if possible I'd like this to be not about privilege as even if we agree the concept is valid, it solves nothing.
Is it possible for society to level the paying field when it comes to racial disparity brought on by slavery?
What extra opportunities can we as a society give black people to equalize the statistical discrepancies that exist with in the social constructs of society brought on by racist and prejudicial treatment?
What is worse, a poor black kid or a poor white kid? Should one get preferential treatment due to race because of past societal constructs?
Should race be a factor when deciding policies?
Is racism in mainstream society overt or is largely minimized except for lingering prejudices and stereotypes?
Should a five year old be taught what stereotype and prejudices means instead of endless lessons about MLK?
Finally, is it possible to remove race from the conscious mind with no use other than identification.
What problem does identifying problems by race solve or help solve?
I present that last two questions because of my own experiences with diversity and other cultures. From a young age and into my late twenties I've been exposed to numerous different cultures and I've never really thought in context of race. I do not walk into a store and consciously note the racial composition....I do not have a fear of black people walking behind me....I'm always astounding to find out I'm in the minority of people who are not racially conscious or it seems like it. This kind of gets into the "check your privilege" argument but I can not for the life of me justify consciously thinking about someone's race. And even if it is a "privilege" that does not change the central them of not bring race into the process of decision making.
The white kid needs to age 150 years up on that ledge, have 7 generations of children, while in the meantime those children are fighting a war to free the slaves and passing laws to abolish racial oppression. Then maybe, the cartoon would work.
Also, you'd have to accept the idea that Whites became better off due to slavery and racial oppression, hence the ledge. In reality, slavery had enormous costs above any productivity gains (if there were any), same with racial oppression, and those areas of the US worst affected by it continue to be worse off economically than the other areas of the US. So if anything, these Whites "climbing over" Blacks hurt themselves relative to others. So, the cartoon would need to include a third person face palming and wondering what in the world they were doing, then coming in to help them out.
So as a whole, the cartoon seems to take an overly race-based and overly relativistic approach to prosperity.
So as a whole, the cartoon seems to take an overly race-based and overly relativistic approach to prosperity.
Without necessarily endorsing the cartoon's portrayal of the situation, I don't think it's particularly unfair to view prosperity on a relative scale. It doesn't really matter if we'd all be better off if slavery never happened. If slavery produced a marked relative difference in prosperity, regardless of what the absolute effects might have been, isn't that still bad?
What extra opportunities can we as a society give black people to equalize the statistical discrepancies that exist with in the social constructs of society brought on by racist and prejudicial treatment?
That strikes me as super "white man's burden" sort of racist, honestly. We don't need to give anyone special extra opportunities but we should remove barriers that have been constructed to stand in their way.
Is racism in mainstream society overt or is largely minimized except for lingering prejudices and stereotypes?
Racism as a word has become very unpopular. Even racists now say things like "I'm not racist, I just think Hispanic people are have been chosen by God!" or "White people are genetically better, that's not racism, it's science!" or my favorite "Racist think other races are inferior, I think my race is superior. How can that be racist?"
We do let stereotypes linger in fiction for a wide variety of reasons.
Should a five year old be taught what stereotype and prejudices means instead of endless lessons about MLK?
They would benefit more from simply being is mixed company than any lesson the the subtitles of racial politics. Children are not born caring about race, it's a thing they develop.
What problem does identifying problems by race solve or help solve?
When you have instances of systemic discrimination against a race it is the only way to identify it. For example I went to a school that use to throw out any applications from black teachers. If you ignored race you'd never notice that problem.
Also, you'd have to accept the idea that Whites became better off due to slavery and racial oppression, hence the ledge. In reality, slavery had enormous costs above any productivity gains (if there were any), same with racial oppression, and those areas of the US worst affected by it continue to be worse off economically than the other areas of the US. So if anything, these Whites "climbing over" Blacks hurt themselves relative to others. So, the cartoon would need to include a third person face palming and wondering what in the world they were doing, then coming in to help them out.
So, cartoon aside, your view of history is that slaves benefited the most from slavery?
So as a whole, the cartoon seems to take an overly race-based and overly relativistic approach to prosperity.
Without necessarily endorsing the cartoon's portrayal of the situation, I don't think it's particularly unfair to view prosperity on a relative scale. It doesn't really matter if we'd all be better off if slavery never happened. If slavery produced a marked relative difference in prosperity, regardless of what the absolute effects might have been, isn't that still bad?
The problem with looking at prosperity from a statistical, relative outlook is that you have to have two points of reference to compare? What would those be?
