Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on March 25, 2017, 03:26:18 PM
-
http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/03/25/insanity-what-this-homeowner-was-told-about-blue-lives-matter-flag-sends-heads-to-desks/
Sheesh. Time to move, or sue the HOA into dust.
“She called to ask why,” Gaddie said. “They told her they had received a complaint that it was considered racist, offensive and anti-Black Lives Matter,” he said.
So it's racist, and anti-racist at the same time, is it?
-
Personally, I would be offended because (a) it's a violation of the U.S. Flag Code; and (b) the concept of the "thin blue line" has come to stand for "good" cops refusing to hold bad cops accountable for conduct that brings discredit to police officers everywhere.
-
Personally, I would be offended because (a) it's a violation of the U.S. Flag Code; and (b) the concept of the "thin blue line" has come to stand for "good" cops refusing to hold bad cops accountable for conduct that brings discredit to police officers everywhere.
Yup!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fherohog.com%2Fimages%2FCops%2Fbadcop.jpg&hash=cf85c9dd13de4b75608b15a341deea58bfbf37ee)
:old:
-
That's nice and all, but it's also not a racist flag.
-
That's nice and all, but it's also not a racist flag.
But it's pro-cop, and all cops are racist, so therefore it's a racist flag.
Don'cha know nuttin'?
-
I don't like that flag, nor am I a huge fan of the whole "Thin Blue Line/Blue Lives Matter" movement, for reasons others touched on above.
But at the level of hurt feelz taking over the US (seemingly) daily, I kinda hope the homeowner just says "*expletive deleted*ck Off, random complainers are not the final arbiter of what's racist, and it's not illegal to be racist anyway."
I will say that stories like these were a large part of why my wife and I consciously chose to find a non-HOA house when we bought our most recent abode. We passed over several nicer and/or cheaper houses to do so, and in the 5 years we've lived there we haven't regretted that decision in the least. HOA's in central Florida or like a nightmare conglomeration of the "If it pleases the crown" memes.
-
I don't like that flag, nor am I a huge fan of the whole "Thin Blue Line/Blue Lives Matter" movement, for reasons others touched on above.
But at the level of hurt feelz taking over the US (seemingly) daily, I kinda hope the homeowner just says "*expletive deleted*ck Off, random complainers are not the final arbiter of what's racist, and it's not illegal to be racist anyway."
This is how it strikes me, along with the aggravating irony that it's not "Blue Lives" that is a racist movement; it's "Black Lives."
-
This is how it strikes me, along with the aggravating irony that it's not "Blue Lives" that is a racist movement; it's "Black Lives."
True.
Except that, as we all know, only whites can be racists. But groups like Black Lives Matter, the United Negro College Fund, the NAACP, La Raza, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), etc, aren't racist even though they promote their race against and over whites because ... well, because ... BECAUSE!
-
The name, address, and phone number of the HOA official who determined that the flag must be removed ought to be publicized far and wide so that they receive the public ridicule and humiliation they so richly deserve.
-
Guys! Wrong focus here!
Not the flag, not the accusation, not the racism...
What everyone should be screeching about is evil HOAS!
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
-
Guys! Wrong focus here!
Not the flag, not the accusation, not the racism...
What everyone should be screeching about is evil HOAS!
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
OK. Oh, those evil HOAs. How I hate them.
-
True.
Except that, as we all know, only whites can be racists. But groups like Black Lives Matter, the United Negro College Fund, the NAACP, La Raza, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), etc, aren't racist even though they promote their race against and over whites because ... well, because ... BECAUSE!
With the exception of La Raza, I'm not aware of the organizations you named being outright racist in the way Black Lives Matter is. BLM continues to stand behind criminals who arranged their own deaths, even after the facts have shown that the deceased was responsible.
-
With the exception of La Raza, I'm not aware of the organizations you named being outright racist in the way Black Lives Matter is. BLM continues to stand behind criminals who arranged their own deaths, even after the facts have shown that the deceased was responsible.
Perhaps not in the same way, but do you disagree that organizations like the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are inherently racist? Or, for that matter, the Congressional Black Caucus. Because, if they aren't inherently racist, there should be no objections to forming a United White College Fund, a National Association for the Advancement of White People, and a Congressional White Caucus.
