Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 236

Thread: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

  1. #71
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,957
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    I seriously don't agree with these ads as if you are trying to start up a serious conversation about race and racism in America, this really isn't the way to do it as in general people are really going to be turned off.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  2. #72
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Oh, I'm aware minorities by and large experience similar types of generalizations every day. And those are also wrong .Those are also things that should be fought against, educated against, and that we should be raising our kids against. However presenting that type of mindset as not just acceptable, but a useful tool, if done against white people is not combatting the notion or fighting the issue but is just exaserbating the issue and fueling it.

    It's like saying gun violence is bad and we're going to demonstrate that it's bad by shooting people.
    It's not like that at all because shooting people has extremely harmful consequences. It's more like saying passive aggressiveness is bad and then being passive aggressive against a person to show them how it feels. Educating people by making them experience either things they don't understand or things they caused is a common teaching technique that, in my experience, is really effective at getting people to think. I don't think the campaign did it as effectively as they could have though and I'm not even sure if that, in itself, was the intent behind it.

    Again, this mentality and bigoted stereotyping drive me crazy.
    I'm sorry you feel that way. I've learned quite a few lessons by people forcing me to experience something that I didn't understand.

    It immeidetely assumes that white people have never experienced any form of racism before. OR, it assumes that whatever they've experienced isn't significant enough because it's a rare occurence or can never be to the level a minority individual has experienced.
    I'm not making the assuming the no white person has ever experienced racism. I'm making the assumption that most white people have not experienced that scale of racism that most in other races have experienced - which isn't an assumption, it's reality. To be honest, the thing that "drives me crazy" is when white people try to equate whatever relatively minor experience with racism they have had with the large scale institutional racism and stereotyping that minorities experience on a daily basis.

    The first assumption is just stupid. The second assumption however invalidates the argument that this type of thing is needed to make people "experience things in order to understand them". If racism felt by white people can't happen at a significant enough rate OR can't happen at the same level a minority feels and thus is less important, then trying to make them "experience" this still isn't going to make them "understand" it because by your own logic it's either not happening frequenlty or severely enough to have a realistic impact.
    Just because white Americans can't experience racism and prejudice at the scale that minorities do doesn't mean that they can't experience it at a large enough to scale to understand it better than they might currently. My logic is that certain methods help white Americans understand it better than they do.
    Last edited by ThePlayDrive; 06-25-12 at 10:57 AM.

  3. #73
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    I seriously don't agree with these ads as if you are trying to start up a serious conversation about race and racism in America, this really isn't the way to do it as in general people are really going to be turned off.
    I don't think the ads are good either. I think it's fine to piss people off as long as you make your point so that they get it. I think these ads are just going to piss people off because the point isn't articulated well enough.

  4. #74
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,865

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Link: Fox News

    Link: Un-Fair Campaign

    Iím so sick of this kind of sanctimonious mental flatulence. Do they really think they are going to encourage solutions based dialogue by being racist toward people with white skin color? Are white people the only racist people?

    Iím all for the elimination of racism but constantly playing the race card and being racist yourself wonít reduce racism.
    This would have been a terrific consciousness-raising initiative...in the '60's or '70's, and, in fact, there were.

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Actually, the income disparity between races has remained virtually the same for nearly 40 years. It's the gap between men and women which has closed.



    If you'd like to know more on this subject:

    Income Disparity Persists Between Blacks, Whites : NPR
    40 years ago is interesting, but more recently is what matters.

    And from 1990 to 2004, the wage gap between 'black' and 'white' diminished noticeably.


    Apparently, according to the World Almanac (in turn sourced to US Census Bureau):

    'White' men wages increased about 48% during that time. 'White' women - about 71%.

    'Black' men wages increased about 77% during that time. 'Black' women - about 120%.



    Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by DA60; 06-25-12 at 11:20 AM.

  6. #76
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Beyond my more societial/political issue with the ad, I have a generalized marketing one that plays into it.

    I imagine you've got three general groups within each generation, with varying intensities in each group. 1) Your racists, 2) you're prejudiced, 3) and your neutrals. Your racists tend to act, your prejudiced tend to just think, your neutrals tend to do neither. Again, you then have variations within each regarding frequency, intensity, etc. But going mostly with those three.

    There seems to be three typical ways of "anti-racism" advertising. The "We are all the Same" method, the "Embrace Diversity" method, and the "Guilt/Shame" method.

    This falls into the latter and I think it's a method that is the least useful at this point in time. Here's why...

    I believe the "guilt/sham" method is one that is going to work best with the younger generations. I think group 2 and group 3 are your largest ones in these generations. I also think they're the most open to being "shamed" into it because they've been brought up and raised, more so than other generations, with the notion that racism is bad / diversity is good and do not likely have as much experience with prejudiced thoughts or racist actions on their own part in their life. It's much easier to extort a change in thought process or reaction in someone, imho, through shame/guilt when you can tie that to someone close to them rather then themselves (where self delusion and self image comes more into play)...in this case, namely the "earlier generations" as the scape goat.