The cartoon expresses that modern Whites are the same entity as slave-holding whites, and that modern Blacks are the same as enslaved blacks. It suggests that the two groups are at least associated with one another. And I'm not going to automatically make that association due to the color of skin, because I think that would be racist. I don't think that there is any group currently alive who is culpable for slavery.
A non-relative approach looks to the tangible benefits of diversity, of which there are a lot.
So, cartoon aside, your view of history is that slaves benefited the most from slavery?
Huh?
What I said is that slave-holding Whites were harmed by slavery. The cartoon seems to suggest that they benefited from it. Non slave-holding americans were also harmed by slavery and racial oppression. That isn't at all to say that slaves themselves weren't hurt the very worst by it. They were. Chattel slavery is the most disgusting social practice I can think of.
The basic problem with the cartoon is that it's personifying large groups of people spread out across time and space as individuals. This warps our moral intuitions hugely. It is also a very revealing problem, since it's the fallacy at the heart of identity politics.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Couldn't you solve the problem of helping people not being racist by simply suggesting the government will help any racial demographic with an income bracket below the national average? If white people had that much of a problem where the income of an average Caucasian was below that of the national average, the government and various groups would be taking steps to help them as well.
The problem with looking at prosperity from a statistical, relative outlook is that you have to have two points of reference to compare? What would those be?
I don't quite understand what you're asking. Are there two separate questions there?
Also, you'd have to accept the idea that Whites became better off due to slavery and racial oppression, hence the ledge. In reality, slavery had enormous costs above any productivity gains (if there were any), same with racial oppression, and those areas of the US worst affected by it continue to be worse off economically than the other areas of the US. So if anything, these Whites "climbing over" Blacks hurt themselves relative to others.
So do you think white people made it out of institutionalized slavery and Jim Crow worse than black people?
I'm not disagreeing that slavery and racial oppression were black marks on our nation's history, but isn't it pretty obvious that whites became better off than black people in terms of a general whole as a result of said institutions?
hey would benefit more from simply being is mixed company than any lesson the the subtitles of racial politics. Children are not born caring about race, it's a thing they develop.
This ignored the heart of the issue. Simple integration will not stop deep rooted, generational prejudices and stereotypes being passed down from adults. Kids need to understand why their racist parents are ignorant.
If you ignored race you'd never notice that problem.
This is kind of a straw man. Actually it is a straw man Because my default disposition is to not take race in account when I deal with people does not preclude me from observing and identifying racist actions. I think its very possible to ignore race when dealing with people unless some sort of action comes up that requires you to consider a persons race, such as someone asking for a description, observing a slur, etc etc.
Also, you'd have to accept the idea that Whites became better off due to slavery and racial oppression, hence the ledge. In reality, slavery had enormous costs above any productivity gains (if there were any), same with racial oppression, and those areas of the US worst affected by it continue to be worse off economically than the other areas of the US. So if anything, these Whites "climbing over" Blacks hurt themselves relative to others. So, the cartoon would need to include a third person face palming and wondering what in the world they were doing, then coming in to help them out.
No.
Without black slavery, both the industrial development of the North and Britain would have been greatly reduced, due to the lack of slave labor producing all the cotton that effectively started the IR in the U.S. and helped greatly accelerate the one in Britain.
Cotton is a big ****ing deal.
The great "lie", if you will, of the modern interpretation of slavery in the U.S. is that the North didn't benefit as much as the South. That's utter bull****, and one that needs to die sooner. The entire industrial development of the U.S. depended a large part on black slavery.
The problem with looking at prosperity from a statistical, relative outlook is that you have to have two points of reference to compare? What would those be?
I don't quite understand what you're asking. Are there two separate questions there?
Also, you'd have to accept the idea that Whites became better off due to slavery and racial oppression, hence the ledge. In reality, slavery had enormous costs above any productivity gains (if there were any), same with racial oppression, and those areas of the US worst affected by it continue to be worse off economically than the other areas of the US. So if anything, these Whites "climbing over" Blacks hurt themselves relative to others. So, the cartoon would need to include a third person face palming and wondering what in the world they were doing, then coming in to help them out.
No.
Without black slavery, both the industrial development of the North and Britain would have been greatly reduced, due to the lack of slave labor producing all the cotton that effectively started the IR in the U.S. and helped greatly accelerate the one in Britain.
Cotton is a big ****ing deal.
The great "lie", if you will, of the modern interpretation of slavery in the U.S. is that the North didn't benefit as much as the South. That's utter bull****, and one that needs to die sooner. The entire industrial development of the U.S. depended a large part on black slavery.