-
Perhaps not in the same way, but do you disagree that organizations like the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are inherently racist? Or, for that matter, the Congressional Black Caucus. Because, if they aren't inherently racist, there should be no objections to forming a United White College Fund, a National Association for the Advancement of White People, and a Congressional White Caucus.
They're based on race, but that doesn't make them racist. There's nothing wrong with an historically disadvantaged minority forming associations for their own self-help. It is unseemly, however, for a group without the same inherited handicap to help its own, to the exclusion of such minorities.
-
They're based on race, but that doesn't make them racist. There's nothing wrong with an historically disadvantaged minority forming associations for their own self-help. It is unseemly, however, for a group without the same inherited handicap to help its own, to the exclusion of such minorities.
This rationalization assumes racial homogeneity and race-wide privilege that simply doesn't exist.
-
This rationalization assumes racial homogeneity and race-wide privilege that simply doesn't exist.
It does not so assume.
-
This rationalization assumes racial homogeneity and race-wide privilege that simply doesn't exist.
Actually, most black people in this country share a culture to a greater degree than most white people. (I.e. the cultural differences between two randomly selected white people are likely to be greater than the cultural differences between two randomly selected black people. The size of the respective populations guarantees that.)
I think, because of this, they need more organizations interested in improving their lot, by way of their culture. Most of the existing organizations, unfortunately, seem to be more along the lines of those complained about by Booker T. Washington:
“There is another class of coloured people* who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
The problem is not the race (or culture) centered organizations themselves, but the focus of said organizations. Sadly, the Booker T. Washingtons of today are ignored and decried by the "grievance profiteers."
*I know he's HORRIBLY racist for using such a term when it should be "people of color", not colored people. COMPLETELY different things.
-
They're based on race, but that doesn't make them racist. There's nothing wrong with an historically disadvantaged minority forming associations for their own self-help. It is unseemly, however, for a group without the same inherited handicap to help its own, to the exclusion of such minorities.
If their mission, no matter how benevolent, uses race as a primary deciding factor then they are, by any objective measure, racist.
Brad
-
If their mission, no matter how benevolent, uses race as a primary deciding factor then they are, by any objective measure, racist.
Brad
Under a really broad definition of racism, in which it's racist to sell hair care products specifically for black people. Or to point out that sickle-cell anemia is more prevalant among blacks than whites.
Usually, when we say that something's racist, we're defining it more like this:
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism)
Under the usual definition, there's nothing racist about noting that a minority group has faced certain disadvantages, and trying to help that specific group. Or to say, in the case of BET, that a certain kind of music is predominantly performed and consumed by, and associated with, that minority group.
-
They're based on race, but that doesn't make them racist. There's nothing wrong with an historically disadvantaged minority forming associations for their own self-help.
The fact that they are based on race and that their agenda is to advance/favor their race above other races by definition makes them racist. You might argue that such racism serves a positive purpose (and I might disagree with you) but it IS racism.
-
The fact that they are based on race and that their agenda is to advance/favor their race above other races by definition makes them racist. You might argue that such racism serves a positive purpose (and I might disagree with you) but it IS racism.
I've already clarified the sort of racism it is - not the kind that should bother anyone. So why does it bother you? Because you don't get to watch White Entertainment Television, or because there's no NAAWP to make you feel special about being white? What's the problem?
My problem with most of these race-based organizations isn't that they help their own race; it's that they mostly help themselves (their organization), while perpetuating leftism. That, plus the fact that we are reaching a point where racism against white people is actually more of a problem than any other kind.
-
It does not so assume.
I was specifically thinking of the following:
It is unseemly, however, for a group without the same inherited handicap to help its own, to the exclusion of such minorities.
There are plenty of black people in our country who lack any historical connection to the "inherited handicaps" claimed by the racially exclusive groups of which you approve.
There are plenty of white people in our country who have their own historical handicaps which you presume to deny as justification for racially exclusive support networks because of the color of their skin. I'm thinking specifically of the devastatingly poor of Appalachia as a group I have some personal exposure to, but I'm sure there are others.
-
Under a really broad definition of racism, in which it's racist to sell hair care products specifically for black people. Or to point out that sickle-cell anemia is more prevalant among blacks than whites.
