• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

White self-hatred.... it's impact on mixed race people and families?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jim Crow laws were horrible. Nobody disputes that. I despise injustices towards all people. I suppose it is a failing in myself to not see how your "Two Words: Jim Crow." rebuttal / educational tidbit refutes my point that great sacrifices were made on both sides, long ago, in the name of justice, and that dwelling on the past does nothing useful to impact the future. We must acknowledge the past, be mindful of it and its lessons, and learn from xyr-story, so in order to not repeat it.
 
Hundreds of thousands of white males died between 1861 - 1865 in the USA so that coloured folks would not be treated as property. Isn't that payment enough?
No. Emphatically no.

Your premise wrongly presupposes that black people owe the nation a debt for "rescuing" them from the very conditions that the nation itself imposed on them in the first place by kidnapping, enslaving, torturing, separating them from family, and killing them, and that the sacrifices of the Union soldiers in the Civil War were somehow wiping that debt clean. If an arsonist sets a house on fire and then pulls a family out of the burning house, he doesn't get to give out an exasperated "You're welcome!" like he's owed something, and in fact he still owes the family a debt for setting their house on fire in the first place.

This also neglects the fact that hundreds of thousands of black freedmen and escaped slaves from the North and South also fought for their own freedom and the freedom of their compatriots, and others rebelled as they could while still in bondage.

Regardless of why Union soldiers chose to fight: whether it was because they were trying to preserve the Union, or because they staunchly opposed slavery, or both; or whether they were a volunteer or because they were drafted, is largely irrelevant. They still gave their lives for a noble cause and that should be honored. But it doesn't mean we can just say "We good?" to black people about all the stuff that came before that precipitated the war. One thing has nothing to do with the other and should never be considered the motive for doing the right thing.

Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers also died on the battlefields of Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific in WW2, yet post-war we invested what in modern terms would be hundreds of billions of dollars in repairing the infrastructure of not only our allies but also our former enemies in Germany and Japan. If we can do that, why is there so much reluctance to also helping our own people who we wronged?

Some efforts were made to help black people after the Civil War during Reconstruction, but they were piecemeal, and rarely lived up to the promises made, and were accompanied by continued massive oppression that largely undermined their chances at recovery and improvement. We needed something along the scope of money invested in the Marshall Plan but directed towards helping former slaves move towards economic and social parity.
 
Your premise wrongly presupposes that black people owe the nation a debt for "rescuing" them from the very conditions that the nation itself imposed on them in the first place by kidnapping, enslaving, torturing, separating them from family, and killing them, and that the sacrifices of the Union soldiers in the Civil War were somehow wiping that debt clean. If an arsonist sets a house on fire and then pulls a family out of the burning house, he doesn't get to give out an exasperated "You're welcome!" like he's owed something, and in fact he still owes the family a debt for setting their house on fire in the first place.

You make an interesting point, but a more accurate comparison would be if said arsonist sets a house on fire and then pulls the family out of the burning house, but dies in the process. I think in this scenario, the residents of the house should indeed say, "We good." since the arsonist sacrificed his own life to save the family, even though he was wrong in the first place. Redemption is a real thing to believe in. I hope this post finds you in good health and spirits. :beer:
 
There are still pockets of racism, and I've been aghast at some of the videos of police brutality I've seen towards minorities, but the fact that the vast majority of people condemn those attitudes means that things are only ever moving in the right direction overall. USA has equality under the law, but nobody can control the opinions of another person, so there will unfortunately always be some racism at the individual level. But as a society, the USA is a great land of opportunity for all peoples.
There aren't "pockets of racism." There is still widespread individual and institutional racism in America. Is it better than it used to be in the 1860s-1960s? Absolutely, but that's not a very high bar to clear (nor does doing the bare minimum of what should be done to be a decent person deserve a pat on the back), and we've unfortunately been backsliding quite a bit as of late, or more accurately, the existing bigots have felt that they've been given permission by the openly and unapologetically bigoted powers-that-be to let their freak flag fly out in public, so to speak.

Nor do we have "equality under the law." That's the ideal we are supposed to strive for, but we are not remotely attaining it as of yet. There is still vastly unequal treatment of minorities (and especially black people) by law enforcement, and during prosecution, sentencing, and after release.

Nor are everyone's opportunities the same. That's kind of the point of the discussion about privilege that's been a running theme throughout and certain people are reluctant to accept.

I suppose it is a failing in myself to not see how your "Two Words: Jim Crow." rebuttal / educational tidbit refutes my point that great sacrifices were made on both sides, long ago, in the name of justice, and that dwelling on the past does nothing useful to impact the future.
Okay, I can sort of understand not getting that "coloured people" is an outdated term given the language differences (I'm assuming you're from Britain given the spelling of "coloured"?), and even though the whole clean slate on slavery because of the sacrifices of the Civil War thing made me a bit squicky, I was willing to let that slide too with just a rebuttal.

But I'm gonna have to push back hard on the "very fine people on both sides" "sacrificing themselves for justice" narrative you're developing here. It's got my "the Confederacy was a noble Lost Cause" Spidey-Sense tingling, so let's just drop that before it goes any further, mmkay?
 
You make an interesting point, but a more accurate comparison would be if said arsonist sets a house on fire and then pulls the family out of the burning house, but dies in the process. I think in this scenario, the residents of the house should indeed say, "We good." since the arsonist sacrificed his own life to save the family, even though he was wrong in the first place.
No. The United States wasn't destroyed by the Civil War, it didn't die in the process, only some of its population did, so that analogy won't begin to cut it.
 
You make an interesting point, but a more accurate comparison would be if said arsonist sets a house on fire and then pulls the family out of the burning house, but dies in the process. I think in this scenario, the residents of the house should indeed say, "We good." since the arsonist sacrificed his own life to save the family, even though he was wrong in the first place. Redemption is a real thing to believe in. I hope this post finds you in good health and spirits. :beer:
And therein lies the danger in using analogies for serious subjects. My bad. Well, sort of my bad, since I did also explicitly mention in the same passage that I was talking about the national debt owed on slavery and had made that a running theme through my past several posts, so... anyway.

I wasn't talking about individual sacrifices, I was talking about the nation as a whole. The United States as an entity didn't die in the Civil War. The United States (or rather the European owned colonies that preceded it) instituted the Atlantic slave trade to the colonies and the US continued it and the practice of slavery. So when part of the United States finally brought the practice to an end in another formerly United part of the States, that doesn't absolve the nation of its responsibility to make amends for the damage that it had originally caused.
 
Last edited:
Nor do we have "equality under the law." That's the ideal we are supposed to strive for, but we are not remotely attaining it as of yet.
Please, I'm genuinely interested in knowing, which laws (specifically) in the USA are unfair towards a certain group? These are laws I would like to help change.

But I'm gonna have to push back hard on the "very fine people on both sides" "sacrificing themselves for justice" narrative you're developing here. It's got my "the Confederacy was a noble Lost Cause" Spidey-Sense tingling, so let's just drop that before it goes any further, mmkay?

Sorry! Didn't mean to sound like a Confederate apologist (although I firmly believe in there being two sides to every story, and that people cannot judge their ancestors by today's standards), but I was certainly not referring to Union/Confederate when talking about the "''very fine people on both sides' 'sacrificing themselves for justice' narrative," rather Black/White relations in general. Sorry for the confusion! That being said, according to President Lincoln, Confederate veterans are to be considered American veterans, and from what I understand, that has always been important in the healing of a nation. While things sound dicey from this dialogue, I know of plenty of (white) Americans that cheer on other (black) Americans in their aspirations (notice I tried to not emphasize coloured adjectives), so I do have hope for the future
 
I think there's a lot of mileage between three separate propositions here;
1) Racism against white people is inherently impossible
2) Racism against white people currently does not exist
3) Racism against white people can and does exist but does not represent the prevailing systemic trend.

