5 ms·

Serious question: Are you aware of the historical context of the United States as it concerns race? Without looking anything up tell me what you know about it.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
Are you talking about slavery? Since i'm a slav, I'd know, considering the similarity of the words is not a coincidence. But since neither I nor any of the employees there were ever a slave, I have no idea why a histy so old has to be taken in consideration.
- John23832 4y ago
  The etymological relationship between "slav" and "slavery" (which is a contested relation at best) doesn't answer the question about your depth in American race relations? The answer also shows a lack of knowledge about anything other than the headline "slavery".
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  The US Civil Rights Movement's hard-won successes in the 1960s were essentially the beginning of something resembling equality-before-the-law for black folks in the US, and it's still well within living memory. Mind, I'm also not particularly comfortable with racist hiring practices, no matter who's being targeted. Just pointing out that widespread de jure inequality based on race, plus various extremely-racist practices that were carried out and weren't illegal (as distinct from the law calling for racial discrimination explicitly, which was also still a thing then) were major factors in the US until not that long ago, including, crucially, housing and financial discrimination that left black people behind in the post-WWII economic boom—the short version is that they were flat-out banned from many of the best up-and-coming neighborhoods, and if they could find a good neighborhood that'd let them buy a house, they'd have, all else being equal, a much harder time securing a loan than a white person. This had measurable and pronounced effects on poverty rates and general financial well-being for them and their families, decades later. And even the US Civil War wasn't that long ago. There were still a handful of former slaves alive in the 1960s when the civil rights movement was going on, IIRC. The US Civil War was the early and mid 1860s, about 100 years earlier—there were no combatants left alive by the 1960s ("fun fact": a few married-later-in-life widows of soldiers were still alive and receiving Civil War pensions, though!) but there were surely at least a few born-into-slavery-in-1865 slaves still alive 95-100 years later. The war freed them from slavery but they spent basically their whole lives under regimes of legally endorsed racial discrimination, with the tide only turning as the last of them died.
  - peter422 4y ago
    Thank you, this is very well written. I'd also just like to highlight how much extrajudicial violence there was perpetrated by white men against minorites, which while technically illegal was just completely overlooked by the white male dominated political and judicial system. For example the Tulsa Race Massacre. I mean just look at Ahmaud Arbery, whose 3 white male murderers were initially not arrested or charged with a clearly obvious murder. In 2020!
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      > Thank you, this is very well written. Thanks! Was trying to keep it concise and tight enough to be both informative and interesting to someone who's not American, while still hitting the "highlights", especially the relative recency of outright racist laws and of how recently private and public racial discrimination was legal (if not always required by law) and normal. > I'd also just like to highlight how much extrajudicial violence there was perpetrated by white men against minorites, which while technically illegal was just completely overlooked by the white male dominated political and judicial system. For example the Tulsa Race Massacre. ... which is why I didn't even try to cover these instances of what I guess could be grouped together as something like "civil strife", which actions were or are explicitly outside the law, not simply not-illegal, but have been or are often tolerated or overlooked, but you're absolutely right to bring them up. In the case of the Civil Rights Movement it wasn't only (though, to be clear, it was mostly) black people being killed by racists, often with no consequences for the perpetrators—several white participants in civil rights marches and rallies were also targeted and murdered. Often Quakers or (IIRC?) Catholics, participating in part due to their religious convictions—the whole "social justice" angle held greater sway in US Catholicism then than it does now, I gather, which was also evident in the anti-war movement of the 60s and 70s. These killings weren't legal, of course, and I expect they'd have been quite unpopular if you'd polled the whole US population, but such actions had enough support locally, including among public officials, that many of the killers escaped justice anyway, so long as the killings were in the name of preserving white supremacy, even if that meant killing some white people, too. A read over a Wikipedia timeline of 1960s US history is pretty wild—the entire decade was batshit crazy, not to put too fine a point on it.
- x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
  The person you are responding to didn't mention slavery, and knowing the etymology of a word doesn't mean that you know how the phenomenon may have historical echoes.
LegitShady 4y ago
serious question - instead of debating the issue, why do you quiz them on their personal knowledge of history? If you'd like to make a point, make it. but demanding they justify their knowledge of history isn't a point in your favor, it rather appears you're incapable of providing a logical argument so will ad hominem their knowledge of history instead. Who are you to quiz random people on the internet on historical context, and what does that have to do with the legality of hiring or firing based on race? It seems to me like you're trying to justify institutionalized systematic racism on the basis of 'historical context'.
- peter422 4y ago
  Race is a social construct that only has any relevance in it's historical context. If somebody is not aware of the relevant context as it relates to the US (they specifically said they were not from the US) then of course it would be very difficult to understand the point of the policies. Most people are willfully ignorant and like to "play dumb" while making bad faith arguments about issues like this. I was merely trying to inquire if the OC was ignorant and willing to learn or willfully ignorant.
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    >Race is a social construct that only has any relevance in it's historical context race plays a role in college admissions, and now in this layoff, and maybe hiring at the same company. so clearly it has relevance today in its current context. >it would be very difficult to understand the point of the policies. which policies? making hiring and firing decisions based on race is illegal in the USA. >Most people are willfully ignorant and like to "play dumb" while making bad faith arguments about issues like this. I was merely trying to inquire if the OC was ignorant and willing to learn or willfully ignorant. You didn't make any arguments at all, you just started quizzing them on their knowledge. Again, it just seems like you're trying to legitimize systemic institutional racism on the basis of 'historical context' of a 'social construct'.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    race "the social construct" is still closely related to genetic history. Pretending there is no relationship isn't very useful. In making your response, assume I am a scientists who knows facts.
happyopossum 4y ago
I’m sorry, but present racism is not absolved by last racism. There is no “historical context” that excuses a society from promoting race based discrimination. Period.
WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
The historical context makes it all even more unfavorable towards Americans as a group. They come out as fundamentally incapable of not being racist or xenophobic. They are only able to fight discrimination with discrimination, and „antiracism” is racism because no matter what sign you put to it, you’re moving along that bloody axis, and it’s being on that axis at all that is the problem, and that you are incapable of derailing yourself from it. It’s just what you do. But I bet you’ll say that I don’t make sense and that I don’t understand anything, and that history this and context that. So be it. Proves my point, in a way. Dragonslayers turning into the dragons they’ve slain and all that.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

