Why is it considered acceptable...

[dashrashi]

While reading some of the material posted here, I was struck by something.  Why is it considered acceptable to post unsubstantiated comments, anecdotes, and generalizations about "white people," but no other group?  Why is it assumed that because someone is white that they benefit from legacy status, are a racist, or have ancestors that benefited directly or indirectly from slavery or Jim Crow (before you answer, remember that all of the comm bloc refugees from the late 70's and early 80's were both economically disadvantaged and "white")?  I'm just curious.

This is a canard. 

I think I actually disagree, but in a far too nuanced way for this thread. (hint: it has to do with white privilege. UH oh.)

[Netopalis]

*sigh*  Fine, I'll bow out of this thread.  I do care about equality, for the record, I just don't feel that AA is the way to do it...But, after today, I really, really do NOT feel like arguing to the bitter end with random strangers on the internet.

[Miss P]

While reading some of the material posted here, I was struck by something.  Why is it considered acceptable to post unsubstantiated comments, anecdotes, and generalizations about "white people," but no other group?  Why is it assumed that because someone is white that they benefit from legacy status, are a racist, or have ancestors that benefited directly or indirectly from slavery or Jim Crow (before you answer, remember that all of the comm bloc refugees from the late 70's and early 80's were both economically disadvantaged and "white")?  I'm just curious.

This is a canard. 

I think I actually disagree, but in a far too nuanced way for this thread. (hint: it has to do with white privilege. UH oh.)

Oh, I make at least one of those assumptions myself (I think we agree), but the passive-voice-to-imply-universality "why is it assumed" makes this a canard.  It is simply not true that people, here or elsewhere, readily accept "unsubstantiated comments, anecdotes, and generalizations about 'white people,' but no other group."

[Susan B. Anthony]

*sigh*  Fine, I'll bow out of this thread.  I do care about equality, for the record, I just don't feel that AA is the way to do it...But, after today, I really, really do NOT feel like arguing to the bitter end with random strangers on the internet.

Just for the record, the problems with your "it's not racism!" comment go far, far beyond any AA debate, and you need to be really careful when you make statements of that kind.

[dashrashi]

While reading some of the material posted here, I was struck by something.  Why is it considered acceptable to post unsubstantiated comments, anecdotes, and generalizations about "white people," but no other group?  Why is it assumed that because someone is white that they benefit from legacy status, are a racist, or have ancestors that benefited directly or indirectly from slavery or Jim Crow (before you answer, remember that all of the comm bloc refugees from the late 70's and early 80's were both economically disadvantaged and "white")?  I'm just curious.

This is a canard. 

I think I actually disagree, but in a far too nuanced way for this thread. (hint: it has to do with white privilege. UH oh.)

Oh, I make at least one of those assumptions myself (I think we agree), but the passive-voice-to-imply-universality "why is it assumed" makes this a canard.  It is simply not true that people, here or elsewhere, readily accept "unsubstantiated comments, anecdotes, and generalizations about 'white people,' but no other group."

Yes, that's true. I suppose I didn't feel up to hitting as hard on this one given that I do assume that, personally? (I recently had to explain to my mother why YES I feel white guilt, and NO that isn't some terrible or stupid thing, and YES I should feel guilty because of the nature of white privilege [UH oh], etc. She can be kind of retrograde for someone who does anti-bias work. It's interesting.)

[Ninja1]

Moral: AA should be disbanded tomorrow and it's bull to afford anyone alive today preferential treatment based on *&^% that happened before their life times.

[devildog_jim]

While reading some of the material posted here, I was struck by something.  Why is it considered acceptable to post unsubstantiated comments, anecdotes, and generalizations about "white people," but no other group?  Why is it assumed that because someone is white that they benefit from legacy status, are a racist, or have ancestors that benefited directly or indirectly from slavery or Jim Crow (before you answer, remember that all of the comm bloc refugees from the late 70's and early 80's were both economically disadvantaged and "white")?  I'm just curious.

This is a canard. 

I think I actually disagree, but in a far too nuanced way for this thread. (hint: it has to do with white privilege. UH oh.)

