White House directs federal agencies to cancel race-related training sessions it calls ‘un-American propaganda’

[SuperLawyer]

It is demeaning to poor people to cast them as not capable of seeing beyond today’s meal and warm bed to sleep in.

Except that is an objective reality for a lot of folks who are struggling to make ends meet.

You are also completely negating the legal framework, mathematics and employment paths involved in this issue.

If welfare pays you $500/week, and you can barely make ends meet with that amount, you aren’t going to leave welfare to work at an entry job making $400/week even if you stand to make $600/week in six months after gaining experience and working your way up.

Welfare is a trap that takes advantage of poor people to advance the political aspirations of an elite few. This atrocity is compounded by the usage of these programs to dupe other voters into believing that it is the “virtuous” thing to do.

Welfare hurts the poor.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If disparities are a measure of racism, then Hispanics are guilty since their measures of wealth are higher than blacks.

The discussion of who is culpable for racism is a separate discussion from the discussion on what is or what is not systemic racism. Systemic racism is not described in terms of just individuals being unjust. It is the system in which we live. Whites today may have had no part in slavery, yet they benefit from a system that provides more benefit to them than to blacks on average. This is not to say that those whites are culpable (guilty) for the racism that benefits them. Same for the Hispanics, who are only a tiny bit above blacks in the amount of benefit they derive from living in this society. Yet people who are fortunate enough to have inherited a family fortune, or have an invention patented, or to own a sports team in need of a host city in which to build a stadium - they benefit tremendously from the system in which they live. And they are not to blame either. It is not about blame. It is about recognizing an inequity and taking steps to correct it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If welfare pays you $500/week, and you can barely make ends meet with that amount, you aren’t going to leave welfare to work at an entry job making $400/week even if you stand to make $600/week in six months after gaining experience and working your way up.

On the other hand, if that person’s situation is really that desparate that they could not take a $100 pay cut for six months, then just taking away the $500/week subsidy would likely crush all hopes of every getting that $400/week job. It is really hard to get a job when you are homeless. Employers want employees they can depend on and know where they live. It is also hard to get to interviews without transportation, and hard to make a good impression at that inteview if you do not have decent clothes.

I stand by my statement that assuming poor people do not want to risk welfare to better themselves is demeaning to their human dignity.

 

[Rockoh22]

I stand by my statement that assuming poor people do not want to risk welfare to better themselves is demeaning to their human dignity.

Have you lived in welfare? Or the “hood”?

 

[SuperLawyer]

I stand by my statement that assuming poor people do not want to risk welfare to better themselves is demeaning to their human dignity.

You’re contradicting yourself here.

In the first part of your comment you said exactly that.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Exactly! The Dems prefer to give a man a fish daily as opposed to the Republicans,teaching that man to fish and feed himself

 

[Ridgerunner]

Same for the Hispanics, who are only a tiny bit above blacks in the amount of benefit they derive from living in this society.

Might be true where you live, but it certainly isn’t here. Hispanics (mostly Mexican) around here work in factories, have businesses and supervisory jobs. They are homeowners and rental property rehab investors and landlords.

Yet people who are fortunate enough to have inherited a family fortune, or have an invention patented, or to own a sports team in need of a host city in which to build a stadium - they benefit tremendously from the system in which they live

It doesn’t take that. One of my friends is worth about $75 million and didn’t inherit anything. There are numerous millionaires around who didn’t inherit anything or invent anything or own a sports team. One guy who is a multi-millionaire grew up milking cows and later figured out a way to make pet food out of the leftover ice cream in ice cream manufactories that otherwise gets wasted when they change flavors in the “freezing tubes”. He also figured out a way to make pet food “human consumable” which it has to be in order to sell into the EU market.

 

[JonNC]

The discussion of who is culpable for racism is a separate discussion from the discussion on what is or what is not systemic racism.

No it is not. Imbedded in this false claim of systemic racism is an accusation against whites. They are not separate.

Systemic racism is not described in terms of just individuals being unjust. It is the system in which we live.

