Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

How Anti-Racist Are You Poll

How to be an Anti-Racist Poll  

6 members have voted

  1. 1. Check all of the below that you DISAGREE with:

    • Denial is the heartbeat of racism.
    • Saying one is "not racist" signifies neutrality: "I am not a racist, but neither am I aggressively against racism." 
    • The opposite of "racist" is not "not racist." It is "anti-racist."
    • Racist and anti-racist are not fixed identities. We can be racist one minute and an antiracist the next. 
    • A racist is one who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inactions or expressing a racist idea. 
    • Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produce and normalizes racial inequities.
    • The fact that 71% of White families live in owner-occupied homes, while only 45% of Hispanics and 41% of Blacks do is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed.
      0
    • There is no such thing as a race-neutral or nonracist policy, as each policy produces or sustains racial inequity or racial equity. 
    • We all have the power to discriminate. Only a few have the power to make policy.
    • The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination
    • The most threatening racist movement is not the "Alt-Right" but the regular American's drive for a "race-neutral" country. 
    • Racial groups are equals in all their apparant differences--there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: White people are more likely than Black and Hispanic people to sell drugs, and the races consume drugs at similar rates; yet, Blacks are more likely to be jailed for drug offenses. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Non-violent Black drug offenders stay in prison for about the same length of time as violent White drug offenders
    • High unemployment corresponds with violent crime; racial minorities do not correspond with violent crime.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black people comprise 13% of the population and at least 26% of those killed by police. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Unarmed black men are twice as likely to be killed by police as unarmed white men. 
    • There is no such thing as a dangerous racial group; there are only dangerous individuals. 
      0
    • Colorism is a serious issue among blacks and whites, creating inequities between light color blacks and dark color blacks. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Lighter skin people are more likely to receive good paying jobs and get accepted to better schools than dark skin people. 
    • Racist ideas suspend reality and retrofit history, including individual histories
    • Increased voter suppression in the states is making it harder for minorities to vote out people who are not promoting anti-racist policies.
    • A large percentage of black people hold anti-black racist ideas. That is, ideas that sustain or increase racial inequity. 
      0
    • Black people can be racist because black people do have power, even if limited. 
      0
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Only 27% of white cops think the issue of blacks being killed more often than whites by violent cops are signs of a broader problem, compared to the 57% of black cops. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: The black poverty rate is 3x the white poverty rate
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black unemployment is 2x that of white unemployment
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: The median net worth of white families is 10x more than black families
    • To love capitalism is to end up loving racism
    • The idea of the dangerous black neighborhood is the most dangerous racist idea.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black women with college education make the same or less as a White woman with a high school degree.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black women have to earn an advanced degree to earn as much as a white woman with only a bachelor's degree. 
    • The United States is a racist nation because its policymakers and policies have been racist from the beginning.
    • Racism has always been terminal and curable. Racism has always been recognizable and mortal. 
    • [Check this if you don't disagree with any of the above]
  2. 2. Kendi lists 11 things that should be done to make America more anti-racist. Check those that you DISAGREE with:

    • Admit racial inequity is a problem of bad policy, not bad people. 
    • Identify racial inequity in all its intersections and manifestations. 
    • Investigate and uncover the racist policies causing racial inequity. 
    • Invent or find anti-racist policy that can eliminate racial inequity. 
    • Figure out who or what group has the power to institute anti-racist policy
    • Disseminate and educate about the uncovered racist policy and anti-racist policy correctives
    • Work with sympathetic anti-racist policymakers to institute anti-racist policy
    • Deploy anti-racist power to compel or drive from power the unsympathetic racist policymakers in order to institute the anti-racist policy. 
    • Monitor closely to ensure the anti-racist policy reduces and eliminates racial inequity.
    • When policies fail, do not blame the people. Start over and seek out new and more affective anti-racist treatments until they work. 
    • Monitor closely to prevent new racist policies from being instituted. 
    • [Check this if you don't disagree with any of the above]
  3. 3. After considering the above, Ibram X. Kendi would likely consider me......

