# Racism, sexism, homophobia, jerkism



## Bullgrit (Aug 22, 2013)

I’m wondering . . .

Bullies and bullying. 

It used to be the thinking that a person was picked on and bullied because they, the victim, were at fault. The bully picks on you because you are skinny, fat, a nerd, wear glasses, stutter, or were just generally in some way not “normal.” Basically, it was the victim’s fault for being picked on. Advertisements and entertainment showed someone being picked on because of some “weakness” on their part, but when they overcame that weakness, they could show up the bully. The cliché of the skinny boy getting sand kicked in his face, until he worked out and got strong. Or the nerdy girl who’s snubbed by everyone until she sheds the glasses and puts on makeup.

In recent years, society has turned this around from telling the victim to “man up” and become “better,” to pointing to the bully and calling him out as a jerk. We’re now telling the bully to straighten up and act right to other people. There are “stop bullying” initiatives in schools all over the US. We now tell folks with “weaknesses” that the torment is not because of them, it’s because that person mistreating them is a bully jerk. I think this is a better way.

But it seems that this idea stops short of certain particular types of bullying. For instance, (but not limited to), racism, sexism, homophobia. It seems that society still says, “this person is treating you badly because of you.” That is, you’re getting poor treatment because you’re black. Or your thoughts are dismissed because you’re a woman. Or you were called names because you’re gay.

As a straight, white, man, when I’m poorly treated by someone, (and believe it or not, it does happen sometimes), I just label the offender as an . He’s bullying me because *he* is a jerk. I don’t think, “he’s bullying me because *I’m* something.” But then I’m not living in a society that constantly tells me that bad things happen to me because I’m something.

Of course, no one expects the victim of racism/sexism/homophobia to change in order to end the problem. No one can stop being black, female, or gay. And we still call out the abuser as a racist, sexist, or homophobe. But really, aren’t those people really just bullies and jerks because of who they, themselves, are? 

Could racism/sexism/homophobia be better handled by labeling it bullying? Instead of saying, “He mistreated you because you’re Latino,” we could say, “He mistreated you because he’s a friggin’ asshat.”

Does anyone say anymore, “He mistreated you because you’re fat.” Yes, your weight may have been the target of the bullying, but losing weight won’t make the other person any less of a jerk. It’s his personality flaw that is the cause of the problem, not your physical “flaw.”

I’m just thinking around on this – I’m not making any statements that I think are right or wrong. This is just a mental exercise, a philosophical consideration, a subject for discussion here. What do you think?

Are people treated poorly because they are of a different race, the opposite sex, or of a different sexual orientation? Or are people treated poorly because they are confronted by bullies, jerks, and s? Could changing/eliminating racism, sexism, and homophobia be accomplished better by putting them under the general umbrella of “bullying”?

Bullgrit


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 22, 2013)

Causal attribution is an interesting phenomenon. We never know someone else's motivations, so we end up doing a lot of guessing.

Prejudice and bigotry are real, and some groups have it worse than others. However, there is a tendency of those groups to become defensive, and to attribute malice to accidental or meaningless events.

There's something to be said for labeling the aggressor in cases of legitimate malfeasance, rather than the victim. However, it's important to note that a lot of real racism/sexism/etc. is subtle, passive, subconscious, or otherwise not even noticed by the average person. Those attitudes need to be explored more, not grouped under a general "jerk" label.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 22, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Of course, no one expects the victim of racism/sexism/homophobia to change in order to end the problem.




Um... well, some do.  They're jerks, but they exist.  



> Could racism/sexism/homophobia be better handled by labeling it bullying?




No.  Bullying has a specific goal - to shame, intimidate, or coerce the victim.  The point is to inflict certain emotions and feelings in the victim.  Some bullying has racism, sexism, or homophobia as a basis.  

But, not all incidents of racism, sexism, or homophobia have the goal of intimidation, shaming, or coercion.  If a mechanic charges you more for car repairs because of who you are, they aren't bullying you.  If the boss doesn't give you a promotion because of your orientation, they aren't bullying you.  The perpetrator may not give a fig what you feel about it, but treats you differently.

Basically, discrimination is not the same as bullying.  



> Instead of saying, “He mistreated you because you’re Latino,” we could say, “He mistreated you because he’s a friggin’ asshat.”




Yes, we could say that.  But "asshat" and "bully" are not the same.  All bullies are asshats, but not all asshats are bullies, you might say.


----------



## Janx (Aug 22, 2013)

I would surmise that "we don't server your kind" or calling names at the different colored person as they walked by your porch might be bullying.

But tossing out the resumes with names of a type you don't like?  If I hated your kind, as was doing that with my resume stack, you never even enter the picture.  I'd certainly be descriminating, but as we had zero interaction, I couldn't call that bullying.


In the current stage of our society correcting its handling of victims and bullies, calling out the bully instead of crapping on the victim is probably currently useful.

But it will likely reach a threshold were like racism, enough of us got the memo, and now "faux-victims" are playing the Race Card to bully their way out of a situation.

Teachers are seeing this now, with more kids saying "it's because I'm black!" when they don't get their way.

One day we'll reach a point where the bad actors will say "You're trying to bully me!" to put someone who is taking a legitimate action on the defensive of not wanting to be labeled a bully.

It's rather like the situation where the person who's complaining that "you're being selfish" is usually saying so because you are giving THEM what THEY want.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 22, 2013)

There will always be those who turn legitimate victimizations into weapons.

Yeeeaaaaars ago, when I was a law student, I was in a women's legal issues seminar.  One of my fellow students actually felt that problems of false accusations of rape and sexual harrasment were negligible.  Since then, crime stats have proven otherwise.  While the incidence may be low, the consequences to the falsely accused are long lasting an potentially financially and socially ruinous.

So that someone might falsely or erroneously accuse someone of being a racist, a bully, a sexist, etc. in order to escape responsibility or gain an advantage is not a surprise.  Its something humans do.


----------



## Janx (Aug 22, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So that someone might falsely or erroneously accuse someone of being a racist, a bully, a sexist, etc. in order to escape responsibility or gain an advantage is not a surprise.  Its something humans do.




I think those people are jerks.

And bullies are jerks.

If we had a test to identify the jerks, and ship them to Mars, the Earth might be a better place.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 22, 2013)

That would start the War of The Worlds, when the Martians figure out we're using their planet as a "penile" colony.



