Elder

Said that racism wasn't a problem in America anymore. Demonstrable horseshit.

Not that I like Piers Morgan. He's an asshole, too.

 

[TheWesDude]

The fact is that whitey is to blame for a crapload of the problems black people (and poor people in general) face, historically and still today. The fact that people want to brush that aside as an excuse when it's reality is troubling. It doesn't help anyone. To address problems you need to understand their cause. And racial issues and oppression are part of why we are where we are today.

you can have all the "white guilt" that you want.

i feel none.

unlike you appear to think, i know the problem today is not "whitey" but rather themselves and the top 10%.

if you think "whitey" is still to blame for the plight of the poor people and especially minorities, then you have not paid attention to the real causes.

if you want the white guilt, you can have it. it is not mine.

 

[Mad Max RW]

They're having kids so young because they're not being told NOT TO. The schools aren't telling them and their parents aren't around to tell them either. In fact, it's very common in the inner city schools for the only goal among girls is to have a baby and collect welfare. Most boys want to become rappers and have sex with as many girls as they can. They openly admit it. I see it all the time. Kids who want to go to college and work are a rarity. That's why half never graduate highschool and are functionally illiterate. Every teacher I know burns out trying to change it or runs to private education after a few years. The so called Civil Rights leaders don't talk about it. Instead they make a fortune going around preaching about "social justice" and how the white man is out to get them. This is the culture and nobody is telling them it's wrong for fear of being called a racist. As a result 1/3 of the population of the US is living on welfare. Progressives (nearly every Democrat and many Republicans) want this because it keeps them in power. Responsibility=Racist. Live off state handouts forever like a new generation of slaves.

Your 1960s mentality of racism is NOT a factor in 2013 America. You can't prove it because nobody can. Oops: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...s_view_blacks_as_racist_than_whites_hispanics
The worst kind of racism I see regularly is blacks going after other blacks, specifically children of interracial parents. They refer to them as "half breeds" and routinely get the shit beaten out of them or killed. That is what life is like in public schools.

 

[Sander]

you can have all the "white guilt" that you want.

i feel none.

unlike you appear to think, i know the problem today is not "whitey" but rather themselves and the top 10%.

if you think "whitey" is still to blame for the plight of the poor people and especially minorities, then you have not paid attention to the real causes.

if you want the white guilt, you can have it. it is not mine.

It's not about guilt. You don't need to feel guilty about it, unless you actively discriminate against blacks.

It's about recognizing that discrimination is a daily part of the lives of a portion of the population. About recognizing the history of the country you live in and the effects that still has today.

Racism is not gone. Blacks are discriminated against within the justice system, they are discriminated against in their careers -- we have oodles and oodles of data to back this up. It's empirical fact. And whining about 'white guilt' doesn't change a thing about that. It's just reality.

It doesn't mean whitey is solely to blame. A lot of it is the poverty trap that affects everyone. As I've noted over and over again. But racial discrimination is also part of it, and your denying it won't change reality.



Max Max RW: Do you have any reason to believe what you believe beyond anecdotal evidence? Do you have any reason to believe that those issues are not caused by the very problems I have been talking about?

And what do you think this changes about the proposed solutions?

 

[DarkCorp]

We need to be more of a socialist state.

We need to change the two party system.

We need to spend more on alleviating poorly and it needs to be done wisely.

The educational level in schools in poorer neighborhoods is not equal to the education levels in richer areas.

Is it just me or are your solutions just as wishy and subjective as those who claim all blacks want to do is suck on welfare?

In the end, all we have to work with is personal experience rather than pie in the sky dreams.

There are tons of jobs with highturn over rates. They suck, yes, but its a job. I am in security and I know they are always hiring, but, you need a clean background to pass the checks.

The problem more likely, IMO, is that some jobs simply are not desirable over getting welfare. Another great example are those who get used to being on welfare, get a job, then attempt to use the income from both to sustain their standard of living.

