Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black man

[cullennz]

I feel a bit for countries like the US and reparations.

You are kind of all working from scratch.

We didn't have slavery (well apart from Maori doing it with other tribes), but we had a bit of ugly European land grab stuff etc.

But we ended up with a Treaty every one signed, which while probably a one off in the world, and with a bit of argument over translation from different sides means at least we have some starting point.

We get the odd racist twat saying burn the thing, but it has worked out quite well.

Treaty Settlements

The US is working from a blank slate full of uber rich legaled up corporates, and a lot more nutters.

I personally think the US should pay reparation, but on the proviso what group they pay it to is vetted like **** and not some dodgy group pretending to represent black people.

 

[Mumbles]

I personally think the US should pay reparation, but on the proviso what group they pay it to is vetted like **** and not some dodgy group pretending to represent black people.

Part of the main problem is that, despite proposals for such having been filed every year for decades, the US federal government refuses to so much as consider a study of the idea, so there's little point in discussing this mechanism versus that one.

In other words, we don't know what the best approach would even be, and outright refuse to even compare them hypothetically.

(Also, while "poverty" based aid is reasonable, and partly responsible for the white middle class in the US, this is both an evasion, of little use given our refusal to allow the poor to accumulate wealth under current programs, *and* these programs are themselves subject to the racial biases we see throughout the US)

 

[Vixen]

It's like you didn't even actually read what I wrote, even though you quoted it.

Then again, it's quite common among some groups of people to simply assume that anyone opposed to a proposal must be a bigot. Oh well.

Read what I said earlier. It is not a slanging match. I put forward the proposition that it is a myth that 'racists are nasty people. I am a nice person so therefore I am not a racist' is a fallacy. As an analogy, think of all the people who own pets. They are not nasty people either, yet some put their dogs or horses to work. Yet these same awfully nice people also once kept human beings as 'pets' or slaves to do their fetching and bidding or as beasts of burden to breed in order to carry on producing wealth from their labours. Some treated their (pets) slaves really well. Others were cruel. The fact is, keeping human beings as slaves is especially harsh, given they are from exactly the same species as their owner (Homo sapiens) so to rationalise what is obviously a tort to us today (enslavement and people trafficking is illegal now with up to life imprisonment) they have to build up myths that 'these people' were inferior, like animals, when common sense tells us they had exactly the same intelligence and sensibilities as any other of the species known as Man.

To claim that if you are opposed to reparations towards people held as slaves for generations on the basis that you believe you are being called a 'bigot' for opposing it, is exactly an evasion of an 'uncomfortable conversation'.

We are all 'nasty/awfully nice' in that anyone educated in Europe will have been inculcated with the myth of some 'races' being inferior and in a circular argument, the fact of their being enslaved proves their inferiority. For example anyone who has ever read Enid Blyton will know that the 'swarthy guy' = 'the baddie' without any further word being said.

Yes, of course women have also been dreadfully subjugated to their husbands down the ages - Hegel said the man-wife relationship was the earliest economic unit (family) - with low or no wages and cheated of inheritance and the right to vote. There are parallels but it is a fallacy to claim that those opposed to racial discrimination are not opposed to sex discrimination (or other injustices in society). The issue of racism isn't tantamount to needing to solve all the problems of the world in one thread. Sexism and class-cism are different again and need separate threads. There is nothing to stop you rallying against sexism at all by conceding that descendants of former slaves are entitled to reparation in theory at least.


Am I right in thinking that you have declared that 'I am being called a bigot!' and this is your excuse for exiting an 'uncomfortable conversation'?

 

[Vixen]

I think that argument is meant facetiously. But if you want to be serious about Reparations, then slavery was introduced and institutionalized in the colonies for centuries by the British Empire. The new US government dismantled it. So pony up those reparations for the lives you ruined. No more passing the buck to us for the horrors you created and we ended.

Who pays for it is a fence that can be jumped once the need for reparations are agreed.

 

[Vixen]

I feel a bit for countries like the US and reparations.

You are kind of all working from scratch.

We didn't have slavery (well apart from Maori doing it with other tribes), but we had a bit of ugly European land grab stuff etc.

But we ended up with a Treaty every one signed, which while probably a one off in the world, and with a bit of argument over translation from different sides means at least we have some starting point.

We get the odd racist twat saying burn the thing, but it has worked out quite well.

Treaty Settlements

The US is working from a blank slate full of uber rich legaled up corporates, and a lot more nutters.