(See, they violated Wheaton's Law...)


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 22, 2013)

Janx said:


> If we had a test to identify the jerks, and ship them to Mars, the Earth might be a better place.




Depends on who created the test. That person would probably end up very lonely here on Earth.

There's an opportunity to teach those exhibiting 'jerk' behavior instead of writing them off. It takes time and patience. And I think we're seeing that education progress. I know the world has improved in this regard since I came into it. I've had points in my life where I overcame learned jerk behavior towards the mentally handicapped, those of other races, and just people in general (Ever sit with a friend and make fun of people passing by?). I know I've learned to be more accepting and less of a jerk. I hope the people I offended in years past can forgive my ignorance. But without that chance to learn I'd be on your proverbial rocketship to Mars.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 23, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yeeeaaaaars ago, when I was a law student, I was in a women's legal issues seminar.  One of my fellow students actually felt that problems of false accusations of rape and sexual harrasment were negligible.  Since then, crime stats have proven otherwise.  While the incidence may be low, the consequences to the falsely accused are long lasting an potentially financially and socially ruinous.



It's worth noting that the damages of even an unsubstantiated accusation can be catastrophic, but false accusations have broader consequences for society. Such accusations diminish the credibility of real victims, and divert law enforcement and healthcare and legal resources away from real problems.

It's important for victim advocates to understand that the liars are not only real, they are committing an offense against the actual victims they are trying to protect.

(Also, I seriously doubt that the incidence is low; though it's almost impossible to know one way or the other).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 23, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Also, I seriously doubt that the incidence is low; though it's almost impossible to know one way or the other.




Since 1996, the FBI has pegged false rape accusations an annual rate of @8%.  How accurate that is, I cannot say.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 23, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Since 1996, the FBI has pegged false rape accusations an annual rate of @8%.  How accurate that is, I cannot say.



It's so inaccurate it's not even usable:

http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/


> This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.
> 
> The term "unfounded" is not a homogeneous classification and, to date, there is not a formalized, accepted definition of "false rape allegations." Certainly, the designation of false accusation should not include those situations in which the accuser was raped but unintentionally identified the wrong person as the alleged perpetrator. The definition of false allegation of rape cannot be limited to the situation in which the victim recants the accusation. There are women who were truly raped but for any number of reasons choose to recant. On the other hand, there are women who were not raped but do not recant their accusation.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 23, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Since 1996, the FBI has pegged false rape accusations an annual rate of @8%.  How accurate that is, I cannot say.



Even if one believes that estimate is somewhere near the truth, "low" is a rather subjective term. For example, imagine if in 8% of murder cases, no one had actually been killed.


----------



## Emerald88 (Aug 23, 2013)

> But it seems that this idea stops short of certain particular types of  bullying. For instance, (but not limited to), racism, sexism,  homophobia. It seems that society still says, “this person is treating  you badly because of you.” That is, you’re getting poor treatment  because you’re black. Or your thoughts are dismissed because you’re a  woman. Or you were called names because you’re gay.




The problem is, someone can stand up claim that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Or give blood And still be credited as a respectable politician. When really, they should be thrown into a big black hole and forgotten about. It's not bullying, it's taking a stand on some incredibly warped moral ground. The perception is different. The fact is, people (I use the term loosely) always fear something different. They so horrified by the idea that their status quo might change, and so ignorant that they don't want to look at a point of view, or a lifestyle, or anything even slightly different to what they know.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 23, 2013)

Emerald88 said:


> The problem is, someone can stand up claim that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Or give blood And still be credited as a respectable politician. When really, they should be thrown into a big black hole and forgotten about. It's not bullying, it's taking a stand on some incredibly warped moral ground. The perception is different. The fact is, people (I use the term loosely) always fear something different. They so horrified by the idea that their status quo might change, and so ignorant that they don't want to look at a point of view, or a lifestyle, or anything even slightly different to what they know.




I don't think an eye-for-an-eye approach is helpful at all. Tolerance and acceptance is a two-way street. No one can expect to be accepted if they completely disregard the viewpoints of other people. People can learn. People can change. That's why groups have come into more acceptance over time. Forgetting about the ignorant and intolerant still leaves them ignorant and intolerant.


----------



## Janx (Aug 23, 2013)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I don't think an eye-for-an-eye approach is helpful at all. Tolerance and acceptance is a two-way street. No one can expect to be accepted if they completely disregard the viewpoints of other people. People can learn. People can change. That's why groups have come into more acceptance over time. Forgetting about the ignorant and intolerant still leaves them ignorant and intolerant.




Keep in mind, a part of that "people can change" stuff is they they die off.

A chunk of "X-ist" mindset held by demographic that later changes is because the people who hold that belief grew up in a certain time period when that was more acceptable.  So as they shuffle off this mortal coil, the number of remaining people who think that way is reduced.

To make it more complicated, we may associate those viewpoints with the grey-haired old people of the 80's if that was our formative era of learning "man those people are X-ist!"

They're all dead now, so when we see hip grey-haired old people now who's views are more tolerant, we may accidentally think "old people changed their minds" when in reality, old people just got replaced by a new crop of different old people.


----------



## Emerald88 (Aug 23, 2013)

> . People can learn. People can change.




This is an ideal I find myself losing faith in on a daily basis. Some people absolutely can and do change. But the loudest, worst examples of this problem dig their heels in and refuse to listen to anyone else. It's like banging your head off the most ignorant wall. Repeatedly.


----------



## Janx (Aug 23, 2013)

Emerald88 said:


> This is an ideal I find myself losing faith in on a daily basis. Some people absolutely can and do change. But the loudest, worst examples of this problem dig their heels in and refuse to listen to anyone else. It's like banging your head off the most ignorant wall. Repeatedly.




There's already science that indicates people are highly resistant to changing their mind by virtue of you trying to convince them.

Take smoking.

A man who smokes may not know the official % of people who die from smoking, but he's got a number in his head that is kind of low.
He also has a number in his head about how many people die of shark attack.

If you brief him on all the percentages then quiz him,
he will remember the percentages that don't apply to him, and he will only slightly improve the % of smoking death.

This is because his brain cannot accept that his habit is bad for him and science says so.

So he ignores that fact, while being very happy to accept facts he has no investment in.