    However, there's two issues with that mindset and method right now predicated on one simple fact/opinion...there's more adult, middle aged, and elder populations then your young populations right now and those other three demographics skew differently in terms of the group make up.

    1) The "Shame/Guilt" method more than any other method tends to extort a negative reaction from those who aren't positively affected by it more often then the other two methods. Essentially, this adds fuel to the fire of both the actively racist, those who are prejudice in their thought process, and even thos who are neutral but dislike the technique and method. The "We are all the same" and to a lesser extent "Embrace Diversity" methods I believe both have a higher propensity to inspire a relatily neutral response, and a less extreme on average negative response, by those who don't react to it positively then this method. When combined with the lower amount of generations that this will affect positively, I see the net result of this kind of advertising...especially one going to the length this one goes to...as a negative because it fans the flames worse than it fights them. Which adds into number two..

    2) Ultimately, we need the older generations to continue to teach, instill, and steer the younger generations away from the racism and prejudice of the past. As you move down generation to generation the trend, imho, you go from less racists to more prejudiced and then less prejudiced to more neutrals. Thankfully, it seems that those who are prejudiced are at least open to the notion of attempting to instill a belief that racism/prejudice is bad even though they may experience it. Which is great, because for us to continue the downward trend of racism we need to continue the education. However, to me, actions like this have the inverse effect by inflaming individuals and making them less inclined or open to instilling those things as it promotes bitterness and divisiveness through its methodology.

    The "Shame/Guilt" method I think works well and produces a net positive in two situations. When the attrocities occuring are just so horrific that the jarring of it may have an impact or when the actions that occur are rather unusual or andequated.

    Is Racism today good? Of course not. But let's not delude ourselves also in thinking that having someone clutch their purse tight when they pass you on the street is akin to being segmented into an entirely different population segment at a public location. Or that having your resume passed over because your name sounds ethnic is like seeing people hosed down with firehoses and having dogs set on them. Or that amount and type of neighborhoods where a minority is questioned for being "in the wrong" place is anywhere near as numerous as it once was, let alone that the frequency such happens is the same. Heck, even the interaction with law enforcement would provide more horrific and frequent examples in the past then there is today.

    This is not saying that bad stuff, horrilby bad stuff, doesn't happen today due to racism. This is not saying that the racism today isn't bad. What I'm saying is the average bit of racism today is far less overtly "disgusting" then it was in the past and that the frequency of the extremely disgusting behaviors are less. And as such, the use of shocking "Guilt/Shame" methods has its impact reduced compared to using such at the time of the civil rights movement. I think it's much easier to shame people, and keep them from successfully rationalizing it, when you're pointing out people being hosed down or lynched rather than losing out on a job or not getting a taxi hailed.

    When your child, teen, and adolescent aged generations transition into your young adult and adult generations and you have the next group coming up I think you'll begin to be able to see more of this kind of tactic becoming perhaps a bit more useful. The younger generations would now be the ones having kids and being entrusted with their education while also being the ones less likely to be inflamed and to actually be moved by this kind of advertising. However...right now...I think this type of advertising method does more harm then good, fuels the fires and stirs controversy that negatively effects the racism debate in this country, and pushes things in the opposite direction of where it needs to go.

  7. #77
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    I used to think that, but I don't anymore. I don't know how many times I've presented studies on this forum and seen others do the same that objective illustrate racism and white privilege. I don't know how many civil discussions I've had outside of this forum about those topics. It's rarely the case that it matters because more often than not, the people who don't already acknowledge white privilege don't respond to calm, polite messages with no "shock value."
    And do you believe the type of people you describe are going to be more likely to circum from "shock value" than they are the other methods you've tried? Or is it more likely that those individuals are simply lost causes that no matter what you're simply not going to be able to convince save for if they have some kind of monumental individual epiphany?

    And...if it's the latter, then is that really the group you should be analyizing as to whether or not "shock value" is a worth while method?

    I guess our difference is that I don't think that group you describe is going to be affected any more by "shock value" versions of shame/guilt advertising then they are by any other method. So I go down to the next level of type of people and feel that this kind of advertising over other methods is less useful and more harmful thus providing a net negative.

  8. #78
    Cynical Optimist
    jambalaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Last Seen
    11-28-12 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,481

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    They only controversy is that it acknowledges white privilege. Denying white privilege is, obviously, white supremacist. Just because this kind of thing has become acceptable on the right doesn't mean it is a reasonable viewpoint. We live in a country where the average white household has 14 times as much wealth as the average black household. In this country, today, if a white person and a black person apply for the same job with the same resume, the white person is 2.4 times more like to get an interview. A black person is 28 times more likely to be the victim of a racially motivated violent hate crime in the US today. This funhouse mirror notion on the right that even to acknowledge that, or to fight against it is "racist" is just sick. It doesn't matter how many of them do it, it is still sick. It's just cruelty and hate and nothing more.
    And thus you demostrate another one of the problems when you imply that the statistics you mention here are only about racism or even mostly about racism.
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

  9. #79
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Actually, the income disparity between races has remained virtually the same for nearly 40 years. It's the gap between men and women which has closed.



