Anti-white Prejudice - does it exist?

[pepperbird]

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Actually, those who did read the original post and the follow-up discussions will have understood that the topic was more about defining anti-white prejudice vs racism. The title of the thread was in poor choice - that's already been acknowledged a few times upthread - those who did read the thread throughout will have seen that too. 

There is no 'both parties' equivalency; this much is painfully obvious, as evidenced by the last 400 years of our history - this needs to be recognised loud and clear. It's not about eating humble pie, it's about contextualising. This doesn't mean living in the past or self-flagellating, it's simply understanding the causes so as to avoid repeating the same bad cycles.

I don't think being prejudiced or racist is in our DNA, it isn't 'human nature', and equal rights for all should be a given, yet it isn't. Those who don't have equal rights fight for them, those who are in positions of power don't want to let go and whip up fear and divisions as a tool to create distrust.

It's up to us to rise above it.

 

 

 

 

I'm not seeing this in the current protests/ movements. They are very focused on just one racial group, and I;m not seeing much quarter given to others. They are even told "it's not their time right now".
This is equality?



 

[Ellener]

The rain just started here.

It's like telling someone they won't get wet in a storm to leave them outside to weather it alone. That's what we did and what we do with racism.

[pepperbird]

4 minutes ago, Ellener said:

The rain just started here.

It's like telling someone they won't get wet in a storm to leave them outside to weather it alone. That's what we did and what we do with racism.

but you're (collective) not really doing that.

if it was really all about (equality ) then everyone's concerns would be welcome.  concepts such as cancel culture wouldn't exist. Children of a police officer who was murdered in the line of duty wouldn't get horrible notes telling them their mother deserved to die. A staged photo of a two year old with an African American man with his knee on his neck while the child , who is still in a diaper, cries and screams would earn said man a sound ass kicking, verbal or otherwise. Instead, while it did earn a lot of flack, it's also starting to be openly praised because it was captioned with support for Black Lives Matter. I doubt the group had anything to do with it, but I have yet to see it condemning it.

These are just some things that have happened over the past couple of months. It could be they were always going on but no one talked about it. If they were, that's one thing, but if they are new and people are looking the other way, that's pretty troubling.

 

 

[mark clemson]

^^^^ on the photo specifically, I'd rather suspect any praise for that guy. My guess is much of that would be from those looking to make BLM look bad, or possibly russian trolls trying to deepen the existing fractures in our society, rather than actual BLMers. There's probably a few, but people have to be pretty far gone themselves to support something like that.

[sothereiwas]

21 minutes ago, pepperbird said:

if they are new and people are looking the other way, that's pretty troubling.

This is what happens when we say it's OK for our institutions to implement policies that are racially discriminatory. Every journey begins with a single step and all that. 

[Emilie Jolie]

45 minutes ago, pepperbird said:

I'm not seeing this in the current protests/ movements. They are very focused on just one racial group, and I;m not seeing much quarter given to others. They are even told "it's not their time right now".
This is equality?



 

This isn't a zero sum game. Equality is systemic racism against white people because of their skin colour - is that the type of equality you seek?  

[sothereiwas]

10 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Equality is systemic racism against white people because of their skin colour - is that the type of equality you seek

That's what we have a little of and are moving toward more of. 

[Emilie Jolie]

So you don't want equality?

[sothereiwas]

11 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

So you don't want equality?

Of course, but until we make all racial discrimination illegal (such as the Harvard case you hate to acknowledge) we won't have a chance. 

[Emilie Jolie]

Racial discrimination is already illegal...

If you wanted equality of treatment, you would encourage systemic racism against white people because of the colour of their skin - that's true equality, isn't it. Of course nobody wants that type of 'equality'. Those who are asking  people to overcome systemic racism and transgenerational inequalities as a result of systemic racism by 'working harder' should actually relish measures like affirmative action as the perfect opportunity to show how much harder than everyone else they are working. But seemingly they don't want that either. No, they want their own rights as they are, and others to 'work harder'.