This is actually correct. This is why there is no systemic racism. When a police officer shoots an unarmed black without justification, that is outside of the system. It is not part of the system, and therefore not systemic, unless it can be shown that it is set forth as part of the system by statute or regulation.

Whites today may have had no part in slavery, yet they benefit from a system that provides more benefit to them than to blacks on average.

This is factually false. I receive no more from any system than blacks simply because I’m white.

Same for the Hispanics, who are only a tiny bit above blacks in the amount of benefit they derive from living in this society.

They probably receive less in benefits from systems in the US.

Yet people who are fortunate enough to have inherited a family fortune, or have an invention patented, or to own a sports team in need of a host city in which to build a stadium - they benefit tremendously from the system in which they live.

People who work hard are not receiving “benefits”. They are receiving what they earn. The NBA is overwhelmingly black. Those players are there because they worked hard to get there. It isn’t a benefit. It is earned.

And they are not to blame either. It is not about blame. It is about recognizing an inequity and taking steps to correct it.

It has been about blame all along.The first step to take is to stop calling it systemic racism, white privilege, or other terms that are untrue and racist By definition in and of themselves.

 

[signit]

If welfare pays you $500/week, and you can barely make ends meet with that amount, you aren’t going to leave welfare to work at an entry job making $400/week even if you stand to make $600/week in six months after gaining experience and working your way up.

Right; that’s just common sense.

Also, that $500/week is tax-free, and doesn’t include the noncash benefits that person would get.

And, my mother had a theory that the people who work in the social services have a motive to keep people dependent on the government because their own jobs depend on it.

Welfare is a trap that takes advantage of poor people to advance the political aspirations of an elite few. This atrocity is compounded by the usage of these programs to dupe other voters into believing that it is the “virtuous” thing to do.

Ooh, I’m so sick of that.

And if you don’t want to pay higher taxes to help people on welfare (because you’re paying enough taxes already and you want to support your own family) you get called names.

Have you lived in welfare? Or the “hood”?

I haven’t.

But it raises a point.

If you came from a working-class family or lived in a working-class community, you’d know how unpopular these programs are with some others.

You’d see how people use these programs to game the system.

And maybe the more upscale do-gooders in the tony suburbs don’t see that.

 

[signit]

LeafByNiggle:

Whites today may have had no part in slavery, yet they benefit from a system that provides more benefit to them than to blacks on average.

This is factually false. I receive no more from any system than blacks simply because I’m white.

The key words are “on average.”

I also do not receive more from the system because I’m white. In fact I have received less.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I stand by my statement that assuming poor people do not want to risk welfare to better themselves is demeaning to their human dignity.

You’re contradicting yourself here.

In the first part of your comment you said exactly that.

I’m sorry. I left out a word. I meant to write:

I stand by my statement that assuming poor people do not want to risk loosing welfare to better themselves is demeaning to their human dignity.

If that is not clear, then let me say it another way. If someone assumes that poor people will not risk loosing welfare benefits when they have a clear opportunity to better themselves that involves earning too much money to qualify for welfare, that person who assumes that of poor people is disrespecting them and their character.

 

[Feanor2]

We elected Obama. Twice.

The race card means nothing these days.

“I’m not racist. I’ve got this friend who’s black”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Same for the Hispanics, who are only a tiny bit above blacks in the amount of benefit they derive from living in this society.

Might be true where you live, but it certainly isn’t here. Hispanics (mostly Mexican) around here work in factories, have businesses and supervisory jobs. They are homeowners and rental property rehab investors and landlords.

And own ranches like your? In any case, whether that is true or not, the fact is true on average. There will always be exceptions.

Yet people who are fortunate enough to have inherited a family fortune, or have an invention patented, or to own a sports team in need of a host city in which to build a stadium - they benefit tremendously from the system in which they live

It doesn’t take that. One of my friends is worth about $75 million and didn’t inherit anything.

