Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[mahagonny]

People of WWII age are mostly dead. They are not people one runs into without frequenting nursing homes where there isn't even a lot of talking. Bill Maher thinks you have 'progressophobia.'
You've never lived through an experience even remotely like the threat of the second world war, so your scrutiny of those who did is...well, comes off a bit pompous. Some got over their distrust of the Japanese and some didn't. Younger Americans today think they would have been among the most forget-and-forgiving. But it's a guess.
Mistaking a person of Korean descent for a person of Chinese descent or a Japanese American for a Japanese tourist is something that makes you look provincial, unworldly, ignorant but it doesn't necessarily signify hate. Not at all.
Sure there are some racist whites, but it's a small minority of whites, yet there's a lot of rage against white people. I feel sorry for people who delve into that rage, as do a growing number of Black Americans.

I had seven uncles and a grandfather who faught in WWII and Korea. My father and and father in law loudly reminisced about the "gooks" in Korea in the waiting room during my son's surgery until I said one of those "gooks" might be operating on their grandson. I worked at factories in the Midwest, a highway crew, and just told you what my FRIENDS referred to Iraqis as. The language I describe is common now in Midwestern small towns.

Frankly, you don't know crap about this, but keep on with your delusions.

You have an odd family.

No, but the implication is common. Has any mainstream media outlet or government official even suggested that Darrell Brooks' attack was a racist action? If a white criminal had driven into a crowd of black people, would any mainstream media outlet or government official suggested it wasn't a racist action?

Calling racism has an incredible double standard.

Not only that, but this too. Dr. Cooper is still at Rutgers. Was there any apology or disciplinary action? I don't think so. Of course Eddie Glaude, another 'revolting race-baiter' (thank you Rod Dreher) is probably cheering.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/29/rutgers-professor-calls-white-people-villains/

[marshwiggle]

jimbogumbo did not make the claim, and would not. jimbogumbo has been trying politely (until a recent post) to push bacon the racism is no longer claims of some.

I don't have the faintest clue what this means. Is it supposed to be
"push back on the 'racism is no longer' claims of some"?

I haven't heard anyone claim racism doesn't exist; rather that it it much less prevalent than it used to be, and it is amplified by many on the left.

[smallcleanrat]

...
You've never lived through an experience even remotely like the threat of the second world war, so your scrutiny of those who did is...well, comes off a bit pompous. Some got over their distrust of the Japanese and some didn't. Younger Americans today think they would have been among the most forget-and-forgiving. But it's a guess.
...

um...so...if someone went through a difficult time involving Japanese, it is pompous to say anything against the fact that they distrust all Japanese people for decades afterward as a result?

How does something like this apply as a general rule? Honest question.

Someone's prejudices may be understandable, but does that mean they should never be criticized?

Also, if jimbogumbo could say they actually have lived through a similar experience, would that really make you more inclined to lend credence to what they are saying?


Test Cases

If a black person lived through the time of the Civil Rights movement during which there was tremendous hostility from a not-exactly-tiny number of white people who were vociferously and sometimes violently against changes towards equality...should people be understanding, not critical, if they maintain a distrust of all white people?

If a Japanese-American whose family has had to leave their homes (which, along with their possessions, had to be either sold at dirt cheap prices or else abandoned all together) to be incarcerated for years in an internment camp, even as you or your father or your brothers are fighting for the country (in a segregated unit, of course) whose government gave those orders...well, should they get any disapproval if they maintain a distrust of all white people?



Ok, someone made a mean, racist comment to you when you were eleven, but you don't dwell on it. Since the point I was making is that people are going to do things like that whether there's a noisy identity politics movement or not, what you said is not inconsistent with what I said.

Side note, how much good do you think it does not to dwell on a racist encounter if another comes along soon after? And then another. And another. And another.


I wonder if you have ever lived through an experience remotely like those I describe above. If not, would you understand if someone said your "I don't dwell on it" comment comes across as a wee bit condescending?

I wonder if you have any idea how often Japanese-Americans seeking redress after their interment were told to stop "dwelling" on the past and to get over it.

I wonder if you have any idea how often they had to hear that they should be grateful that the camps weren't like the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Like, "Well, all that happened was you were imprisoned despite no evidence of being engaged in espionage or any other crime. It's not like you were starved or beaten or murdered en masse, so I don't know what you're griping about."



I can easily believe racist white people are a minority. I have no idea how small a minority, but even a small minority can cause a lot of harm if they are vocal and active enough.

I think anyone who states that white people are all guilty of oppression by definition is full of it. I think it is important for progressives to speak against the extremists in their midst, even if only for the sake of their own goals.

For the same reason, it disturbs me when people are dismissive of racism or sexism or what-have-you just because it's not-all-white-people or not-all-men or whatever. It doesn't have to be all or even most to be a problem.

[mahagonny]

I think anyone who states that white people are all guilty of oppression by definition is full of it. I think it is important for progressives to speak against the extremists in their midst, even if only for the sake of their own goals.

So what you report is the face-to-face racist treatment. We agree that is awful. It hurt when it happened and it hurts when you think later that people think they should be able to get away with it. It's accepted, or at least in their circles. However a subset of minorities do this to whites too.

The idea that something called 'white supremacy' (not the actual belief that white people are genetically superior to others, but something else whose presence and nature are not even defined entities, that is concretely not that thing at thing at all, but somehow grabs the privilege to use same term) needs to be 'dismantled' is heard as an affront to white people, because it is one. It refers to something the United States worked hard to eradicate, while trying to give power to the 'white supremacy' charge by conflating distant past scenerios with present day life. It's a bad faith term.
Academics and journalists who seem to know just enough more history than the layman always try to transfer our emotional pain over the racial past to our assessment of the present with things like 'white people's reluctance to give up power over Black folks always shows up again in a new iteration as soon as any advance for Black people happens.' It's propaganda. We were taught to spot garbage like that in junior high.
It's a power grab by the democratic party. And it's quickly infiltrated corporate and higher education employment (even minimum wage retail work!), K-12 education, and if the progressives get their way, federal and state government. And people are gonna fight it like hell because it's necessary. Because now they're coming for your job, your children, your social life and the medical care you're paying for.

[marshwiggle]

Test Cases

If a black person lived through the time of the Civil Rights movement during which there was tremendous hostility from a not-exactly-tiny number of white people who were vociferously and sometimes violently against changes towards equality...should people be understanding, not critical, if they maintain a distrust of all white people?

Since this person would be at least in their 60's by now, while it might be understandable, it is much less acceptable that their children and grandchildren have the same attitudes, grounded not in their own experience, but in that long-past experience of their elders.

If a Japanese-American whose family has had to leave their homes (which, along with their possessions, had to be either sold at dirt cheap prices or else abandoned all together) to be incarcerated for years in an internment camp, even as you or your father or your brothers are fighting for the country (in a segregated unit, of course) whose government gave those orders...well, should they get any disapproval if they maintain a distrust of all white people?

Same as above, only the time scale is even longer. Many Germans immigrated to North America after WWII. Is it reasonable for people to still worry about whether their descendants are neo-Nazis, anymore than other people?

Ok, someone made a mean, racist comment to you when you were eleven, but you don't dwell on it. Since the point I was making is that people are going to do things like that whether there's a noisy identity politics movement or not, what you said is not inconsistent with what I said.

Side note, how much good do you think it does not to dwell on a racist encounter if another comes along soon after? And then another. And another. And another.


I wonder if you have ever lived through an experience remotely like those I describe above. If not, would you understand if someone said your "I don't dwell on it" comment comes across as a wee bit condescending?

The province of Quebec used to be officially bilingual. In the 70's legislation started to be introduced to make Quebec officially French, to the point of making it illegal for businesses to have signage that is not French only. (To be clear, it's not just that French has to be prominent; it's that it is wrong to include anything else.)

English in Quebec are viewed as a "privileged minority", and thus don't deserve the protection that minority status might otherwise confer.

There are lots of people (most?) who have faced discrimination of one form or another. The Oppression Olympics don't help matters by trying to determine who is the most oppressed. Trying to get everyone to treat others fairly is vastly more productive in the long run.

[jimbogumbo]

jimbogumbo did not make the claim, and would not. jimbogumbo has been trying politely (until a recent post) to push bacon the racism is no longer claims of some.

I don't have the faintest clue what this means. Is it supposed to be
"push back on the 'racism is no longer' claims of some"?

I haven't heard anyone claim racism doesn't exist; rather that it it much less prevalent than it used to be, and it is amplified by many on the left.

When my chubby fingers are auto-corrected, yes, bacon=back on

[dismalist]

It is noteworthy that public discussion of inter-group relations is couched as a discussion of racism -- rather than a discussion of discrimination.

Racism may be observed in the words people use or perhaps even the thoughts they report. Observable or not, such racism doesn't obviously hurt anyone. And it can be easily avoided by having nothing to do with racists.

Discrimination, on the other hand, is about deeds. Things that hurt others: Irishmen and dogs need not apply, e.g.

The deeds part, the discrimination part, has virtually disappeared from American life. It is in fact largely illegal. Certainly overt government discrimination has disappeared [except for minimum wage laws, which are effectively anti-black male discrimination, and the forcing of young blacks in inner cities into government run prisons called schools.]

Racism is more a state of mind than anything else. And what's observable about it is a bunch of words, nothing more.

[jimbogumbo]

It is noteworthy that public discussion of inter-group relations is couched as a discussion of racism -- rather than a discussion of discrimination.

Racism may be observed in the words people use or perhaps even the thoughts they report. Observable or not, such racism doesn't obviously hurt anyone. And it can be easily avoided by having nothing to do with racists.

Discrimination, on the other hand, is about deeds. Things that hurt others: Irishmen and dogs need not apply, e.g.

The deeds part, the discrimination part, has virtually disappeared from American life. It is in fact largely illegal. Certainly overt government discrimination has disappeared [except for minimum wage laws, which are effectively anti-black male discrimination, and the forcing of young blacks in inner cities into government run prisons called schools.]

Racism is more a state of mind than anything else. And what's observable about it is a bunch of words, nothing more.

Illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen: https://www.indystar.com/story/money/2021/05/13/indianapolis-black-homeowner-home-appraisal-discrimination-fair-housing-center-central-indiana/4936571001/

[jimbogumbo]

And, not just a Midwest thing:https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/09/business/black-homeowners-appraisal-discrimination-lawsuit/index.html

[dismalist]

The articles are about disagreements. That's called life.

Fortunately, we have these things called courts to sort out such disagreements.

[On two separate occasions my house was appraised, once by a white man and once by a black man. The latter came out with a noticeably lower value than the former. What should I have done? Begin a lawsuit for racial discrimination?]

[jimbogumbo]

The articles are about disagreements. That's called life.

Fortunately, we have these things called courts to sort out such disagreements.

[On two separate occasions my house was appraised, once by a white man and once by a black man. The latter came out with a noticeably lower value than the former. What should I have done? Begin a lawsuit for racial discrimination?]

There were tear downs in the area of the first article I sent with higher appraisals, so while it may have been life, probably not.

If you thought you were discriminated against then yes. Although, I'm guessing you felt the odds weren't good. One reason for that (shock) is that there is no long history of redlining whites out of black neighborhoods.

[dismalist]

The articles are about disagreements. That's called life.

Fortunately, we have these things called courts to sort out such disagreements.

[On two separate occasions my house was appraised, once by a white man and once by a black man. The latter came out with a noticeably lower value than the former. What should I have done? Begin a lawsuit for racial discrimination?]

There were tear downs in the area of the first article I sent with higher appraisals, so while it may have been life, probably not.

If you thought you were discriminated against then yes. Although, I'm guessing you felt the odds weren't good. One reason for that (shock) is that there is no long history of redlining whites out of black neighborhoods.

The beginning of redlining was under the New Deal: Government policy that in effect discriminated against blacks.

[jimbogumbo]

The articles are about disagreements. That's called life.

Fortunately, we have these things called courts to sort out such disagreements.

[On two separate occasions my house was appraised, once by a white man and once by a black man. The latter came out with a noticeably lower value than the former. What should I have done? Begin a lawsuit for racial discrimination?]

There were tear downs in the area of the first article I sent with higher appraisals, so while it may have been life, probably not.

If you thought you were discriminated against then yes. Although, I'm guessing you felt the odds weren't good. One reason for that (shock) is that there is no long history of redlining whites out of black neighborhoods.

The beginning of redlining was under the New Deal: Government policy that in effect discriminated against blacks.

Stuck in a hotel room, so sadly too much time on this board. I'm well aware of when and how it started. I'm also well aware of how well received the practice (and similar discrimination related practices in Farm loan programs) were.

[dismalist]

The articles are about disagreements. That's called life.

Fortunately, we have these things called courts to sort out such disagreements.

[On two separate occasions my house was appraised, once by a white man and once by a black man. The latter came out with a noticeably lower value than the former. What should I have done? Begin a lawsuit for racial discrimination?]

There were tear downs in the area of the first article I sent with higher appraisals, so while it may have been life, probably not.

If you thought you were discriminated against then yes. Although, I'm guessing you felt the odds weren't good. One reason for that (shock) is that there is no long history of redlining whites out of black neighborhoods.

The beginning of redlining was under the New Deal: Government policy that in effect discriminated against blacks.

Stuck in a hotel room, so sadly too much time on this board. I'm well aware of when and how it started. I'm also well aware of how well received the practice (and similar discrimination related practices in Farm loan programs) were.

Yes. And nowadays personal problems masquerade as political problems.

[smallcleanrat]

marshwiggle, I agree with you in principle, but I think you are drawing things a little too cleanly.

Mind you, I am talking about whether prejudice is understandable, not excusable.

To start with, the experiences of one generation influence the next. If you lost your farm or your home (which may represent years or even generations of hard work and savings) because of the internment and had to start from scratch after being released, that is going to affect your kids. If your father's brother being murdered by a lynch mob is part of your family history, and you can see how the pain of that loss still affects him, that will have an impact.

It just seems a bit too glib to say, well those horrible things didn't happen to you specifically, so why do you care?

Secondly, it's not like the war ends or the Civil Rights Act is passed and all the racial tension dissipates and gives the next generation a clean slate. Those children and even those grandchildren may certainly have had their own experiences, and I don't know how easy it is to judge whether the level to which that affects them is as easy as saying 'yes, but by then it was illegal' or 'yes, but by then it was less socially acceptable.' Those are relevant factors, but I don't know how you'd draw a clear division between 'well, it's understandable you are upset' and 'oh, please. Now you're just being dramatic.'

There have also been periods of time since wwii when global events related to Asian nations stirred up hostility towards Asians in America.

And I don't know if mahagonny was suggesting that since wwii vets are either dead or so old they will be soon, anti-Japanese attitudes will die with them, but that's not the case. You think no one has used the wartime experiences of their parents or grandparents generation to deem all Japanese as evil?

I mean if you want to say 'minorities shouldn't be using the events of generations past to demonize all white people', ok. If you're going to say 'you don't see white people running around doing something like that', eh...



Now, is it fair to assume that the child or grandchild of a neo-nazi harbors the same sentiments of their forebear? No. Is it unreasonable to be concerned that someone raised by a neo-nazi may be more likely to harbor neo-nazi ideology than the average person? Well...aren't you essentially asking whether someone raised with a certain ideology is more likely to be influenced with that ideology than one who wasn't? What do you think?



I'm not always clear why people often point out that people are discriminated against for all kinds of things in discussions about racism. It sometimes comes across as someone saying "I think it's really important to support research that aims to reduce deaths from heart disease" and getting the response "Well, you know people die from all kinds of things, not just heart disease." As if the first person somehow implied that research into heart disease and only heart disease was important.

Oppression Olympics don't help matters, but neither does trying to deny or minimize other people's experiences so you can dismiss it as too trivial to be worth caring about.

And I wasn't trying  to make a point like oh these groups had it so much worse than those groups.

My point was if you're going to say 'you never went through what they went through, so who are you to judge' then wagging your finger at other people whose experiences you yourself didn't go through seems like an inconsistency.