Kneeling for the Anthem

[MullinMayhem]

The side that "hasn't been brutalized"? It depends what you consider "brutalized". Does it mean my ancestors and those of my ethnic makeup were oppressed at one time and had atrocities committed against them? If that's the criteria then my group has been "brutalized". Historically, almost everyone can make a claim to that so it's not unique, terrible as it may be. There is no monopoly on historic atrocities. In fact, the largest lynching in US history was in New Orleans, I believe 1892 and the group lynched were Italians. Roosevelt was not President at the time but it's recorded in history that he said it was "a good thing" and supported it. Google it...I know many have not even heard of it. Now, in today's uber-sensitive world I could make the claim that my ancestors were oppressed and there is anti-Italian sentiment that runs deep in the veins of America. Hey, even a guy who became President supported the lynching. Why am I not out in the streets protesting and shrieking? Because I understand things are nuanced and it was a different time. Totally different morals. It doesn't mean you don't care, it just means you contextualize it. There is no context these days. The problem this presents is: how far do you want to go back? Everyone is a victim by the standards set today. Google the Barbary Wars. Terrible things happened to every group and in every country. To act like America is unique in its brutal history is just ignorant.

The argument "you don't know me or my experiences" isn't really an argument. It's a shame you went through that and hopefully you realized all teachers aren't like that. But think about it, you can use that "argument" for anything. Robbed that store? Why are you arresting me? You don't know my struggle! It can be fired right back...I may not be in the shoes of some people complaining, but they aren't in my shoes either...so what's the point? Again, everyone is entitled to an opinion. As for the hip hop vs. rock, etc. I would argue that hip hop culture is the most mainstream dominant culture among the youth today but especially in the inner-cities which is the epicenter. HS or college parties I'd say 95% of the time have hip hop music in the background. There's a difference between just liking the music and living out the culture. This is why you can't say lots of kids in the burbs seem to do ok and they listen to it. They only listen to the music, they don't live out the lifestyle. In inner-cities it's a vicious cycle of crime, children out of wedlock, poverty, violence, gangs, drugs, etc. all reinforced as being "hard" or cool in inner-cities. Do you listen to some of the lyrics? I know a lot about hip hop music and I can provide endless lyrics that clearly legitimize and praise this behavior. There is no shame. Shame is very powerful. When you take the shame of these behaviors away and legitimize it and make it part of the inner-city culture, this is unfortunately what happens. Rock songs don't have this message, let's be real. I'm sure you can find some crazy lyrics in a few, but it's not a dominant culture and it's not nearly as popular. Apologies if the paragraphs were too long.

No your ancesestors don't count. I'm sorry but how long has your family been in America? I don't know you, care to or anything but one of two situations is about to surface either you're like me and first generation (maybe second?) and you shouldn't be talking about your ancestors issues in america anyways. Or your family was here in which case you weren't at the bottom of the tottem pole at all and while that lynching was awful the italians were placed above the Irish, all east asian ethnicities, hispanics and african americans in the least.

Now moving back toward things that didn't happen over100yrs ago, being brutalized by the police and the rest of society isn't something that needs to be written about in history books because there's still marches to this day. Meanwhile you as an italian have what? To deal with cheesey pasta sauce brands and pizza knock offs?

As far as my personal example, I know not all teachers are like that and I'm sure african americans know not all cops are like that but if there was a protest against close minded teachers I'd partake just like anyone kneeling against bad cops. the main issue with your rebuttal is that kneeling during the anthem isn't an illegal act. The bottom line is if your haven't walked in someone else's shoes you're just making brash statements like about how inner cities work. No they don't know your shoes but last I checked those kneeling aren't sitting on their computers b*tching about you not protesting in fact I believe quite a few have said they respect and understand those that don't. So when you ask "what's the point?" you should probably think to yourself what the difference is between your judgement and their non judgement.

I'm not even going to get into this hip hop argument anymore.

Because:
A) The modern sociological trend is showing more money is going into the inner city and poverty stricken neighborhoods are actually moving out to the outer city and blue collar suburbs so you may as well say african american neighborhoods

B) I grew up in the inner city of chicago, went to Chicago Public Schools till I was a sophomore in HS and I doubt I'm the demographic you're getting at so you're either making assumptions from a fancy suburb you've lived 90% of your life in or

C) Your assumptions show you aren't familiar with discriminatory housing policies that existed even into the 90s. Housing value directly correlates to how good a school is, if housing values are crappy the school will be crappy, if the school is crappy you run into people wondering what's the point when they can make money right away instead. Then your run into impressionable drop outs looking for acceptance... say from a local gang. Then you get the music, it wasn't a situation where someone started rapping and suddenly everybody because hard gang members the moment rap came out.

