Jump to content

Increasing state-authorized/Mandated segregation


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Lol, no, I'm not rewriting anything whatsoever. I'm a linguist who's been studying racism for a decade.

I wonder if your decade study of racism involves actually interacting with people of other cultures, socioeconomic groups and yes, races?

I ask that question because it seems your comments focus on abstractions that seem divorced from actual real world interactions with real people.  You definitely have a point of view, but maybe you see everyone as racist because studying racism is all you do?  Maybe you haven't experienced people of different races interacting with one another without race being a consideration. People who love one another for who they are individually without considering, or even notice their different skin colors.  You might not believe such a thing is possible if you haven't actually lived it.

 

 

 

Edited by Danzo
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Your smug holier than thou pompous-$&@hatery is why I do not engage with you so very very much....yes we get you are better than all of us, thank you for responding to me - one so unworthy of your presence.

I've been around here for a long time now.  I've watched a lot of interactions. I've seen Dan McClellan post over the years. I've seen your posts over the years.  Dan's credibility exceeds yours by orders of magnitude. It's also hilarious to see you claim to be defending the Prophet by engaging in name calling and profanity about a fellow believer. Unreal. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

Every last word of this hangs on the blithe rejection of the absolutely indisputable reality of widespread systemic power asymmetries.

You have to pretend there are no such power imbalances for any notion of "discrimination against white people" to mean anything at all, but since those power imbalances are simply a fact, you're basically spouting rhetorical prophylaxis for white supremacy by insisting the steps necessary to dismantle it would just be too unfair to white people.

And your appeal to ridicule doesn't really work.

I'll give you two examples. (1) "Our interests" are the 300 pieces of legislation written by almost unilaterally white state legislatures across this country in the past year that seek explicitly––openly––to disenfranchise minority voters. (2) "Our interests" are also unilaterally white legislative bodies in Utah writing resolutions and passing rules given to them by white right wing authoritarians that ludicrously frame critical race theory as outright racism and then seek to ban it, all while ignoring the terror this is subjecting on minorities in light of the fact that CRT is one of the keys to understanding how systemic racism works and then dismantling it.  

I prepared a response to the rest of your post, but I get the sense you're not going to engage honestly or in good faith. I'd love for you to prove me wrong, so I'm saving my response. I want to see if you blithely appeal to RWA, SDO, and CBRI in an attempt at rhetorical prophylaxis for white power structures or if you're going to actually engage the data with something approximating a critical perspective.

Yep, look no further than here in Texas where such a voting bill was just defeated, however, the governor is vowing to bring it back to life in a special session. Discrimination is alive and well, unfortunately. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

And why are whites not living there in the first place?

Perhaps they could afford to move out and had places to move to where other minorities could not. 

Um, we were building new houses. I don't think it be very healthy for white folks to move in.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

No, there are no parts of this country where white people "don't go." There are parts where they may not like to go, or where they feel scared to go, but white people still go to those places. You even acknowledged in your own post that you go to those places. Also, those places where white folks don't like to go are precisely the places to which white folks spent generations trying to confine Black folks. They have been trapped there. They want to get out of those places real bad, but we continue to reinforce the systems that trap them there, all the while blaming them for what we've done to them.

Now, can you tell me precisely where on Harvard's campus those places are where white people "don't go"? 

You did not answer my question. I have never been to Harvard I couldn't tell you. Have you spent any time in South Central? Have you spent any time in Compton? Have you spent any time in similar places in Detroit and New York City?

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Um, we were building new houses. I don't think it be very healthy for white folks to move in.

So it was a brand new development where there was no one living before and only blacks were buying lots and building homes there?  And it was a new development with a nasty crime rate?

Otherwise, I would guess the area has a complicated history of first occupants with movements into and away from the neighbourhood. 

Link to comment

I find that there are things that seem to work when talking to someone on the other side of our leanings on race issues: treating another’s lack of understanding of your position just as you would if they were poor or disadvantaged in some other, material way. Begin with speaking their language so that you can then introduce, acclimate and transition them to using terms that are not familiar or threatening to them. Ask questions rather than tell them so they can draw the desired conclusions -- invite interest rather than use your knowledge as a hammer (often used by the newly converted as they practice their new paradigm). Of course, the old go-to, active listening…  In addition to facts and statistics, insert some humanity with illuminating personal examples.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Um, we were building new houses. I don't think it be very healthy for white folks to move in.