I'm inclined to go with the third option and by and large take an analogous position with sexism. On an individual basis pretty much any form of bigotry is possible and scaled up to a societal level that becomes the norm. However at the moment at least white people do not statistically represent an underclass, we do not commonly face institutional or systemic prejudice or discrimination.

There will always be exceptions to any rule, any statistical construct, but that rule is in play and does have historical causes. We have, historically, oppressed you on a societal level and to ignore that is to walk blindly into a situation where old habits inherent to the very fabric of our society will never be challenged. The reverse is not true, at least not at the moment. Our society is not structured around anti white bias, nor does it show (to my mind) any imminent danger of that situation coming about.

However I do agree with you, human nature is universal and our tribal nature is very much a part of that. The pendulum could easily swing, with the worst aspects of our nature accentuated by the best of intentions. If the old adage about learning from history really needs to mean something it needs to be more than lip service.

I totally agree, racism against white people is not a systemic trend and at no point have i argued that is the case. My issue is with language being used with it being dehumanising, 'othering' and potentially dangerous. It's a bigoted attitude to have that i think hurts the cause more than it helps it. I don't think the answer to bigotry is by responding with bigotry.

I don't disagree that there are, but most of those are side products of the very system we are talking about.
"Men usually lose in family court" - because of the deepset ideal that a mother is the 'natural' caregiver and the default parent. Women care for children.
"Men's mental health and suicide rate" is hardly surprising when we are taught from birth the only emotion that we are permitted to express is anger (theres the male on male violence too), that crying or seeking help are girly and weak, and we should just 'man up'.
"domestic violence against males often goes unreported" for the same reason. How could a man, with his muscly manliness ever admit being at risk from a little girl? He needs to grow a pair and stop acting like a woman. And as for male rape victims? Please. Men love sex. If you don't, there's something wrong with you. And if a man raped you, well he made you his bitch, so there's some grade A shame in reporting that. People might think you're... you know.

And so on and so on. The patriarchy affects everyone, that's what the HeForShe movement is all about, men's roles are shaped by it too. But I disagree that it's 'reverse sexism', just regular sexism, but men are caught out in the crossfire. Hoisted by their own petard, you might say.

I never made any claims towards 'reverse sexism' but i agree with much of what you have just wrote. The point I am trying to make is that men are as much victims of the system as women and minorities, just in a different way, but this is routinely ignored and diminished. The struggles of men are not the same as the struggles of women or people of colour obviously, but that doesn't make them any less valid. Decrying men as oppressors whilst ignoring the ways in which men are oppressed does more harm than good.

We're all in this together, but the current trend of victimhood hierarchies and the invalidation of the issues of certain segments of society on either side of the spectrum is inherently damaging to the end goal of equality.
 
Please, I'm genuinely interested in knowing, which laws (specifically) in the USA are unfair towards a certain group? These are laws I would like to help change.
Oh, we could go into another long subject on that, but since my time is limited at the moment, I'll just post this article which is a good summary of some of the unequal justice faced by African-Americans and Latinos:
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...or-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/

Sorry! Didn't mean to sound like a Confederate apologist (although I firmly believe in there being two sides to every story, and that people cannot judge their ancestors by today's standards), but I was certainly not referring to Union/Confederate when talking about the "''very fine people on both sides' 'sacrificing themselves for justice' narrative," rather Black/White relations in general. Sorry for the confusion!
Thank you for clarifying that, it's appreciated.
 
Well the problem is, societies tend to run for the benefit of whomever the majority group is in that society. It doesn't have to be on purpose, it's just numbers. And again unfortunately, there are shitheads who think they're better than said minorities and treat that group like crap.

I hate to say it, but I don't think that minorities in any society will get equal treatment. It's just not human nature. I'd really like to be wrong about this, but observation proves me right. People suck.

It's so easy - or it should be so easy: Decent, kind, good people = desirable; bad, criminal, mean people = undesirable. Who gives a shit about physical differences.
 
I hate to say it, but I don't think that minorities in any society will get equal treatment. It's just not human nature. I'd really like to be wrong about this, but observation proves me right. People suck.

But change is possible.
In the Netherlands a small group of people has problems with black piet, so they are going to change the looks of black piet
 
No. The United States wasn't destroyed by the Civil War, it didn't die in the process, only some of its population did, so that analogy won't begin to cut it.
The arsonist survived the house burning and then told the family 'I'll build you a new and better house' and then proceeds to leave them with an old, roofless, wooden shack that a mouse would not live in. However across the road the same arsonist builds himself a mansion and yet pats himself on the back for his separate but equal housing policy and after church on Sundays decides hanging his 'coloured' neighbour's male relatives is a great idea. Such a system is the norm for 100 years.
 
Last edited:
Oh, we could go into another long subject on that, but since my time is limited at the moment, I'll just post this article which is a good summary of some of the unequal justice faced by African-Americans and Latinos:
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...or-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/

Thank you for the response and the link. However, correlation does not equal causation. Again, I would like to know which laws discriminate against a specific group? Which laws in the USA need to be changed? And how? Or are you saying that what the USA needs is more equal enforcement of the current laws? If so, that seems to boil down to prejudice at an individual level. I apologise if I'm asking too many questions. I want justice for all people.
 
Last edited:
This is worth reading.
Inequality and racism exist not because of evil but because the unaffected majority put their interests above all others, and their inaction allows inequality to flourish. That is why I believe that silence in the presence of injustice is as bad as injustice itself. White people who are quiet about racism might not plant the seed, but their silence is sunlight.

Many of those people don’t speak out because they fear alienation more than they hate racism. For them, the fear of having someone furrow their brow in their direction outweighs their hatred of sending children to an underfunded school knowing that they don’t have an equal chance at success because of the color of their skin.

They know the reality of disproportionate police brutality, but they don’t have to worry about their children being shot in the face. Their kids receive good educations. Their kids can wear hoodies whenever they please. Little Amber and Connor’s résumés don’t get tossed in the trash because of their black-sounding names. Their children’s futures are determined only by work ethic and ability. Therefore, they stay silent on the sidelines.

That’s not evil.

That is cowardice.
 
Thank you for the response and the link. However, correlation does not equal causation. Again, I would like to know which laws discriminate against a specific group? Which laws in the USA need to be changed? And how? Or are you saying that what the USA needs is more equal enforcement of the current laws? If so, that seems to boil down to prejudice at an individual level. I apologise if I'm asking too many questions. I want justice for all people.

Understood but focusing on laws seems like a limited way to look at it. What if the laws are not equally enforced? Or if they weren't enforced for so long they did permanent damage that hasn't been repaired?

Equality under the law is important, but so is equality of political representation, equality of access to education, health care, economic opportunity. Inequality in those areas is not only plainly wrong and bad for certain communities, but creates problems for all of society.

Is the goal of the United States to have a permanent, racially delineated underclass? That's what an outside observer could reasonably conclude from the public policy decisions of the past 150 years.

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but try reading this with an open mind:
The Case for Reparations by Ta-Nehisi Coates

It's one of the best things I've read in the past 10 years. It's long, but it is so well-presented it flows right along. I won't comment any more, readers can judge for themselves.
 
Thank you for the response and the link. However, correlation does not equal causation.

People REALLY need to be taught this. Every poli-sci major learns this. If I wear Blu jeans three times this week and it rains each time, that DOES NOT mean that it will rain everytime I wear blue jeans. Same goes for every piece of data Ive seen used to make the point of " this law targets this group."

I would like to know which laws discriminate against a specific group? Which laws in the USA need to be changed? And how? Or are you saying that what the USA needs is more equal enforcement of the current laws? If so, that seems to boil down to prejudice at an individual level. I apologise if I'm asking too many questions. I want justice for all people.

There is no law in America that specifically says " for blacks only" or "for Hispanics only." It does not exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top