U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-20-2011, 08:36 AM
 
9,948 posts, read 6,856,940 times
Reputation: 4219

Advertisements

What percentages of whites need to be racist for the claim of racism by blacks to be a valid claim as an impediment to their quality and opportunities in life? There has NEVER been an era in America where all whites were racist. At the height of slavery only something like 2% of whites owned slaves, yet, 98% of blacks were enslaved. If one assumes that the other 98% of whites who did not own slaves had no participation in the oppression of blacks, then it only took 2% of whites to oppress 98% of blacks.

Think of it this way. What percentage of people in the community need to be committing crimes to really impact the quality of life of people in a community? If one goes to communities with the highest crime rates you will generally find a very small percentage of the population committing the crimes. One criminal can commit numerous crimes upon numerous individuals…..in a single day….over numerous days. The behavior of the few then impacts on the lives of the many either directly or indirectly. What percentage of the residence of Detroit are violent offenders? Does it take 100% of Detroiters being violent criminals to impact the quality of life of people living or visiting in Detroit? Does it take 100% for people in the suburbs to never consider living in the city, attending events in the city, enjoying culture in the city? If there are 400 murders in the city of Detroit, 400 or less people committed murder out of 900,000 people. What percent is that?

I always have been amazed by the rational that attempts to invalidate the impact of white racism upon the life of blacks based upon demonstrating that NOT ALL WHITES ARE RACIST, as if 100% participation is required for it to be valid. Yet, these same people feel and act paralyzed by crime from the black community when it’s only a very, very small percentage of blacks who commit such violent crimes. Now of course, people will come out with statistics showing the number of black males with criminal records, but most of those are for drug offenses (buying or selling) that resulted from the war on drugs, the vast majority of which are non violent offenses. However, my point is that the types of crimes that create fear, the murders, the robbers, the car thefts, and the rapes…..a very, very small percentage of people are doing this (and they are doing it repeatedly).

So if one accepts the proposition that a small percentage of people committing criminal acts can radically impact upon the quality of life of a much larger percentage of people, then what percentage of whites need to be racist in order to valid that white racism has a negative impact upon black quality and opportunity in life? Furthermore, there are 6 whites for every 1 black in this nation, meaning that even a small minority of whites would numerically equal more blacks than exist in the nation numerically. The racist, like the criminal, impacts MANY directly and indirectly. So again, why are people engaged in trying to discredit the impact of racism? Certainly the country and attitudes have improved over the decades, but those who attempt to discredit the argument, based upon their belief that hardly any whites are racist anymore, only allows the actions of those who are racist go unchecked. Again, it only took 2% of whites owning slaves for blacks to be enslaved. It was the silence of the majority that allowed it to continue, however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2011, 09:46 AM
 
9,948 posts, read 6,856,940 times
Reputation: 4219
Further....

Would it matter that 90% are not racist if the 90% did not acknowledge the existence and or negative impact of the 10% who are? If the majority does not recognize or is silent then no offset is offered to mute the impact of the minority. In other words, when the majority is unwilling to accept the existence of a negative force, then it does not offer and equal and opposite counter force as an offset, which then allows the impact of the negative to meet its goals (creating complicity?). In other words, if only 10% or 5% of whites want to work to keep blacks down, and 90 or 95% of whites will not acknowledge the existence and or impact of this small minority, it allows the minority to succeed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2011, 06:06 PM
 