It seems to me that putting all of ones eggs in the 'pie in the sky basket', is extremely detrimental. All we can do is work with what we are given. I am chinese and my parents changed my name to be more white. Is that selling out? I don't think so. I am was an immigrant and speaking the language and adopting a 'cleaner' name is part of the norm. The problems begin when folks over-depend on racism to justify having weird names, not speaking english, being ghetto fabulous, etc.

 

[Mad Max RW]

Sander, how many years have you lived in the US?

And there's a big difference between understanding history and dwelling on it for the sake of argument. Repeatedly saying the US is still a country racist toward blacks doesn't make it true.

 

[Sander]

Is it just me or are your solutions just as wishy and subjective as those who claim all blacks want to do is suck on welfare?

In the sense that it's not likely to happen, sure. But there's a lot of empirical data and scholarly work backing up what I'm saying. I'm not constantly citing it because that gets tiresome, but I like data-driven approaches. Peter H. Lindert's Growing Public is a solid starting point if you want to know more about where I get my views from.

And there's a big difference between understanding history and dwelling on it for the sake of argument. Repeatedly saying the US is still a country racist toward blacks doesn't make it true.

No, but empirical data does. There are a lot of studies on these subjects. The most well-known of these are resume studies: change the name to something sounding Arab or black and you're less likely to be invited for a job interview. Enclose a picture of a black person and you're less likely to be invited. We know this still happens. We also know that if you're black, you're more likely to get pulled over, you're more likely to face harsh punishment for equal crimes, you're more likely to face punishment at all. We know these things. I'm not making them up.

Sander, how many years have you lived in the US?

I haven't.

 

[TheWesDude]

so, we have all this data backing up "cultural" names make success harder.

its not going to change any time soon. a lot of people just do not like saying those names.

if you want to set yourself or your kids apart from others, a cultural name has been proven to be a hardship to their success. at some point it becomes a pride issue for the parents, while they hurt their children.

people talk about "first impressions" being so important, when you are looking for a job, the name and how the application is filled out is really the first impression.

parents need to realize they are not helping their children at all by giving them such a name.

 

[Yamu]

In terms of short-term practicality, I agree with you, but on the other side of the coin we have Shaw's old chestnut about all progress coming from the unreasonable man. There were plenty of black leaders between reconstruction and the civil rights movement who advocated going with the flow, bending like a reed to the white man's wind and waiting for things to get better, but it was the unyielding perseverance of the Frederick Douglases and the Martin Luther Kings that forced a shift towards balance in the status quo.

The bias against "ethnics" has always existed, and there have been times and places in American history where "Ang Lee" or "Pablo Francisco" or even "Cormac McCarthy" were ethnic enough names to get you the cold shoulder from "polite" society. Should their forebears all have named their kids Bob Johnson? I think they'd be losing more than they gained, there. There's a difference between a pride issue and a cultural identity issue, and like it or not, there is no unilateral American culture. One subculture having to bow to the mores and tastes of another to have any real hope of getting by is (literally!) the definition of subjugation.

Would you do it? If your company transferred you to a permanent position in Pakistan, would you be sending your family back home Christmas cards with pictures of little Abdul and Hajra on them?

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

The bias against "ethnics" has always existed, and there have been times and places in American history where "Ang Lee" or "Pablo Francisco" or even "Cormac McCarthy" were ethnic enough names to get you the cold shoulder from "polite" society. Should their forebears all have named their kids Bob Johnson? I think they'd be losing more than they gained, there. There's a difference between a pride issue and a cultural identity issue, and like it or not, there is no unilateral American culture. One subculture having to bow to the mores and tastes of another to have any real hope of getting by is (literally!) the definition of subjugation.

I don't think that's what's happening here. It's not culturally African names like... Barack Obama, Ndamukong Suh, or Kweisi Mfume that are going to hold one back. Anfernee and Tyrod aren't African names though, one looks like a really bad misspelling, the other is an auto part. I don't know if those names say anything about the person, but it makes you wonder how much consideration their parent's gave it.

