eFilmCritic Forum Index eFilmCritic
Community Forum
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Need a book to read?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    eFilmCritic Forum Index -> Off-Topic Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
laura
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2630
Location: austin, tx

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:04 pm    Post subject: Need a book to read? Reply with quote

Every once in a while I'll get assigned a text book for a class that I think is so brilliant and powerful, I won't sell it at the end of the semester. "The Possessive Investment of Whiteness" is the perfect example of this and I can't help but recommend it. Think you're liberal? Think you understand the legacy of overt racism and how it's led to covert racism in our institutions? I don't mean to sound condescending with these questions, but I really thought I was clear-minded about why affirmative action and other policies like it were necessary, and I totally was not. I'm even more sure about affirmative action now. This book is incredible -- not necessarily for arousing language though; it's a powerfully incriminating 248-page case against the systematic and worse -- invisible -- oppression of minorities. It completely tripped me up, and I mean that in a good way. Think the Civil Rights movement was a bright spot in American history? No! It was actually an example of how apparent progress toward equal rights masked the real underlying mechanisms of well, the possessive investment in Whiteness.

Anyways, it's just a really good read -- and not for rhetoric, but for clear-cut evidence.

I liked it. Razz
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/laurjane
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
TheAngryJew
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5525
Location: Philadelphia

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another excellent book: Hop on Pop.
_________________
Scott Weinberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
MrTinkles
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 675
Location: Portland

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What if I don't like black people?
_________________
Film reviews, "Snide Remarks," and assorted merriment: EricDSnider.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Alex Paquin
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 16 Jul 2002
Posts: 1719
Location: Quebecland

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually I'm a centrist, much in favour of social programs but also demanding the abolition of affirmative action. While I don't deny that racism still exists (having encountered such examples on several occasions in the past), I don't think the state is right to start favouring non-whites when it comes to employment and other matters. Also I am eager to see someone dare to defy conventions and expose the growing abuse of ethnicity -- and this is a new phenomenon -- by some elements of some communities to achieve other goals (because accusing someone of racism or anti-Semitism is the best way to shut someone up immediately, right?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
David Cornelius
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 3401
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny. I already own "The Possessive Investment of Whiteness." It's called Neil Diamond's Greatest Hits. Sweet Caroline!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
UDM
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 592
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Need a book to read? Reply with quote

laura wrote:
Think the Civil Rights movement was a bright spot in American history? No!


Of course not, comrade, it was pure AmeriKKKan fascism all the way. Worse, it was invisible fascism; note how they sneakily avoided calling it the Fascist Rights movement.


UDM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
laura
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2630
Location: austin, tx

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't think the state is right to start favouring non-whites when it comes to employment and other matters.


But see, Possessive Investment illustrates that without efforts like affirmative action, the state favors Whites when it comes to, well, everything. And this is nothing a pundit could argue, because the information of the book is complicated and can't be summed up in bullet points. That's why I so very much recommend the book.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/laurjane
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
laura
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2630
Location: austin, tx

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And are you being sarcastic UDM? haha.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/laurjane
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Alex Paquin
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 16 Jul 2002
Posts: 1719
Location: Quebecland

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laura wrote:
But see, Possessive Investment illustrates that without efforts like affirmative action, the state favors Whites when it comes to, well, everything. And this is nothing a pundit could argue, because the information of the book is complicated and can't be summed up in bullet points. That's why I so very much recommend the book.


There's a hypothetical case I like to make: Imagine two people, one white, one black (I am using this as an example, but any minority would do for our purpose), locked in a glass-paneled room, watched by spectators, and seated at a table on which is placed the last piece of food available to them. Let us imagine that said piece of food is of a fixed and absolute quantity, and cannot be divided; in other words, one must eat it while the other must starve. Let us assume, also, that both people are of equal physical strength and as quick-witted as the other so as to rule out any notion of "survival of the fittest" coming into play.

In olden days, the white person would invariably take the food based on assumptions of racial superiority which, thankfully, have since been put to rest, or at least in the larger part of the population. But I would make the case that the black person would now always take the food, and that the white person would grudgingly decide to remain hungry, because any instance of the white person taking the food would, or could, be construed as racism by the spectators, if not by the white person itself, whether or not such impression is abetted by the black person (and as I mentioned before, I have no doubt that some minorities would stoop that low to emerge triumphant). The impression would remain even if the two contestants played heads-or-tails to determine the outcome.