In other words, it's the agency of white folks that perpetuates the segregation. Our neighborhood here in Herriman angrily killed a proposal to build low-income housing nearby a few years ago. The discussions online were littered with references to "the kinds of people" that would be moving in. It baffles me that folks who think all this is ok actually presume to lecture others about what racism really is. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, provoman said:

I get it, 

All racism is bad, but some racism isn't as bad as others.

When the Nazis threw the Jews into the gas chambers it was clearly an expression of hatred. The problem is no one stops to consider that the Jews being gassed may have hated the Nazis too, especially when they realized what was happening. So really are the Jews any better? Both sides are equally racist and equally the cause of the problem.

-Nazi apologist taking the same tact on this you are

Link to comment
6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Forgive me for asking, but what would a "good faith response" from @smac97 or anyone coming from his perspective look like to you? 

Any response that does not further use real or feigned naivety, fallacy, or rhetorical deflection just to avoid having to acknowledge the indisputable reality of systemic power asymmetries.

Quote

It appears that you have entirely discounted from the get-go approaches which you regard as proceeding from positions of right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, or colorblind racial ideology.

Yes, I have been studying these approaches for many years, and I have found them entirely lacking. Their validity does not need to be relitigated every time someone tells me, "Nu-uh!" 

Quote

Your description of them as "rhetorical prophylaxis for white power structures" is inherently delegitimizing

I consider carrying water for white supremacy to be inherently illegitimate, whether or not the individual does so knowingly. 

Quote

- you're referring to the arguments (if not the employers of said arguments) as foot soldiers for a profound evil.

That was me for many years. As I have already posted in this thread, I recognize it's a big hurdle to get over to realize how harmful and corrosive that rhetorical position is. It took me years to get over it myself.

Quote

It appears to me that someone has to adopt the basic tenets of your position in order for you to consider them as a good-faith conversation partner from the start - is that an accurate characterization? 

Yes, those tenets are that these questions have been researched for decades and have ample data available, and that minorities have consensus perspectives that matter just as much as a white person's. Neither tenet is too much to ask. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

In other words, it's the agency of white folks that perpetuates the segregation. Our neighborhood here in Herriman angrily killed a proposal to build low-income housing nearby a few years ago. The discussions online were littered with references to "the kinds of people" that would be moving in. It baffles me that folks who think all this is ok actually presume to lecture others about what racism really is. 

In some ways we have come a long way towards equality. When we lived in Virginia, I learned that when our town was chartered, it specifically said that only "members of the Caucasian race" were allowed to live within the town boundaries. The town was founded in 1962. On the other hand, this thread is a pretty good illustration of how far we have yet to go. As I mentioned, President Kennedy spoke in 1962 as if racism was a thing of the past, just as some people are saying it today.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, provoman said:

I get it, 

All racism is bad, but some racism isn't as bad as others.

See here you're asserting your own conceptualization of racism as something that is not attached to power structures in an effort to protect white interests and power structures, even after I demonstrated to you that that conceptualization is a revisionist one that was developed during the Civil Rights Movement precisely to protect white interests and power structures. You can't even engage the facts, you just have to ignore them and reassert your own naive rhetoric in the hopes it works this time. Good grief, do better.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Any response that does not further use real or feigned naivety, fallacy, or rhetorical deflection just to avoid having to acknowledge the indisputable reality of systemic power asymmetries.

Yes, I have been studying these approaches for many years, and I have found them entirely lacking. Their validity does not need to be relitigated every time someone tells me, "Nu-uh!" 

I consider carrying water for white supremacy to be inherently illegitimate, whether or not the individual does so knowingly. 

That was me for many years. As I have already posted in this thread, I recognize it's a big hurdle to get over to realize how harmful and corrosive that rhetorical position is. It took me years to get over it myself.

Yes, those tenets are that these questions have been researched for decades and have ample data available, and that minorities have consensus perspectives that matter just as much as a white person's. Neither tenet is too much to ask. 

Yes, the OP and other posts like it want to remove discussion of racial disparities from their context. The high-minded notion of being "color blind" to race works really well in the abstract, but in a real-life context, it tends to paper over and perpetuate asymmetrical power structures.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

You did not answer my question. I have never been to Harvard I couldn't tell you. Have you spent any time in South Central? Have you spent any time in Compton? Have you spent any time in similar places in Detroit and New York City?