Do you have a better, more relevant, less politically motivated example of anti-white prejudice than the Harvard one in order to flesh out your point a little bit? This one example is not great since Harvard was cleared of deliberate bias against any particular race, as has already been discussed in many threads ad nauseam. If this is the only example you can think of, then you don;t have much of an argument.(by the way, I read about Ed Blum, the right-wing strategist and failed politician behind the Harvard thing - quite enlightening).

 

 

 

[sothereiwas]

23 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Racial discrimination is already illegal...

Except it's not really. Harvard was not cleared of bias, the judge simply wrote that any bias that was evident, and he said it was evident, was acceptable. That's being appealed before the SCOTUS next but the fact remains, Harvard implemented a racially discriminatory policy, enforced it, and got caught at it. The legal system has so far let them continue, although as is often the case, now that they've been caught they are reducing the discrimination. 

This is real. Hand wave all you like, it's happening in one of the most prestigious institutions in America, and our courts have approved it. So far. 

 

EDIT: Link back to quote --> 

 

Edited July 26, 2020 by sothereiwas

[Emilie Jolie]

1 minute ago, sothereiwas said:

Except it's not really. Harvard was not cleared of bias, the judge simply wrote that any bias that was evident, and he said it was evident, was acceptable. That's being appealed before the SCOTUS next but the fact remains, Harvard implemented a racially discriminatory policy, enforced it, and got caught at it. The legal system has so far let them continue, although as is often the case, now that they've been caught they are reducing the discrimination. 

This is real. Hand wave all you like, it's happening in one of the most prestigious institutions in America, and our courts have approved it. So far. 

Where does the bolded come from?

The federal judge who ruled on the case was a she, by the way. She ruled the admissions process was fair and didn't discriminate against any particular group, as per the document you posted upthread yourself a while back. Lots of alumni and students from various racial backgrounds are supporting Harvard on this, and I'd assume dropping affirmative action would only favour white, wealthy students, as it did before affirmative action got implemented.

Also, affirmative action and racial discrimination (already illegal) are 2 different things, in case you didn't know. 

So you don't have any other examples, then? Never mind. 

[sothereiwas]

12 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Where does the bolded come from?

Recent admissions have allowed more Asians into Harvard than pre-lawsuit. 

The judge said this: "Race conscious admissions will always penalize to some extent the groups that are not being advantaged by the process, but this is justified by the compelling interest in diversity and all the benefits that flow from a diverse college population."

Race conscious is just a hand wavy way of saying racially discriminatory, and the balance of the sentence says in this case racial discrimination is justifiable. 

 

14 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

I'd assume dropping affirmative action would only favour white, wealthy students

Or they could just not be "race conscious" when admitting students. How hard would that be?

[Ellener]

4 hours ago, mark clemson said:

^^^^ on the photo specifically, I'd rather suspect any praise for that guy. My guess is much of that would be from those looking to make BLM look bad, or possibly russian trolls trying to deepen the existing fractures in our society, rather than actual BLMers. There's probably a few, but people have to be pretty far gone themselves to support something like that.

I agree. Black Lives Matter was a serious cause here in Houston way before all this media publicity, the Unitarian church I belong to took it up @ four years ago and it was simply to address long-term systemic racism in the US. Which we were doing by reading books and setting up discussion groups.

 

 

[Emilie Jolie]

5 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

Recent admissions have allowed more Asians into Harvard than pre-lawsuit. 

 

You're tying yourself in knots trying to interpret things that aren't there. The above proves nothing, and certainly not what you claimed in your previous post. The document you have posted yourself indicates the number of Asian students have consistently gone up.  

5 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

Race conscious is just a hand wavy way of saying racially discriminatory

You can't decide words mean different things because you don't like their definitions. That's a pattern, it seems. 'The balance' of the sentence is just you putting your own twist to it.

5 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

Or they could just not be "race conscious" when admitting students. 