In other words, to counter any accusations of racism, the white person, in this case, has become the perennial loser.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
laura
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2630
Location: austin, tx

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But we're not talking about individual actions and hypothetical scenarios. We're talking about the way society is set up and the fact that institutional racism is so common and all-encompassing that it's not even noticeable, that it's embedded in even the most progressive policies that are supposedly there to benefit minorities and that every single democratic move toward equality has been resisted and rebelled against by Whites. We're not talking about cases where a White person felt he had to give up something to not seem racist. We're talking about a whole other, more important thing. I'm just saying, there's no way you can read this book and then walk away thinking about race in such a simple way.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/laurjane
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
MP Bartley
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 16 Jul 2002
Posts: 1818
Location: Sunderland, England

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does it have any pictures in? I like pictures.
_________________
"We hate the French! We fight wars against the French! Did all those men die in vain on the fields of Agincourt? Was the man who burned Joan of Arc just wasting good matches?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex Paquin
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 16 Jul 2002
Posts: 1719
Location: Quebecland

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
We're talking about the way society is set up and the fact that institutional racism is so common and all-encompassing that it's not even noticeable, that it's embedded in even the most progressive policies that are supposedly there to benefit minorities and that every single democratic move toward equality has been resisted and rebelled against by Whites.


As I said, I object to people who make white supremacist arguments. However, maybe what most of the "racism" of whites really is is a strong objection to now being systematically relegated to the back seat in the name of a "racial equality" that seeks to redress in a few years an imbalance that existed for a few centuries in some cases. Because we know that to achieve this correction it will be whites, not minorities, who will have to go through discrimination during this time period.

Furthermore, I am only too aware of the ease with which one can hide behind the race factor to pursue something very akin to dominance. My classic example is the part of the Jewish population that drags back the shadow of the swastika to justify some very unsavoury things regarding Israel's foreign policy. What does Hitler have to do with bombing Lebanon? Not much. And these days, of course, when a minority person is poor it must have to do with racial intolerance, right? But when a white person is poor, it must be... well... we don't talk about poor white people except to regurgitate that the only remedy to their plight is old libertarian bootstrap spiel, which never convinced me to begin with.

Also another example of abuse of racism to promote an unsavoury viewpoint: Sheema Khan's columns in the Globe and Mail. Consider this one, on the ongoing debate in Quebec about "reasonable accommodation". What Ms. Khan does not say in this article I linked to, but said in previous columns, is that she is very much in favour of sharia, which both Quebec and Ontario rejected. But since it's always preferable to pin opposition on bigoted non-Muslims, she completely overlooks progressive Muslim opposition to said sharia, including from the only Muslim woman in the National Assembly, who alone dashed any chances of implementing sharia in this province. (As for the wearing of a kirpan to school, it's not the religious stuff most people are concerned about, it's that religion is being used to make a boy carry a dagger to school, and that the courts uphold it because of that. If the NRA decided tomorrow morning to file for religious status, would you like it?)

And there was another case I recall from a few years back, of a West Coast Chinese-Canadian who was denied the Liberal nomination because the party brass had decided to name a major (white) supporter as candidate. What card did those who were jilted bring out? You guessed it. Never mind that political parties do that all the time, and they are rarely color-conscious when they do. (The Liberal guy lost, by the way.) White guys have been ditched by white guys, but strangely enough that rarely gets attention unless there are prominent people involved.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
laura
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2630
Location: austin, tx

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm about to go to class, so I have no time to read everything you just wrote. But here's the bottom line: you want to debate about the book, read it! You want to debate about affirmative action, well, I know both sides and I've picked one for now.

But you seem to think whites are somehow less equal now, which is kinda uh completely untrue. When's the last time you visited the US? You're still talking about individual cases, and that's NOT what I'm discussing here. I'm talking about the overall trends in policy making and institutions, not cases and personal experiences. Obviously people can needlessly pull a race card, but it's annoying when you're arguing about something completely other than what I am.

If one understood what white supremacy really was, it wouldn't cause them to suddenly feel all guilty and back off and be less ambitious, because it's not a personal crime. An in all actuality White supremacy hurts the poor whites you're talking about. Certain policies are engineered to discriminate against professions or incomes that belong to women and minorities, and sometimes that hurts the poor white guys too.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/laurjane
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Alex Paquin
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 16 Jul 2002
Posts: 1719
Location: Quebecland

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

laura wrote:
When's the last time you visited the US?


