Really? Great film.
Link won't work for me, but women do have magical powers tbf.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yeah, just all that sci-fi stuff doesn't really appeal to me.
Bah, The Matrix is bloody awesome, and I have as much interest in sci-fi as people do in my Lord Lucan thread.
We're so ironic these days that even cool things are crap.
We're so ironic these days that even cool things are crap.
You're somewhat misrepresenting redpillers though. You're taking the worst such as incel and PUA etc who technically fall under the banner of red pill and using it to define all red pillers. As far as I know a lot of red pillers are MRA's and MGTOWs. Who don't consider women to be manipulative or evil, and don't seek anything from women. MGTOW's and MRA's talk about social and structural disadvantages for men in places such as in court, especially family court and scholarships, among other things. MGTOW by definition has no interest in fecking women and doesn't believe in anyway that women owe men anything.
Yes, I think getting the right message that will appeal to people's common interest across racial/cultural lines is going to take a lot of work. And a lot of people are going to get the wrong end of the stick along the way and think it's just a means of excusing racism.
Up to now the approach to the white working class has been similar to telling a man with one leg that he should feel privileged and lucky because some people have no legs. The one legged man doesn't feel so privileged and has now tried to use his one leg to give us a kicking. Of course, he's fallen down in the process and hurt himself in the process.
Last edited:
And yet...to assume a catch-all, generalised opinion on practically anything is a mistake. Much the same as this thread - on reading it, you'd think we're all under daily siege by oversensitive fools; that isn't the case at all.
No, that would be cultural appropriation. Unless you're Chinese. Or Japanese, I forget which one.
Dare I say that The Matrix actually does seem to have a fair amount of cultural appropriation in it... 
you... racist!
A generalised opinion could give you a pretty accurate description of certain people/groups/events or whatever. In this case it's at least 50% + wrong. The red pill is a huge spectrum, like right or left in politics.
For the rest, it depends of what your definition of under-siege is though and what side of politics you fall on. For some, seeing an ad on TV that says "too many women die of lung cancer" with no mention of men would be considered under-siege. Especially since more men die of lung cancer. Although that's not a PC issue, that is a red pill issue.
I don't go on that sub myself; all of what I said was picked up by skimming the current upvoted threads and the sidebar ("theory") of r/theredpill
I came to know about these subs in a rather roundabout way through r/againsthatesubreddits . There are plenty of examples on most of the subs you've mentioned of pretty terrible views, so beyond a point it gets tough for me to remember the lines between these strains of misogyny.
If you're getting your information about these groups solely from reddit, there's the problem. I don't venture into reddit subs like that for obvious reasons. Like I said, it's a spectrum just like with politics. You can be on the left and not be a communist. Red pill is a catch-all term, that contains both unpleasant and delusional individuals. It also contains moderate and well-thought out opinions. As well as MGTOW people who just want to be alone.
Well my take on it, is that a lot of the things happening around at (american) universities has little to do with political correctness or politics for that matter. It's basically a bunch of middle classed kids running around and making up faux issues because they wan't to feel important. For example
1. Privilege: Not a dumb idea at it's core, but conveniently leaving socio-economic factors out of the equation on favor of identity politics is so fecking daft it boggles the mind. By their definition, Beyonce could drive around in her limo and slag off homeless white people and still be in the right
2. Cultural appropriation: Is flat out insane. Basically enjoying or emulating anything from a different culture makes you an arse. "Hey, you better not enjoy that delicious curry. The bloke who sold it to you is now crying behind he counter because you are erasing his cultural identity"
3. Safe spaces/Trigger warnings: This pisses me off, because it makes light of people with actual anxiety disorders and if hearing differentiating opinions is enough to give you a fecking panic attack, then you really need professional help. Richard Dawkins tweeted this: "A university is not a "safe space". If you need a safe space, leave, go home, hug your teddy & suck your thumb until ready for university."
As i said, most of this is contained to University campuses and is not found in mainstream politics.
