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

[JonNC]

Did you see any accusation against whites in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ document I quoted?

I also don’t see any political leader who makes these accusations referring to the Catholic bishops. They’re too busy being anti-Catholic.
So I suspect they may not view it the same way.

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.

True. It could be attributable to the fact that, per population, more blacks are involved in crimes that end up with interaction with police. Both Floyd and Blake Had warrants out. Blake was accused of sexual assault against the woman who called 911. He was there in violation of a restraining order.
Further, the measure is not whether or not they are armed. It has to do with other aspects such as resisting arrest, etc.
but even if we look at unarmed, there were about 14 last year. 14 out of 42 million American blacks. One is a tragedy. But 14 is not an indication of systemic racism throughout the major city police departments in the United State.

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.

Are these positive or negative attributes that one accuses them of having because they are inferior? Is the amount of melanin in the skin an immutable characteristic that determines anything about an individual?
Do you really think we are discussing sickle cell here?

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.

It is absolutely racist. It applies without proof across an entire demographic a negative characteristic determined donkey on race. It is, by definition, racist.

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.

Again, there is no privilege involved at all. Abuse of power is not a privilege, either. And, since no person today possesses that kind of power, it further Illustrates the lie of white privilege and systemic racism.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

You are seeing something in the term “white privilege” that I do not see. As it said, it might be wrong to say there is white privilege, but is it not racist, because it does not say anything about anybody. It says something about the society as a whole. Sometimes systems maintain themselves. Take a look at deed covenants. Then continue even after the ones racist architects of the system are dead and buried. Nobody alive is to blame for their existence. Yet they can continue to have an effect. It is important to separate the notion of racism from the notion of blame.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Did you see any accusation against whites in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ document I quoted?

I also don’t see any political leader who makes these accusations referring to the Catholic bishops. They’re too busy being anti-Catholic.
So I suspect they may not view it the same way.

You said the claim of systemic racism was a false claim. I showed you where the bishops say it is real and deserving of attention. I won’t get sidetracked into talking about any politicians because that is not what this thread is about. Either you disagree with me and the bishops, or you don’t. Which is it?

It could be attributable to the fact that, per population, more blacks are involved in crimes that end up with interaction with police.

No, that would only explain justifiable shootings. It does not explain the unjustified shootings.

Both Floyd and Blake Had warrants out.

Which did not justify the lethal force that was used. Would they have been shot or asphyxiated if it was a white person with a warrant out? Probably not.

but even if we look at unarmed, there were about 14 last year…But 14 is not an indication of systemic racism throughout the major city police departments in the United State.

By proportion of the population there would have been 93 unarmed white people killed by police. Were there?

It is absolutely racist. It applies without proof across an entire demographic…

It is racist if white privilege exists. It is not racist to point it out, just as it is racist to lynch someone because of their race, but it is not racist to point out the lynching.

Again, there is no privilege involved at all. Abuse of power is not a privilege, either.

You are thinking only of justifiable or deserved privileges. But if the system allows someone to abuse power in such a manner, that system is granting them the privilege to do that.

This sidetrack into the sematics of “privilege” is unfortunate, but you were the one to bring up the Trail of Tears and how it was not a privilege exercised by whites.

Actually, I avoid the using the term “white privilege” because it carries a connotation of a codified benefit, which does not accurately describe the inherent benefit of being white in American society, which not always expressed in a codified manner. Here is an example.

Being white, I am comfortable walking in National Parks and nature preserves. But we know there are parks where even today a black person would not necessarily feel comfortable, knowing that others in the park are more likely to view him with suspicion, and possibly call the police on him. That is systemic racism that is not codified.

 

[Rockoh22]

Being white, I am comfortable walking in National Parks and nature preserves. But we know there are parks where even today a black person would not necessarily feel comfortable, knowing that others in the park are more likely to view him with suspicion, and possibly call the police on him. That is systemic racism that is not codified.

Have you ever encountered black racist?

 

[Ridgerunner]

not racist, because it does not say anything about anybody.

Of course it does. It’s like saying “happy colored” or “n----- rich” or “uppity negro”. It labels an entire race with a very negative term. A racist epithet does not have to refer to anyone in particular.

I have seen plenty of racially exclusionary covenants, usually excluding blacks and Asians… I doubt that one in 200,000 people even know about them. Why do you think they affect anything now after decades of non-enforcement?

I agree that having racial biases is not necessarily blameworthy. But I think we both know that “white privilege” is a very negative term applied to all white people.

Being white, I am comfortable walking in National Parks and nature preserves. But we know there are parks where even today a black person would not necessarily feel comfortable, knowing that others in the park are more likely to view him with suspicion, and possibly call the police on him. That is systemic racism that is not codified.

There are plenty of parks where no white person would feel comfortable walking. And the police would be the least of his worries.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

not racist, because it does not say anything about anybody.

Of course it does. It’s like saying “happy colored” or “n----- rich” or “uppity negro”. It labels an entire race with a very negative term. A racist epithet does not have to refer to anyone in particular.

It is not like that at all. It does not describe a characteristic of any person or any race. “white privilege” describes (perhaps inaccurately) a system. Just that. Only a system.

I have seen plenty of racially exclusionary covenants, usually excluding blacks and Asians… I doubt that one in 200,000 people even know about them. Why do you think they affect anything now after decades of non-enforcement?

They don’t. Not anymore. I used them only to explain a concept. The concept of a system having a racist outcome even if there is no guilty party currently in sight. After that concept is understood, we can discard the whole sidetrack of covenant deeds.

I agree that having racial biases is not necessarily blameworthy. But I think we both know that “white privilege” is a very negative term applied to all white people.

It is only a negative term to the extent that some white people might actively oppose efforts to erase it. Or, worse yet, people who adopt the attitude that whatever privilege they do enjoy due to their race is certainly well deserved. This does not apply to all whites. Not by a long shot. But some.

 

[pnewton]

This is what welfare does to people.

Are you really claiming that welfare causes people to live in low-income housing?

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is only a negative term to the extent that some white people might actively oppose efforts to erase it. Or, worse yet, people who adopt the attitude that whatever privilege they do enjoy due to their race is certainly well deserved. This does not apply to all whites. Not by a long shot. But some.

I think you just proved my point. It’s a negative term that is applied to an entire “race”. It’s not dissimilar to the “n” word. A black person will tell you that they use the word frequently among themselves. Among them, it’s not considered negative toward the person addressed with it, and certainly not to the whole race. But they object to white people using it because, they say, when whites say it, it is intended negatively.

“White privilege” is always intended negatively. And as you explain it, one must either admit that one is privileged because liberals say so, or be guilty of attempting to maintain it. Either way, all whites are deemed guilty of it, despite your protestation that some are not. One bears guilt and blame for it if one does not accept guilt and blame for it.

 

[pnewton]

Please read the title of the thread, and see that the real issue is the cancelling of race-related training.

While I understand that diversity training can be political, I have a better understanding on why it is needed. There is so much factual misunderstanding and error that is still believed. It seems clear we have a ways to go. Our first step must be to stop undermining what progress has been made.

 

[JonNC]

You said the claim of systemic racism was a false claim.

It is.

I showed you where the bishops say it is real and deserving of attention.

They didn’t define what they meant.

I showed you where the bishops say it is real and deserving of attention.

Again, they don’t define it.

I won’t get sidetracked into talking about any politicians because that is not what this thread is about. Either you disagree with me and the bishops, or you don’t. Which is it?

I think the sidetrack is the appeal to authority, and one that doesn’t define the term. If they define the term as the leftists do, they are wrong

By proportion of the population there would have been 93 unarmed white people killed by police. Were there?

What is the proportion of interaction with police? Are you saying that if one black who resists arrest is shot, 93 whites should have been also? I think that’s an unreasonable use of statistics.

Being white, I am comfortable walking in National Parks and nature preserves. But we know there are parks where even today a black person would not necessarily feel comfortable, knowing that others in the park are more likely to view him with suspicion, and possibly call the police on him. That is systemic racism that is not codified.

I would not be comfortable walking in Central Park, or parts of North Philadelphia.
I would suggest that American blacks can be quite safe walking in our national parks, safer than in south Chicago.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What is the proportion of interaction with police?

That is racist to characterize black people as necessarily having more confrontations with police. You said so yourself. Attributing any characteristic to someone based on their race is racist. Isn’t that what you said?

 

[Annie]

While I understand that diversity training can be political, I have a better understanding on why it is needed. There is so much factual misunderstanding and error that is still believed. It seems clear we have a ways to go. Our first step must be to stop undermining what progress has been made.

I really agree with this.

We should have education in the history and present situation of many black people.

For example, @LeafByNiggle mentions that white families have 9 times the wealth of black families. This can probably be traced almost completely to the redlining/covenants which denied black GIs their GI Bill benefits during the 1940s and 50s.