Those are objective criteria based on a physical trait prevalent in, and not under the control of, the target demographic. An entity providing, say, college funding based on the criteria of a specific ethnicity, and to the exclusion of all other ethnicity groups, is an entirely different scenario. An individual cannot determine their biological ethnicity or the physical traits inherent to that condition. They can, to a significant degree, control their economic status. Thus the exclusionary condition of funding meets the definition of racism no matter how benevolent the intent.
One scenario is racism, the other is not. Intent may be an emotional factor but it does not discount inherent racial inequality.
Brad
-
So is racism inherently evil? Or just when white people do it? ??? :facepalm:
-
I was specifically thinking of the following:There are plenty of black people in our country who lack any historical connection to the "inherited handicaps" claimed by the racially exclusive groups of which you approve.
There are plenty of white people in our country who have their own historical handicaps which you presume to deny as justification for racially exclusive support networks because of the color of their skin. I'm thinking specifically of the devastatingly poor of Appalachia as a group I have some personal exposure to, but I'm sure there are others.
And these Appalachians are disadvantaged because they're white? Or is it because Appalachians faced certain problems as a group? (I'm guessing the latter. I know almost nothing about Appalachia.) A quick internet search turns up various foundations and scholarship programs for Appalachians (presumably for the people, not the mountains). This despite there being plenty of black Appalachian people in our country who don't suffer from the "inherited handicaps" claimed by the sociologically exclusive group of Appalachians of which you approve.
Like Appalachians, black Americans (or at least most of them) are a more-or-less distinct group that has faced certain challenges that cause some people to want to help them, specifically. In the same way, there are organizations that help specifically the deaf, but exclude those with other handicaps. When you say that some black people aren't "historically connected," I assume you're talking about those from more recent immigration. I'm going to assume that's a fairly small percentage of the people receiving help from these groups, so I don't see how it changes things.
Speaking specifically of scholarships, there are scholarships available for all sorts of very specific types of people.
-
So is racism inherently evil? Or just when white people do it? ??? :facepalm:
I think the reality is that it is part of the human condition (or perhaps that is mainly "prejudice". Leftist Liberals would probably say yes to both questions.
-
And these Appalachians are disadvantaged because they're white?
Of course not. No more than race is the primary cause for most disadvantaged black people in 2017.
In both cases groups of individuals are disadvantaged for a variety of reasons that we could explore, but not especially because of the color of their skin. I would note that there are plenty of disadvantaged non-blacks living in similar situations to disadvantaged blacks, and that these people tend to have similar issues.
Or is it because Appalachians faced certain problems as a group? (I'm guessing the latter. I know almost nothing about Appalachia.) A quick internet search turns up various foundations and scholarship programs for Appalachians (presumably for the people, not the mountains). This despite there being plenty of black Appalachian people in our country who don't suffer from the "inherited handicaps" claimed by the sociologically exclusive group of Appalachians of which you approve.
The areas I'm thinking of are upwards of 95% white, but I'd wager that the various foundations and scholarship programs provide for white as well as black participants. That is to the good.
Like Appalachians, black Americans (or at least most of them) are a more-or-less distinct group that has faced certain challenges that cause some people to want to help them, specifically.
If this were 1957 instead of 2017 I wouldn't argue. If the programs in question were designed to assist people with problems common among disadvantaged black Americans but without limits to race, I wouldn't argue. But it's not 1957 and those programs are not simply designed to address problems common among disadvantaged black Americans. Thus, pretending that black Americans are - today - as a group in special need of extra help to succeed is rather insulting to black Americans.
In the same way, there are organizations that help specifically the deaf, but exclude those with other handicaps.
That is a terrible analogy. Or are you comparing skin color to a handicap? The organizations which deal with specific handicaps presumably deal with people who have that particular problem rather than excluding people by race.
For example, if there existed a program which could provide worthwhile solutions for single parents families regardless of race I'd see that as a good thing. Yes, 67% of black families would benefit from that kind of program vs 25% of white families, but single parents tend to face similar issues regardless of race.
Personally, I find racially exclusive programs to be unseemly whatever the color of the beneficiaries.
-
What's the problem?