I think it's kind of an excepted absurdity at this point:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gODZzSOelss[/youtube]

Would you do it? If your company transferred you to a permanent position in Pakistan, would you be sending your family back home Christmas cards with pictures of little Abdul and Hajra on them?

I worked in Tokyo for many years and met my wife there. We go back and forth, so we picked pretty ethnically neutral names that satisfied both. I mean, I could stick to my guns and name my kids Rory and Valerie, but in Japan they'd call them LOLEE and BARAREE. Or I could call them Godai and Wako (friends of theirs) and they'd be called Go Die and Whack-o when we are stateside.

You're negligent if you use your kid's name like a vanity license plate and don't consider this is something that they are going to have to wear forever.

One part of the solution might be making funding for each high school equal. By creating standardized tests and allowing parents to choose schools based on those standardized tests (as I understand it, you can't just pull your kid from one school and put it in another school unless it's within the same district -- correct me if I'm wrong).

Sheff vs. O'Neill.
Also, standardized tests are always railed at as racist too because certain racial groups score higher than others, and then the standards are handicapped for different races.

 

[DarkCorp]

I prefer to view things as a compromise. As an immigrant, we are going to America FROM China. That is why it is expected of me and my parents to learn english. The race hustlers would start crying foul and how we need to be multi-cultural. Thing is the Irish came here not speaking Gaelic but english. The Italians came and had to speak english. The germans, the chinese, the japanese, etc. So why is it ok for most of the immigrants to view learning english as a boon yet ebonics and rap slang is encouraged and indeed, touted as being culturally unique and how others should have to bend to its will?

We all talk about the percieved stereotypes and how they are offensive. IMHO, then stop bitching and fucking change them. I bet you a cop would react very differently if he pulled a black man over who wasn't blaring 'Fuck the police coming straight out of the underground', or some ebonics laced song about pimp slapping bitches and nutting on their face. He comes off very polite, sucks down his pride if he has to (like every other person I know when pulled over by the police, and within reason), and probably get let off without a ticket. If a cop asks a man what he was doing, try throwing a curveball at the guy like talking about family guy or call of duty or talk about how they love their kids. I mean try to bore the cop out of writing you a ticket. Worked for me a couple of times. The only exception is that of 'motors' (motorcycle cops whose sole job is to deal with moving violations and their job is all about citations). Nobody usualy wins when pulled over by a motor, regardless of race.

Like others have brought up, its a big pride thing.

Now this is just a steretype but there is a lesson to be learned.

The 'white man', has been steretyped as cowardly. When affronted or attacked, instead of 'keeping it real', they ignore the offense, walk away, and then maybe attack from behind with legal. Hence the stereotype of the 'white man', taking a mans house, his credit, his family, his property, but he rarely 'throws down'. On the other hand, we got a rap culture that is all about violence. Somebody talks shit, you shoot them or beat the shit out of them. 'Beep beep woop woop I ain't playin' around, take one false step and I'll take you down, get back motherfucker you don't know me like that'. 'I hit with with a right hook, hit them with a left, caught him with an uppercut and knocked him on his ass'. Both are excerpts from a Ludicris song. No wonder certain minorities have higher rates of violent crime.

I mean asians are supposed to be badass martial artists but you don't see them being associated with violent crimes. We are known for supposedly white collar crime like hacking and embezzlement, etc. This is barring gangs of course, which, like all gangs, are universally guilty of being violent, regardless of race. Most folks know that not every black person or hispanic is a thug or a chollo.

See what I mean, change the stereotypes. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X didn't use thug language and dress. They wore what everyone else wore at the time and spoke like everyone else. Their weapons where charisma and the pulpit, not guns and the ghettos. They preached a universal message that all immigrants could stand behind. Who cares about Bling and Grills and Whips and Tricks, I don't even know that the fuck that means. They didn't blanket judge the entire white race of being klansmen and supremacists (indeed plenty of white marchers often joined these folks).