Why not? 

Harvard being a private organisation should be able to decide on whatever admissions process works for them - they are not funded by your tax dollars, they are not a governmental institution, and they are free to admit whoever they want based on the type of studentship profile they are after, which apparently is both academic excellence and racial diversity. There are more students of all sort of backgrounds now than there were before affirmative action was implemented - so their admissions process is working. It also has been deemed to be legal, fair and non-discriminatory by a federal judge despite what people want to believe. 

Anyway. It's wild to me that anyone would think a tax-funded system can actively impose racist laws on a particular racial group for centuries, segregate them in society so they don't get the same rights, and mess with other countries abroad, without there being any long term impact or consequences for generations to come.

 

 

 

 

 

[schlumpy]

15 hours ago, Emilie Jolie said:

There is no 'both parties' equivalency; this much is painfully obvious, as evidenced by the last 400 years of our history - this needs to be recognised loud and clear. It's not about eating humble pie, it's about contextualising. This doesn't mean living in the past or self-flagellating, it's simply understanding the causes so as to avoid repeating the same bad cycles.

I don't think being prejudiced or racist is in our DNA, it isn't 'human nature', and equal rights for all should be a given, yet it isn't. Those who don't have equal rights fight for them, those who are in positions of power don't want to let go and whip up fear and divisions as a tool to create distrust.

It's up to us to rise above it.

My dear Emilie how about smoothing out the relationship between Turkey (Persia) and Greece. Those countries have been at each other's throats for over two thousand years and yes slavery was definitely involved. When you are finished and since you will be in the area how about getting the Kurds to make up with Turkey. Lots of death, destruction and mayhem to rise above on that plane of existence.

I don't know what I was thinking asking a German woman to be my wife considering the history involved.

Although I am a college graduate, I chose to work in the trades. I was one those guys you will see once in awhile on a rooftop waving to the crane operator as we delicately place a 350 kilo compressor into it's cradle on a hundred ton chiller. I've worked with all kinds of different people. We got along well because we had our job in common. We depended on each other. I could care less who my workmate was voting for and he returned the sentiment.

We didn't need to self flagellate to rise above. We had already risen.

[Prudence V]

51 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

Turkey (Persia)

Turkey was never Persia. Iran used to be Persia. I don’t think Iran has strong feelings toward Greece either way, though Turkey does - particularly in Cyprus. 

[schlumpy]

Just now, Prudence V said:

Turkey was never Persia. Iran used to be Persia. I don’t think Iran has strong feelings toward Greece either way, though Turkey does - particularly in Cyprus. 

So much for my memory Prudence. I was sure that the Persian empire included Turkey. My mistake.

[sothereiwas]

3 hours ago, Emilie Jolie said:

You can't decide words mean different things because you don't like their definitions.

No, but a reasonable person can see that different phrases can mean the same thing. Tapdance all you like, race blind is a common way of saying not racially discriminatory, and is the opposite of race conscious.

 

3 hours ago, Emilie Jolie said:

There are more students of all sort of backgrounds now than there were before affirmative action was implemented - so their admissions process is working.

Exactly - the institution is discriminating based on race. 

 

3 hours ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Why not? [be race conscious]

Because being "race conscious" facilitates racial discrimination and serves no other purpose.  

 

3 hours ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Harvard being a private organisation should be able to decide on whatever admissions process works for them

That's simply not true. It's a reasonable thing to talk about, but it's not true at present. If for instance a bakery said they wouldn't serve gay customers, that would get the bakery in dutch. If Harvard stopped accepting say, black students, or female students, or male students, that would actually be illegal as the law currently stands. 

 

3 hours ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Anyway. It's wild to me that anyone would think a tax-funded system can actively impose racist laws on a particular racial group for centuries, segregate them in society so they don't get the same rights, and mess with other countries abroad, without there being any long term impact or consequences for generations to come.

I don't recall making that claim. 