My problem with most of these race-based organizations isn't that they help their own race; it's that they mostly help themselves (their organization), while perpetuating leftism. That, plus the fact that we are reaching a point where racism against white people is actually more of a problem than any other kind.
So you're saying that racism is okay as long as it isn't directed against white people?
-
are we back to being ok with people altering the American flag? I thought we were against that. I can't keep up
-
are we back to being ok with people altering the American flag? I thought we were against that. I can't keep up
Shhhh, dammit... the thread drift was just starting to really kick in...
Brad
-
are we back to being ok with people altering the American flag? I thought we were against that. I can't keep up
You haven't read the thread, apparently.
-
Was it here that someone posted a picture of some of the special snowflake brigade in front of an American flag, where the stars had been replaced with 50 little pictures of Che?
-
are we back to being ok with people altering the American flag? I thought we were against that. I can't keep up
Let's take a poll. I'm a curmudgeon, so I'm against it.
-
Let's take a poll. I'm a curmudgeon, so I'm against it.
Horse Feathers!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v3etuIw-aM
-
[comparison of a black self-help organization with an organization for the deaf]
That is a terrible analogy. Or are you comparing skin color to a handicap? The organizations which deal with specific handicaps presumably deal with people who have that particular problem rather than excluding people by race.
To state the obvious, no one's saying that .orgs to help the deaf are excluding people by race. But saying that they "deal with people that have that particular problem" is just another way of saying that they exclude everyone else.
To state the obvious again, no one's saying that skin color makes one person less capable than another.* That doesn't mean there isn't a disparity in various statistics between black and white Americans. Whether that's because of racism (as it was when many of these groups were founded) or because of cultural problems today, I don't understand the objection to focusing on that group. I don't see how it's any different than an organization helping only the Appalachian, or only the deaf, or only the children of law enforcement officers, or only Christian refugees from ISIS-controlled areas. And so on.
If this were 1957 instead of 2017 I wouldn't argue. If the programs in question were designed to assist people with problems common among disadvantaged black Americans but without limits to race, I wouldn't argue. But it's not 1957 and those programs are not simply designed to address problems common among disadvantaged black Americans.
OK. Just keep in mind that a lot of the groups you're talking about were begun before 1957.
Thus, pretending that black Americans are - today - as a group in special need of extra help to succeed is rather insulting to black Americans.
It's no more insulting than saying that Appalachians or deaf people need help to succeed. It's not an insult to recognize that some groups of people face challenges that are different, or that exist to a greater extent, than that of the majority.
*Well, the SJWs have been known to say that.
-
Some good points, fistful.
To state the obvious, no one's saying that .orgs to help the deaf are excluding people by race. But saying that they "deal with people that have that particular problem" is just another way of saying that they exclude everyone else.
Right. They exclude people who don't suffer from that particular problem. In other words, the logic seems to go, being black in the US is a problem. It certainly has been a problem historically, but is it now?
To state the obvious again, no one's saying that skin color makes one person less capable than another.* That doesn't mean there isn't a disparity in various statistics between black and white Americans. Whether that's because of racism (as it was when many of these groups were founded) or because of cultural problems today, I don't understand the objection to focusing on that group. I don't see how it's any different than an organization helping only the Appalachian, or only the deaf, or only the children of law enforcement officers, or only Christian refugees from ISIS-controlled areas. And so on.
But you do see a problem with a whites-only charity?
OK. Just keep in mind that a lot of the groups you're talking about were begun before 1957.
Of course. Outdated organizations don't need to continue to exist. In fact, outdated, racially-segregated organizations seeking continued relevance strike me as more likely to seek racial acrimony as opposed to any sort of real solutions.
-
Outdated organizations don't need to continue to exist. In fact, outdated, racially-segregated organizations seeking continued relevance strike me as more likely to seek racial acrimony as opposed to any sort of real solutions.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/K1OuruylS5Ppe/giphy.gif)
-
Some good points, fistful.Right. They exclude people who don't suffer from that particular problem. In other words, the logic seems to go, being black in the US is a problem. It certainly has been a problem historically, but is it now?
This is not a serious question. That black America has serious problems (high incarceration rates, a much higher percentage of fatherless homes, shorter lifespans for black men, etc) is well-documented. You speak as if "being black in the US" can only be a problem if the problem is racial prejudice against black people. But there clearly is a problem in black America.
