Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Critical Race Theory Critical Race Theory

04-25-2021 , 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
I never once argued that europeans didn't have an easier time assimilating than non-europeans.
The Irish stuff is definitely interesting but the intermarriages cited point to a bit more of a complex history there, but also show that their move toward 'whiteness' and their efforts to exclude blacks from jobs that they had moved into was for economic reasons-- which is what I argue you ignore in your racialized just so stories of discrimination, acceptance and betrayal.
The issue between us in not objective history-- it is your interpretations of it.
False,

You were trying to reduce the dynamic to JUST elites versus the rest.

I only added that these dynamics of race and/or xenophobia also played a big part and you could not exclude it and boil it down to simply 'elites'.

I agreed with you on the point of 'elites' generally but said it was simply too reductionist.

That is when you went off the rails suggesting my saying stuff about race and xenophobia was 'race war' stuff.

You were so set on your simplistic, reductionist view that you were prepared to deny historical accuracy accounts, because you refused to believe it would be true if it did not fit your narrative.
04-25-2021 , 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
False,



You were trying to reduce the dynamic to JUST elites versus the rest.



I only added that these dynamics of race and/or xenophobia also played a big part and you could not exclude it and boil it down to simply 'elites'.



I agreed with you on the point of 'elites' generally but said it was simply too reductionist.



That is when you went off the rails suggesting my saying stuff about race and xenophobia was 'race war' stuff.



You were so set on your simplistic, reductionist view that you were prepared to deny historical accuracy accounts, because you refused to believe it would be true if it did not fit your narrative.
Nah you're just making stuff up here. And it's actually your views that are super reductionistic.
You treat masses of people as monoliths.
04-25-2021 , 06:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
“Inside of the Family Circle”: Irish and African American Interracial Marriage in New York City’s Eighth Ward, 1870
The census for Manhattan’s Eighth Ward — an area that was perceived, according to contemporary accounts, as a predominantly African American neighborhood — reveals a community made up of native-born Americans, both black and white, freed slaves, and a diverse population of immigrants from Europe, Africa, Egypt, and the West Indies. Among these are Irish and African American residents living together as neighbors and, in some cases, as families. This close proximity, and a unique and significant pattern of intermarriage between immigrant Irish women and African American men within the Eighth Ward in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War and the Draft Riots, indicates the possibility of a much greater level of interracial stability and intimacy than has been presumed in discourses about Irish and black relations during this period in New York and, indeed, in the United States.2 In the historical literature, a narrative that largely privileges evidence of conflict between men has created a simplified picture of interracial relations, one that overlooks the experience of women, and more broadly dismisses the ways in which gender and class informed the experiences of race as it was constructed on many different social levels. Indeed, understandings of both Irish and African American history are left significantly incomplete without deeper exploration of Irish and African American residential patterns and intermarriage, cooperation, and intimacy.
Fairly long piece here out of the Journal of Irish Studies that looks at interracial marriage. The numbers were not huge not but nothing either. Usually with Irish women marrying black men.
John McWhorter could be Irish even.
FWIW Irish women and the newphie women they became in Canada still love black men.

If you are young black man looking to sow your oats easily visit either place for a vacation and hit the pubs. You will be a beloved novelty. Easiest of pickings as they are a very sexual liberated people.
04-25-2021 , 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
Nah you're just making stuff up here. And it's actually your views that are super reductionistic.
You treat masses of people as monoliths.
No I don't. I simply recounted history.

You did not know or understand that history and thus reacted to it as if some extreme version.

Again you have most recanted and accepted you are wrong but as is your want you don't want to own it so you will pretend it was me.

But you have basically accepted what I was saying all along while instead pretending i have changed it. And I have not.
04-25-2021 , 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
I look at it as America has been settled over time with different cohorts of people arriving at different periods of time.



So you can break the central europeans into separate groups of Italians, Etc or you can just refer to that dominant mostly similar group as a singular cohort.



That is not to say that the Italians, Irish, etc when they landed where not treated as the newest invaders to hit the land by the prior group who had got the similar treatment but where now settled.