1. Privilege: Not a dumb idea at it's core, but conveniently leaving socio-economic factors out of the equation on favor of identity politics is so fecking daft it boggles the mind. By their definition, Beyonce could drive around in her limo and slag off homeless white people and still be in the right
2. Cultural appropriation: Is flat out insane. Basically enjoying or emulating anything from a different culture makes you an arse. "Hey, you better not enjoy that delicious curry. The bloke who sold it to you is now crying behind he counter because you are erasing his cultural identity"
3. Safe spaces/Trigger warnings: This pisses me off, because it makes light of people with actual anxiety disorders and if hearing differentiating opinions is enough to give you a fecking panic attack, then you really need professional help. Richard Dawkins tweeted this: "A university is not a "safe space". If you need a safe space, leave, go home, hug your teddy & suck your thumb until ready for university."
As i said, most of this is contained to University campuses and is not found in mainstream politics.
It is deeply worrying for the future of politics though, because we've never before seen such a wussification of college graduates, concentrated in the social sciences and liberal arts, in human history.
We might be looking at a future where the scientists have to take up the political mantle, because a lot of these kids won't be able to break past the role of shift supervisor at their local Burger King.
Considering 2 of those definitions you used are flat out incorrect, and overly simplistic I'm not surprised you think they are 'faux issues'
I'm not American so I won't comment on the safe places.
As I said earlier in the thread, privilege isn't about money or socio-economic factors - it's focused on that because some can't disassociate privilege and wealth. So no, Beyoncé laughing at homeless white people is not the same thing.
Cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation often get confused, so again no, it's not about you enjoying your curry.
What's it about then? Race? Gender? Religion? All i'm saying is that painting in broad strokes like that AND THEN discounting available resources as unimportant is incredibly counter productive. If we use the Oxford definition of privilege: "A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group". In today's day and age what would be the singular most important factor in gaining "right or advantage". Well money of course.
And cultural appropriation? What is it then? I'm not talking about shite like black face here, because that's simply inappropriate. People argue that reducing a culture to stereotypes is harmful and offensive, but that's not just true. Stereotypes and prejudices is just how the human mind works, that does not mean that sterotypes and prejudices are harmful or offensive by default.
If you asked me what i think about the French and i answered: "Well, they enjoy their wine, cigarettes and cheese". That's an incredibly stereotypical statement right there, but it's hardly offensive. If you dressed up in a thin mustache and a beret for Halloween, again, very stereotypical, but i doubt the french would be any offended by it
Believe me, we've had similar concerns about you millenials. I think every generation worries that the next is a bunch of entitled sissies. And it's definitely possible that the last few generations have got progressively more mollycoddled thanks to an abundance of wealth and technological progress. That's just not the right environment for anyone to grow up tough, self-sufficient and able to cope with the big wide world without freaking the feck out.
It's a miracle the baby boomers could even get out of bed in adulthood then, what with all the wussified counter culture goings on in the hippy flower power boom of the 60s and early 70s.
The idea that things like the arts or social sciences makes people weak is such a ridiculous conservative cliche. Give over. But then complaining about the "youth today" has always been a full time job, especially in an age of corrosive nostalia and anti-intellectualism.
I'd argue that the millennials who'll grow up in an age of increasingly dwindling job security and access to property, will toughen up to the demands of life just fire. Perhaps even better than the generation before them, who were gifted a genuinely easier world to navigate, and mostly just managed to feck it up.
Last edited:
I agree with you about the way people from any given generation will always look down their noses at the one that follows them. That said, there's good evidence out there that recent changes in parenting styles (from laizzez faire to extremely over-protective, "helicopter parenting") has had a fairly profound impact. And personality changes that are coded before adulthood can take decades to get over.
Baby boomers have a lot to answer for but the way they tended to get on with their own life - and let kids fit in as best they can - does seem to be a good way to prepare their offspring for life away from home. The more recent trend to put kids at the centre of everything they do, with their parents spending their life at their beck and call is potentially problematic, no matter what environment they spend their life in after leaving home. In fact, the fact that the more environmental challenges they face, the more likely they will end up completely unable to cope.