I never visited the Home of the Brave. Embarassed But I would sooner visit Europe a thousand times than go to the US strictly for pleasure.

Quote:
Obviously people can needlessly pull a race card, but it's annoying when you're arguing about something completely other than what I am.


I don't think the two are completely separate; B is the extreme response to A and feeds on it. While I do not deny that A is problematic enough, we cannot overlook the existence of B when dealing with A.

Quote:
An in all actuality White supremacy hurts the poor whites you're talking about. Certain policies are engineered to discriminate against professions or incomes that belong to women and minorities, and sometimes that hurts the poor white guys too.


I have heard that line of reasoning before; some instances of that might exist (but then we're getting into the thorny issue of "equivalency" instead of "equality", subjective as hell -- is a cashier's work equivalent to that of a janitor?). Also it's possible to see a racial problem where there isn't one.

I remember a column in The Globe and Mail that claimed the electoral riding distribution in Canada was racist because 1) ridings in urban areas included vastly greater amounts of voters than those in rural areas and 2) large cities included most of the cultural minorities in the country. Therefore, the columnist argued, cultural minorities had less of a voice than old-stock Canadians living in the countryside. He reached that conclusion based on two separate studies, including one by the Conference Board of Canada -- and if you know anything about the Conference Board, it's a pro-business lobby that doesn't care a jot about racism but sure as hell would love to see major cities have undisputed clout over the Canadian political process. The race card? Useful to send opponents hiding for cover. But look at a typical response from outside Toronto: As a note, Prince Edward Island has four ridings, with about 33,000 residents each, out of 308 ridings across Canada. In cities some ridings now have over 100,000 residents. But I would not be calling PEI's four ridings "unfair". The Island's already ignored enough as it is, so if The Globe and Mails of the world were successful in reducing its already minimal political representation, I can't imagine what would happen.

Okay, I'm talking in specifics instead of the broader portrait, especially the American portrait with which I am not particularly familiar. I can't understand, for instance, the ongoing mystique in the South regarding the Civil War. As a French Canadian I can see how the stigma of military defeat might affect the population, but the similarity stops there and it does not explain everything either. (It's not like the Dutch of New York still brood over their wet gunpowder, after all.) In our case the Seven Years' War started in Europe and French Canadians did not gleefully fire the first shot in a glorious Sumteresque moment. Wars get started for the most frivolous of reasons, but in the case of your Civil War the cause was beyond frivolous and downright repellent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
laura
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2630
Location: austin, tx

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thing I'm trying to say is: we're not seeing racism. We mistake the non- or lesser-issues for the only issues out there and we aren't aware of the real issues, because they are hidden and invisible. Take for instance Native Americans. To most people, they are an old people that are no longer around and that we no longer have to apologize to. Even though their governments directly affect the American economy. They are an invisible people.

But when you talk about institutional racism, you must understand that marginalizing and discriminating against minorities is a part of everything, so we don't see it in action. We tragically take it for granted at every turn. The history of America is still being written and to pretend like the first pages of the book don't still affect the plot of today is intellectually dishonest.

And no offense, Alex, but it might make sense to avoid pontificating on race relations in the US, considering that you've never been here. And your insights about Canada mean nothing to me, I'm sorry. But that's a whole other animal I really can't have an opinion on, as I don't live in Canada.

My history course this semester was the South Since 1865; I'd be happy to tell you about how an entire society and culture and system of morals was undermined in the Civil War and how Southerners reacted to being villanized right after and to this day, and how reconstruction didn't work because of political factions that either sought to exploit anti-slavery sentiment or anti-North sentiment instead of bring the South together....
if you really want me to.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/laurjane
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
CharlesTatum



Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 1107
Location: Bismarck, North Dakota

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MP Bartley wrote:
Does it have any pictures in? I like pictures.


Yes...but they're all black and white! Thank you! Good night, everyone!

Wink
_________________
Charles Tatum's Review Archive
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex Paquin
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 16 Jul 2002
Posts: 1719
Location: Quebecland

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
And no offense, Alex, but it might make sense to avoid pontificating on race relations in the US, considering that you've never been here. And your insights about Canada mean nothing to me, I'm sorry. But that's a whole other animal I really can't have an opinion on, as I don't live in Canada.