Well, there's two parts to it really. Production was very fast, but you also have things like reconstruction as the result of slaves leaving, so in a way slavery did actually cost a lot in terms of the civil war's effects, plus the South was completely ill-adapted to the dramatically decreased production which took time to reconcile. During the slave era you would be right that the North did benefit economically through trade with cotton and sugar to countries like Britain and the rest of Europe, which in turn gave the US more production supplies and machinery.
Well, there's two parts to it really. Production was very fast, but you also have things like reconstruction as the result of slaves leaving, so in a way slavery did actually cost a lot in terms of the civil war's effects, plus the South was completely ill-adapted to the dramatically decreased production which took time to reconcile. During the slave era you would be right that the North did benefit economically through trade with cotton and sugar to countries like Britain and the rest of Europe, which in turn gave the US more production supplies and machinery.
You misunderstand.
For all intents and purposes, the development of the cotton industry is what kick-started the IR in the U.S. IIRC, It was one of, if not the first, major "modern" industry in the U.S. That means a lot. It set the precedent that other industries can follow.
Would the IR have started without cotton? Maybe. We know that it did in Britain, but it was rather limited in scope compared to what we know as the IR today; hence the reason the common belief is that it started in the U.S. There simply wasn't enough raw material and the demanding market to justify the creation of something as "modern" industry at that point in time. Cotton solved this. Well, cotton and a blooming population.
All that vaulted economic power of the North that crushed the South? Developed by the IR. Which in turn is indebted to black slavery.
Heck, if industrialization didn't occur in the first place, slavery might have just died out. No need for cotton-farming, slavery would have (had been, really) been deemed uneconomical, unethical, and potentially dangerous, what with the possibility of slave uprisings and whatnot.
So, I find fault with his entire premise. Any possible negative that the North suffered as a result of Reconstruction is heavily outweighed by the all the economic benefit that came from the IR. As for the South collapsing... Well, that's sort of what happens when you build your entire economic system upon a single thing, and said single thing disappears.
Heck, if industrialization didn't occur in the first place, slavery might have just died out.
That probably wouldn't have happened. The economy of this time period is better than any in history yet we still have racists, that's not really what slavery was about. Throughout the history of humanity, slavery has existed almost nearly every continent for a very long period of time which shows it is more regardless of economy and resources.
yet we still have racists, that's not really what slavery was about. Throughout the history of humanity, slavery has existed almost nearly every continent for a very long period of time which shows it is more regardless of economy and resources.
Black slavery in the U.S. developed largely for tobacco and rice and certain other cash crops.
By the early 1800s, sales of said cash crops were dropping and people were finally awakening to the moral implications of slavery. The vast majority believed slavery to be a "necessary evil" at that point, but even that opinion was changing as said cash crops were dropping in sales.
Slavery wouldn't have died out in decades, but it would most certainly have gone against public opinion at some point. Keep in mind that racism as we understand it didn't even exist in the public consciousness at that point. All the white paternalism crap developed in the mid 1820-1830s, well into the cotton revolution and the start of industry in the U.S.
But then cotton came along. Which was demanded in such high numbers that slave owners had a good reason to keep slaves again. Add to that a growing schism between the North and the South due to the continued economic/political growth of the North while the South remained largely stagnant and became slowly invalidated in national politics.
The Southern power-players start to feel alienated from the North, and start to take great offense at the random pokes from abolitionists and start to take slavery as something incredibly personal.
Would the IR have started without cotton? Maybe. We know that it did in Britain, but it was rather limited in scope compared to what we know as the IR today; hence the reason the common belief is that it started in the U.S.
What "common belief"? The Industrial Revolution started in Britain and Britain was (far from being "limited in scope") at the forefront of industrialization through the end of the 19th Century. Maybe jingoistic Americans who didn't pay attention in high school history class believe that the Industrial Revolution started in the U.S., and maybe such people are unfortunately common, but that has nothing to do with the facts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In this time period, an average person has a greater capacity to succeed than in the past. You can see this by the mere fact that the word "billion" isn't a rare term to describe profit considering that inflation has not lowered the value of the US dollar to that of a third world country. There's more activity in the economy, it is easier for someone to peruse a desired career, the public is educated (supposedly), and the stock market is exposed on to a global scale of investors.
yet we still have racists, that's not really what slavery was about. Throughout the history of humanity, slavery has existed almost nearly every continent for a very long period of time which shows it is more regardless of economy and resources.
Slavery wouldn't have died out in decades, but it would most certainly have gone against public opinion at some point. Keep in mind that racism as we understand it didn't even exist in the public consciousness at that point. All the white paternalism crap developed in the mid 1820-1830s, well into the cotton revolution and the start of industry in the U.S.