But overall, this is largely 'Central European, Anglo Saxon, White skinned Male Group' has consolidated and accrued power and the structures to protect it.



i could say 'Central European, Anglo Saxon, White skinned Male Group' but just shorten it 'White cohort', but yes 'white elite' might be ok to but it is not as correct as the structures in place are meant to generally advantage all whites, with the elite whites knowing they will gain the most of that.



Reducing it to 'elites' or 'ruling class' would be very disingenuous as it then could be assumed this was an inclusive multi ethnic group generally an it is not.

This was the post that started this discussion. You cannot claim that it's not a view through the lens of race. You can argue however much you want about whichever aspects of you think are most true-- and as I've repeatedly said, some of them are.
But it is also not nearly as simple as this, and when you reduce it all down to race then you are involved in the business of the right wing. It's a reductive and racialized narrative, pure and simple.
That you have expanded on some aspects of the 19th century Irish experience does not make your narrative any less flawed. Again-- the issue isn't with objective historical reality-- but how you frame it through a purely racial lens.
04-25-2021 , 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
This was the post that started this discussion. You cannot claim that it's not a view through the lens of race. You can argue however much you want about whichever aspects of you think are most true-- and as I've repeatedly said, some of them are.
But it is also not nearly as simple as this, and when you reduce it all down to race then you are involved in the business of the right wing. It's a reductive and racialized narrative, pure and simple.
That you have expanded on some aspects of the 19th century Irish experience does not make your narrative any less flawed. Again-- the issue isn't with objective historical reality-- but how you frame it through a purely racial lens.
You had prior attempted to strip the function of race out and explain it as simply 'elite V masses'.

I said while that aspect is true, it is to reductionist to ignore the race aspect as well. Even if race was not their primary focus they realized it was the chief tool of achieving their means and so they used it.

So as not to pretend this was a multi-coloured elite it was important to point out they are white elite.


And yes my post above is accurate and appropriate to that argument. Thanks for showing me to be correct.
04-25-2021 , 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
You had prior attempted to strip the function of race out and explain it as simply 'elite V masses'.



I said while that aspect is true, it is to reductionist to ignore the race aspect as well. Even if race was not their primary focus they realized it was the chief tool of achieving their means and so they used it.



So as not to pretend this was a multi-coloured elite it was important to point out they are white elite.





And yes my post above is accurate and appropriate to that argument. Thanks for showing me to be correct.

The power dynamics that exist today in 2021 are not the same as existed 150 years ago. Elites vs masses is by and large the correct way to frame it today, and "race struggle" is not by a wide margin.
Historically this has been less the case, and indeed much of human history can be viewed as differing ethnic groups vying for control/power in the form of tribal warfare.
The modern world doesn't break down this way though and while race/ethnicity can still be a major factor that drives societies and their conflicts, it is no longer the primary factor. That's capitalism and those who run it.

Last edited by Luckbox Inc; 04-25-2021 at 09:09 PM.
04-25-2021 , 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
Today as waves arrive from Muslim countries they face the same, but a more extreme reaction..
Why would you say it is more extreme?
I haven’t seen any signs outside of businesses that say ‘Muslims need not apply’, for example, like there was for the Irish.

the racism that occurred in the past against any group of people was more blatant, extreme, and widely accepted then any racism going on today, do you not agree? I think society has progressed a lot in that way.

Doesn’t mean racism against Muslims is okay, and maybe I’m getting caught up on semantics here but that line seemed bizarre to me.
04-26-2021 , 07:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zedsdead
I haven’t seen any signs outside of businesses that say ‘Muslims need not apply’, for example, like there was for the Irish.

the racism that occurred in the past against any group of people was more blatant, extreme, and widely accepted then any racism going on today, do you not agree? I think society has progressed a lot in that way.
Your boy Trump literally ran on a platform of keeping Muslims from entering the country.
04-26-2021 , 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
The power dynamics that exist today in 2021 are not the same as existed 150 years ago. Elites vs masses is by and large the correct way to frame it today, and "race struggle" is not by a wide margin.
Historically this has been less the case, and indeed much of human history can be viewed as differing ethnic groups vying for control/power in the form of tribal warfare.
The modern world doesn't break down this way though and while race/ethnicity can still be a major factor that drives societies and their conflicts, it is no longer the primary factor. That's capitalism and those who run it.
We can agree to disagree as to how much of a role race still plays in power dynamics. I believe it is still foundational and thus very key to the 'elites' argument and you obviously think it is not.