119 posts, read 347,947 times
Reputation: 56
I think you have become trapped by your own logic and, in doing so, have overlooked the salient point about slavery. That point is- slavery was, and is, a grave injustice necessitating the kidnapping and capture of someone who committed no wrong.
Additionally, there are conflicting statistics as to how many southerners owned slaves. You note 2%, others suggest that figure was in the 25% range. Furthermore, the economy of the south was built upon the backs of the slaves. They were considered property and, as such, were used as collateral for loans from banks. Indeed, many of the fine mansions in the south were able to be built because banks provided loans and mortgages to those with large slave holdings due the value banks placed upon this "property".
It is important here to think of yourself, spouse, children, parents, etc. If the above were to have happened to you and/or them, then how would you have felt?
You might recall that during the slave years, slaves were not permitted, among other things, to become educated. After the Civil War and during the Jim Crow era, the southern states continued this practice by providing as little support as possible to black schools.
The Jim Crow era lasted from after the CW, 1865, until the passage of the Civil Rights Act, 1964, or approximately 100 years.
Again, if this had happened to you, there is every possibility that you and the members of your family would have been and would be uneducated and would suffer from the malice of not understanding why education is important. After all, it was denied for so long that any intrinsic value associated with it would have long been expunged.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2011, 06:54 PM
 
9,948 posts, read 6,856,940 times
Reputation: 4219
[quote=rugnot;17505899]I think you have become trapped by your own logic and, in doing so, have overlooked the salient point about slavery. That point is- slavery was, and is, a grave injustice necessitating the kidnapping and capture of someone who committed no wrong. (Nope...did not overlook that fact. I just did not need or intend to write a book.)
Additionally, there are conflicting statistics as to how many southerners owned slaves. You note 2%, (actually I did not. I never qualified the pool of whites to simply southerners) others suggest that figure was in the 25% range. Furthermore, the economy of the south was built upon the backs of the slaves. (Nothing I said diminishes these facts.) They were considered property and, as such, were used as collateral for loans from banks. Indeed, many of the fine mansions in the south were able to be built because banks provided loans and mortgages to those with large slave holdings due the value banks placed upon this "property".
It is important here to think of yourself, spouse, children, parents, etc. If the above were to have happened to you and/or them, then how would you have felt?

You seem to have totally missed my point. I know all this. My point was to get at what percentage of people are needed to be racist for blacks to be impacted by racism, because people are always using the fact that they PERSONALLY are not racist and some others who are not racist as a means of disqualifying an argument that white racism in an impediment for blacks in this day and age. When I debate with whites it almost always end up with them arguing that they are not racist and that their ancestors owned no slaves.....as if that meant that it invalidates every assertion I made about white racism.


You might recall that during the slave years, slaves were not permitted, among other things, to become educated. After the Civil War and during the Jim Crow era, the southern states continued this practice by providing as little support as possible to black schools. So true.
The Jim Crow era lasted from after the CW, 1865, until the passage of the Civil Rights Act, 1964, or approximately 100 years. True dat
Again, if this had happened to you, there is every possibility that you and the members of your family would have been and would be uneducated and would suffer from the malice of not understanding why education is important. After all, it was denied for so long that any intrinsic value associated with it would have long been expunged. I don't think that you realize that you are preaching to the choir son...lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2011, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Cumberland Co., TN
21,736 posts, read 21,618,824 times
Reputation: 21387
Quote:
You seem to have totally missed my point. I know all this. My point was to get at what percentage of people are needed to be racist for blacks to be impacted by racism, because people are always using the fact that they PERSONALLY are not racist and some others who are not racist as a means of disqualifying an argument that white racism in an impediment for blacks in this day and age. When I debate with whites it almost always end up with them arguing that they are not racist and that their ancestors owned no slaves.....as if that meant that it invalidates every assertion I made about white racism.
Quote:
I think the question should be what percentage of those in power must be racist in order for racism to make an impact. Racism can not impact an entire group of people if there are no laws to support it.

For my own understanding I will put your question another way. What percentage of men are needed to be sexist for women to be impacted by sexism. Does men using the fact they personally are not sexist disqualify an argument that sexism impedes women.

I think that since the civil rights movement granted equal protection to blacks and women under the law, and we all have legal recourse for any discrimination that we can not put the blame on an entire race or gender for our personal obstacles in life.

But, Im not sure if your argument is every white person is to blame for any discrimination against any black person or that because a very small percentage of white people are actually racist doesn’t mean blacks don’t suffer from racism.

