"Being black means never having to apologize" ??

[EGarrett]

Looking back at post 136 and 137, I should point out that I said truethat is ignorant of black culture, then I later pointed out that there is no singular black culture, so the idea itself is flawed. Both are true, but my first statement should be improved to say that truethat is ignorant of the many things we label as black culture.

 

[plumjam]

EGarrett, do you think it's permissible to make any generalized statements at all regarding cultures? Or would the fact that some individuals associated with a particular culture object to not being viewed in every sense as an individual, by such generalized statements, disallow these statements?
To illustrate, we all know that Icelandic and Japanese culture are pretty different. Would it be sensible of us to frown on anyone who wanted to discuss such differences, simply because an Icelandic or Japanese individual piped up, arguing they didn't want to be lumped together with their countrymen, and insisted on being viewed as individuals?
Seems to me that such an attitude would unnecessarily constrain human discourse on a massive range of topics.

Another downside to it could well be that negative aspects of particular cultures would get, as it were, a "free pass".
For example if, in the 1970s someone was to criticise the racist white culture of apartheid South Africa, would it be a legitimate position of a white South African, who didn't take any particular position on the topic, to complain that people should stop criticising South African culture in this regard, because it wasn't treating him as an individual?
And therefore that the criticism should stop?

 

[EGarrett]

EGarrett, do you think it's permissible to make any generalized statements at all regarding cultures?

Well, using the word "permissible" makes it sound like people aren't allowed to say certain things, or that I'm trying to dictate what people can say. You can say whatever you like, I just want to point out that certain statements are illogical or imply illogical things.

Anyway, talking about generalized statements about people who have certain ethnicities, I think they tend to imply that whatever you're generalizing about is caused or directly linked to the ethnicity itself...so they're usually wrong and promote bad thinking. If we make it clearer that we're generalizing, then I think they become much more accurate...but still not nearly as accurate as if we referred to the actual thing causing that characteristic.

Example: "Black people do poorly in school." = Bad
"Many black people do poorly in school." = Better, and I think good enough for normal intelligent conversation. It lets people know that you're not linking some thing directly to race. But...
Descendants of purposefully uneducated manual laborers, who live in inner-cities and who don't value learning do poorly in school." = Best. Because this gives some actual causes. Obviously this is much more description than you'd use in normal conversation, but even if you just said "people who don't value education do poorly in school," we'd be doing much better.

Likewise, saying things like "the hip-hop culture is violent and materialistic," is MUCH more accurate than saying "black people are violent and materialistic," and the former doesn't promote wrong and dangerous race-based lawmaking.

Or would the fact that some individuals associated with a particular culture object to not being viewed in every sense as an individual, by such generalized statements, disallow these statements?
To illustrate, we all know that Icelandic and Japanese culture are pretty different. Would it be sensible of us to frown on anyone who wanted to discuss such differences, simply because an Icelandic or Japanese individual piped up, arguing they didn't want to be lumped together with their countrymen, and insisted on being viewed as individuals?
Seems to me that such an attitude would unnecessarily constrain human discourse on a massive range of topics.

I think I've answered with the above. As long as we know how to think accurately about religion, we can still use harmless phrases like "Thank God." But I don't think most people really think accurately about race yet, so I want to point this out specifically.

Another downside to it could well be that negative aspects of particular cultures would get, as it were, a "free pass".
For example if, in the 1970s someone was to criticise the racist white culture of apartheid South Africa, would it be a legitimate position of a white South African, who didn't take any particular position on the topic, to complain that people should stop criticising South African culture in this regard, because it wasn't treating him as an individual?
And therefore that the criticism should stop?

I don't think this is an accurate example at all. I've said repeatedly that you can criticize hip-hop and gang culture all you want. In many ways, it IS materialistic and spreads destructive ideas to people. But you don't criticize people who have nothing to do with it just because they share a skin color with MOST people participating in it.