I watched a recent documentary, and although not pro Obama, brings out a really good question. The narrator asked why was Obama so popular and hit the politically stage like a hurricane? Well,

1. He spoke eloquently.

2. Just type Obama speech at John Kerry Democratic NAtional Convention. He talked about things like 'It's not about blue states or red states, its about the United States. He railed against partisan politics.

3. He played both sides of the aisles about welfare. He said it was needed but not everyone works it like a leech. Its important but needs oversight to make sure it is not abused.

4. He mentioned that Black America needs more role models and to stop believing in the belief that 'whitey is the entire problem'.

5. Americans, ESPECIALLY WHITE AMERICANS, are scared to death of being percieved as racists. I read a comic strip about a woman asking for no sugar and no cream in her coffee. The black worker said 'So you want your coffee black?', whereas the woman got visibly embarassed and said "I would never". Obama didn't play the race card like Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton. He essentially said that white people, like everyone else in this country, are good hard working people only concerned about their families and well being.

Instead of focusing on what we cannot change, lets work on what can be changed.

 

[UniversalWolf]

America so much safer and overdeveloped now, media needs to hype these strokeshows to keep the bourgeois agita up.

It's our national sport.

 

[TheWesDude]

Dark, dont you realize, liberalisim and political correctness is not about having cultural groups merge and conform to "american" society or hell even responsible behavior.

it is about everyone else bending over to accept people for whatever they want to do.


and fuck people who say "standardized tests are racist".

here is what you do, you make tests that have the whole gamut of knowledge that the students should have by category/subject.

if someone does poorly, then its not the tests fault.

that is something i have said many times. stop putting blame for poor test scores on the onus of the test, and more on the parents, the student, and maybe a little bit on the school.

if tests are not desiged to encompass the entirety of what they should know with extra thrown in to test for exceptional students. if they are not designed that way, then they should be changed.

calling a test racist because certain groups do not get good test scores is absolving everyone of blame/responsibility in attempt to hold those who actually have direct control blameless.

if the way the tests are created was flawed, then base them on the knowledge the students should have. if they fail, then they fail. stop blaming the test for poor student performance.

maybe, just maybe, they really are poor students and the test is fine? oh, i forgot, we cant have that.

but then what the hell is the point of the tests if we keep making them dumber and easier for students because certain groups get poor scores.

is that NOT the idea we rail against in modern games versus the "golden" age where games like the ultimas, wizardry, wasteland, fallout, and such came out vs now? how about games like doom, serious sam, unreal... vs gears of war and halo and call of duty?

if we dumb down the test, it ceases to be a valid measure.

 

[Yamu]

Dark, dont you realize, liberalisim and political correctness is not about having cultural groups merge and conform to "american" society or hell even responsible behavior.

it is about everyone else bending over to accept people for whatever they want to do.

"Politicial correctness" in and of itself is BS, but I'm always inclined to regard warily the standpoint of anyone eager to take a swipe at it until I can be sure they're not one of the many, many people who say "political correctness" but actually mean "respecting your beliefs and core ideals as much as I expect you to respect mine, and generally not being a discourteous dickcheese" (Present company having already been excepted, of course).

As to liberalism, take it from someone a little closer to the source: a better definition might be "It's not about having cultural groups merge and conform to American society, it's about realizing that I don't get to decide what "American society" means and I realize that the entire premise the damned country was founded on was the freedom from conformity and the idea of social evolution." Shit happens. Grillz aren't any less ridiculous than popped collars on Ed Hardy shirts, rap pales in comparison to what can be found in metal as far as violence is concerned, and urban culture isn't any more materialistic than the upwardly mobile ideals that white America in Reagan's eighties held up to their graduating classes as something to aspire to. People (I'll say "conservatives," largely, since you seem to favor exploring the us/them contrast, but it does go further than that) have this problem where they crave simplicity in their social analysis and thus seem to have trouble differentiating between a culture they find alien and the social/economic problems largely effecting the people who ascribe to that culture. The two can be linked, but that hardly means they're one and the same, any more than rock fans of the fifties were thrill-seeking sex fiends or Christians are all backed-up bigots.

