Long, very, very long. But interesting, nonetheless.
Link (https://quillette.com/2018/06/05/high-price-stale-grievances/)
QuoteIn the fall of 2016, I was hired to play in Rihanna's back-up band at the MTV Video Music Awards. To my pleasant surprise, several of my friends had also gotten the call. We felt that this would be the gig of a lifetime: beautiful music, primetime TV, plus, if we were lucky, a chance to schmooze with celebrities backstage.
But as the date approached, I learned that one of my friends had been fired and replaced. The reason? He was a white Hispanic, and Rihanna's artistic team had decided to go for an all-black aesthetic—aside from Rihanna's steady guitarist, there would be no non-blacks on stage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqpw9dtKChg). Though I was disappointed on my friend's behalf, I didn't consider his firing as unjust at the time—and maybe it wasn't. Is it unethical for an artist to curate the racial composition of a racially-themed performance? Perhaps; perhaps not. My personal bias leads me to favor artistic freedom, but as a society, we have yet to answer this question definitively.
One thing, however, is clear. If the races were reversed—if a black musician had been fired in order to achieve an all-white aesthetic—it would have made front page headlines. It would have been seen as an unambiguous moral infraction. The usual suspects would be outraged, calling for this event to be viewed in the context of the long history of slavery and Jim Crow in this country, and their reaction would widely be seen as justified. Public-shaming would be in order and heartfelt apologies would be made. MTV might even enact anti-bias trainings as a corrective.
Though the question seems naïve to some, it is in fact perfectly valid to ask why black people can get away with behavior that white people can't. The progressive response to this question invariably contains some reference to history: blacks were taken from their homeland in chains, forced to work as chattel for 250 years, and then subjected to redlining, segregation, and lynchings for another century. In the face of such a brutal past, many would argue, it is simply ignorant to complain about what modern-day blacks can get away with.
Yet there we were—young black men born decades after anything that could rightly be called 'oppression' had ended—benefitting from a social license bequeathed to us by a history that we have only experienced through textbooks and folklore. And my white Hispanic friend (who could have had a tougher life than all of us, for all I know) paid the price. The underlying logic of using the past to justify racial double-standards in the present is rarely interrogated. What do slavery and Jim Crow have to do with modern-day blacks, who experienced neither? Do all black people have P.T.S.D (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/donald-glover-cant-save-you) from racism, as the Grammy and Emmy award-winning artist Donald Glover recently claimed? Is ancestral suffering actually transmitted to descendants? If so, how? What exactly are historical 'ties' made of?
We often speak and think in metaphors. For instance, life can have ups and downs and highs and lows, despite the fact that our joys and sorrows do not literally pull our bodies along a vertical axis. Similarly, modern-day black intellectuals often say things like, "We were brought here against our will," despite the fact that they have never seen a slave ship in their lives, let alone been on one. When metaphors are made explicit—i.e., emotions are vertical, groups are individuals—it's easy to see that they are just metaphors. Yet many black intellectuals carry on as if they were literal truths.
[...]
Quotethe thread running through all three examples is that modern-day blacks are permitted to employ language and behavior for which whites would be condemned
If Barack Obama had been taped making the "grab by the pussy" comments, would he have been elected President? I think not.
There are plenty of double standards to go around. But the Rihanna incident that leads this essay is not going to provoke much outrage when viewed in full context - for example, that is far from disadvantageous in show business to have lighter skin.
Quote from: viper37 on February 01, 2019, 05:53:17 PM
Long, very, very long. But interesting, nonetheless.
The title of the article
could have been "Je me souviens". ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 01, 2019, 06:06:52 PM
If Barack Obama had been taped making the "grab by the pussy" comments, would he have been elected President? I think not.
Would a wide Democrate presidential candidate making this kind of comment would have been elected? I think not.
No double standard on race here, except that I don't see a black Republican President anytime soon.
Quote
There are plenty of double standards to go around. But the Rihanna incident that leads this essay is not going to provoke much outrage when viewed in full context - for example, that is far from disadvantageous in show business to have lighter skin.
Is it a disadvantage to be black in the show business? I don't think so. There's plenty of blacks at all levels of the show business. Compare this with the 60s, don't you notice some little changes, here and there? :)
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 08:21:31 AM
Quote from: viper37 on February 01, 2019, 05:53:17 PM
Long, very, very long. But interesting, nonetheless.
The title of the article could have been "Je me souviens". ;)
Given the recent thread of francophobia in Canada, we don't need much memory to remember :)
The answers to both grievance being under handed laughter is that the dominant group thinks that the oppression of the dominated group has ended.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 01, 2019, 06:06:52 PM
If Barack Obama had been taped making the "grab by the pussy" comments, would he have been elected President? I think not.