And I'm saying this as someone who finds myself constantly falling into the same patterns. The wealth of information we now have about parenting makes people constantly worry about whether they're doing a good job and whether they should be doing more for their children. The funny thing is, a little bit more neglect would be in everyone's best interest. Because they're careering towards a future where mum and dad won't constantly be around to pick up the pieces.
But even this is over-worrying. Over analysing and pontificating on the potential outcomes of things that haven't yet come to pass, based on data that's still largely hypothetical? If such scientific hand wringing was around 50 years ago it may have said exactly the same things.
I can only go off examples of the millennial generation I know, which is largely confined to family friends and God-children, but even from that meagre anecdotal sample, they all seem way more prepared for life than I was. They've all traveled more, are more adventurous and eager to learn (they also drink, smoke and take less drugs than us too) so I find the ease and enthusiasm with which people like to shit on them - usually based on an unrepresentative media sample ("hey, look what's happening at these few Universities!!? Hasnt EVERYONE gone mad??!" for example) and almost always to bolster their own political prejudices (I.e. Let's take things back to when we were young, because the new young can't be trusted**) - really unpalatable.
At the very least they should be allowed to fail on their own terms. Plus summarising that what they really need is to be treated a little worse* (when the world is already economically stacked against them) seems like self justification par excellence, for whinging about them (and liberals in general) in the first place.
But if you really are worried, there are enough cnuts to go around too. There always are.
* get a haircut hippie, bring back national service, etc.
** whatever happened to "get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand"?
Last edited:
Yeah, I think that's fair. Every generation has their own flaws anyway. You could argue that the flaw being discussed in this thread is caring too much about people less well off than you are. As flaws go, that's not a bad one...
Truly, there's nothing new under the sun - just look at this complaint from 1500 B.C.:
Plato said:
Also, when you zoom it back a bit, the suggestion that in the entire expanse of human history, this one generation - which isn't particularly that far removed from the last - are going to be so uniquely and originally unable to cope with the rigors of life, that it's going to be somehow calamitous for society, seems a wee bit daft and over the top really.
(Also also...sorry for the editing!)
The disconnect you're currently finding is that you're applying dictionary definitions to sociological situations. That's not going to help you understand at all.
What I will tell you is that I've felt the weight of being a person of colour in an overwhelmingly white upbringing (I grew up in South East Wales - literally the only person of colour at the entire school, until I moved to Surrey at the age of 13 and became one of the only 3 black people in my year, and I could count on two hands the amount of people of colour completely)
When I first heard the term I understood completely what it meant, and I didn't need a dictionary to tell me otherwise.
It's situations for example where I would be scared to go into shops by myself because I knew I was more likely to be followed than everyone else.
Only seeing black women like myself being depicted as ghetto baby mamas, "the help", generally being fat and or ugly, uneducated etc in tv and movie roles.
Being told that the way my hair grows naturally out of my head is a political statement that could be used against me in situations such as job interviews.
The oxford dictionary won't tell you that, and again it has nothing to do with wealth, my family are considered middle class and I still face these situations and many more.
There's also this piece written in the 80s if you want more examples: https://www.deanza.edu/faculty/lewisjulie/White Priviledge Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.pdf
As for cultural appropriation - you were on the right track with the erasure of cultural identity.
It's more so to do with the simplification of people's culture, and reducing it to a costume.
For example in my culture wearing the Kente cloth is significant because it's part of the history of the Ashanti Empire, known today as Ghana. Made of silk, worn by royalty and woven by hand each individual design is unique, and tailored fit for the individual. You can identify where someone comes from by their Kente cloth alone, patterns have individual meanings and proverbs - I could go on but you get the idea.
Now if you were to visit Ghana, there's dozens of trade stalls intended to sell to tourists and foreigners with the aim of learning more about the history, and being a part of it's historical significance - that is cultural appreciation. Which is part of trade, increasing knowledge and culture and has been around for thousands of years.
Cultural appropriation comes in when you strip the historical, indigenous, or religious significance of something in order to make mass marketable, and reduce people of colour to stereotypes or costumes.
