Why is ante bellum racist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, please stop.

There are no standard measurements for things like evil inflicted or pain suffered. There is nothing to be gained from weighing one atrocity versus another. The compassion we feel for the victims of one atrocity doesn’t limit the compassion we feel for the victims of the other. One person’s pain doesn’t negate another’s.

There’s no good reason for this divisiveness.

Unfortunately, divisiveness is inevitable when anyone tries to argue that it is objectively wrong to wear a certain type of dress. There is no objective standard for such things and there never will be.

I think you’ve moved into silly territory when you claim that “divisiveness is inevitable” when someone tries to tell you that your random party clothes are offensive. If you really aren’t willing to examine why you feel the need to get duded up in clothes to play slavemistress, that’s wholly on you, not on those of us who shame you.

No, I understand you feel offended. I just don't think you should be and you will never convince me your feelings have an objective basis. But personally, I don't actually want to offend you if you feel that strongly about it, so I don't actually do that.

In 1984, I did something that was not, so far as I knew, considered offensive then, but would be now. I am not ashamed of it, but I am really happy there was no Internet so you can see a picture of it and tell me that, objectively speaking, I am a horrible person and that I need to examine my feelings on why I did something 35 years ago.

Why would feelings have an objective basis?

I’m White. “Offense” isn’t the right word. “Anger” and “disbelief” at the continued jerkiness of White people is probably closer to how I feel about this.

People seem to spend an awful lot of time vainly trying to justify their feelings and also demanding that other people justify theirs. I call that objectification of feelings. You can call it whatever you want and laugh at me too for calling it by the wrong name. Let me be the butt of your anger and derision right here on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 1984, I did something that was not, so far as I knew, considered offensive then, but would be now. I am not ashamed of it, but I am really happy there was no Internet so you can see a picture of it and tell me that, objectively speaking, I am a horrible person and that I need to examine my feelings on why I did something 35 years ago.

DP that has been mostly lurking for the last 10+ pages.

There are two different issues here. I agree that cancel culture reaching into what people did in the past is overreaching. But I think focusing on the here and now and not continuing to promote, support and protect bigoted behavior is important. So, let's stop looking for people who wore blackface in college 20+ years ago and focus more on stopping the activities and worship of the slavery era.

I don't think asking someone to stop glorifying the antebellum period is at all unreasonable. And showing appreciation for the style of plantation and slave-owners when others tell you how offensive it is to glorify those who made their wealth on the sweat of slave labor is like the ultimate Marie Antoinette moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1984, I did something that was not, so far as I knew, considered offensive then, but would be now. I am not ashamed of it, but I am really happy there was no Internet so you can see a picture of it and tell me that, objectively speaking, I am a horrible person and that I need to examine my feelings on why I did something 35 years ago.

DP that has been mostly lurking for the last 10+ pages.

There are two different issues here. I agree that cancel culture reaching into what people did in the past is overreaching. But I think focusing on the here and now and not continuing to promote, support and protect bigoted behavior is important. So, let's stop looking for people who wore blackface in college 20+ years ago and focus more on stopping the activities and worship of the slavery era.

I don't think asking someone to stop glorifying the antebellum period is at all unreasonable. And showing appreciation for the style of plantation and slave-owners when others tell you how offensive it is to glorify those who made their wealth on the sweat of slave labor is like the ultimate Marie Antoinette moment.

Asking someone to stop glorifying the antebellum period = not unreasonable

Demonizing someone for attending an antebellum party 10 years ago = unreasonable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The south has suffered grievously from the institution of slavery. It was a terrible error.

And it also profited greatly.

All by choice.

As did the North with their factories that needed cotton.

Yes, we ALL owe much to the enslaved people who toiled and died for our country.

Fortunately, the North didn't outlaw abolitionism.

Fortunes, however, were made by the industrialists and factory owners, with homes, universities, colleges, and government buildings standing today as evidence.

They made even greater fortunes once slavery was ended. So, I don't think we can really chalk up their riches to enslavement.

