Most-Racial America

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Most-Racial America

Postby Vaniver » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:16 am UTC

From the Wall Street Journal editorial pages.
Spoiler:
James Taranto wrote:"Everytime [sic] I think the Democratic race card players could not get more vile, more deranged, more patronizingly demeaning to blacks, someone manages to defy even my vivid imagination," thunders blogger William Jacobson. He's referring to a passage in a Washington Post editorial about critics of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice--a passage that in our view is useful for its clarity.

At issue is a Nov. 19 letter to the President Obama, written by Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina and signed by 97 House Republicans, which declares that the signatories are "deeply troubled" that the president is considering nominating Rice secretary of state, and that they "strongly oppose" such a nomination.

"Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter," the letter states. We noted Tuesday with some amusement that Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, was claiming that "incompetent" was the latest code word for "black."

The Post focuses on the critics rather than their choice of words. Here's the passage that outrages Jacobson: "Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can't know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy."

Let's examine this argument carefully. The Post acknowledges that "we can't know their hearts." But it finds a (literally) prima facie reason to suspect them of invidious motives: Almost all of them are persons of pallor. The Post is casting aspersions on Duncan and his colleagues based explicitly on the color of their skin. And it is accusing them of racism!

A couple of other items related to race and politics caught our attention over the Thanksgiving weekend. First, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat and CBC member, resigned from Congress "amid federal ethics investigations and a diagnosis of mental illness," as the Chicago Tribune reports. That sets up a special election to fill the vacancy:

Some Democrats quickly offered to broker a nominee to avoid several African-American contenders splitting the vote in the heavily Democratic and majority black 2nd Congressional District, which could allow a white candidate to win.

This passes with neither editorial comment nor a disapproving quote. It's hard to imagine the same absence of reaction if a group of pols offered "to broker a nominee" with the goal of preventing a black candidate from winning a white-majority district.

Then there's the email from the Obama campaign--yeah, they're still coming, though at a slower pace than before the election--inviting supporters to take a survey. Among the questions: "Which constituency groups do you identify yourself with? Select all that apply."

There are 22 boxes you can check off. Some are ideological ("Environmentalists" and perhaps "Labor"), some occupational ("Educators," "Healthcare professionals"), some regional ("Americans abroad," "Rural Americans"). There's a box for "Women" but none for men, though there's a separate "Gender" question, which hilariously has three options: "Male," "Female" and "Other/no answer." Touré will no doubt soon inveigh against the "otherization" of the Gender No. 3.

What caught our attention were the ethnic categories: "African Americans," "Arab-Americans," "Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders," Jewish Americans," "Latinos" and "Native Americans" (the last, of course, refers to American Indians, not natural-born citizens).

Notice anything missing?

One explanation for the absence of a "white" or "European-American" category (or, alternatively, several dozen specific European ethnicities) could be that whites tend to vote Republican, and the campaign is interested in Democratic-leaning voting blocs. But several other of the Obama survey categories lean toward the GOP, too: "People of faith," "Rural Americans," "Seniors," "Small business owners" and "Veterans/military families." Counterpart groups that are Democratic-leaning or swing-voting are missing from the list, too, including nonbelievers, urban and suburban dwellers, and the middle-aged (though there are categories for both "Young professionals" and "Youth").

The reason for the absence of a "Whites" category is that white identity politics is all but nonexistent in America today. That wasn't always the case, of course: For a century after the Civil War, Southern white supremacists were an important part of the Democratic Party coalition. They were defeated and discredited in the 1960s, and the Democrats, still the party of identity politics, switched their focus to various nonwhite minorities.

Obama's re-election was a triumph for this new identity politics--but the Post's nasty editorial hints at a reason to think this form of politics may have long-term costs for both the party and the country.

The trouble with a diverse coalition based on ethnic or racial identity is that solidarity within each group can easily produce conflicts among the groups. Permissive immigration policies, for example, may be good for Hispanics and Asians but bad for blacks. Racial preferences in college admissions help blacks and Hispanics at the expense of Asians.