I personally think the US should pay reparation, but on the proviso what group they pay it to is vetted like **** and not some dodgy group pretending to represent black people.

Your cousins in Australia are the object of reverse racism. British stock was transported to the then colony to people it with British stock (prisoners, the poor, political dissidents). In fact, it was a policy both for Australia and Canada. Australia in particular has attempted to preserve its proud 'all-white' policy down the ages by trying to keep the Asians out and subjecting refugees to harsh conditions (see the recent Netflix film about an Australian woman posing as an asylum seeker to escape her dysfunctional family). This isn't conscious or the fault of individual people. However, anyone who has worked with Australians coming to Europe for a working holiday will be aware of how much more racist they are even when compared to Brits, who are so racist, they cannot tolerate seeing a Black family featured in a Christmas advert for a supermarket (see twitter 'J Sainsbury Christmas Ad'). It is as though constantly declaring their White supremacy is compensation for the the Brits having transported them as convicts all those years ago and inflicting broad cockney accents on them.

 

[bluesjnr]

How about this: You explain the difference, why it matters, and in what contexts it's important to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.

I'm pretty sure it's not important in this context, and that everyone knows what we're talking about either way. So I probably won't make up my mind here, but based on your explanation I'll probably make up my mind somewhere else where it actually matters.

What? You're actually seriously considering sending a bill for reparations? Serious enough to consider how important my throw away comment is?

Serious enough to get all snippy and rude?

You're not getting another peep out of me about why England is not Britain, how do you like them apples?

 

[bluesjnr]

My great, great, great uncle half-removed from my married aunt's sister's kid - died in the war to free the slaves. I am told that our family would have owned half the State of New Jersey if he hadn't had gone to fight for the freedom of black slaves in the South. He was drafted so he didn't do this willingly.

His death caused great anguish and great poverty amongst our family and we have never been able to get ourselves out the cycle of deep poverty that started when he was killed.
To whom should I send the bill?

Send it to England which is, apparently, "Britain".

 

[bluesjnr]

Your cousins in Australia are the object of reverse racism. British stock was transported to the then colony to people it with British stock (prisoners, the poor, political dissidents). In fact, it was a policy both for Australia and Canada. Australia in particular has attempted to preserve its proud 'all-white' policy down the ages by trying to keep the Asians out and subjecting refugees to harsh conditions (see the recent Netflix film about an Australian woman posing as an asylum seeker to escape her dysfunctional family). This isn't conscious or the fault of individual people. However, anyone who has worked with Australians coming to Europe for a working holiday will be aware of how much more racist they are even when compared to Brits, who are so racist, they cannot tolerate seeing a Black family featured in a Christmas advert for a supermarket (see twitter 'J Sainsbury Christmas Ad'). It is as though constantly declaring their White supremacy is compensation for the the Brits having transported them as convicts all those years ago and inflicting broad cockney accents on them.

That's a mighty broad brush you're wielding there.

 

[Brainster]

I need me some reparations, seeing as men in general have it better than a lot of women do because men weren't saddled with systemic and institutional sexism and discrimination for thousands of years.

The problem with this argument is that women being discriminated against did not affect the wealth of their descendants, because if they had descendants that meant (in most cases) that they had married and formed a bond with a man. The husband benefited from the discrimination against women as much as his wife lost from it, so the net effect on the family was zero.

Blacks being discriminated against in housing, employment and elsewhere has certainly led to their descendants having less wealth than they would otherwise have accumulated.

 

[Venom]

Who would reparations go to? I think it'd make more sense for them to go to black institutions and not individuals, if they are going to do reparations at all. Improved funding for inner city communities in general as well. Yeah, not exactly restitution for slavery, and would help some people without slave ancestors or are part African American or not at all, but probably the most practical reparations that can be done at this point.

Where were most American slaves taken from? A relatively small area of West-Central African coast. I suppose some money could go there as well, but that could be more difficult if demographics in the region shifted substantially after the slave trades.

 

[Vixen]

Who would reparations go to? I think it'd make more sense for them to go to black institutions and not individuals, if they are going to do reparations at all. Improved funding for inner city communities in general as well. Yeah, not exactly restitution for slavery, and would help some people without slave ancestors or are part African American or not at all, but probably the most practical reparations that can be done at this point.

Where were most American slaves taken from? A relatively small area of West-Central African coast. I suppose some money could go there as well, but that could be more difficult if demographics in the region shifted substantially after the slave trades.