So now you've said that we need to march and never live it down if one specific group is oppressed at some point in time, but not for another specific group. That's called a double-standard which only inflames racial tensions. If you have one group who can do no wrong and are perpetual victims and another group who can never do right and are perpetual "oppressors", you have a recipe for disaster. You couldn't design a better concept if your goal was to segregate and increase tension. We should be acknowledging that certain groups were oppressed more recently than others, but that doesn't mean others weren't oppressed too. Everyone was...everyone. At some point in time. How far do we go back? Again, that's the slippery slope and double-standards are inevitable in this victim culture.

There's a mini documentary on YouTube about racism and it's fascinating. It's not what you would think though. A white filmmaker asks random African Americans if they have experienced racism and if they said yes they were asked for specific examples. One guy said "someone looked at me funny". Another said "I can't afford to live in that wealthy area". Another one swore there was racism but could not cite a specific example personally. You see, this is what this culture leads to. Everything is racist, therefore nothing is racist. If you change definitions to artificially increase the prevalence of something, it waters the definition down to the point where no one takes it seriously anymore.

Those "discriminatory" housing policies boil down to people not being able to afford living in a wealthier area. I have a good job and a good degree and I can't afford to live in Manhattan...am I oppressed? There's a huge difference between equal opportunity which exists (even biased in the opposite way you'd argue) and equal outcome. I grew up in town A (let's say middle class area). I want to live in town B (think of a wealthy area) but I can't afford it. Is this discriminatory or can I simply not afford it? Are you discriminated against because you can't move to Beverly Hills and send your kids to $50,000/year private high schools? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Same argument as being a Honda owner wishing to have a Bentley...just because you don't have the money for it doesn't mean you are oppressed. It means you need to get a better job or get other degrees to change your career. May seem harsh but that's just the way it is. Life isn't fair...some get lucky and have connections. Sometimes it's who you know, not what you know. This happens to all groups. It all starts at home...it starts with how you were raised and if your family was intact. If you break up your family, tell your kids they will never succeed because an evil group of boogeymen are out to oppress them, and don't instill morals and values, you will continue the vicious cycle.

[MUBoxer]

So now you've said that we need to march and never live it down if one specific group is oppressed at some point in time, but not for another specific group. That's called a double-standard which only inflames racial tensions. If you have one group who can do no wrong and are perpetual victims and another group who can never do right and are perpetual "oppressors", you have a recipe for disaster. You couldn't design a better concept if your goal was to segregate and increase tension. We should be acknowledging that certain groups were oppressed more recently than others, but that doesn't mean others weren't oppressed too. Everyone was...everyone. At some point in time. How far do we go back? Again, that's the slippery slope and double-standards are inevitable in this victim culture.

There's a mini documentary on YouTube about racism and it's fascinating. It's not what you would think though. A white filmmaker asks random African Americans if they have experienced racism and if they said yes they were asked for specific examples. One guy said "someone looked at me funny". Another said "I can't afford to live in that wealthy area". Another one swore there was racism but could not cite a specific example personally. You see, this is what this culture leads to. Everything is racist, therefore nothing is racist. If you change definitions to artificially increase the prevalence of something, it waters the definition down to the point where no one takes it seriously anymore.

Those "discriminatory" housing policies boil down to people not being able to afford living in a wealthier area. I have a good job and a good degree and I can't afford to live in Manhattan...am I oppressed? There's a huge difference between equal opportunity which exists (even biased in the opposite way you'd argue) and equal outcome. I grew up in town A (let's say middle class area). I want to live in town B (think of a wealthy area) but I can't afford it. Is this discriminatory or can I simply not afford it? Are you discriminated against because you can't move to Beverly Hills and send your kids to $50,000/year private high schools? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Same argument as being a Honda owner wishing to have a Bentley...just because you don't have the money for it doesn't mean you are oppressed. It means you need to get a better job or get other degrees to change your career. May seem harsh but that's just the way it is. Life isn't fair...some get lucky and have connections. Sometimes it's who you know, not what you know. This happens to all groups. It all starts at home...it starts with how you were raised and if your family was intact. If you break up your family, tell your kids they will never succeed because an evil group of boogeymen are out to oppress them, and don't instill morals and values, you will continue the vicious cycle.

No not what I'm saying at all and I certainly agree it's important to remember that pretty much everyone who isn't a WASP was discriminated against at some point. However lets take your italian comments and say you apply for a job in 1900. You enter the room there's a hispanic, asian, irish, and black guy all in there. Your ancestor gets that job without any question of qualification at that time. Now lets take your ancestor out of that and the irish guy gets the job. There's a pyramid poll of how bad things were and you're making the false equivalency of things being the same level of discrimination. You keep saying how far back do we go to try and compare the discrimination of blacks what you aren't getting is that it's literally happening today. People are so concerned with trying to say "this happened to my grandpa" that they're missing the point that it's not happening to themselves and still is happening to blacks.

I agree with your second paragraph, many people in this country have not actually experienced real racism and it is used as a cop out for many. That being said it still very much happens and it really comes down to how you look at it. Are you going to let a bunch of people who are too sensitive make you tune out the people that still experience real racism?

No way you're that naive about housing. Red lining? The fair housing act? none of these things ringing a bell? When suburbs were created and banks were trying to decide what to invest in the practice of redlining was introduced to show which areas of the country were safe and desirable and which were not, they purposely put african american neighborhoods in red. That specifically meant that they were not going to receive lones, there was not going to be investment in better housing and they were essentially hung out to dry. Now you might ask why they didn't just move to another neighborhood? Because back then there were government incentives to not allow african americans into your neighborhood and the few that did had white flight happen and that killed the housing value thus businesses shuttered and the neighborhood was redlined. So back in the day you apply for a housing lone and get it, you get your house in the suburbs, schools are better there because housing value directly correlates to that, you're able to sell your home and buy a better one as the value rises and you're happy accruing wealth. Meanwhile blacks were stuck in rental slums because banks weren't giving loans to redlined neighborhoods. That meant that schools stayed crappy, it means that businesses weren't going to invest in there and thus you end up with people who are uneducated, living paycheck to paycheck and stuck in a rut.

Now post fair housing act you started to see a bit of change but white flight was still very real and only a handful of suburbs managed to avoid it (shoutout to Oak Park, IL for pioneering ways to prevent that). So till the 70s and in some cases the 80s blacks trying to move out to the suburbs were SOL because whites were too scared about home value and they'd leave at the moment a black family moved in and we both know that the market is going to drop if half the neighborhood sells their home all at once so then the neighborhood becomes poor and undesirable people are suddenly able to move in.

Your last line I agree with, while there is still issues of systematic oppression there is an issue of accepting it as an excuse now rather than working for change. But hey if one wants to protest as an inspiration for change they get ridiculed or in some cases fired or attacked so I suppose they are better off sticking with the boogeyman.

[MullinMayhem]

So now you've said that we need to march and never live it down if one specific group is oppressed at some point in time, but not for another specific group. That's called a double-standard which only inflames racial tensions. If you have one group who can do no wrong and are perpetual victims and another group who can never do right and are perpetual "oppressors", you have a recipe for disaster. You couldn't design a better concept if your goal was to segregate and increase tension. We should be acknowledging that certain groups were oppressed more recently than others, but that doesn't mean others weren't oppressed too. Everyone was...everyone. At some point in time. How far do we go back? Again, that's the slippery slope and double-standards are inevitable in this victim culture.

There's a mini documentary on YouTube about racism and it's fascinating. It's not what you would think though. A white filmmaker asks random African Americans if they have experienced racism and if they said yes they were asked for specific examples. One guy said "someone looked at me funny". Another said "I can't afford to live in that wealthy area". Another one swore there was racism but could not cite a specific example personally. You see, this is what this culture leads to. Everything is racist, therefore nothing is racist. If you change definitions to artificially increase the prevalence of something, it waters the definition down to the point where no one takes it seriously anymore.

Those "discriminatory" housing policies boil down to people not being able to afford living in a wealthier area. I have a good job and a good degree and I can't afford to live in Manhattan...am I oppressed? There's a huge difference between equal opportunity which exists (even biased in the opposite way you'd argue) and equal outcome. I grew up in town A (let's say middle class area). I want to live in town B (think of a wealthy area) but I can't afford it. Is this discriminatory or can I simply not afford it? Are you discriminated against because you can't move to Beverly Hills and send your kids to $50,000/year private high schools? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Same argument as being a Honda owner wishing to have a Bentley...just because you don't have the money for it doesn't mean you are oppressed. It means you need to get a better job or get other degrees to change your career. May seem harsh but that's just the way it is. Life isn't fair...some get lucky and have connections. Sometimes it's who you know, not what you know. This happens to all groups. It all starts at home...it starts with how you were raised and if your family was intact. If you break up your family, tell your kids they will never succeed because an evil group of boogeymen are out to oppress them, and don't instill morals and values, you will continue the vicious cycle.

No not what I'm saying at all and I certainly agree it's important to remember that pretty much everyone who isn't a WASP was discriminated against at some point. However lets take your italian comments and say you apply for a job in 1900. You enter the room there's a hispanic, asian, irish, and black guy all in there. Your ancestor gets that job without any question of qualification at that time. Now lets take your ancestor out of that and the irish guy gets the job. There's a pyramid poll of how bad things were and you're making the false equivalency of things being the same level of discrimination. You keep saying how far back do we go to try and compare the discrimination of blacks what you aren't getting is that it's literally happening today. People are so concerned with trying to say "this happened to my grandpa" that they're missing the point that it's not happening to themselves and still is happening to blacks.