One way of holding together such a disparate coalition is by delivering prosperity, so that everyone can feel he's doing well. Failing that, another way is by identifying a common adversary--such as the "white male." During Obama's first term, the demonization of the "white male" was common among left-liberal commentators, especially MSNBC types. The Post has now lent its considerably more mainstream institutional voice to this form of bigotry.

This seems likely to weaken the taboo against white identity politics. Whites who are not old enough to remember the pre-civil-rights era--Rep. Duncan, for instance, was born in 1966--have every reason to feel aggrieved by being targeted in this way.

The danger to Democrats is that they still need white votes. According to this year's exit polls, Obama won re-election while receiving only 39% of the white vote. But that's higher than Mitt Romney's percentage among blacks (6%), Latinos (27%), Asian-Americans (26%) or "Other" (38%). It's true that Republicans suffer electorally for the perception that they are hostile to minorities, but Democrats also stand to suffer for being hostile to whites.

The danger for the country is that a racially polarized electorate will produce a hostile, balkanized culture. In 2008 Obama held out the hope of a postracial America. His re-election raises the possibility of a most-racial America.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:46 am UTC

you're telling me that republicans are opposing Obama, a democratic president's, appointment of a democratic person for a position?

Shocking. Surely racism is the *only* possible explanation. I can't image that republicans would EVER oppose the democrats for any other reason. :roll:

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby omgryebread » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:55 am UTC

Oh get the fuck over it, old conservative white dudes. You're still at the top of the fucking totem pole, stop bitching every time someone possibly mentions that you're in a position of privilege.

WaPo isn't calling them out because they're white men signing a letter. It's calling them out because it's overwhelmingly white men leading this attack. Just like there's nothing wrong with one white CEO, it's 99/100 CEOs being white that's a problem.

Oh no the Obama campaign isn't worried about the special interests of men? Maybe because that's just called "general interest."

I love when the Wall Street Journal acts like rich white men are the most oppressed people in the world. Bitching about anti-white racism is complaining that the Nazis ruined the Swastika. Get some perspective and check your privilege, WSJ.

For the record, I don't think it's racism, I think it's that they want John Kerry's senate seat and McCain is a bitter old man who never got over losing in 2008 and the Republicans still can't believe they lost 2012 because they are in such epistemic closure they can't see that their paleolithic policies aren't actually popular. But when 7/10 things your party does are racist, it's not hard to imagine why people might make mistakes on the 3/10.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby lutzj » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:02 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:Oh get the fuck over it, old conservative white dudes.


To my ear, the loudest complaining about this sort of issue has come from young libertarian white men, i.e., those who have the most to lose if we move toward a system of race- and gender-based identity politics where "white" and "male" are not considered relevant.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:20 am UTC

Especially young Jewish white men who get all the penalties of both bigotry and reverse-bigotry.

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Darryl » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:25 am UTC

lutzj wrote:
omgryebread wrote:Oh get the fuck over it, old conservative white dudes.


To my ear, the loudest complaining about this sort of issue has come from young libertarian white men, i.e., those who have the most to lose if we move toward a system of race- and gender-based identity politics where "white" and "male" are not considered relevant.

As opposed to the current system of race- and gender- based identity politics where "white" and "male" are default, and "equality" is considered to be 30% women, where women talking half the time is considered to be "women dominating the conversation" (and I'm using these in particular because the male/female split is roughly 50/50).
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby omgryebread » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:27 am UTC

lutzj wrote:
omgryebread wrote:Oh get the fuck over it, old conservative white dudes.


To my ear, the loudest complaining about this sort of issue has come from young libertarian white men, i.e., those who have the most to lose if we move toward a system of race- and gender-based identity politics where "white" and "male" are not considered relevant.
There certainly are a good deal of racist young libertarian men, but I was kind of talking about the editorial board of the WSJ and the senators complaining about their made-up Benghazi issue. But yeah, there's certainly a pretty virulent anti-anti-racist and anti-feminist strand within the young libertarian community.

