As far as understanding racial struggle I think this is where systemic comes in. For example, the prison pipeline. Why do black people go to jail more? Profiling is one factor, but there are others. For instance, housing and education. Poverty increases the likelihood of criminal activity. A black person in the US is more likely to be poor than a white person, and that greater likelihood of poverty is a consequence of the history of white control over black people. Black people were barred from better housing by law, were segregated into lower quality schools, etc. At no point was separate but equal truly equal. Black people were denied higher paying jobs. Black people patronized white businesses, but the reverse wasn't true. When white people move into a neighborhood, it's gentrifying, whereas when POC started moving into a neighborhood after house prices drop, white folks started moving out. A lot of the white people I knew when told any of this, took it as a guilt trip, or ask why black people don't pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Being the 'default race', they don't see themselves in terms of the actions of their race, but continue to categorize other races by the actions of people of the same race. A non racially charged example of this knock on effect idea might be the increased prevalence of prescription drug abuse in Appalachian Virginia, which is a consequence of the history of absentee land owner landlords, lower education, and orientation around back breaking mine work which then collapsed. I'm coming at this as a mixed race immigrant turned American expat,which is probably relevant to what I have to say about American race relations. The point I get from 'people are dying' is that specifically police violence against black and hispanic people is being justified as statistically supported profiling, when its not clear the statistics actually bear that out. I disagree with them segregating themselves from white people to talk about race because although the best teacher would be talking to people of other races, as someone of another race I get emotionally exhausted sometimes, having to argue about things I have a personal stake in with white people who don't believe me, don't want to believe me, and are less likely to even care what I have to say because I'm not white. It's probably easier for a white person who has tried to inform themselves about these issues to have that discussion than it is for me. What would I like you to do about it? Educate your fellow white folks? Challenge your knee jerk reactions? Consider whether anti-white attitudes are really as prevalent as you might think and/or where they might come from? Personally, I just lost faith that America is a good place for a person like me to live and stopped believing that would change, so I suppose I have given up, same as the author.
First off, sorry if my post came off as a knee jerk reaction. I intended only to point out the fallacies perpetrated by both authors and some of the things I felt were either unfair, untrue, or worked to undo what both authors (probably) want - an equal ground to stand on for all races. As an aside, I don't understand why we call ourselves "the human race" but segregate ourselves into additional "races." It seems stupid. Is the current education system still actively or passively trying to push black people into poverty and/or prison? I believe this is the same point that Mansbach was making. I actually do agree with this, though I didn't notice it until he and you pointed it out. I'll have to think on how to remedy that. I don't think anyone is happy with the police right now. Maybe it could be a bonding force between everyone. minimum_wage posted this about gathering data on police union contracts and hopefully getting something positive done on that front. I don't know specifics, but it looks like they want to revise the contracts to force a higher level of accountability in police. I think that it's a concrete example "we're tired of this and are working to fix it." As a white person, I don't feel any more power to change how people view each other than you do. I don't know if the answer relies on a personal change, a national law or laws, or some combination of both. I also don't want to be perceived as patronizing if/when I try to help someone who's black. For example: I feel like I could pay for the little old white lady's groceries, but if I did it to a little old black lady, I'd be a smug white asshole who thinks he can throw his money at the poor black folks. So, I don't help anyone. Maybe other white people have a similar feeling of uncertainty when dealing with these kinds of issues and therefore choose inaction over possible offense. The one thing I will say that's really not helping black people is that the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore showed them burning, looting, and generally destroying everything. That can't be the best way to resolve your problems. I'm not sure where that mindset stems from, or if it's exclusively a black mindset, but nobody that I know who watched those events unfold could support the rioters. With that all said, I don't think that there is a prevalence of anti-white attitudes, but I can see how they could possibly stem from those who suffered in the times pre-civil rights and passed down their experiences to their children and so on. Being profiled by cops and regular people certainly doesn't help. It's all a foreign world to me, so thanks for shedding a bit more light on your viewpoint.A lot of the white people I knew when told any of this, took it as a guilt trip, or ask why black people don't pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Being the 'default race', they don't see themselves in terms of the actions of their race, but continue to categorize other races by the actions of people of the same race.
