Anti-white Prejudice - does it exist?

[Emilie Jolie]

10 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Would anti-black bias in the same scenario be racist?

What scenario?

[Emilie Jolie]

10 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Um no. Here is the document: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.165519/gov.uscourts.mad.165519.672.0_2.pdf

The court found, essentially, that it was OK for Harvard to be racially discriminatory in this case. This is pretty germane to the thread. 

Have you read it? P.122 to 126 - Harvard does not intentionally discriminate on the basis of race. This is the last chapter before the conclusion....

 

[introverted1]

7 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Show me a study or a situation in which a bank (totally different to a selective, internationally reknown educational institution, but whatever) has been accused of systemic racism on the same basis -

You're kidding, right?

This is a prime example of the systemic racism at the heart of the BLM movement -- the fact that many institutions, including mortgage companies, have discriminated against black applicants simply because they were black.  Even when they had the same (or better) credit scores/histories as non-black applicants, they were more likely to be denied a mortgage.  From the AAAS:

Quote

Black and Hispanic borrowers more likely to be rejected when they apply for a loan; more likely to receive a high-cost mortgage

From CBS:

Quote

A recent analysis of nearly 7 million 30-year mortgages by University of California at Berkeley researchers found that black and Latino applicants were charged higher interest — an average of nearly 0.08% — and heavier refinance fees when compared with white borrowers. That was in face-to-face transactions. When applying online or through an app, minorities still ended up paying more, though terms were slightly better than when borrowing in person. 

The upshot: Long-standing discrimination faced by people of color in getting a home loan can be reproduced in software-based lending, technology that advocates say is supposed to prevent bias.

 What Harvard did is no different -- it denied admissions based on a "holistic" approach that included consideration of race.  If it's wrong to do it in banking, it's wrong to do it in education.

I'm out of energy for this.  Good luck.

 

 

[Emilie Jolie]

4 minutes ago, introverted1 said:

You're kidding, right?

No.

You gave me a hypothetical that had nothing to do with the Harvard case. What you have presented above doesn't show how many Blacks get mortgages, and getting a mortagage with a high interest rate absolutely doesn't compare to gaining entry into a selective school. Still nothing to do with anti-white prejudice either way - sorry!

I

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[sothereiwas]

1 minute ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Harvard does not intentionally discriminate on the basis of race.

That's not the question. If I said that banks were not intentionally discriminating against blacks despite blacks having to have a higher credit score, on average, to get loans, would that be OK simply because it was accidental?

 

5 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Have you read it?

I also got past the TOC: "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."

[Emilie Jolie]

2 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

That's not the question

It is. You said they weren't cleared. They were.

Still nothing to do with anti-white prejudice. 

Honestly, open a thread on this Harvard thing - seems like it's a huge issue for you for some reason, so much so you have hijacked a couple of threads on this.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[sothereiwas]

7 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

You said they weren't cleared.

"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."

That's a direct quote. I know it's not convenient, but there it is, black on white, from the pen of the court. The court said (above) that yes, they use race to discriminate (literally to differentiate or choose) but that's OK because 'reasons'. That means the opposite of 'cleared', it says clearly "yes, that happened, and is still happening, but it's not something we're going to force them to change". 

This is, literally and clearly, a case of institutional racism against non-black people, most specifically asians but also others. That the court approves it makes it more institutionalized, not less. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by sothereiwas

[Emilie Jolie]

18 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

"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."

That's a direct quote. I know it's not convenient, but there it is, black on white, from the pen of the court. The court said (above) that yes, they use race to discriminate (literally to differentiate or choose) but that's OK because 'reasons'. That means the opposite of 'cleared', it says clearly "yes, that happened, and is still happening, but it's not something we're going to force them to change". 

This is, literally and clearly, a case of institutional racism against non-black people, most specifically asians but also others. That the court approves it makes it more institutionalized, not less. 

Is non-blacks equivalent to whites? No.

Is Harvard a short-hand for every single educational institution? No. Just one.

Has Harvard been shown to deliberately discriminate? No.

So why are you going on about it in this thread?

I beg of you, open your own thread on this. 

Have you other, more relevant, instances of anti-white bias?

Edited July 8, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[mark clemson]

2 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

For me there are two possible ways of going at this.

Ok. For me the way of going at this issue was to accept there are two widely used definitions and adapt how one communicates a bit, but that's just me. 🙂

[sothereiwas]

6 minutes ago, mark clemson said:

Ok. For me the way of going at this issue was to accept there are two widely used definitions and adapt how one communicates a bit, but that's just me. 🙂

I think we're going with the current Websters def, but no one has explicitly bought in yet except me. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by sothereiwas

[gaius]

There was a movie a while back called "White men can't jump" that I found pretty appalling.

I guess Woody Harrelson shouldn't have been offended thought since he was white and had all the power.

[Emilie Jolie]

Doesn't sound like you've watched it or you'd 100% know why nobody got offended...

[Prudence V]

On 7/7/2020 at 10:30 PM, introverted1 said:

Look at warring tribes within Africa, which are committed to each other's annihilation in spite of a shared race.

OK I don’t know where you’re from, but this statement is highly problematic on a number of ways. 
1) “race” doesn’t exist, biologically. It’s a social artefact. Defined by white westerners, not by Africans. So notions of “race” being recognised and shared are imposed from outside. You may think they share a “race”, but they don’t. 
 2) they’re not “tribes”, they’re nations. Different ethnic groups, each with their own history, culture, often language, etc. Because borders and statehood were imposed, often through the brutality of colonisation, different nations have been crushed up together in ways they would not have chosen. 
3) “committed to each other’s annihilation” is a fanciful way of reflecting the reality of having to compete for scare resources in the context of post-coloniality and the national trauma of having your culture, instructions, leadership structures, etc destroyed. 
 