Applied to your example, my statement would allow people to criticize apartheid all they wanted, because it was wrong and damaging to society. And of course, to have apartheid removed. But it would be incorrect for them to say WHITE PEOPLE THEMSELVES were damaging society, and thus to want to remove all white people, because having white skin wasn't causing the problem. Apartheid was. Hopefully I put that well.

 

[Lonewulf]

Hopefully I put that well.

Yes, I think it was very well put. In fact, I'm wondering why people are even arguing this anymore.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

You are not "your community" but in my mind, the minute you assign yourself membership to a community then you are responsible for that community in some way.

If the community is not a monolithic entity, I don't see why that should be the case.

Should the Polish community of London be held responsible for inadequate building construction?

 

[Sefarst]

What "black culture?" Please give me a single cultural practice that all or nearly all black people share. If you can't, then there is no "black culture." There is a hip-hop culture, there is an inner-city culture, there might be a Jamaican culture, or an "Afro-centric" culture, or an upper-middle class culture, but there is no culture shared by all "black people" and thus it is inaccurate to use that term.

You can't assign personality traits to people based on race. You can't define people by their skin color. I know it looks like the Earth is flat. But it's not.

Lazy thinking gives way to inaccurate and damaging actions. For the same reason that we fight the lazy thinking of intelligent design, sexism, Anti-Semitism and so on...I fight this particular brand of lazy thinking.

But even you, as you pointed out, are guilty of using "black culture" in your response to truethat. You then ammended your statement by saying he was ignorant what people typically call "black culture," but now we're all ready tangling two or three different threads of different conversations.

You're argument seems to boil down to a common refrain: "stereotypes are innacurate." I don't think anyone here would argue with you about that and I think everyone here realizes that any talk of black culture involves a variety of generalizations that are bound to have plenty of exceptions. The interesting part is not just a trite observation about stereotypes, but rather whether or not talking about white culture, black culture, Japanese culture, German culture, etc. has any meaningfulness or usefulness.

In economics, we use generalizations and talk about what is expected to happen "on average." We ask ourselves questions such as, "on average, which careers will women self-select into?" We recognize, in this question, that the answer is not useful when talking to an individual woman. Just knowing the average of a group tells me nothing about an individual of that group. However, when examining large categories of many observations, we can examine particular trends and, based on those observations, we can make very broad decisions.

Obviously, talk about culture is not nearly as scientific as economic regression analysis, but I think the two share some similarities. I think, when a person talks about black culture or white culture, they're talking about what they expect to see out of that particular culture "on average." Granted, observations about culture are always filtered through particular biases, but I think the reasoning remains the same.

I could understand you being offended if someone walked up to you and, knowing nothing about you other than the fact that you're black, assumed you liked hip hop. However, I can't understand why you are so eager to divorce yourself completely from it. Hip hop is part of American culture as well and, regardless of your feelings about it, the genre is its own movement and has established itself within our cultural landscape. I would say that Christianity is part of American culture as well. Even though I am an atheist, I still observe Christian traditions like Christmas. It doesn't mean I have to like it or allow it to rule my life, but I can't deny that it has and continues to shape the society I live in.

 

[EGarrett]

But even you, as you pointed out, are guilty of using "black culture" in your response to truethat. You then ammended your statement by saying he was ignorant what people typically call "black culture," but now we're all ready tangling two or three different threads of different conversations.

The point is, truethat doesn't even understand what we typically label as black culture. His argument is "I don't know anything that black people do outside of hip-hop, therefore that is all they do."

You're argument seems to boil down to a common refrain: "stereotypes are innacurate." I don't think anyone here would argue with you about that and I think everyone here realizes that any talk of black culture involves a variety of generalizations that are bound to have plenty of exceptions.

No, my argument boils down to "don't assign characteristics to ethnicities instead of their actual causes." Please see my diagram in the other thread. It's a specific point about how our phrasing is wrong, and that phrasing can create bad ideas and wrong actions.