But you do see a problem with a whites-only charity?
Of course, for obvious reasons. I mean, if we're talking about a place like the U.S. Obviously, in a place where whites are a disadvantaged minority, that would change.
Of course. Outdated organizations don't need to continue to exist. In fact, outdated, racially-segregated organizations seeking continued relevance strike me as more likely to seek racial acrimony as opposed to any sort of real solutions.
Again, past racism is not the only problem. Problems persist in black America. If you want to say the organizations in question aren't doing a very good job, I wouldn't disagree with you. If you want to say they have become a part of the problem, fine. But that's not because there's something racist about having support groups for minority populations.
-
This is not a serious question. That black America has serious problems (high incarceration rates, a much higher percentage of fatherless homes, shorter lifespans for black men, etc) is well-documented. You speak as if "being black in the US" can only be a problem if the problem is racial prejudice against black people. But there clearly is a problem in black America.
Assuming for the sake of discussion that this is a uniquely black American problem, how much of it is due to the very fact that black advocacy groups and activists have promoted that socio-economic model as a way of maintaining a constituency? I once worked for a public housing agency. I saw it in person, up close and personal. There were families with as many as three generations living in the same apartment, and that family had been living in that same apartment for three or four generations in the past. They didn't WANT to improve their situation -- if it involved learning something, or having to go to work every day, they didn't want anything to do with it. They weren't in that situation because they were discriminated against -- they were in that situation because they chose to remain on the dole.
-
Assuming for the sake of discussion that this is a uniquely black American problem, how much of it is due to the very fact that black advocacy groups and activists have promoted that socio-economic model as a way of maintaining a constituency? I once worked for a public housing agency. I saw it in person, up close and personal. There were families with as many as three generations living in the same apartment, and that family had been living in that same apartment for three or four generations in the past. They didn't WANT to improve their situation -- if it involved learning something, or having to go to work every day, they didn't want anything to do with it. They weren't in that situation because they were discriminated against -- they were in that situation because they chose to remain on the dole.
I don't think anyone said the problems of black America are "uniquely black." Obviously, there are certain problems that are especially bad among black Americans, but that doesn't mean they don't occur elsewhere.
The "socio-economic" model you're referring to is apparently public assistance? Just so we're all on the same page, isn't public assistance/welfare a race-blind, all-are-welcome program?
-
Of course, for obvious reasons. I mean, if we're talking about a place like the U.S. Obviously, in a place where whites are a disadvantaged minority, that would change.
This may be the crux of the issue. Why does "disadvantaged minority" change the situation in your opinion?
Let's say there were two hypothetical organizations. Both are well managed and effective private organizations intended to solve a specific problem, namely the reduction in single parent households among the poor. The #FFF Foundation serves exclusively disadvantaged whites and the #000 Group helps only disadvantaged blacks. Why is the #FFF Foundation racist and the #000 Group not?
Or, to explore this further, an Asian group which supports only Asian Americans ... racist or not? Given that Asians are a minority but one that makes whites look disadvantaged by comparison, where do they fall? Does minority status trump disadvantaged status?
Alternately, does disadvantaged status trump majority? Whites die at double the rate of blacks from opioid overdoses and thrice the rate of Hispanics (http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/opioid-overdose-deaths-by-raceethnicity/?dataView=2¤tTimeframe=0&selectedRows=%7B%22wrapups%22:%7B%22united-states%22:%7B%7D%7D%7D&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D). Given this is a particular challenge which whites face at a drastically greater rate than blacks, would a whites-only opioid treatment program be acceptable? Obviously it ought not be called Klansman 4 Klean Krackers, but ...
-
The "socio-economic" model you're referring to is apparently public assistance? Just so we're all on the same page, isn't public assistance/welfare a race-blind, all-are-welcome program?
Yes, but people of other colors who are living in public housing and/or living on government subsidies aren't nearly as universally opposed to doing something to get OUT of public housing or off the government teat. Public housing is the pits. Anybody who is sane would want to live just about anywhere other than public housing, yet there are (as I've said) black families with the fourth generation living in the same public housing unit. FOUR GENERATIONS and they can't manage to better their situation enough to get of those dumps?