----------



## Emerald88 (Aug 23, 2013)

Well with smoking, comes the addiction side of it as well (stating the obvious here I know). But yeah, people work themselves up to a point where they can't be seen to back down. Pride is a big part of it. As is being an outright hateful person...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 23, 2013)

Sure, part of change is death.

But fighting hate with hate never accomplishes anything.

And, IME, most prejudice doesn't emerge from outright hate. It emerges from fear, from misunderstanding. My grandfather saw his friends move away from the neighborhood he founded by building the first home in what was an overgrown baseball field. As each neighbor moved away, a young African-American family or Hispanic family would move in. He had little in common with his new neighbors. He had misconceptions about them. He formed a strong prejudice against them. But as time went on, before he passed, he learned more about his neighbors. He saw that his misconceptions were just that. He saw that most of these new families cared about the community as much as he did. And his prejudices faded. If his prejudices had been met with equal levels of dislike, he would have died holding onto that prejudice.

We've even seen progress recently at the top of a major religion in attitude towards homosexual priests. An attitude that has been carried even longer by contemporary nuns (my sister-in-law having been with the Franciscan order for the past decade).

It would be awesome if everyone would just change today and be nice to each other. But we can't even get people to be nice to each other over RPGs here, how can we expect instantaneous change over topics that stretch so much further back into human history?


----------



## Starfox (Aug 29, 2013)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I don't think an eye-for-an-eye approach is helpful at all. Tolerance and acceptance is a two-way street. No one can expect to be accepted if they completely disregard the viewpoints of other people. People can learn. People can change. That's why groups have come into more acceptance over time. Forgetting about the ignorant and intolerant still leaves them ignorant and intolerant.




This is a low process. Part of it is people taking their prejudices to the grave, part of it is that experience is a slow accumulation, part of it is that prejudiced-against groups often backlash, confirming to the very prejudices they hate (if you call me a thief I might as well steal) and themselves need to undergo this slow process.

But yes, I very much see it happening on a larger time scale. There are setbacks and reversals, but I still feel there is a progress in a tango pace (two steps forward, one step back). It often takes something very dramatically bad for attitudes to become visible and thus change. The greatest setback in this way was hitlerism and WWII - before WWII, racism was not controversial and a fact of life all over the world. Because of the excesses of the nazi, people the world over questioned their own values and change began. Sad that it had to take all those millions of lives to open our eyes.

But I don't think this CAN change overnight, and attempts to instantly eradicate various forms of ass-hatedness are doomed to failure. Which does not mean that trying to change things are pointless - but expecting quick results means you'll be disappointed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 29, 2013)

> But I don't think this CAN change overnight, and attempts to instantly eradicate various forms of ass-hatedness are doomed to failure. Which does not mean that trying to change things are pointless - but expecting quick results means you'll be disappointed.




And the change has to come from both sides- victims AND victimizers.

Earlier this year, an elderly American politician who is black mentioned that he still crosses the street when he sees white women approaching him.  He's not anti-white, he is just still living in the days of his youth when he could get beaten or arrested if he didn't do that.

And I was just at a conferences where one of my fellow attendees talked about how he didn't see any difference in the race relations in the USA of his youth (the 1960s) and today.  Certainly, there is still need for improvement, but _NO_ change?  My personal experience tells me otherwise.  I _have_ experienced racism, but my experiences are the decaf version of what my own family talks about.

But until that politician and my colleague pass away, they will be stuck in their own perceptual prisons.


----------



## Starfox (Aug 30, 2013)

Maybe online social venues like ENworld and other special-interest forums can help push for change? You do get quite close in what was once called the global village, and yet you have no idea of each others' ethnicity, age, or even gender. Personally, I tend to think everyone is more or less like me, and sometimes get a little surprised when it shows people are not - but surprised in a good way.

I was going to mention Facebook, but on second thought I don't think that's a good example - that has a lot of pictures and RL references. It is more for keeping in touch with old friends that finding new ones, at least for me.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 30, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Maybe online social venues like ENworld and other special-interest forums can help push for change?




We do.


----------



## Starfox (Aug 30, 2013)

Morrus said:


> We do.




In the first clip, I loved the interview with Rob Harris when he says something like "Its nice to see more women in games, particularly at expos and such" and two lady gamers walk out the door in the background - probably a coincidence, but it illustrates his words so just-on-time ^^. (At 5:20 running time)

Watching that is an exception for me - I find video clips much harder to "get into" and absorb than text. It does help to get facial expressions and a little bit of context with the words, tough. It just feels to time-inefficent to watch a video tough.


----------



## Starfox (Aug 30, 2013)

About sexism in role-playing settings... Now this is going to be a bit complicated to talk about...

I find that male players like to explore sexism, playing female characters. It is escapism for them, acting out a role and exploring the consequences. For such a player, having the characters gender not matter is a big letdown, almost a breach of social contract. These players are interested in playing out genders stereotypes and romantic encounters, but also in reacting to in-game prejudice. Often these characters are played clumsily or over-sexed, or try to use their gender as a weapon, but my feeling is that this is done more to explore gender roles than because these players are sexist or think that this is how real women are. I can still see that playing such over-sexed characters is insulting to women and would discourage it if I feel other players are discomforted. Actually, it is generally self-censored.

Many women players, on the other hand, have experienced sexism and clumsy flirting firsthand in real life. It is not something they want to explore in a game. It is not escapism for them. Rather, the lack of prejudice is escapism, an enjoyable escape from a sexist reality. For such a player, having gender matter is a breach of the implicit social contract. They generally play female characters but pretty much want to be treated as if they were non-gendered. They are not in the least interested in in-game romantic encounters and absolutely hate being prejudiced against in-game, regardless of whether such prejudice would make sense for the setting or not.  

To sum things up, male and female players playing female characters are not looking for the same things.

Of course these are just trends, they are not all-encompassing. There are exceptions of both genders. Men playing characters of both genders without sexualizing them at all, and (more rarely) women playing to gender stereotypes for either sex. But I've encountered it often enough to feel it is real and recurring. Have others experienced this?


----------



## Umbran (Aug 31, 2013)

Starfox said:


> It just feels to time-inefficent to watch a video tough.




Complete off-topic aside.

The written word is a wonderous thing.  But, let us be clear - it is the lowest baud rate form of communication available to humans.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 31, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Earlier this year, an elderly American politician who is black mentioned that he still crosses the street when he sees white women approaching him. He's not anti-white, he is just still living in the days of his youth when he could get beaten or arrested if he didn't do that.



