Jump to content

Our Commitment To The Black Lives Matter Movement


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

To get back to the original topic: I applaud the Scouts and other corps for publicly commiting to striving further for equality, but I am but I a mindful of criticism that suggests that most of what people are doing is just window dressing for the real problem, or as one columnist wrote:

"We have very strong evidence that racism has been a major factor in shaping our stingy welfare state, our weak labor unions, and our hyper-local education and land use institutions, and what we’re getting is corporate sensitivity seminars and Juneteenth as a white collar day off."

He offers these studies as examples of how racism underlies many of our systmes:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/25/20703660/school-segregation-district-borders-map-data

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/10/08/restrictive-zoning-is-impeding-dcs-goal-to-build-more-housing/

The writer then makes it personal by pointing to his own family history:

"There’s been a surge of interest in information about the postwar structure of racialized wealth building in the midcentury United States, but I think a lot of people aren’t really understanding:

Back in the 1940s and 1950s, my grandfathers (one Jewish, one Cuban) faced a lot of racism in the sense of interpersonal hostility from bigoted people. Much worse stuff than anyone would say today. But legally speaking they were both white. And that mattered!

As white people, they benefitted in a formal, programmatic sense from the postwar welfare state. People could call them names or slurs or make them feel unwelcome or whatever else they wanted. Nobody could take away their GI benefits or subsidized mortgages. They were white!

With the arm of the state on their side in concrete, material ways they — like millions of other Jewish or Catholic families — were able to raise their living standards and shove their way into the American mainstream despite lots of people being [expletives] to them.

That was the privilege they enjoyed as white people, not immunity from [expletives] but legal entitlement to specific kinds of benefits. Benefits that others were excluded from. And that’s what people need today — tangible things they’ve been denied."

- - - - - - - - - -

And to make it personal for myself, in this case regarding the idea that "hyper-local education" is an example of racism: I lived in Cleveland and attended Cleveland's public schools until the spring of 1980, when my mother moved us to a suburb. Why did we move? Because a judge had ruled, quite correctly, that the Cleveland school system was segregated on the basis of race, and that the schools in the predominantly black neighborhoods weren't delivering as good an education as the schools in the predominantly white neighborhoods. His remedy was to require busing: students would be bused to schools outside their neighborhoods so that racial mix in each school would appoximate that of the city as a whole.

But what was the actual result of his ruling? White flight: people moved to the suburbs. And apparently the judge didn't have the authority to require busing between school districts, or for some reason he didn't want to impose on the suburbs. But Cleveland schools, already struggling, plummeted in quality as the families who could afford to move out did so.

My mother said that we moved because she didn't want us to spend an hour or more each day on a bus, or to have to travel far from where we lived. (As a first grader, just six years old, I would walk the ten minutes each way to and from school, by myself. Imagine letting kids do that today! And crime was far worse in the 1970s and 1980s than it is now.) I'm not saying that my mother's motives were racist. I am saying that regardless of her reasons, she was contributing to the problem by moving us away. She was encouraging systemic racism to continue.

- - - - - - - - - -

Edit: let me add to this point: "regardless of her reasons, she was contributing to the problem".

In the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion training seminars we've been taking where I work, it's been noted several times that people are very defensive about their actions being described as racist, in ways that they never would be in other situations.

If you're driving and you accidentally hit a pedestrian, you'd never say things like, "I'm not biased against pedestrians! Some of my best friends are pedestrians. I'm married to a pedestrian!" And while it's good to feel remorse for striking a pedestrian with a car, it's also not the most important issue. What matters are that the injured person get medical attention and be compensated for damages.

 

 

 

perhaps ironically, the people that are being cheated by the power of the government, keep voting for more government like that is going to fix something, instead of just getting them more of the same. 

 

1. government is abusing a portion of the population

2. marginalized people vote to give the government more power to stop the abuse

3. government uses its new power to create more abuse

 

... and the cycle continues forever!