It's not always intentional, but it can be hurtful or insulting, and the fact that this has to be explained is kinda the point.
I personally believe everyone has the freedom to express themselves however they wish, but using cultural symbols to satisfy a need for personal expression blurs the lines.
Now I don't believe that dressing up in fancy dress is intentionally insulting, but a lot of it does depend on racial stereotyping - most people don't think of the implications of dressing up as an Arab, or a Geisha, or a Mexican in a sombrero, I mean why would you, it's funny, or fun, or sexy so these implications don't affect you. Mostly, racially, ethnically and culturally based costumes are intended to be one of two things - humorous or erotic. What is it about these people that is funny? (especially if they were killed as a result of their culture - e.g. Native Indians) Nothing is. It's dehumanising people who were already marginalised by society, reducing them to offensive caricatures in order to make our friends laugh, to make us feel more exotic, or in order to make ourselves look hot.
I could go on but you get the general idea.
Like I said it's not always intentional, but the mere suggestion that it's a 'faux issue' is simply false, if you'd like to know about both issues then by all means send me a message.
Last edited:
Thing is, I went to the MGTOW subreddit and watched some videos labelled MGTOW, out of curiosity. They barely do anything but discuss women and why they are poisonous to both the individual man and to society as a whole.
And for what it's worth, incels and PUA are not the worst part of Red Pill. The Red Pill itself is the worst part of it: the ideology that maintains that women are irresponsible teenagers who are manipulative, cannot love you and have no sense of loyalty.
This just in: irony becomes the latest victim of 2016.
If only... this thing started long before this miserable year. Although it's great to see that their existence is news to so many people. We have to do our best NOT to spread the word.
The younger generation will always be more "progressive" than their parents in some form or the other, it's inevitable, but that does not mean we should sit idly by and accept it nor challenge the ideas put forward. The fact that today's young people are so involved in political and social issues is fantastic, and the vast majority of them are well on their way to becoming sensible adults.
The issue however with "political correctness gone mad" is that more and more people use "social justice" as a cudgel to beat people with. The issue itself is second in line, whilst the focus lies in bullying and silencing people with opposing views.
The real problem however is the fact that (some)university campuses seem to cater more and more to the hypersensitive. When universities favor censorship over free speech and critical thought, you have a BIG problem on your hands.
I'm a teacher, and has worked in both primary schools and at high schools and this is pretty much spot on. Not only has parenting changed radically the last decades, but so has the classrooms and while it has some wonderful advantages, it also comes with some disadvantages attached. I read a fantastic article when i studied pedagogy, about just the dangers of modern pedagogical developments.
Basically, young today have their entire childhood controlled and supervised by adults. While it has some great benefits like a massive reduction in bullying and a markedly improvement in academic results. At the same time it "suffocates them" and stunts their personal and emotional growth, especially when it comes to self-sufficiency and self-confidence. This in turn leads to kids who are much more dependent on their peers and parents, much more dependent on external validation which ultimately leads to them becoming less emotionally and physiological resilient. One of the big "paradoxes" in education today is how bullying in western countries is rapidly declining, whilst at the same time the number of young with social and emotional issues is rising.
They all come across as terrible people who are completely unable (due to a combination of their own inadequacy and/or group-think misogyny) to talk to and listen to women as actual, you know, people. As opposed to a life support system for a pussy. It's incredibly sad. In every meaning of the word.
I appreciate the response and i won't quote your entire post since it was so long.
I truly understand that you growing up in a predominantly white area in a "white" country you would feel disconnected, alienated or even oppressed by nothing but the virtue of your skin color. I am not going to pretend i "get it" either, because i am in no position to understand really. Racism IS still a huge issue and i am not denying the existence of systematic privilege.
My problem with it however is how certain people us it as a stick to beat others with, creating nothing but divide, instead of actually working towards bettering the position of those less fortunate. My biggest gripe with it however is how people switch the parameters in order to fit it into a certain agenda. Not only socio-economic but a multitude of other factors as well like health, mental health and upbringing. For example, a white middle class boy growing up in a abusive home or being born with a crippling illness making him a paraplegic is not someone i would considered "privileged". I took some sociology classes at Uni actually and these big societal models that reduce people to their obvious attributes and tries to fit them into a mold based on [x,y,z] don't sit well with me
But when it comes to the part with cultural appropriation, i can't agree with you for a number of reasons.
