Race relations/affirmative action

[Spider-Dan]

Was Jesse Jackson much more racially tolerant on 11/3/08?
Why do so many more Republicans like Gravity (or whatever stand-in you want to use) than Democrats?
Why didn't the white-on-black Goetz shooting (back during a time when you say AA was still justified) have the same kind of racial divide (by party affiliation) as the Zimmerman shooting?

Here's the thing... the Obama election as definitive racism indicator mindset not only allows for, but actively contributes to the following beliefs:

"We have a black president and NBA players are still complaining about racism?"
"We have a black president and people are still complaining about racial profiling?"
"We have a black president and people still want to obsess over slavery?"

It's like for any possible racial aggrievement, the categorical response is, "but we have a black president now, so that can't be true" (or, alternatively, "Hey, I voted for Obama, but...").

[Dave Gray]

FYI, I'm planning on locking this unless it goes anywhere...it's the same two people arguing for 5 pages.

[Spider-Dan]

I don't think that's a fair graph, because it breaks down specifically Republicans and Democrats.

Why is that unfair?

But I'd argue that the makeup of the GOP is very different now than it was just 10 years ago.  It's a fringe party for the most part and those that were part of it 10 years ago probably are identifying as independents.

I think their policies are out of the mainstream, but they have control of the House and are within striking distance of the Senate, so it's hard to call them a fringe party.

[Spider-Dan]

The thing that gets me about the Zimmerman discussion is that people still leave the word Hispanic out of the discussion and insinuate or outright say it is a white on black crime.

Zimmerman has repeatedly been referred to by the media as a "white Hispanic."

Hispanic itself can be a complicated way to categorize someone.  Most people would also categorize David Ortiz or Sammy Sosa as simply "black" in similar circumstances.

[Phishfan]

Zimmerman has repeatedly been referred to by the media as a "white Hispanic."

Which doesn't match to how Zimmerman describes himself.

[Dave Gray]

Why is that unfair?

It's a fair graph, but it's not representative of the point you're trying to make, if I'm understanding you correctly.  The makeup of the GOP has changed a lot and shrunk in that time. 

[Spider-Dan]

Which doesn't match to how Zimmerman describes himself.

Most people categorize Tiger Woods as black, even though that's not how he categorizes himself.

[Spider-Dan]

It's a fair graph, but it's not representative of the point you're trying to make, if I'm understanding you correctly.  The makeup of the GOP has changed a lot and shrunk in that time.

The most recent of the "before" examples is 2007.  If the GOP has changed dramatically since then, what reason do you have for that?

If the cause is Obama's election, then I'd say it is exactly representative of the point.  Keep in mind that one of the "before" examples is from 1995 (during Clinton's first term), so "Democrat wins presidency" is not a sufficient explanation.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

If the cause is Obama's election, then I'd say it is exactly representative of the point. 

If the point you are trying to make is that much of white America agreed with MLK, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."  And that white America views the election of a black president as a watershed moment that means that we can begin to dismantle the policies of AA that due in fact judge a person by the color of their skin, black America views the election of a black president as reason to expand AA.  And that white America resents the idea that black America doesn't actually want  MLK's dream they want preferential treatment.  And this resentment of black America rejecting the MLK dream speech in favor for skin color based programs is causing a backlash and race relations problems.  Then I agree with your point.     

[Dave Gray]

The most recent of the "before" examples is 2007.  If the GOP has changed dramatically since then, what reason do you have for that?

I think that it's not because of Obama.  I think that there's been a social swing that really turned off the moderates and the GOP (especially in the conservative areas) had to double down on their conservative social stuff with the base to keep elected, which really hurt them as a viable national party.  So...stuff like marijuana, all the weird laws with women and birth control and stuff, slut shaming, etc.  Now, Obama does play into it, but it's just correlated.  The same base that the GOP has been targeting for these other reasons probably don't like a black guy in the white house.

[Spider-Dan]

If the point you are trying to make is that much of white America agreed with MLK, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."  And that white America views the election of a black president as a watershed moment that means that we can begin to dismantle the policies of AA that due in fact judge a person by the color of their skin, black America views the election of a black president as reason to expand AA.  And that white America resents the idea that black America doesn't actually want  MLK's dream they want preferential treatment.  And this resentment of black America rejecting the MLK dream speech in favor for skin color based programs is causing a backlash and race relations problems.  Then I agree with your point.     

And how, exactly, would you distinguish what you have just described above from people who become newly alarmed when a black President is elected?

The purpose of AA was not to get one black Senator, or one black CEO, or even one black President; the purpose was to try to level the playing field.  To argue that Obama's election singlehandedly proves that the playing field is now level is to say that Bill Gates' success proves college degrees are now superfluous and unnecessary.  Obama is but one example, and when I provide reasons as to why I believe the playing field is not level, the responses I receive (blacks commit more crime!  whites are more respectful to police!  blacks do drugs out in the open!) are no less applicable today than they were before Obama was elected.

If you're going to tell me that there are reasonable, rational explanations for the vastly different law enforcement experiences that minorities and whites still have today, those explanations have NOTHING to do with Obama's election.  I can respect the argument that AA has gradually become unnecessary, but the idea that the election of one man should singlehandedly flip a switch is not credible; it's a convenient excuse.

[Spider-Dan]

I think that it's not because of Obama.  I think that there's been a social swing that really turned off the moderates and the GOP (especially in the conservative areas) had to double down on their conservative social stuff with the base to keep elected, which really hurt them as a viable national party.

I think it's unbelievably coincidental that this extreme social swing took place at precisely the same moment that Obama took office (particularly since we did not see a similar effect under Clinton).

[Phishfan]

Most people categorize Tiger Woods as black, even though that's not how he categorizes himself.

But the big difference is Woods is not being called a racist black which he does not identify himself as. Zimmerman is being called a racist white and he does not even identify himself as white.

Zimmerman does not claim himself as what he is portrayed and the people he is portrayed as being do not claim him either. I know racist whites. The type who cannot discuss black people without saying N. The types that identify every racial group with some derogatory remark. Believe me, they are not happy to see Zimmerman get off his charges. In their perfect world he would have gotten a death penalty. Two more minorities off the table is how they would feel about it. Unfortunately, I've heard them say it while this case was in the news.

[pondwater]

If the point you are trying to make is that much of white America agreed with MLK, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."  And that white America views the election of a black president as a watershed moment that means that we can begin to dismantle the policies of AA that due in fact judge a person by the color of their skin, black America views the election of a black president as reason to expand AA. And that white America resents the idea that black America doesn't actually want  MLK's dream they want preferential treatment. And this resentment of black America rejecting the MLK dream speech in favor for skin color based programs is causing a backlash and race relations problems.  Then I agree with your point.     

You are right on the money Hoodie. I think that this is the core problem. Blacks don't want equality, they want superiority and preferential treatment. Current generations think that they are owed for things that happened in the past, like slavery and segregation. Even though NONE of them went through slavery and most of them haven't experienced the true and extreme racism that happened in the past. Generations of blacks are being raised with this sense of entitlement and they know no different. Any minority in any country is not ever going to get treated as the majority is treated. Go to any other country in the world and I'm sure that you will find that minorities in that country are treated somewhat different in a negative manner, no matter how small it is. I'm not going to look it up and I could be wrong, however I would venture to say that blacks have it as good or better in the US than any other place on earth.

[pondwater]

And how, exactly, would you distinguish what you have just described above from people who become newly alarmed when a black President is elected?

The purpose of AA was not to get one black Senator, or one black CEO, or even one black President; the purpose was to try to level the playing field.  To argue that Obama's election singlehandedly proves that the playing field is now level is to say that Bill Gates' success proves college degrees are now superfluous and unnecessary.  Obama is but one example, and when I provide reasons as to why I believe the playing field is not level, the responses I receive (blacks commit more crime!  whites are more respectful to police!  blacks do drugs out in the open!) are no less applicable today than they were before Obama was elected.

If you're going to tell me that there are reasonable, rational explanations for the vastly different law enforcement experiences that minorities and whites still have today, those explanations have NOTHING to do with Obama's election.  I can respect the argument that AA has gradually become unnecessary, but the idea that the election of one man should singlehandedly flip a switch is not credible; it's a convenient excuse.

Well, do blacks commit more crimes? Do blacks do drugs out in the open more? Do blacks commit more murders?