South Central, yes. Not Compton, Detroit, or NYC, but I did attend an elementary school that was 90% African-American and I did live and work for several years in Dallas, as well as in urban centers in other countries. I don't see how any of these experiences impact my ability to evaluate the data that have been gathered over decades regarding the relevance socio-economic trends and dynamics.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, ttribe said:

I've been around here for a long time now.  I've watched a lot of interactions. I've seen Dan McClellan post over the years. I've seen your posts over the years.  Dan's credibility exceeds yours by orders of magnitude. It's also hilarious to see you claim to be defending the Prophet by engaging in name calling and profanity about a fellow believer. Unreal. 

Hey, don't be praising him too much. Wouldn't want him to get tainted with the approval of apostates. 🤣

Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So really are the Jews any better? Both sides are equally racist and equally the cause of the problem

First of all nehor, I know I joke on here a lot but I'm not joking this time. I'm asking this because I'm trying to wrap my head around how some of the more progressive members on here think. I don't mind listening to opposite points of view.  The statement above, would you mind explaining in further detail what you mean? 

Link to comment
23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have long appreciated that the Church local congregations are largely determined by geography.  The Church does have "language" wards (our stake as a "Spanish" ward and a "Japanese" ward), but anyone can attend. 

The Church also has "Polynesian" wards that are, as I understand it, not based on "language" but on broad shared cultural/ethnic bonds.  These are something of an anomaly in the Church, but I think they persist because, well, they tend to be very effect.  My sister-in-law is from Samoa, so my brother - a haole - has for many years attended a Polynesian ward.  In fact, he is currently the bishop of the ward.

I'm not sure what the criteria are for getting records transferred to a Polynesian ward.  My sense is that the rules are somewhat lax.  We had a young man in our ward transfer his records to a local Polynesian ward for a while.  He is not Polynesian and has never lived in the islands.  But he had some Poly friends and they appeared to have an influence on him.

Anyway, there is not, in my view, race-based segregation in the Church.  I have been in my ward for 15 years, and have seen people of many, many different racial/ethnic/cultural backgrounds cycle through (I live near BYU in Provo, so we have a lot of turnover).

I am, however, concerned about the return of segregation in other segments of society.  But where old-school "segregation" favored and privileged white people, the current trend goes in other directions.

Race-based "Hang-outs" and "Safe Spaces":

Race-based healthcare:

Race-based housing and roommate selection:

Race-based grading and selection of teachers/students:

Race-based student orientations and graduation ceremonies:

Race-based student events and training/educational opportunities:

Race-based "training" sessions:

Obviously there is some nuance and differentiation to be applied here, but in broad strokes these trends are pretty troubling.  

Much of the rot seems to be coming from college campuses and government.  In other words, from power structures and institutions.  

I would like to discuss what we as individuals, and as members of the Church, do to address and correct these things.  Certainly there are legal and political options available (I'd rather not discuss them here), but are there additional things we can do as private individuals?  As members of the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Wow privilege much?

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

You did not answer my question. I have never been to Harvard I couldn't tell you. Have you spent any time in South Central? Have you spent any time in Compton? Have you spent any time in similar places in Detroit and New York City?

There are places in San Francisco I would not go without family and/or friends, same in Hawaii.  Even reservations can be like that, not all of them like whites.  I don't hold a grudge over it, it is what it is. When I look at the racism against Asians and natives that gets  swept under the rug till it affects the privileged I can see why the anger persists.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/sequim-neighbors-fight-to-block-tribes-plans-for-an-opioid-treatment-center/

Great example here, they were willing to help anyone and the privileged people said the natives were there to take the land back. 

Edited by poptart
Link to comment
Just now, The Nehor said:

What do you not understand?

It is showing the asymmetrical nature of hatred due to disparities in power. Saying that all racism is equal is saying that the person who hatefully condemns people to live in slums and the people who live in the slums that hate those in power are equally at fault for the situation and ignores the obvious question. If one side has the power to change the situation and the other side has little power saying that both sides are the problem is reductive and foolish.

I thought your point was pretty obvious, and certainly more thoughtful than a South Park clip. 🙄

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

South Central, yes. Not Compton, Detroit, or NYC, but I did attend an elementary school that was 90% African-American and I did live and work for several years in Dallas, as well as in urban centers in other countries. I don't see how any of these experiences impact my ability to evaluate the data that have been gathered over decades regarding the relevance socio-economic trends and dynamics.

I was just disputing your statement that blacks had nowhere to go to be in an area with no whites around . Perhaps I misunderstood you and you meant at the universities in question. 

Edited by rodheadlee
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...