 

"power corrupts"

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Continental said:

A lot of our opinions and attitudes are learned from our parents. 

Close friend saw a psychologist for years for various issues. Therapists often repeated line was “you learn from your parents” usually with the head shaking to register the problem was with the family members and not my friend. We finally said her real problem was PPS “Putting up with Peoples S(tuff)”

Edit: and part of the problem was one parent who did not believe in differing opinions. If you disagreed you.. were... wrong...

Edited by JimF-LowBari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

If you're driving and you accidentally hit a pedestrian, you'd never say things like, "I'm not biased against pedestrians! Some of my best friends are pedestrians. I'm married to a pedestrian!" 

To be fair, no one would say things like "automobile brutality", "car supremacist", or "defund the drivers", either.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Pretty much what I got told by some when I refused to go to ChicFilA. How could I not go when the company gives so much to charity etc etc. I still stand by my friends and don’t go.

I've eaten at Chick fil a once - in Atlanta at the Hartsfield-Jackson airport.

I know it's airport food but I was hungry.  A got one of their "biscuits" as part of my order and it tasted like wet drywall.    

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cappybara said:

And there is nothing wrong with that either. I encourage everyone to put their money where their mouth is. Whether it be company wide policy or just one guy leading the company, it is OKAY to take a stand and say “no, I am not going to support this.” It is okay to use social media as a platform to encourage others to do the same. If the grassroots movement becomes large enough, that’s when you start seeing change, which is what we’ve been seeing recently. And if it doesn’t become large enough, then oh well, you did your part and can have a clean conscience. 

So if you got the change you wanted, why are you still boycotting?

And what makes you think that change will stick?  Now additional people are boycotting.  How does that incentivize retention of the change?  We will more likely see things change back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, soccerguy315 said:

perhaps ironically, the people that are being cheated by the power of the government, keep voting for more government like that is going to fix something, instead of just getting them more of the same. 

1. government is abusing a portion of the population

2. marginalized people vote to give the government more power to stop the abuse

3. government uses its new power to create more abuse

... and the cycle continues forever!

"power corrupts"

The quote is actually "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

At least, that's what Lord Acton said in the 19th Century. But as I noted a few days ago, the Anglo-Saxons had a different take:

"Man deþ swa he byþ þonne he mot swa he wile," or in modern English: "A man does as he is when he can do what he wants."

(And of course, lots of problems have indeed been fixed by government action, which is often taken because of public outrcy.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cixelsyd said:

To be fair, no one would say things like "automobile brutality", "car supremacist", or "defund the drivers", either.

Yes and no. I mean, no one uses those terms, but there are quite a few people in public policy research who think cars and drivers get quite a few breaks they shouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

So if you got the change you wanted, why are you still boycotting?

And what makes you think that change will stick?  Now additional people are boycotting.  How does that incentivize retention of the change?  We will more likely see things change back.

Two reasons: 

1. Because the company is still run by someone with openly bigoted views

2. After facing conservative Christian backlash from their initial decision, they backpedaled shortly after and said that just because they stopped donating to two anti-LGBTQ charities now does not mean that they will not do so in the future. 

Edited by Cappybara
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

So if you got the change you wanted, why are you still boycotting?

And what makes you think that change will stick?  Now additional people are boycotting.  How does that incentivize retention of the change?  We will more likely see things change back.

Know you asked cappy but since I don’t go there either I will respond too. I don’t know if stopping donations to anti gay organizations is a change of heart or trying to put a better “face” to the company (CYA). 
 

As far as others boycotting that is their business and not mine. I never asked for a “change” in the company. I see it as not putting money in the pocket of someone who is against my friends. If and when someone reports that the owner has had a change of heart I will reconsider.

Its not a business level thing with me it’s human being level. If you speak out against my friends you don't get my #### money.... period

Edited by JimF-LowBari
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...