    • Anti-racist, because I actively support anti-racist policy and anti-racist ideas.
    • Racist, because even if I am not actively supporting racist policies and ideas, I am indirectly sustaining these ideas through my inaction in supporting anti-racist policies and anti-racist ideas.
    • I disagree with Kendi that being neutral on race is racist and that being just "not racist" is racist. Thus, not being "anti-racist" does not mean one is racist.
  4. 4. Will the United States ever have approximate equality/equity among different races, ethnicities, gender, etc.?

    • Yes, but it will take a lot of effort and determination by federal, state, local governments and the citizens and companies therein.
    • No, our country was founded on an inequality/inequity that will be impossible to shake.
    • I don't know/don't have a hunch
      0
  5. 5. Is capitalism and/or Socialism helping or harming the quest for racial inquity

    • Capitalism is absolutely anti-racist; Socialism is absolutely racist
      0
    • Capitalism is more anti-racist than Socialism
    • Socialism would be more anti-racist than Capitalism
    • Socialism is absolutely anti-racist; Capitalism is absolutely racist
      0
    • It is unclear to me if any of these systems have any impact on racial inequity or not.


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I was saying "How so" in regards to losing emotional power. I understand the redefinition. 

Seems obvious. "My race is superior to yours" is much more an emotional position than "The difference between hispanic and black home ownership rates isn't something that requires government intervention" or some such thing.

Since I don't agree with the premise in the title and through many of the answers (the terms 'anti-racism' and 'racism' are being redefined), it's not applicable.

Some of the options in isolation are interesting questions (for example, % who own homes), which probably don't have simple answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, pilight said:

Mine was "Ghod, not another push poll from @vcczar"

😀 I assume he's genuinely interested in what other people think about stuff he's reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Seems obvious. "My race is superior to yours" is much more an emotional position than "The difference between hispanic and black home ownership rates isn't something that requires government intervention" or some such thing.

I guess that's debatable. 

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Since I don't agree with the premise in the title and through many of the answers (the terms 'anti-racism' and 'racism' are being redefined), it's not applicable.

What what you say if the questions were in light of the typical definition of racism? I know some questions won't apply with that definition but some certainly do. 

I guess I'm also curious if you would fit within Kendi's definition of racist or anti-racist, using his definition and criteria of the terms, even if you don't agree with the premise. 

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

😀 I assume he's genuinely interested in what other people think about stuff he's reading.

I do, and I like to know the rationale for the reasons why they believe what they do regarding the theories in things like this. So far, the only person (yesterday) that's attempted to give a rational alternative opinion seemed to be more defensive and not even tolerant enough to consider that Kendi might have a point on some things. He just want back into the "I am not racist" stance which is the trap Kendi sets for those ignorant of their own purposeful or non-purposeful support of racist policies, in his opinion. 

I'm hoping someone can oppose Kendi's view point without getting intolerantly defensive and with some acknowledgment that some current policies might cause racial inequity, even if one things the federal government is the tool to improve that or not. 

I'm finding very few people that aren't hyper-defensive (100% white men, by the way--usually 40+ years old) when they disagree with Kendi. I have no problem with people disagreeing with him (or with me), but I find the hyper-defensiveness on race as unfortunately revealing of some sort of subconscious racism. A good response would be, "I have never considered myself racist. I don't think about it much. I admit more can and should be done, but we don't yet know the best ways to deal with social inquity. I disagree with Kendi's premise. It's a little too strong and might not be the best way to discuss this. However, I certainly will consider racial inequity when supporting policy and ideas so long as it isn't at the expense of the grand majority of American, black, white or otherwise." Basically, there's ways to state ones position coming off as understanding and arguing the point of being not-racist as leaning more towards anti-racists than racist. However, most people get really uncomfortable talking about black people. There seemed to be no problem with the Native American thread, which was interesting. 

If you are interested why I'm reading this book, it wasn't my choice. I'm on three committees over the summer. One of them is on anti-racist pedagogy. I didn't choose this committe, they moved me there when I strangely couldn't get enough people to join the Controversial Current Events committee. Everyone seemed interested in BLM specifically. I'm still on the Controversial Current Events committee and the Committee to End Reliance on Textbooks.