CorruptUser wrote:Especially young Jewish white men who get all the penalties of both bigotry and reverse-bigotry.
And you know, a huge portion of the benefits of privilege.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:39 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Especially young Jewish white men who get all the penalties of both bigotry and reverse-bigotry.
And you know, a huge portion of the benefits of privilege.


Only some; the benefits of privilege only apply for people that look Western European and maybe Italian. It's unclear if Italians are considered 'white' enough. Some Jews can pass for French or Germanic, but for those that look Eastern European or worse, Arab, no, sorry, the racism still exists.

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Darryl » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:00 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
omgryebread wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Especially young Jewish white men who get all the penalties of both bigotry and reverse-bigotry.
And you know, a huge portion of the benefits of privilege.


Only some; the benefits of privilege only apply for people that look Western European and maybe Italian. It's unclear if Italians are considered 'white' enough. Some Jews can pass for French or Germanic, but for those that look Eastern European or worse, Arab, no, sorry, the racism still exists.

That's based on skin color, you know. So the point still works. White Jews have white privilege. Non-white Jews do not. Pretty simple. Not that hard.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Jave D » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:44 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:you're telling me that republicans are opposing Obama, a democratic president's, appointment of a democratic person for a position?

Shocking. Surely racism is the *only* possible explanation.


Oh, no - just an undeniable and large factor.

But then perhaps my memory is hazy, and perhaps other white Democratic presidents were charged with being racist, nazi, fascist, communist, muslim, terrorist, non-American black panthers who hated white people.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Garm » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:49 am UTC

I'm happy with the results of the election because it's the death knell for the white dude coalition. This is, in my mind, a good thing. White dudes voted for Romney in huge numbers and lost. It's great. It's a blow for pluralism. My hope is that it will force the GOP to move away from the ultra-conservatives who hate brown people and women. Maybe that means the GOP will splinter.

Anyway... here's an article that I thought was pertinent: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/11/mitt_romney_white_vote_parsing_the_narrow_tribal_appeal_of_the_republican.html
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Derek
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Derek » Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:06 am UTC

Jave D wrote:Oh, no - just an undeniable and large factor.

But then perhaps my memory is hazy, and perhaps other white Democratic presidents were charged with being racist, nazi, fascist, communist, muslim, terrorist, non-American black panthers who hated white people.

So these congressman also complained when Condaleeza Rice became Secretary of State too, right?

They're not racist. They just don't like her, or Obama.

User avatar
Obby
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:37 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Obby » Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:52 am UTC

Derek wrote:So these congressman also complained when Condaleeza Rice became Secretary of State too, right?

They're not racist. They just don't like her, or Obama.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but you do realize this is the exact same argument that a lot of racists use to justify their racism, right?
The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:14 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
lutzj wrote:
omgryebread wrote:Oh get the fuck over it, old conservative white dudes.


To my ear, the loudest complaining about this sort of issue has come from young libertarian white men, i.e., those who have the most to lose if we move toward a system of race- and gender-based identity politics where "white" and "male" are not considered relevant.
There certainly are a good deal of racist young libertarian men, but I was kind of talking about the editorial board of the WSJ and the senators complaining about their made-up Benghazi issue. But yeah, there's certainly a pretty virulent anti-anti-racist and anti-feminist strand within the young libertarian community


Made-up Benghazi issue? What, are you positing that people didn't actually die there?


That said, yeah....I think the racism card sometimes gets played inappropriately. My earlier sarcasm was directed at the post article. I require no explanation of racism to understand why the republicans oppose democrats or vice versa. After all, they do it plenty even when there's no difference in race, so race can't really be a significant reason why.

Jave D wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:you're telling me that republicans are opposing Obama, a democratic president's, appointment of a democratic person for a position?

Shocking. Surely racism is the *only* possible explanation.


Oh, no - just an undeniable and large factor.