Are you talking about slavery? Since i'm a slav, I'd know, considering the similarity of the words is not a coincidence. But since neither I nor any of the employees there were ever a slave, I have no idea why a histy so old has to be taken in consideration.

John23832 4y ago
The etymological relationship between "slav" and "slavery" (which is a contested relation at best) doesn't answer the question about your depth in American race relations? The answer also shows a lack of knowledge about anything other than the headline "slavery".
yamtaddle 4y ago
The US Civil Rights Movement's hard-won successes in the 1960s were essentially the beginning of something resembling equality-before-the-law for black folks in the US, and it's still well within living memory. Mind, I'm also not particularly comfortable with racist hiring practices, no matter who's being targeted. Just pointing out that widespread de jure inequality based on race, plus various extremely-racist practices that were carried out and weren't illegal (as distinct from the law calling for racial discrimination explicitly, which was also still a thing then) were major factors in the US until not that long ago, including, crucially, housing and financial discrimination that left black people behind in the post-WWII economic boom—the short version is that they were flat-out banned from many of the best up-and-coming neighborhoods, and if they could find a good neighborhood that'd let them buy a house, they'd have, all else being equal, a much harder time securing a loan than a white person. This had measurable and pronounced effects on poverty rates and general financial well-being for them and their families, decades later. And even the US Civil War wasn't that long ago. There were still a handful of former slaves alive in the 1960s when the civil rights movement was going on, IIRC. The US Civil War was the early and mid 1860s, about 100 years earlier—there were no combatants left alive by the 1960s ("fun fact": a few married-later-in-life widows of soldiers were still alive and receiving Civil War pensions, though!) but there were surely at least a few born-into-slavery-in-1865 slaves still alive 95-100 years later. The war freed them from slavery but they spent basically their whole lives under regimes of legally endorsed racial discrimination, with the tide only turning as the last of them died.
- peter422 4y ago
  Thank you, this is very well written. I'd also just like to highlight how much extrajudicial violence there was perpetrated by white men against minorites, which while technically illegal was just completely overlooked by the white male dominated political and judicial system. For example the Tulsa Race Massacre. I mean just look at Ahmaud Arbery, whose 3 white male murderers were initially not arrested or charged with a clearly obvious murder. In 2020!
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    > Thank you, this is very well written. Thanks! Was trying to keep it concise and tight enough to be both informative and interesting to someone who's not American, while still hitting the "highlights", especially the relative recency of outright racist laws and of how recently private and public racial discrimination was legal (if not always required by law) and normal. > I'd also just like to highlight how much extrajudicial violence there was perpetrated by white men against minorites, which while technically illegal was just completely overlooked by the white male dominated political and judicial system. For example the Tulsa Race Massacre. ... which is why I didn't even try to cover these instances of what I guess could be grouped together as something like "civil strife", which actions were or are explicitly outside the law, not simply not-illegal, but have been or are often tolerated or overlooked, but you're absolutely right to bring them up. In the case of the Civil Rights Movement it wasn't only (though, to be clear, it was mostly) black people being killed by racists, often with no consequences for the perpetrators—several white participants in civil rights marches and rallies were also targeted and murdered. Often Quakers or (IIRC?) Catholics, participating in part due to their religious convictions—the whole "social justice" angle held greater sway in US Catholicism then than it does now, I gather, which was also evident in the anti-war movement of the 60s and 70s. These killings weren't legal, of course, and I expect they'd have been quite unpopular if you'd polled the whole US population, but such actions had enough support locally, including among public officials, that many of the killers escaped justice anyway, so long as the killings were in the name of preserving white supremacy, even if that meant killing some white people, too. A read over a Wikipedia timeline of 1960s US history is pretty wild—the entire decade was batshit crazy, not to put too fine a point on it.
x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
The person you are responding to didn't mention slavery, and knowing the etymology of a word doesn't mean that you know how the phenomenon may have historical echoes.

LegitShady 4y ago

serious question - instead of debating the issue, why do you quiz them on their personal knowledge of history? If you'd like to make a point, make it. but demanding they justify their knowledge of history isn't a point in your favor, it rather appears you're incapable of providing a logical argument so will ad hominem their knowledge of history instead. Who are you to quiz random people on the internet on historical context, and what does that have to do with the legality of hiring or firing based on race? It seems to me like you're trying to justify institutionalized systematic racism on the basis of 'historical context'.

peter422 4y ago
Race is a social construct that only has any relevance in it's historical context. If somebody is not aware of the relevant context as it relates to the US (they specifically said they were not from the US) then of course it would be very difficult to understand the point of the policies. Most people are willfully ignorant and like to "play dumb" while making bad faith arguments about issues like this. I was merely trying to inquire if the OC was ignorant and willing to learn or willfully ignorant.
- LegitShady 4y ago
  >Race is a social construct that only has any relevance in it's historical context race plays a role in college admissions, and now in this layoff, and maybe hiring at the same company. so clearly it has relevance today in its current context. >it would be very difficult to understand the point of the policies. which policies? making hiring and firing decisions based on race is illegal in the USA. >Most people are willfully ignorant and like to "play dumb" while making bad faith arguments about issues like this. I was merely trying to inquire if the OC was ignorant and willing to learn or willfully ignorant. You didn't make any arguments at all, you just started quizzing them on their knowledge. Again, it just seems like you're trying to legitimize systemic institutional racism on the basis of 'historical context' of a 'social construct'.
- dekhn 4y ago
  race "the social construct" is still closely related to genetic history. Pretending there is no relationship isn't very useful. In making your response, assume I am a scientists who knows facts.

happyopossum 4y ago

I’m sorry, but present racism is not absolved by last racism. There is no “historical context” that excuses a society from promoting race based discrimination. Period.

WesolyKubeczek 4y ago

The historical context makes it all even more unfavorable towards Americans as a group. They come out as fundamentally incapable of not being racist or xenophobic. They are only able to fight discrimination with discrimination, and „antiracism” is racism because no matter what sign you put to it, you’re moving along that bloody axis, and it’s being on that axis at all that is the problem, and that you are incapable of derailing yourself from it. It’s just what you do. But I bet you’ll say that I don’t make sense and that I don’t understand anything, and that history this and context that. So be it. Proves my point, in a way. Dragonslayers turning into the dragons they’ve slain and all that.