Could anybody who wasn't Donald Trump survive those sorts of comments? And that is just the beginning.
Quote from: viper37 on February 04, 2019, 02:12:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 08:21:31 AM
Quote from: viper37 on February 01, 2019, 05:53:17 PM
Long, very, very long. But interesting, nonetheless.
The title of the article could have been "Je me souviens". ;)
Given the recent thread of francophobia in Canada, we don't need much memory to remember :)
Wouldn't the same be even *more* true for Blacks in America, though? :hmm:
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 04, 2019, 02:42:43 PM
The answers to both grievance being under handed laughter is that the dominant group thinks that the oppression of the dominated group has ended.
Huh?
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 04, 2019, 02:42:43 PM
The answers to both grievance being under handed laughter is that the dominant group thinks that the oppression of the dominated group has ended.
Though Blacks in America have a better claim to remaining "dominated" to this day than francophones in Quebec, by any objective measure.
Quillette :bleeding:
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 04, 2019, 02:42:43 PM
The answers to both grievance being under handed laughter is that the dominant group thinks that the oppression of the dominated group has ended.
Though Blacks in America have a better claim to remaining "dominated" to this day than francophones in Quebec, by any objective measure.
What sorts of objective measures?
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 02:54:48 PM
Though Blacks in America have a better claim to remaining "dominated" to this day than francophones in Quebec, by any objective measure.
To this day, yes, without a doubt. But to give a measure of the historical situation in 1960, French Canadiens then completed, on average 10 years of school compared to 11 for African-Americans, and their salary was 52% of those of Anglos (that of African-American, was 54% of white Americans).
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2019, 02:56:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 04, 2019, 02:42:43 PM
The answers to both grievance being under handed laughter is that the dominant group thinks that the oppression of the dominated group has ended.
Though Blacks in America have a better claim to remaining "dominated" to this day than francophones in Quebec, by any objective measure.
What sorts of objective measures?
Any, really. :lol:
How about incarceration rates? % of Blacks in America in prison vs. non-Blacks in US vs. % of Francophones in prison in Canada (or Quebec) vs. non-Francophones.
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2019, 02:44:21 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 01, 2019, 06:06:52 PM
If Barack Obama had been taped making the "grab by the pussy" comments, would he have been elected President? I think not.
Could anybody who wasn't Donald Trump survive those sorts of comments? And that is just the beginning.
I still don't understand how Trump survived those comments. I would have believed that no on could have, yet he did. What's so special about him? Given that he could survive it, I'd have to think that others could too.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 04, 2019, 03:05:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 02:54:48 PM
Though Blacks in America have a better claim to remaining "dominated" to this day than francophones in Quebec, by any objective measure.
To this day, yes, without a doubt. But to give a measure of the historical situation in 1960, French Canadiens then completed, on average 10 years of school compared to 11 for African-Americans, and their salary was 52% of those of Anglos (that of African-American, was 54% of white Americans).
... which, to complete the thought, it is exactly why it is odd to see someone very conscious of such *historical* grievances when it comes to their own nation, posting an article so dismissive of the historical grievances of Blacks in another.
Quillette is the classic case of the current right wing propension to pose a victims of other people's victim complex.
Quote from: viper37 on February 04, 2019, 02:11:52 PM
Is it a disadvantage to be black in the show business? I don't think so. There's plenty of blacks at all levels of the show business.
I don't think the conclusion follows. If African-Americans face discrimination or barriers to entry in show business, but face even greater barriers to entry in other fields, then you would expect to see relatively high levels of African-American participation in show business, notwithstanding the disadvantages.
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 03:08:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2019, 02:56:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 04, 2019, 02:42:43 PM
The answers to both grievance being under handed laughter is that the dominant group thinks that the oppression of the dominated group has ended.
Though Blacks in America have a better claim to remaining "dominated" to this day than francophones in Quebec, by any objective measure.
What sorts of objective measures?
Any, really. :lol:
How about incarceration rates? % of Blacks in America in prison vs. non-Blacks in US vs. % of Francophones in prison in Canada (or Quebec) vs. non-Francophones.
So are men oppressed compared to women then since they have a much higher incarceration rate? If we consider this an objective measure of oppression then surely it should always hold up.
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2019, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 03:08:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2019, 02:56:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 04, 2019, 02:42:43 PM
The answers to both grievance being under handed laughter is that the dominant group thinks that the oppression of the dominated group has ended.
Though Blacks in America have a better claim to remaining "dominated" to this day than francophones in Quebec, by any objective measure.