But then perhaps my memory is hazy, and perhaps other white Democratic presidents were charged with being racist, nazi, fascist, communist, muslim, terrorist, non-American black panthers who hated white people.


Oh, god yes. Seriously, Clinton was called all manner of ridiculous things. For instance, I give you this article, which considers if Bill Clinton is the antichrist. (Spoiler, the answer is yes). Ridiculous accusations in politics is not a new invention for this president.

Obby wrote:
Derek wrote:So these congressman also complained when Condaleeza Rice became Secretary of State too, right?

They're not racist. They just don't like her, or Obama.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but you do realize this is the exact same argument that a lot of racists use to justify their racism, right?


Er, pointing out that the hostility isn't patterned on race is not a justification of racism. It's a disproval of it. The fact that republicans hate democrats is well known and unsurprising. They've leveled all manner of hatred at white democrats too. However, they don't display hatred for people of different races on their own team. Logical conclusion? Race really isn't what's important here, the hatred is based on political affiliation.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:37 pm UTC

Darryl wrote:That's based on skin color, you know. So the point still works. White Jews have white privilege. Non-white Jews do not. Pretty simple. Not that hard.


Arabs and Arab-looking Jews, as well as Persians, are white. Take a good look at Syrian dictator Assad. Or the Shah. They are white, and they don't have privilege. Russian whites don't have privilege either. Chasads and ultra- Orthodox Jews most certainly don't have privilege and are openly despised anywhere other than NYC, unless they dress 'secular' and shave.

Please stop pretending it's all sunshine and blowjobs for everyone 'white'.


Obby wrote:
Derek wrote:So these congressman also complained when Condaleeza Rice became Secretary of State too, right?

They're not racist. They just don't like her, or Obama.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but you do realize this is the exact same argument that a lot of racists use to justify their racism, right?


There's a world of difference between 'having a black friend', i.e. the mailman you spoke to once a month, and marrying a black person. Secretary of State is not a token position. Say what you want about Bush, but he had more non white-males in his cabinet than all presidents preceding him combined. He was incompetent, not racist.

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Darryl » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:44 pm UTC

Derek wrote:
Jave D wrote:Oh, no - just an undeniable and large factor.

But then perhaps my memory is hazy, and perhaps other white Democratic presidents were charged with being racist, nazi, fascist, communist, muslim, terrorist, non-American black panthers who hated white people.

So these congressman also complained when Condaleeza Rice became Secretary of State too, right?

They're not racist. They just don't like her, or Obama.

No, but the fact that McCain is calling someone "not very bright", when he graduated 894th of 899 in his US Naval Academy, while the person he is criticizing has an Oxford Ph. D. seems a little off to me.

CorruptUser wrote:
Darryl wrote:That's based on skin color, you know. So the point still works. White Jews have white privilege. Non-white Jews do not. Pretty simple. Not that hard.


Arabs and Arab-looking Jews, as well as Persians, are white. Take a good look at Syrian dictator Assad. Or the Shah. They are white, and they don't have privilege. Russian whites don't have privilege either. Chasads and ultra- Orthodox Jews most certainly don't have privilege and are openly despised anywhere other than NYC, unless they dress 'secular' and shave.

Please stop pretending it's all sunshine and blowjobs for everyone 'white'.

Please stop pretending that's what privilege means. Because it's not. Privilege is when, all other things being equal, I get a leg up due to my neurology, gender, sexuality, or race. Because that's what happens. Because I'm white, I don't get stopped in Arizona to prove I'm a citizen. Because I'm white, I'm allowed to be angry without being dismissed for it.

Hell, because I'm white, no one questions the fact that I'm still in school at 27, assuming I took time off to get a job for a bit before coming back to school for a degree.

Oh, and the discrimination Orthodox Jews face is not racial, it's religious.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Роберт » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:56 pm UTC

Why do a get the feeling a lot of people aren't really understanding each other on this thread?

And why where the three options for gender "hilarious"?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:59 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:was claiming that "incompetent" was the latest code word for "black."