    If you'd like to know more on this subject:

    Income Disparity Persists Between Blacks, Whites : NPR
    It's definitely interesting and I'd love to look at the actual study itself rather than simply a write up on it with no actual figures, methodology, or data.

    Taking a quick look at some things myself, since you extolled the virtues of Wiki in another post I figured I'd go for the quick search and find numbers there using the link that was provided:

    (adjusted for inflation in parenthesis)
    Income of white males in 1950: $2,709 ($18,001)
    Income of black males in 1950: $1,471 ($9,775)
    Difference: 46% less for blacks

    Income of white males in 2004: $31,335
    Income of black males in 2004: $22,740
    Difference: 27% less for blacks

    Shrunk by 19% points in those 50+ years according to those numbers.

    And for Women?

    (adjusted for inflation in parenthesis)
    Income of white women in 1950: $1,060 ($7,044)
    Income of black women in 1950: $474 ($3,150)
    Difference: 55% less for blacks

    Income of white women in 2004: $17,648
    Income of black women in 2004: $18,379
    Difference: 4% less for whites

    A net 59% swing for black women, actually coming out on top.

    Over all for both sex.

    Whites in 1950: $3,769 ($25,045)
    Blacks in 1950: $1945 ($12,925)
    Difference: 48% less for blacks

    Whites in 2004: $48,983
    Blacks in 2004: $41,119
    Difference: 16% less for blacks

    A net 32% drop over the 50+ years.

    Now, I don’t have the actual numbers, data, methodology, etc of his study so I can’t really comment in terms of how this relates to families/households. However, based singularly on income totals for races there has definitely been a reduction.

    What’s interesting is to look decade to decade as well. Let’s take males since that seems to be where it’s hitting the hardest:

    ‘50: 46% less
    ‘60: 68% less
    ‘70: 41% less
    ‘80: 40% less
    ‘90: 39% less
    ‘00: 28% less

    This isn’t really surprising and kind of backs up what I was saying. You see little real increase immediately (actually, a major backlash at first). However, a small increase as you get a generation or so forward. And then in the 90’s as you get another generation or so under the belt an even larger increase. It’ll likely stagnate a little bit again then make another jump I imagine in the next decade as you have another more affluent generation come through.

    You can look at other factors as well. For example, the 2003 Census showed that the gap between blacks and whites in terms of high school and college graduation was decreasing as well.

    So with all do respect to the individuals study, while the increase may not be at a rapid clip the affluence of the average black individual in this country has risen a fair amount since the time of the civil rights movement and especially prior to that time. That isn't to say we should continue to strive to lowering that number further and further, but simply to state that the affluence of various generations in comparison to their peers is increasing.

  10. #80
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    For Zyph:

    Okay - personally, I don't feel as if the campaign ads - the ones with messages on the faces - engage in bigoted stereotyping of whites. Now maybe if all the ads said stuff like "white people can't jump" or "white people can't dance" or "those vegetable-eating mother****ers."

    If you don't understand just what the messages on the faces are saying, you're missing the point.

    Let's take for instance, "We're lucky to be white." This is one of the primary premises of the argument in favor of the existence of white privilege - it isn't, nor is it meant to be, some sort of bigoted stereotype. What precisely does it mean to be lucky to be white? It means that, due to societal and institutional discrimination, white people enjoy certain privileges simply because of their skin color in relation to those of other races. The sociological data is out there - one only has to look for it.

    "We're privileged that people see us - not a color." Once again, it's hard for me to conclude that this statement is somehow a bigoted stereotype of white people, but rather it's more of an observation of the concept of "white" as "raceless." Whereas many minorities tend to identify on the basis of race due to a combination of societal factors and personal pressure, white folks as a group don't experience the same types of social pressures. Now is this to say that white people are never conscious of their race? Of course not. Of COURSE it's making some sort of generalization. But that's the point - white people, on the whole, DON'T go through the same experiences many minorities have to deal with every day because whites are de facto "raceless."

    I could list more examples but you get where I'm running with this.

    There is no question in my mind that white privilege exists - the data are quite clear. Simply not being black or Latino confers certain advantages in society that a vast majority of whites take for granted - whether it be in the workplace, at a job interview, trying to obtain housing, etc.

    The campaign is sure to piss people off. It's sure to be controversial. But it's also meant to make people think. Of course it makes generalizations. But you know what? White privilege is a generalized phenomena - that's the point. That's why these ads are being done in such a manner.

    Do I think it will work? I don't know - I think it will cause some people to challenge their own beliefs and think about the things that they take for granted. But there are sure to be plenty of critics who dismiss this as "racist anti-white liberal guilt speech." That's fine, that's their prerogative. But I believe that progress is sometimes best made when people are forced and challenged to re-think their own assumptions.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 06-25-12 at 12:42 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •