quote:

---

to lay such an emphasis on the claim that she is 'actually black' and was accidentally born white would imply that there are intrinsic qualities to each race and she was born with the wrong set of qualities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
However, there are two other things curious about this. The first is something which I've asked on the other thread, and which no one has really answered. Over the years, many people, in places like the old South Africa, and I suspect Brazil and the southern states of the USA have put a lot of effort into 'passing for' white. Do we regard that as morally reprehensible? deception? wickedness?

If so, why? And if not, is there a difference between them and Rachel Dolezal? And if so, what is it and why is it different?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

The other puzzle is that in the photographs of her, she doesn't look black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Cliffdweller, I'm sorry. This may be unfair. But the writer of the article you've linked to reads as though in her own way she is as unbalanced and obsessed with her perception of her own life history as Rachel appears to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
What is 'reactive attachment disorder' for goodness sake? Is it a real condition or one of these things that people invent to give themselves an identity? What really is blanket training when you describe it objectively, and does it exist at all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

Is that morally reprehensible - I wouldn't say so. During times of persecution over the centuries people belonging to various ethnic groups have often disguised themselves out of fear for their wellbeing. After a while some would find their new identity second nature, which is probably what happened to Rachel: she lived it so thoroughly that she believed it. She probably still does to some extent even now, after years of it. It's not clear what her starting point was, though, as it's unlikely to have been personally experienced (first-hand) racism that prompted this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
it raises even more questions in an already weirdly murky situation. But it does bear closer examination (which is why DSS is investigating).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

This wikilink* describes blanket training and the link to Train up a Child, as well as denouncing of the method and book by the Am. Academy of Pediatrics.

*warning* not for the faint of heart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

we don't have scores or dozens or even two or three others coming forward to describe similar "trans-racial" experiences-- suggests that whatever is going on with her, it is something rather unique and not generalizable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fucked up beyond description. If there is a Hell, there must be a place near the bottom for people who subscribe to this form of child-rearing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Before you criticize a person for calling theirself black, please be so kind as to define what it means to be black.

I'll wait.

If you mean, as did a columnist for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, that she got the "cool" bits of being black without the bad parts of being black - there may be a point.

If you mean she is not entitled to pretend she is black without actually being black, I believe it is really none of my business. I don't recall anywhere in the teachings of Jesus where he said it is a good idea to judge someone else as that kind of thing heightens your spiritual progress.

Perhaps I am wrong.

In the end though, I think any identification of a "race" is a dangerous thing. God created us all. The choice of color palette is therefore God's business. I for one am not up to critiquing God on God's handiwork.

---

quote:

---

cliffdweller: Advocating for a "race-blind" society sound good-- and indeed, in theory IS good, for the reasons noted above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

The idea that we need to keep such labels around in order to punish light skinned people for their "privilege" is intrinsically unfair. Maybe it's that sort of thinking that caused Rachel to want to hide her whiteness..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
As I understand it, she does not simply assert that she identifies as black (indeed, a poorly-defined term), but she also has been decidedly rude to her parents. She has indicated doubts as to whether her biological parents, who bore her and raised her, are indeed her parents.

...In any case, her rudeness to her parents is not a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Before you criticize a person for calling theirself black, please be so kind as to define what it means to be black.

I'll wait.

If you mean, as did a columnist for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, that she got the "cool" bits of being black without the bad parts of being black - there may be a point.

In the end though, I think any identification of a "race" is a dangerous thing. God created us all. The choice of color palette is therefore God's business. I for one am not up to critiquing God on God's handiwork.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
If you mean she is not entitled to pretend she is black without actually being black, I believe it is really none of my business. I don't recall anywhere in the teachings of Jesus where he said it is a good idea to judge someone else as that kind of thing heightens your spiritual progress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

B: It's a noteworthy topic for discussion as it has the potential to turn into a larger trend

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Prejudice and discrimination based on race should be eliminated, not race itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But this one looks like pretence to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

The idea that we need to keep such labels around in order to punish light skinned people for their "privilege" is intrinsically unfair. Maybe it's that sort of thinking that caused Rachel to want to hide her whiteness..

---

No one is suggesting that, so I doubt very much to do with Dolezal's case. Recognizing the role that white privilege has played in the social inequities that still exist, and asking that at least an attempt be made to balance the playing field before claiming the slate has been wiped clean, is not about "punishment", it's about honesty and reconciliation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
What is 'reactive attachment disorder' for goodness sake? Is it a real condition or one of these things that people invent to give themselves an identity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
There's something about Rachel Dolezal that seems incredibly sad to me. I understand why some black people are saying she has cheated somehow, but I hope the people who are so angry at her will consider that her "deception," seems to come from a good or caring place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
. . . white people are wrong no matter what they do -- Atticus Finch is wrong because he has made the young black man he defended dependent on his eloquence, the young white journalist in "The Help," is wrong because she is telling a story that black women should tell for herself -- all combine to say that she will be hated and despised by black people (her own siblings!) no matter how much she tries to help.

No wonder Rachel no longer wanted to identify as a white person -- they're all terrible oppressors. They are either cruel racists or patronizing snobs who hold themselves superior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
She now insists she's black, but some years ago she sued Howard University for discriminating against her because she was white.

She wants to have it both ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But this one looks like pretence to me.

---

IIRC, she still says she identifies as black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But this one looks like pretence to me.

---

IIRC, she still says she identifies as black.

---

The difference with e.g. transgendered or political self-identification and what Rachel Dolezal has been doing is pretty obvious to me. "Here is my father - o whoops well not really, now you know" was exacerbating a pretence already in place. And very damaging to claims of sincerity.

Or to take another ancient example; when Kennedy said (in lousy German) "I am a Berliner" his identification was political, not a pretence over birth and birthplace.

None of this means that I don't have sympathy for her previous confusion and present plight. Some mistakes are pretty hard to recover from.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
lilBuddha--

I'm not really into hiphop, so apologies if I put this awkwardly or am mistaken.

But my understanding, over the last 20 yrs. or so, is that a lot of non-African-American kids identify very strongly with (perceptions of) urban African-American culture. So dreadlocks, braids, certain clothing, etc.

Maybe it doesn't go very deep. I don't have the experience to know. Maybe it goes no deeper than Goth makeup--then again, some Goths go very deeply into that culture.

I'm just raising questions to think through.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
lilBuddha--

I'm not really into hiphop, so apologies if I put this awkwardly or am mistaken.

But my understanding, over the last 20 yrs. or so, is that a lot of non-African-American kids identify very strongly with (perceptions of) urban African-American culture. So dreadlocks, braids, certain clothing, etc.

Maybe it doesn't go very deep. I don't have the experience to know. Maybe it goes no deeper than Goth makeup--then again, some Goths go very deeply into that culture.

I'm just raising questions to think through.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
lilBuddha--

I'm not really into hiphop, so apologies if I put this awkwardly or am mistaken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
I have a large family that has dealt with a great deal of both gender based and racial/ethnic based discrimination and I wonder if Jenner would sign up to be a "woman" if he was to to reduced to powerless chattel or if Dolenzar would choose to identify as "black" during Jim Crow. I think they're tourists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You know, I am starting to wonder about my first reaction to this. Maybe by going through something with others gives you some kind of inherited status. Being a tourist implies going to a few protest marches for the ride, being committed means having your harms blown off by a letter bomb whilst standing against apartheid as a white priest.

So if this lady (hypothetically, I know there are more complex issues in play in the story) voluntarily took on blackness and suffered persecution for it, does she not then inherit some kind of status with that community?

If not, does that mean that the white priest in SA can never be a real part of the liberation struggle even though he has taken on the suffering implicit in doing just that. If he went to live in a township and took on all the disadvantages of that.. would the only problem come if he then claimed to "be black"?

Do you see what I mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
... Dolezal and the white priest get to choose. Not so the folk who live in the township or the racist society. Having chosen to live/work among the oppressed, both remain free to move back if/when the going gets too tough. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
From everything that has come out so far I'd say this lady is very confused and that the race/colour element is only part of the issue.

The links to creationism and fundamentalism are worrying and should be explored further.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
I have a large family that has dealt with a great deal of both gender based and racial/ethnic based discrimination and I wonder if Jenner would sign up to be a "woman" if he was to to reduced to powerless chattel or if Dolenzar would choose to identify as "black" during Jim Crow. I think they're tourists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
... I think it really is a can't win situation for many whites who are sympathetic and trying to understand. ... It forces people to walk on egg shells to the point of just giving up and keeping a wide distance. ... I'm really incensed that Harper Lee of all people is criticized ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Twilight,

To Kill a Mockingbird. It is a seminal work in race relations.
To Kill a Mockingbird is representative of the telling of black stories through white protagonists.

Both are true. I don't think there is anything wrong with it at all. It is a wonderful book. But, as part of a group, it tells a different story. I would not have used that book to illustrate that point, but it is valid.
This is not an attack on the book or Harper Lee. It is an indictment on the system as a whole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
... Dolezal and the white priest get to choose. Not so the folk who live in the township or the racist society.

---

Dolezai and the white priest aren't the same.

If we go back to the question I was asking, Dolezai happens to have the complexion that with careful make up and the right hair stylist, she can pass for coloured. I gather that in the US, that makes her black. Public opinion is saying that is reprehensible.

If a person with black or coloured parents, embedded in those communities, whether those are legally constrained or not, happens to be born with a fairly pale complexion, there is a long tradition of their seeking to pass for the next ethnicity up the social scale.

Most of us, I hope, don't regard that as morally reprehensible.

There is a difference of course. In one case a person is seeking to put themselves up a social grade, and in the other, there isn't. But that's no more than Hyacinth Bucket was doing.

I agree that there's something that sounds a bit phoney about Rachel Dolezai, but I'm not sure that we can condemn her too far without surreptitiously accepting intellectual understandings of race that go with old South Africa and 1930s Nuremberg.

I'd suggest that the only moral ground on which we can really criticise her is the same one that goes with bluffing your way into jobs which you aren't qualified for. But even that involves agreeing with the idea that 'race' should be as legitimate a job requirement as being qualified as a medical doctor, say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
... I think it really is a can't win situation for many whites who are sympathetic and trying to understand. ... It forces people to walk on egg shells to the point of just giving up and keeping a wide distance. ... I'm really incensed that Harper Lee of all people is criticized ....

---

I'm afraid I don't understand why it's important for white people to "win" in a conversation about racism. It makes it sound like the main problem with racism is white guilt, not racism. And that it's important to make sure white people' efforts to sympathise and understand are properly acknowledged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It strikes me that the problem is not the telling of black stories through white protagonists. Rather the problem is a lack of telling of black stories through black protagonists. Not that such stories don't exist, of course, but that they aren't given voice in the same way that stories like Harper's are. The solution is to find means to elevate those stories and give them a hearing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

There is all this disdain for white sympathy and understanding and anger that white people haven't dismantled racism through some undefined effort that can't be named. It's so easy to keep hating us when we don't wave a magic wand and make racism go away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I was told recently that one of the problems is that white people need to stop trying to help. We need to stop trying to solve racism. We can't solve it. We just need to let PoC be themselves. I'm still thinking, but it seemed right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Right. Just what I was saying. There is all this disdain for white sympathy and understanding and anger that white people haven't dismantled racism through some undefined effort that can't be named. It's so easy to keep hating us when we don't wave a magic wand and make racism go away.

---

quote:

---

I don't expect black people to make me feel "comfortable," about racism. I didn't say anything like that, what I'm saying is that I'm finding it harder and harder to have black friends because they're all angry at me for things like "The Color Purple," not getting an Oscar (when has the most worthy movie ever got the Oscar?)

But unlike Rachel Dolezal I'm not all torn up with the guilt you seem to think white people should feel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To Kill a Mockingbird is representative of the telling of black stories through white protagonists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To Kill a Mockingbird is representative of the telling of black stories through white protagonists.

---

I'd be interested in unpacking why it's a "black story".

As opposed to a story of whites interacting with blacks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

I think a later post has actually kind of touched on this issue, by observing that the problem is a lack of black people telling "black stories".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

But I think the whole notion that Mockingbird is a "black story" risks buying into the whole notion that for something to be a "black story" it just has to have a decent amount of black people in it.

---

quote:

---

James Patterson's Alex Cross novels are not black stories. They are detective novels that have a black main character and black supporting characters..

---

Not enough black humour ?


 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It seems to me that the problem here is not these novels, but the cumulative effect of the narrative: black people very often have victim, subservient, ignorant, crime or other negative stereotypes in popular culture.

Atticus Finch is indeed an inspirational character and Mockingbird is a powerful book. I don't think anyone is saying anything otherwise - but the trouble is when society never moves on from the depiction of black people in Mockingbird. Even today there are few positive images of black people in the popular white consciousness outside of sport. If you consider black Muslims, there are even fewer.

Of course, it is not a total monolith, but the overwhelming direction of travel by the powers-that-be is to belittle and put down black people.

Acknowledging the greatness of fiction like Mockingbird does not change the fact that society constantly reinforces the second (or third) class status of black people in particular in the USA (but also in many other developed countries).

[ 23. June 2015, 07:55: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think a later post has actually kind of touched on this issue, by observing that the problem is a lack of black people telling "black stories".

---

But there isn't a lack of black authors. It is that, for the most part, stories from a black perspective don't receive the same audience as stories from a white perspective.
White people have, IME, watched shows and read books from other white cultures rather than from the black sub-culture within their own. This is changing, but not amazingly quickly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Atticus Finch is indeed an inspirational character and Mockingbird is a powerful book. I don't think anyone is saying anything otherwise - but the trouble is when society never moves on from the depiction of black people in Mockingbird.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: Music is the artform I most connect to, and recently I've been conscious how little black music there is in my collection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: Music is the artform I most connect to, and recently I've been conscious how little black music there is in my collection.

---

LOL, I think the vast majority of the music in my collection is by black artists. I could point you to some very good African music, if you want to.

---

See, I don't know whether I want pointers or not! And it's not because I'm not interested, it's because I already have a listening queue that is several years long.

This isn't an exaggeration. I can tell you that the classical half of the list currently has 25 composers on it. In the last year or two I've only managed to cross 4 guys (yes, they're all male, and white, and almost all dead) off the list.

The pop half of the list isn't well organised enough to give you a precise figure.

And this is new stuff, for exploration, not stuff I already own. I have to listen to that from time to time as well.

Sigh. Alright, give me a few names in a PM...
 

---

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
I'm a big Dusty Springfield fan. As most of you probably know, she was a middle class white Brit who was very successful in the 1960s performing songs largely in the style of black American singers. She adored these singers, dated a few of them (very much under cover, as lesbians were in those days) and got thrown out of South Africa because she refused to let her audiences be racially segregated. She said she wished she'd been born black, although she didn't go so far as to try and fake her appearance that way.

Many of the black singers whom she emulated were unsure about her or even outright hostile. Back in the day, I got annoyed about this and thought "ffs what does Dusty have to do to prove herself to these people?" but then later I realised what was going on.

