Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:
People being donkey-caves doesn't explain how so many indicators of prosperity are divided along racial lines.

And while that may be true... RACE isn't always the factor.

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You say that like the only way you could ever have those is because you are white, that itself is racist.

Once again, no. What I am saying is that white people are far more likely than black people to enjoy all of those advantages.

Yeah, so?

If I was white and in the same situation you'd probably just say suck it up.

Well thats what I say to anyone in the situation.


You can either feel sorry for yourself, or suck it up and try to make the best of it. Its every person's responsibility to better themselves.

Yes, people that are underpriviledged should get help, but not because they are underpriviledged and a minority. If you are underpriviledged, you get X amount of help. Being a minority and underpriviledged shouldn't get you X+1 amount of help.

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
People being donkey-caves doesn't explain how so many indicators of prosperity are divided along racial lines.

And while that may be true... RACE isn't always the factor.

So you mean the existence of massive wealth and income gaps between whites and blacks, the differences in criminal prosecution, the differences in family life and education all of this is some kind of coincidence?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If I was white and in the same situation you'd probably just say suck it up.

No, I wouldn't say that.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
People being donkey-caves doesn't explain how so many indicators of prosperity are divided along racial lines.

And while that may be true... RACE isn't always the factor.

So you mean the existence of massive wealth and income gaps between whites and blacks, the differences in criminal prosecution, the differences in family life and education all of this is some kind of coincidence?

No, but why should we pull down the successful people to help the underpriviledged?

Why should one type of underpriviledged people recieve a disproportionate amount of aid compared to another type?

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
People being donkey-caves doesn't explain how so many indicators of prosperity are divided along racial lines.

And while that may be true... RACE isn't always the factor.

So you mean the existence of massive wealth and income gaps between whites and blacks, the differences in criminal prosecution, the differences in family life and education all of this is some kind of coincidence?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If I was white and in the same situation you'd probably just say suck it up.

No, I wouldn't say that.

I'm not saying there aren't any problems...

I'm saying it's too simplistic to place the BLAME for these things on racial issues. It's not that clear cut.

Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
People being donkey-caves doesn't explain how so many indicators of prosperity are divided along racial lines.

And while that may be true... RACE isn't always the factor.

So you mean the existence of massive wealth and income gaps between whites and blacks, the differences in criminal prosecution, the differences in family life and education all of this is some kind of coincidence?

There's a decent argument to be made that only one of those is racially biased, and the rest just fall into line like dominos. Just playin' Devil's Advocate.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but why should we pull down the successful people to help the underpriviledged?

This isn't a zero sum game. Segregation hurts everyone in the long run. By helping the underprivileged, the privileged are ultimately helping themselves.

Grey Templar wrote:No, but why should we pull down the successful people to help the underpriviledged?

Why do you think we need to pull anyone down? Education need not be a zero-sum game. A rising tide lifts all ships.

 azazel the cat wrote:
There's a decent argument to be made that only one of those is racially biased, and the rest just fall into line like dominos. Just playin' Devil's Advocate.

If that's the best the devil can dish, I'll take it. Because dominoes do not a coincidence make.

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but why should we pull down the successful people to help the underpriviledged?

This isn't a zero sum game. Segregation hurts everyone in the long run. By helping the underprivileged, the privileged are ultimately helping themselves.

Are you claiming there's segregation now? ala, during the Jim Crow?

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Like I said, was my white advantage that my life could be a whole hell of a lot worse than what it is?

What exactly is your angle here? Are you trying to claim that the numerous advantages that you have enjoyed and disadvantages that you have avoided are minimal? I see your very question as an expression of white privilege -- it's like you're saying, hey I grew up in a nice neighborhood with parents who cared about me, I went to good schools with committed teachers, I had the support to do well and I got into college -- now why do I have to pay so much?

That's not my angle, I've been accused of having extreme privileges in life before because I'm a straight, white male, while my experiences seem no different from others my economic disadvantages could offset my white advantages, my lack of effort in my math studies could negatively impact my ability to get scholarships or get merit based grant money and offset my white advantage to the point that things don't look like I have an advantage. I realize that I could have gone to a state school, but chose not to because initially the school I attended made themselves better looking than their competition.

Yes I grew up with both my parents, yes I grew up in a "house" for the first 12 years of my life, admittedly in a bad neighborhood (we moved to a small duplex until I was in college), yes I avoided the hell hole that was the Cleveland Public School System, yet my life hasn't been "fantastic" or advantagous. So my question to you is, "Is my white advantage the fact that my life is not worse than it is?"

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but why should we pull down the successful people to help the underpriviledged?

This isn't a zero sum game. Segregation hurts everyone in the long run. By helping the underprivileged, the privileged are ultimately helping themselves.

How?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but why should we pull down the successful people to help the underpriviledged?

This isn't a zero sum game. Segregation hurts everyone in the long run. By helping the underprivileged, the privileged are ultimately helping themselves.

How?

For one it reduces the crime rate

 whembly wrote:
I'm saying it's too simplistic to place the BLAME for these things on racial issues. It's not that clear cut.

This is not about blame, at least not in the first instance.

Recognize that your race is an advantage. It's not your fault. It's not your achievement. This privilege existed before you.

But keep it in mind. And keep in mind that perpetuating the privilege by marginalizing others is in your court. If you do that, it IS your fault.

Grey Templar wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but why should we pull down the successful people to help the underpriviledged?

This isn't a zero sum game. Segregation hurts everyone in the long run. By helping the underprivileged, the privileged are ultimately helping themselves.

How?

Lower crime rates, less burden on social welfare programs in the long run (teach a man to fish...) etc.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but why should we pull down the successful people to help the underpriviledged?