Again, that statistic is on average. Anecdotes about rich Hispanics or blacks do not refute the statistics.

There are numerous millionaires around…

Not nearly as numerous as families with less than $1000 in total wealth.

 

[twf]

I hear this a lot on CAF - “white privilege is a lie”. Does that position simply reject the idea that White privilege still exists, or are you saying there’s never been such a thing as white privilege? I’m genuinely curious.
I certainly know that, as a white Canadian, my grandparents weren’t forcibly hauled off to residential schools to be beaten if they spoke their native language… that was a privilege that First Nations kids, in living memory, didn’t enjoy. US civil rights movement was also a blink of an eye ago - living memory. I know Leftist projections of “white privilege” go way overboard, but I’m increasingly scratching my head with the constant mantra of “it doesn’t exist” on CAF.

 

[signit]

I hear this a lot on CAF - “white privilege is a lie”. Does that position simply reject the idea that White privilege still exists, or are you saying there’s never been such a thing as white privilege? I’m genuinely curious.
I certainly know that, as a white Canadian, my grandparents weren’t forcibly hauled off to residential schools to be beaten if they spoke their native language… that was a privilege that First Nations kids, in living memory, didn’t enjoy. US civil rights movement was also a blink of an eye ago - living memory. I know Leftist projections of “white privilege” go way overboard, but I’m increasingly scratching my head with the constant mantra of “it doesn’t exist” on CAF.

Similar to my earlier posts:

At one time, there was actual “white privilege” in the U.S.

Today, whites “on average” (as the other poster said) have an advantage as they came from families with more wealth (as the other poster said) and maybe because of other factors. My cousins (who were white) had an advantage as they had a father who had an education and a reasonable income and was willing to provide them with advantage.

But I hesitate to say (some) whites today have “white privilege” because they don’t have advantages because they’re white, but because they have other advantages (for example, families that encourage education, families that are willing to pay for their education, families that have “connections” in the real world to help them out). They don’t have these advantages specifically because they’re white. For example, there’s none of this 1950s stuff where employers wouldn’t hire blacks.

So I don’t agree with someone saying “all you whites have ‘white privilege’’” because whites today in the U.S. have little or no privilege because of their race. In fact plenty of whites don’t have the advantages I mentioned earlier that some other whites have.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The discussion of who is culpable for racism is a separate discussion from the discussion on what is or what is not systemic racism.

No it is not. Imbedded in this false claim of systemic racism is an accusation against whites. They are not separate.

Did you see any accusation against whites in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ document I quoted? If so, you should take it up with the bishops and ask why they are accusing whites. But you can’t because they didn’t make any such accusation.

Systemic racism is not described in terms of just individuals being unjust. It is the system in which we live.

This is actually correct. This is why there is no systemic racism. When a police officer shoots an unarmed black without justification, that is outside of the system.

That may be true in one case. But when more police officers shoot unarmed blacks than unarmed whites per their population, that can no longer to attributed to occasional bad apples. If so many of your apples are shooting unarmed blacks, maybe you should consider growing peaches or pears instead. In other words, change the system in your orchard.

Whites today may have had no part in slavery, yet they benefit from a system that provides more benefit to them than to blacks on average.

This is factually false. I receive no more from any system than blacks simply because I’m white.

“On average” is an important qualifier. That is why I was very careful to include it.

Yet people who are fortunate enough to have inherited a family fortune, or have an invention patented, or to own a sports team in need of a host city in which to build a stadium - they benefit tremendously from the system in which they live.

People who work hard are not receiving “benefits”.

Having connections in city government so you get a sweetheart deal for your new stadium is not “working hard”. Having a patent system that protects people big companies, but not the small inventor is not “working hard”. It is benefiting from a system. (For more information on that, see

)

They are receiving what they earn. The NBA is overwhelmingly black.

Not the owners.

And they are not to blame either. It is not about blame. It is about recognizing an inequity and taking steps to correct it.

It has been about blame all along.

Do you see it being about blame in the USCCB document?