I entirely agree with you on this, but we must keep in mind that the relationship between our two countries is uneven. I can't speak for others, but I always have the perception that Americans are not only ill-informed about Canada but also that they don't care. Why, only recently the major US papers -- Wall St. Journal, NY Times, Washington Post -- pulled their correspondents out of Canada, preferring to rely on freelancers and wire copy or simply covering it from the US. The result is always weird. We recently had a provincial election, and the only thing the US papers could talk about was the issue of Quebec separation when it was the last thing in the minds of voters. Canadians are always very sensitive as to how Americans view them, while the Americans, well, they don't care.

Consider: http://www.geist.com/columns/columns.php?id=38

And because the US traditionally views Canada as an extension of their own territory, I find that Americans constantly try to extend their own preoccupations, partly through their culture, partly through economic and political channels, to Canada, including their views of racial relations. So the American "melting pot", a very hypocritical notion, is being held forth as a model Canada should follow even though it's a failure in the US. (The American position on everything seems to be: if everyone follows it nobody will see how flawed it is.) Our multiculturalism, because it is more open, has led to exactly the opposite problem. The melting pot fails to see that total assimilation is impossible and that it is seen as undesirable both by a segment of the majority and by minorities. Here in Canada our problem is the result of having abandoned any attempt at assimilating immigrants, which usually means that the more traditional/nationalistic elements come to the fore in tight-knit communities.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
UDM
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 592
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If all this racism is "hidden" and "invisible" to the extent that it can only be seen by academics who write in tortuous prose, then just maybe it's not really there. And if this is true:

laura wrote:
in all actuality White supremacy hurts the poor whites you're talking about. Certain policies are engineered to discriminate against professions or incomes that belong to women and minorities, and sometimes that hurts the poor white guys too.


...then we're really talking about a class issue, not a race issue.

Sorry, but I have no faith in the Left to discern the difference between its collective ass and a hole in the ground, much less to uncover "invisible racism." Google "Duke rape case" for the latest reason why.


UDM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex Paquin
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 16 Jul 2002
Posts: 1719
Location: Quebecland

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All of this being said, I want to reiterate that racism does exist, but to declare that any opposition to affirmative action -- or liking the "wrong" film -- constitutes racism is not only irresponsible, but dangerous. Crying wolf that often, on such frivolous pretexts, will blunt any opposition to a real racist when such a person comes around; worse, traditionally open-minded people might cheer him along just to shut up the race-card-baiters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
laura
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2630
Location: austin, tx

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UDM, why do you think I'm recommending this book? You want proof of it, you can read it and a ton of other literature.

And no one's calling anti-affirmative action people racists, so I don't know what that has to do with anything.

And the Left are not much more aware of it than the Right.

And... sure, there are class-aspects about it, to say race and class isn't linked is absurd. But when policy is made with the aim to disenfranchise minorities, that's racism, no matter what tools they use. Don't you see? Doing legal things that can be scoffed off as "class issues" is racism that is successful. Making a policy that explicitly targets disenfranchising blacks is unsuccessful racism. That's all I'm saying.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/laurjane
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Alex Paquin
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 16 Jul 2002
Posts: 1719
Location: Quebecland

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

laura wrote:
And... sure, there are class-aspects about it, to say race and class isn't linked is absurd. But when policy is made with the aim to disenfranchise minorities, that's racism, no matter what tools they use. Don't you see? Doing legal things that can be scoffed off as "class issues" is racism that is successful. Making a policy that explicitly targets disenfranchising blacks is unsuccessful racism. That's all I'm saying.


Sorry, but you're making it sound as though class issues were secondary compared to "invisible" racism, which I suppose is part of the American fascination for the glorious Free Market. Talk about class, and you'll get the libertarian pull-yourself-by-the-bootstraps discourse; talk about race, and you won't get a single word in rebuttal, because people will be too concerned about appearing to be racists to speak up. And if racists, genuine racists, answer, they're making your point for you. I am concerned about this idea of setting up class as race, especially since it seems to be done to address class issues indirectly. You know, raising racism as a straw man to debate class is not exactly my idea of an honest debate, even though it's probably the only way to address the issue of class.

If I may wax poetickall for a minute, race is the three-card monte of American discourse -- you can't win no matter what you do.

And when you're talking about "disenfranchising" minorities "no matter what tools they use". So you would agree with the Globe and Mail columnist about how riding distribution is "racist"? Sure, racism exists -- see the Hérouxville case -- but in the case of riding distribution the claim of racism is extremely exaggerated especially if it's done through a dubious syllogism (ridings in urban areas have more voters than those in the countryside; minorities are massively concentrated in urban centres; therefore they have less political weight than lily-white hicks; therefore riding distribution is racist). Never mind that there are other factors.