[Emilie Jolie]

2 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

No, but a reasonable person can see that different phrases can mean the same thing. Tapdance all you like, race blind is a common way of saying not racially discriminatory, and is the opposite of race conscious.

Tapdance? Anyway. You're revising the English language to suit your bias. 

2 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

Exactly - the institution is discriminating based on race. 

 

Because being "race conscious" facilitates racial discrimination and serves no other purpose.  

They don't discriminate against any particular race, as has been ruled out. Their process involves making sure all races are represented equally, as opposed to favouring white, rich students.

 

2 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

 If Harvard stopped accepting say, black students, or female students, or male students, that would actually be illegal as the law currently stands. 

Well yeah, that would be discriminatory, hence illegal. They're doing the exact opposite, to the detriment of no race.

You've just made my point for me...

[sothereiwas]

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Well yeah, that would be discriminatory, hence illegal. They're doing the exact opposite, to the detriment of no race.

You've just made my point for me...

Not at all. It's been proven and Harvard then admitted they consider race as a factor in admissions, and their admissions history shows that (for instance) Asians have to score higher to get into Harvard. If the race was, say, latinos needing a higher credit score than others, and the institution was Citibank approving loans, I'd still be arguing it was wrong but I suspect you would switch sides. 

 

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Their process involves making sure all races are represented equally

Which is the definition of racial discrimination, by the way. Thanks for making my point. 

Edited July 26, 2020 by sothereiwas

[Emilie Jolie]

4 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

Which is the definition of racial discrimination, by the way. Thanks for making my point. 

Oh mate. No, fair racial representation isn't discrimination. 

 

4 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

their admissions history shows that (for instance) Asians have to score higher to get into Harvard.

Score higher on what - GDP? extra curriculars? Personal statements? Teachers' recommendations? 

The number of Asian students go up every year at Harvard, not down. Harvard isn't a bank, it's a one of a kind elite school - comparing getting into Harvard to getting a mortgage makes no sense at all, sorry. 

[sothereiwas]

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said:

fair racial representation isn't discrimination. 

Fair is a meaningless word without some definition. 

Getting past that, discrimination in this context means a seeing a difference and using it to make a choice. The only way to 'ensure' a desired racial mix is achieved outside pure chance is to discriminate (make a choice) based on race. If race doesn't enter into it, it's not "race conscious", and therefore can't discriminate (again, make a choice) based on race. This is what race blind means, and it's a lot less wordy. 

Harvard's admissions are not race blind. 

If it could be shown Harvard (or some other school) was discriminating against black people, would you be OK with it? I still wouldn't, because I'm not racist. My views are intellectually honest and therefore consistent. 

 

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Score higher on what

Academic achievement. Test scores, grades, and so on. Not the color of one's skin. 

[homecoming]

 "Discrimination occurs when individuals or groups are treated in a way which is worse than the way people are usually treated"

Discrimination is a negative practice. It is not when institutions include people from various ethnic backgrounds, in a bid to offer equality. 

The very nature of discrimination is a bad thing - where has idea come from that a positive action is 'discrimination'?

Discrimination is the act of refusing Polish people entry to spaces in German-occupied Poland in 1939. It is the water fountains provided for African Americans during segregation. It is anti-Semitic graffiti daubed on a wall, warning Jewish people to "keep out" of spaces in Lithuania and Germany.  

Discrimination is NOT the act of offering everyone a fair chance, regardless of race. 

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by homecoming

[homecoming]

2 hours ago, enigma32 said:

That's all some people care about; taking down white people. A meritocracy like the NBA with barely any representation of any race besides black is fine, but if there is any meritocracy with too many white folk, people wanna stop it. 

I don't think anyone is interested in 'taking down' white people, or stopping them from doing anything. That's a baseless claim.

And that's because basketball is a sport that's often taken up by young black men because all you need is a hoop and ball, and basketball courts are found in pretty much every high-density neighbourhood in the US. Nothing at all to do with the exclusion of white people. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by homecoming