Even ancient Greece had slaves, even kings or I suppose leaders of tribes in Africa had slaves, some Native American tribes made the losers of a war into slaves, Asia had slaves, feudal Europe had peasants which were very close to slaves seeing as how it was highly unlikely for them to move up in class. The industrialization was an incentive to have more slaves but saying that it would have died out is an over-estimate.
Maybe jingoistic Americans who didn't pay attention in high school history class believe that the Industrial Revolution started in the U.S., and maybe such people are unfortunately common, but that has nothing to do with the facts.
In this time period, an average person has a greater capacity to succeed than in the past. You can see this by the mere fact that the word "billion" isn't a rare term to describe profit considering that inflation has not lowered the value of the US dollar to that of a third world country. There's more activity in the economy, it is easier for someone to peruse a desired career, the public is educated (supposedly), and the stock market is exposed on to a global scale of investors.
But the concept of slavery existed pre-hand and slavery itself still existed.
Not relevant. The U.S. Constitution clearly said that all men had blah blah blah.
People naturally questioned the contradiction, and everyone recognized the contradiction. It would have remained a contradiction until cotton came along.
Even ancient Greece had slaves, even kings or I suppose leaders of tribes in Africa had slaves, some Native American tribes made the losers of a war into slaves, Asia had slaves, feudal Europe had peasants which were very close to slaves seeing as how it was highly unlikely for them to move up in class. The industrialization was an incentive to have more slaves but saying that it would have died out is an over-estimate.
See above. The concept of slaves as a whole and its historical prevalence is not relevant. The U.S. Constitution made it as such in the U.S. Add to that the fact that Britain, a country that the U.S. tried to feel socially superior to during the early 19th century, had already banned slavery.
What extra opportunities can we as a society give black people to equalize the statistical discrepancies that exist with in the social constructs of society brought on by racist and prejudicial treatment?
It's not so much about 'extra opportunities' as it is about finding ways to address the discrepancies. That might not always be done by giving an advantage to the black population.
What is worse, a poor black kid or a poor white kid? Should one get preferential treatment due to race because of past societal constructs?
I think this doesn't really get at the actual point.
Past societal constructs are largely irrelevant except as a means for explaining current circumstances. A historically discriminated against group isn't always going to have issues bring represented proportionally in society (I.E. Irish, Jewish).
We aren't targeting the black population because they're historically discriminated against, that's just context to explain why things are the way they are. It's important to understand why black people as a population are held further behind in the statistics than other historically discriminated against populations.
Although it's important to note that unlike the Irish and the Jewish populations, blacks aren't just ethnically different from the majority of the population. It also helps that the Irish ended up intermarrying with just about every other population ethnicity in New York, which is part of why they're so widely accepted now. A lot of the backlash against the Irish was due to cultural circumstances at the time, they were a lot like the hispanic population of today in that way.
In any case, we're targeting black populations because we've determined that, due to social barriers, they are still disproportionately affected despite legal barriers being removed.
Only if there is evidence that they're disproportionately affected.
I work in public health, and for interventions we target specific racial and ethnic minorities all the time. We do that because there are cultural differences and barriers that, for some reason, means certain groups have worse health outcomes despite being in the same SES as others.
A good example is with Johns Hopkins. The black population around Hopkins, despite living in the shadow of one of the most prestigious hospitals in the country, have disproportionately bad health outcomes. Why? Because 50 years ago, Hopkins discriminated against them and conducted unethical studies on the population, leaving to a cultural mistrust of the institution. That kind of thing is common among a lot of minority populations for various reasons, and so a social group will develop a cultural trait (in this case, mistrust of Hopkins) that will still have ramifications years after the injustice is over.
Finally, is it possible to remove race from the conscious mind with no use other than identification.
No, but only because 'black' isn't just a racial characteristic, it's a cultural characteristic as well. I think what you mean to say is if it is possible to remove race as a source of prejudice, and I say yes, at least overtly.
However, we still have huge cultural stereotypes about people with blonde hair, so it's going to be a while.
What problem does identifying problems by race solve or help solve?
It helps target groups in need of help. Don't forget that race usually also means some cultural differences, too. So whether it's target a problem in health outcomes in the black community or the russian community, it makes sense to target based on those social groups if there is an issue.
I present that last two questions because of my own experiences with diversity and other cultures. From a young age and into my late twenties I've been exposed to numerous different cultures and I've never really thought in context of race. I do not walk into a store and consciously note the racial composition....I do not have a fear of black people walking behind me....I'm always astounding to find out I'm in the minority of people who are not racially conscious or it seems like it. This kind of gets into the "check your privilege" argument but I can not for the life of me justify consciously thinking about someone's race. And even if it is a "privilege" that does not change the central them of not bring race into the process of decision making.