It should work like personal injury and go directly to the persons who were affected. It would be all too easy for a government official to make a grant to a community centre and claim that resolves the issue.

Common law is based on the concept of reparation to the person you committed a tort against. Early modern/mediaeval history laid down the foundations for modern law. So if your neighbour injured your foot then you could take one of his sheep, etc. And we see the continuation of this concept today. If someone causes damage to you or you car and they are at fault in the car crash then they pay the costs (or the insurers). As detailed inventories of slaves were kept it is not as though there are no records of who was affected. A poster expressed concern that Chinese and later immigrants would make false claims but I don't see how they would be able to prove it because records would show what date they arrived in the USA. There are extensively detailed shipping records. So the idea that 'Oh we don't know who the descendants of slaves are any more. Let's assume it is any Black / Brown face!' is false reasoning.

So in Swedish Finland, at least, in the early modern history (circa 1500's) the concept of law - each district had judges and court houses - was that breaking the law was a 'breach of the peace against the King', so you could be fined and the money goes to the King, whereas in a case of violence or murder, you had to hand over money to the wronged party. You could lose an entire field or livestock. Your entire family could be expected to help pay the reparations.

This shows the concept of reparation is nothing new or even alarming. I cannnot see why people even argue against it.

 

[Venom]

It should work like personal injury and go directly to the persons who were affected. It would be all too easy for a government official to make a grant to a community centre and claim that resolves the issue.

Common law is based on the concept of reparation to the person you committed a tort against. Early modern/mediaeval history laid down the foundations for modern law. So if your neighbour injured your foot then you could take one of his sheep, etc. And we see the continuation of this concept today. If someone causes damage to you or you car and they are at fault in the car crash then they pay the costs (or the insurers). As detailed inventories of slaves were kept it is not as though there are no records of who was affected. A poster expressed concern that Chinese and later immigrants would make false claims but I don't see how they would be able to prove it because records would show what date they arrived in the USA. There are extensively detailed shipping records. So the idea that 'Oh we don't know who the descendants of slaves are any more. Let's assume it is any Black / Brown face!' is false reasoning.

So in Swedish Finland, at least, in the early modern history (circa 1500's) the concept of law - each district had judges and court houses - was that breaking the law was a 'breach of the peace against the King', so you could be fined and the money goes to the King, whereas in a case of violence or murder, you had to hand over money to the wronged party. You could lose an entire field or livestock. Your entire family could be expected to help pay the reparations.

This shows the concept of reparation is nothing new or even alarming. I cannnot see why people even argue against it.

The concept isn't new but the circumstances are.

It would be a logistical nightmare to do all of that tracking and confirming today. Maybe back when inventories were kept all nice and neat as you say, which I doubt, but it would have been much easier without the mixed bloodlines, as it were, that developed in the centuries since. Add to that immigration from West Africa or anything even resembling African heritage from anywhere on the continent, even if not an American slave (Barack Obama doesn't get a check, right?). What threshold of West Africanness or blackness is necessary to be eligible for reparations?

I agree the U.S. probably should right that wrong. But the how is the hard part.

 

[Vixen]

The concept isn't new but the circumstances are.

It would be a logistical nightmare to do all of that tracking and confirming today. Maybe back when inventories were kept all nice and neat as you say, which I doubt, but it would have been much easier without the mixed bloodlines, as it were, that developed in the centuries since. Add to that immigration from West Africa or anything even resembling African heritage from anywhere on the continent, even if not an American slave (Barack Obama doesn't get a check, right?). What threshold of West Africanness or blackness is necessary to be eligible for reparations?

I agree the U.S. probably should right that wrong. But the how is the hard part.

The inventories are 'kept all nice and neat'. How else do you think the slave owners were able to pass on their wealth in their wills? These wills can be found in public archives! There is no mystery about it at all. The University College London had no problem finding a complete list of slave owners and what their compensation value was. They received literally millions in compensation. This compensation was based on the number of slaves they had and their value. The slaves are valued like livestock. That is, whether they are good breeding (siring further slaves) like a prize bull, old, young, male, female, house slave, field slave. It was very easy! Not difficult to value at all. Why do people dream up so many excuses not to equally compensate the slaves similarly? Since the rectification of this injustice did not happen at the same time the slave owners received millions in compensation from the state, then it is only right their descendants get their share, given racism and its effects can be seen to be a direct result of slavers dreaming up fake mythology (= that is, inventing racial discrimination to justify their immoral and illegal treatment of other human beings).