 

[Prudence V]

On 7/8/2020 at 12:28 AM, elaine567 said:

No other reason apart from the fact you(gen) are also in the minority...
Can minorities ever really expect to be seen as equals?
 

White people are in the minority in Southern Africa, yet under the most brutal racist regimes, who was in charge, oppressing the others, in countries like Rhodesia, South West Africa, South Africa, etc? Yep, white people. The minority. 
 

It’s not about “minorities”. It’s about whiteness, and the structures of racism. 

[Prudence V]

18 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

Not according to Webster's, which moments ago I thought you were championing as arbiters of such things. 

American dictionaries are not recognised as having any authority outside of the narrow confines of the USA. 

[Emilie Jolie]

12 minutes ago, Prudence V said:

OK I don’t know where you’re from, but this statement is highly problematic on a number of ways. 
1) “race” doesn’t exist, biologically. It’s a social artefact. Defined by white westerners, not by Africans. So notions of “race” being recognised and shared are imposed from outside. You may think they share a “race”, but they don’t. 
 2) they’re not “tribes”, they’re nations. Different ethnic groups, each with their own history, culture, often language, etc. Because borders and statehood were imposed, often through the brutality of colonisation, different nations have been crushed up together in ways they would not have chosen. 
3) “committed to each other’s annihilation” is a fanciful way of reflecting the reality of having to compete for scare resources in the context of post-coloniality and the national trauma of having your culture, instructions, leadership structures, etc destroyed. 
 

 

Thank you, I'd completely missed that part. 100% agree with every single word.

 

 

[sothereiwas]

1 hour ago, Prudence V said:

White people are in the minority in Southern Africa, yet under the most brutal racist regimes, who was in charge, oppressing the others

Take a look at what's happening in SA recently and get back to me. 

[sothereiwas]

1 hour ago, Prudence V said:

American dictionaries are not recognised as having any authority outside of the narrow confines of the USA. 

I'm fine with any reasonable definition, just please someone pick one that makes sense. Webster's is generally considered a good resource for English definitions. The OED would also be fine, but it is not free online last I checked. 

[Libby1]

14 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Take a look at what's happening in SA recently and get back to me. 

What went on in Zimbabwe some years back was documented in the film "Mugabe  the White South African."  It tells the story of farmer Ben Freeth whose father had bought farmland after independence.  The Government had declared no interest in the landi.  However, in 2001 as a result of Mugabe's land reforms, they - along with many other white farmers who had purchased their farms under similar conditions (ie after independence when the government had declared no interest) were served with eviction notices - the terms of which meant Mugabe would seize the land and the farmers would receive no compensation.  Freeth and his father-in-law were beaten up many times, and his father-in-law eventually died from his injuries.  They took their case to the South African Development Community Court and won - but then Mugabe withdrew Zimbabwe from the SADC.

Mugabe's successor has now promised to compensate the white farmers who had their land seized from them.  I'm not sure how a person would dispute that those farmers were not only subjected to prejudice based on being white, but brutalised for it, and that this was wrong.  However, doubtless some rationale as to why the situation for white farmers in Zimbabwe didn't qualify as systemic racism or prejudice will duly be presented on this thread.

 

[sothereiwas]

2 minutes ago, Libby1 said:

I'm not sure how a person would dispute that those farmers were not only subjected to prejudice based on being white, but brutalised for it, and that this was wrong. 

They probably brought it on themselves, and it's really their own fault, due to their failing to check their privilege, etc, etc ...

[Timshel]

It's quite distasteful, racism in either direction.  None of the land seizures occurring in a vacuum.  

 

'Racism in Zimbabwe began under British colonial rule in the 19th century, with a white minority population imposing racist policies in all spheres of life. In the 1960s–70s, African national liberation groups waged an armed struggle against the white Rhodesian government, culminating in a peace accord that brought the ZANU–PF to power but which left much of the white settler population's economic authority intact.

Violent government repression following independence included massacres against African ethnic groups, embittering ethnic divides within the population. The government led by Robert Mugabe during the 1980s was benevolent to white settlers while violently repressing illegal incursions on white land by African peasants who were frustrated with the government's broken promises of land reform. Mugabe's government would change policies in 2000 and encourage violence against the white population, with many fleeing the country by 2005. Zimbabwe's society continues to face significant divisions along racial lines.'

 

[sothereiwas]

In good news, Zimbabwe made me a millionaire. After the 21st century reforms I was able to purchase millions of $ in Zimbabwe's currency, which I now use as bookmarks. So glass half full there. 

[Prudence V]

1 hour ago, sothereiwas said:good resource for English definitions.

American English, not English. There’s a difference. 

[Prudence V]

1 hour ago, sothereiwas said:

Take a look at what's happening in SA recently and get back to me. 

Are you using SA to mean he country, South Africa (the standard meaning of hat abbreviation) or Southern Africa, the region?

[Prudence V]

56 minutes ago, Libby1 said:

What went on in Zimbabwe some years back was documented in the film "Mugabe  the White South African." 

I’m assuming you mean the film “Mugabe and the White African”? Free the is Zimbabwean, not South African. Mugabe had nothing to do with South Africa, which is a separate country. Likewise, I assume you mean the *Southern* African Development Community, which covers the whole region, rather than the single country of South Africa (which has nothing to do with Zimbabwe.