Anyway, someone else suggested the Kendi book. I knew I'd likely agree with it, but it was better than I thought it would be. I expected something that was completely polemicist, but he wasn't afraid to call out blacks and liberals from being racist too, and he defended the Alt-RIght as not the major factor in promoting racial inequity. As a lover of history, he covers a lot of ground talking about the history of social inequity, most of which I don't mention in the poll. Very interesting book if any self-declared "race-neutral" person or self-declared "racist" wants to have a book with an alternate viewpoint. I would have worded things differently at points, but I agree with most of what he says. However, I'm not black. He is. He's dealt with stuff I can never fully comprehend, even if I devote my entire life to trying to understand it. 

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Seems obvious. "My race is superior to yours" is much more an emotional position than "The difference between hispanic and black home ownership rates isn't something that requires government intervention" or some such thing.

That would be an unfortunate position for someone to take, as the difference was caused largely by a process known as “redlining”, which was greatly exacerbated by government intervention, and continues to have long-standing negative effects to this day.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

That would be an unfortunate position for someone to take, as the difference was caused largely by a process known as “redlining”, which was greatly exacerbated by government intervention, and continues to have long-standing negative effects to this day.

I have a book called the Color of Law which discusses this in depth. Great book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

That would be an unfortunate position for someone to take, as the difference was caused largely by a process known as “redlining”, which was greatly exacerbated by government intervention, and continues to have long-standing negative effects to this day

What you seem to be saying is that differences in ownership are an effect of racism (in the normal sense of that term). So people ought to find it emotionally compelling that there are differences in % home ownership. That might be so, but it seems what you're saying is they ought to find that % difference emotionally compelling *because racism caused it*.

If something else caused the difference (say, blacks on average lived in urban settings where renting was more common, for reasons unrelated to racism) then would it make sense to find that difference emotionally compelling? I don't think so.

So the real problem here is racism, in the normal definition of that term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vcczar said:

I guess I'm also curious if you would fit within Kendi's definition of racist or anti-racist, using his definition and criteria of the terms, even if you don't agree with the premise. 

A lot there. Happy to answer a more specific question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin_270 said:

What you seem to be saying is that differences in ownership are an effect of racism (in the normal sense of that term). So people ought to find it emotionally compelling that there are differences in % home ownership. That might be so, but it seems what you're saying is they ought to find that % difference emotionally compelling *because racism caused it*.

If something else caused the difference (say, blacks on average lived in urban settings where renting was more common, for reasons unrelated to racism) then would it make sense to find that difference emotionally compelling? I don't think so.

So the real problem here is racism, in the normal definition of that term.

No, I’m saying the thing that I actually said.  That the difference in home ownership by race (and, in turn, the difference in generational wealth by race) is largely caused by redlining — which was the practice of banks to not lend to minority neighborhoods, which led to less cash availability, and inability to sell their own homes, etc.  This practice was actually made worse by government interference, which forced banks to only make “wise” (racist) investments into white neighborhoods.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2020 at 11:54 PM, CPE said:

(although I have heard that evidence does exist on the Dark Web proving that it was released from the bioweapons lab in Wuhan, I haven't checked personally)

Dear God - if they find it and it turns out to be true, it'll lead to an immediate declaration of war!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wiw said:

Dear God - if they find it and it turns out to be true, it'll lead to an immediate declaration of war!

Not with ICBM's on both sides. You seem to have a delusion that anyone in high places among nuclear powers actually WANTS a nuclear war. It's a neurosis of yours I can't comprehend, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Actinguy said:

No, I’m saying the thing that I actually said.  That the difference in home ownership by race (and, in turn, the difference in generational wealth by race) is largely caused by redlining — which was the practice of banks to not lend to minority neighborhoods, which led to less cash availability, and inability to sell their own homes, etc.  This practice was actually made worse by government interference, which forced banks to only make “wise” (racist) investments into white neighborhoods.

 

This process wasn’t “made worse” by government interference, it is a government practice. 

Invented in Baltimore in the 1920s and adopted by Mayors across the nation, this practice was used my city leaders to economically target people of color. It is one of governments greatest tools and as you know it’s legacy is still widely felt today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

This process wasn’t “made worse” by government interference, it is a government practice. 