You can look at the slave owner data base here.

If is quite wrong and egregious to claim that every African or dark-skinned person 'must have been a slave'. Only persons who can prove slave descent should get the sizeable compensation due to them. This is because persons in the USA descended from slavery will probably go back further in US history than most European Americans, who only arrived during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, due to famine in Europe or war. They would go back to the 1500's/1600's so are just as American as the early British and Dutch so-called 'pioneers', who arrived in the New World as venturers or religious dissidents. They can rightly claim to be the co-founders of the USA. But wait! Due to denial of any compensation and even the denial of the right to own property or vote, they have been denied economic progress. A concept of personal injury law, is that a person should be put into the position they would have been in had the illegal treatment had not happened. Had all these deprivations had not happened they should in theory be as wealthy as the early European settlers are today, owning property, factories and retail outlets just as extensively. As slavery was illegal in Great Britain, it was known perfectly well that slavery was a crime against a person so it cannot be argued that social mores were different then.

So no, nobody is arguing that compensation should be handed out willy-nilly on a racist basis: that is yet another silly argument to deny people - who can be found on official records - the rightful compensation that they are owed.

This would go a long way to redressing the issue of racial inequality in America and restore self-respect and respect between the 'races' on both sides. Why would anybody oppose that, other than people who want to see White supremacy continue?

 

[Venom]

The inventories are 'kept all nice and neat'. How else do you think the slave owners were able to pass on their wealth in their wills? These wills can be found in public archives! There is no mystery about it at all. The University College London had no problem finding a complete list of slave owners and what their compensation value was. They received literally millions in compensation. This compensation was based on the number of slaves they had and their value. The slaves are valued like livestock. That is, whether they are good breeding (siring further slaves) like a prize bull, old, young, male, female, house slave, field slave. It was very easy! Not difficult to value at all. Why do people dream up so many excuses not to equally compensate the slaves similarly? Since the rectification of this injustice did not happen at the same time the slave owners received millions in compensation from the state, then it is only right their descendants get their share, given racism and its effects can be seen to be a direct result of slavers dreaming up fake mythology (= that is, inventing racial discrimination to justify their immoral and illegal treatment of other human beings).

You can look at the slave owner data base here.

If is quite wrong and egregious to claim that every African or dark-skinned person 'must have been a slave'. Only persons who can prove slave descent should get the sizeable compensation due to them. This is because persons in the USA descended from slavery will probably go back further in US history than most European Americans, who only arrived during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, due to famine in Europe or war. They would go back to the 1500's/1600's so are just as American as the early British and Dutch so-called 'pioneers', who arrived in the New World as venturers or religious dissidents. They can rightly claim to be the co-founders of the USA. But wait! Due to denial of any compensation and even the denial of the right to own property or vote, they have been denied economic progress. A concept of personal injury law, is that a person should be put into the position they would have been in had the illegal treatment had not happened. Had all these deprivations had not happened they should in theory be as wealthy as the early European settlers are today, owning property, factories and retail outlets just as extensively. As slavery was illegal in Great Britain, it was known perfectly well that slavery was a crime against a person so it cannot be argued that social mores were different then.

So no, nobody is arguing that compensation should be handed out willy-nilly on a racist basis: that is yet another silly argument to deny people - who can be found on official records - the rightful compensation that they are owed.

This would go a long way to redressing the issue of racial inequality in America and restore self-respect and respect between the 'races' on both sides. Why would anybody oppose that, other than people who want to see White supremacy continue?

So anyone with any amount of American slave ancestry gets reparations?

I don't know if it would help racial inequality, and you must not live here if you don't think there are reasons other than maintaining white supremacy that people might question black reparations. I've heard someone say it could give white Americans a ticket to dismiss any charges of discrimination they face, so they should shut up; they already got their payment. I had never heard that one before but it was intriguing. There are certainly reasons some people, even AAs might oppose it or criticize it that isn't because they want to see white supremacy continue.

I think in principle reparations for slavery make sense, but in practice it might have to be reparations for overall oppression of blacks since slavery.

 

[Vixen]

So anyone with any amount of American slave ancestry gets reparations?

I don't know if it would help racial inequality, and you must not live here if you don't think there are reasons other than maintaining white supremacy that people might question black reparations. I've heard someone say it could give white Americans a ticket to dismiss any charges of discrimination they face, so they should shut up; they already got their payment. I had never heard that one before but it was intriguing. There are certainly reasons some people, even AAs might oppose it or criticize it that isn't because they want to see white supremacy continue.