Token white guy here. My three best friends when I was young were black (long time in the US), black (family from the caribbean and europe, also unfairly good looking family) and Sri Lankan. My best friend in High School's dad was a press secretary for the NAACP. Looking at a photo with my high school friends who came to my wedding, it was more than 50% black or other minority. My wife is Indian. I paid for grad school by working at an ambulance company in the city that was primary staffed by black inner city residents, transporting primarily black patients. I've seen and even done more code switching that the NSA during WWII.
I'd be lying if I said race never factored into my immediate assumptions. Even with all that history, my initial reaction to a large black guy walking down the street is more cautious than a large white guy. It's impossible to completely remove tribal thinking from human beings, it's just a fundamental part of how we operate. It doesn't mean we have to act on it.
Ignoring race is, in my opinion, a bad thing. People naturally group themselves into social clusters, and there will always be people who group themselves based on race or cultural background. Acknowledging those differences and respecting them is important. 'Ignoring' the differences between us implies painting everyone with the same brush, which isn't always effective, because there is no 'generic' cultural grouping. What ignoring race essentially means is treating people as if they come from the same background, which is the background of majority of Americans. The worst kind of marketing is universal marketing, if you're trying to get a message across you need to account for what makes segments of the population different and what appeals to one segment versus another.
They would benefit more from simply being is mixed company than any lesson the the subtitles of racial politics. Children are not born caring about race, it's a thing they develop.
This ignored the heart of the issue. Simple integration will not stop deep rooted, generational prejudices and stereotypes being passed down from adults. Kids need to understand why their racist parents are ignorant.
Since exposure to their parents and their parents culture is so constant you'd have to take them away from their parents if you wanted to stop racist parents from passing that on to their children. The most reasonable alternative is to put them in an environment where people of many races cooexist and cooperation is encouraged. Lectures provide people with intellectual understanding but you want to change how people behave, something lectures are poor at, particularly when directed at kids. Small children don't become racist because dad says "White people are the devil." they become racist because they're raised in an insular environment and certain groups are treated difference. Tell high-schoolers about racial politics, let kids live it.
If you ignored race you'd never notice that problem.
This is kind of a straw man. Actually it is a straw man Because my default disposition is to not take race in account when I deal with people does not preclude me from observing and identifying racist actions. I think its very possible to ignore race when dealing with people unless some sort of action comes up that requires you to consider a persons race, such as someone asking for a description, observing a slur, etc etc.
Not really, it's a thing that actually happened which demonstrates that we need to be aware of the possibility of specifically racially target problems. I thought that's what you were asking about. Obviously I agree that we ought to make processes race blind when we can.
The period where the economy is becoming so globalized that some random person in a third world country can potentially make $50,000 a year off an internet business? Yes.
People naturally questioned the contradiction, and everyone recognized the contradiction. It would have remained a contradiction until cotton came along.
No it would have remained until the world was willing to say "ok, now we see that slavery is completely wrong". You could argue that without slavery, people wouldn't have such a good reason to never even think of doing it again.
Even ancient Greece had slaves, even kings or I suppose leaders of tribes in Africa had slaves, some Native American tribes made the losers of a war into slaves, Asia had slaves, feudal Europe had peasants which were very close to slaves seeing as how it was highly unlikely for them to move up in class. The industrialization was an incentive to have more slaves but saying that it would have died out is an over-estimate.
See above. The concept of slaves as a whole and its historical prevalence is not relevant. The U.S. Constitution made it as such in the U.S. Add to that the fact that Britain, a country that the U.S. tried to feel socially superior to during the early 19th century, had already banned slavery.
You're saying slavery only occurred because of economic needs, but given the fact that slavery has existed in a wide range of economies of various types and amounts of wealth, it shows the act of slavery is regardless of economy, people would have had slaves for the sake of assuming they were superior or trying to hold back others from challenging them so they could remain in control or because they thought there was nothing morally wrong with it.
if possible I'd like this to be not about privilege as even if we agree the concept is valid, it solves nothing.
Is it possible for society to level the paying field when it comes to racial disparity brought on by slavery?
What extra opportunities can we as a society give black people to equalize the statistical discrepancies that exist with in the social constructs of society brought on by racist and prejudicial treatment?
What is worse, a poor black kid or a poor white kid? Should one get preferential treatment due to race because of past societal constructs?
Should race be a factor when deciding policies?
Is racism in mainstream society overt or is largely minimized except for lingering prejudices and stereotypes?
Should a five year old be taught what stereotype and prejudices means instead of endless lessons about MLK?
Finally, is it possible to remove race from the conscious mind with no use other than identification.
What problem does identifying problems by race solve or help solve?
