<p>Nope, it’s not the same thing. You just made a broad generalization—“The white guy running in the USA”—whereas, Dross spoke of the black Mayoral candidate having to address a much more circumscribed demographic than the whole “USA”— namely, the predominantly Black, inner city demographic. A candidate hoping to garner the votes of this demographic (whose vote often determines the outcome of a mayoral election) has to address issues of educational inequity, gang and drug violence, law enforcement/constituency tensions, and infrastructure concerns specific to inner city populations. More often than not, it is the black candidate who goes into these areas and convinces that constituency that he understands and cares about their unique and specific concerns. In the rare case that the white candidate goes into these same neighborhoods and works to earnestly to convey the same message, he is taken seriously by this population, and has been known to garner a significant percentage of their vote, (and in some cases, win the majority). </p>
<p>The White guy running in the USA is too broad an example. The USA is a vast geographical area, encompassing any number of disparate demographics. Do you mean any white guy running in any part of the USA? Somehow, I doubt it. If you are speaking of Presidential politics, it is incumbent upon the candidate to address the concerns of many different constituencies. </p>
<p>Perhaps I am not understanding what you meant to convey, Mr Payne. Could you be more direct and specific?</p>
<p>I’m trying to say that people defer to other people who look like them. Dross created some voluminous explication how whites are dirty racists. I’m just saying that certainly isn’t abnormal. In virtually <em>any</em> election where there is a significant majority the chance of that person being of that race are pretty high. This does not change due to the scale of the election. It’s pretty much, across the board, true. In every country around the world.</p>
Racism is the belief of genetic inferiority/superiority.</p>
<p>
That’s a cultural argument. Certainly not racist.</p>
<p>
He’s specifically criticizing the culture. Not racist.</p>
<p>
Still, culture. Not genetic. I see him as criticizing certain portions of black culture, which is still allowable. A simple perusal of crime, education, illegitimacy statistics makes that abundantly clear.</p>
<p>
Yeah, but it’s not racist.</p>
<p>
Please come with an argument that makes sense.</p>
<p>If black people only voted for the ones who “looked like them”, they never would have fought for the right to vote because there were never any candidates who looked like them at that time. Blacks routinely vote for candidates who do not look like them in state and federal, and often in local elections. </p>
<p>Furthermore, blacks don’t always vote for the candidate who “looks like them”, especially if it is clear that such candidates do not speak to their concerns (candidates like Alan Keyes immediately spring to mind). In such cases, they’ll overwhelmingly vote for “the white guy” even though he certainly does not “look like them”. I’ll say it again: black people do not see white skin as a disqualifier. How well a candidate addresses their specific concerns, hopes and aspirations overrides all else.</p>
<p>Tyler’s argument made perfect sense, Mr Payne. It is you who is being intellectually dishonest by insisting that the kid’s generalized, and racist comment was merely a “cultural observation”. Bald faced denial of what is abundantly obvious is not a valid rhetorical device.</p>
<p>No. Absolutely not. As poet said, inner city mayoral politics is highly specific. In many such races only blacks are running in the first place, and they all tend to speak to precisely the same issues. I have even seen where the black democrat who emerges in the race runs essentially unchallenged. When whites do run they often run from perspectives wholly different from those embraced by the constituency. They appear to be trying to interject different ideas to the predominant political culture. While this is certainly good, very good, even a service to the larger community, it does not tend to win races. These races are quite frequently comprised of a black running as a democrat and a white running as a republican. Well, even when blacks run as republicans the deal is basically cancelled. I remember, for example, when DC’s Tony Williams ran for office as a black Democrat. His opponent was Carol Schwartz, I think, a white woman who is republican. She sounded republican, and I knew then the GOP was just in the thing “just because”. In many cases where whites have identified with the specific issues affecting blacks, blacks have gone for white candidates and were quite open about it. Gary Indiana, for example, is about 90 percent black, but it has had white mayors. The same is true of Jersey City, Baltimore, and others. There were no blacks skulking around lying about their allegiances to the white candidate. They just went out, saw the white guy, considered his point of view, and then voted for him, or not. I think in presidential politics whites have failed to act likewise, and for a number of reasons. When it comes to local politics, whites are a bit more able to look past race, as we saw in Houston, back in 1997 I think it was.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False! It all remains to be seen. Whites still appear to be doing what they have always done with black candidates on the national level. We will have to wait and see if some new paradigm is emerging.</p>