1) Just because you wear a costume, a hairstyle or basically anything emulating a different culture, past or present does NOT mean you seek to "strip the historical, indigenous, or religious significance" from it. Unless done so in a obviously mocking or deriding fashion you can't simply assume ill intent from the person doing so.
2) Costumes at their very essence are stereotypes. If you went to a Halloween party dressed in regular clothes and told people you went as a Mexican, i guess most people would find it lame. It would still be a more truthful representation though, because Mexicans do not in fact wear sombreros on ponchos on a regular basis, they wear the jeans and t-shirts like everyone else.
3) People dressing up or using something from a different culture, does not mean there is some hidden implication behind it.
4) If you are going to use the sins of colonialism as yard stick for what is acceptable or not, then pretty much any use or participation of "ethnic" culture would be considered offensive.
Now of course there are morons who ARE offensive, either deliberately or just by being to daft to understand they are, but i honestly believe that amusing intent with someone and then trying to police them by it is a losing battle
@Bobcat
The problem I have with your first example is, not only is it an uncommon case, but all it does is serve to detract from the actual issue.
All things being equal, when we talk about the issue of white privilege we're talking about the average white person - regardless of class, upbringing, socio-economic status etc. Things like disability, mental health, homelessness or other factors which aren't attributed to the 'average' person are extreme.
Of course it doesn't extend to an crippling paraplegic boy, why would it? We could sit here for hours and invent situations and people who are such extreme and rare cases of society to fit an agenda, and all it will do is distract from the actual issue.
If you could tell me how what I said doesn't apply to the average person of colour, or the average white person - then yes we can have a conversation about that.
People use things as a stick to beat others with in any situation, that's human nature, we're terrible beings - but again it's not reflective of the entire scope. More often than not, depending on your agenda, you're more likely to only pick out the extreme examples because it makes your argument look better.
As for the cultural appropriation - I can understand why you don't agree, I even identified that it's not always set out with the intention to insult or humiliate another culture.
I simply explained the meaning behind it, and why some people can view it as an issue to their culture, not all.
The whole point is that you identified both situations as faux issues, to me the suggestion is that people "should get over it", "there are bigger things to worry about" etc. All I did in response was explain why it's not as simple as that, and presented a different perspective.
As you said, you cant "pretend to get it" because it's not something you personally have to live with, therefore brushing it off just because [x,y,z] doesn't make it right either.
Your first issue I identified and said that it's not always intentionally insulting.
The second issue doesn't make it right - for example if you wanted to go as a Mexican you could go as Frida Kahlo, Carlos Santana, Vicente Fernandez or if you wanted the whole Latin American appeal there's - Pablo Escobar, Che Guevera and many more. None of those require you to wear a silly costume, and are actually more interesting and certainly not lame. Deciding to group all Mexicans under one 'look' is where the stereotypes come in to play.
Third - I agree with, but again like I said it's not always intentional.
Fourth - The sins of colonialism? All I did was state a fact. Suddenly it's become taboo? I don't understand.
The problem I have with your first example is, not only is it an uncommon case, but all it does is serve to detract from the actual issue.
All things being equal, when we talk about the issue of white privilege we're talking about the average white person - regardless of class, upbringing, socio-economic status etc. Things like disability, mental health, homelessness or other factors which aren't attributed to the 'average' person are extreme.
Of course it doesn't extend to an crippling paraplegic boy, why would it? We could sit here for hours and invent situations and people who are such extreme and rare cases of society to fit an agenda, and all it will do is distract from the actual issue.
If you could tell me how what I said doesn't apply to the average person of colour, or the average white person - then yes we can have a conversation about that.
People use things as a stick to beat others with in any situation, that's human nature, we're terrible beings - but again it's not reflective of the entire scope. More often than not, depending on your agenda, you're more likely to only pick out the extreme examples because it makes your argument look better.