The answer is that they don't want to. True story:
Several years ago I had to attend a meeting at the facilities office of the nearby university. The facilities office is on the edge of the campus, a block or two from one of the largest (and THE oldest) public housing projects in the city. No parking to be found near the office, so I parked at a meter at the start of the project neighborhood.
On the way back to my car after the meeting, I found myself walking behind three or four young ladies from the project. They were black. Their topic of discussion was their life plans. One of them confidently announced that her plan was all set. "Soon's I turn 18 I's gonna quit school and start havin' babies."
That's the mindset. It's definitely a problem, but they didn't develop that mindset because "whitey" is trying to hold them back, they developed it because "whitey" tried too hard to help them. Remember the parable -- give a man a fish and he'll eat today, teach a man to fish and he'll eat every day.
-
Yes, but people of other colors who are living in public housing and/or living on government subsidies aren't nearly as universally opposed to doing something to get OUT of public housing or off the government teat...That's the mindset. It's definitely a problem, but they didn't develop that mindset because "whitey" is trying to hold them back, they developed it because "whitey" tried too hard to help them. Remember the parable -- give a man a fish and he'll eat today, teach a man to fish and he'll eat every day.
I hope you don't mind that I abbreviated your post a little bit, and bolded some relevant info. I was responding to your post about things like NAACP, etc. I agree with you about the public benefit issues.
-
Remember the parable -- give a man a fish and he'll eat today, teach a man to fish and he'll eat every day.
"Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm the rest of his life." :old:
-
"Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm the rest of his life." :old:
The first part; Build a man a fire and he will be warm for the night,
-
Of course. Outdated organizations don't need to continue to exist. In fact, outdated, racially-segregated organizations seeking continued relevance strike me as more likely to seek racial acrimony as opposed to any sort of real solutions.
The phrase you are looking for is: "Poverty Pimps".
-
This may be the crux of the issue. Why does "disadvantaged minority" change the situation in your opinion?
Let's say there were two hypothetical organizations. Both are well managed and effective private organizations intended to solve a specific problem, namely the reduction in single parent households among the poor. The #FFF Foundation serves exclusively disadvantaged whites and the #000 Group helps only disadvantaged blacks. Why is the #FFF Foundation racist and the #000 Group not?
I think it was your side of the argument that was alleging racism. It's more a question of propriety. When you include the fact that the black cohort suffers from those problems (poverty, illegitimacy) at a significantly higher rate, and when you bring in history and human nature, then the answer suggests itself.
If the #FFF group wants to help people with that specific problem, why decline to help a smaller slice of the population, where it's an even bigger problem? If it does exclude non-whites, that brings with it all the baggage of historical discrimation against non-whites.
With the #000, on the other hand, the historical baggage isn't there. It's understood that you have a minority group trying to solve a problem that's especially bad in their group. Also, it's not insignificant that #000 has the optics of black Americans helping their own, rather than blacks depending on white charity. (Even if, in reality, a lot of donations might be coming from other races.) The #FFF, by contrast, looks like a more affluent majority group (or at least a plurality group) that doesn't want to help a less-affluent minority. The optics don't make them racist, but a whites-only policy may be more trouble than it's worth.
If you ask #000 to help non-blacks, it looks as if you're asking the relatively small group of black Americans that aren't afflicted by poverty to help the relatively large number of poverty-stricken households in the United States - white, black, Hispanic, and so on.
Or, to explore this further, an Asian group which supports only Asian Americans ... racist or not? Given that Asians are a minority but one that makes whites look disadvantaged by comparison, where do they fall? Does minority status trump disadvantaged status?
That's an interesting question. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a minority group, even an affluent one, trying to help the less-privileged in their own ranks. They might face a lot of blowback, though, from non-Asians in their area. So it may not be the best idea in the world. Of course, a lot of minority groups do that sort of thing informally. That's not always so popular, either.
I might ask you, assuming you're OK with a charity that specifically helps Appalachians, would you be alright with one that specifically helps people from Beverly Hills, or West Palm Beach, or wherever it is that the wealthy congregate these days?