Yes on an individual basis black people can on some level still feel the effects of racism regardless of the percentage of whites that are racist if they are personally the target of a racist, but having your life/rights/opportunities impacted by random racism, no. The sad fact is that most of us will encounter some form of prejudice in our life, we will be stereotyped, be made fun of and even thought less of by our society due to our color, gender, sexual orientation, culture or religion. The extent of how this affects our personal lives is up to us as individuals.

It is easier to blame the masses for our individual difficulties than to take personal responsibility for ourselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2011, 02:14 PM
 
9,948 posts, read 6,856,940 times
Reputation: 4219
[quote=2mares;17515211]

I think the question should be what percentage of those in power must be racist in order for racism to make an impact. Racism can not impact an entire group of people if there are no laws to support it.

Politics has become an instrument of racism. That is what the "Southern" strategy was essentially all about. Poor whites in the South used to be Democrats....until the evolution of civil rights and integration migrated them to the Republican party. After slavery the goal of racism was to DENY black people things. For those who wanted to keep blacks down, they needed to be able to oppose efforts aimed at helping black people recover (which really have been few). Thus, absent legalized racism many people manifest their racism through politics. This is why 90% of black people vote for the Democratic party, despite blacks actually being very conservative on many issues. Essentially the Republican Party has become to be known as the party of racist, but not exclusive to racist.

For my own understanding I will put your question another way. What percentage of men are needed to be sexist for women to be impacted by sexism. Does men using the fact they personally are not sexist disqualify an argument that sexism impedes women.

Thats a little different because the ratio is 50:50 and not 6:1. The relationship is too intimate between white males and white females for the comparison to be an apples and apples type of thing. However, YES, there is indeed obstacles for women.

I think that since the civil rights movement granted equal protection to blacks and women under the law, and we all have legal recourse for any discrimination that we can not put the blame on an entire race or gender for our personal obstacles in life.

Granting rights to blacks was never a ballot box issue or referndum. I am not sure that we would have ever achieved our rights if they had been. It was usually acts of congress or executive orders that pretty much went against popular opinions of the time.

Let me also say that there is no crime in America. Why do I say that? I say that based upon the fact that crime IS AGAINST THE LAW. There are laws against Crime (like the laws against discrimination). Hence, anyone knows that if something is against the law that it ends the behavior and practice......yeah right. Let me ask you this question. If people with black sounding names send their resumes in to companies and someone at the company rejects them because their names sound black, and they don't want to hire blacks, how would you know that you have been discriminated against? If you call to an apartment or go visit an apartment complex because you are interested in moving in, but then you are told there are no vacancies, but then a white person comes the next or same day and gets shown and rented an apartment.....how would that black person ever know that they were discriminated against? There have been studies done by prestigous universities that demonstrated that such racist practises are quite common place in America.

But, Im not sure if your argument is every white person is to blame for any discrimination against any black person or that because a very small percentage of white people are actually racist doesn’t mean blacks don’t suffer from racism.

Nope I am not saying that every white person is to blame. What I am saying is that there is no offset for the behavior of racist whites, which makes their racism effective, and not benign.

Yes on an individual basis black people can on some level still feel the effects of racism regardless of the percentage of whites that are racist if they are personally the target of a racist, but having your life/rights/opportunities impacted by random racism, no. The sad fact is that most of us will encounter some form of prejudice in our life, we will be stereotyped, be made fun of and even thought less of by our society due to our color, gender, sexual orientation, culture or religion. The extent of how this affects our personal lives is up to us as individuals.

This is the "superhuman" theory. It holds that regardless of the actions, one can control the reaction. I guess if someone shoots you, you can choose to bleed or not.....its a personal choice type of thing. I don't like using my person life to make any points about the big picture, because what has been true for me cannot be assumed as true for others. However, my life experiences and things I have witnessed tells me that others can and do have an profound impact on the lives of others...from minor obstacles and setbacks, to health.....and to life and death.

It is easier to blame the masses for our individual difficulties than to take personal responsibility for ourselves.

