No. Apology NOT accepted, because none NEEDED! (I just happen to appreciate long posts, probably because i've produced no small number myself. ;-)
TY for reply. You have some interesting points. But I think You're pretty far off-base on a few of them, and I don't wanna hurt Your feelings. Plus, I'd hafta give it considerable more thought before I responded in any event. Up to You. TY again.
No. Apology NOT accepted, because none NEEDED! (I just happen to appreciate long posts, probably because i've produced no small number myself. ;-)
TY for reply. You have some interesting points. But I think You're pretty far off-base on a few of them, and I don't wanna hurt Your feelings. Plus, I'd hafta give it considerable more thought before I responded in any event. Up to You. TY again.
Thank you for the considered conversation. In recent years, I've been more of a critic of critical race theory and its practitioners than a defender, so it's interesting to sort of put myself back in that point of view and think, what is worth taking from this area?
I would like to know which ones you think I'm off base on. There are always things one may not consider or know about. And I know it takes quite a while to write a considerate, reasonable, readable response, so there's no rush.
Yeah, I agree the loudest voices in the racist "anti-racist" movement are the least capable of actually helping anyone. DiAngelo amongst the worst of the lot. But she's grifted her way to being a multi-millionaire, so she has that "in favor" of herself. What bothers me most about her is, like You "said High Tone, if You don't agree with her 100%, Your in denial.
I would go along with Your definition of what structural racism is. By that definition, I don't think it's a useful concept.
I believe that the idea of structural racism was born outta impatience. Blacks thought that, with the passage of civil rights laws, everything would immediately change. They were right that, although the law changed, there were still obstacles to their advancing. That's an example of Black myopia. Society doesn't change as fast the law does. Simple as that.
My concept of implicit bias is a bit different. Yeah, it's a case of *deeply unconscious* negativity towards people who are different. I wonder... Have Blacks been tested? Because they likely have as much, if not more, implicit bias as White people.
I think the example You raise isn't so much a case of implicit bias as it's a case of applying, perhaps errant, stereotypes. My understanding is the one-a the most tested theories in psychology is the validity of stereotypes. Young Black males are killing each other by an order of magnitude more than others do, right? So, to me anyway, what You experienced is not an uncommon reaction. So I don't think You should hold it against Yourself. That is, as long as You recognize quickly that it *is* based on a stereotype. And that sometimes it doesn't apply to the situation.
Other times it might.
Me? I was lucky not to experience negative depictions of Blacks in my Youth. And as a teenager I experienced a very deep, positive, experience of Black people.
So perhaps I can add some insight. Your theory that it's likely that all structures in society are racist is an exaggeration that, to me, doesn't merit much consideration. Yeah, it was true before the Civil Rights act. That was a period of legal apartheid, right?
Today? You seem to be under the misapprehension that things have remained largely the same. They haven't. I don't know the statistics, but Black people in positions of power just doesn't compare to what it was back then. If You observe *closely* over the past five years, Black people punch *WAY ABOVE* their weight. That's how we entered a period of Black Supremacists being in power, right?
Granted, most Black Supremacists are Caucasian. Still...
Your statement that White people don't know what it's like to be poor is somewhat true. But I think it largely misses the point. Technically, only 20% of the people know what it's like to be in the bottom quintile. But there are a *lotta* people, both Black and White, who live paycheck to paycheck. Without the savings to be able to survive an unexpected expense of a few hundred dollars. I've been there myself. I consider those people to fall in the "poor" category.
But when You're talking about the people who are capable of creating massive social structures, I think Your view is somewhat.. How should I say.. I guess I would say that You seem to be somewhat constrained as to what changes have been going *on* these past five years. The, IMO, buffoon Kendi has created a massive social structure. BLM? Same. Hannah-Jones and Coates?
These are not White people.
But maybe You don't consider their doings to be creating *massive* social structures. Okay fine. Then the people You are referring to are the one-percenters. The politically connected. Those in Big Tech. Their wealth and power has been consolidated in just these past five or ten years, right? *Those* are the social structures that rule the day.
As far as not being ignorant of the socioeconomic conditions of poor Blacks, You exhibit Your own ignorance. Sorry. You showed some implicit bias that is common these days. Prejudice against White people. You seem to think that poor Whites are it materially better position than Blacks. On the contrary. Blacks are given *illegal* precedence in things like getting the vaccine and getting Federal money and so many other ways. For no good reason that any logical person can see.
I agree it's more important to consider how people live than to consider implicit bias. Unless You're gonna turn the bright light of inquiry onto the implicit bias that Blacks have, which I don't think has been given much consideration at all, AFAIK. Prejudice again, AFAIK.
And, no. We do *not* need to grapple with the "heinous things he [Jefferson] did as slavemaster..." And we *absolutely should* "worship him the way some people seem to.." Like You pointed out: I refer You to the experiment some Professor did when he asked a bunch-a privileged White kids how many of them would-a joined the Abolition Movement. They *all* would-a, right? Yeah, riiiiight. You think these punks would-a actually risked their *life* for the principle in *that day and age?!?*
Nup. No way.
There's totally, completely, and ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT to the idea of judging people in the past by present day conditions. How You think today's Woke are gonna be judged? (Weeeel, depends who wins and writes the history, true.) So, no. People back then didn't grapple with their own existence. *You're* lacking in imagination, IMO, when You look into the past.
I agree with the second-to-last paragraph. (And disagree with the last, as I posted above. ;-)
Okay. I'll take a shot at it. Probably tomorrow, on account-a my day ends early.