The interesting part is not just a trite observation about stereotypes, but rather whether or not talking about white culture, black culture, Japanese culture, German culture, etc. has any meaningfulness or usefulness.

Well, there's a difference between a nationality and an ethnicity. Nations have common laws, cultural symbols and so on that you can actually assign to people of that nationality. Ethnicities do not. It's accurate to say that Americans sing the Star-Spangled Banner as their national anthem. It's not accurate to say that "White People" do anything specific.

In economics, we use generalizations and talk about what is expected to happen "on average." We ask ourselves questions such as, "on average, which careers will women self-select into?" We recognize, in this question, that the answer is not useful when talking to an individual woman. Just knowing the average of a group tells me nothing about an individual of that group. However, when examining large categories of many observations, we can examine particular trends and, based on those observations, we can make very broad decisions.

Obviously, talk about culture is not nearly as scientific as economic regression analysis, but I think the two share some similarities. I think, when a person talks about black culture or white culture, they're talking about what they expect to see out of that particular culture "on average." Granted, observations about culture are always filtered through particular biases, but I think the reasoning remains the same.

I think economics is different, because in a free-market each person looks out for their own interests, so economic decisions aren't going to be as dangerous as lawmaking decisions.

If you incorrectly conclude that Hispanic people don't read, so you don't market novels to Hispanic people, the worst that can happen is that you miss out on sales and some potential fans of a book may never see it.

But if you incorrectly conclude that Hispanic people don't read, so you bar Hispanic people from schools, you're effecting people's lives and preventing the individual Hispanic person from achieving something.

So I don't think being able to safely make broad decisions in economics means that it's okay to make broad decisions when governing a society.

I could understand you being offended

I don't think offended is the right term. It irritates me in the same way that intelligent design irritates me...it's aggressive, stubborn and potentially dangerous ignorance.

if someone walked up to you and, knowing nothing about you other than the fact that you're black, assumed you liked hip hop.

There's nothing insulting about someone assuming you like something. I wouldn't get angry at a harmless mistake. I do listen to hip-hop music like lots of other types of music, but I don't buy into that ridiculous culture. So someone walking up to me assuming I heard the latest 50 Cent album doesn't bother me. But, if someone says something BAD about me or a group of which I am a member, then I'm going to be irritated like anyone else. Even moreso if the insult is wrong and ignorant.

However, I can't understand why you are so eager to divorce yourself completely from it. Hip hop is part of American culture as well and, regardless of your feelings about it, the genre is its own movement and has established itself within our cultural landscape. I would say that Christianity is part of American culture as well. Even though I am an atheist, I still observe Christian traditions like Christmas. It doesn't mean I have to like it or allow it to rule my life, but I can't deny that it has and continues to shape the society I live in.

Would it make it more clear if I said that I also have a very extensive DVD collection, but I think Hollywood "celebrity" culture is ridiculous and shallow?

 

[jimtron]

One minor point: there's a lot of great hip hop that has nothing to do with violence and stuff. The most popular hip hop is not necessarily the best, and people that don't know much about it only know what they hear on the radio and see on TV. IMHO commercial radio is horrendous, and I wouldn't judge rock or jazz or country only by what I hear on the radio.

Are there any country music fans out there? Some people consider what country radio plays as being representative of country music, when in fact they ignore great country music and play unlistenable garbage (IMHO). Or jazz--imagine a kid who has never heard jazz, and he turns on a "smooth jazz" station (I think I just threw up a little in mouth).

Of course it's totally fine to not like rap or any other kind of music. But I think a lot of haters of hip hop have never heard the good stuff.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Are there any country music fans out there? Some people consider what country radio plays as being representative of country music, when in fact they ignore great country music and play unlistenable garbage (IMHO).

I just discovered Marty Robbins this week.

 

[Lonewulf]

I prefer Hick Hop myself, especially Cowboy Troy. Great music there.