All I know is LOGIC. If all people were inherently equal, yet, some people faced more obstacles than others, logic says that those who face more obstacles will have a much greater probability of falling behind those with less obstacles. If you were running a sprint against someone who was your equal, however, your opponent has hurdles in his lane and you have none, you will win everytime. The only way the person with the hurdles can win or tie is if they are actually SUPERIOR to you in ability, to the degree they can negate the extra hurdles.

In America race and racism has created extra hurdles for blacks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2011, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Here
1,688 posts, read 1,489,027 times
Reputation: 1318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant View Post
What percentages of whites need to be racist for the claim of racism by blacks to be a valid claim as an impediment to their quality and opportunities in life? There has NEVER been an era in America where all whites were racist. At the height of slavery only something like 2% of whites owned slaves, yet, 98% of blacks were enslaved. If one assumes that the other 98% of whites who did not own slaves had no participation in the oppression of blacks, then it only took 2% of whites to oppress 98% of blacks.

Think of it this way. What percentage of people in the community need to be committing crimes to really impact the quality of life of people in a community? If one goes to communities with the highest crime rates you will generally find a very small percentage of the population committing the crimes. One criminal can commit numerous crimes upon numerous individuals…..in a single day….over numerous days. The behavior of the few then impacts on the lives of the many either directly or indirectly. What percentage of the residence of Detroit are violent offenders? Does it take 100% of Detroiters being violent criminals to impact the quality of life of people living or visiting in Detroit? Does it take 100% for people in the suburbs to never consider living in the city, attending events in the city, enjoying culture in the city? If there are 400 murders in the city of Detroit, 400 or less people committed murder out of 900,000 people. What percent is that?

I always have been amazed by the rational that attempts to invalidate the impact of white racism upon the life of blacks based upon demonstrating that NOT ALL WHITES ARE RACIST, as if 100% participation is required for it to be valid. Yet, these same people feel and act paralyzed by crime from the black community when it’s only a very, very small percentage of blacks who commit such violent crimes. Now of course, people will come out with statistics showing the number of black males with criminal records, but most of those are for drug offenses (buying or selling) that resulted from the war on drugs, the vast majority of which are non violent offenses. However, my point is that the types of crimes that create fear, the murders, the robbers, the car thefts, and the rapes…..a very, very small percentage of people are doing this (and they are doing it repeatedly).

So if one accepts the proposition that a small percentage of people committing criminal acts can radically impact upon the quality of life of a much larger percentage of people, then what percentage of whites need to be racist in order to valid that white racism has a negative impact upon black quality and opportunity in life? Furthermore, there are 6 whites for every 1 black in this nation, meaning that even a small minority of whites would numerically equal more blacks than exist in the nation numerically. The racist, like the criminal, impacts MANY directly and indirectly. So again, why are people engaged in trying to discredit the impact of racism? Certainly the country and attitudes have improved over the decades, but those who attempt to discredit the argument, based upon their belief that hardly any whites are racist anymore, only allows the actions of those who are racist go unchecked. Again, it only took 2% of whites owning slaves for blacks to be enslaved. It was the silence of the majority that allowed it to continue, however.
I've contended that the word "racist" (or "racism"), is often given too much of a black eye, no pun intended. I have openly admitted that I am a racist. I think that race has something to do with blacks being unquestionably the best sprinters in the world. Therefore I am a racist. And I have heard that there is a form of breast cancer that is more aggressive in black women.

There are both blacks and whites who prefer their own race for company... racists.

There are racists whose racism has little effect on how they navigate society, and the impact on society. I am one such example. Even if I were going to start a track team, everyone regardless of race would be given an equal chance at any event, including sprinting.

On the other hand, there are racists who act on their racism. A corporate executive might want, and therefore select, a white woman as a secretary. He would be a racist and a sexist, who acted on his racist and sexist discriminations. I had a black coworker who decided not to play on the softball team because other blacks opted not to play on the team.