I laughed when I heard him say this. Really? Now you're just making stuff up. Incompetent is a word we Americans use regularly when referring to our representatives in D.C. For instance:

Every member of Congress is incompetent.

There, now. Was I being racist when I referred to Congress. Half-racist? Only-racist-when-referring-to-the-black-members? Incompetent means you're not able to do your job. In this case, it was offered as an either or, in that she was either intentionally covering up a terrorist attack for the sake of the election, or horribly failing at something as simple as reading comprehension.

Does Jim Clyburn really want to associate all black people with incompetence? That's the most racist thing I've heard in a while.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:58 pm UTC

Darryl, my cousin was valedictorian (or maybe salutatorian) and got a 2400 on his SATs, but was rejected from MIT. His 'privilege' as a blue eyed blonde white male didn't do shit there. The best for society is to have the best people hired for the job; if privilege interferes with that, then yes we need legislation or social change to undo privilege. But that's not what's happening. The best possible set of students aren't being selected for in the top tiers. Don't tell me MIT would've been worse off accepting my cousin than nearly anyone else they accepted.

Ultimately, what makes a school great is the students that go there and the things they do. The education isn't better at Harvard than NYU; highly decorated professors tend to be crap teachers. The people like my cousin will form their own connections at second-tier schools, and the Ivy League (yes I know MIT isn't ivy) will lose its prestige over time. My cousin will invent something and some other school gets to say 'hey our students did x'.

induction
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:00 am UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby induction » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:27 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Darryl, my cousin was valedictorian (or maybe salutatorian) and got a 2400 on his SATs, but was rejected from MIT. His 'privilege' as a blue eyed blonde white male didn't do shit there. The best for society is to have the best people hired for the job; if privilege interferes with that, then yes we need legislation or social change to undo privilege. But that's not what's happening. The best possible set of students aren't being selected for in the top tiers. Don't tell me MIT would've been worse off accepting my cousin than nearly anyone else they accepted.


For what it's worth, when I toured MIT (in the late 80s, when 1600 was the maximum SAT score), I was told that perfect SAT scores are 'the kiss of death' as far as acceptance there. The counselor said something about perfect scores indicating a flawed educational focus, or something like that. Maybe he was full of it, maybe their stance has changed since then, I don't know. But MIT does indeed accept blue-eyed blonde white males, so maybe there's another explanation for why your cousin wasn't accepted than racism.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby omgryebread » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:34 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Darryl, my cousin was valedictorian (or maybe salutatorian) and got a 2400 on his SATs, but was rejected from MIT. His 'privilege' as a blue eyed blonde white male didn't do shit there. The best for society is to have the best people hired for the job; if privilege interferes with that, then yes we need legislation or social change to undo privilege. But that's not what's happening. The best possible set of students aren't being selected for in the top tiers. Don't tell me MIT would've been worse off accepting my cousin than nearly anyone else they accepted.

Ultimately, what makes a school great is the students that go there and the things they do. The education isn't better at Harvard than NYU; highly decorated professors tend to be crap teachers. The people like my cousin will form their own connections at second-tier schools, and the Ivy League (yes I know MIT isn't ivy) will lose its prestige over time. My cousin will invent something and some other school gets to say 'hey our students did x'.
I'm positive there are less qualified white students than he as well. According to the Department of Education there, are 37,100 high schools in the US. That's 37,100 valedictorians. Perfect SATs are rarer, but I'm pretty sure schools still don't care about the essay, and honestly, there are a lot of high SAT scores. I guarantee that participating in a robotics competition is worth more to MIT than SAT scores.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Derek
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Derek » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:09 pm UTC

induction wrote:For what it's worth, when I toured MIT (in the late 80s, when 1600 was the maximum SAT score), I was told that perfect SAT scores are 'the kiss of death' as far as acceptance there. The counselor said something about perfect scores indicating a flawed educational focus, or something like that. Maybe he was full of it, maybe their stance has changed since then, I don't know. But MIT does indeed accept blue-eyed blonde white males, so maybe there's another explanation for why your cousin wasn't accepted than racism.