I think in principle reparations for slavery make sense, but in practice it might have to be reparations for overall oppression of blacks since slavery.

Easily done. You just pro-rate it. There are records. For example, it took the press two minutes to work out which of Meghan Markle's ancestors were slaves. Ta-da! Objection overruled.

I've worked in insolvency practice. A company files for liquidation or is wound up by the High Court. My job is to put an ad in London Gazette and contact all known creditors and shareholders. Once you've worked out the value of their contribution you can declare a dividend based on how much of the assets you've managed to crystalise (less your fees of course). So, if the dividend declared is 0.10p in the pound, people who have a value of £9000 get £900 whilst those with only £1 get £0.10. Pro-rata is very easy.

Same strategy here. You invite people to make a claim - this can be done on a user-friendly platform - ask for the basis of the claim and then take it from there. Easy-peasy. Can't prove it, no dividend.

 

[Planigale]

Are you arguing for reparations for women, or attempting a reductio rebuttal to the argument for reparations for black people?

Either way, could you please just skip to the part where you just make a good-faith argument for or against reparations to black Americans for the way they have been systematically persecuted and discriminated against in this country over the past 150 years or so?

Going back to the 'conversations'; the first thing I thought with the story about him riding down a woman in his way is this was typical male entitlement. The story about having to think about where he walked on the street made me think, 'Welcome to every woman's life'.

The reality is that BLM is really about Black Male Lives Matter. It is predominantly black men who are profiled, and subject to police violence. At least in the UK, educational achievement and economic success are the same for black British females as for white British, though both groups are probably lagging asian British. The educational failure is in the black British males, the excess rates of imprisonment, stop and search etc. are in black British males. (The other group failing are white working class males.)

I do not deny that this is a real issue, as a brown woman I am subjected to occasional racist comments, also to sexist comments, also to sizeist comments, also to comments about my sexuality. But broadly this does not impact on our life trajectories any longer. We do need to address the issue that black men are being left behind (and white working class men). If we do not recognise gender is an important issue we may miss an important part of the solution. The issue of black men is of a magnitude difference from that affecting other ethnic groups, including white minority ethnic groups.

 

[Planigale]

Easily done. You just pro-rate it. There are records. For example, it took the press two minutes to work out which of Meghan Markle's ancestors were slaves. Ta-da! Objection overruled.

I've worked in insolvency practice. A company files for liquidation or is wound up by the High Court. My job is to put an ad in London Gazette and contact all known creditors and shareholders. Once you've worked out the value of their contribution you can declare a dividend based on how much of the assets you've managed to crystalise (less your fees of course). So, if the dividend declared is 0.10p in the pound, people who have a value of £9000 get £900 whilst those with only £1 get £0.10. Pro-rata is very easy.

Same strategy here. You invite people to make a claim - this can be done on a user-friendly platform - ask for the basis of the claim and then take it from there. Easy-peasy. Can't prove it, no dividend.

If the dividend is 0.1p in the £1, someone owed £9,000 should get £9. Please be the person acting for me as the creditor!

 

[Vixen]

Going back to the 'conversations'; the first thing I thought with the story about him riding down a woman in his way is this was typical male entitlement. The story about having to think about where he walked on the street made me think, 'Welcome to every woman's life'.

The reality is that BLM is really about Black Male Lives Matter. It is predominantly black men who are profiled, and subject to police violence. At least in the UK, educational achievement and economic success are the same for black British females as for white British, though both groups are probably lagging asian British. The educational failure is in the black British males, the excess rates of imprisonment, stop and search etc. are in black British males. (The other group failing are white working class males.)

I do not deny that this is a real issue, as a brown woman I am subjected to occasional racist comments, also to sexist comments, also to sizeist comments, also to comments about my sexuality. But broadly this does not impact on our life trajectories any longer. We do need to address the issue that black men are being left behind (and white working class men). If we do not recognise gender is an important issue we may miss an important part of the solution. The issue of black men is of a magnitude difference from that affecting other ethnic groups, including white minority ethnic groups.

He was trying to make the analogy of not being heard. He said he was often asked by White people how they can help solve the problem of racism so he made an analogy of the woman not hearing him when he was calling at her, to help aid an imaginary 'White person' understand why demonstrations often descend into violence. He was trying to explain the feeling of frustration of not being heard and then the person ignoring you wondering how come they didn't hear the warning (which he calls the 'pain' ). Ironically, most people on here are also ignoring him and concentrating on some imaginary bike, instead.