I've heard one or two other politicians make this kind of statement, and I'm suspicious as to the honesty. I mean, to even be in office means they had to personally interact with white people, (including, surely, white women), and then get the majority of their votes from white people. Saying they still feel serious prejudice to the level of having segregation flashbacks to decades ago makes me think they are either delusional or they are pandering.



> one of my fellow attendees talked about how he didn't see any difference in the race relations in the USA of his youth (the 1960s) and today. Certainly, there is still need for improvement, but NO change?



Similar situation here. When I hear something like this it makes me think more that the speaker is refusing to accept change than the world around him has accepted change.

From what I've seen in society today, for every person who expresses racism (or sexism or homophobia), there are at least two others who stand against the expression. And that's not counting the numbers who may not speak up but still disagree with the situation. Just like when someone is a bully or jerk. A couple of people may step up, but most others recognize and disapprove of the bad person. Sadly, it may be a case, though, of the picked on individual only noticing the bully/jerk and missing all the others. Later, when talking about the situation, they'll only mention the jerk, forgetting, (if they even noticed), those who defended or shook their heads.

Bullgrit


----------



## billd91 (Aug 31, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> I've heard one or two other politicians make this kind of statement, and I'm suspicious as to the honesty. I mean, to even be in office means they had to personally interact with white people, (including, surely, white women), and then get the majority of their votes from white people. Saying they still feel serious prejudice to the level of having segregation flashbacks to decades ago makes me think they are either delusional or they are pandering.




I don't think so at all. That sort of behavior can be very deeply ingrained and doesn't change easily. Plus, interacting with white voters at a political event or parade or while directly campaigning is different from just walking down the street. They put on the public-facing mask, the personal defenses are up, and they're in politician persona, psychologically ready to meet the public. If they're just walking down the street, they may be a private person again and not girded up to face the public.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 31, 2013)

billd91 said:
			
		

> That sort of behavior can be very deeply ingrained and doesn't change easily.



Yes, I can understand how something one had to live with for a very long time can become ingrained, and feelings or reactions can come up as a knee-jerk flinch. Heck, I've had moments in my 30s and 40s of, "Oh crap, did I do my homework?"

But these stories I've heard are always offered as an example of how racism has affected someone, (perfectly understandable, though sad), but it's never followed up with, "and then I realized I don't have to worry about that anymore." And really, that is the situation. And that's why these stories annoy me -- they don't give society credit for having come up from that crap. These examples are never given to show how good society is now, it's always to show how bad society has been, (with the subtle hint that it still is bad). Sure, we should never forget the bad of the past, but some won't let the bad go and accept that things have gotten much, much better.

Perhaps apropos of nothing, but here's a story of an experience from the 80s:
http://www.totalbullgrit.com/blog/clash-of-cultures/

Bullgrit


----------



## Starfox (Aug 31, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> they don't give society credit for having come up from that crap. These examples are never given to show how good society is now, it's always to show how bad society has been, (with the subtle hint that it still is bad).




I felt this is just how the story was presented here - as a sad example of people still suffering under prejudices that might not even be around any more.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 31, 2013)

> But these stories I've heard are always offered as an example of how racism has affected someone, (perfectly understandable, though sad), but it's never followed up with, "and then I realized I don't have to worry about that anymore." And really, that is the situation.



No, not really.  Sadly, that is not the case.

In his youth, my Dad nearly got arrested as a purse snatcher as he came out of a church service where he had been working as an altar boy.  When we moved to Texas in the early 1980s to open his medical practice decades later, there was a (purely conincidental, no joke) impromptu Klan rally on the street corner.

When I was in college in the mid-1980s, I attended a talk by a (white) European photojournalist about his long journey through all kinds of cities & townships in America.  His pictures showed all kinds of great things about this country, but also places where segregation was still openly practiced.  And I mean with signage indicating which water fountains and bathrooms and even stores where non-whites were not welcome.

At the same time, there were so many people who were openly supporting "former" Klansman David Duke in the Louisiana (my home state) governer's race that he and convicted criminal Edwin Edwards beat out incumbent Buddy Roemer to have a runoff between themselves.  And it wasn't until after major companies started weighing in on leaving the state if Duke won that his numbers began to slip.  See below.

And even today, I can guarantee you that there are still public places whare I cannot walk in the USA without fearing for my well being simply because I am not white.  They are not so common as they once were, but they still exist.  Sometimes, entire towns. We call them "sundown" towns- as in, don't be within city limits after sundown, or else.

Even on a less dangerous scale, there are still places where I get followed by store security...when my Caucasian friends do not.  Or denied a test drive (or get ignored) when car shopping...most recently in 2003.

The last anti-miscegenation law was not officially repealed until 2001.

I live in the big city and this happens.

And its not a Southern thing, either.  Big companies and even states are still getting dinged on this kind of thing.  There are currently 3 lawsuits I know of filed post-2005 working their way through the court system dealing with real estate companies practicing commercial and residential redlining (the practice of refusing to show or sell properties to minorities in certain areas) and reverse-redlining (only showing whites properties within certain areas)- and they've gotten to the point that it isn't a question of whether or not it happened, but rather, how extensive the practice is and who is responsible.  (IOW, is it company-wide, or just certain regions.)

Commercial redlining can also be seen in lending patterns- Dan Immergluck pointed out in 2002 that small businesses in black neighborhoods still received fewer loans compared to businesses in predominantly white neigborhoods of comperable business density, business size, industrial mix, neighborhood income, and the credit quality.


> And that's why these stories annoy me -- they don't give society credit for having come up from that crap. These examples are never given to show how good society is now, it's always to show how bad society has been, (with the subtle hint that it still is bad). Sure, we should never forget the bad of the past, but some won't let the bad go and accept that things have gotten much, much better.




Here, we agree.  Like I said, I feel those people are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Their perceptual blinders prevent them from recognizing genuine improvements...and that acts as a speedbump towards further improvement.