Standardized Testing etc.

I don't know if I'd say they're overtly racist, but they do do a fine job of baffling the advancement of the disenfranchised under the current system. I think if we want to draw video game parallels, an apt one for standardized testing would be sending someone to a school that's only willing or able to teach them how to play Candy Crush Saga because they live in a shitty neighborhood and then structuring the SATs around the finer points of EVE Online or Arcanum. That's not okay. Maybe, just maybe, they really are poor students and we should be addressing the inequalities that make them that way?

Besides, standardized testing is p. much the worst thing to structure your education system around short of an all-pedophile teaching staff. Data from just about everywhere confirms it, and most other western nations that have minimized them do better by leaps and bounds as far as both student performance and real-world retention are concerned. The only people still desperate to cleave to the old model are #2 pencil manufacturers, the assclowns behind No Child Left Behind, and change-resistant voters and board staff who feel our system would collapse should we not be able to reduce every student and their future prospects to an oversimplified and easy-to-judge handful of numbers. Meanwhile, the internet is chock full of white male neckbeard retail jockeys who tested above the 80th percentile in their graduating classes.

 

[TheWesDude]

you should not structure your education system on standardized tests.

standardized tests should follow the curriculum.

that was my point. there should be minimum requirements, and have those tests evaluate how well you learned those minimum requirements, plus little extra for the outliers to find the advanced students.

and then for the low-end outliers, have programs that push them into plumbers, carpenters, garbage people.

ok, maybe not something that peoples lives would depend on like carpenters or plumbers, but you get the drift.


i do agree with the concept/idea of political correctness, but not to the extent it frequently gets taken.

 

[Yamu]

Sorry, wasn't railing against you, sir, as much as I was tossing in my two cents on the subject. Education reform is sort of one of my pet rants. I do think we differ a bit on the issue of laziness v. bad breaks when it comes to why so many kids are bottoming out, but in general we're on the same page. I've always quite liked the idea of a transition into a post-secondary trade school track for those unwilling or unable to attend college, but that's with the caveat that I think learning and post-secondary schooling should be encouraged and supported for its own sake, not just so you can earn yourself a ticket into the rat race resume mill. College isn't for everyone, but if we actually got our schools uniformly worth a damn at the earlier levels, a lot more people might actually take an interest in becoming well-rounded and generally better individuals.

Anyway, that may be a topic for another thread. The pertinent bit was that a "thug" does not necessarily a dangerous idiot make. It's just an image (a culture, though an emergent rather than indigenous one), even if it's one that happens to be embraced by a subset of the population that's already under the yoke of poverty and ill-circumstance (to a debatable degree, as is the whole upshot of this thread) and is thus more prone to committing crimes. I grew up with plenty of the "type," and plenty of them were intelligent and driven individuals who worked hard to better their circumstances, and they're now, for the most part, a generation of registered nurses, business managers, and real-estate salesmen. They knew to leave the gutter diction and sagging pants at home when they went for interviews because we had access to quality educators and grew up in an environment where they knew they were actually going to be given an even shake.

DarkCorp is right in that in places where the youth knows that a "Dontavius" or a "Shaniqua" on their application is automatically going to tank their chances, they really aren't going to see much of a reason to try. I just don't think the solution to that is to put the onus of action on the recipient of the discrimination there rather than the perpetrator.

 

[Akratus]

You know, I'm kinda young. I haven't really been educated in political or social issues. But it seems to me like the solution to racism is about the way we perpetuate it.

Yes, there are stereotypes and racism. But are you really going to change anything by trying tell people: "Don't go into a gang or listen to violent music!" or something to that effect? The kids of today would do the opposite, just because you'd be an authority figure. If you personally try to educate people who are at risk of becoming criminals, then yes, you can persuade them, if you try hard enough, and the person in question does too. But this is all about trying to fight a problem in society. This is about preaching against the evils of racism, crime, violence, hate etc. You can't make that problem go away. That's just the way we animals are. We're with our tribe, and we are more motivated to be closer if we feel like we are opposed to another tribe. The only way to fight this is to educate people, but you simply can not stop the vast majority, unless you eliminate poverty, racism and lack of education alltogether. And then there will still be racists, gang members and violent and hateful people.