I agree with your second paragraph, many people in this country have not actually experienced real racism and it is used as a cop out for many. That being said it still very much happens and it really comes down to how you look at it. Are you going to let a bunch of people who are too sensitive make you tune out the people that still experience real racism?

No way you're that naive about housing. Red lining? The fair housing act? none of these things ringing a bell? When suburbs were created and banks were trying to decide what to invest in the practice of redlining was introduced to show which areas of the country were safe and desirable and which were not, they purposely put african american neighborhoods in red. That specifically meant that they were not going to receive lones, there was not going to be investment in better housing and they were essentially hung out to dry. Now you might ask why they didn't just move to another neighborhood? Because back then there were government incentives to not allow african americans into your neighborhood and the few that did had white flight happen and that killed the housing value thus businesses shuttered and the neighborhood was redlined. So back in the day you apply for a housing lone and get it, you get your house in the suburbs, schools are better there because housing value directly correlates to that, you're able to sell your home and buy a better one as the value rises and you're happy accruing wealth. Meanwhile blacks were stuck in rental slums because banks weren't giving loans to redlined neighborhoods. That meant that schools stayed crappy, it means that businesses weren't going to invest in there and thus you end up with people who are uneducated, living paycheck to paycheck and stuck in a rut.

Now post fair housing act you started to see a bit of change but white flight was still very real and only a handful of suburbs managed to avoid it (shoutout to Oak Park, IL for pioneering ways to prevent that). So till the 70s and in some cases the 80s blacks trying to move out to the suburbs were SOL because whites were too scared about home value and they'd leave at the moment a black family moved in and we both know that the market is going to drop if half the neighborhood sells their home all at once so then the neighborhood becomes poor and undesirable people are suddenly able to move in.

Your last line I agree with, while there is still issues of systematic oppression there is an issue of accepting it as an excuse now rather than working for change. But hey if one wants to protest as an inspiration for change they get ridiculed or in some cases fired or attacked so I suppose they are better off sticking with the boogeyman.

It seems that the favorite PC buzzwords now are "institutional" and "systemic". What these words are really used for: things you can't prove but sound educated and deep so people roll with it as if they are real. It's really just another conspiracy theory. Do I believe America is actively trying to oppress certain groups of people in 2017 and torture them? Sorry, not now. If you asked 200 years ago, I'd totally agree. The very fact that these words have become prominent is proof positive that racism is almost never outward, obvious, and blatant anymore. I think 99% of people except for a few wackos would admit that the Jim Crow era and obviously the Civil War era were absolutely rampant with sickening racism right in front of everyone's eyes. It was disgusting, no doubt about it.

What you will find now are lots of "mind readers". People are now trying to label others or read into something that doesn't even need reading into. People now claim to know what's on other people's minds and in their hearts. See that guy? Yeah, he must be a racist or something...he drives a pickup. That guy? He didn't look at me when I walked in the room, must be racist. That other guy? He did look at me! Must be racism. That guy voted for (insert Republican name here) so he is definitely in the KKK. If you want to find something you can find it anywhere. All you have to do is completely change and water down the definition. It's become the new Salem Witch Trials. You get labeled a racist/misogynist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/islamophobic/etc. It doesn't mean you are one of course, but the truth is not what some people are concerned about...rather their narrative. "Racism" and all the other "isms" or "ists" need to be artificially rampant to get votes and to have others support your agenda. If it comes out that it's really not all it's cracked up to be, support will be lost. That's why there's a need to have constant accusations and labels. It's become an absolute hysteria.

In 2017, you cannot deny loans to people based on race, granted their credit score is sufficient. If your credit score is poor, you will have a much harder time getting loans for a house than someone with a good credit score. If an African American couple have a 750 credit score and have good careers giving them a stable income, there is nothing stopping them from moving into a beautiful neighborhood in the suburbs in a nice house. You act as if they wouldn't be able to move into a 95% white town even with those qualifications. If that were the case, I'd be right with you. That would be unacceptable obviously. Again, this was allowed a long time ago, but not now. Much has changed. If you have a poor credit score, do not take school seriously, and therefore do not have a good career, then sorry but you have to take some responsibility. It's not racism, it's having the wrong priorities. No one ever said it's easy. As I've said, I have a good job and I can't even afford to buy an apartment in many nicer areas. I don't go picket on the sidewalk accusing invisible "systems" of racism, I keep saving and working towards my goals. I stay on top of my credit score, never miss a payment, give my all at work, set aside a good amount for retirement (I'm 28), and I have personal responsibility whether I succeed or fail. Of course I can't take the credit for that, I was raised very well thankfully. Not everyone is, and that's why it starts at home with solid foundations and learning the right values. It's time to talk about the real issues and not the invisible "institution" holding people back. By the way, appreciate the respectful dialogue. That's what is sorely missing these days.