Say what you want (elsewhere) about Bobby Jindahl, but the mere fact that he (a non-caucasian) won the governorship of Louisiana IS a sea-change from Louisiana politics from just 25 years ago.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 1, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> But these stories I've heard are always offered as an example of how racism has affected someone, (perfectly understandable, though sad), but it's never followed up with, "and then I realized I don't have to worry about that anymore." And really, that is the situation. And that's why these stories annoy me -- they don't give society credit for having come up from that crap. These examples are never given to show how good society is now, it's always to show how bad society has been, (with the subtle hint that it still is bad). Sure, we should never forget the bad of the past, but some won't let the bad go and accept that things have gotten much, much better.




Yes, they have, in some ways. Yet in others, they've gotten good enough to spark a political backlash and all you have to do is watch the news and you'll see it plain as day.


----------



## Orius (Sep 1, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> I've heard one or two other politicians make this kind of statement, and I'm suspicious as to the honesty. I mean, to even be in office means they had to personally interact with white people, (including, surely, white women), and then get the majority of their votes from white people. Saying they still feel serious prejudice to the level of having segregation flashbacks to decades ago makes me think they are either delusional or they are pandering.




There's also the effect of gerrymandering to consider, particularly with people who are in the House or similar state-level offices.  If they're representing districts that are deliberately packed to have large minority populations, they don't need to worry about winning white votes.


----------



## Janx (Sep 3, 2013)

I heard an interesting article on NPR yesterday.

Apparently  there had been some mass migrations of blacks from America to France.  After WWW2 and surprisingly before (like Napolean era).

So something about french culture made them be open and non-racist to blacks.

I'd be curious as to what caused that to work out (not the migration cause, Americans were being jerks, that's obvious).  Instead, what caused the french to not be jerks (the WW2 migration was more obvious.  Black soldiers helped save France, gratitude helps).


----------



## Umbran (Sep 3, 2013)

Janx said:


> So something about french culture made them be open and non-racist to blacks.
> 
> I'd be curious as to what caused that to work out (not the migration cause, Americans were being jerks, that's obvious).  Instead, what caused the french to not be jerks (the WW2 migration was more obvious.  Black soldiers helped save France, gratitude helps).




History probably plays a part, here.  While slavery was an accepted practice in French holdings in the Caribbean, the institution was never officially authorized in the mainland.  In 1739, registers for slaves were established in France, and registered slaves were limited to a 3-year stay.  Unregistered slaves were considered free.  The practice was first outlawed in 1793, and then after Napoleon brought it back for Caribbean holdings, it was finally abolished in 1848.

Basically, use of Africans as slaves was never so institutionalized in mainland France, so the French didn't have that history to overcome.


----------



## Starfox (Sep 3, 2013)

French snobbery has always been about language, never about ethnicity. If you speak good french and have an inking of french literature and culture, you are french - regardless of skin color. The french themselves are not very homogenous in looks, ranging from blonde to swarthy. Blacks have not had much trouble being assimilated, and France also has a large group of assimilated Vietnamese. What France has been unable to assimilate well are moslems.

While Louisiana was french, there was quite a prosperous cajun group of mixed African and European heritage, who got impoverished and pushed out of respectable society once Louisiana became part of the US. By the same token, french were much better at assimilating native americans than the British or US ever was. Quebec natives fought on the french side against Britain.

My dad once told me an anecdote from the french parliament where general De Gaulle accused a black MP from French Senegal of not being french enough. This black man made a speech that included this (quoting from memory) "Mr president, I am more french than you are. Let me remind you that my town, Louisville, was founded by Louis XIII in 16XX. Your town, Strasbourg, was conquered by Louis XIV in 1681  (later date, under a later king). " True or not, the idea about the quote is to say that a black man form Africa could claim to be more french than the president of the republic and the savior of France, a white man, and do so in a speech before the french parliament in the 1950s.


----------



## Janx (Sep 3, 2013)

Starfox said:


> French snobbery has always been about language, never about ethnicity. If you speak good french and have an inking of french literature and culture, you are french - regardless of skin color. The french themselves are not very homogenous in looks, ranging from blonde to swarthy. Blacks have not had much trouble being assimilated, and France also has a large group of assimilated Vietnamese. What France has been unable to assimilate well are moslems.




I suspect this is a contributor to low-grade racism.

As the Avenue Q song says, we're all a little bit racist.

If we ignore the whackjob nazis, white supremacists, etc (like the guy trying to buy up a town in South Dakota), what we got left is small issue racism.

if black people pulled their pants up and spoke intelligibly*, then some % of the population wouldn't feel the inclination to lock their car doors when they walked by. 

*This would be the % of blacks that tend to be the stereotype and are in effect, what white people are scared of.

if immigrants chose to learn the national language (there's some dispute over this, but apparently Bill Clinton did sign something to the effect), then some % of the population wouldn't feel like their country is being invaded and colonized by a people who refuse to assimilate (it being ironic that the American continents were colonized that same way).

Here's the clincher.  I've seen and heard of many asians coming to America who are so gung ho, they change their names to American ones.  That seems really committed to me, and I actually wouldn't ask that somebody eliminate their culture from their personal identity.

And we've seen France try to legislate standards like no headscarves for muslims, and that's pretty much backlashed on them.

I think if the people tried to become part of the community, rather than distance themselves, it would help reduce the racist effect.  We'd be less likely to think our neighborhoods and schools are going down the drain when the people value education over gangster culture.

I don't think you can legislate that. That just pushes the people away when you'd like them to join the club.  But in turn, it really goes smoother when these disparate groups try to join, rather than isolate themselves and create us vs. the existing environment.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 3, 2013)

Starfox said:


> French snobbery has always been about language, never about ethnicity.




Its worse than that: according to some French people I know, its actually the _Parisians_ who really grind people's gears on language...including their fellow countrymen.


----------



## Starfox (Sep 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Its worse than that: according to some French people I know, its actually the _Parisians_ who really grind people's gears on language...including their fellow countrymen.




Frenchmen outside of Paris are generally nicer than parisians, true. Paris is a lovely city, but not a friendly one.

Edit: But honestly, I'd say the same of Swedes vs. Stockholmers (Stockholm being the largest city and capital of Sweden).


----------



## Janx (Sep 4, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Frenchmen outside of Paris are generally nicer than parisians, true. Paris is a lovely city, but not a friendly one.
> 
> Edit: But honestly, I'd say the same of Swedes vs. Stockholmers (Stockholm being the largest city and capital of Sweden).




Which shows that even if we all speak the same language, are from the same country, there will still be some jerks grouped together to pick on the rest.