I'm not going to argue the point here, but many fortunes were made by northerners' purchase and need for southern cotton for their mills.

And we don't throw dress-up parties to celebrate those Northerners factory owners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one should atone for someone else’s crime. We should learn from the past, but not dwell on it. Instead we should focus on the present and future. How should we as individuals, as a society, and in electing our governments, SLTT and Federal, address inherent bias and socio-economic disadvantage going forward? It is not a “they” problem, it is a “we” problem. I argue that a “hand up” is better than a “hand out”. What philosophy do you believe in? Revenge? Reparations? Unjustified privilege for any group? Keeping things the same because it’s easy and comfortable?

How do you address things like inherent bias if you believe in not dwelling on the past?

People don’t need to atone for someone else’s crime, but trying to right the wrongs that allow some of us to benefit, today, from prior generations’ crimes is work we should all be doing. There are people who continue to benefit from institutional racism. Before they can even begin to address it, they have to recognize that institutional racism exists. We still have lawmakers, and a sizable portion of white citizens who deny that there is institutional racism.

“A ‘hand up’ is better than a ‘handout’” is a nice slogan, but what does it mean? What sorts of concrete, real world policies illustrate the difference between the two to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should atone for someone else’s crime. We should learn from the past, but not dwell on it. Instead we should focus on the present and future. How should we as individuals, as a society, and in electing our governments, SLTT and Federal, address inherent bias and socio-economic disadvantage going forward? It is not a “they” problem, it is a “we” problem. I argue that a “hand up” is better than a “hand out”. What philosophy do you believe in? Revenge? Reparations? Unjustified privilege for any group? Keeping things the same because it’s easy and comfortable?

How do you address things like inherent bias if you believe in not dwelling on the past?

People don’t need to atone for someone else’s crime, but trying to right the wrongs that allow some of us to benefit, today, from prior generations’ crimes is work we should all be doing. There are people who continue to benefit from institutional racism. Before they can even begin to address it, they have to recognize that institutional racism exists. We still have lawmakers, and a sizable portion of white citizens who deny that there is institutional racism.

“A ‘hand up’ is better than a ‘handout’” is a nice slogan, but what does it mean? What sorts of concrete, real world policies illustrate the difference between the two to you?

One problem is that the benefits of institutional racism are distributed so unevenly while the approaches to combating institutional racism don't seem to be very nuanced in accounting for those disparate benefits. Yes, you can make the case that poor white people enjoy "white privilege," but the poor white person's lived experience is that their white privilege is swamped by the deficits caused by poverty. Subjecting the poor white person to the same remedial approaches one uses for rich white people simply isn't equitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should atone for someone else’s crime. We should learn from the past, but not dwell on it. Instead we should focus on the present and future. How should we as individuals, as a society, and in electing our governments, SLTT and Federal, address inherent bias and socio-economic disadvantage going forward? It is not a “they” problem, it is a “we” problem. I argue that a “hand up” is better than a “hand out”. What philosophy do you believe in? Revenge? Reparations? Unjustified privilege for any group? Keeping things the same because it’s easy and comfortable?

How do you address things like inherent bias if you believe in not dwelling on the past?

People don’t need to atone for someone else’s crime, but trying to right the wrongs that allow some of us to benefit, today, from prior generations’ crimes is work we should all be doing. There are people who continue to benefit from institutional racism. Before they can even begin to address it, they have to recognize that institutional racism exists. We still have lawmakers, and a sizable portion of white citizens who deny that there is institutional racism.

“A ‘hand up’ is better than a ‘handout’” is a nice slogan, but what does it mean? What sorts of concrete, real world policies illustrate the difference between the two to you?

Should we all vacate the continent and give the land back to the Native Americans? A bunch of foreigners invaded their home (some by choice, some who were forced) and now the tiny percentage if the population that is left live on Reservations with “treaties” that our people have a long history of ignoring when it suits us. How shall we right that wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should atone for someone else’s crime. We should learn from the past, but not dwell on it. Instead we should focus on the present and future. How should we as individuals, as a society, and in electing our governments, SLTT and Federal, address inherent bias and socio-economic disadvantage going forward? It is not a “they” problem, it is a “we” problem. I argue that a “hand up” is better than a “hand out”. What philosophy do you believe in? Revenge? Reparations? Unjustified privilege for any group? Keeping things the same because it’s easy and comfortable?

How do you address things like inherent bias if you believe in not dwelling on the past?

People don’t need to atone for someone else’s crime, but trying to right the wrongs that allow some of us to benefit, today, from prior generations’ crimes is work we should all be doing. There are people who continue to benefit from institutional racism. Before they can even begin to address it, they have to recognize that institutional racism exists. We still have lawmakers, and a sizable portion of white citizens who deny that there is institutional racism.

“A ‘hand up’ is better than a ‘handout’” is a nice slogan, but what does it mean? What sorts of concrete, real world policies illustrate the difference between the two to you?

One problem is that the benefits of institutional racism are distributed so unevenly while the approaches to combating institutional racism don't seem to be very nuanced in accounting for those disparate benefits. Yes, you can make the case that poor white people enjoy "white privilege," but the poor white person's lived experience is that their white privilege is swamped by the deficits caused by poverty. Subjecting the poor white person to the same remedial approaches one uses for rich white people simply isn't equitable.

Which remedial approaches?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should atone for someone else’s crime. We should learn from the past, but not dwell on it. Instead we should focus on the present and future. How should we as individuals, as a society, and in electing our governments, SLTT and Federal, address inherent bias and socio-economic disadvantage going forward? It is not a “they” problem, it is a “we” problem. I argue that a “hand up” is better than a “hand out”. What philosophy do you believe in? Revenge? Reparations? Unjustified privilege for any group? Keeping things the same because it’s easy and comfortable?

How do you address things like inherent bias if you believe in not dwelling on the past?

People don’t need to atone for someone else’s crime, but trying to right the wrongs that allow some of us to benefit, today, from prior generations’ crimes is work we should all be doing. There are people who continue to benefit from institutional racism. Before they can even begin to address it, they have to recognize that institutional racism exists. We still have lawmakers, and a sizable portion of white citizens who deny that there is institutional racism.

“A ‘hand up’ is better than a ‘handout’” is a nice slogan, but what does it mean? What sorts of concrete, real world policies illustrate the difference between the two to you?

Should we all vacate the continent and give the land back to the Native Americans? A bunch of foreigners invaded their home (some by choice, some who were forced) and now the tiny percentage if the population that is left live on Reservations with “treaties” that our people have a long history of ignoring when it suits us. How shall we right that wrong?

Luckily, there are still Native Americans alive to tell what justice looks like to them. https://abcnews.go.com/US/native-americans-reparations-vary-sovereignty-heard/story?id=73178740

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should atone for someone else’s crime. We should learn from the past, but not dwell on it. Instead we should focus on the present and future. How should we as individuals, as a society, and in electing our governments, SLTT and Federal, address inherent bias and socio-economic disadvantage going forward? It is not a “they” problem, it is a “we” problem. I argue that a “hand up” is better than a “hand out”. What philosophy do you believe in? Revenge? Reparations? Unjustified privilege for any group? Keeping things the same because it’s easy and comfortable?

How do you address things like inherent bias if you believe in not dwelling on the past?

People don’t need to atone for someone else’s crime, but trying to right the wrongs that allow some of us to benefit, today, from prior generations’ crimes is work we should all be doing. There are people who continue to benefit from institutional racism. Before they can even begin to address it, they have to recognize that institutional racism exists. We still have lawmakers, and a sizable portion of white citizens who deny that there is institutional racism.

“A ‘hand up’ is better than a ‘handout’” is a nice slogan, but what does it mean? What sorts of concrete, real world policies illustrate the difference between the two to you?

If the current situation is unfair we can change current policies to make it more fair. The history of the problem is mostly an academic exercise but it doesn't change the current problem or tell us how to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should atone for someone else’s crime. We should learn from the past, but not dwell on it. Instead we should focus on the present and future. How should we as individuals, as a society, and in electing our governments, SLTT and Federal, address inherent bias and socio-economic disadvantage going forward? It is not a “they” problem, it is a “we” problem. I argue that a “hand up” is better than a “hand out”. What philosophy do you believe in? Revenge? Reparations? Unjustified privilege for any group? Keeping things the same because it’s easy and comfortable?

How do you address things like inherent bias if you believe in not dwelling on the past?

People don’t need to atone for someone else’s crime, but trying to right the wrongs that allow some of us to benefit, today, from prior generations’ crimes is work we should all be doing. There are people who continue to benefit from institutional racism. Before they can even begin to address it, they have to recognize that institutional racism exists. We still have lawmakers, and a sizable portion of white citizens who deny that there is institutional racism.

“A ‘hand up’ is better than a ‘handout’” is a nice slogan, but what does it mean? What sorts of concrete, real world policies illustrate the difference between the two to you?

One problem is that the benefits of institutional racism are distributed so unevenly while the approaches to combating institutional racism don't seem to be very nuanced in accounting for those disparate benefits. Yes, you can make the case that poor white people enjoy "white privilege," but the poor white person's lived experience is that their white privilege is swamped by the deficits caused by poverty. Subjecting the poor white person to the same remedial approaches one uses for rich white people simply isn't equitable.

Which remedial approaches?

Good question. What remedies are anti-racists proposing to address institutional racism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should atone for someone else’s crime. We should learn from the past, but not dwell on it. Instead we should focus on the present and future. How should we as individuals, as a society, and in electing our governments, SLTT and Federal, address inherent bias and socio-economic disadvantage going forward? It is not a “they” problem, it is a “we” problem. I argue that a “hand up” is better than a “hand out”. What philosophy do you believe in? Revenge? Reparations? Unjustified privilege for any group? Keeping things the same because it’s easy and comfortable?

How do you address things like inherent bias if you believe in not dwelling on the past?

People don’t need to atone for someone else’s crime, but trying to right the wrongs that allow some of us to benefit, today, from prior generations’ crimes is work we should all be doing. There are people who continue to benefit from institutional racism. Before they can even begin to address it, they have to recognize that institutional racism exists. We still have lawmakers, and a sizable portion of white citizens who deny that there is institutional racism.

“A ‘hand up’ is better than a ‘handout’” is a nice slogan, but what does it mean? What sorts of concrete, real world policies illustrate the difference between the two to you?

If the current situation is unfair we can change current policies to make it more fair. The history of the problem is mostly an academic exercise but it doesn't change the current problem or tell us how to fix it.

I strongly disagree that history is mostly irrelevant to people who aren’t historians. I don’t think you can fully understand today’s issues without their proper context. I don’t think you can relate to people who have very different life experiences in a deep, meaningful way if you don’t know the history of their communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should atone for someone else’s crime. We should learn from the past, but not dwell on it. Instead we should focus on the present and future. How should we as individuals, as a society, and in electing our governments, SLTT and Federal, address inherent bias and socio-economic disadvantage going forward? It is not a “they” problem, it is a “we” problem. I argue that a “hand up” is better than a “hand out”. What philosophy do you believe in? Revenge? Reparations? Unjustified privilege for any group? Keeping things the same because it’s easy and comfortable?

How do you address things like inherent bias if you believe in not dwelling on the past?

People don’t need to atone for someone else’s crime, but trying to right the wrongs that allow some of us to benefit, today, from prior generations’ crimes is work we should all be doing. There are people who continue to benefit from institutional racism. Before they can even begin to address it, they have to recognize that institutional racism exists. We still have lawmakers, and a sizable portion of white citizens who deny that there is institutional racism.

“A ‘hand up’ is better than a ‘handout’” is a nice slogan, but what does it mean? What sorts of concrete, real world policies illustrate the difference between the two to you?

If the current situation is unfair we can change current policies to make it more fair. The history of the problem is mostly an academic exercise but it doesn't change the current problem or tell us how to fix it.

I strongly disagree that history is mostly irrelevant to people who aren’t historians. I don’t think you can fully understand today’s issues without their proper context. I don’t think you can relate to people who have very different life experiences in a deep, meaningful way if you don’t know the history of their communities.

Well I didn't say it's irrelevant. Yes, it can help you relate to others and understand issues. But it also can destroy relationships if you end up arguing over interpretations. And it still offers no solutions for how to fix whatever current problem you have, which is my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should atone for someone else’s crime. We should learn from the past, but not dwell on it. Instead we should focus on the present and future. How should we as individuals, as a society, and in electing our governments, SLTT and Federal, address inherent bias and socio-economic disadvantage going forward? It is not a “they” problem, it is a “we” problem. I argue that a “hand up” is better than a “hand out”. What philosophy do you believe in? Revenge? Reparations? Unjustified privilege for any group? Keeping things the same because it’s easy and comfortable?

How do you address things like inherent bias if you believe in not dwelling on the past?

People don’t need to atone for someone else’s crime, but trying to right the wrongs that allow some of us to benefit, today, from prior generations’ crimes is work we should all be doing. There are people who continue to benefit from institutional racism. Before they can even begin to address it, they have to recognize that institutional racism exists. We still have lawmakers, and a sizable portion of white citizens who deny that there is institutional racism.

“A ‘hand up’ is better than a ‘handout’” is a nice slogan, but what does it mean? What sorts of concrete, real world policies illustrate the difference between the two to you?

One problem is that the benefits of institutional racism are distributed so unevenly while the approaches to combating institutional racism don't seem to be very nuanced in accounting for those disparate benefits. Yes, you can make the case that poor white people enjoy "white privilege," but the poor white person's lived experience is that their white privilege is swamped by the deficits caused by poverty. Subjecting the poor white person to the same remedial approaches one uses for rich white people simply isn't equitable.

Which remedial approaches?

Good question. What remedies are anti-racists proposing to address institutional racism?

Perhaps the PP who stated that "remedial approaches simply isn't equitable" can share what he/she had in mind when he/she wrote that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should atone for someone else’s crime. We should learn from the past, but not dwell on it. Instead we should focus on the present and future. How should we as individuals, as a society, and in electing our governments, SLTT and Federal, address inherent bias and socio-economic disadvantage going forward? It is not a “they” problem, it is a “we” problem. I argue that a “hand up” is better than a “hand out”. What philosophy do you believe in? Revenge? Reparations? Unjustified privilege for any group? Keeping things the same because it’s easy and comfortable?

How do you address things like inherent bias if you believe in not dwelling on the past?

People don’t need to atone for someone else’s crime, but trying to right the wrongs that allow some of us to benefit, today, from prior generations’ crimes is work we should all be doing. There are people who continue to benefit from institutional racism. Before they can even begin to address it, they have to recognize that institutional racism exists. We still have lawmakers, and a sizable portion of white citizens who deny that there is institutional racism.

“A ‘hand up’ is better than a ‘handout’” is a nice slogan, but what does it mean? What sorts of concrete, real world policies illustrate the difference between the two to you?

One problem is that the benefits of institutional racism are distributed so unevenly while the approaches to combating institutional racism don't seem to be very nuanced in accounting for those disparate benefits. Yes, you can make the case that poor white people enjoy "white privilege," but the poor white person's lived experience is that their white privilege is swamped by the deficits caused by poverty. Subjecting the poor white person to the same remedial approaches one uses for rich white people simply isn't equitable.

Which remedial approaches?

Good question. What remedies are anti-racists proposing to address institutional racism?

Perhaps the PP who stated that "remedial approaches simply isn't equitable" can share what he/she had in mind when he/she wrote that.

I think it's like an Underpants Gnome situation.

1. Be aware of white privilege.
2. ???
3. End structural racism.