Dusty was in a massively privileged position. She was catapulted to fame as a nice respectable white woman who could sing all these songs coming from black people in America. Britain wanted those songs, but they wanted a white person to sing them. When there was a Ready Steady Go Motown special, Dusty had to be brought in as the Nice Respectable White Host in order to let the show go ahead. Singers like Baby Washington who would throw their heart and soul into a record that never got anywhere, would have it picked up by Dusty (an uberfan) and turned into a hit. As much as she might have identified with black people and felt at home among them, she didn't have to deal with one percent of the crap that a black person in the 1960s went through.

Dusty Springfield was simultaneously an antiracist and advocate for people of colour, AND a massive symbol of white privilege in the music industry. These two things can exist alongside each other, and that makes things complicated. So when I was asking "what were they expecting from Dusty" the answer was "this isn't about Dusty as a person, and by focusing on Dusty and her feelings I'm putting her ahead of the experience and frustration of millions of less prominent black people." I don't suppose there was much more that she personally could have done. That doesn't mean that everyone has to be happy about what she represented.

[ 23. June 2015, 09:54: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Liopleurodon, I love you. As usual.
 

---

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Steady on, my good chap
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

James Patterson's Alex Cross novels are not black stories. They are detective novels that have a black main character and black supporting characters..

---

Not enough black humour ?


 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Dusty Springfield was simultaneously an antiracist and advocate for people of colour, AND a massive symbol of white privilege in the music industry. These two things can exist alongside each other, and that makes things complicated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Liopleurodon, I think a major part of Dusty Springfield's appeal was as much that she was local and not an import, as also now are Leona Lewis and many others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Dusty Springfield was simultaneously an antiracist and advocate for people of colour, AND a massive symbol of white privilege in the music industry. These two things can exist alongside each other, and that makes things complicated.

---

Isn't this in the nature of power more generally ? I guess wanting the powerful to do something for the powerless and when they do then resenting them for having the power to do it is just human nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

But some days human nature seems pretty screwed up...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
Do you really encounter a lot of people who hate you for not being able to wave a magic wand and make racism disappear? Huh.

---

quote:

---

Some white singers sang black music because they loved it. Some where hired to sing black songs so that white teens would be listening to white singers. Straight up racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, a random piece of information to throw into this discussion...

There's a certain period of music history where, if you hear an old black man wordlessly wailing the blues as a piece of background atmosphere, it's highly likely to actually be Australian singer Renee Geyer.

As the wikipedia article relates, when she tried to build a career in the USA the record company didn't want people to know she was white.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, a random piece of information to throw into this discussion...

There's a certain period of music history where, if you hear an old black man wordlessly wailing the blues as a piece of background atmosphere, it's highly likely to actually be Australian singer Renee Geyer.

As the wikipedia article relates, when she tried to build a career in the USA the record company didn't want people to know she was white.

---

Really? Because a lot of white singers still make a good living doing blues music. The audience don't seem to care. Go to a blues concert and you are sometimes hard-pressed to find the black people. Be it on stage or in the audience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, a random piece of information to throw into this discussion...

There's a certain period of music history where, if you hear an old black man wordlessly wailing the blues as a piece of background atmosphere, it's highly likely to actually be Australian singer Renee Geyer.

As the wikipedia article relates, when she tried to build a career in the USA the record company didn't want people to know she was white.

---

Really? Because a lot of white singers still make a good living doing blues music. The audience don't seem to care. Go to a blues concert and you are sometimes hard-pressed to find the black people. Be it on stage or in the audience.

---

Yeah, Bonnie Raitt, Duane Allman, Jimmy Page, George Thorogood, among many many others, never made any secret of being white.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Black people singing black music were only allowed to sing on black radio, record on black labels and play for black folk. They made very little money. Then white people began to sing black songs. The white people could sing black music to white people. The white people made a lot of money. To further the insult, even after the race barrier was, sort of, lifted; white musicians built major careers with the same music the black authors were eking by with. White guitarist = arena tour, black guitarist = church halls and juke joints.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Black people singing black music were only allowed to sing on black radio, record on black labels and play for black folk. They made very little money. Then white people began to sing black songs. The white people could sing black music to white people. The white people made a lot of money. To further the insult, even after the race barrier was, sort of, lifted; white musicians built major careers with the same music the black authors were eking by with. White guitarist = arena tour, black guitarist = church halls and juke joints.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Recent posts got me thinking of this bit of "cross-over" singing by the incomparable Nina Simone of a BeeGees song. What's wrong with a bid of blending, particularly when, as in this case, it demonstrates supreme talent? I think it's possible just to enjoy, and sometimes stand in awe of, genuine artistry.

Nina Simone - To love somebody

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think a lot of people do understand the racist basis for much pop music, at least in the UK, I can't speak for people in the US. But the analysis above of Dusty Springfield may well surprise some Dusty fans.

Some white singers and musicians were basically parasitic upon black music, either by doing cover versions, or by imitating the sound. I would not usually blame the individuals, but it's a question of a wholesale sub-culture of theft and appropriation. Why would one stay silent about that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Well your way hasn't worked very well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

No one owns music. Not any kind of music.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

No one owns music. Not any kind of music.

---

Leaving aside copyright, I think this might be the heart of the matter. Music can help to break down barriers, simply because we discover that at its very best it can both celebrate and transcend any particular culture. It can be a universal language.

There's a world of difference between the Black and White minstrel show and Joe Cocker, for example. The former shows were self-conscious imitation, whereas Joe was simply, inimitably, himself. No theft there. He "got" it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Or, at best, what's yours is ours and what's mine is mine.

---

quote:

---

Now everyone just wants everyone to get along, let bygones be bygones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Reminds me of the old joke that Charlie Parker played such complicated bebop lines in his solos, as he knew that no white jazz player could copy them. I wonder if it's true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Reminds me of the old joke that Charlie Parker played such complicated bebop lines in his solos, as he knew that no white jazz player could copy them. I wonder if it's true.

---

There are so many racist remarks in this thread, and it's all okay if it only goes in one direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

Why not? What advantage would there be to keep Germany down forever, or for the Irish to boycott everything English? Why should people born this century pay a price for things done by other people a hundred years ago?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Obvious example, 'Tutti Frutti' by Pat Boone, which covered Little Richard's, and Elvis also covered it.

In fact, in the UK, it became almost de rigueur that a US hit by a black artist would be covered by a white Brit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
... racism as oppression of a minority group (which is an essential part of the sociological definition).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

Why not? What advantage would there be to keep Germany down forever, or for the Irish to boycott everything English? Why should people born this century pay a price for things done by other people a hundred years ago?

---

Because a lot of these things didn't happen a hundred years ago, and because even some of the things that did happen in the past (often the more recent past) continue to have major impacts to this day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
... No one owns music. Not any kind of music. ... What in the world is Mariah Carey supposed to sing? ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

What word or words would you use for the act of judging someone according to the colour of their skin ? Would "racial prejudice" cover it ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

So no individual can commit a racist act, as no individual act oppresses a minority group. Individuals can only be racially prejudiced or commit acts of racial prejudice. Only cultures can be racist ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

Thinking less of Dusty Springfield for doing what she did without having a black face is racially prejudiced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'll see your Little Richard and raise you a Led Zepplin.

---

And "a whole lotta love" to you too!
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

What word or words would you use for the act of judging someone according to the colour of their skin ? Would "racial prejudice" cover it ?

---

Yep.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

So no individual can commit a racist act, as no individual act oppresses a minority group. Individuals can only be racially prejudiced or commit acts of racial prejudice. Only cultures can be racist ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

Thinking less of Dusty Springfield for doing what she did without having a black face is racially prejudiced.

---

Not inherently, no it wouldn't. But no one on this thread has indicated they look down on her.
She sang in a style borrowed from others because she liked the music with no apparent motive to deprive others.
She profited from it because she was white.
One can love Dusty Springfield, I do, and still recognise her colour gave her an advantage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
How do you all feel about Kathleen Battle and Jessye Norman singing classical opera?