----------



## Starfox (Sep 4, 2013)

Janx said:


> Which shows that even if we all speak the same language, are from the same country, there will still be some jerks grouped together to pick on the rest.




It also shows that the more people you squeeze into a small area, the more people start to view each other as objects or phenomena  rather than as individuals. In the urban jungle, people are the prey.


----------



## raexgames (Sep 7, 2013)

I was on a video game online today and its been a long time and I couldn't help, but ask why everyone was so blatantly ignorant to racism and foul language with one another. The response from everyone was "it's the internet." 

It seems like there was a memo i missed long ago that this place of data streams is somehow immune to reasonable human interaction. I suppose those that project the behavior are just hiding from something else.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 7, 2013)

Starfox said:


> It also shows that the more people you squeeze into a small area, the more people start to view each other as objects or phenomena  rather than as individuals. In the urban jungle, people are the prey.




The reasoning I have seen goes thusly:  The human mind is only built to handle so many personal relationships - about as many as you'd see in a big tribe or village, so maybe a couple hundred.  The number varies from person to person, but beyond some point, you start losing track, and people just become "them".  They are no longer people you know and have emotional attachments too.  The same parts of your mind are not engaged when you think of them, they just don't matter much to you, so you can tend to treat them pretty poorly if you don't train yourself not to.


----------



## Orius (Sep 7, 2013)

raexgames said:


> I was on a video game online today and its been a long time and I couldn't help, but ask why everyone was so blatantly ignorant to racism and foul language with one another. The response from everyone was "it's the internet."
> 
> It seems like there was a memo i missed long ago that this place of data streams is somehow immune to reasonable human interaction. I suppose those that project the behavior are just hiding from something else.




I assume a good deal of such boorishness can be largely attributed to immaturity.


----------



## jonesy (Sep 7, 2013)

Orius said:


> I assume a good deal of such boorishness can be largely attributed to immaturity.



And a good deal of the 'it's the internet' can be attributed to people in general being too tired with how prevalent the behaviour is to try and change it when that isn't what they are there to do. It's easier in the real world when the person behaving badly is right there, but on the net ignoring the bad is all too easy.


----------



## raexgames (Sep 7, 2013)

jonesy said:


> And a good deal of the 'it's the internet' can be attributed to people in general being too tired with how prevalent the behaviour is to try and change it when that isn't what they are there to do. It's easier in the real world when the person behaving badly is right there, but on the net ignoring the bad is all too easy.




We are talking 8 individuals on voice and text chat so their immaturity aside it was full blown purposeful bringing up of racial derogatory comments and then everyone else jumping in to add to them as if it was some sort of chest pumping stomping ground. 

It just seems to me that not only are their a lot of people behaving "loosly" with their comments, but its become in many ways a right of passage for younger gamers to feel like they are 1337 or equal to others. Basically the mob mentality and the need to conform to the standard mold. 

This is an every day event on many fps style games it seems. I don't know when it exactly happened, but more positive and anti-ignorant role models need to be more outspoken in my mind. Not in an argumentative way, but in ways that show the followers that they are nothing more than that. 

I more worry that the young kids playing these games and learning from the older ignorant 25+ individuals that they will continue to carry this mindset into the next generations. 

Technology is supposed to bring us forward not backwards.


----------



## Janx (Sep 7, 2013)

raexgames said:


> This is an every day event on many fps style games it seems. I don't know when it exactly happened, but more positive and anti-ignorant role models need to be more outspoken in my mind. Not in an argumentative way, but in ways that show the followers that they are nothing more than that.
> 
> I more worry that the young kids playing these games and learning from the older ignorant 25+ individuals that they will continue to carry this mindset into the next generations.
> 
> Technology is supposed to bring us forward not backwards.




It also might be a matter of they talk that way online, but not in everyday conversation.

Kind of like how kids swear at school on the playground, but they mind their P's and Q's at the dinner table (or at least in my day).

I'd predict it's a mixture.  Some people talk like that all the time.  Some people only do it to fit in or talk like a sailor because there's no consequence for it.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Sep 15, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Earlier this year, an elderly American politician who is black mentioned that he still crosses the street when he sees white women approaching him.  He's not anti-white, he is just still living in the days of his youth when he could get beaten or arrested if he didn't do that.




Hell, I used to do this. Well not exactly but walking down the block behind white women in particular I would always either slow down (to put some distance between us) or speed up (so that I can pass them). Mostly because they would get nervous when they notice me walking behind them or walking toward them. Didn't matter if I was wearing slacks and a button down shirt or jeans and T-Shirt. But for being aware of this and responding to it I'm considered a racist by some people. To which I used to respond: If doing something to put someone else at ease and make me less suspect is racist then I guess I am.

I'm 41 now (i'll be 42 in another 2 weeks or so) and NOW? I don't care. If you see me coming and give me a wide berth? THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM. If me walking down the street prompts you to grab your purse or bad or whatever then that's on you. I've just stopped caring to an extent. 

The other thing, I observed an exchange on another board where some of the posters said that the only real racism left in the US was from the KKK. It's a trend that I've noticed that comes out of the mouth of a fair amount of white/non-black people. Which by default means that any other type of ill treatment because of our skin color ISNT because of skin color and is because we either have really thin skins and/or imagining it. OR even better we somehow BENEFIT from calling out (presumed) racist treatment or behavior. It's pretty much a variation on shaming tactics used on women when they speak out about sexism. 

Do I believe that the US is as OPENLY racist as it was in the 40's, 50's 60's? NO. We can extend right up into the late 80's as well. (I remember Guilliani's NYC very well from my teens and 20's and it was no picnic being a young black or latino male here during that time. Either you were targeted by others in your neighborhood or you were targeted by the police. There was NO WINNING here.)

But do I believe that this country is as racist towards blacks as it was back them? Absolutely. It's just not as out in the open. But it's still there. You have more black men and women getting college degrees than in the past 20 years or so. More of us are gainfully employed (recession aside). Violent Crime numbers are actually down (at least here in NYC. And very little of it has to do with Stop and Frisk. I'm not saying that the police arent doing a great job. But I think that any OTHER policy with like a 3% success rate would have been nixed long ago). I think that the fact that despite all of the forward steps that have been made and the good things that have happened in the AA community, the general population are still absolutely fine with criminalizing an entire race of people based on a percentage of that race being criminals lends credence to what I'm saying. 