I present that last two questions because of my own experiences with diversity and other cultures. From a young age and into my late twenties I've been exposed to numerous different cultures and I've never really thought in context of race. I do not walk into a store and consciously note the racial composition....I do not have a fear of black people walking behind me....I'm always astounding to find out I'm in the minority of people who are not racially conscious or it seems like it. This kind of gets into the "check your privilege" argument but I can not for the life of me justify consciously thinking about someone's race. And even if it is a "privilege" that does not change the central them of not bring race into the process of decision making.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
What about asians or irish? They were treated horrifically in the early history of the united states.
What's the difference?
Also, you'd have to accept the idea that Whites became better off due to slavery and racial oppression, hence the ledge. In reality, slavery had enormous costs above any productivity gains (if there were any), same with racial oppression, and those areas of the US worst affected by it continue to be worse off economically than the other areas of the US. So if anything, these Whites "climbing over" Blacks hurt themselves relative to others. So, the cartoon would need to include a third person face palming and wondering what in the world they were doing, then coming in to help them out.
So as a whole, the cartoon seems to take an overly race-based and overly relativistic approach to prosperity.
Without necessarily endorsing the cartoon's portrayal of the situation, I don't think it's particularly unfair to view prosperity on a relative scale. It doesn't really matter if we'd all be better off if slavery never happened. If slavery produced a marked relative difference in prosperity, regardless of what the absolute effects might have been, isn't that still bad?
That strikes me as super "white man's burden" sort of racist, honestly. We don't need to give anyone special extra opportunities but we should remove barriers that have been constructed to stand in their way.
It should at least be considered, otherwise if we do have racial problem we'll ignore them.
Racism as a word has become very unpopular. Even racists now say things like "I'm not racist, I just think Hispanic people are have been chosen by God!" or "White people are genetically better, that's not racism, it's science!" or my favorite "Racist think other races are inferior, I think my race is superior. How can that be racist?"
We do let stereotypes linger in fiction for a wide variety of reasons.
They would benefit more from simply being is mixed company than any lesson the the subtitles of racial politics. Children are not born caring about race, it's a thing they develop.
Not realistically, no, it's just not the way human beings being learn.
When you have instances of systemic discrimination against a race it is the only way to identify it. For example I went to a school that use to throw out any applications from black teachers. If you ignored race you'd never notice that problem.
So, cartoon aside, your view of history is that slaves benefited the most from slavery?
The problem with looking at prosperity from a statistical, relative outlook is that you have to have two points of reference to compare? What would those be?
The cartoon expresses that modern Whites are the same entity as slave-holding whites, and that modern Blacks are the same as enslaved blacks. It suggests that the two groups are at least associated with one another. And I'm not going to automatically make that association due to the color of skin, because I think that would be racist. I don't think that there is any group currently alive who is culpable for slavery.
A non-relative approach looks to the tangible benefits of diversity, of which there are a lot.
Huh?
What I said is that slave-holding Whites were harmed by slavery. The cartoon seems to suggest that they benefited from it. Non slave-holding americans were also harmed by slavery and racial oppression. That isn't at all to say that slaves themselves weren't hurt the very worst by it. They were. Chattel slavery is the most disgusting social practice I can think of.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't quite understand what you're asking. Are there two separate questions there?
So do you think white people made it out of institutionalized slavery and Jim Crow worse than black people?
I'm not disagreeing that slavery and racial oppression were black marks on our nation's history, but isn't it pretty obvious that whites became better off than black people in terms of a general whole as a result of said institutions?
This ignored the heart of the issue. Simple integration will not stop deep rooted, generational prejudices and stereotypes being passed down from adults. Kids need to understand why their racist parents are ignorant.
This is kind of a straw man. Actually it is a straw man Because my default disposition is to not take race in account when I deal with people does not preclude me from observing and identifying racist actions. I think its very possible to ignore race when dealing with people unless some sort of action comes up that requires you to consider a persons race, such as someone asking for a description, observing a slur, etc etc.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
No.
Without black slavery, both the industrial development of the North and Britain would have been greatly reduced, due to the lack of slave labor producing all the cotton that effectively started the IR in the U.S. and helped greatly accelerate the one in Britain.
Cotton is a big ****ing deal.
The great "lie", if you will, of the modern interpretation of slavery in the U.S. is that the North didn't benefit as much as the South. That's utter bull****, and one that needs to die sooner. The entire industrial development of the U.S. depended a large part on black slavery.
First question mark was a typo, sorry.