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

Why not? What advantage would there be to keep Germany down forever, or for the Irish to boycott everything English? Why should people born this century pay a price for things done by other people a hundred years ago?

---

Because a lot of these things didn't happen a hundred years ago, and because even some of the things that did happen in the past (often the more recent past) continue to have major impacts to this day.

---

Then they wouldn't be considered "bygones," would they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I'm may be bringing everyone down on my head by saying this, but I don't think the cultural appropriators are the only ones ignoring that those they disagree with are people. For instance, I think it's extremely reasonable to be offended by white appropriation of the soul. It's easy (and clearly true) to say that white people got rich singing soul although they didn't invent it. You can blame a whole culture, but cultures don't do things. People do, so let's name a person. Do you all think Dusty Springfield herself was appropriating the blues? I have trouble saying simply yes since she did appreciate and credit black singers. If she truly loved soul, should she have not sung it because of her skin color? Maybe yes, and that would be consistent, but it seems a loss of great art.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
How do you all feel about Kathleen Battle and Jessye Norman singing classical opera?

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
From what I've read about Dusty Springfield on this thread alone makes me think that she and many of her fellow performers did indeed affect change, and in some cases, profound change. Their challenges to the colour bar and segregated audiences alone demonstrates this, surely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Twilight,

I use music as an example because it is pretty clear cut. A lot of the other areas are easier to obfuscate. ...

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure how the approbation of music got into the middle of a discussion of why Rachel Dolezal might have ended up hating the white race enough to pretend to be black, but here it is. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... To use Liopleuredon's analogy, it's as if John has renounced his bullying ways and agreed to share all the toys, but Ed is still giving him shit about it and refusing to let him play with the duck. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Twilight,

I use music as an example because it is pretty clear cut.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
That's right, folks. A true landmark in the history of Classical music, in the 1780s, of profound cultural importance as music went from the royal court to the concert hall, was a collaboration between an Austrian and a French-African.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that there are two logical ways you can look at this.

1) music is colour-blind. It's OK for musicians of any colour to play, sing, record etc music written or previously played/sung/recorded by anybody else in the world (subject to everyone involved getting an appropriate share of the profits through sensible copyright legislation).

2) Music is race-specific. A black violinist needs some sort of permission from white people s a whole in order to play Mozart. A white singer needs some sort of permission from black people as a whole in order to play a song written by a black person or sing in the general style made famous by a black person.

If 2) is really the way you want the world to work then clearly there has to be some organisation which adjudicates on who is black and who is white. For the sake of accountability, no ambiguity can be permitted. And as for people who try to cross from one side of this divide to the other...

Best wishes,

Russ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Bullshit.

(3) Persecuted minorities who are being trammeled and discriminated against and killed by their oppressors have a right to feel aggrieved if their oppressors, while denying them full participation in the greater culture, nevertheless take good things from the minority's culture as if they were already equals (or indeed as if the majority culture WANTS them to be equals).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
acknowledging they feel aggrieved is not the same thing as saying white people need permission.

To mind, they don't. They just don't, because the notion of needing permission is simply untenable as a matter of logic and against the way that the arts work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

Every time Liopleurodon says something beautifully nuanced, you seem to summarise it in a way that strips the nuance out of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
acknowledging they feel aggrieved is not the same thing as saying white people need permission.

To mind, they don't. They just don't, because the notion of needing permission is simply untenable as a matter of logic and against the way that the arts work.

---

But black people have needed permission. some white person/people had to acquiesce. This is the frustration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that there are two logical ways you can look at this.

1) music is colour-blind. It's OK for musicians of any colour to play, sing, record etc music written or previously played/sung/recorded by anybody else in the world (subject to everyone involved getting an appropriate share of the profits through sensible copyright legislation).

2) Music is race-specific. A black violinist needs some sort of permission from white people s a whole in order to play Mozart. A white singer needs some sort of permission from black people as a whole in order to play a song written by a black person or sing in the general style made famous by a black person.

If 2) is really the way you want the world to work then clearly there has to be some organisation which adjudicates on who is black and who is white. For the sake of accountability, no ambiguity can be permitted. And as for people who try to cross from one side of this divide to the other...

Best wishes,

Russ

---

Game, set and match on this Tangent to Russ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
acknowledging they feel aggrieved is not the same thing as saying white people need permission.

To mind, they don't. They just don't, because the notion of needing permission is simply untenable as a matter of logic and against the way that the arts work.

---

But black people have needed permission. some white person/people had to acquiesce. This is the frustration.

---

Absolutely. But what is the solution to white people having wrongly put up barriers to black people?

Call me a naive idealist, but I don't think the solution is for black people to retaliate by putting up barriers to white people. First of all, we know it's not going to work in practice because of the power imbalance. It's just going to be moral outrage.

No, to my mind the solution is for black people to say "hey, stop putting up barriers against us". The solution is to point out the double standard and make white people conscious of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Whether this is still true, I'm not sure, but I note that some people want to ban hip-hop from Glastonbury.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, but who on this thread has suggested putting up barriers to white people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea of needing permission is a barrier.

And while I don't think that anyone has suggested in so many words that permission is required for white people to use black culture, it's not hard to see how complaints about appropriating black culture end up conveying that "that culture belonged to us and you shouldn't have used it" in a way that suggests permission is required.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

And that's precisely why I'm saying that a better form of the complaint is "that culture came from us and you prevented us from using it".

Which shifts the focus entirely. It switches the complaint from "your use is a problem" to "preventing our use is a problem".

---

quote:

---

PS As to your comment that talent should be the only factor

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, but who on this thread has suggested putting up barriers to white people?

---

The idea of needing permission is a barrier.

And while I don't think that anyone has suggested in so many words that permission is required for white people to use black culture

---

quote:

---

It's not hard to see how complaints about appropriating black culture end up conveying that "that culture belonged to us and you shouldn't have used it" in a way that suggests permission is required.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that there are two logical ways you can look at this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
White people need to wake the fuck up and realize how things look like through non-white eyes. As long as we stick our fingers in our ears and say "either all trans-racial borrowing is bad or none is" we are refusing to see the power differential and are part of the problem, not part of the solution. How the oppressor treats the oppressed is a different thing to how the oppressed treats the oppressor. Until we can see that, we are blind and should just STFU about anything having to do with race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Absolutely. But what is the solution to white people having wrongly put up barriers to black people?

Call me a naive idealist, but I don't think the solution is for black people to retaliate by putting up barriers to white people.

---

quote:

---

No, to my mind the solution is for black people to say "hey, stop putting up barriers against us". The solution is to point out the double standard and make white people conscious of it.

---

quote:

---

And while I don't think that anyone has suggested in so many words that permission is required for white people to use black culture, it's not hard to see how complaints about appropriating black culture end up conveying that "that culture belonged to us and you shouldn't have used it" in a way that suggests permission is required.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
It's interesting that you never seem to include yourself in this group that should STFU.

---

quote:

---

We have the white people like me who tend to be alternately sympathetic, defensive and hurt. It's hard to feel guilty and hated.

---

quote:

---

You may say that at least you are admitting to the wrongs white people have and still have committed, but no one is denying any of that. Some of us are pointing out the futility of trying to change the past, but we aren't pretending things didn't happen and we aren't pretending to belong to a separate rarefied group that floats above it all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
It's interesting that you never seem to include yourself in this group that should STFU.

---

quote:

---

Mousethief:Where did you learn English, that "we" doesn't include the speaker? No really, I'm curious.

---

quote:

---

When you say "stop making me feel guilty and hated" you are indeed doing exactly that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
No, to my mind the solution is for black people to say "hey, stop putting up barriers against us". The solution is to point out the double standard and make white people conscious of it.