Yeah I'm calling bullshit on that one. The SAT isn't near as hard people make it sound (the math section goes up to algebra I and geometry, as I recall). It has more to do with what omgryebread said, there are far too many perfect scores to accept them all. So they look much more at other things.

(Was wait listed at MIT with a 1600, btw)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Belial » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:11 pm UTC

Obby wrote:
Derek wrote:So these congressman also complained when Condaleeza Rice became Secretary of State too, right?

They're not racist. They just don't like her, or Obama.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but you do realize this is the exact same argument that a lot of racists use to justify their racism, right?


Pretty much. "I tolerate black people who agree with everything I say, so the fact that I much more viciously attack black people who disagree with me than white people who disagree with me can't possibly be racism. Because I can't be racist. Because I have a black friend."

Derek wrote:(Was wait listed at MIT with a 1600, btw)


Well of course you were. The test is out of 2400 now.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby lutzj » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:12 pm UTC

Darryl wrote:Privilege is when, all other things being equal, I get a leg up due to my neurology, gender, sexuality, or race. Because that's what happens.


I understand you might not be excluding other privileges, but it's certainly broader than neurology/gender/sexuality/race. Being born in a developed country into a stable family situation is statistically a much more valuable privilege than all four of those.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:05 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Obby wrote:
Derek wrote:So these congressman also complained when Condaleeza Rice became Secretary of State too, right?

They're not racist. They just don't like her, or Obama.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but you do realize this is the exact same argument that a lot of racists use to justify their racism, right?


Pretty much. "I tolerate black people who agree with everything I say, so the fact that I much more viciously attack black people who disagree with me than white people who disagree with me can't possibly be racism. Because I can't be racist. Because I have a black friend."
However, in this case, it's not well-established that Republican Congressfolk attack black nominees more viciously than white ones. There's a clear pattern of strongly opposing anyone the other party nominates that goes back forever. Look at Elizabeth Warren. She's not black, she's well liked at least in the State she just won, yet Republicans attacked the shit out of her, ultimately blocking her from taking office. For years the pattern has been clear: Clinton appointee = Hate, Bush appointee = Love, Obama appointee = Hate. But now that the Obama appointee happens to be black, it's suddenly racism. Come on, guys. There's a clear pattern in who gets attacked, and it has nothing to do with race.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Jave D » Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:09 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Jave D wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:you're telling me that republicans are opposing Obama, a democratic president's, appointment of a democratic person for a position?

Shocking. Surely racism is the *only* possible explanation.


Oh, no - just an undeniable and large factor.

But then perhaps my memory is hazy, and perhaps other white Democratic presidents were charged with being racist, nazi, fascist, communist, muslim, terrorist, non-American black panthers who hated white people.


Oh, god yes. Seriously, Clinton was called all manner of ridiculous things. For instance, I give you this article, which considers if Bill Clinton is the antichrist. (Spoiler, the answer is yes). Ridiculous accusations in politics is not a new invention for this president.


The "antichrist" thing was not racial. The "put the white back in the White House," "lyin' African" accusations against Obama are. As is the whole Birther conspiracy theory. As is a lot of the virulent and popular hatred for Obama these days. It goes far and beyond "ridiculous accusations in politics" and taps into a very real and living racist element in the US.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Triangle_Man » Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:12 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Why do a get the feeling a lot of people aren't really understanding each other on this thread?

I'm guessing it's because everyone is carrying different definitions of 'race' and those definitions are conflicting with one another in the most spectacular way possible.

I mean, your view of the world and your place in it is going to be shaped in part by who you qualify as being 'white' or 'male', among other things.

We should probably still get out of that mindset of seeing the 'white male' category as 'default', however, as I'm pretty sure it's only considered as such because 'white males' have held most of the power in Western Society and somehow assumed the 'right' to set themselves as the default by which to compare everyone else...

