Why Black Panther is a litmus test for society.

[Subduction Zone]

It is true that one can find instances of racism towards "whites," but the existence of such does nothing to distinguish between degree, mode, prevalence, and power.

I do not find the "see, black people do it too, so it's even" a convincing argument.

As usual you take the argument out of context. Nice job.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The American Negro never can be blamed for his racial animosities - he is only reacting to 400 years of the conscious racism of the American whites."

-Malcolm X

And that is an example that is no more helpful than the sewage that David Duke has spewed. It appears when you say that that some black people are looking for an excuse to be racist.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

And that is an example that is no more helpful than the sewage that David Duke has spewed. It appears when you say that that some black people are looking for an excuse to be racist.

There is no excuse for anyone to be disrespectful. But like anything when people have succumbed to a system where their phenotype was a hindrance to succeed and have lived a life of systemic oppression perhaps you may understand the racial resentment some African-Americans have in the United States. Perhaps it is hard for you to see that why that is important to understand and perhaps it is even a greater task for you to understand why the OP is so important.

 

[sayak83]

Sunstone was implying in a sarcastic way that was the point..

I don't need reactions to Black Panther to realize we don't live in a post racial society. It's quite obvious that racist prejudices exist and are still ubiquitous throughout the world in most communities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no excuse for anyone to be disrespectful. But like anything when people have succumbed to a system where their phenotype was a hindrance to succeed and have lived a life of systemic oppression perhaps you may understand the racial resentment some African-Americans have in the United States. Perhaps it is hard for you to see that why that is important to understand and perhaps it is even a greater task for you to understand why the OP is so important.

There is no doubt about the history. The problem with Malcolm X's statement is that it harms progress in solving these issues instead of helping them. I like Martin Luther King's approach much better.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

There is no doubt about the history. The problem with Malcolm X's statement is that it harms progress in solving these issues instead of helping them. I like Martin Luther King's approach much better.

MLK was passive, something that was mild enough for "white acceptance" so of course people like MLK. Remember, Malcolm who reformed his thoughts later on, dared to challenge white authority. This was problematic because Malcolm was perceived as the "angry negro" whereas MLK was seen as the "good negro" this is the field negro/house negro politics that many social scientists tend to discuss. No doubt MLK provided a more multicultural approach, but Malcolm was very pragmatic about the reality of people of color during that time. I think that thought traverse to what we see today.

If I want to know why a people are angry about something I look in the background and open my mind up to the possibility as to why they're angry not impose my thought as to why they shouldn't be angry. That is one of the reasons why I can sympathize with the Palestinian cause. If I lived in a house for decades and a commission said I had to move out because they want to have some people whom I've never met, move right in, I'd have some resentment.

 

[sayak83]

MLK was passive, something that was mild enough for "white acceptance" so of course people like MLK. Remember, Malcolm who reformed his thoughts later on, dared to challenge white authority. This was problematic because Malcolm was perceived as the "angry negro" whereas MLK was seen as the "good negro" this is the field negro/house negro politics that many social scientists tend to discuss. No doubt MLK provided a more multicultural approach, but Malcolm was very pragmatic about the reality of people of color during that time. I think that thought traverse to what we see today.

If I want to know why a people are angry about something I look in the background and open my mind up to the possibility as to why they're angry not impose my thought as to why they shouldn't be angry. That is one of the reasons why I can sympathize with the Palestinian cause. If I lived in a house for decades and a commission said I had to move out because they want to have some people whom I've never met, move right in, I'd have some resentment.

Who was more effective? Malcolm X and his movement or MLK and his movement?

By the way, do you feel angry yourself?

 

[Subduction Zone]

MLK was passive, something that was mild enough for "white acceptance" so of course people like MLK. Remember, Malcolm who reformed his thoughts later on, dared to challenge white authority. This was problematic because Malcolm was perceived as the "angry negro" whereas MLK was seen as the "good negro" this is the field negro/house negro politics that many social scientists tend to discuss. No doubt MLK provided a more multicultural approach, but Malcolm was very pragmatic about the reality of people of color during that time. I think that thought traverse to what we see today.