---

Yeah, that's worked well so far, hasn't it? Oppressed people just say "stop it!" and their oppressors oblige.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
No, to my mind the solution is for black people to say "hey, stop putting up barriers against us". The solution is to point out the double standard and make white people conscious of it.

---

Yeah, that's worked well so far, hasn't it? Oppressed people just say "stop it!" and their oppressors oblige.

---

Despite your cynicism, is this not precisely the point of Luke 18:1-5?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

When you say "stop making me feel guilty and hated" you are indeed doing exactly that.

---

I'm so glad I didn't say that then, aren't you? Straw man much? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe some people hate you. But by and large people trying to wake up whites to their privilege neither hate them or want them to feel guilty. They want them to see the situation, and how they have unfairly profited from it, and recognize the injustice of their privileged position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
No, to my mind the solution is for black people to say "hey, stop putting up barriers against us". The solution is to point out the double standard and make white people conscious of it.

---

Yeah, that's worked well so far, hasn't it? Oppressed people just say "stop it!" and their oppressors oblige.

---

Despite your cynicism, is this not precisely the point of Luke 18:1-5?

---

If we waited for the compunction of slave-owners to be piqued by the complaints of slaves, and for that and that alone to end the institution of slavery in this country, we'd still have slavery. Whatever Christ meant by this parable, it is clear it cannot be universally applied to any and all situations of oppression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
And yet to me that reads a bit like a call to feel guilty over how white people have "unfairly profited" from their privileged position.

---

quote:

---

The only reason I want white people to recognize the injustice of their position is if they're planning to use that knowledge to disrupt the system.

---

quote:

---

The school to prison pipeline in the US is ridiculously out of control. Quibbling over whether or not the white majority sufficiently recognizes the injustice of black musicians historically not being paid as much as the white people who appropriated their music while people are dying because cops think the look on their face is threatening seems a bit... I don't know.

---

quote:

---

But carry on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But is that not precisely what happened? How do you think slavery ended, if it wasn't by the accumulated voices saying "this is bad" gradually turning more and more people to the view that it was bad? People who didn't think that before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
...we are refusing to see the power differential and are part of the problem, not part of the solution. How the oppressor treats the oppressed is a different thing to how the oppressed treats the oppressor. Until we can see that, we are blind and should just STFU about anything having to do with race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Let's try to breathe and not got too mad at one another. Also I think categorizing can actually be complicated. There are quite a few people on this thread that I don't know the race of. Actually I hadn't thought about that, but I think it adds a neat dynamic to discuss race with people who are invisible. Maybe it's just me, but I think that real-life conversations it can be easy to assume people's motivations etc (He's just a white do-gooder hippie, she's an angry black woman, and he's an old southern racist.*) Here I have been reading some of you for years, but it's easier to remember that I don't know you.

*I tried to carefully avoid describing anyone on this thread, so if I did describe anyone, sorry. Certainly not a personal comment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It was accumulated white voices that brought about the change. Not accumulated black voices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Nobody is forgetting, or ignoring, or blind to, the catalogue of oppression suffered by American black people. They're just not drawing from that history the same conclusion as you are.

You seem here to be arguing the position that Victims Can Do No Wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It was accumulated white voices that brought about the change. Not accumulated black voices.

---

I seem to remember that some of the most vocal and influential anti-slavery advocates were black, on both sides of the pond.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And all by themselves they would have ended slavery?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And all by themselves they would have ended slavery?

---

Probably not. But that's no reason to - I don't know - whitewash them out of their own liberation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
And yet to me that reads a bit like a call to feel guilty over how white people have "unfairly profited" from their privileged position.

---

I'm sorry you feel that way. I can't help you.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The only reason I want white people to recognize the injustice of their position is if they're planning to use that knowledge to disrupt the system.

---

Duh. That's the only reason anybody wants white people to realize their privilege.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The school to prison pipeline in the US is ridiculously out of control. Quibbling over whether or not the white majority sufficiently recognizes the injustice of black musicians historically not being paid as much as the white people who appropriated their music while people are dying because cops think the look on their face is threatening seems a bit... I don't know.

---

Is there only one injustice, and we shouldn't talk about any others? I didn't get that memo.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But carry on.

---

I appreciate the permission.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

Perhaps it’s just the people I know, but I’ve never known anyone who wasn’t aware of the racial disparity within the music industry. And yet people on this thread keep bringing it up as if it’s supposed to be some big revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

As Twilight pointed out, even if people are learning about it for the first time, none of us has a time machine, so there’s nothing we can do about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

Perhaps it’s just the people I know, but I’ve never known anyone who wasn’t aware of the racial disparity within the music industry. And yet people on this thread keep bringing it up as if it’s supposed to be some big revelation.

---

Um, no. It was brought up because it is an example of how white privilege works. Not every example used is meant to be a revelation.

---

quote:

---

It is doubly frustrating that the case in music should be so opaque to some. To me, it is very clear.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

As Twilight pointed out, even if people are learning about it for the first time, none of us has a time machine, so there’s nothing we can do about it.

---

Once again, example, not a call to arms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The only reason I want white people to recognize the injustice of their position is if they're planning to use that knowledge to disrupt the system.

---

Duh. That's the only reason anybody wants white people to realize their privilege.

---

Wrong. There are quite a few people on the American left (who Twilight and I have complained about before) who recognize that the system unfairly benefits them but who don’t want the system to change because they realize that they would not be in the position they are in without the unfair advantages they’ve been given.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But is that not precisely what happened? How do you think slavery ended, if it wasn't by the accumulated voices saying "this is bad" gradually turning more and more people to the view that it was bad? People who didn't think that before.

---

You have changed the narrative. In the parable of the unjust judge, it is the cheated woman whose noise gets justice. And I specifically said, "Oppressed people say stop it." So no, that's NOT precisely what happened. It was accumulated white voices that brought about the change. Not accumulated black voices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It was accumulated white voices that brought about the change. Not accumulated black voices.

---

I seem to remember that some of the most vocal and influential anti-slavery advocates were black, on both sides of the pond.

---

Mmhmm. And all by themselves they would have ended slavery? No white people need get involved at all? They would have pricked the hearts of the slave-owners? That's what orfeo is arguing when he likens this to the righteous widow. Her voice, alone, unaided by any other voices, turned the heart of the unrighteous judge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

It’s like being back in college in a class led by a feminist who...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You can't have it both ways. You can't talk about white people as oppressors and then tell me that it was white people who changed the situation.

---

quote:

---

Something caused them to move from being oppressors to being agents of change, and yet you don't want to accept that the work of making white people aware of that injustice was the reason for the change, and that work had to start with hearing the voices of black people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You can't have it both ways. You can't talk about white people as oppressors and then tell me that it was white people who changed the situation.

---

You do realize that white people aren't a single bloc, right? That there were some white people who owned slaves, and some other white people who were abolitionists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
No response to anyone in particular, just general thoughts/questions:

At what point does the constant reminder of oppression become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If you tell me I'm going to be oppressed my whole life, why would I bother going to school, getting a job and trying to have a better life than my predecessors?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

If I'd been told by a respected community leader like Jesse Jackson that I'll never get that job because of my skin color,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

Is oppression in the US more about race or more about class anymore?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

The fact that the power structure of this country has been traditionally white doesn't benefit me or 99% of the white people I know. And the 1% were rich to begin with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

If a significant portion of the upper class were black, do you think it would benefit lower class black people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

Would instant, universal equality be seen as a good thing;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

or is there an element of thinking which requires whites to go through some hardship for the sins of our fathers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

If so, when do we begin to judge by content of character, and not by the color of skin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

I understand that there's a history of oppression that needs to be respected, but how am I supposed to empathize with sincerity? How am I to sympathize without pity? How do I respond constructively to the history of racial tension in my country?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
No response to anyone in particular, just general thoughts/questions:

At what point does the constant reminder of oppression become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If you tell me I'm going to be oppressed my whole life, why would I bother going to school, getting a job and trying to have a better life than my predecessors?