<p>Well, the kid was justifying discrimination against blacks by blaming it on rappers. Basically he is saying that whites discriminate against blacks because blacks act like thugs. He is attributing a cultural defect to all blacks, and then claiming that whites are only responding to it. The kid may not have mentioned “genetics”, but he didn’t have to. The argument is still racist because it attaches one behavior to blacks and another to whites. Then it justifies white racism because of these relentless cultural assignments.</p>
<p>Now, I suspect this kid is not trying to be racist. He, like most people, is just programmed with white racism so that he is unaware of how racism now affects his views. I am guilty of it myself. It is hard to be otherwise. The fact is, I likely agree with what this kid is trying to say. I respond to black thuggery pretty much as this kid claims whites respond to it. But, being black myself, I am quite aware that, contrary to this kid’s claim, not all blacks are thugs. Probably the classiest person on CC, next to poetsheart, is Northstarmom. There is no thuggishness about these folks. They always have something interesting to contribute to others, are always generous where generosity is warranted, are always models to the rest of us, white, black and everything in between, on how to dialog here. Yet this kid would justify white racism against them because of what some dumb rapper does. It is just rank stupidity, and yet vast numbers of people reading the kid would nod in assent to his views contrary to reason.</p>
<p>Hard for me to intelligently comment on student’s comments[referring to blacks, thugs and the generalizations], not having heard the first-hand, and in context. However, could it be just possible the student merely didn’t express his thoughts well? Could it be a communications problem rather than a racism problem? I know here, sometimes a misspelled word or a misinterpreted comment can lead to pages of bashing.
I don’t pretend to know the students thoughts, but I pose a question. What if he had said something like this:</p>
<p>It is overwhelmingly Americans of African ancestry who choose the rap lifestyle and the fashions and attitudes, and slang that usually go along with it. Unfortunately for society as a whole that lifestyle appears to celebrate lawlessness, the degredation of women and often racism. Unfortunately and unfairly, so many of these individuals are the ones all of our society sees the most of, on tv, news, videos, and the record charts. As a result, the black community as a whole is unfairly characterized as being all the same. Until the popularity of this lifestyle changes, or more and more blacks speak out against this lifestyle, the majority of society may unfairly continue to lump all African-Americans together.</p>
<p>If the student had something more like that, might his comments have been more acceptable?</p>
<p>This is true, but the problem is in how they judge looks. Currently we are zoning in on skin color. In some regions hair color was once enough to cause one to encounter discrimination. Even in today’s America some red heads catch little bits of hell from people who impose myths upon them that came to us out of history. Indeed, many of the same things people have said about people with black skin have been said about people with red hair. However, today’s American culture has generally caused most of us to assign such a subordinate role to hair color that our determinations of a person’s general worth have little to do with hair at all. Overall, Bill Clinton differs in looks from most Americans, and so does Dick Cheney. Depending upon one’s outlook, Barack Obama looks quite a bit more similar to most Americans than does Danny Devito. John Edwards differs profoundly from most Americans, and so does George Bush. Looks here are mere perceptions shaped by culture. Few people are using scientific tools to compare a candidate’s skin tone, hair color, texture, eye colors and body size to their own, and then choosing the leader based on the outcome. Millions are overlooking vast dissimilarities between themselves and the leaders they choose, and they are doing this because history has arbitrarily assigned more importance to some traits than to others.</p>
<p>Were the choice before America between Barack Obama and Vlad Putin, even many of the staunchest racists would choose Obama. It is culture that drives us all ultimately, since skin and hair (as well as all other human feature sets) have exactly the same moral value in nature. Even our perceptions, and therefore looks, are being shaped by culture. It is possible that we might choose from two leaders, one white and one black, as if both had the same skin. We can’t do this now, of course, because we are all still trapped in the wake of slavery.</p>