I wish I had mentioned the riots in Ferguson. First of all, I'm offended by your suggestion it's a black mindset. The largest race riot in US history was the Tulsa Race Riot in which a group of white people attacked the richest black community in the US and burned it to the ground. It's no more black, than lynching is a white mindset. I support the rioters in the sense that I know that they suffered injustice and those riots weren't born in a vacuum. The Department of Justice Ferguson report found that there was unconstitutional policing which included discriminatory intent against African Americans. The pressure in both Ferguson and Baltimore was building for a long time before riots ever happened and nothing was done. The people rioted out of frustration and anger and desperation, and to reduce it to 'a mindset' really trivializes the issues involved. Please, take the time to look at the resources that are out there. There are some ridiculous cases. For instance peaceful protestors taking milk from a McDonalds after they were tear gassed was reported by the media as looting. Fox news took a chant against police violence and distorted the sound so the protestors appeared to be saying "kill all cops". CNN Photoshopped people's signs. I'm not saying we should get our tinfoil hats, just that the media has made distortions for clicks before, and its worth it to try to look for more than one perspective. In particular I'd urge you to look at some of the things locals in these areas, and other black people in the US have written about what's going on now. They express things with more clarity and insight than I can certainly. Ultimately 266 years just isn't as long of a time as Americans think. The effects of the actions of the very first colonists are still being felt today in other areas, its almost farcical to think that wouldn't apply to racism.
I apologize. I don't mean to offend with my words or implications thereof. I don't mean to say that the riots themselves were a mindset, only that the seemingly wanton destruction of their own neighborhoods was. I can't understand the logic of destroying your own businesses, homes, or any other property. I do understand that police were extremely discriminatory in both situations and I do understand that the deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray served as catalysts for the riots. However, I don't think that the behavior displayed by the people in either situation should be condoned, regardless of why it happened. What more did they gain by violently rioting instead of peacefully protesting? (Legitimate question, not trying to bait you into an argument.) I agree on the distortion of events by the mainstream media. Reading through a few different sources cited the riots as mostly peaceful with pockets of violence that were magnified by media attention specifically focused on violence. Since I read it after typing the above paragraph, I'll leave it there and say that I learned something new, thanks to you. I appreciate your insight.
A riot is the voice of the unheard. You're looking for rationality among the oppressed in the face of the irrationality of the oppressor. Why do the oppressed have the obligation to be somehow more rational? Why is it any less logical to destroy an area in which you live (and to be honest, a CVS in Baltimore and a convenience store in Ferguson aren't really the high water mark of community pillars) but why is it less logical to destroy those places than to allow cops to kill black people and get away with it? You're asking the wrong questions I think. More importantly, and this is a bit more daring, but the uprisings should be condoned because violent uprising is the only route to actual changes. The feds came into Ferguson and Baltimore for oversight of police actions after the uprisings. The Civil Rights Act didn't get signed because of people sitting in neat little rows making clever arguments and begging for power to be given to them. It may be an uncomfortable truth, but power isn't given willingly to the oppressed.
I try to approach situations through the path of logic and reason. That's just how my brain works and it's hard for me to see a different view. All of this is an attempt at doing that. In my mind, I would see the oppressed taking a more rational approach than the oppressor as an extra mark in favor of the oppressed. They're having to live through unreasonable conditions born out of hate and yet they rise above it in spectacular fashion, refusing to bend to the call of violence. However, I do understand that this approach wouldn't garner as much media attention. Unfortunately, the media only cares about how much stuff got blown up because ratings, so I can understand how resorting to violence may the the only option to get your cause onto the national stage. Not everyone who fought for civil rights in the 50s and 60s used violence to achieve their goals. I can't imagine that the violent protesters would have succeeded without those refusing to take part in violent acts. Maybe nonviolence wouldn't have been a success either. I don't truly know enough about all of it to make a solid statement. What are the right questions?