Oh, I make at least one of those assumptions myself (I think we agree), but the passive-voice-to-imply-universality "why is it assumed" makes this a canard.  It is simply not true that people, here or elsewhere, readily accept "unsubstantiated comments, anecdotes, and generalizations about 'white people,' but no other group."

Yes, that's true. I suppose I didn't feel up to hitting as hard on this one given that I do assume that, personally? (I recently had to explain to my mother why YES I feel white guilt, and NO that isn't some terrible or stupid thing, and YES I should feel guilty because of the nature of white privilege [UH oh], etc. She can be kind of retrograde for someone who does anti-bias work. It's interesting.)

Wow.  Are you actually going to try to defend white guilt and white privilege on both rational and moral grounds?  Because I'm giving you a chance to back out now before feelings get hurt.

PS:  It was a canard.  And given the response, I'd say it worked wouldn't you?

[devildog_jim]

The aims of law schools are to increase diversity in the legal profession. Done.

Silly me.  Here I thought that the aim of law schools was to produce the best-educated students possible.  I didn't realize that they were in the business of educating people who look different just because they look different.

[devildog_jim]

Take the "war on drugs" as an example. African-American drug use rates are about the same as white drug use rates, yet African-Americans are arrested at nearly two or three times the rate of whites. A large part of this is because police officers choose to go to neighborhoods where they can pick up drug users on the street (white drug users generally use inside their homes). This has nothing to do with which racial group commits more crimes - this is a policing decision that is racially based and results in racial disparities in arrests.

Wow, this couldn't possibly be because it takes a warrant to gather enough evidence to arrest a home drug user, while a street drug user can be witnessed by law enforcement breaking the law in plain view?  No, it's just those racist cops again.  Why can't they just execute more of those no-knock warrants on those evil white drug users popping pills they got with a fake script?

BTW, many drug arrests in my area are made in the course of a search indecent to arrest for another crime.  In those areas where there are more criminals, and more of the criminals have their drugs on them, there will be more drug arrests.  And whether or not the original charge sticks, it's hard to fight the possession charge when it was in your pocket.  Lesson: don't bring your stash if you're going to rob a liquor store, steal a car, or beat up a hooker.  Yes, if you include white collar crime there are probably just as many criminals in "white" residential areas.  But street crime gets the attention and the enforcement priority both because it is more readily apparent and because of the inherent risk to the general public.

I'd really like to see your stat source (you may have provided it, and I just missed it).  I'd love to do this using just your numbers, and I'm hoping they're the FBI's so we don't have t add an argument about statistics gathering too. 

Affirmative action has definitely helped to improve the situation. The presence of African American judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys is beneficial for the goal of fairness in the system. It helps put these issues on the table, first and foremost. It is also very positive for people from communities that are so frequently the target of racial discrimination to feel like they have people on their side, who know where they are coming from. I cited a stat before that an African American male has a 29% chance of going to prison in his lifetime. It is incredibly empowering to see role models as judges or lawyers, to know that you have more options than prison.

Again, what?!?!?!  Just because the judge or attorney is black it makes the system fair?  You can divine their life experience, motives, and viewpoints simply from their skin color?  I'm fairly certain that no one on the bench ever stood out on the block dealing dime bags (although I have to admit I didn't look that stat up), so I fail to see how he is going to feel empathy for the 10-time recidivist petty drug dealer he's sending back to prison.  Again.  Maybe I was wrong when I thought that the majority of people weren't racists.  They simply manifest it as low expectations and pity these days.

[devildog_jim]

*sigh*  Fine, I'll bow out of this thread.  I do care about equality, for the record, I just don't feel that AA is the way to do it...But, after today, I really, really do NOT feel like arguing to the bitter end with random strangers on the internet.

Just for the record, the problems with your "it's not racism!" comment go far, far beyond any AA debate, and you need to be really careful when you make statements of that kind.

Or...?  You'll call him an evil racist for disagreeing with you?  Or just naive and uneducated?  Since he is bowing out, I'll say it.  It's not racism.  I don't even know what the pronoun in that sentence refers to, but I want to see if you're going to back up your threatening tone.