Boston Mayor Under Fire for No Whites Christmas Party for Electeds of Color (universities, live in)

[BruinsGirl]

Originally Posted by Johnhw222

The party who claims it will unite us divides. Wow what a shocker….. not. They are the party of hate exclusion and anti free speach. What a disaster if a party.

White members of this party on City Council.
Why are they allowing this? Do they not understand this issue... even if they are not going to attend it?

Btw it may have consequences for non-White people too. Why include Black people to lets say government of some level if they want to be exclusive of others?

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by SnazzyB

What would bother me is if my tax dollars are helping to pay for this party.

That too. Although, people on this forum seem happy to give their tax dollars to pretty much anything other than police OT though, lol.

[gf2020]

The Mayor's husband is not "of color". I guess he couldn't attend.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by StuartGotts

To qualify as racism requires a power dynamic?
OMG that is a sad twisting of a definition.

Complete apologetic bs
We all know exclusionary policies are wrong, trying to minimize or justify it is only perpetuating it

It absolutely does. What you're referring to is bias or prejudice, not racism.

And oh, I did say that the party was exclusionary, which cannot be defended.

[PureBoston]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

It absolutely does. What you're referring to is bias or prejudice, not racism.

And oh, I did say that the party was exclusionary, which cannot be defended.

So biased, exclusionary, prejudiced.....and I just checked my dictionary.......racist. I'm actually surprised that you're not defending it. Very surprised. Sure you won't reconsider?

[MrDee12345]

Originally Posted by lrfox

The bold tips the scales for me. No matter what the racial makeup of the Council was, I still think it was handled extremely poorly (not just the email, but the follow-up as well). I'm not convinced it was unintentional either.

I do believe that power dynamics matter when we talk about the impact racism. If the council was majority white and a minority group of members (whether it was women, POC, etc.) decided they want to throw their own party - have at it. Affinity groups exist all over the public and private sector. There's a lot of value in minority groups supporting each other. But in this case, we're talking about a majority group excluding a minority group, and doing so in a way that seems petty at best. No, it's not even remotely on par with centuries of white on black racism (and other minority populations), but it goes beyond empowerment and celebrating diversity.

I'm not denying the history of oppression in the US (and around the world), but allowing for double standards only increases resentment.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a self-avowed feminist a number of years ago. She told me that she didn't want equality, but for women to take over.

Well, I wanted equality, so all I could think of was if she wanted to subjugate me the way she believe women had been subjugated, then stuff that. She just lost an ally. I want equality, not oppression.

And as a student of conflict resolution, I've learned that there is no benefit to retribution when the oppressors are mostly dead. Modern day men (and white people), for the most part, want equality. Why take it out on them?

I do understand the need for certain spaces for groups to discuss issues in their communities, but that concept should be open to all and judged equally.

[htfdcolt]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/...HP_TrendingBar

The Globe's account. Tradition or not, I agree that the party should be open to all. But interesting quote in the article:

Chris Sinacola, a spokesman for the Pioneer Institute, a conservative think tank, said officials there “cannot think of any legal rules that the party invitation would have violated."

[BruinsGirl]

Originally Posted by gf2020

The Mayor's husband is not "of color". I guess he couldn't attend.

I’m thinking maybe she is also not attending.
Maybe it’s their whatever POC party.

This race thing got to go. Ugly and low class.
Whole this marginalized oppressed rhetoric is so ugly and primitive.

[otterhere]

I once wrote a paper in college on reverse discrimination only to be told that there was no such thing as discrimination against whites and couldn't be because whoever is "in power" cannot be discriminated against. And this was 40 years ago.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by MrDee12345

I'm not denying the history of oppression in the US (and around the world), but allowing for double standards only increases resentment.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a self-avowed feminist a number of years ago. She told me that she didn't want equality, but for women to take over.

Well, I wanted equality, so all I could think of was if she wanted to subjugate me the way she believe women had been subjugated, then stuff that. She just lost an ally. I want equality, not oppression.

And as a student of conflict resolution, I've learned that there is no benefit to retribution when the oppressors are mostly dead. Modern day men (and white people), for the most part, want equality. Why take it out on them?

I do understand the need for certain spaces for groups to discuss issues in their communities, but that concept should be open to all and judged equally.

That's one of the many differences between liberalism and progressivism. Liberals are committed to equality; progressives seek "equity" (or at least claim to) which in many forms amounts to discrimination against different groups of people. It's not progression, it's regression. It divides people and will not solve anything. Most of this stuff is pushed by those who really want to divide people who in turn con their followers into believing it's for more noble reasons.