There's also the fact that whenever the question is asked whites overwhelmingly think that racism isnt that big of an issue anymore while blacks when polled say the opposite. 

There is still a huge schism in this country regarding race. Me bringing it up doesn't make me the problem as Im sure some people are already thinking. To me it's basically the police brutality thing. Here's what I mean: After the videotape of Rodney King getting his ass beat on tv surfaced, all of a sudden white people were like: OH MY GOD! That's awful!!. While to most of us in the AA and Latino communities weren't surprised at all. Because it was on TV and other white people were talking about it it all of a sudden had validation. 

It's part of the reason why the LGBT community is doing well in it's fight against homophobia. ANYONE can have a gay friend, Parent, brother, sister, roommate or other acquaintance. Having that connection HUMANIZES the other. In some cases it still doesn't but there are more opportunities for humanization of the other than not. The opportunities are fewer when it comes to race especially if you're black in this country. Fewer still if you're a black male (if youre obviously bi-racial then you have a better chance). 

The racism is still there. It's just become more insidious and not as obvious. What's worse, and I have to admit my own culpability in this as well, I dont have the patience to seek the moral high ground anymore. I've found that in the end it's not worth it and NOONE REALLY CARES. When I was younger I used to have the energy to at least try and educate and fight against my own preconceptions and patient enough to help others get past their own. NOW? I'm tired and I just really don't care anymore. You don't like me because of my skin color? I'm not gonna try to change your mind. I DONT CARE. Take a flying **** off a tall building and I hope you're screaming all the way down.


----------



## Starfox (Sep 15, 2013)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Hell, I used to do this. Well not exactly but walking down the block behind white women in particular I would always either slow down (to put some distance between us) or speed up (so that I can pass them).




Not sure if it's relevant, but I (white male) too do this now and then, especially at night, regardless of the race of the woman. And this is Sweden, a country that until recently had no real racial issues. It's more of a gender and general insecurity issue. If I get the impression someone is uncomfortable, I try to give them space.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 15, 2013)

It's simple. The internet is real life 200 years ago. Unregulated, mobs and posses, witch hunts, people carving out territory, primitive social attitudes. In a hundred years it won't resemble it's current incarnation in any way - technologically or socially. Hell, given the accelerated rate things happen, it'll take it 10 years to catch up, not 200.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Sep 15, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Not sure if it's relevant, but I (white male) too do this now and then, especially at night, regardless of the race of the woman. And this is Sweden, a country that until recently had no real racial issues. It's more of a gender and general insecurity issue. If I get the impression someone is uncomfortable, I try to give them space.




But if you slow down while walking behind a woman at night, will it seem like you're stalking her?


----------



## jonesy (Sep 15, 2013)

Dwimmerlied said:


> But if you slow down while walking behind a woman at night, will it seem like you're stalking her?



Not sure why there's a smiley face there. It's a lose-lose situation as far as impressions go every which way. It depends on the people involved and how they feel about the situation. Too many combinations of personal chemistry to know what the 'correct' way of handling it is. Every single action you migh make to rectify the situation could be seen as something else.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Sep 15, 2013)

jonesy said:


> Not sure why there's a smiley face there. It's a lose-lose situation as far as impressions go every which way. It depends on the people involved and how they feel about the situation. Too many combinations of personal chemistry to know what the 'correct' way of handling it is. Every single action you migh make to rectify the situation could be seen as something else.




Absolutely. The smiley face is to aknowledge the absurdity of it. Overanalysis can be funny.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Sep 15, 2013)

Also, it reminded me of this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2182

I've been caught out before. On my way home from uni at night, walking behind some girl. Do I walk faster? Or slower?? Man, I'm right behind her. If I walk slower, it'll appear I'm stalking her. OK. Faster it is... Oh no! She's walking faster now! SHE THINKS IM A HOMICIDAL MANIAC! Perhaps I should take a different route home? Or whistle inconspicuously. Yeah, that'll be disarming!

Yep, sometimes you gotta laugh 

I agree with the sentiment that small community plays a big part in combatting the –isms, and would go one step smaller. We need to be constantly vigilant of our own motives. If you are already thinking like this, you are probably are more part of the solution than the problem, but it is particularly useful because it tends to encourage empathy. If I acknowledge I’m just a monkey in a clever suit, I’ll recognise foibles in others and be more inclined to believe that jerks can be reached. I agree with Starfox that forcefulness won’t work, but I am honestly repeatedly astonished to find how often persistence, acceptance and patience work so profoundly and effectively time and time again. Sometimes people don't want to be challenged because of personal stakes. If you can take away as many of those as possible, it makes persuasion far easier.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 15, 2013)

*Cross the street* and walk faster, so she can see you, and there is distance.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Sep 15, 2013)

Ahhh the intricacies of ettiquette in the age of aquarius


----------



## jonesy (Sep 15, 2013)

Dwimmerlied said:


> Ahhh the intricacies of ettiquette in the age of aquarius



Funny thing about astrologers: none of them agree on any of their rules:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Aquarius


----------



## Janx (Sep 15, 2013)

ShinHakkaider said:


> The other thing, I observed an exchange on another board where some of the posters said that the only real racism left in the US was from the KKK. It's a trend that I've noticed that comes out of the mouth of a fair amount of white/non-black people. Which by default means that any other type of ill treatment because of our skin color ISNT because of skin color and is because we either have really thin skins and/or imagining it. OR even better we somehow BENEFIT from calling out (presumed) racist treatment or behavior. It's pretty much a variation on shaming tactics used on women when they speak out about sexism.




I might wonder if some of this perception (on the white people's part) is that they aren't seeing the racisim, so they don't think it's happening.

In the old days, it was pretty obvious.  You got whipped, we didn't.  Then you had your crappy drinking fountain, we had our nice one.  And a bunch of us white people thought that was wrong.

Stuff changed.  People got shot.  People got elected.

but in some places, LA, NYC, apparently it's still a racist racehole.  Sorry.  We didn't know that (well, it keeps coming back in the news so we should).

In other places, it's not as bad.  When Quannel X goes on a rant about racist police in Houston singling out a black suspect, he lacks credibility because over half of the police force isn't white.  Which means in all likelyhood over half of all black suspects arrested are probably arrested by non-white cops assuming a random distribution of who's going to arrest somebody on a given day.