But I should warn You that I don't take a whole *lotta* time when I write, other than the typing. If something comes out considerate and readable, that's my aim. If it comes out reasonable, that's a miracle. ;-)
No. Apology NOT accepted, because none NEEDED! (I just happen to appreciate long posts, probably because i've produced no small number myself. ;-)
TY for reply. You have some interesting points. But I think You're pretty far off-base on a few of them, and I don't wanna hurt Your feelings. Plus, I'd hafta give it considerable more thought before I responded in any event. Up to You. TY again.
Thank you for the considered conversation. In recent years, I've been more of a critic of critical race theory and its practitioners than a defender, so it's interesting to sort of put myself back in that point of view and think, what is worth taking from this area?
I would like to know which ones you think I'm off base on. There are always things one may not consider or know about. And I know it takes quite a while to write a considerate, reasonable, readable response, so there's no rush.
Okay, here goes nuthin.
Yeah, I agree the loudest voices in the racist "anti-racist" movement are the least capable of actually helping anyone. DiAngelo amongst the worst of the lot. But she's grifted her way to being a multi-millionaire, so she has that "in favor" of herself. What bothers me most about her is, like You "said High Tone, if You don't agree with her 100%, Your in denial.
I would go along with Your definition of what structural racism is. By that definition, I don't think it's a useful concept.
I believe that the idea of structural racism was born outta impatience. Blacks thought that, with the passage of civil rights laws, everything would immediately change. They were right that, although the law changed, there were still obstacles to their advancing. That's an example of Black myopia. Society doesn't change as fast the law does. Simple as that.
My concept of implicit bias is a bit different. Yeah, it's a case of *deeply unconscious* negativity towards people who are different. I wonder... Have Blacks been tested? Because they likely have as much, if not more, implicit bias as White people.
I think the example You raise isn't so much a case of implicit bias as it's a case of applying, perhaps errant, stereotypes. My understanding is the one-a the most tested theories in psychology is the validity of stereotypes. Young Black males are killing each other by an order of magnitude more than others do, right? So, to me anyway, what You experienced is not an uncommon reaction. So I don't think You should hold it against Yourself. That is, as long as You recognize quickly that it *is* based on a stereotype. And that sometimes it doesn't apply to the situation.
Other times it might.
Me? I was lucky not to experience negative depictions of Blacks in my Youth. And as a teenager I experienced a very deep, positive, experience of Black people.
So perhaps I can add some insight. Your theory that it's likely that all structures in society are racist is an exaggeration that, to me, doesn't merit much consideration. Yeah, it was true before the Civil Rights act. That was a period of legal apartheid, right?
Today? You seem to be under the misapprehension that things have remained largely the same. They haven't. I don't know the statistics, but Black people in positions of power just doesn't compare to what it was back then. If You observe *closely* over the past five years, Black people punch *WAY ABOVE* their weight. That's how we entered a period of Black Supremacists being in power, right?
Granted, most Black Supremacists are Caucasian. Still...
Your statement that White people don't know what it's like to be poor is somewhat true. But I think it largely misses the point. Technically, only 20% of the people know what it's like to be in the bottom quintile. But there are a *lotta* people, both Black and White, who live paycheck to paycheck. Without the savings to be able to survive an unexpected expense of a few hundred dollars. I've been there myself. I consider those people to fall in the "poor" category.
But when You're talking about the people who are capable of creating massive social structures, I think Your view is somewhat.. How should I say.. I guess I would say that You seem to be somewhat constrained as to what changes have been going *on* these past five years. The, IMO, buffoon Kendi has created a massive social structure. BLM? Same. Hannah-Jones and Coates?
These are not White people.
But maybe You don't consider their doings to be creating *massive* social structures. Okay fine. Then the people You are referring to are the one-percenters. The politically connected. Those in Big Tech. Their wealth and power has been consolidated in just these past five or ten years, right? *Those* are the social structures that rule the day.
As far as not being ignorant of the socioeconomic conditions of poor Blacks, You exhibit Your own ignorance. Sorry. You showed some implicit bias that is common these days. Prejudice against White people. You seem to think that poor Whites are it materially better position than Blacks. On the contrary. Blacks are given *illegal* precedence in things like getting the vaccine and getting Federal money and so many other ways. For no good reason that any logical person can see.
I agree it's more important to consider how people live than to consider implicit bias. Unless You're gonna turn the bright light of inquiry onto the implicit bias that Blacks have, which I don't think has been given much consideration at all, AFAIK. Prejudice again, AFAIK.
And, no. We do *not* need to grapple with the "heinous things he [Jefferson] did as slavemaster..." And we *absolutely should* "worship him the way some people seem to.." Like You pointed out: I refer You to the experiment some Professor did when he asked a bunch-a privileged White kids how many of them would-a joined the Abolition Movement. They *all* would-a, right? Yeah, riiiiight. You think these punks would-a actually risked their *life* for the principle in *that day and age?!?*
Nup. No way.
There's totally, completely, and ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT to the idea of judging people in the past by present day conditions. How You think today's Woke are gonna be judged? (Weeeel, depends who wins and writes the history, true.) So, no. People back then didn't grapple with their own existence. *You're* lacking in imagination, IMO, when You look into the past.
I agree with the second-to-last paragraph. (And disagree with the last, as I posted above. ;-)
Okay. I'll take a shot at it. Probably tomorrow, on account-a my day ends early.
But I should warn You that I don't take a whole *lotta* time when I write, other than the typing. If something comes out considerate and readable, that's my aim. If it comes out reasonable, that's a miracle. ;-)