Support NeoGAF

[TheMikado]

After participating in and reading the differing viewpoints on the thread, here are my thoughts and observations.

1. In my slightly revised opinion, the main reason why race relations have deteriorated in the last decade is because of the widespread opinion that racial inequity is a problem that has already been solved to the extent it reasonably can be solved so why keep flogging a dead horse. This opinion seems to be most widespread among whites and least widespread among blacks with other ethnicities at varying points in the gradient in-between. As de jure equality of opportunity has conclusively been established, there doesn't appear to be much more, if anything, that can be done short of enforced equality of outcome.

2. Following on the same note, the widespread opinion that equality of outcome is a horrific system to implement makes race relations in the United States an issue that resonates predominantly with only blacks. Other non-white ethnicities have noticeably less interest in legislating equality-of-outcome measures. As such, it is unclear what exactly the point of harping on about race does except to try and enforce equality of outcome.

3. To put it charitably, police brutality too is seen as exclusively a black problem that doesn't affect anyone else. Police brutality, to the extent it exists, is treated, in varying degrees by different ethnicities, as a natural reaction to disproportionate violent crime rates by one particular demographic. From my observation, people do not really care on the historical or socio-economic reasons why black people are committing so many violent crimes, the default response is a variation of "stop committing so many crimes, problem solved."

4. Arguments centered around slavery and the history of slavery fall on deaf ears especially when presented as a point in arguments to white people. Slavery is too remote and far away to be shored up as a credible proximate cause for any problems today. Me, personally, I think it more credible that CIA and the crack epidemic had a far more direct and noticeable impact in shattering the black community than slavery.

5. The predictable reaction to a hyper-focus on identity is an alarming number of whites banding together due to their whiteness. This is not something that is desirable to see as an ethnic minority and this is counted as a further reason why politicizing identities needs to stop yesterday.

6. People are far, far, far more sympathetic if issues are framed in economic and not racial terms.

I have to also say one other thing to this. This has probably been the most informative discussion I have ever had on race and I hope others feel the same even if we do not all agree.

 

[TheMikado]

But these kind of things are being brought up when people talk about cultural appropriation. This is what I see on the internet when you see these terms. People being offended by some white people doing they believe if their own which in the times of globalisation is absolutely idiotic. This goes from changing popular recipes to make it more in favor to "white" people this goes for clothing, fashion and so on. And these examples exist. We even had a 14 year old girl getting daththreats for putting up a photo of her with braids. These people who shout this actually believe they speak for everyone. Even if they are for example Asian American they want to speak for Japanese people and so on.

I mean, I would hope those sort of people aren't the ones currently engaged in the rational debate we are having. I wouldn't say its fair apply that mindset to anyone who may have a different idea of what constitutes a SJW.

 

[mckmas8808]

As for Cultural Appropriation: If you are offended by white people wearing braids which by the way were first discovered in the near of greece than you have ambition for equality you just want to put the other one down. If you think that withe people are not allowed to make sushi then you have no ambition of equality. I rather thing you are racist. If you think white kids are not allowed to wear native clothing because they like them you have no ambition of equality. These people do it not because they want to mock it they do it because they think it looks cool. Same with white people wearing a Kimono. Honestly I do not give a fuck if Asian American think its offensive to stand in front of a Monet Painting in a Kimono. Actual Japanese people rather think its great that people wear their stuff. It makes them proud. And lastly I ask myself: How mentally broken must you be to get offended by anyone wearing something else. Cultural Appropriation is jsut there to talk someone down. To have something you can find offensive and to be an asshole to other people.

And see this is the stuff that we as black people are saying. Braids have been a hair style of African people for 1,000s of years. What's the need to want to rid people of their history in how they do things? Our hair is corse (I know I spelled that wrong), so naturally the easiest way to style it would be to braid it. I mean to just be honest, when you think of braided hair, cornrows, or dreads what complexion of the person are you thinking of first? Like lets be real here. We are having a great conversation as a group so lets at least be honest.

White people can do all those things, just don't act like you invented native like clothing, cornrows, or a Kimono. I just need you to understand what true cultural appropriation is. Not what the loons on Twitter say that are the extremist. Don't listen to those people.