The reason we are arguing here how many pages later is because you first responded to my view that we need to consider 'race as a factor and tool of the elites' as if ridiculous to suggest or believe and you lashed out suggesting it was Hitleresque to do so.

I congratulate you on your growth and now recognizing that people who are not you can hold opinions you do not and that is ok and not something you have to create flame wars over.

I'll stick by my view and you can stick by yours and we can agree to disagree.
04-26-2021 , 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zedsdead
Why would you say it is more extreme?
I haven’t seen any signs outside of businesses that say ‘Muslims need not apply’, for example, like there was for the Irish.

the racism that occurred in the past against any group of people was more blatant, extreme, and widely accepted then any racism going on today, do you not agree? I think society has progressed a lot in that way.

Doesn’t mean racism against Muslims is okay, and maybe I’m getting caught up on semantics here but that line seemed bizarre to me.
I think there is some room to debate there, you are correct.

Back then the immigrants could all get into America but the xenophobia and racism was much more overt as you point out.

In todays age we had a POTUS who was literarily blocking them getting in but the racism and xenophobia is a little more subtle generally. but arguably shown to be just as strong and overt, even if people were biting their tongue prior.

For me what tips it to being more extreme is the former, being blocked from being able to come in.
04-26-2021 , 09:46 AM
There was still no Irish need apply job advertisements in Australia in 2012
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/au...%20the%20field.
04-26-2021 , 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee

The reason we are arguing here how many pages later is because you first responded to my view that we need to consider 'race as a factor and tool of the elites' as if ridiculous to suggest or believe and you lashed out suggesting it was Hitleresque to do so.
Well that's clearly not what happened. But that's ok.
04-26-2021 , 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
Well that's clearly not what happened. But that's ok.
And yet it clearly was.

You reflexively lashed out to the factual portrayal of history because you were ignorant of it and did not believe that is what happened.

You railed against it as if a 'race war' view or 'Hitleresque' when presented with facts.

You then acknowledge and walk it back once I cite something to educate you but act like it was my job to do so earlier when you are were not asking for that and were just railing against it.

It is not anyone here's job to educate you. I mean fine I and others are ok doing it if you ask, generally, but this idea that you, in ignorance get to rail against topics you know nothing about but have strong opinions, and it is the other person who is wrong if they are relying on their education to inform their views, but don't educate you, is something you just made up.

You need to be less ignorant and more willing to try and probe and pull out people things you do not know, instead of just assuming if 'it does not sound right to you ...it must therefore be wrong' and then to proceed to tell the person they are wrong.

You look at the difference of our approaches here and when I was unsure of something you were saying and how I tried, and tried, and tried in numerous different ways to get you to clarify so i COULD understand before I took my position and labeled you.

And you look at how you jump out first and then retreat and concede later, after pages of pointless arguing.

Anyway I accept the concession you are not man enough to say out loud but are clearly offering in your roundabout way.
04-26-2021 , 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
I look at it as America has been settled over time with different cohorts of people arriving at different periods of time.



So you can break the central europeans into separate groups of Italians, Etc or you can just refer to that dominant mostly similar group as a singular cohort.



That is not to say that the Italians, Irish, etc when they landed where not treated as the newest invaders to hit the land by the prior group who had got the similar treatment but where now settled.



But overall, this is largely 'Central European, Anglo Saxon, White skinned Male Group' has consolidated and accrued power and the structures to protect it.



i could say 'Central European, Anglo Saxon, White skinned Male Group' but just shorten it 'White cohort', but yes 'white elite' might be ok to but it is not as correct as the structures in place are meant to generally advantage all whites, with the elite whites knowing they will gain the most of that.



Reducing it to 'elites' or 'ruling class' would be very disingenuous as it then could be assumed this was an inclusive multi ethnic group generally an it is not.

Cuepee this isn't a factual portrayal of history. It's just a race narrative.
And it's you poo pooing ideas that racial conflict/division are elite/class driven in this post.
Quote:
You need to be less ignorant and more willing to try and probe and pull out people things you do not know, instead of just assuming if 'it does not sound right to you ...it must therefore be wrong' and then to proceed to tell the person they are wrong.
It isn't exactly hard to pick out bullshit racialized narratives.
Quote:
You look at the difference of our approaches here and when I was unsure of something you were saying and how I tried, and tried, and tried in numerous different ways to get you to clarify so i COULD understand before I took my position and labeled you.
It's because I've never been confused about your positions.
Quote:
And you look at how you jump out first and then retreat and concede later, after pages of pointless arguing.

Anyway I accept the concession you are not man enough to say out loud but are clearly offering in your roundabout way.
Again, when you mix true with lies and I pick out the true parts, that isn't making concessions-- it's just trying to salvage something from your general nonsense.
Now there were other things I wanted to post about in this thread today so you can respond to this and I'll probably just ignore it.

Last edited by Luckbox Inc; 04-26-2021 at 11:26 AM.
04-26-2021 , 11:26 AM
CP, whenever you mention the role of racism in today’s society you are constructing a “race narrative” and seeing things through a “race lens.” The only way to discuss things is to never talk about racism. Weirdly, this is exactly what racists want, but don’t think too hard about that.
04-26-2021 , 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
CP, whenever you mention the role of racism in today’s society you are constructing a “race narrative” and seeing things through a “race lens.” The only way to discuss things is to never talk about racism. Weirdly, this is exactly what racists want, but don’t think too hard about that.
There are racists who don't want to talk about race, and there are racists where that's all they want to do.
Which one are you Trolly?
04-26-2021 , 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
I get it some. For me my disillusionment goes back far enough and runs so deep that it's impossible for me to get that back.
It probably doesn't help that I "discovered' politics a lot earlier in life than most. My dad was basically a lobbyist so he was steeped in that world. Growing up we'd have things like the governor of Wisconsin randomly calling our phone to ***** at my dad about some guy who didn't even work for his company.
I asked him about a year ago if he knows who Sherrod Brown is and his response was "know him?...I've been in car with him". But politics was like that for me as a kid.
During the 1992 election when I was in the 7th grade we raised our hands in class on who people wanted to be president, Clinton or GHWB-- and I was also literally the only person in my class on the blue team. Perhaps if it was reversed and they were all Democrats I'd have switched my vote but probably not-- as I actually had reasons for thinking that the GOP was evil warmongers even then.
It took quite a bit longer before I realized that the Democrats are also evil warmongers-- which was more of a gradual process that then came all at once. But I'm in too far deep to ever go back now.
I would say I saw things pretty much entirely thru that lens from about 15-40. It's only in about the last 10yrs that my views started to change--it's definitely still there to some degree just not quite the way it was. It's tough to fully flesh out w/o writing a novel. But you did kinda touch on it there--because
a part of it has been watching how it plays out over the years among different age groups. I hear what you're saying about in too deep--but I would just suggest not getting too tied to the idea that your views can't evolve that can be its own set of chains. Just the fact that lobbyists exist is kinda proof that things aren't -that- clear cut. There are also guys that don't need a middleman and can stroll right in and kick their feet up on the desk like they own the place or at least think they do

Was just skimming thru some of the recent posts--I'm not so sure some inter-marriage is proof that things weren't quite what we imagine. Plenty of racist people swimming in those waters. I just see it as more of a reminder that this stuff is a little more complex than we sometimes want to think it may be. NYC was probably one of the most diverse places on Earth and it's pretty standard human behavior for there to be some blending together when different groups bump into each other. It's also at least part of the motivation behind the whole segregation thing imo--trying to stop that from happening. Then there's that whole part of things where trying to make rules just inevitably leads to making some people want to break them.
04-26-2021 , 11:56 AM
The Political-Economy of Anti-Racism
Mostly an economics piece that deals with inequality and the function that identity politics serves in maintaining this system. The black-white wealth gap is much discussed, with the major point being that the top 10% of black families have 75% of the black wealth, similar to with whites.