That being said, I think it would be false to write off all criticism/attacks/whatever against Obama as racism. I don't think that he's had a perfect track record and there are areas where he can and should be criticized.

...He just shouldn't be criticized for being black.

Is this okay?
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

Bsob
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:44 am UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Bsob » Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:20 pm UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:
Роберт wrote:Why do a get the feeling a lot of people aren't really understanding each other on this thread?

I'm guessing it's because everyone is carrying different definitions of 'race' and those definitions are conflicting with one another in the most spectacular way possible.
That being said, I think it would be false to write off all criticism/attacks/whatever against Obama as racism. I don't think that he's had a perfect track record and there are areas where he can and should be criticized.

...He just shouldn't be criticized for being black.

Is this okay?


This is cool and all, but what really happens is, when he is criticized, and his supporters don't find it to be valid, they make the leap to racism.

Because 'partisan' somehow isn't enough to cover it.

Then, someone comes in and spends some time proving that racists exist, and since racists exist some of them must be anti-Obama. Then they shift into guilt by association mode and paint everyone who opposes Obama as racist. If one drop of racist blood exists in a crowd, the whole crowd is racist.

Bsob
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:44 am UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Bsob » Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:26 pm UTC

Obby wrote:
Derek wrote:So these congressman also complained when Condaleeza Rice became Secretary of State too, right?

They're not racist. They just don't like her, or Obama.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but you do realize this is the exact same argument that a lot of racists use to justify their racism, right?


i'm not saying you're wrong, but you know who else used guilt by association tactics like this?

Hitler.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Garm » Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:41 pm UTC

Wait, are we trying to Godwin in a double post? Seems like a stretch.

@Tyndmyr: Benghazi is absolutely a manufactured crisis. It's an attempt to smear the White House and create the scandal that's been missing for the past four years. If there were anything to the Benghazi incident and if any part of it were a cover-up the Republicans would already be moving for impeachment. Was Benghazi mishandled? Yes on multiple fronts. Security should have been better. The immediate response probably could have been handled more cleanly. Blah Blah Blah. The basic talking point that seems to be coming out of the GOP is that the President didn't call it an organized act of terror soon enough. Meanwhile, you've got Daryl Issa, in a desperate rush to manufacture a scandal, outing the CIA operatives who were working at Benghazi. That, to me, is much more scandalous than the administration's handling of a planned terror attack. One the one hand you've got the White House losing the news cycle. On the other hand you've got some asshole damaging national security and foreign relations.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby folkhero » Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:44 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:The "antichrist" thing was not racial. The "put the white back in the White House," "lyin' African" accusations against Obama are. As is the whole Birther conspiracy theory. As is a lot of the virulent and popular hatred for Obama these days. It goes far and beyond "ridiculous accusations in politics" and taps into a very real and living racist element in the US.

So are you saying that because some attacks on Obama are racially motivated, it follows that all attacks on Obama are racially motivated? Because this is the second time you've brought up racist attacks on Obama that are otherwise irrelevant to what we are talking about.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:59 pm UTC

Nobody is contesting that somewhere, some racist probably hated Obama because he was black. That does not mean that every criticism of democrats by republicans automatically gets to play the race card without bothering to justify it.

Garm wrote:Wait, are we trying to Godwin in a double post? Seems like a stretch.

@Tyndmyr: Benghazi is absolutely a manufactured crisis. It's an attempt to smear the White House and create the scandal that's been missing for the past four years. If there were anything to the Benghazi incident and if any part of it were a cover-up the Republicans would already be moving for impeachment. Was Benghazi mishandled? Yes on multiple fronts. Security should have been better. The immediate response probably could have been handled more cleanly. Blah Blah Blah. The basic talking point that seems to be coming out of the GOP is that the President didn't call it an organized act of terror soon enough. Meanwhile, you've got Daryl Issa, in a desperate rush to manufacture a scandal, outing the CIA operatives who were working at Benghazi. That, to me, is much more scandalous than the administration's handling of a planned terror attack. One the one hand you've got the White House losing the news cycle. On the other hand you've got some asshole damaging national security and foreign relations.