Well, there's two parts to it really. Production was very fast, but you also have things like reconstruction as the result of slaves leaving, so in a way slavery did actually cost a lot in terms of the civil war's effects, plus the South was completely ill-adapted to the dramatically decreased production which took time to reconcile. During the slave era you would be right that the North did benefit economically through trade with cotton and sugar to countries like Britain and the rest of Europe, which in turn gave the US more production supplies and machinery.
You misunderstand.
For all intents and purposes, the development of the cotton industry is what kick-started the IR in the U.S. IIRC, It was one of, if not the first, major "modern" industry in the U.S. That means a lot. It set the precedent that other industries can follow.
Would the IR have started without cotton? Maybe. We know that it did in Britain, but it was rather limited in scope compared to what we know as the IR today; hence the reason the common belief is that it started in the U.S. There simply wasn't enough raw material and the demanding market to justify the creation of something as "modern" industry at that point in time. Cotton solved this. Well, cotton and a blooming population.
All that vaulted economic power of the North that crushed the South? Developed by the IR. Which in turn is indebted to black slavery.
Heck, if industrialization didn't occur in the first place, slavery might have just died out. No need for cotton-farming, slavery would have (had been, really) been deemed uneconomical, unethical, and potentially dangerous, what with the possibility of slave uprisings and whatnot.
So, I find fault with his entire premise. Any possible negative that the North suffered as a result of Reconstruction is heavily outweighed by the all the economic benefit that came from the IR. As for the South collapsing... Well, that's sort of what happens when you build your entire economic system upon a single thing, and said single thing disappears.
That probably wouldn't have happened. The economy of this time period is better than any in history yet we still have racists, that's not really what slavery was about. Throughout the history of humanity, slavery has existed almost nearly every continent for a very long period of time which shows it is more regardless of economy and resources.
Nope.
Black slavery in the U.S. developed largely for tobacco and rice and certain other cash crops.
By the early 1800s, sales of said cash crops were dropping and people were finally awakening to the moral implications of slavery. The vast majority believed slavery to be a "necessary evil" at that point, but even that opinion was changing as said cash crops were dropping in sales.
Slavery wouldn't have died out in decades, but it would most certainly have gone against public opinion at some point. Keep in mind that racism as we understand it didn't even exist in the public consciousness at that point. All the white paternalism crap developed in the mid 1820-1830s, well into the cotton revolution and the start of industry in the U.S.
But then cotton came along. Which was demanded in such high numbers that slave owners had a good reason to keep slaves again. Add to that a growing schism between the North and the South due to the continued economic/political growth of the North while the South remained largely stagnant and became slowly invalidated in national politics.
The Southern power-players start to feel alienated from the North, and start to take great offense at the random pokes from abolitionists and start to take slavery as something incredibly personal.
And so on and so forth.
Sure, but aside from that I don't really understand the question. Could you clarify?
What "common belief"? The Industrial Revolution started in Britain and Britain was (far from being "limited in scope") at the forefront of industrialization through the end of the 19th Century. Maybe jingoistic Americans who didn't pay attention in high school history class believe that the Industrial Revolution started in the U.S., and maybe such people are unfortunately common, but that has nothing to do with the facts.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In this time period, an average person has a greater capacity to succeed than in the past. You can see this by the mere fact that the word "billion" isn't a rare term to describe profit considering that inflation has not lowered the value of the US dollar to that of a third world country. There's more activity in the economy, it is easier for someone to peruse a desired career, the public is educated (supposedly), and the stock market is exposed on to a global scale of investors.
But the concept of slavery existed pre-hand and slavery itself still existed.
Even ancient Greece had slaves, even kings or I suppose leaders of tribes in Africa had slaves, some Native American tribes made the losers of a war into slaves, Asia had slaves, feudal Europe had peasants which were very close to slaves seeing as how it was highly unlikely for them to move up in class. The industrialization was an incentive to have more slaves but saying that it would have died out is an over-estimate.
Exactly the people that I'm talking about.
What? Are we talking about the same period here?
Not relevant. The U.S. Constitution clearly said that all men had blah blah blah.
People naturally questioned the contradiction, and everyone recognized the contradiction. It would have remained a contradiction until cotton came along.
See above. The concept of slaves as a whole and its historical prevalence is not relevant. The U.S. Constitution made it as such in the U.S. Add to that the fact that Britain, a country that the U.S. tried to feel socially superior to during the early 19th century, had already banned slavery.
Sure.
It's not so much about 'extra opportunities' as it is about finding ways to address the discrepancies. That might not always be done by giving an advantage to the black population.
I think this doesn't really get at the actual point.
Past societal constructs are largely irrelevant except as a means for explaining current circumstances. A historically discriminated against group isn't always going to have issues bring represented proportionally in society (I.E. Irish, Jewish).
