Would you flesh this out a little more, Kish? I'd be interested in what you have to say.
Thanks.
Would you flesh this out a little more, Kish? I'd be interested in what you have to say.
Thanks.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 1:09 pmSystems are set up and maintained by people. The people who set up and maintain a system identified as white supremacist are the bad guys. The white folk who fight the bad system and those who perpetuate it are morally superior to those who do not. That is my perception of the dynamic.
No problem. The further question for me is how to approach the problems most productively. I don't think it necessarily helps to shame people, but it is hard to ignore the fact that so much injustice has been perpetrated for so long. How can the problem be ignored if progress is to be made?
While both are undoubtedly true, I was addressing a specific dynamic that obstructs the ability to discuss systemic racism as a problem and potential solutions. There is a very common reflexive response by many white folks to any discussion of systemic racism: "But I'm not a racist." That completely derails any discussion of systemic racism, as the whole discussion becomes about the person being the victim of false accusations of racism.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 11:26 amIn my experience, white folks are not the only ones who have adopted a definition of racism that requires a bad guy.Part of the reason it's become so emotional and confrontational is that many white folks have adopted a definition of racism that requires a bad guy. I think I beat this concept to death in our recent discussion about sexism. It's a defense mechanism that allows those folks to deny that racism even exists, and allows them to derail any conversation about race by arguing that they aren't racist. I found the book White Fragility by Robin D'Angelo to be helpful in illustrating how this defense mechanism works.
I also have observed that many white folks use discussions of racism as an opportunity to perform their moral superiority over others.
Yeah, sure. And I am not talking about how you try to handle things. I am drawing attention to the practical problem that these perceptions constitute. As much as people may claim, and I think both honestly and accurately, that they are addressing systemic problems, too often there is a failure to win trust and thus support. I know we have been down this dead-end alley before, but the fact that many people do not buy this systemic argument suggests to me that there might be a better approach.While both are undoubtedly true, I was addressing a specific dynamic that obstructs the ability to discuss systemic racism as a problem and potential solutions. There is a very common reflexive response by many white folks to any discussion of systemic racism: "But I'm not a racist." That completely derails any discussion of systemic racism, as the whole discussion becomes about the person being the victim of false accusations of racism.
None of that is any kind of moral judgment on folks who respond to discussions of structural racism in this manner. It's a reflexive, defensive behavior that functions as an obstacle to talking about, let alone doing anything about, cases of substantial injustice. That's why, in my opinion, it's important to distinguish structural racism from racial bigotry.
I think we're both talking about the same practical problem that these perceptions constitute. in my opinion, the subject of systemic racism had been largely discussed at universities and law schools until the massive disinformation campaign about critical race theory was launched by Christopher Rufo et al. In the face of that well-funded propaganda effort, it's not surprising that many Americans don't even understand what systemic racism actually is or the types of things that could be done to address it.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 6:51 pmYeah, sure. And I am not talking about how you try to handle things. I am drawing attention to the practical problem that these perceptions constitute. As much as people may claim, and I think both honestly and accurately, that they are addressing systemic problems, too often there is a failure to win trust and thus support. I know we have been down this dead-end alley before, but the fact that many people do not buy this systemic argument suggests to me that there might be a better approach.While both are undoubtedly true, I was addressing a specific dynamic that obstructs the ability to discuss systemic racism as a problem and potential solutions. There is a very common reflexive response by many white folks to any discussion of systemic racism: "But I'm not a racist." That completely derails any discussion of systemic racism, as the whole discussion becomes about the person being the victim of false accusations of racism.
None of that is any kind of moral judgment on folks who respond to discussions of structural racism in this manner. It's a reflexive, defensive behavior that functions as an obstacle to talking about, let alone doing anything about, cases of substantial injustice. That's why, in my opinion, it's important to distinguish structural racism from racial bigotry.
Daniel Perry, whom Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has pledged to pardon for the murder of an Austin protester, often made racist comments and regularly made clear his desire to kill protesters in the months leading up to Garrett Foster’s death, according to social media posts and texts contained in newly unsealed court documents.
On May 29, 2020, days after George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer prompted nationwide protests, Perry sent a text message saying, “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.”
Two days later, according to the records, Perry said in a Facebook message that when he is in Dallas, “no protestors go near me or my car.”
“Can you catch me a negro daddy,” the other man replied.
“That is what I am hoping,” Perry said.
“I wonder if they will let me cut the ears off of people who’s decided to commit suicide by me,” he added.
The court records, released Thursday, contain evidence pulled from Perry’s phone records and social media accounts. Prosecutors had filed the sealed 82-page document in March, but much of it was not brought before jurors. Information depicting a defendant’s character is often not allowed to be introduced while a jury weighs guilt versus innocence, but becomes relevant in a sentencing hearing.
The U.S. Army sergeant also sent racist and anti-Muslim messages before and after Floyd’s death. In April 2020, he sent a meme, which included a photo of a woman holding her child’s head under water in the bath, with the text, “WHEN YOUR DAUGHTERS FIRST CRUSH IS A LITTLE NEGRO BOY,” according to the state’s filing.
A year earlier, he messaged someone on Facebook looking for weekend work for active-duty military.
“To bad we can’t get paid for hunting Muslims in Europe,” he said.
Perry’s defense attorney Clint Broden declined to comment on the newly released court documents.
Perry, who is white, was convicted last week in Travis County in the shooting death of Foster in July 2020. Perry drove his car into a group of protesters, including Foster, a white Air Force veteran. Foster was carrying an AK-47, a legal act in Texas. Perry’s attorneys said at trial Foster raised his rifle, prompting Perry to shoot Foster five times through his car window with his handgun. Witnesses said Foster did not raise his rifle.
The case has become the center of a political firestorm, entrenched in the dangerously divisive rhetoric that often pits police supporters against racial justice advocates. Conservative politicians have rallied to Perry’s side, saying the act was purely self-defense in the face of dangerous protests. They’ve faulted the progressive prosecutor for pursuing the case.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fa ... -rcna79963Kansas City police said the child mistook a residence in the 1100 block of Northeast 115th Street for the location of his siblings, who were at a home in the 1100 block of Northeast 115th Terrace, according to NBC affiliate KSHB of Kansas City.