Geography, for instance. The Yukon has a single riding, with a population of 32,000. To get the equivalent of 100,000 people, you would have to add the ridings of Western Arctic and Nunavut to it -- and those three together comprise more than one-third of Canada's total area. Historical concessions also enter into play, although it's more true for the Canadian Senate, for which the breakdown of seats by province is entrenched in the Constitution. And the disparities between senate seats and provincial populations are even greater. Ontario has 24 seats out of 105 with 38% of the population, and British Columbia is even worse: it has the third highest population but only 6 senators. Changing the breakdown would require a constitutional amendment, which in itself would require the approval of 7 provinces with 50 percent of the population. With the four Atlantic provinces vastly overrepresented in the Senate but marginal in the House of Commons, and a declining Quebec wary of an Ontario-Western power grab, we can imagine how senate reform is doomed to failure. And race has nothing to do with the question. Race is the argument of people who don't like opposition.

Continuing on this sole example, isn't it strange that nobody is mentioning either the white urbanites (or suburbanites, in the same situation) being "deprived" of their democratic right in the same fashion? Or even the chamber-of-commerce types who were the ones, not minorities, who loudly denounced urban-rural discrepancies? (And it's not because we racists don't listen to them.)

Someone made the point on a blog post in response to the columnist, that in the US such gerrymandering made sure no black person could get elected. Here in Canada we have several minorities now serving in the House of Commons and even more running with major political parties. In fact I am seeing an even more disquieting attitude now, in large, structured cultural communities (in Quebec, I may mention Italians and Jews as the perfect examples) who like to be pandered to, either in politics or in other spheres (I know of one specific example, but I won't describe it here).

And pray tell, what is this institutional "disenfranchising" racism you refer to? I don't see mucho literacy or property tests to remove the right to vote from blacks, nor white guys with baseball bats at polling stations these days. Gerrymandering in the US still exists, but from what I have read it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with winning seats. As for other matters. I recently found this article, which seems to make the same points you address, but then aim and consequence are two different things.

Race used to be a factor in black poverty, but great progresses have been made on the racial front since the sixties (apart from bigots who won't have their minds changed no matter what but who at least have been forced to take cover instead of doing things out in the open with impunity). The real story now seems to be lack of upward mobility, a class issue affecting both poor whites and poor blacks. I remember hearing recently of a study (couldn't trace it back) that said it now took something like six generations to make it from poverty into the ever eroding middle class. The comparatively higher poverty of blacks today is nothing more than the residue of history and of past racism but NOT of present racism. So if today you're talking about blacks being denied credit more often than whites, I think the onus should be on the person who says racism is involved to prove it. (Would a black person of considerable financial means be denied a loan? If yes, then there might genuinely be racism involved. But if a poor white person is denied, can we be talking about racism because blacks are generally poorer? I don't think so.) Because otherwise we are going to be applying racial remedies to a class question, the net result of which is that the real problems -- poverty, lack of universal health care, absence of upward mobility, taxation problems, business lobbying -- will never get addressed.

Race is just a nice trump card, but I think those who play it are misguided, because the real issues, issues of class, are never dealt with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Oz
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5895
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In response to everything Alex wrote in this thread:

White people ARE perennial losers. Have you seen us dance? Have you seen who we elect for high office?

We need to shut the fuck up and find a corner booth already, because not for nothing, we kind of suck.

A couple of years being the Washington Generals to the Harlem Globetrotters can only do us the world of good.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
laura
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2630
Location: austin, tx

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm NOT using race as a trump card Paquin. Don't patronize me! Considering that I live here in the states and just completed a class about race in America, I think it's interesting you assume I'm just pulling some kind of card instead of actually basing my opinions on hard facts and evidence. So let me give you an excerpt from the book, since that was why this topic started in the first place. (This is addressing your monologue on how class and race aren't linked. The following excerpt comes after a history of 1960's unfair housing to segregate minorities.)

Quote:
Advocates of fair housing attempted to renegotiate the issue with the passage of the 1975 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the 1977 Community Investment Act. These bills required lenders to identify which neighborhoods received their home-improvement and mortgage loans, and to demonstrate their willingness to supply capital to worthy borrowers in low-income areas. If enforced, these acts might have made a substantial difference, but the Reagan administration rendered them moot by ignoring the law. Reagan's appointee as director of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, William Bradford Reynolds, filed only two housing discrimination suits in his first twenty months in office, a distinct drop from the average thirty-two cases a year filed during the Nixon and Ford presidencies or even the nineteen per year during the final two years of the Carter administration.