<p>Sure. And I think he would be right. The only problem with the comment is that it fails to point out where rap culture comes from. I mean, it is not as if blacks suddenly sprang up in America talking ebonics and wearing bling-bling. There is a long and very painful history behind rap and thug culture, and this history is deeply rooted in white and official American governmental racism. If we must blame thuglife for racism, we need to blame the whites who created and then maintained the thuglife in the first place. And if we are to claim blacks have an obligation to form a palatable solution to the problem, reason demands we also claim whites have an obligation. The only reason I do not think whites have an equal obligation here is that blacks suffer most from the problem. Personally, I do not care what whites do (I don’t say this with bitterness. I am saying I do not need whites to help me not be a thug). I am only talking about the morality of the situation. It is immoral, in my view, to condemn blacks only, for something whites and their white government forced upon blacks by white law.</p>
<p>“It is overwhelmingly Americans of African ancestry who choose the rap lifestyle and the fashions and attitudes, and slang that usually go along with it.”</p>
<p>And it is overwhelmingly Americans of white ancestry who choose the heavy metal lifestyle, and the drug addiction, fashions, and misogyny that usually go along with that. So how come white people, as a group, aren’t held accountable for the behavior of this sub-group? How come no one’s writing speeches about how white people will only earn the respect of others when we reject Motley Crue and Marilyn Manson?</p>
<p>It just doesn’t happen. Black people are being held to a completely different standard than white people. That’s why this is racist.</p>
<p>I don’t think younghoss defends the doublestandard, friend Hanna. He takes great pains to declare it all “unfair” and “unfortunate”. But I think his statement is generally quite right because people aren’t philosophical enough to spot illogic in their beliefs and act reasonably as a result. Most of us have gut reactions based on childhood training, and unfortunately a lot of our training is racist and finished by the time we leave home.</p>
<p>Why is it that blacks are held to a different standard? It is racism, pure and simple. I think half the nation suffers from an entrenched form of it. The rest of us are struggling with it.</p>
<p>I disagree! I am just as quick to dart looks at white kids wearing goth as I do to african american boys weraing pants down at their knees and pulling them up every 3 seconds. In my house my daughter would love to wear black nail polish which is popular, but b/c of the negative connotation associated with it, we don’t allow it. I place blame solely on the parents shoulders for allowing their children to mimic these people. If you do not want your child to be prejudged and desire that they are respected for themselves than demand from them that they earn their respect by acting and dressing like a mature adult…blaring any kind of music so loud that my car rattles will not earn any respect from me…cursing loud enough that I can hear it and then sneering at me for asking them to lower their voice is not a white or black issue, it is a disrespecting issue!</p>
<p>It is racist for anyone to say that b/c of the color of my skin and the fact that I might look at someone black with a disapproval look when I can’t hear music in my car as I am being racist…trust me I give the same look to the white kid!</p>
<p>Not the issue, B&P. I think you should look down upon both groups of these sorts of people. The problem is how the two groups affect our views of everyone else. The goth kids are scorned by many for being goth kids, and parents everywhere simply throw up their hands and say “Kids these days!”. The thugs are being scorned for being thugs, and so am I, and so are my kids, despite that we all detest thuggery. We are on the receiving end of the scorn, despite that we have nothing to do with thug life. Indeed, whites who scorn thugs think we are even obligated to speak out against it, but they do not think whites have a general obligation to speak out against Goths. It is a double standard, no doubt about it. I don’t really care about it because I sincerely don’t care about what others think here. I do not denounce thuggery because I am afraid of white opinion. I am convinced that there are aspects to thug life and language that inhibit intellectual development and academic progress. It is for THAT reason I want blacks to abandon it, or at least put it in its proper place, using it only when they wish, and not because they must.</p>
So if he mentioned that blacks adhere to a thug lifestyle more frequently than whites you’d have no problem with it? I rarely put “on average” qualifiers in my speech because I assume that people have a modicum of understanding of statistics.</p>
<p>One doesn’t need to be a sociologist to know that white people see blacks as more dangerous than whites due to crime statistics. In fact, as you mentioned, <em>you</em> see blacks as more dangerous than whites. This is correct reasoning!</p>
<p>“white people see blacks as more dangerous than whites due to crime statistics.”</p>
<p>That’s why? That’s the whole reason? I think that would be news to a sociologist. I think there are lots of other reasons that white people think black people are dangerous. Plenty of white people thought black people were dangerous 150 years ago, when crime statistics didn’t exist.</p>