I was reading this book t'other day, White Fragility with a great deal of initial scepticism but as I read it I thought, yes, she is absolutely right. Everybody has to do something to challenge this problem. The author worked as a diversity trainer and she says she was shocked at how people refused to have anything to do with the issue of 'diversity' and trying to subvert the serious topic into something else (for example, 'You are calling me a racist! How dare you call me a racist! I am a nice person!').

Oh well. Made sense to me. All he was asking was people LISTEN to him in response to their actually ASKING him how they can help.

 

[Planigale]

So anyone with any amount of American slave ancestry gets reparations?

I don't know if it would help racial inequality, and you must not live here if you don't think there are reasons other than maintaining white supremacy that people might question black reparations. I've heard someone say it could give white Americans a ticket to dismiss any charges of discrimination they face, so they should shut up; they already got their payment. I had never heard that one before but it was intriguing. There are certainly reasons some people, even AAs might oppose it or criticize it that isn't because they want to see white supremacy continue.

I think in principle reparations for slavery make sense, but in practice it might have to be reparations for overall oppression of blacks since slavery.

The problem is at what point do reparations cease to be owed? There is no doubt that the impact of the Roman empire has continuing consequences. In the UK, the separation of England and Scotland is essentially the border of the Roman empire, that boundary is arbitrary as any other drawn up by colonial powers in Africa. If you look you can find papers on the massive economic consequences of the slave trade on the European mediterranean littoral. The massive migration from e.g. Sicilly and Greece was in may ways driven by the economic depression of coastal Europe by centuries of slavers from Africa raiding Europe. The reason why Slavs and slaves were viewed as synonymous was because the largest slave trade was from eastern Europe to the Near East and North Africa. In the 16 century when the trans Atlantic slave trade started if a European was asked to picture a slave it would be a Slav, or someone from the European mediterranean coast in North Africa. If asked to imagine slave owners and dealers it would be Africans and Arabs. (To be clear, African slave traders were not racist, they equally enslaved other Africans.)

I think the answer is continuity of responsible institutions. The Roman empire essentially ceased with the fall of constantinople, if anything is responsible for the reparations due by the Roman empire it is the Turkish state. The Barbary states of North Africa no longer exist, they transited through the French empire and now independent states. The slave trading states of the bight of Benin, transited through British and French colonialism and are now independent post colonial states. The European states and the US (and some companies) have continued in legal existence from slave owning to now. So whilst I think morally and in theory reparations are owed from North Africa to Europe, in a legal liability sense the only entities that still exist to pay reparations are US and European companies and states.

I do not think reparations need to be in cash, and are unlikely to address the issue, reparations need to be institutional. Liable institutions need to have policies to address and correct the systematic disadvantage that plagues the lives of black men.

 

[Planigale]

He was trying to make the analogy of not being heard. He said he was often asked by White people how they can help solve the problem of racism so he made an analogy of the woman not hearing him when he was calling at her, to help aid an imaginary 'White person' understand why demonstrations often descend into violence. He was trying to explain the feeling of frustration of not being heard and then the person ignoring you wondering how come they didn't hear the warning (which he calls the 'pain' ). Ironically, most people on here are also ignoring him and concentrating on some imaginary bike, instead.

I was reading this book t'other day, White Fragility with a great deal of initial scepticism but as I read it I thought, yes, she is absolutely right. Everybody has to do something to challenge this problem. The author worked as a diversity trainer and she says she was shocked at how people refused to have anything to do with the issue of 'diversity' and trying to subvert the serious topic into something else (for example, 'You are calling me a racist! How dare you call me a racist! I am a nice person!').

Oh well. Made sense to me. All he was asking was people LISTEN to him in response to their actually ASKING him how they can help.

Thank you.

But this is why it is also an engendered issue. I cannot imagine a Black woman using this 'violent' incident as an example of how a black woman is not heard by a white man.

May be the message he does want to give is 'If white women don't listen to my warning then they will be pushed aside'. But I perceive this sort of physical analogy as archetypal male. A better analogy would be 'I shouted at her to stop, she ignored me, and fell down an open drain.' Then ask, 'Did she ignore me because she saw a black man as threatening rather than caring?' Then go into the please listen to me.