 

[332nd]

One minor point: there's a lot of great hip hop that has nothing to do with violence and stuff. The most popular hip hop is not necessarily the best, and people that don't know much about it only know what they hear on the radio and see on TV. IMHO commercial radio is horrendous, and I wouldn't judge rock or jazz or country only by what I hear on the radio.

Are there any country music fans out there? Some people consider what country radio plays as being representative of country music, when in fact they ignore great country music and play unlistenable garbage (IMHO). Or jazz--imagine a kid who has never heard jazz, and he turns on a "smooth jazz" station (I think I just threw up a little in mouth).

Of course it's totally fine to not like rap or any other kind of music. But I think a lot of haters of hip hop have never heard the good stuff.

... Thank you...

 

[Puppycow]

OK, so your example is that some people claim blacks are disproportionately incarcerated (your first link in your previous post)? I don't understand--could you elaborate? Is someone saying that blacks should be allowed to break the law without consequences? I'm missing the excuse or scapegoat.

It argues that blacks are incarcerated at higher rates than whites because of racism.

But when you break down the statistics you see that incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment.

That is a claim that the criminal justice system is biased against blacks. But crime rates are not mentioned, only incarceration rates.

What does it mean that the leader of the "free world" locks up its Black males at a rate 5.8 times higher than the most openly racist country in the world?

(You do know what a rhetorical question is, right? It's a way to make an assertion without actually making it directly.)

 

[jimtron]

It argues that blacks are incarcerated at higher rates than whites because of racism.

Yes, I agree, but this is off topic. Feel free to start a thread about racism in the U.S., or about the claim that racism affects the number of incarcerated black people. These are important topics to discuss. Big Red's claim is that there is an attitude in the media that blacks don't have to apologize for wrongdoing (and the argument I'm looking for evidence to back that up. The fact that some (many?) believe that the U.S. legal system is racist--that's not an example of Big Red's claim. No one is saying (afaik) that blacks shouldn't be incarcerated or face legal action for wrongdoing--they're saying the system is racist.

This thread keeps straying off topic--could we please discuss the incarceration and other issues on relevant threads?

 

[Mumbles]

Yes, I agree, but this is off topic. Feel free to start a thread about racism in the U.S., or about the claim that racism affects the number of incarcerated black people. These are important topics to discuss. Big Red's claim is that there is an attitude in the media that blacks don't have to apologize for wrongdoing (and the argument I'm looking for evidence to back that up. The fact that some (many?) believe that the U.S. legal system is racist--that's not an example of Big Red's claim. No one is saying (afaik) that blacks shouldn't be incarcerated or face legal action for wrongdoing--they're saying the system is racist.

I think I can come up with a useful example - the "Free the Jena 6" movement. Yes, there did seem to be disparities in Jena's system, but that doesn't mean that these guys should be set free. They did beat a guy *after* he was unconscious. I'm not too interested in digging through google, mostly because I freely admit that it's not a literal example of "being black means never having to apologize" - but I *think* that this is the sort of thing that the OP meant.

(As for certain asides - Um, Black Eyed Peas is *clearly* a rap group, and they were long before Yokko Fergie joined for their third album, and Will.i.Am came up with irritating songs like "Where is the Love", "My Humps", and "Yes we Can". On the other hand, Black Eyed Peas is about as thuggish and materialistic as DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince. Please, guys, don't talk about hip hop anymore)

 

[gumboot]

Everyone knows all black people like Hip Hop. If you're black, and you don't like Hip Hop, all the other black people spray paint you white and make you eat mayonnaise.

What?

 

[bigred]

First FYI I have only read about half of this thread. That said:

I'm asking for evidence for Big Red's claims, mentioned in the OP, and in my last post. Here it is again:

More generally, I'm sick to death of that attitude, which is all the rage thanks mostly to hoardes of mindless white liberals still apparently feeling guilty about slavery, or whatever. It's not equal treatment at all, it's preferential treatment - the very thing they claim to be the problem in the first place.