Screw the "act of terror" bit. People died because the administration didn't send the requested help. Why is the outing of people scandalous? Well, because it COULD lead to deaths. Are not actual deaths scandalous then? What could possibly be more important for national security than keeping our people alive?

I also love your "It cant be bad, because otherwise there'd be an impeachment" logic. Impeachment proceedings need to pass a vote to even start the trial. In addition, let's look at our entire history of presidents. How many of them have been impeached and found guilty, hmm? Are you saying that NONE of them have actually done something thats bad? That any bad act would result in an impeachment?
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:04 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Jave D » Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:00 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:
Jave D wrote:The "antichrist" thing was not racial. The "put the white back in the White House," "lyin' African" accusations against Obama are. As is the whole Birther conspiracy theory. As is a lot of the virulent and popular hatred for Obama these days. It goes far and beyond "ridiculous accusations in politics" and taps into a very real and living racist element in the US.

So are you saying that because some attacks on Obama are racially motivated, it follows that all attacks on Obama are racially motivated?


No.

Because this is the second time you've brought up racist attacks on Obama that are otherwise irrelevant to what we are talking about.


I don't see how irrelevant it is to the subject at all.

There are those saying that the attacks on Obama are all just politics as usual with no racial component, just Republican versus Democrat and all that, and I am disagreeing.

Also, it's rather nauseating to see people play the "play the race card" card.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:06 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:Also, it's rather nauseating to see people play the "play the race card" card.


If you can prefer, we can rephrase it as "not backing up your claims".

Or, you could just continue to pretend that it's emotionally painful because you're not interested in providing evidence to demonstrate your POV.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby folkhero » Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:18 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:I don't see how irrelevant it is to the subject at all.

Were the congress folk opposing the nominations the ones saying, "put the white back in the White House," and "lyin' African"? Or do all Republicans look the same to you?
Jave D wrote:There are those saying that the attacks on Obama are all just politics as usual with no racial component, just Republican versus Democrat and all that, and I am disagreeing.
People are saying that this one particular attack on Obama is just politics as usual. Considering that the appointee in question is a Dem and was centrally involved in a pretty big controversy (fabricated or otherwise) it seems that politics as usual would easily explain the opposition without invoking race. If your disagreement is based on the fact that other people said racist things about Obama in a context having nothing to do with Susan Rice, then I must reiterate that I don't see the relevance.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Darryl » Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:43 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
Darryl wrote:Privilege is when, all other things being equal, I get a leg up due to my neurology, gender, sexuality, or race. Because that's what happens.


I understand you might not be excluding other privileges, but it's certainly broader than neurology/gender/sexuality/race. Being born in a developed country into a stable family situation is statistically a much more valuable privilege than all four of those.

Yeah, I was limiting it to within America due to the fact that America is the topic of discussion.

Though I did leave out economic status and family status (though the former is strongly correlated with race anyway), as well as physical disabilities. All of which is, naturally, intersectional.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby lutzj » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:36 pm UTC

Darryl wrote:Yeah, I was limiting it to within America due to the fact that America is the topic of discussion.


All people in the United States were born there? I had no idea.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Роберт » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:52 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
Darryl wrote:Yeah, I was limiting it to within America due to the fact that America is the topic of discussion.


All people in the United States were born there? I had no idea.

Well, except Barack Obama, of course. :mrgreen:
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby Darryl » Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:40 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
Darryl wrote:Yeah, I was limiting it to within America due to the fact that America is the topic of discussion.


All people in the United States were born there? I had no idea.

Since white immigrants aren't really treated any differently in the US from white people born in the US.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Most-Racial America

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:54 pm UTC

They are if they don't speak English. The odd thing is there are Chinese Americans who have been here for 5 or so generations and people STILL assume they are foreign.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests