Students Expelled for ‘Ku Klux Klan Starter Pack’ Instagram Posts ‘Obviously’ Have No First Amendment Protection, Appeals Court Rules

[homersapien 11,393]

4 hours ago, Didba said:

It looks like the term "institutional racism" originated in 1967.  According to wikipedia (yuck) this publication coined the phrase: https://archive.org/details/blackpowerpoliti00carm_0/page/4/mode/2up

I'll admit it the terms origin is more recent than I actually thought but its origin is also not as recent as others have tried to make it.

I think it was Stokely Carmichael in particular that was using it in the 60's.

My point is that institutional racism - as a concept or reality -  is much older.  As an example, John C. Calhoun the famous pro-slavery secessionist - referred to it in speeches:

"Abolition and the Union cannot coexist. . . We of the South will not, cannot, surrender our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the two races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both."

Obviously, since any government entity is an "institution" by definition, the United States as well as the Confederacy can be said to be practitioners of  institutional racism pretty much from the beginning.

And after emancipation, most of the country still practiced institutional racism, particularly in the south with their Jim Crow laws.  (Laws are part of a legal system and thus are "institutions" just like the governments that pass them.)

In more recent times, one could cite sports, the military, financial institutions, many corporations, universities and city governments (planning/zoning) as examples of institutions practicing institutional racism.

To end on a positive note, I have personally witnessed in the 71 years of my life a huge decrease in examples of institutional racism in this country. 

We are moving in the right direction.

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

6 hours ago, ChristoThor said:

I really want to address the bolded and underlined portion above. If you are going to talk to people about racism, reducing it to being picked on is a terrible way to establish connection and trust.

I can only relate to what I have witnesses.  It seems to be a secret as to how to talk about racism. Until you try and then are told you are wrong in doing so.  Go figure.

It sounds something like this:

6 hours ago, ChristoThor said:

Again I feel the need to point out the tone used to discuss this. This is something that applies to all people involved in the conversation. If you talk in a way that belittles other's thoughts, it won't help the conversation

 

6 hours ago, ChristoThor said:

I want to also state that helping someone does not mean hiding from the truth or changing your beliefs to be in complete unison with them.

Bingo, this is my position and it is not my duty to change.  If someone wants to discuss an opposing view, great have at it.  I will read it.  If you start with Critical Theory, I’ve looked at that and it appears to be foreign to my beliefs and CT is the basis for a lot that is going on in this country.  

To an earlier point that even Black Americans are called white supremest:

 

If you can, please explain the phrase used my Rep Bush about *despite being Black*.  Is this akin to *if you don’t know who to vote for your ain’t Black?

If an elected representative can get away with this type of thinking, how are the rest of us look up to leaders for guidance?

Edited January 5, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

To end on a positive note, I have personally witnessed in the 71 years of my life a huge decrease in examples of institutional racism in this country. 

Any positive results? Fact is the rich are getting richer, poor poorer. In between a lot of people out there have a bunch of money. 
In my mind has not helped the black community as a whole nor the poor whites scattered throughout the south.

[cbo 7,861]

18 hours ago, Didba said:

I have IRL friends that I mention my posting habits too and they are just like "why dude???"

Haha, it's a very fair question. 

[cbo 7,861]

14 hours ago, GoAU said:

LOL - that’s so true….  My wife sees me typing away on my phone from time to time and says “talking politics again?   Why do you bother?”   I just shrug because I don’t really have a good answer.

I read this post, and Cole’s that this post quoted, and if you hid the names and a few of the specific details, it could almost fit exactly with how a conservative feels on this site.   It doesn’t take much to have a label and stigma thrown on oneself as soon as a statement or opinion is made by either side.   I try to avoid doing that and am certain I’ve come up short, especially after I’ve felt it’s happened to me.  At least there’s one area we all have common ground. - War Eagle!  

I do think the majority of forum members here are conservative, as you would expect from a site about football in Alabama. 

But I appreciate your point and agree with the overall sentiment. War Eagle!

[GoAU 1,600]

21 minutes ago, cbo said:

I do think the majority of forum members here are conservative, as you would expect from a site about football in Alabama. 

But I appreciate your point and agree with the overall sentiment. War Eagle!

That’s so interesting, as a whole for the site I’d probably agree with you, but as for participation in the Politically Thinking forum, I feel there are more liberals than conservatives.   It’d be interesting to see a poll to get the real numbers. 

[cbo 7,861]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

That’s so interesting, as a whole for the site I’d probably agree with you, but as for participation in the Politically Thinking forum, I feel there are more liberals than conservatives.   It’d be interesting to see a poll to get the real numbers. 

That's a great point. I was thinking of the site as as whole, where political bent reveals itself frequently.

I've spent less time on the political forum, but it does seem more liberal or at least closer to even here. I don't know. 

Unfortunately, most of us probably notice those who disagree more than the opposite. Human nature, I guess. 

[cole256 17,084]

On 1/5/2023 at 8:31 AM, ChristoThor said:

I will start by saying any portions I am leaving out from your previous response post are things I feel have been covered enough to not continue discussing. I also want to state that when I am using "you" it is a general collective "you" and not personally directed at you since I am responding to you.

My point in bringing up Malcolm X is that you can't attribute all progress from the 60's to King. That is not a full picture and is misleading. It is also not a full picture to only include Malcom X as well, but my point isn't to provide a complete picture in the argument (I will be honest, I don't have the complete picture and I feel this forum post isn't the place to explore that). It is to point out that it is rare to be able to point to only one person or action to explain larger pieces of history.

I really want to address the bolded and underlined portion above. If you are going to talk to people about racism, reducing it to being picked on is a terrible way to establish connection and trust.

To a degree, yes I think you did search out an agreeing statement for yourself. In this response, you are actually acknowledging others who have contributed to the society wide conversation of racism so I can say that it was a mostly incorrect assumption. However, I also feel the need to state up until this point I have not seen you acknowledge any one on the opposite side of your view points. You come across as disingenuous when you are only referring to one side of the discussion without at least engaging with and attempting to understand the opposition's ideology/arguments/statements. When I speak of understanding, what I personally mean is not just understanding what is said to be able to respond, but to understand the mindset, background, and motivation that formed the other person's response. 

That was my entire point. I am saying that it isn't simple and that for true understanding you need both sides. It isn't about saying one side is completely right or wrong or completely falling in with one side or the other. It is not simple I completely agree. If you are wanting to engage with the topic in a meaningful way, you should put in the time and effort to understand where all involved parties are coming from. This is not easy and in some cases not even possible, but to dismiss an entire side of a conversation is not the right answer. You need to push past discomfort and try to truly understand where they are coming from so you can gain a better picture.

Again I feel the need to point out the tone used to discuss this. This is something that applies to all people involved in the conversation. If you talk in a way that belittles other's thoughts, it won't help the conversation. That being said, I do feel the pressure to maintain a helpful and understanding tone is on the side of those who were not wronged by whatever action is causing the conversation. In this case, that would be white people. I have stated before and again below that consistency of belief and view points across a group of people can't be expected and I stand by that. However, when someone is hurt and wronged if someone truly wants to help them they will not talk down to them. If you can't do that, you probably aren't the one to help. I want to also state that helping someone does not mean hiding from the truth or changing your beliefs to be in complete unison with them. People can be hurt or wronged and still be incorrect themselves (I mention this for situations at large this is not directed at the issue of racism specifically). It is possible to hear someone out, actively engage with what they are saying, and still walk away disagreeing.

I understand the claim. My point in bringing christianity up is in regard to my first sentence of the paragraph you were responding to, which I am including again here. 

It is hard to look at any group of people and expect consistency of belief across their entire population

 

I want to finish by saying. I am not trying to attack you with all of this. You have been responding to me and I have been using that to address concerns I have with how people discuss racism and other issues. I feel it has been related to what you have said, but some of what I have said may not apply to you personally.

Thank you so much for writing this and posting

[cole256 17,084]

One thing I can admit I haven't ever done. I haven't ever had a conversation with a white person and have listened to their side as to how they would handle random acts of racism. I would be interested in that conversation.

Is the opinion to ignore it? I feel I have a pretty unique perspective. I grew up on the bad part of town, but because I scored well on some placement tests and because of my grandfather and mom sacrificing for me I was able to attend private school. 

So I was at school where I was either the only or one of a very few black person so I didn't fit in and have a few stories that no child should ever have to endure. 

But at the same time there was a disconnect somewhat from my friends and family in the hood, because I didn't go to school with them anymore.

And this has been my ENTIRE life. I've movedaround a bunch and even in my profession I'm either the only other African American that does what I do, or one of the few. 

And I've also had a few things professionally. So I just have a very interesting perspective that I don't feel many may not see or feel. 

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

Please make this make sense by the people’s house:

The self-proclaimed nonpartisan Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) welcomed a record number of members this week, but the group could have been even larger if it had not denied membership to Republican Rep.-elect Byron Donalds.

At the start of the 118th Congress, Democrats celebrated reaching 58 members in the CBC, and a record number of Black members elected to Congress. While the group claims to be bipartisan, the group excluded Donalds and has not had a Republican member since 2019.

Donalds said he planned to join the CBC since hitting the campaign trail in 2020  but his several attempts to gain a membership went unheeded.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-celebrate-largest-black-congressional-caucus-exclude-gop-speaker-nominee-byron-donalds?intcmp=tw_fnc

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

22 minutes ago, cole256 said:

Is the opinion to ignore it?

Thanks for asking, I think it is important.

When I was in high school I was going in a restroom where a couple of white guys were picking on an African American and I interceded in behave of the African American.  The white guys looked at me as if I was being rude, but left without incident.

Admittedly, when I arrived at Auburn and went to my first football game, I was somewhat shocked at the racist dispersions being thrown around while trying to get a coke to mix with their bourbon.  In these incidents I was not as willing to intercede in dealing with the frat boys that were hailing the vendors.  I never did join a frat during my time at Auburn.

As a time reference, graduated HS in 68 in Florida and arrived at Auburn in 70.

In my professional life, I have not seen too much racism directly thrown at African Americans.  I was in a position that evaluated employees on performance and since there are strict standards, I never witnessed any racism while doing my job.

[homersapien 11,393]

16 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Any positive results? Fact is the rich are getting richer, poor poorer. In between a lot of people out there have a bunch of money. 
In my mind has not helped the black community as a whole nor the poor whites scattered throughout the south.

Are you arguing that eliminating institutional racism has been meaningless and doesn't help black people? 

 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Thanks for asking, I think it is important.

When I was in high school I was going in a restroom where a couple of white guys were picking on an African American and I interceded in behave of the African American.  The white guys looked at me as if I was being rude, but left without incident.

Admittedly, when I arrived at Auburn and went to my first football game, I was somewhat shocked at the racist dispersions being thrown around while trying to get a coke to mix with their bourbon.  In these incidents I was not as willing to intercede in dealing with the frat boys that were hailing the vendors.  I never did join a frat during my time at Auburn.

As a time reference, graduated HS in 68 in Florida and arrived at Auburn in 70.

In my professional life, I have not seen too much racism directly thrown at African Americans.  I was in a position that evaluated employees on performance and since there are strict standards, I never witnessed any racism while doing my job.

Smart move. 

I wish I hadn't in hindsight.  It took about 2 more years to figure that out.

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Please make this make sense by the people’s house:

The self-proclaimed nonpartisan Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) welcomed a record number of members this week, but the group could have been even larger if it had not denied membership to Republican Rep.-elect Byron Donalds.

At the start of the 118th Congress, Democrats celebrated reaching 58 members in the CBC, and a record number of Black members elected to Congress. While the group claims to be bipartisan, the group excluded Donalds and has not had a Republican member since 2019.

Donalds said he planned to join the CBC since hitting the campaign trail in 2020  but his several attempts to gain a membership went unheeded.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-celebrate-largest-black-congressional-caucus-exclude-gop-speaker-nominee-byron-donalds?intcmp=tw_fnc

What's the issue here?

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Smart move. 

I wish I hadn't in hindsight.  It took about 2 more years to figure that out.

It’s not a troll on frats, it was just I never liked to be directed by others about.

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

What's the issue here?

An African American Representative that could be included in the CBC, but wasn't presumably because he is a conservative/Republican.

[homersapien 11,393]

51 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

An African American Representative that could be included in the CBC, but wasn't presumably because he is a conservative/Republican.

Maybe they consider more than just skin color?

[homersapien 11,393]

56 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It’s not a troll on frats, it was just I never liked to be directed by others about.

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

An African American Representative that could be included in the CBC, but wasn't presumably because he is a conservative/Republican.

The CBC isn't just a group of "black people" that any Black congressperson automictically gets to join. It has a decidedly liberal progressive agenda of expanding education, healthcare, and fighting against institutionalized racism. 

 

Rep Donald's is a super MAGA, far right Republican whose beliefs and agendas are almost 100% in opposition to that of the CBC. Why would he want to join the group and why should the CBC be forced to accept him? 

 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Are you arguing that eliminating institutional racism has been meaningless and doesn't help black people? 

 

 

No not arguing anything. Why does everything need to be an argument with you? Just an observation. Have been through many black communities and poor rural communities that have not changed or even deteriorated in the last decades.

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

An African American Representative that could be included in the CBC, but wasn't presumably because he is a conservative/Republican.

Well the CBC is a private organization, is it not? They can deny membership for any reason that isn't an immutable characteristic such as race, gender, etc.

I don't see any issue in them denying membership because someone is republican/conservative, just like I wouldn't have any issue with the Federalist Society denying membership to democrats/liberals. 

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Maybe they consider more than just skin color?

That’s the point isn’t it?  There are no white members of the House in the CBC.  Ilhan Omar is in there, so there is a POC.  

Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) was established in 1971 to put forth policy and legislation that ensured equal rights, opportunity, and access to Black Americans and other marginalized communities. It is a non-partisan body made up of African American members of Congress.

https://www.archives.gov/research/african-americans/black-power/cbc

Emphasis on *non-partisan*.  There are no Republicans in the caucus.

@Didbathen take it out of their definition.  Tell it like it is.

Edited January 6, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[Didba 5,256]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That’s the point isn’t it?  There are no white members of the House in the CBC.  Ilhan Omar is in there, so there is a POC.  

Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) was established in 1971 to put forth policy and legislation that ensured equal rights, opportunity, and access to Black Americans and other marginalized communities. It is a non-partisan body made up of African American members of Congress.

https://www.archives.gov/research/african-americans/black-power/cbc

Emphasis on *non-partisan*.  There are no Republicans in the caucus.

Well, I agree it's pretty silly to label themselves non-partisan when the original founders were all liberals but beyond that I don't see the big deal.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Didba

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

5 minutes ago, Didba said:

Well, I agree it's pretty silly to label themselves non-partisan when the original founders were all liberals but beyond that I don't see the big deal.

How about Cori Bush’s statement about Rep Donalds as a *prop*?  I can understand the CBC not wanting opposing views in the caucus, but one of their members openly making a slur to another African American seems off beat.

[ChristoThor 70]

22 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I can only relate to what I have witnesses.  It seems to be a secret as to how to talk about racism. Until you try and then are told you are wrong in doing so.  Go figure.

I think that is 100% correct. I think we do our best to address each other respectfully. When we are speaking from a place of ignorance or inexperience and someone informs us to that fact, we do our best to correct and move forward. I am not telling you that you have to adjust because I told you so that is all just my take on the situation. Others may disagree. From my perspective, making the statement that racism is just being picked on isn't the way to discuss it.

22 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

It sounds something like this:

 

Bingo, this is my position and it is not my duty to change.  If someone wants to discuss an opposing view, great have at it.  I will read it.  If you start with Critical Theory, I’ve looked at that and it appears to be foreign to my beliefs and CT is the basis for a lot that is going on in this country.  

I'm curious. When you say it is not your duty to change, what are you getting at? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean change the truth based on previous posts of you saying you are willing to learn and grow. That statement of "not my duty to change" though can also come across as, "I know what is right and everyone else is wrong. It is not my job to change for them, but for them to see that I am right and should just listen to me." I am not saying that is what you were trying to say, but reading that gave me that vibe on my first read. I have been told before that, "We should agree to disagree. I can't learn anything from you and you won't listen to me." It is a very combative way of approaching disagreeing and this also could come across that way.

I also feel like the two things you quoted are lacking their surrounding context. They are both said in the context that while I stand by those statements, it is still the least affected party's responsibility to maintain a helpful tone in the conversation. I hope that the wronged party can look past emotion, but that can be especially difficult when you feel wronged/hurt. This is a difficult topic and it is even more so for those who are actually affected by it.

On the note of CRT, I have noticed a lot of people take a look at it, feel uncomfortable, and find a way to dismiss it. Normally this is through a strawman argument where they find someone who pushes a very extreme interpretation. This falls back to what I was saying earlier about the beliefs of a group not being consistent across the board and engaging with an idea to truly understand it. I think for CRT or any other controversial ideology (feminism for example) it is best to try and find what the founding/central/official concept is for it outside of a bunch of people shouting their interpretation. Back to the example of feminism, I found the way some feminist talked about certain topics were hard to digest and accept. It was up to me to try and look at the overall goal/ideology of feminism outside of loud opinions. Upon doing that, it became easier to listen to those very same feminists because I felt I had a better idea of where they were coming from.

22 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

To an earlier point that even Black Americans are called white supremest:

 

If you can, please explain the phrase used my Rep Bush about *despite being Black*.  Is this akin to *if you don’t know who to vote for your ain’t Black?

If an elected representative can get away with this type of thinking, how are the rest of us look up to leaders for guidance?

I don't know if I can give a great explanation, but I will try. I believe that Cori Bush feels that the policies that Byron Donalds is supporting can help the white supremacy agenda. By saying "Despite being Black" she is saying that it is more likely that someone who is Black should understand the importance of standing against white supremacy and it is surprising to see someone who is Black support it. I do not believe she is saying you can't be Black if you don't vote the same way as me. I am not the best informed. I can't speak to the absolute truth of the situation, but I can understand where she is coming from. Byron Donalds being supported by those who refuse to vote for McCarthy does not instill a lot of confidence in him personally speaking.

I also think it is folly to look at politicians for guidance. In fact, a lot of the time I feel they are much better representatives of what not to do.