I'd appreciate it if we could stay on this topic. Where is the evidence for BR's claim?

jim first off thx for trying to keep it on topic. But also and FYI, "never having to apologize" is a figure of speech and you misinterpreted what I was saying regardless. My point was much broader.

Moving on - my evidence below does not have specific online links, although with at least some of these none should be needed - so if ones bows before the "I won't consider it w/o a specific online link" God, then I'm sorry to disappoint:

Legal evidence:
Never heard of "affirmative action?" Who do you think keeps this going, the KKK? Or don't you think such a quota system is preferential treatment?

Media evidence:
1 - Whoopi. There's the Vick thing, or when recently talking to McCain who discussed the founding fathers' ideals, she immediately replied with a crack about "oh so you're saying we should bring back slavery" - brilliant whoopie, you go girlfriend. Also if you've ever caught her "act" (ie when she's actually trying to do comedy vs her race card BS) she isn't exactly shy with the "white people suck" bit. hahahaha.

2 - The vast majority of black comedians nowdays. Or am I the only one who notices how for most of them, a great deal of their material is race-oriented, including a great many racist jabs? Now imagine if white comedians took a similar approach - how long do you think that'd fly?

3 - TV ads. Or am I the only one who notices how common it is for so many ads that HAVE to have a "token" black person in them, even when there are only a few people in the ad? Being accurately representative of the demographics of this country? nahhhhh

4 - Nobody had a problem with a movie called "White Men Can't Jump." Blatantly racist title. Where was the outcry? None at all. But can you imagine a movie titled "Black Men Don't Know Who Their Daddy is" or something equally absurd and racist?

5 - A great deal of rap, which is saturated with lyrics racist in the extreme (among other things). Yeah, not all rappers are black. "only" most of them. But if a bunch of country music started coming out with racist lyrics towards blacks, again, how long do you think it'd take before a massive outcry occurred? Yet rap has been doing this for many years w/scarcely anyone blinking an eye.

the list goes on.......


Generally and in fairness, a number of people have tried to discuss this objectively and respectful of others' opinions, and to those I say a heartfelt thanks, whether we agree or not. I confess there was more of it than I expected on this sensitive topic. But I've avoided coming back to this thread because I knew it would get more than a little sidetracked, sneered at, and/or this "test tube mentality" would be thrown out, eg "if you don't have online links to double-blind studies" (blah blah etc) then I won't even consider your viewpoint." Fine, whatever. Sorry, I don't have online links to what I have seen in the media and regarding my own personal experiences (Hurricane Katrina was a good one, thx truethat). But this isn't a court of law or a laboratory, and I'm not interested in "winning".....and nothing personal against anyone, but when you get down to it, frankly I don't care much who does or doesn't believe or even dare to consider what I have to say on this. In fact I'm amazed when anyone does, because it is so severely "un-PC" and PC rules the day.

I would only hope that, instead of clinging to a demand for online "proof," one would open their eyes and simply look and listen to the media and the world around you - most importantly and as much as possible, without bias in EITHER direction. Not easy and a rare quality nowdays.

I just have this crazy notion that blacks (or insert any other ethnicity) should not be treated or viewed any differently - ie any worse OR better - because of their ethnicity, and I am continually amazed and disgusted how many get Point A but not Point B. Sadly, such are the times we live in.

 

[bigred]

Or jazz--imagine a kid who has never heard jazz, and he turns on a "smooth jazz" station (I think I just threw up a little in mouth).

Side note: amen brother. See we can agree on something.

 

[Mumbles]

1) I really don't care about Whoopi. C'mon, she showed up to a comedy roast with the owner from Cheers, who was in blackface.

2) Okay, a lot of those guys aren't funny (and a lot of them are on BET. I hate BET.) But here's the thing - some of them *are*. I think there's a perception that white people can't say anything about black people without everyone getting angry, and it's wrong. Eminem said things about black people in his music, for example.