I'm whiter than a polar bear in a blizzard, and I'm having to fight tooth and nail to work a back-breaking job while going back to school (apparently a four-year degree in business earns you a shitty carpentry job) to get a chance at just maybe getting a job that might possibly catapult me into the middle class.

If I'd been told by a respected community leader like Jesse Jackson that I'll never get that job because of my skin color, then there's no way I'd go through all this shit just to take a chance on being some diversity hire. I'd go straight to the welfare line: same lifestyle, fewer bodily injuries.

Is oppression in the US more about race or more about class anymore? I know there is still a lot of racism in America, but it seems to me that economic oppression is shared by all races and economic success is owned by the mostly white upper class who inherited it from their mostly-white predecessors. They don't care what color you are, they don't want to share with anybody. They're not sitting around in their corporate high-rises giggling over the fact that they didn't have to share with any black people today, they're no more likely to share with any white people. The fact that the power structure of this country has been traditionally white doesn't benefit me or 99% of the white people I know. And the 1% were rich to begin with.

If a significant portion of the upper class were black, do you think it would benefit lower class black people?

Is there any benefit to having an ethnically diverse group at the top? Wouldn't it be more desirable to make everyone more equal?

Would instant, universal equality be seen as a good thing; or is there an element of thinking which requires whites to go through some hardship for the sins of our fathers?

If so, when do we begin to judge by content of character, and not by the color of skin?

I understand that there's a history of oppression that needs to be respected, but how am I supposed to empathize with sincerity? How am I to sympathize without pity? How do I respond constructively to the history of racial tension in my country?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When you say you don't derive benefit from the current power structure, you seem to be thinking in just terms of wealth/class.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
maybe I am being fanciful

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When you say you don't derive benefit from the current power structure, you seem to be thinking in just terms of wealth/class.

---

I don't know if it's 'many of us' or 'some of us', but I'll stick with 'some' - but for some of us, that's all there is. I live in a part of the world which is 95% White British. Of those 5%, those who aren't white, tend to be British, and those who aren't British, tend to be white.

Our primary discriminants are accent and postcode. I have an iffy postcode, but because I was born in the south, I can pass locally as 'posh' - as can my kids, despite being born here. As soon as we travel to That London or other places down south, we tend to clutter up things with our coarse northern ways.

Certainly, as far as my children and their cohort are concerned, colour and immigrant status are pretty much ignored. The divisions of class and wealth cut across those factors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
maybe I am being fanciful

---

Ya think! Seriously dude, this whole thread is an interesting topic but without wishing to be disrespectful I think if you are starting to attribute Kanye West's singing style to slavery then maybe you're getting a little carried away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I worked with a young white man who told me, and an older black woman, that racism was over. That it was a thing of the past. We turned to each other with a "Seriously, WTF"? glance and then, gently gave him examples of why he might be just a teensy bit incorrect. Never did convince him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Doc Tor, I'm not sure Lemn Sissay would agree with you. He has Ethiopian parents, but was placed in foster care in Wigan. He was 17 before he met another black person, and they were Afro-Caribbean.

---

quote:

---

Now, he tells me, people in the city stop him on the street to tell him they are proud of him; and he is amazed by the outpouring of affection since the chancellorship was announced. His face grows still, and he says quietly that it is beautiful when a city treats you “like a family would”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
A lot of your statements give me an impression of a state of inevitability that I just don't buy into. That includes your skepticism that "the oppressors" won't ever change. That, to me, is you treating people like a single bloc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Nobody is forgetting, or ignoring, or blind to, the catalogue of oppression suffered by American black people. They're just not drawing from that history the same conclusion as you are.

You seem here to be arguing the position that Victims Can Do No Wrong.

---

Where have I ever said anything that implies that? Unless you want to say that black people playing classical music is "wrong"? Is that what you mean? Otherwise please explain what you mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
OK, try it as a question instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Holy crap! The preceding 5 pages of this thread have been this very discussion and you want it either distilled or re-argued?
Black isn't a culture, it is a colour. Black culture is really black cultures.
I can say I'm a green Martian all I wish, doesn't make me one.
Mixed people can assert whatever heritage they choose, they will still be associated with the one they most look like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
maybe I am being fanciful

---

Ya think! Seriously dude, this whole thread is an interesting topic but without wishing to be disrespectful I think if you are starting to attribute Kanye West's singing style to slavery then maybe you're getting a little carried away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Do you or do you not believe that being a victim somehow alters the rights and wrongs of a situation ? That's what it sounds like you're saying when you talk about the need to recognise "power imbalance" and the like. The extreme form of that position is Victims Can Do No Wrong. Do you think that it's OK for members of an oppressed group to do things that would be otherwise morally dubious ? Is that the moral philosophy that you are putting forward ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Not only that, but...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When you say you don't derive benefit from the current power structure, you seem to be thinking in just terms of wealth/class.

You are still much less likely to be killed by the state, accidentally or on purpose, and you will experience less harrassment on the street. These are significant benefits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

If I'd been told by a respected community leader like Jesse Jackson that I'll never get that job because of my skin color,

---

I don't think that is his message. Could be wrong, I'm hardly an expert on him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

The fact that the power structure of this country has been traditionally white doesn't benefit me or 99% of the white people I know. And the 1% were rich to begin with.

---

Not precisely true. You could more easily become middle class than a brown person. The doors are open wider for you. No red carpet, no valet to meet you at the door, perhaps. But the fence is not as high and the hounds are not waiting to be unleashed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

If a significant portion of the upper class were black, do you think it would benefit lower class black people?

---

ISTM, yes it would help. It is easier to believe you might achieve something if others like you are already there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

If so, when do we begin to judge by content of character, and not by the color of skin?

---

I would answer now, but I am not sure where you are going with this

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

For example: If I someday find myself in a position where I'm hiring people; and a black guy comes in to interview, what do I do?

A: Judge him by the same standards I use for all the white candidates (character, not color)?
B: Award him points above his competitors because he's had a tougher road getting there (character with a color modifier)?
C: Base my decision on how the current ethnic diversity of my company compares to that of the surrounding area? (color, not character)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If anybody is interested in one way of looking at privilege that doesn't pretend that straight white males get all the breaks, and uses a metaphor familiar to many of us, here is an article that might help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I've heard many times "I do not hire by colour, I select the most qualified candidate". Well, the candidate with the best CV will most often be white. Why? Because they have had access to better schools, have more established connections, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How is a pale person born in Saskatoon suddenly Jamaican? Or Ethiopian? Or suddenly acquire the experience of a lifetime of prejudice and disenfranchisement?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
... All those things being equal then things like speech and personality start playing a big part at which point good looks probably play a much bigger part than race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If anybody is interested in one way of looking at privilege that doesn't pretend that straight white males get all the breaks, and uses a metaphor familiar to many of us, here is an article that might help.

---

As much time as I have for Scalzi, I don't think he's right.

Certainly, if you're a rich white straight male, I'd agree. A poor white straight man has much more in common with a poor black straight man than he does a rich white straight man. Wealth makes everything easier: it doesn't care much about the colour of your skin, only the colour of your money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
maybe I am being fanciful

---

Ya think! Seriously dude, this whole thread is an interesting topic but without wishing to be disrespectful I think if you are starting to attribute Kanye West's singing style to slavery then maybe you're getting a little carried away.

---

Actually, there's pretty good evidence that musical style is directly related to language: that the rhythms and cadences of the music of a culture are directly related to the rhythms and cadences of the spoken language of that culture.