No doubt there's some racist jerks mixed in there, but it's likely harder to pull off a racism scam when your peers are looking out for that stuff.

In Houston, and probably other places, the racial distribution virtually mirrors the economic distribution.  So while we all really know that it's poor people who commit the most crimes,  since that happens to be mostly non-white people, the terminology used is color based instead of money based.

Teachers interviewing at schools get told the % white/non-white levels as a recruitment data-point.  Because the bad schools are fed by apartment housing which are low rent which are poor people, which are predominantly non-white.  Making it easier to describe by color which is visually obvious in the halls, than by census data.  Katy ISD is really nice. Spring ISD is going downhill (the influx of Katrina evacuees and the resulting crime rate increase at those schools being why my wife quite working there).  Spring High was just in the news for a murder-by-knife incident last week.

In listening to my teacher friends talk, as an outsider, I suppose that can sound a little bit racist.  I don't think they hate black people.  But they aren't entirely impressed by the population sample's behavior.

I reckon there's a case to be made that people talking about the problem at the schools should be using economic terms, instead of racial terms.  It's definitely not a good thing to say "the problem with Spring ISD is all the black kids."  Luckily, I don't literally hear that.  But I sense people are dancing around saying that.

Likewise, that same demographic that is blamed for the trouble, has evolved a culture of "anti-whitism."  If a black kid shows up using proper grammar, not dressing like a gangster, he's picked on for "acting white."  Freakonomics has a section about this, and mentions some famous basketball star exprienced this (kareem abdul jabar if I recall).  I don't think this is a healthy culture. I can certainly see where black folks haven't gotten a good deal by some white folk.  But that disrespects that some chunk of us white folk who thought so highly of blacks' equality that we define the Civil War as being about helping them.

So for as many white folk that are really racist (as in would take steps to hinder/harm a non-white person), there's as many who aren't.

I reckon that we may not always realize that not everything's solved, because it's not as obvious as it was.  And we might not realize that how we say things isn't helping, but that doesn't mean an actual intent to harm.  Which is where true racism is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 16, 2013)

> I might wonder if some of this perception (on the white people's part) is that they aren't seeing the racisim, so they don't think it's happening.




No doubt about it.  



> If a black kid shows up using proper grammar, not dressing like a gangster, he's picked on for "acting white."




I can personally attest to this...even from some of my own family.


----------



## Janx (Sep 16, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No doubt about it.
> 
> 
> 
> I can personally attest to this...even from some of my own family.




I imagine that folks who insist on that culture see it as sort of forming their own cultural identity or something.  Given the bad stuff that happened, I suppose we can't blame them for wanting to be different.

But statistically, it's holding black people back.  Math says "black" names are less likely to get their resume looked at.  Folks who can't speak clearly and be understood don't get hired into better jobs.  It creates a self-fulfulling prophecy that these people start off down trodden and by by adopting these patterns makes it harder to climb out.

It would be great if there were a way to communicate that in a positive way to encourage that part of society to adopt patterns that will help them get out.  But I think it's a loaded topic.  Everybody's all diplomatic on this thread here, but I can't imagine somebody in that demographic taking the concept I'm conveying as anything but an insult to their way of life.

Good intentions don't automatically render a good solution.  Even Bill Cosby hasn't done well with the topic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 16, 2013)

> But statistically, it's holding black people back.




No doubt- I've said as much...again, even to my own family.

Personally, I've never felt bad when accused of "talking" or "acting" white.  I am what I am.  I like what I like.

And if it is true that living well is the best revenge, I can point at the list of letters that follows my name, where I live, what I drive, and the expensive nature of my hobbies.

The good news is that, instead of inspiring continued envy, my life has inspired some of my relatives to change theirs.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Sep 16, 2013)

jonesy said:


> Funny thing about astrologers: none of them agree on any of their rules:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Aquarius




Touche


----------



## Starfox (Sep 16, 2013)

We have the same problem here. I spoke to a Turk immigrant who had problems with other Turk immigrants because he wasn't a "real" Turk to them. He was educated and came from cosmopolitan Istambul. Most of our Turk immigrants come from remove villages and have not family tradition of education. From the outside, an immigrant group might look homogenous, but from the inside they are anything but. And I find this is true of most social groups.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Sep 16, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No doubt about it.
> 
> 
> 
> I can personally attest to this...even from some of my own family.




Yeah as a kid growing up in Bushwick Brooklyn among other places I got that crap. ALOT. 

I've gotten into fights over being told I'm acting white. To which my response usually was: "It's not acting white its being educated. Learn to put together a proper sentence sometime ingrate." 

Then I'd get the usual: "Just because you talk white, you think you better than us." 

To which I'd reply: "YES. I DO." 

That's usually where things would completely come off the rails. 

Now of course I didn't think that I was better than them. But with everything that was going on with people in our neighborhoods. With actual thugs and criminals getting a pass and in some cases being looked up to. And I'll I'm doing is enjoying things that I like to do like read (prose and comics) and play RPG's and figuring out how stupid math works (ST00PID MATH...) and they're gonna call me out like crapped in their corn flakes? 

If it seems like I'm still bitter about it it's because in a lot of ways I am. My 11 year old is very much how i was at his age. Except kinder and smarter. He has a lot of friends who share his interests and not a lot of people who will ridicule him for it. Even if they did, and he can be sensitive sometimes, I know that he'll handle it well. Better than his old man at least.

Alot of the time I was able to just walk away from idiots. But sometimes you get tired of hearing the same crap constantly and you need to speak up. And if someone has a problem with you speaking up for yourself and feels the need to get violent then they need to be handled. Sometimes it goes well and sometimes you wind up getting jumped by three or four guys and getting beaten so bad that you piss blood for a few days. But sometimes tucking your tail and running isnt a feasible option.


----------



## Starfox (Sep 16, 2013)

ShinHakkaider said:


> My 11 year old is very much how i was at his age. Except kinder and smarter. He has a lot of friends who share his interests and not a lot of people who will ridicule him for it. Even if they did, and he can be sensitive sometimes, I know that he'll handle it well. Better than his old man at least.




It is kind of sad that it takes generations of living to together to get over these things, but still slow change is better than no change. 

And of course this applies to all sides, not just to some group in particular. If your son is better at handling these things than you were,  guess it is because *both* his family and his social environment outside the family was easier to grow up with.


----------