The real problem is, a lot of people just don't know how to tell this kind of joke. Race jokes need to be funny enough to outweigh the outrage. Yeah, Chris Rock will say things about white people, but he'll also call complain about how Ludacris is "the only rapper that goes to the airport without a gun in his bag." That's hilarious, given TI's stupidity. It's a lot better than a bad imitation of Kurtis Blow. Chapelle will have race humor, but it amounts to stuff like Asians recruiting the Wu-Tang Clan at the race draft picks. That's kinda new, and kinda funny.

A lot of people, when asked to make race humor, come up with something like Obama Bucks. And that's just Barack Obama on a welfare check with fried chicken and ribs near him. That's like the joke about the woman with two black eyes - it's played out. I *know* that joke, I've heard it a million times. It's still offensive, but it stopped being funny twenty years ago. Stop trying to tell that same joke, get original, and you'll be received better.

3)tv ads - yeah, some of these are dumbly racist/sexist/classist/etc. On the other hand, it's mostly bland, and some of them *are* well done. I still remember Grand Puba rapping for Sprite, and kids breakdancing to MC Chris' "Boba Fett". Feel free to include whatever cultural imagery you find relevant.

4) White Men Can't Jump is the sort of thing a white version of Jesse Jackson would get angry about. In reality, the movie was about a white guy who used that stereotype to swindle racist black people. Getting angry about it is like Al Sharpton being enraged because MLK Jr. used the N-word on the Boondocks. Context is important.

And finally, I'd like to see the footage of black people acting like savages at the Superdome, because I don't remember that part. I remember looters of various colors, and angry people at the *convention center*, but all I remember at the Superdome were worried rumors of murders and rapes that were disproven. And the circumstances at teh convention center were really poor, while the superdome was relatively well off.

 

[Delvo]

3)tv ads - yeah, some of these are dumbly racist/sexist/classist/etc. On the other hand, it's mostly bland, and some of them *are* well done. I still remember Grand Puba rapping for Sprite, and kids breakdancing to MC Chris' "Boba Fett". Feel free to include whatever cultural imagery you find relevant.

The bit you were responding to wasn't about "-ist" ads. It was about normal ads that don't say or show anything about race or sex, but do seem to have had a quota to fill. Show a scene with a group of friends at a barbecue in the back yard of one member of the group, for example, and you seem to need to show more minorities than would really usually be there. (Black people are about 13% of the population overall and more like 8-10 percent of the population in the middle-class suburban settings where such an ad is set, but tend to have 25% or 33% representation in the ads, and never zero in any one particular event even though that's not uncommon in real life.) It's an over-reaction to complaints that they've been underrepresented before.

At the drug store I work at, when a new set of six signs arrived to be put up above the photo counter, a couple of people who'd never seen them yet made predictions about how many people of which races would be shown among the six. I added that the token black person was more likely to be male than female and the token eastern Asian person was almost guaranteed to be female. We were all exactly correct. It's gotten that predictable.

4) White Men Can't Jump is the sort of thing a white version of Jesse Jackson would get angry about. In reality, the movie was about a white guy who used that stereotype to swindle racist black people.

And the line was said just once, by a black man who swindled him once and ended up being his best friend. The title is a deliberate contrast to the movie's actual "buddies" theme, a setup to create expectations that are deliberately not met.

And finally, I'd like to see the footage of black people acting like savages at the Superdome, because I don't remember that part. I remember looters of various colors, and angry people at the *convention center*, but all I remember at the Superdome were worried rumors of murders and rapes that were disproven.

...as was the claim that the flood must have predominantly black victims. The actual body count was skewed disproportionately toward white people, which is why there was almost no reporting of it once all the information was in.

 

[EGarrett]

4 - Nobody had a problem with a movie called "White Men Can't Jump." Blatantly racist title. Where was the outcry? None at all. But can you imagine a movie titled "Black Men Don't Know Who Their Daddy is" or something equally absurd and racist?

IMDB page for White Men Can't Jump

Click on the writer/director's name. Look at his face. Then get back to me.