As for the cultural appropriation - I can understand why you don't agree, I even identified that it's not always set out with the intention to insult or humiliate another culture.
I simply explained the meaning behind it, and why some people can view it as an issue to their culture, not all.
The whole point is that you identified both situations as faux issues, to me the suggestion is that people "should get over it", "there are bigger things to worry about" etc. All I did in response was explain why it's not as simple as that, and presented a different perspective.
As you said, you cant "pretend to get it" because it's not something you personally have to live with, therefore brushing it off just because [x,y,z] doesn't make it right either.
Your first issue I identified and said that it's not always intentionally insulting.
The second issue doesn't make it right - for example if you wanted to go as a Mexican you could go as Frida Kahlo, Carlos Santana, Vicente Fernandez or if you wanted the whole Latin American appeal there's - Pablo Escobar, Che Guevera and many more. None of those require you to wear a silly costume, and are actually more interesting and certainly not lame. Deciding to group all Mexicans under one 'look' is where the stereotypes come in to play.
Third - I agree with, but again like I said it's not always intentional.
Fourth - The sins of colonialism? All I did was state a fact. Suddenly it's become taboo? I don't understand.
What this thread also seems to do is make the bizarre assumption that what happens at some Universities is representative of what happens regularly in mainstream society. And that the kind of behavior that informs it, is the kind of final form end game of all millennials, as if no one before has ever been passionately reckless or overly wanton to protest during their college days, or exhibited poor judgment during their youth. All of which is obviously bollocks.
* By sheer chance I had a page with this photo open in another tab, which I feel is rather serendipitously fitting...
I'd even disagree that the issues at the heart of "social justice" are always - or even usually - secondary to the righteous cudgelling of which you speak. Aside from being the kind of thing you naturally notice far more when you're on one particular side of it (i.e. the potentially cudgelling side, rather than one affected by the issue) it's also exactly the same kind of sweeping assertion that sees those "cudgelled" as racist/misogynist/uncaring in the first place.
I do definitely agree that there are issues inherent in that kind of outlook - Non-platforming I have a huge problem with, for example - but it I also think that threads like this tend to magnify mostly harmless issues like safe spaces or trigger warnings, for controversy's sake as much as anything else. Which in turn makes it in danger of veering perilously close to the ol' "being called a racist is as bad as being racist" argument.
I mean, for all the supposed problems caused by the over-sensitivity of the "snowflake" generation, there ironically seems to be a hell of a lot of people almost comically over-sensitive to their actions...
Last edited:
Safe spaces are demonstrably good, though. Rather than merely harmless. Be it in the form of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, a university room with puppies in it, a room for LGBT kids or a private Facebook page for people with minority political opinions. Even internet forums for racists. They're good things for those that need them.
Last edited:
Great example of a safe space.
Ironically, this thread is a safe space for all who deem Political correctness and safe spaces insufferable.
This site is a safe space for United fans and even rival fans alike Etc.
Reading through the Obama transcript of his speech as recommended, there were a number of interesting facts that jumped out at me. As powerful as that speech was, it seems it was designed for and aimed at America and the African-American experience. There were many things that he spoke about that I could empathise and relate to. Some comments from the same link:
"[The] best speech ever given on race in this country. This is the kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract."
Chris Matthews, MSNBC
&
"Obama challenged Americans to confront the country’s racial divide…an extraordinary speech."