Invented in Baltimore in the 1920s and adopted by Mayors across the nation, this practice was used my city leaders to economically target people of color. It is one of governments greatest tools and as you know it’s legacy is still widely felt today.

That's a fair point.  I was referring to federal interference, which I would trace back to the National Housing Act of 1934 (though redlining existed informally before this).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, admin_270 said:

A lot there. Happy to answer a more specific question.

I'll let you choose which you are interested in responding to, if you have any interest at all. 

I guess the questions I'm most interested in for everyone is if:

1) Do you believe current laws create or sustain racial inequity?

2) Do you believe that the federal government should take a greater role in attempting to achieve racial equity?

3) Do you think that a person that isn't actively fighting for policy and ideas that reduce racism (any definition of it), racial inequity, etc. (that is, being "race neutral" or just "not racist," is being a little bit racist by maintaining the status quo?

4) Do you think more should be done to combat racial inequity and/or racial equality?

5) If you were president of the US and issues of race consistently bombarded the news, BLM protests occurred more frequently and much larger, etc., how would you respond? 

I guess I'm curious if people care (active oppose racism and racial inequity), don't care (passive/race-neutral), or vehemently don't care (defensive towards anti-racist/racial issue ideas and policy/racist). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'll let you choose which you are interested in responding to, if you have any interest at all. 

I guess the questions I'm most interested in for everyone is if:

1) Do you believe current laws create or sustain racial inequity?

2) Do you believe that the federal government should take a greater role in attempting to achieve racial equity?

3) Do you think that a person that isn't actively fighting for policy and ideas that reduce racism (any definition of it), racial inequity, etc. (that is, being "race neutral" or just "not racist," is being a little bit racist by maintaining the status quo?

4) Do you think more should be done to combat racial inequity and/or racial equality?

5) If you were president of the US and issues of race consistently bombarded the news, BLM protests occurred more frequently and much larger, etc., how would you respond? 

I guess I'm curious if people care (active oppose racism and racial inequity), don't care (passive/race-neutral), or vehemently don't care (defensive towards anti-racist/racial issue ideas and policy/racist). 

These are complex questions.

1. Current laws both reduce and increase different ave. outcomes across ethnies.

2. Totally depends on what kind of outcome they are trying to change, and why. Should we have government legislation to encourage blacks to start living in rural areas more? Listening to more country music? Tax South Asians more, because their incomes are on ave. double other ethnic groups?

3. Racism isn't about socio-economic metrics, it's about what's in a person's heart. If the person doesn't hate another group simply for being a different ethnic group, or believe their own group is 'superior', or something similar, then no.

4. Of course more can be done to address injustices in society, and some of those have a significant ethnic component. How exactly to do that, where, for whom - these are complex questions that don't admit of simple answers.

5. With tough love. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

With tough love. 

How would you define "tough love?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

How would you define "tough love?" 

Proper love is a balancing of compassion, courage, wisdom, and toughness.

It is only if you truly love someone that you are willing to do or say the tough things to them that are required for their well-being in the long run. Parenting is an example of this.

This applies to 'all sides' in these sorts of situations.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Proper love is a balancing of compassion, courage, wisdom, and toughness.

It is only if you truly love someone that you are willing to do or say the tough things to them that are required for their well-being in the long run. Parenting is an example of this.

This applies to 'all sides' in these sorts of situations.

 

 

You're still being vague here. For example, what would be a specific hypothetical of "tough love" regarding escalating domestic issues and events regarding race? How would you deal with consistent and increasing BLM protests if you were president? Say, twice as large as those Trump had been dealing with and with twice as much coverage on the news in regards to race-related news calling for authentic reform? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Actinguy said:

No, I’m saying the thing that I actually said.  That the difference in home ownership by race (and, in turn, the difference in generational wealth by race) is largely caused by redlining — which was the practice of banks to not lend to minority neighborhoods, which led to less cash availability, and inability to sell their own homes, etc.  This practice was actually made worse by government interference, which forced banks to only make “wise” (racist) investments into white neighborhoods.

