Putting a face on systemic racism.

For all that preaching its funny you can't grasp the concept of "equity". You are way off!
If you give half an orange to a white, and the other half to a black, that is EQUALITY
If you give 1/4 of an orange to a white, and give the other 3/4s to a black (because their great great great great great granddaddy was mistreated), there you have EQUITY
Stop trying to twist it please

 

That is the concept of equity. Most people strive to achieve as much of it as we can in our society. Bigots and white supremacists strive for the opposite..

Yep, that too... So? Read the post you quoted AGAIN!

You have a habit of not reading what you respond to. I know you later apologize, but it would be better if you stopped doing it in the first place.

 

The point I made earlier and Lee Atwater is clearly ignorant of can be explained if I start with these 3 pictures:







The point I am trying to make and Atwater summarily dismissed above can first be explained as follows in regards to why labeling discrimination as simply white versus black is problematic and here is one example why:

"Jewish-White-Privilege’ is a term that has come into vogue in intersectionality supporting enclaves. It refers to the fact that if you are Jewish in America, the assumption is that you are both white, and privileged. That is a false premise, but not an unexpected one, because ignorance abounds about Jews and Jewish history, a history replete with false accusations and misinformation. The cudgel of ‘ignorance’ is the weapon of choice, a convenient excuse for bigotry against the Jews."

While in the Diaspora, there was nothing privileged about our denial of citizenship, university entrance, positions in government, or acceptance to professional schools. There was nothing privileged about our expulsion from Italy, England, Hungary, Switzerland, Austria, Bavaria, Portugal, Spain, Germany, and the Papal States.

The pogroms of Russia, Poland, and other European countries did not see our whiteness as they shot, burned, and buried us alive beneath the landscape of their motherlands. Neither did the Nazi monsters and their all too willing accomplices, see our whiteness, while they unceremoniously carted us off to the death camps of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Majdanek.

Upon landing on the shores of the United States, our whiteness did not exempt us from restrictive quotas denying us entrance to Ivy League universities, jobs in corporate America, membership in ‘for whites only’ clubs, fraternities, and organizations. And a most callous decree, ironically occurred in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, when denied safe harbor in the United States during WWII, as we fled Hitler and his genocidal goons.

Consequently, the term Jewish-white-privilege is offensive, because it conflates my ancestry, heritage and religion with the very people, and cultures who shunned, excluded, persecuted, expelled, and murdered my Jewish family. For the antisemites, there was nothing privileged about me being white, nor could I escape their unwarranted hatred by hiding beneath my white skin.

Jewish-white-privilege is not a term of advantage, but a cruel catchy canard that obscures our history, and a painful trope that leads to divisiveness, thus denying us the comfort and acceptance as a member of the community of inclusiveness. "
source: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-myth-of-jewish-white-privilege/

I could easily say out the word "Jewish" above and reference so many other people in specified groups who escaped or came to the US or Canada where I live to get away from discrimination.

That term "white privilege" is what I am warning we not use when speaking about racism or any ism. It does not help. It creates problematic negative assumptions about people simply based on their skin tone.

I argue all that does is promote a new form of hatred based on negative assumptions of that skin colour. That was my point.

This does not negate the existence of or trivialize colourism. By expanding its understanding to just how many other forms of expression it mutates to, we can better form coalitions to deal with it.

That was my point and a point I remember vividly Martin Luther King Jr. expanding upon and putting into practice.

 

In response to Golem whose points I defer to and do not disagree with at all, my concern is this. If that study was simply based on someone making assumptions about a person because of their last name that can be an example of bigotry if its the reason for screening the person out for no other reason. I get that. However do we lump it simply as racism against blacks? Is that the best way to understand it? Is it even accurate? If the alleged discriminator has never seen the person's physical skin colour how would it be racism let's say and not another reason, i.e., ethnicity, religion, nationality.

As a lawyer dealing with this issue, I had to do a better job than stopping at simplistic surface label assumptions because many times the cause of discrimination could appear to be skin colour but in fact be something else. Labelling it incorrectly does not help manage it.

Far too many of these quoted studies are misinterpreted to simplify discriminatory phenomena and that can make things worse.

In the US when debates come up about diversity it usually turns to black v.s. white. In Canada its ethnic groups and former nationalities and language accents not simply skin colour.

 

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.

 

The above certainly is an example of an academic or theoretical approach to equality. The problem is, its a Western materialistic concept. What I mean by that is we in the West define and compare our worth or equitable value and whether its the same (equal) by the amount of material (physical things) we can purchase, i.e., size of house or whether we rent or have a condo, type of car, clothes, jewellery, amount of money, first and second class air travel, etc.

In many other cultures equality is not a concept as its used by you in the above definition to suggest someone has something someone else also wants or believes they should have such as material goods or a power over others.

In many cultures, equality is not a concept as relative comparison is considered pointless. People accept what they have as not equal or unequal but in fact negative or positive, in balance with the rules of nature or disconnected from the rules of nature.

The idea of life being equal would be absurd. Each human and other life form would be considered unique and be defined as something all lives are connected to. In our connection, our individual choices could harm or help another life. If we were equal that would be more likely defined as a balance but the harmony achieved by the balance would not be considered equally as each life form would still experience negativity, positivity in a different way.

Equality in our world and in the definition you use flows from political conflicts where it was perceived one group took advantage over another unfairly and did not allocate resources or opportunities fairly and that causes unfairness and that unfairness is considered immoral.

The problem with that theory is that some people are born with far less opportunities (now called privileges) than others but they still go on to achieve and enjoy higher levels of awareness and success than the others who started off with more opportunities.

The equality equation used in modern woke and critical theory sees disadvantage as as a fixed point in causing inequality that justifies reacting to it with reverse inequality to "balance" it.

The reverse inequality formula whether it be affirmative action or something else assumes the "disadvantaged" person without it could not achieve equality on their own.

Sometimes by reversing discrimination to "neutralize" or undo discrimination does not do that at all. It simply flips the target of discrimination but not the discriminatory thought processes that simply switch who they will discriminate against next. No equality is achieved simply the person given the "affirmative" remedy is made unequal or becoming the new "unfairly advantaged" group.

If you notice no one argues affirmative action ever explains it as a temporary remedy that will be removed once the supposed "equality" is achieved.

In that sense "equality" is perceived as someone who has more power or wealth than another. When the person arguing they are unfairly imposed by a system to have less power or wealth in fact gets these remedies, its still not the end point.The remedies are not lifted once "equality" is achieved because the persons claiming things are not "equal" have pinned the entire definition to be predicated on external remedies not ultimately the choices an individual still has to make.

Spiritual equality if we were to use such a word is not about power and wealth-its about mutual respect and sharing because the levels of material or power constantly go up and down with each individual they are not ever exactly the same.

Think about it. If I stab you and you stab me, our blood colour is the same but whether one of us dies or lives from that wounds depends on our individual organic makeups not just our theoretical desire to not be stabbed by each other (equal right).

Why is it two people can came from the exact same environment with the exact same kinds of lack of opportunity or lack of equality and one succeeds and achieves more than the other and they did not receive added benefits from anyone but achieved what they did based on how they were able to creatively overcome their barriers and obstacles along their path of life?

As a Jew we never in all the years we were discriminated against had equal opportunity and yet Israel has invented more patents than any other nation.

In fact the repeated oppression over 3,500 years probably pushed us not just to be slaughtered, hated, but to achieve things in an existential struggle to resist that hatred.

What I am arguing is suffering, slavery, discrimination, slaughter, injustice as horrible as we all agree it is has exposed so many different peoples to pain and unfairness which then became their impetus to overcome.

Look at the American civil rights movement. Some will argue when LBJ passed specific federal laws for the first time, black Americans finally were given basic rights of equality up until then they never had. Others would argue no, the rights came when people like Martin Luther King Jr. were able to appeal to peoples' compassion and sense of community and reach out to form alliances with other minorities and even more importantly the very bigots preventing the relative equal power to vote or go to school.

Did George Wallace for example turn from bigot to equalitarian because he had to be shot and crippled and almost die or because a new government program forced equality concepts on him?

Equality can indeed be measured as it is in a political Western sense and now be so focused it only deals with one kind of perceived power imbalance or it can be defined in a larger holistic sense to mean the struggle of all of us infinitely through constant struggle to balance right from wrong, negative from positive.

That supposed balance is never level it constantly swings back and forth and if you push to much on one side the reverse effect always happens.

So me I grew up learning equality two ways-the academic and legal way in the ivory tower which provides many pretty ideal words and concepts but also the real world where people spit and shoot at each other and are not interested in equality at all and when they use that word are angry and full of envy and simply want to take away from someone else and keep it for themselves.

In my world I am told Jews are unfair to have a Jewish state it should be democratic and secular where no one religion is protected by the state differently than others. Yet the same people who say that also say to their own people-all Jews need to be killed and the state they live in must be a Muslim caliphate. The people calling for the democratic secular state in fact say that to one audience but to their own people say the opposite. They approve MUSLIM states where non Muslims are defined necessarily, dhimmi, kafir, yehudi, etc., people not allowed to own land or be considered equal to Muslims.

In my world people tell me because I am a Jew I am privileged and rich. My parents and grandparents were dirt poor immigrants who achieved what they did not through affirmative action programs but forming alliances on a basic level of respect with gentiles who like them suffered in a different way but in a similar enough way to know it could be avoided if we did not fight but helped each other.

So I don't use the academic definition. Its just buzz words. When I was spit at, cleaned up blood, argued legal cases,etc., I was just a bloody speck of energy in an infinite paradigm of struggle between all and nothing, fair and unfair, light and dark, and that is all relative to any given moment in time you care to look at but is not fixed-its constantly changing in comparison and therefore definition. Its not and has never been an absolute-its only a stab at an attempt to say human behaviour is in a constant struggle to evolve and enlighten itself on how to avoid conflict.

 

SEGREGATION NOW, SEGREGATION TOMORROW, SEGREGATION FOREVER: The Identity-Obsessed Within The Left Brings Back Segregation.



'In May, the University of Massachusetts (UMass) is set to hold segregated commencement ceremonies across its campuses for LGBTQ-identifying students.'

'These so-called "Lavender Graduations” have become increasingly popular on woke college campuses. According to Campus Reform, Harvard University's plan is to offer "affinity celebrations" for graduating students, segmented by factors such as race, religion, and other identity groups; among these is a "Lavender Celebration." Similarly, Rutgers University is preparing to host a "Rainbow Graduation" alongside an "Undocu Graduation" tailored for undocumented immigrants.'

'The increased popularity of segregated graduation ceremonies exposes a disturbing reality about the radical woke left. These segregated events take place under the guise of celebrating diversity yet ironically only serve to divide our society in the name of identity politics. By segregating individuals based on their race, sexual orientation, or immigration status or for some other absurd reason, leftists further entrench divisions within our communities.'

That's the point. Divide us and pit us at each other's throats.

'Instead of promoting a shared sense of belonging and accomplishment, segregated commencements exacerbate societal tensions and foster resentment among these different groups. And don’t try to convince me that this isn’t intentional.'

It's intentional.