Which isn't at all surprising given that one of the things that happens in music is the setting of words, but from what I've read it applies to instrumental music as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm going to mention a logical fallacy which I think has played a big part in the discussion here: the idea that if you can't immediately name the solution, it isn't a problem. Do I want to see people being forced to segregate music along the lines of skin colour? Of course not. I don't know what the solution is to this particular problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry Doc, you are wrong, at least in your apparent conclusion. Look at all the qualifiers in your sentence and we have the beginnings of Scalzi's argument.
Yes, wealth lowers barriers, but there are more barriers if your skin contains melanin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
... All those things being equal then things like speech and personality start playing a big part at which point good looks probably play a much bigger part than race.

---

Race can be a huge factor in how we judge speech, personality and good looks, and lots of other things besides formal qualifications. In his eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, President Obama spoke of "the subtle impulse that leads us to call Johnny for an interview, but not Jamal."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, Tamla Motown had a pretty clear equity aim, to prevent exploitation of black musicians by "the dominant culture", to use that term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Don't think anyone is saying colour is the only barrier, just that it adds a few bricks to every wall one must surmount.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Don't think anyone is saying colour is the only barrier, just that it adds a few bricks to every wall one must surmount.

---

That I can agree with, but that's far more nuanced and moderate than the slap-the-male-whitey-down message coming from the (mainly white) tumblrati.

Wealth and class are the deciders. Not that race isn't, but that's how poor people squabble amongst themselves. I'll bet a pound to a penny that Carlos Slim, George Soros and Wang Jianlin aren't losing any sleep over their non-Anglo heritage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The young male aboriginal population identifies with black urban images, culture and identity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Race can be a huge factor in how we judge speech, personality and good looks, and lots of other things besides formal qualifications. ...

---

... As far as speech and personality, I don't agree with your implication that those things are unavoidably different from one race to another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

For example: If I someday find myself in a position where I'm hiring people; and a black guy comes in to interview, what do I do?

A: Judge him by the same standards I use for all the white candidates (character, not color)?
B: Award him points above his competitors because he's had a tougher road getting there (character with a color modifier)?
C: Base my decision on how the current ethnic diversity of my company compares to that of the surrounding area? (color, not character)

---

This line of questioning generally assumes a few things.
One, that the person with the best CV/resume is the best person for the job. Having worked in several fields; technical, creative and trade, I can assure you this is not automatically true.
Two, that hiring a candidate who meets the criteria, but with a lower score than another candidate will have a poorer work product. Fact is, most jobs do not function this way.
If you truly want to level the playing field, it has to be a holistic approach. From education through employment.
I've heard many times "I do not hire by colour, I select the most qualified candidate". Well, the candidate with the best CV will most often be white. Why? Because they have had access to better schools, have more established connections, etc.
What you end up with is a society that doesn't "discriminate" but doesn't change stratification either.
White people can face the problems of poorer education and fewer connections, yes. But see mousethief's most excellent link for how that doesn't make things equal.

---

Sounds like you're going with option B? I'm not really sure.

If I'm reading you right: if one wants to 'level the playing field' then we must start by awarding an artificial advantage to historically oppressed people in order to 'bring them up to speed' as it were.

That makes sense to me, but seems to run the danger of the 'white savior' pitfall.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you truly want to level the playing field, it has to be a holistic approach. From education through employment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Sounds like you're going with option B? I'm not really sure.

If I'm reading you right: if one wants to 'level the playing field' then we must start by awarding an artificial advantage to historically oppressed people in order to 'bring them up to speed' as it were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

That makes sense to me, but seems to run the danger of the 'white savior' pitfall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

Okay, as I mentioned before, we've got EEO laws, Affirmative Action laws, acedemic scholarships geared towards minorities, minority professional associations (i.e. Association of Hispanic Engineers) etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

So what more needs to be done to actually 'level the playing field?' At what point is the problem solved?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

Is the problem ever solved, or is it made to last forever because of the political capital it creates for the champions of race equality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But to really connect all that up would require a professional musicologist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, Tamla Motown had a pretty clear equity aim, to prevent exploitation of black musicians by "the dominant culture", to use that term.

---

To the extent that they did this, the fact that they were owned by black people helped a lot in ensuring that they weren't seen as outsiders exploiting a culture.

That they were aware of the uphill struggle they were involved in is evident in various things including hiring Maxine Powell to run deportment lessons for their artists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Lots of stuff has happened since I last looked at this thread! I'm trying to work all of it into my brain but while that happens I'm going to mention a logical fallacy which I think has played a big part in the discussion here: the idea that if you can't immediately name the solution, it isn't a problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

Seems to me that there is top-down thinking which sees "problems" at the level of races, or of more-developed and less-developed nations.

And there is bottom-up thinking which sees freedoms and duties, rights and responsibilities at the level of interactions between individual people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Carlos Slim is a pale person in Mexico. Look at the wealth gradient in Mexico and the higher you go the paler it is.
George Soros is whitey McWhite white. So race isn't quite as much a thing.
Wang Jianlin is Han Chinese. In China. His father fought with Mao. Han is the ethnic group of power in China, BTW. You cannot get more "in" than that. How is he even on your list?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The young male aboriginal population identifies with black urban images, culture and identity.

---

Identity? There is more than identity than music and clothes and speech.
Identify with? cool.
Identify as? Not so cool.
I said it poorly before, I think. Black is colour and culture and experience. Colour, not hue.
This man is darker than Obama. He is not black and Obama is.
Your Saskatoonians walk in to Croyden, Harlem or South Central and proclaim their blackness and how do you think they will be received?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Doc Tor,

Racial advantage is about having the advantage where you are. Your examples have that advantage. You could argue Soros a tiny bit, but he's got the important attribute.
Not saying they got to where they are because they are the proper race, but that their race was not a barrier where they are.

---

I could argue Soros a tiny bit - an immigrant Jew, living in post-war Britain. ... The important attribute now being, of course, richer than Croesus.

And I do get it. I get how race can be a barrier to to all sorts of things. Unless you have money. Which means that primary discriminant is wealth, not race. When poor white folk battle with poor black folk or poor brown folk, they may well come out on top, but pitch any of them against a wealthy man of whatever colour, they'll lose. That's it. That's all.
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I don't really disagree, but I think you're simplifying, doc. For instance, I can think of multiple instances (see for instance Harvard professor Gates' arrest in his own home) of cases where race has played a role* even in rich upper class PoC.


*If you are on the side that it was Gates' fault for being too adversarial, then his expectation of racism means that race still played a role.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Didn't know Soros is Jewish. Still Jewish beats black.
I'm not saying wealth doesn't lower barriers. I'm saying that it doesn't eliminate all of them and getting that wealth is easier if you're part of the dominant group. And in the UK, US, Canada, etc. part of being in that group is being white.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Interactions with the police are an interesting case - witness Plebgate where a lone alpha male establishment figure went up against a group of beta male establishment figures, and initially lost, eventually partly won, but with reputations on both sides in tatters. He lost a subsequent libel battle against the Sun and the primary officer.

The police are used to being in charge, and believed. Wielding enormous power over the citizenry leads to situations where Lord Acton's famous dictum. In Mitchell's case above, he had the wealth to pursue his tormentors through the press and the courts, though apparently not the common sense to quit while he was ahead.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
And in the interests of balance, I'll post a link to this incredibly thought-provoking article by Guardian journalist Gary Younge.

Much to consider, though I think he'll find Hackney a lot different to what he remembers.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And in the interests of balance, I'll post a link to this incredibly thought-provoking article by Guardian journalist Gary Younge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LilBuddha
.no prophet seems to think identity should be about choice and I'm trying to illustrate why that doesn't work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And in the interests of balance, I'll post a link to this incredibly thought-provoking article by Guardian journalist Gary Younge.