 

[JonNC]

I hear this a lot on CAF - “white privilege is a lie”. Does that position simply reject the idea that White privilege still exists, or are you saying there’s never been such a thing as white privilege? I’m genuinely curious.

I’m saying one cannot attribute a characteristic, positive or negative, based on someone’s immutable characteristic. That is the very definition of racism.
Secondly, the American founding is based on individual rights, not privileges.
Slavery, and later Jim Crow snd segregation, was a denial of rights, not a granting of privileges. So, “white privilege“ is, in my view, A use of language to minimize the importance of individual rights.
In the George Floyd case, there was no granting of privilege to anyone, but there was a denying of rights. It could be related to race. We don’t know. The same for Blake.
The discussion should about making sure each American is not denied individual rights.

I certainly know that, as a white Canadian, my grandparents weren’t forcibly hauled off to residential schools to be beaten if they spoke their native language… that was a privilege that First Nations kids, in living memory, didn’t enjoy.

Not a privilege at all. It was a denial of rights.
The Trail of Tears and boarding schools suffered by the Cherokee was not due to a lack
of privileges It was a denial of rights.

I know Leftist projections of “white privilege” go way overboard, but I’m increasingly scratching my head with the constant mantra of “it doesn’t exist” on CAF

Leftists believe in government power as primary over individual rights. Rights, in the progressive model, are granted by government. So, from that position, any talk of rights is really a discussion of government granted privileges.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

twf:

I hear this a lot on CAF - “white privilege is a lie”. Does that position simply reject the idea that White privilege still exists, or are you saying there’s never been such a thing as white privilege? I’m genuinely curious.

I’m saying one cannot attribute a characteristic, positive or negative, based on someone’s immutable characteristic. That is the very definition of racism.

That doesn’t even make sense. You use the same word, “characteristic”, to refer to what we cannot attribute, and also to refer what that attribution is based on. That like saying that one cannot say black people have darker skin than white people, or black people are more susceptible to sickle cell anemia than white people. Of course we can say that.

A better way to say what you are alluding to is that one cannot attribute to an individual a characteristic based on their race without adequate justification. So for instance assuming that this black man would make a good drummer because “black people naturally have good rhythm” would be racist.

As for “white privilege”, whether it is true or not, it is still not racist to say it because it does attribute any characteristic to any person, white or black. It is just not that kind of a statement. Now, if you said “white people deserve to have special privilege”, that would be racist. But merely observing that a particular society at a particular point in time does grant white people privilege is not racist because it is not a comment about white people. It is a comment about the society in which they live. There can be no doubt that white privilege existed in 1850. Is it racist to state that in a history book? Of course not. It is racist to state that it exists in 2020? Definitely not. It might be untrue. But it is not racist.

The Trail of Tears and boarding schools suffered by the Cherokee was not due to a lack
of privileges It was a denial of rights.

Yes, it was a denial of rights. But it was also the result of a privilege enjoyed by those with the power to deny those rights and force them off their land. It is not a deserved privilege, but it is a privilege just the same.

 

[Ridgerunner]

whether that is true or not, the fact is true on average. There will always be exceptions.

I don’t think it’s true at all. I’ll grant that perhaps in some places poverty among Hispanics might be problematic. Of course, there are all kinds of Hispanics. My experience is mostly with those of Mexican descent. A few years ago, the average house bought by a Mexican was below $100,000.00. Now it’s pushing $200,000.00, and a large number of them own rental properties. They are very ambitious people. I just don’t believe they’re not reaping the rewards of being in this country. Visibly they are.

(As an aside, a $200,000 house here is a very nice house. If new, that would be about 2,000 square feet. If a few years old, usually more than that.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

But merely observing that a particular society at a particular point in time does grant white people privilege is not racist because it is not a comment about white people. It is a comment about the society in which they live.

Of course it’s racist. Do black people promote “white privilege”? Do Asians? No. It’s a judgment on those who supposedly have and maintain the “privilege”. That’s inherent in the term itself.