What sorts of objective measures?
Any, really. :lol:
How about incarceration rates? % of Blacks in America in prison vs. non-Blacks in US vs. % of Francophones in prison in Canada (or Quebec) vs. non-Francophones.
So are men oppressed compared to women then since they have a much higher incarceration rate? If we consider this an objective measure of oppression then surely it should always hold up.
Doesn't follow.
Yes, there is a difference between men and women - there is in comparative income as well - but to measure the inequality of *Blacks* as a whole, the better measure would certainly be Black men vs. Black men and Black women vs. non-Black women, not Black women vs. Black men.
Certainly, arguments can be made that Black men (or women) are more or less disadvantaged - you will find those under "intersectionality" ;) - but if talking about Blacks as a whole, you have to look to both sexes when compared with non-Blacks.
I mean, is it even seriously alleged Blacks aren't doing worse than Whites in America? I thought the debate wasn't whether they were doing worse, but why they were doing worse (some mix of racist animus, historical disadvantage manifest in present problems, unequal impact of certain government programs and laws, and internal cultural factors - everyone with a different idea of how much of what to emphasize).
You're missing Valmy's point Malthus. If incarceration rate is an objective measure of oppression then men in general, having a higher incarceration rate than women, are oppressed in comparison to women.
To add some figures: in 2010, incarceration rates (per 100K):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
White male: 678
White female: 91
Black male: 4,347
Black female: 260
Certainly, Black male incarceration is much more unequal (more than 6 times White male incarceration) versus Black female (almost 3 times), but the important fact here is that *both* are much, much higher.
Mind you, this is only one factor, and you'd get a better impression if you looked at lots of factors.
Also - Innocent African-American suspects are far more likely to be convicted than innocent suspects of any other race. That's a even trickier one to give a neutral explanation for.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2019, 03:39:30 PM
You're missing Valmy's point Malthus. If incarceration rate is an objective measure of oppression then men in general, having a higher incarceration rate than women, are oppressed in comparison to women.
This assumes that the figure
only measures oppression and nothing else, which (as far as I know) no-one actually alleges.
Which is why it makes sense to look at comparative figures for both sexes. Perhaps men are more likely to commit crimes than women, yet *at the same time* there is an element of oppression involved based on race ... in which case, one would expect that the same pattern would be repeated with women ... that is, Black women would be incarcerated at a higher level than White women.
Which, oddly enough, happens to be true.
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 03:08:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2019, 02:56:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 04, 2019, 02:42:43 PM
The answers to both grievance being under handed laughter is that the dominant group thinks that the oppression of the dominated group has ended.
Though Blacks in America have a better claim to remaining "dominated" to this day than francophones in Quebec, by any objective measure.
What sorts of objective measures?
Any, really. :lol:
How about incarceration rates? % of Blacks in America in prison vs. non-Blacks in US vs. % of Francophones in prison in Canada (or Quebec) vs. non-Francophones.
It would be interesting to look at that data. The problem with including all non-Francophones is that you would be including aboriginals who undoubtedly have issues regarding over representation. I am not sure how one would go about getting a good control group for comparison though.
BTW - it's possible women have some advantage in the US criminal justice system. I would expect (based in part on anecdotal experience) that women with younger children in particular are less likely to be prosecuted for similar conduct, more likely to receive favorable plea deals, and less likely to receive harsh sentences, among other things. Whether this amounts to male oppression is a question I'll let others pass on.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2019, 03:46:15 PM
Also - Innocent African-American suspects are far more likely to be convicted than innocent suspects of any other race. That's a even trickier one to give a neutral explanation for.
Yes but there are other groups in the US that could claim they are oppressed that do not have this problem. Certainly this could be an indication of oppression (and granted a pretty profound one) but I am not sure it is some kind of objective measure that can used in all cases. Therefore it does not follow that we can objectively show Canadian Francophones have a bad/worse claim to being "dominated".
I am not sure there are objective measures for this sort of thing that one could successfully use to prove this. Hence why I asked Malthus the question.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2019, 03:58:51 PM
BTW - it's possible women have some advantage in the US criminal justice system. I would expect (based in part on anecdotal experience) that women with younger children in particular are less likely to be prosecuted for similar conduct, more likely to receive favorable plea deals, and less likely to receive harsh sentences, among other things. Whether this amounts to male oppression is a question I'll let others pass on.
Well I don't think so as I don't necessarily think higher incarceration rates are an objective measure of oppression. There is a lot of subjectivity in there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2019, 03:51:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 03:08:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2019, 02:56:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 04, 2019, 02:42:43 PM
The answers to both grievance being under handed laughter is that the dominant group thinks that the oppression of the dominated group has ended.
Though Blacks in America have a better claim to remaining "dominated" to this day than francophones in Quebec, by any objective measure.
What sorts of objective measures?
Any, really. :lol:
How about incarceration rates? % of Blacks in America in prison vs. non-Blacks in US vs. % of Francophones in prison in Canada (or Quebec) vs. non-Francophones.
It would be interesting to look at that data. The problem with including all non-Francophones is that you would be including aboriginals who undoubtedly have issues regarding over representation. I am not sure who one would go about getting a good control group for comparison though.
You would have to exclude aboriginals on both sides of the equation, I think.
Unfortunately, the data isn't easy to get - basically, in Canada, it seems to be broken down into male/female and aboriginal/non-aboriginal.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14700-eng.htm
Interesting point: while in the US, the overrepresentation of Black men is worse that that of Black women (though both are overrepresented), in Canada the overrepresentation of Aboriginal women was worse than that of Aboriginal men (though once again, bith are overrepresented).
From the article:
QuoteThe overrepresentation of Aboriginal adults was more pronounced for females than males. Aboriginal females accounted for 38% of female admissions to provincial and territorial sentenced custody, while the comparable figure for Aboriginal males was 26%. In the federal correctional services, Aboriginal females accounted for 31% of female admissions to sentenced custody, while the figure for Aboriginal males was 23%.
Not sure why though. There's a sociology paper in that for someone.
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2019, 03:58:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2019, 03:46:15 PM
Also - Innocent African-American suspects are far more likely to be convicted than innocent suspects of any other race. That's a even trickier one to give a neutral explanation for.
Yes but there are other groups in the US that could claim they are oppressed that do not have this problem. Certainly this could be an indication of oppression (and granted a pretty profound one) but I am not sure it is some kind of objective measure that can used in all cases. Therefore it does not follow that we can objectively show Canadian Francophones have a bad/worse claim to being "dominated".
I am not sure there are objective measures for this sort of thing that one could successfully use to prove this. Hence why I asked Malthus the question.
That was given as
one example of
an objective factor.
Obviously, you would have to look at the totality of the factors to draw a conclusion. In this case, pretty well no matter what factor you looked at concerning comparative well-being - income, education, incarceration, etc. etc. - Blacks are, on average, worse off than non-Blacks in America.
... which is why I said "all of them".
Of course, these factors - none of them - measure "oppression" alone. What they do, is demonstrate Blacks are worse off, which may have, for any particular factor, more than one cause. Examining them all, though, and it is hard not to come to the conclusion that, collectively, they add up to a hefty element of "oppression".
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 04, 2019, 02:42:43 PM
The answers to both grievance being under handed laughter is that the dominant group thinks that the oppression of the dominated group has ended.
What happens when the dominant group thinks the dominated group isn't activist enough, so they need to take matters in their own hands?
Isn't that a form of racism too? "You're so dumb, you don't even realize you are being victimized" ?
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 02:52:20 PM
Wouldn't the same be even *more* true for Blacks in America, though? :hmm:
No one* is asking Canadians or Americans to stop eating poutine. No one is asking Canadians or Americans to stop using French words in their vocabulary because it is offensive. No one is asking Canadians or Americans to hire French speakers in theaters, movies or tv shows to speak one French line. No one staged massive, sometimes violent protests because Jean-Luc Picard was played by an English actor.
The point of the article is not to say racism does not exists. Read it again, it is worth a second reading. :)
* Except a few looney bins quickly silenced by more reasonable voices.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2019, 03:17:59 PM
If African-Americans face discrimination or barriers to entry in show business, but face even greater barriers to entry in other fields, then you would expect to see relatively high levels of African-American participation in show business, notwithstanding the disadvantages.
I don't think they suffer discrimination or barriers to entry in show business, and I don't think they face greater barriers to entry in other fields compared to poor whites.
I don't think someone facing difficulties to express themselves correctly, in proper english, can even dream of having a successful tv/movie carreer.
Same goes for ugly people. We don't face the same opportunities as the beautiful ones. Even outside of show business, being overweight is a drag on your career for most.
Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2019, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 04, 2019, 02:42:43 PM
The answers to both grievance being under handed laughter is that the dominant group thinks that the oppression of the dominated group has ended.
Though Blacks in America have a better claim to remaining "dominated" to this day than francophones in Quebec, by any objective measure.
Yes, our situation is not the same. But that doesn't mean that both cannot be true. Blacks & Canada's francophones are not oppressed by the same dominant group.