I don't know much about this problem on a large scale. But I know how I fixed it. For myself, it's easy. There is no problem.

I stop pretending like anything is wrong, and what do you know? There isn't one. I don't ignore it, I simply stop seeing race as a factor.

Because people are still saying that I as a person need to treat minorities better, because I am white. And that's still racism. The only way I have found that REALLY stops racism. Is to stop using race as a factor at all.

 

[DarkCorp]

Ebonics is a way of verbal communication while popped collars is merely a clothing style. I don't conduct a conversation with another human being by manipulating the position of my clothes continuously. Death metal is sure violent but there isn't a perception that whites all conform to death metal. Not to mention, death metal is no where near as prolific or popular across the world as rap seems to be. This cannot be said for blacks and rap culture, hence the racism that we all agree is still pervasive in america. As far as I can tell, comparing the american dream, which all folks can understand, and the idea of late night drunken sex filled parties with copious amounts of drugs are two very different things. It is all in the perception, one sounds great while the other sounds totally fucked up.

Again: PERCEPTION

Real important. We are not talking about whats real or fake or bullshit, we are talking about what people PERCIEVE.

Thats why I brought up MLK and Malcolm X.

Racist whites PERCIEVED that blacks were ignorant dumbfucks who were docile and essentially made to be ruled and fit only for farmwork.

What did Federick Douglass do about it (also a white sounding name btw cause you know, perception)? He changed the PERCEPTION through acts which then changed REALITY. He and other blacks showed people they could read. He got the government to authorize the formation of black troops. Through perserverance, the blacks showed the whites they could be effective and able soldiers, that could do more than just menial labor. Even the staunchly racist and backwords confederacy ended up arming their blacks, but it was a case of too little too late. Did it magically fix everything? No. But Rome wasn't built in a day.

What did MLK do? He again did the same as above. Charismatic, well read, peaceful. He SHOWED people what the blacks could do. He cracked/destroyed the PERCEPTION that the racists tried to propagate about the black race.

Malcolm X: Same thing but a bit more militant. Him and organisations like the Black Panthers essentially stated that racial violence would not be tolerated, and if need be, respond with deadly violence in return. Again, attack the perceptiption which then opens the road to the change in reality.

We all agree here that yes, there is racism still around. Yes there are stereotypes for everyone. Yes there are biases in the workforce, government, etc. Problem is, IMHO, folks place all their eggs in one, pie in the sky basket. They say that America isn't socialist enough, or that the two party system must go. They say education must be reformed completely or that the status quo cannot dictate who can or cannot succeed. There is more but essentially, all the above things MUST be righted before minorities have an EQUAL chance at success.

Didn't others already say that we, as human beings, still discriminate based on race, sex, religion, sexual preferance, age, etc, etc? Again, this is a human problem that will not be fixed soon.

Can't black people shun BET, or atleast the programs that put them in a bad light? Is it truly so difficult to shun negative rap music and the liberal use of the N word when referring to other blacks? Is it such an uphill battle that blacks cannot, conform to the staus quo,, even if it means to the betterment of their children? This isn't the slavery days of America where the status quo meant that blacks had to be docile and ignorant. Hence I even brought up the 'acting white', topic awhile back.

From what I see daily, the above seems to comprise most of what most racists or biased folks believe to be true of blacks, AKA the perception. It doesn't need even be true yet the damage is already done. Isn't it worth it to take the little steps, even swallow ones pride, to be rid of such a stupid assumption? Somebody else above mentioned you simpy cannot just TELL people to change. They have to be shown.

18:25-22:14. But most importantly is 20:36 and onward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW8CURhY1D4