Charles Gibson, ABC News
If we are truly to speak honestly about some of these issues I think one of the first things that need to be acknowledged is that the experiences of the black race is not one that universally shared by all. For some the only thing they believe they share is the "African" in much the same way whites use "Anglo", but yet see themselves vastly different depending on country and culture. I am of African Caribbean lineage, but born and raised in Britain, so my experience differs somewhat from that of the average African-American. For instance i found this bit a little difficult to get my head around:
"That anger [that black people feel] is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
To be honest I'm not sure what he means by complicity? The reality of my condition is that my ancestors were forcefully taken as slaves to strange colonies that were forcefully taken from the indigenous people for the expansion of European Empires. They were subjected to abuses, beatings or worse and lived in sub-human conditions where they didn't even own their own bodies." Mas'a" did what he wished and took what he wanted. What was left was little better than trained animals. When Empires decided that the resources from these colonies were sufficiently stripped they decided that they would offer some kind of dependent independence to these poor, broken displaced human beings. In some of these countries they pretty still exist in the same state that they were left in to this day. At what point did these humans beings have a say choice in what happened to them? In what way were they complicit in their plights? So called civilised countries waged wars on each other throughout this period in the name of freedom and justice whilst turning a blind eye to the fact that they were denying these same rights to those on their own doorsteps.
Earlier in that same speech he also stated:
"But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us."
This I can relate to. Looking back at the events over the last year, I am struggling to remember which SJW or any other politician represented people like me in the EU referendum, and I am sure as hell confused about the SJW who represented "people of colour" in the US Elections. My blood boils when some accuse others of playing the race card and conveniently sweep the past under the carpet, as if it plays no part in the here and now. As I stated in a earlier post Britain, America and other European powers have shaped the world we now live in, and therefore the unrest we now seeing is also of their own design, and now they are reaping what they have sown. Unfortunately some of the casualties now are their own.
Apologies for the length of the post.
"[The] best speech ever given on race in this country. This is the kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract."
Chris Matthews, MSNBC
&
"Obama challenged Americans to confront the country’s racial divide…an extraordinary speech."
Charles Gibson, ABC News
If we are truly to speak honestly about some of these issues I think one of the first things that need to be acknowledged is that the experiences of the black race is not one that universally shared by all. For some the only thing they believe they share is the "African" in much the same way whites use "Anglo", but yet see themselves vastly different depending on country and culture. I am of African Caribbean lineage, but born and raised in Britain, so my experience differs somewhat from that of the average African-American. For instance i found this bit a little difficult to get my head around:
"That anger [that black people feel] is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
To be honest I'm not sure what he means by complicity? The reality of my condition is that my ancestors were forcefully taken as slaves to strange colonies that were forcefully taken from the indigenous people for the expansion of European Empires. They were subjected to abuses, beatings or worse and lived in sub-human conditions where they didn't even own their own bodies." Mas'a" did what he wished and took what he wanted. What was left was little better than trained animals. When Empires decided that the resources from these colonies were sufficiently stripped they decided that they would offer some kind of dependent independence to these poor, broken displaced human beings. In some of these countries they pretty still exist in the same state that they were left in to this day. At what point did these humans beings have a say choice in what happened to them? In what way were they complicit in their plights? So called civilised countries waged wars on each other throughout this period in the name of freedom and justice whilst turning a blind eye to the fact that they were denying these same rights to those on their own doorsteps.
Earlier in that same speech he also stated:
"But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us."
This I can relate to. Looking back at the events over the last year, I am struggling to remember which SJW or any other politician represented people like me in the EU referendum, and I am sure as hell confused about the SJW who represented "people of colour" in the US Elections. My blood boils when some accuse others of playing the race card and conveniently sweep the past under the carpet, as if it plays no part in the here and now. As I stated in a earlier post Britain, America and other European powers have shaped the world we now live in, and therefore the unrest we now seeing is also of their own design, and now they are reaping what they have sown. Unfortunately some of the casualties now are their own.
Apologies for the length of the post.
Where's that from bro?
AA - fine, it's a support network
LGBT meetings- fine- support network
Uni- surely they are there to learn and become more rounded before entering the jobs market
I would argue that part of the problem with politics today is that avoiding engaging with people who disagree with you is far too easy, particularly on the internet. It is a cause of extremism on all sides.
Unless there is a good reason, such as with AA, LGBT, Violence Survivors groups etc I don't see how 'safe spaces' are actually helpful to people.
Maybe I am looking at it from a biased perspective of seeing academics in the same light as science, where it should be inherently competitive and confrontational. Ideas need to be rigorously debated and challenged- most people come out more rounded and moderate when their ideas about the world have been challenged (fairly and thoughtfully)