And then there are those angry racists whose behavior ranges somewhere between open hostility, to violence, based on their racism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2011, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Cumberland Co., TN
21,736 posts, read 21,618,824 times
Reputation: 21387
So specifically how has racism caused impediments in your life or are you upset because you might be discriminated against but dont know about it?

Quote:
Thats a little different because the ratio is 50:50 and not 6:1. The relationship is too intimate between white males and white females for the comparison to be an apples and apples type of thing. However, YES, there is indeed obstacles for women.
Quote:

What is 50:50 and 6:1?
It is exactly apples to apples. Intimacy has nothing to do with prejudice. Women suffered the same inequalities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2011, 05:20 PM
 
9,948 posts, read 6,856,940 times
Reputation: 4219
[quote=2mares;17518841]So specifically how has racism caused impediments in your life or are you upset because you might be discriminated against but dont know about it?

Thats besides the point. I don't think it is valid for individuals to use their lives as examples in debates that are about "the big picture"....and not personal. I do not know if my life is or is not a microcosm to use it as any "evidence". What I am saying to use is that ALL ACTIONS PRODUCE REACTIONS. White racism produces a negative and oppressing reaction. It adds extra hurdles in the race of life that results in lagging.


What is 50:50 and 6:1?
It is exactly apples to apples. Intimacy has nothing to do with prejudice. Women suffered the same inequalities.

What I am saying is that for every man there is a women. Men don't outnumber women the way that whites outnumber blacks. There are more women in positions of power than there are blacks. Furthermore, white men and women have been a team. Even if white women were discrimnated against, it went to the benefit of the white male......which meant that the white family still remained strong and children could be raised with the income of the white father. Racism against black people has been most pronounced against the black male and given the role of the male as the traditional bread winner and head of the family, denying the black male opportunities stunted black families.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2011, 05:36 PM
 
9,948 posts, read 6,856,940 times
Reputation: 4219
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalileoSmith View Post
I've contended that the word "racist" (or "racism"), is often given too much of a black eye, no pun intended. I have openly admitted that I am a racist. I think that race has something to do with blacks being unquestionably the best sprinters in the world. Therefore I am a racist. And I have heard that there is a form of breast cancer that is more aggressive in black women.

There are both blacks and whites who prefer their own race for company... racists.

There are racists whose racism has little effect on how they navigate society, and the impact on society. I am one such example. Even if I were going to start a track team, everyone regardless of race would be given an equal chance at any event, including sprinting.

On the other hand, there are racists who act on their racism. A corporate executive might want, and therefore select, a white woman as a secretary. He would be a racist and a sexist, who acted on his racist and sexist discriminations. I had a black coworker who decided not to play on the softball team because other blacks opted not to play on the team.

And then there are those angry racists whose behavior ranges somewhere between open hostility, to violence, based on their racism.
I am glad that you have FINALLY come to realize that about yourself. I also agree that being a racist does not make someone a "bad person", necessarily. Racism does not equal "hate". There are racist full of hate, but today racism is mostly the rationalization that one race is naturally superior to another race in some respect. Many whites cannot decouple racism from hate and they think they cannot be racist if they don't hate black people. I can remember you arguing the same thing in the past.

If blacks are superior sprinters then I would think that the "Pure" black African should dominate all the events. One has to give weight to the power of self reinforcing beliefs. People don't spend a lot of time in areas if they think they will ever really have a chance because another race has a natural advantage. Instead the beliefs will lead people to gravitate towards those areas where people who look like them excel. This is why many young blacks do not place much emphasis on education. They all want to be athletes, rappers, singers and the like because they see black people doing very well in these areas and the stereotype of society is that blacks have the brawn and white the brains. White youths, and likely coaches, likely subconsciously steer whites away from certain position and sports if they are talented athletes. They may lead them away from aspirations as running backs, safeties or positions of "speed" and steer them towards quarterback and position that require "intelligence". This is why blacks were steered away from the quarterback position for so long.....because it was supposed to be a "thinking position".......and blacks do not think as good as whites (racism).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:15 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top