This isn't a zero sum game. Segregation hurts everyone in the long run. By helping the underprivileged, the privileged are ultimately helping themselves.

How?

Segregation creates poverty. Poverty blights infrastructure. Even ignoring the human costs, this is a very expensive matter.

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
There's a decent argument to be made that only one of those is racially biased, and the rest just fall into line like dominos. Just playin' Devil's Advocate.

If that's the best the devil can dish, I'll take it. Because dominoes do not a coincidence make.

I think you missed my point. I was just suggesting that those factors need not be mutually exclusive of one another.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:I know, but nothing I've gotten in life has been related to race, everything has been due to my own hard work or lack thereof.

But has anything been denied to you as a result? Because I suspect that, even objectively observed, many black folks could honestly claim that's an experience they've had.

My crazy ex finace's father would not be on the same block as me because I wasn't Mexican. He would see my car parked there, turnaround and drive away. Sometimes he would just park a few blocks down.

When I was in LA we would be rousted all the time but Da Manz. They weren't biased. They didn't like anybody in the neighborhood.

If you want a job in construction or most of the trades in Texas, and aren't the owner, good luck if you're not hispanic. Black, white, asian, its irrelevant.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm saying it's too simplistic to place the BLAME for these things on racial issues. It's not that clear cut.

This is not about blame, at least not in the first instance.

Recognize that your race is an advantage. It's not your fault. It's not your achievement. This privilege existed before you.

But keep it in mind. And keep in mind that perpetuating the privilege by marginalizing others is in your court. If you do that, it IS your fault.

Again, what I'm arguing is that this privilege is practically non-existent NOW.

I think I'm misreading you a bit.. but, how am I marginalizing the others?

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think you missed my point. I was just suggesting that those factors need not be mutually exclusive of one another.

What assumption of mutual exclusivity did I make?

 Grey Templar wrote:
So having a good family life is white priviledge?

Thats equvilant to saying that if you arn't white your family life sucks.

There are plenty of white families, more than there are of other colors, that have drug problems, abusive parents, divorce, etc...

Most unmarried teen pregnancies are to whites in the USA. Hispanic is catching up, unfortunately.

 Manchu wrote:
And keep in mind that perpetuating the privilege by marginalizing others is in your court. If you do that, it IS your fault.

So how should the white folks not marginalize others?

Ok, take this situation.


If you have 100 equally qualified candiates for 10 positions.

10 of the candidates are of a minority.

How do you pick the candidates for the positions?


The proper way to pick is to put all their names in a hat and randomly pick 10 of them. No subjective measures. You don't pick 9 of the majority and 1 of the minority, that simply reinforces the racial segragation. Except the segragation is present at all levels, not between top and bottom.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
People being donkey-caves doesn't explain how so many indicators of prosperity are divided along racial lines.

And while that may be true... RACE isn't always the factor.

So you mean the existence of massive wealth and income gaps between whites and blacks, the differences in criminal prosecution, the differences in family life and education all of this is some kind of coincidence?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If I was white and in the same situation you'd probably just say suck it up.

No, I wouldn't say that.

Take out the wealthiest 4% and whats the wealth rates? You're really saying "rich people and white people."

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So having a good family life is white priviledge?

Thats equvilant to saying that if you arn't white your family life sucks.

There are plenty of white families, more than there are of other colors, that have drug problems, abusive parents, divorce, etc...

Most unmarried teen pregnancies are to whites in the USA. Hispanic is catching up, unfortunately.

By pure number or by rate?

 whembly wrote:
Again, what I'm arguing is that this privilege is practically non-existent NOW.

Polonius showed you already that this is simply incorrect.

 whembly wrote:
I think I'm misreading you a bit.. but, how am I marginalizing the others?

That's up to your conscience.

Number, duh.

So, aid for teen prenancies should be distributed equally between those teens that need to aid. Yes, more will go to white teens. But thats because there are more of them. Its only fair.

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think you missed my point. I was just suggesting that those factors need not be mutually exclusive of one another.

What assumption of mutual exclusivity did I make?

Manchu wrote:So you mean the existence of massive wealth and income gaps between whites and blacks, the differences in criminal prosecution, the differences in family life and education all of this is some kind of coincidence?

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting. I was simply positing the idea that while family life & education might be racially biased, income gaps and criminal prosecution might be exclusively economically driven as a product of those education & family support biases; and thus not dependent on racial bias. A better test would be to examing criminal sentencing, rather than prosecution (which has been done, and does favour the "it's due to racial bias" hypothesis).

However, a far more plausible argument is to say that each factor is codependent on all the rest. Hence, why I was merely playing Devil's Advocate.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, take this situation.


If you have 100 equally qualified candiates for 10 positions.

10 of the candidates are of a minority.

How do you pick the candidates for the positions?


The proper way to pick is to put all their names in a hat and randomly pick 10 of them. No subjective measures. You don't pick 9 of the majority and 1 of the minority, that simply reinforces the racial segragation. Except the segragation is present at all levels, not between top and bottom.

Open bidding? And by open bidding I mean I mean, how fat is that envelope I am going to get?

Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, take this situation.


If you have 100 equally qualified candiates for 10 positions.

10 of the candidates are of a minority.

How do you pick the candidates for the positions?


The proper way to pick is to put all their names in a hat and randomly pick 10 of them. No subjective measures. You don't pick 9 of the majority and 1 of the minority, that simply reinforces the racial segragation. Except the segragation is present at all levels, not between top and bottom.

Open bidding? And by open bidding I mean I mean, how fat is that envelope I am going to get?

Which would imply that the wealthiest will get the positions; which currently means "non minorities", statistically speaking.