And what drives the wealth gap is the difference between the top 10% for both blacks and whites. The point being that eliminating the wealth gap wouldn't actually eliminate inequality. Similar arguments are made here: The Trouble with Disparity
If the racial wealth gap were somehow eliminated up and down the distribution, 90 percent of black people would still have only 25 percent of total wealth, and the top 10 percent of blacks would still hold 75 percent. And this is only to be expected because in a society with sharp and increasing overall inequality, eliminating racial “gaps” in the distribution of advantages and disadvantages by definition does not affect the larger, and more fundamental, pattern of inequality.
04-26-2021 , 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
There are racists who don't want to talk about race, and there are racists where that's all they want to do.
Which one are you Trolly?
It is weird that your politics has once again converged to align with the Fox News chuds who want people to shut up about racism. What are the odds?
04-26-2021 , 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
It is weird that your politics has once again converged to align with the Fox News chuds who want people to shut up about racism. What are the odds?

The theoretical and political conceptions promoted by this layer have absolutely nothing to do with “left” politics. Indeed, the irrationalist, anti-Enlightenment, anti-Marxist and anti-working-class perspective developed over the past half-century has brought the pseudo-left into increasing alignment with the conceptions and politics of the far-right. The obsession with race, the interpretation of history in terms of the conflict of races, the categorization of society into “white America” and “black America,” “white people” and “black people”—this is not the language of the left, of progressive social reform, let alone socialist revolution.
It's weird how your politics has converged with nazis fwiw. (Well ok, it's not really that weird).
Is it your opinion that the only correct opinions on race are those held by nazis and American liberals?
Is the above incorrect though? Isn't the obsession with race the domain of the right? What part of that quote do you think is incorrect? Because we can go into it in minutiae if you want and figure out who the right winger actually is here

Last edited by Luckbox Inc; 04-26-2021 at 01:31 PM.
04-26-2021 , 01:33 PM
How do you confront racism to try to bring about some of that social change without talking about it?

That's kinda why the Tuckers of the world don't want people talking about--and say it will just go away like magic. Or it will just continue--which is what they actually want.
04-26-2021 , 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wet work
How do you confront racism to try to bring about some of that social change without talking about it?
The only person who has said that people say we can't talk about racism is Trolly.
But recall what I posted above: even if the black-white wealth gap were eliminated, the top 10% of blacks would still hold 75% of black wealth-- as it is with whites.
Quote:
That's kinda why the Tuckers of the world don't want people talking about--and say it will just go away like magic. Or it will just continue--which is what they actually want.
No. See the above.
04-26-2021 , 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

The theoretical and political conceptions promoted by this layer have absolutely nothing to do with “left” politics. Indeed, the irrationalist, anti-Enlightenment, anti-Marxist and anti-working-class perspective developed over the past half-century has brought the pseudo-left into increasing alignment with the conceptions and politics of the far-right. The obsession with race, the interpretation of history in terms of the conflict of races, the categorization of society into “white America” and “black America,” “white people” and “black people”—this is not the language of the left, of progressive social reform, let alone socialist revolution.
It's weird how your politics has converged with nazis fwiw. (Well ok, it's not really that weird).
Is it your opinion that the only correct opinions on race are those held by nazis and American liberals?
Is the above incorrect though? Isn't the obsession with race the domain of the right? What part of that quote do you think is incorrect? Because we can go into it in minutiae if you want and figure out who the right winger actually is here
Black America doesn't intellectually obsess over race. Black America is forced to endure actual racism just as Black America is forced into the social construct.
04-26-2021 , 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

The theoretical and political conceptions promoted by this layer have absolutely nothing to do with “left” politics. Indeed, the irrationalist, anti-Enlightenment, anti-Marxist and anti-working-class perspective developed over the past half-century has brought the pseudo-left into increasing alignment with the conceptions and politics of the far-right. The obsession with race, the interpretation of history in terms of the conflict of races, the categorization of society into “white America” and “black America,” “white people” and “black people”—this is not the language of the left, of progressive social reform, let alone socialist revolution.
It's weird how your politics has converged with nazis fwiw. (Well ok, it's not really that weird).
Is it your opinion that the only correct opinions on race are those held by nazis and American liberals?
Is the above incorrect though? Isn't the obsession with race the domain of the right? What part of that quote do you think is incorrect? Because we can go into it in minutiae if you want and figure out who the right winger actually is here
No but seriously “shut up and stop talking about racism” just dovetails completely with right-wing grievances. It’s so odd that an independent-minded guy like you keeps finding common ground with Republicans on nearly every issue. And you voted Democratic once thirty years ago, so you’re definitely not just a bog-standard conservative.

      
m