At a time when the number of housing discrimination complaints filed with the HUD doubled, the Reagan Justice Department neglected nearly every serious complaint. Instead, it initiated frivolous suit against plans that maintained integrated housing and prevented block busting by regulating the racial balance in housing developments. For example, the administration took action aimed at invalidating deed restrictions in one of the few genuinely integrated areas of Houston, the Houston Oaks subdivision, because the original deeds contained restrictive covenants (which were neither enforced nor honored the residents). The administration also used the Paperwork Reduction Act as an excuse to stop HUD from gathering data on the racial identities of participants in its housing programs. By refusing to gather data on true discrimination, the Reagan administration strengthened resistance to fair-housing laws to the point of encouraging outright refusal to obey them.

Precisely because of white resistance to desegregation, the subsidized housing program had the highest percentage of black recipients of any fedearl benefits program -- 38.5 percent in 1979. In 1980, language in an amendment to the Housing and Community Development Act would have allowed local housing authorities to address directly the urgent housing situation of racial minorities by designating housing for those in greatest need, but the REagan administration came to power shortly afterwards. REagan's appointees made the victory a hollow one by virtually eliminating all fedearl funding for subsidized housing -- from 26.1 billion in 1981 to 2.1 billion in 1985. While cutting allocations for these programs aimed at providing simple subsistence and income maintenance for a primarily black clientele, the Reagan administartion retained the home owner mortgage deduction, a federal housing policy far more costly to the government but one that helped a primarily white clientele accumulate assets.

The 1988 Fair Housing Amendments Act, which addressed many important shortcomings in previous fair-housing legislation, came at a time when high housing prices kept many people of color out of the market. In addition, housing in the United States ha become so hypersegregated, loan procedures so discriminatory, and enforcement of fair-housing laws so infrequent that federal law acknowledging the rights of all people to secure housing on a fair basis may have no effect on their ability to actually do so. Whites who became home owners under blatantly discriminatory circumstances condoned and protected owners under blatantly discriminatory circumstances condoned and protected by the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government have also become more formidable competitors for housing, as the value of their home increased as a result of appreciation and inflation. Median prices on new homes and on sales of existing homes increased by almost 230 percent between 1970 and 1985, while the consumer price index rose by 177 percent.

The possessive investment in whiteness generated by failure to enforce federal housing legislation has concrete costs for people of color. etc


(And I can give you examples of real discrimination in fair housing today, beyond just the effects of the past if you really insist.)

This stuff can't be summed up in one sentence. But you know what? It's not so much invisible racism. Here in Austin, the black and Hispanic people are on the East side and the White people are on the west. A highway literally divides us. Want to know why? Because of segregation from before the 1960's. Yeah, we've come such a long way.

You're not listening to anything I'm saying -- the cries of racism that are made today are often misguided, because they are the smokescreen in a sense. A lot of them are straw men that ignore the real issues and cause people to argue about the wrong things. That's what I've been saying this entire time.

If you don't think minorities are still segregated and discriminated against and marganalized in the US, then that's probably because you've never been here and you rely on all of your information about the US, apparently, from the Globe and Mail.

Quote:

And pray tell, what is this institutional "disenfranchising" racism you refer to? I don't see mucho literacy or property tests to remove the right to vote from blacks, nor white guys with baseball bats at polling stations these days. Gerrymandering in the US still exists, but from what I have read it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with winning seats. As for other matters. I recently found this article, which seems to make the same points you address, but then aim and consequence are two different things.


And you've completely missed the boat here... my point was that it's not through something illegal like a literacy test that racism is practiced. That was my point! Oy. And stop talking about Canada to make a point about the US! It's really annoying!!!
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/laurjane
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
MrTinkles
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 675
Location: Portland

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laura, why would you discuss a book about racism in the United States with someone who a) hasn't read the book and b) has never been to the United States? For your own sanity, stop!
_________________
Film reviews, "Snide Remarks," and assorted merriment: EricDSnider.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
laura
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2630
Location: austin, tx

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tried to stop it before!

But, okay.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/laurjane
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    eFilmCritic Forum Index -> Off-Topic Chat All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group