Alternately, does disadvantaged status trump majority? Whites die at double the rate of blacks from opioid overdoses and thrice the rate of Hispanics. Given this is a particular challenge which whites face at a drastically greater rate than blacks, would a whites-only opioid treatment program be acceptable? Obviously it ought not be called Klansman 4 Klean Krackers, but ...
This is like the situation with the #FFF, except now you have a far smaller group of minority people in need. A smaller percentage of smaller groups of people. Plus the baggage of historical discrimination.
-
if the problem was race B.O never would have been elected, some rap dude named "lil Wayne"
dismissed BLM as BS , saying the guy driving his limo is white as well as the guy filming the interview.
( I'm paraphrasing, I am not an expert in the vernacular of "gangsta" rap )
The basic gist was it was stupid to even consider BLM.
the flag should be left alone, the stars and stripes are important - but i see no reason to get upset about a blue line or flowers instead of stars...
if you are the owner of said flag you have the right to decorate it.
However, people complaining to HOA's are sanctimonious, if it aint blocking your view or keeping you awake when you need to sleep
or bothering you - why be a pest?
I am boycotting HOA's ...... mostly because I can't afford a house anyway haw haw.
-
If the #FFF group wants to help people with that specific problem, why decline to help a smaller slice of the population, where it's an even bigger problem? If it does exclude non-whites, that brings with it all the baggage of historical discrimation against non-whites.
With the #000, on the other hand, the historical baggage isn't there. It's understood that you have a minority group trying to solve a problem that's especially bad in their group. Also, it's not insignificant that #000 has the optics of black Americans helping their own, rather than blacks depending on white charity. (Even if, in reality, a lot of donations might be coming from other races.) The #FFF, by contrast, looks like a more affluent majority group (or at least a plurality group) that doesn't want to help a less-affluent minority. The optics don't make them racist, but a whites-only policy may be more trouble than it's worth.
I don't disagree that a whites-only group brings with it historical baggage. Whereas I extrapolate a general principle from the historical evils of racial discrimination and exclusion, you see that two wrongs make a right.
Your position, as I said originally, incorrectly assumes racial homogeneity and race-wide privilege. It encourages people to continue to make tribal distinctions based on skin color and to emphasize the divisions between those groups. The history of that type of thinking is not a positive one.
If you ask #000 to help non-blacks, it looks as if you're asking the relatively small group of black Americans that aren't afflicted by poverty to help the relatively large number of poverty-stricken households in the United States - white, black, Hispanic, and so on.
Individuals matter, not skin colors. It doesn't matter how wealthy some white people are, others are as destitute as any black person. Likewise, no matter how poor some black people are, some blacks are extremely wealthy and powerful. Your position generalizes whites as wealthy and blacks as poor and then treats those homogenized caricatures as if they were a unified whole. I'm not asking black Americans to do anything - I'm suggesting that generally speaking groups that encourage racial exclusivity are distasteful and that such groups don't get a pass just because the people who run them have ancestors who were mistreated or because people who look vaguely like them are poor.
I might ask you, assuming you're OK with a charity that specifically helps Appalachians, would you be alright with one that specifically helps people from Beverly Hills, or West Palm Beach, or wherever it is that the wealthy congregate these days?
I have no problem with regional charities. Regional and local charities are, in my experience, better suited to serve the right people in just about every way.
Regardless, you are continuing to pretend that individuals are nothing more than avatars for groups and that we should be judged by our tribal averages. There are poor people in and around Beverly Hills and West Palm Beach who absolutely could use help. Just because they are geographically (or racially) connected to wealthy individuals doesn't make their position any better.
-
Your position, as I said originally, incorrectly assumes racial homogeneity and race-wide privilege.
Regardless, you are continuing to pretend that individuals are nothing more than avatars for groups and that we should be judged by our tribal averages.
Your position generalizes whites as wealthy and blacks as poor and then treats those homogenized caricatures as if they were a unified whole.
Then let me be specific. You - just you - have lost your everloving mind. These statements of yours - these specific statements - are not only categorically false, but they bear no relation whatsoever to my comments, or any position I have herein taken.
I don't disagree that a whites-only group brings with it historical baggage. Whereas I extrapolate a general principle from the historical evils of racial discrimination and exclusion, you see that two wrongs make a right.
As many things as you're getting wrong here, you might eventually be right about something. But it's going to take a long time.