 

But the problem is you can't force-feed equality. If for WHATEVER reason black families are not as qualified for loans than others, you have to look at the reasons for those disqualifications, not paper over the cracks with "equity" legislation. The Clinton policies like the Community "Re-investment" Act (whenever a politician uses the word "invest," hold on to your wallets) forced banks to make loans to people who were less qualified just to achieve some racial balance, are thus primarily responsible for the housing bubble of the early 2000s and at least partly responsible for the Great Recession when that bubble burst.

So by all means, the answer is not to have some sort of forced equity which helps no one, but help the minority communities improve their lives so that they do become "wise" investments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

You're still being vague here. For example, what would be a specific hypothetical of "tough love" regarding escalating domestic issues and events regarding race? How would you deal with consistent and increasing BLM protests if you were president? Say, twice as large as those Trump had been dealing with and with twice as much coverage on the news in regards to race-related news calling for authentic reform? 

There's no simple answer.

First of all, you cannot tolerate beatings, destroying property, and so on. These are mistakes. Mob violence is never a good thing. Being 'compassionate' toward a violent mob is foolishness.

Second, you can't tolerate ignoring the concerns that led to the protests in the first place. So I would study the issue much more than I have. What's going on? What are the legitimate grievances? How can we effectively move forward?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, servo75 said:

But the problem is you can't force-feed equality. If for WHATEVER reason black families are not as qualified for loans than others, you have to look at the reasons for those disqualifications, not paper over the cracks with "equity" legislation. The Clinton policies like the Community "Re-investment" Act (whenever a politician uses the word "invest," hold on to your wallets) forced banks to make loans to people who were less qualified just to achieve some racial balance, are thus primarily responsible for the housing bubble of the early 2000s and at least partly responsible for the Great Recession when that bubble burst.

So by all means, the answer is not to have some sort of forced equity which helps no one, but help the minority communities improve their lives so that they do become "wise" investments.

The reason for the disqualifications were actual racist government policies that prevented bank investments in minority neighborhoods.  Spread out over the past 100 years, this has created a huge gap in generational wealth between the races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

What are the legitimate grievances?

What would you consider a legitimate grievance regarding race in the US today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

What would you consider a legitimate grievance regarding race in the US today?

There are all sorts of issues where people from certain ethnic groups are disproportionately affected. These aren't necessarily linked to racism, though, and so I think it's important to separate those concepts. Genuine racism in the U.S. is probably pretty rare, and the people who hold those views typically don't have much power.

So what are issues that really impact, say, blacks disproportionately? Off-hand, I would say gun violence is one. Broken families is another. Certain kinds of incarceration rates is another. Access to quality education is a big one. Access to quality health care. Improving nutrition.

These are all probably complex problems that don't admit of simple solutions. However, there might be things that can be done relatively quickly to improve these situations. Others there's probably no known way to improve them significantly.

The right solution would make society as a whole better, while also helping those most at risk. I tend not to like to think of a particular race, though - these are problems that affect people of all racial backgrounds.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

So what are issues that really impact, say, blacks disproportionately? Off-hand, I would say gun violence is one. Broken families is another. Certain kinds of incarceration rates is another. Access to quality education is a big one. Access to quality health care. Improving nutrition.

These are all probably complex problems that don't admit of simple solutions. However, there might be things that can be done relatively quickly to improve these situations. Others there's probably no known way to improve them significantly.

Ok, assuming that there are things that can be done to improve these situations (whatever you imagine them to be), would you, as president actively take part in seeing that these things are done (however you imagine them to be done) to improve these situations? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Ok, assuming that there are things that can be done to improve these situations (whatever you imagine them to be), would you, as president actively take part in seeing that these things are done (however you imagine them to be done) to improve these situations?

Of course!

Note that major parties usually are offering solutions to the same (or similar) problems. They just think the problem is best solved in different ways.

For example, access to quality education. Conservatives tend to think applying market principles ('school choice') will significantly improve school quality, across the board but especially for students living in poorer neighbourhoods. Liberals tend to think increasing funding for schools (increased teacher pay, smaller class sizes, and so on) and in particular for schools in poorer districts will significantly improve them.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...