I did not know about this before a few years ago.

The discrepancy between how black children and white children are disciplined even in private preschools as well as throughout their educations is another thing I have learned about.

And so on. I think that if we educated people about the nature of how the experience of black people differs even when the situation is the same as that of white people’s, then people in general will be able to change some of their assumptions and behavior.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This can probably be traced almost completely to the redlining/covenants which denied black GIs their GI Bill benefits during the 1940s and 50s.

I did not know about this before a few years ago.

It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. Nothing prevented black people from buying real property, stock, bonds, savings accounts or whatever. Housing is a rather poor wealth builder. It’s more a consumer good than it is an investment. If you bought a tract house 40 years ago, you now have an old house that’s worth more than you paid for it, but nowhere near what the same money on the stock market would have yielded.

This “blacks do not have wealth because of redlining” is a myth.

The discrepancy between how black children and white children are disciplined even in private preschools as well as throughout their educations is another thing I have learned about.

What is that difference and how, exactly, does it disadvantage blacks?

how the experience of black people differs even when the situation is the same as that of white people’s

And if the experience is the same, how is it different?

 

[signit]

Rockoh22:

This is what welfare does to people.

Are you really claiming that welfare causes people to live in low-income housing?

Not the poster addressed, but I’ll try to answer.

Welfare may not specifically cause people to live in low-income housing.

In fact I’m a Catholic and support social services for those in need.

But it may provide one incentive for people not to become self-sufficient.

To use the figures in post #100, if the choice is between (a) a job paying $400/week (which might offer a chance to move up to $600/week and/or get work experience might lead to a higher-paying job) and (b) a cash benefit of $500/week, tax-free, plus other benefits (food assistance, clothing assistance, etc.), somebody might choose (b), which is more likely to keep them poor and keep them in the system in the long run.

Before the welfare reform of the 1990s, the argument was that there was too much of an incentive for teenage mothers not to become self-sufficient. If a teen had a baby and then, as a result, get benefits, get to live in her own apartment, and not have to go to school any more, you could say there wasn’t much of an incentive not to do that.

 

[PaulinVA]

And so on. I think that if we educated people about the nature of how the experience of black people differs even when the situation is the same as that of white people’s, then people in general will be able to change some of their assumptions and behavior.

I think the problem with diversity training is the old, “You can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink”. Ramming a whole lot of “bad, bad, white people” down people’s throats probably isn’t the best way to do it.

 

[27lw]

Yup, it’s an industry to itself. Just google “poverty industrial complex”.

 

[Rockoh22]

Are you really claiming that welfare causes people to live in low-income housing?

I know how welfare entraps you into low income. It is very hard for people in welfare to succeed. It is not set up for success, but to keep us poor.

Look, I am not saying that welfare is bad. No, it is good, as it does help, and there are people who really need this. But there is an overwhelming majority that work the system.

 

[JonNC]

That is racist to characterize black people as necessarily having more confrontations with police.

Actually, it isn’t. Because it has nothing to do with the amount of melanin in one’s skin. It is a statistical fact. You are the one attempting to use statistics.
If you are going to claim these are founded in racism, you have to prove the police officers involved are racist. If you are claiming systemic racism in police departments, you have to prove that the department, including its leadership up to the mayor, are intentionally acting out of racism because real, codified systemic racism Is prohibited by law.

 

[Rockoh22]

LeafByNiggle:

That is racist to characterize black people as necessarily having more confrontations with police.

The Actor Denzel Washington said it best. It is not a race issue. It is a cultural issue.

The problem is NOT Race, it is Culture.

 

[Annie]

It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. Nothing prevented black people from buying real property, stock, bonds, savings accounts or whatever. Housing is a rather poor wealth builder. It’s more a consumer good than it is an investment. If you bought a tract house 40 years ago, you now have an old house that’s worth more than you paid for it, but nowhere near what the same money on the stock market would have yielded.

Did the GI Bill help people buy stocks and bonds?

The GI Bill helped a lot of white families to buy houses that they otherwise would not have been able to buy.

Once a family owned a house, they could leverage that value for other purposes such as funding college educations for their children.

Moreover, yes, if you bought a tract house in the 40s, you would have an old tract house if the value of the property remained the same, which it did not. I live near one of those post-war housing tracts, and owners used their ownership to maintain and update their houses. They are no longer 60-year-old tract houses.

I know some people who bought a house in the 70s for under 50k. It is now worth half a million dollars.