We aren't targeting the black population because they're historically discriminated against, that's just context to explain why things are the way they are. It's important to understand why black people as a population are held further behind in the statistics than other historically discriminated against populations.
Although it's important to note that unlike the Irish and the Jewish populations, blacks aren't just ethnically different from the majority of the population. It also helps that the Irish ended up intermarrying with just about every other population ethnicity in New York, which is part of why they're so widely accepted now. A lot of the backlash against the Irish was due to cultural circumstances at the time, they were a lot like the hispanic population of today in that way.
In any case, we're targeting black populations because we've determined that, due to social barriers, they are still disproportionately affected despite legal barriers being removed.
Only if there is evidence that they're disproportionately affected.
I work in public health, and for interventions we target specific racial and ethnic minorities all the time. We do that because there are cultural differences and barriers that, for some reason, means certain groups have worse health outcomes despite being in the same SES as others.
A good example is with Johns Hopkins. The black population around Hopkins, despite living in the shadow of one of the most prestigious hospitals in the country, have disproportionately bad health outcomes. Why? Because 50 years ago, Hopkins discriminated against them and conducted unethical studies on the population, leaving to a cultural mistrust of the institution. That kind of thing is common among a lot of minority populations for various reasons, and so a social group will develop a cultural trait (in this case, mistrust of Hopkins) that will still have ramifications years after the injustice is over.
Both. Racism isn't just one thing. There are a wide variety of issues where the level is overt, subtle or practically unnoticeable.
Sure, but when I was in school the MLK lessons were just a preface to the talks on stereotypes and prejudice.
No, but only because 'black' isn't just a racial characteristic, it's a cultural characteristic as well. I think what you mean to say is if it is possible to remove race as a source of prejudice, and I say yes, at least overtly.
However, we still have huge cultural stereotypes about people with blonde hair, so it's going to be a while.
It helps target groups in need of help. Don't forget that race usually also means some cultural differences, too. So whether it's target a problem in health outcomes in the black community or the russian community, it makes sense to target based on those social groups if there is an issue.
Token white guy here. My three best friends when I was young were black (long time in the US), black (family from the caribbean and europe, also unfairly good looking family) and Sri Lankan. My best friend in High School's dad was a press secretary for the NAACP. Looking at a photo with my high school friends who came to my wedding, it was more than 50% black or other minority. My wife is Indian. I paid for grad school by working at an ambulance company in the city that was primary staffed by black inner city residents, transporting primarily black patients. I've seen and even done more code switching that the NSA during WWII.
I'd be lying if I said race never factored into my immediate assumptions. Even with all that history, my initial reaction to a large black guy walking down the street is more cautious than a large white guy. It's impossible to completely remove tribal thinking from human beings, it's just a fundamental part of how we operate. It doesn't mean we have to act on it.
Ignoring race is, in my opinion, a bad thing. People naturally group themselves into social clusters, and there will always be people who group themselves based on race or cultural background. Acknowledging those differences and respecting them is important. 'Ignoring' the differences between us implies painting everyone with the same brush, which isn't always effective, because there is no 'generic' cultural grouping. What ignoring race essentially means is treating people as if they come from the same background, which is the background of majority of Americans. The worst kind of marketing is universal marketing, if you're trying to get a message across you need to account for what makes segments of the population different and what appeals to one segment versus another.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Since exposure to their parents and their parents culture is so constant you'd have to take them away from their parents if you wanted to stop racist parents from passing that on to their children. The most reasonable alternative is to put them in an environment where people of many races cooexist and cooperation is encouraged. Lectures provide people with intellectual understanding but you want to change how people behave, something lectures are poor at, particularly when directed at kids. Small children don't become racist because dad says "White people are the devil." they become racist because they're raised in an insular environment and certain groups are treated difference. Tell high-schoolers about racial politics, let kids live it.
Not really, it's a thing that actually happened which demonstrates that we need to be aware of the possibility of specifically racially target problems. I thought that's what you were asking about. Obviously I agree that we ought to make processes race blind when we can.
The period where the economy is becoming so globalized that some random person in a third world country can potentially make $50,000 a year off an internet business? Yes.
But obviously slavery wasn't always abolished, so that point isn't relevant.
No it would have remained until the world was willing to say "ok, now we see that slavery is completely wrong". You could argue that without slavery, people wouldn't have such a good reason to never even think of doing it again.
You're saying slavery only occurred because of economic needs, but given the fact that slavery has existed in a wide range of economies of various types and amounts of wealth, it shows the act of slavery is regardless of economy, people would have had slaves for the sake of assuming they were superior or trying to hold back others from challenging them so they could remain in control or because they thought there was nothing morally wrong with it.