If I want to know why a people are angry about something I look in the background and open my mind up to the possibility as to why they're angry not impose my thought as to why they shouldn't be angry. That is one of the reasons why I can sympathize with the Palestinian cause. If I lived in a house for decades and a commission said I had to move out because they want to have some people whom I've never met, move right in, I'd have some resentment.

MLK was far from being a "house negro". He had a way of change that worked for everyone. Violence tends to earn violence in return. Take the Palestinian problem that you mentioned. It began because the Jews were attacked for merely being Jews and living in Israel and earning their own country. It escalated from there.

 

[Curious George]

As usual you take the argument out of context. Nice job.

Please articulate the argument for me, and others like me, that are clearly misunderstanding your nuance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please articulate the argument for me, and others like me, that are clearly misunderstanding your nuance.

You have demonstrated that you are not worth the effort. This is a typical ploy of yours. If I knew that you would change your ways then I would have no problem doing so.

 

[Curious George]

You have demonstrated that you are not worth the effort. This is a typical ploy of yours. If I knew that you would change your ways then I would have no problem doing so.

That is fine. I will let your words speak for themselves.

When offered an example of disparate, racially charged treatment, you said:

Amazing, apparently China is racist against blacks but not against whites. Does that make any sense at all? And yes, there are still racist jerks in America. So what? One can always find jerks in any large enough group. Social media allows such lies to spread quickly, but please note that they were also shut down in rather short order.

When the person replied that racism was a relevant and prevalent topic that affects him, you said:

Yes, I know there is still racism. In fact I was listening to a rather fascinating talk on NPR about "implicit bias". Here is a link to a blurb about the show. You can follow the links to the podcast if you wish:

The Mind Of The Village: Understanding Our Implicit Biases

And I can find examples of African Americans that are just about as bad as the losers that made false reports, they too are far out of the norm. That is why I said "so what". Dealing with the problems of implicit bias are more important than dealing with a few losers.

That sounds very much like the " so what, black people do it too, therefore it is even" argument to me.

 

[Jumi]

Seems the US is among the top countries when it comes to racial tolerance.

A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries

This is probably a decent starting point, but I think the idea of "different race" might be problematic since sometimes you can't really tell between two races if they wear the same styles of dress and they still might have strong bias against each other as "races".

 

[Nakosis]

This is probably a decent starting point, but I think the idea of "different race" might be problematic since sometimes you can't really tell between two races if they wear the same styles of dress and they still might have strong bias against each other as "races".

So?

People are going to have biases. Either about race, culture, religion or something else. As long as folks can treat each other fairly, that's really good enough.

You don't have to like your neighbor or agree with your neighbor as long as long as you're not doing anything adversely to affect their pursuit of happiness.

 

[Nakosis]

Barack Obama effigy with "pray for assassin" in Alabama community

Quran-burning pastor hangs Obama effigy outside church - theGrio

Ky. man defends racist roadside Obama effigy

Kansas student apologizes for blackface photo, using racial slur

Is Brazil the new home of blackface? What’s driving an apparent fascination with wearing this makeup?

You sure?

There are always going to be folks doing things to get attention. The more attention they are given they more they will continue.

I'm hoping most folks got better things to do then be offended by every idiot doing something like this to get attention. And maybe if no one pays them any attention, they'll get bored and move on to something else.

 

[Jumi]

So?

People are going to have biases. Either about race, culture, religion or something else. As long as folks can treat each other fairly, that's really good enough.

You don't have to like your neighbor or agree with your neighbor as long as long as you're not doing anything adversely to affect their pursuit of happiness.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the ethics you propose here. What I'm saying is that asking the question in one country is different from another, so the results aren't really comparable across countries.'

Reading from the links, it seem the original authors thought of my objection...

(2) Different people might hear the question differently.

Saideman writes, "In some places, when one is asked this question, they may think of a single race, perhaps the Vietnamese think of the Chinese but not of other races. So it may not be that the people are very racist in general — they just hate one group that is defined by race." In other words, if Vietnam scored as particularly intolerant (they did), that might just be because they're less tolerant toward the race that popped into their heads first — e.g. the Chinese — than they are of other races in general. This makes it tougher to compare across countries.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

There are always going to be folks doing things to get attention. The more attention they are given they more they will continue.

I'm hoping most folks got better things to do then be offended by every idiot doing something like this to get attention. And maybe if no one pays them any attention, they'll get bored and move on to something else.

Sometimes these idiots do this...Nobody gets bored when people don't pay them attention, again only ignorant white people think that way.

 

[Nakosis]

Sometimes these idiots do this...Nobody gets bored when people don't pay them attention, again only ignorant white people think that way.

You understand, I hope, there is a difference between these acts.

Free speech, free expression is not equal to violence.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You understand, I hope, there is a difference between these acts.

Free speech, free expression is not equal to violence.

There is no such thing as free speech...Note I cannot say my boss is a "***" because he is homosexual openly, I'll get written up, besides it is rude and disrespectful. People think hate speech means you're allowed to speak your mind without consequence. Emmitt Till was black and supposedly whistled at a white woman who later in a tell all book claimed she lied, which led to the death of Emmitt Till.....Would you like to know what they did to him because he was "colored?"

"The two men then beat him nearly to death, gouged out his eye, shot him in the head and then threw his body, tied to the cotton-gin fan with barbed wire, into the river.

Three days later, his corpse was recovered but was so disfigured that Mose Wright could only identify it by an initialed ring. Authorities wanted to bury the body quickly, but Till’s mother, Mamie Bradley, requested it be sent back to Chicago.

After seeing the mutilated remains, she decided to have an open-casket funeral so that all the world could see what racist murderers had done to her only son."

See: Emmett Till is murdered - Aug 28, 1955 - HISTORY.com

Yes there is a difference but its all the same to those who lived it...

 

[Nakosis]

There is no such thing as free speech...Note I cannot say my boss is a "***" because he is homosexual openly, I'll get written up, besides it is rude and disrespectful. People think hate speech means you're allowed to speak your mind without consequence.

Of course, every action has a consequence which one should expect to deal with.

No one is going to arrest you for calling your boss a ***. You would however get in legal trouble for calling someone a *** in an interview and then not hiring them. Laws are in place with protect folks from this kind of discrimination.

There is a difference between a legal act, an illegal act and your boss firing you for being rude.

Emmitt Till was black and supposedly whistled at a white woman who later in a tell all book claimed she lied, which led to the death of Emmitt Till.....Would you like to know what they did to him because he was "colored?"

"The two men then beat him nearly to death, gouged out his eye, shot him in the head and then threw his body, tied to the cotton-gin fan with barbed wire, into the river.

Three days later, his corpse was recovered but was so disfigured that Mose Wright could only identify it by an initialed ring. Authorities wanted to bury the body quickly, but Till’s mother, Mamie Bradley, requested it be sent back to Chicago.

After seeing the mutilated remains, she decided to have an open-casket funeral so that all the world could see what racist murderers had done to her only son."

See: Emmett Till is murdered - Aug 28, 1955 - HISTORY.com

Yes there is a difference but its all the same to those who lived it...

A terrible thing which happened in the past. Let's hope such horrible events stay in the past.

So do you think this was a legal act, an illegal act or just someone being rude?

It's all the same? No it is not... He'd still be alive if the worst they had done to him was make a rude comment.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Of course, every action has a consequence which one should expect to deal with.

No one is going to arrest you for calling your boss a ***. You would however get in legal trouble for calling someone a *** in an interview and then not hiring them. Laws are in place with protect folks from this kind of discrimination.

There is a difference between a legal act, an illegal act and your boss firing you for being rude.




A terrible thing which happened in the past. Let's hope such horrible events stay in the past.

So do you think this was a legal act, an illegal act or just someone being rude?

It's all the same? No it is not... He'd still be alive if the worst they had done to him was make a rude comment.

It's all the same to people who lived through it. It is all the same when Chinese say it was too dark..