Much to consider, though I think he'll find Hackney a lot different to what he remembers.

---

quote:

---

No one is going to be checking my bank account or professional status when they are looking at my kids.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
The article suggests that Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown were shot in cold blood. The Department of Justice investigations into these cases concluded that the people who shot them were in great danger and shot in self-defense. The Department of Justice is not given to whitewashing cases like this.
Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
... When anyone goes for a job interview they dress up, smarten up, straighten up etc. We project an image of who we are, display our willingness to conform to the culture of the organisation that we hope will be giving us a paycheque. ... Those who speak good English, conform to company dress codes etc will get the jobs, will move out of the underclass, once they are no longer held back by prejudice against the colour of their skin.

So that worldly success will depend precisely on not making "underclass sub-culture" part of one's own identity.

Does that make any sense ?

Best wishes,

Russ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I don't know about making sense, but what you've described isn't a future utopia. It's called "acting white" (or "house Negro" or "Oreo"). It's the Bill Cosby pull-up-your-pants argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I don't know about making sense, but what you've described isn't a future utopia. It's called "acting white" (or "house Negro" or "Oreo"). It's the Bill Cosby pull-up-your-pants argument. It's telling black people that if they would just act like white people - and not just at job interviews, but all the time - everything would be fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
The article suggests that Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown were shot in cold blood. The Department of Justice investigations into these cases concluded that the people who shot them were in great danger and shot in self-defense. The Department of Justice is not given to whitewashing cases like this.
Moo

---

if they were white they would be alive. You may conclude differently, statistics back my conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
You can't apply statistics to individual cases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
You can't apply statistics to individual cases.

---

But you can use them to make predictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Anyone familiar ith Westwood presenting MTVs Pimp My Ride ? What do you make of Westwood's self presentation there ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
You can't apply statistics to individual cases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

If the article had named Walter Scott, it would have been entirely appropriate.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
what you've described isn't a future utopia. It's called "acting white" (or "house Negro" or "Oreo"). It's the Bill Cosby pull-up-your-pants argument. It's telling black people that if they would just act like white people - and not just at job interviews, but all the time - everything would be fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And in the interests of balance, I'll post a link to this incredibly thought-provoking article by Guardian journalist Gary Younge.

---

The article suggests that Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown were shot in cold blood. The Department of Justice investigations into these cases concluded that the people who shot them were in great danger and shot in self-defense. The Department of Justice is not given to whitewashing cases like this.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I don't know about Mike Brown, but what the hell should you do if you are Trayvon Martin and being stalked by a guy with a gun? He got the drop on the stalker. And then the stalker used the gun on him. And got off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I don't know about Mike Brown, but what the hell should you do if you are Trayvon Martin and being stalked by a guy with a gun? He got the drop on the stalker. And then the stalker used the gun on him. And got off.

---

Zimmermann said, and the jury apparently accepted his story, that he was not following Martin, but rather looking for a street sign so he could tell the police exactly where he was. Zimmermann said that Martin unexpectedly hit him in the face so hard that it knocked him over, then got on top of him and started beating his head against the pavement. Zimmermann's injuries fit his story.

At the trial Martin's girl friend said that she had been talking to Martin on his cell phone, and he said he was going to beat this guy up.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That said, he got hip hop airplay on mainstream radio - promoted and advocated for it extensively - and I think that is why the Music of Black Origin guys gave him awards.

I just wonder where that leaves him in the cultural appropriation issue, as a DJ playing on legit radio, the artists whose music he used would have been receiving royalties and exposure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
lilBuddha spoke of conclusions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Diversity is stuff like Irish bars and Senegalese restaurants in places where groups of people from these countries have settled. And doesn't get in the way of the peoples concerned speaking good English and dressing smart professional when applying for jobs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose
Conveniently the other main witness was dead. Zimmerman could have stayed in his car to look for street signs. And tellingly Zimmerman has been involved in a number of other violent incidents since the event. Okay, he was acquitted within the parameters of the system, but I only think it became "self-defense" after that unarmed young man confronted his stalker.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose
Conveniently the other main witness was dead. Zimmerman could have stayed in his car to look for street signs. And tellingly Zimmerman has been involved in a number of other violent incidents since the event. Okay, he was acquitted within the parameters of the system, but I only think it became "self-defense" after that unarmed young man confronted his stalker.

---

Zimmermann's conversation with the police was recorded, and the recording was played at the trial. Here are the last few statements. (The first two are not necessarily verbatim; the third is.)

Police: Can you see a street sign?
Zimmermann: Not from my car. I'll get out and look around.
Police: You don't need to do that.
{No reply from Zimmermann. He may have already left his car}
Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Of course, there was no national outcry or protest marches for him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Here's another boy shot by the police. Ninety pounds, in his own home, not pounding anyone's head on the concrete or anything. Of course, there was no national outcry or protest marches for him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
That he was following him with a gun?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose
And tellingly Zimmerman has been involved in a number of other violent incidents since the event.

---

quote:

---

In July 2005, when he was 21, Zimmerman was arrested after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent while a friend of Zimmerman's was being arrested for underage drinking. The officer alleged that Zimmerman had said, "I don't care who you are," followed by a profanity, and had refused to leave the area after the officer had shown their badge.[27] The charges were subsequently dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes.[3][28] Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancée filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted. ~Wikipedia

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Ahem:

quote:

---

In July 2005, when he was 21, Zimmerman was arrested after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent while a friend of Zimmerman's was being arrested for underage drinking. The officer alleged that Zimmerman had said, "I don't care who you are," followed by a profanity, and had refused to leave the area after the officer had shown their badge.[27] The charges were subsequently dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes.[3][28] Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancée filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted. ~Wikipedia

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Look up "George Zimmerman" in Wiki. Look under "Other Encounters with Police". Follow the footnote links: Reuters and NBC News.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose
And tellingly Zimmerman has been involved in a number of other violent incidents since the event.

---

I agree he's been charged with other violent incidents, but all the charges were dropped. I think it's highly significant that Zimmermann was never charged with any act of violence before the Trayvon Martin case. If he were violent man, he would certainly have engaged in acts of violence before that.

Moo

---

quote:

---

I think very little would have been written about the case if Zimmermann's last name had been Lopez.

---

quote:

---

If I was walking down the street and thought the person behind me was following me (rather than just walking in the same direction which is most likely) I would never think to save myself from this person by turning around and attacking him.

---

quote:

---

Thank goodness most of us can walk down the street without fear that the person walking ahead of us turn around and jump on us and beat us to the ground because we were "following," them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose
And he lived in the area, and most probably knew about the crimes that had been reported.

---

He had been staying in the complex for less than two weeks.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
So he couldn't have heard anything about it.

What. Ever.

Zimmerman was acquitted, so that is that.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Zimmerman was acquitted, so that is that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Martin saw that guy who had following him seemed to be still after him, so he acted with tragic, bone-headed bravado and attacked the guy. And he died for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Most people believe that there's a right to self-defence. That's clearly a case in which someone is allowed to do something that would be otherwise morally dubious because they're a victim. So there's at least one largely uncontroversial situation in which being a victim alters the rights and wrongs of a situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Most people believe that there's a right to self-defence. That's clearly a case in which someone is allowed to do something that would be otherwise morally dubious because they're a victim. So there's at least one largely uncontroversial situation in which being a victim alters the rights and wrongs of a situation.

---

Yes there's a right to self-defence, and no it's not because the defender is a victim.

---

quote:

---

Do you or do you not believe that being a victim somehow alters the rights and wrongs of a situation ?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0