 

[NickFire]

And see this is the stuff that we as black people are saying. Braids have been a hair style of African people for 1,000s of years. What's the need to want to rid people of their history in how they do things? Our hair is corse (I know I spelled that wrong), so naturally the easiest way to style it would be to braid it. I mean to just be honest, when you think of braided hair, cornrows, or dreads what complexion of the person are you thinking of first? Like lets be real here. We are having a great conversation as a group so lets at least be honest.

White people can do all those things, just don't act like you invented native like clothing, cornrows, or a Kimono. I just need you to understand what true cultural appropriation is. Not what the loons on Twitter say that are the extremist. Don't listen to those people.

For the life of me I cannot understand how cultural appropriation became a thing. We want everyone to value each other's culture and see everyone as people. But then when people value someone else's culture enough to copy the style, food, etc., they can be chastised for it. It makes no sense to me at all. If I ever met a white person who tried to tell me they invented braids, or tacos, etc., I might understand. But that's still really doubtful because I would dismiss them as either an idiot, liar, or mentally ill person making random crap up.

 

[Dunki]

I mean, I would hope those sort of people aren't the ones currently engaged in the rational debate we are having. I wouldn't say its fair apply that mindset to anyone who may have a different idea of what constitutes a SJW.

'Since we are on a gaming forum. People Like Anita S.doing exactly this. Well known Guardian Journalists and feminists doing exactly this. You just need to go to social media and search for these phrases. You will find a mix of people making fun of it and people actually think like that and many of them are of course verrified twitter user.

And see this is the stuff that we as black people are saying. Braids have been a hair style of African people for 1,000s of years. What's the need to want to rid people of their history in how they do things? Our hair is corse (I know I spelled that wrong), so naturally the easiest way to style it would be to braid it. I mean to just be honest, when you think of braided hair, cornrows, or dreads what complexion of the person are you thinking of first? Like lets be real here. We are having a great conversation as a group so lets at least be honest.

White people can do all those things, just don't act like you invented native like clothing, cornrows, or a Kimono. I just need you to understand what true cultural appropriation is. Not what the loons on Twitter say that are the extremist. Don't listen to those people.

Vikings had braids and while I do not know their history I doubt they have it from Africans. And as I said before nothing is owned by anyone especially in the times of globalisation. And I do not want to get rid of black history I just stated facts that the first evidence of braids were found in greece. This is not getting rid of history this is giving history context and factual evidence.

But let me give you an example where I think it should be criticized. For example when you said it looks dirty/unclean on black people and then also wear it yourself. And yes I think at first of black people but i also think with Bratwurst or beer of German people. Same with hanging recipes. Example the Pizza sserved in Germany has little to do with the Italian Pizza. It was just changed to make it more tasty for Germans in Germany. Same with Gyros and Greece, Sushi and Japan and so on.

 

[TheMikado]

For the life of me I cannot understand how cultural appropriation became a thing. We want everyone to value each other's culture and see everyone as people. But then when people value someone else's culture enough to copy the style, food, etc., they can be chastised for it. It makes no sense to me at all. If I ever met a white person who tried to tell me they invented braids, or tacos, etc., I might understand. But that's still really doubtful because I would dismiss them as either an idiot, liar, or mentally ill person making random crap up.

https://www.thoughtco.com/cultural-appropriation-and-why-iits-wrong-2834561

"In order to understand cultural appropriation, we must first look at the two words that make up the term. Culture is defined as the beliefs, ideas, traditions, speech, and material objects associated with a particular group of people. Appropriation is the illegal, unfair, or unjust taking of something that doesn't belong to you.
Susan Scafidi, a law professor at Fordham University, told Jezebel that it’s difficult to give a concise explanation of cultural appropriation. The author of "Who Owns Culture? Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law," defined cultural appropriation as follows:

“Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission. This can include unauthorized use of another culture's dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc. It's most likely to be harmful when the source community is a minority group that has been oppressed or exploited in other ways or when the object of appropriation is particularly sensitive, e.g. sacred objects.”​

Why Cultural Appropriation Is a Problem
Cultural appropriation remains a concern for a variety of reasons. For one, this sort of “borrowing” is exploitative because it robs minority groups of the credit they deserve.
Art and music forms that originated with minority groups come to be associated with members of the dominant group. As a result, the dominant group is deemed innovative and edgy.
At the same time, the disadvantaged groups they “borrow” from continue to face negative stereotypes that imply they’re lacking in intelligence and creativity.
When singer Katy Perry performed as a geisha at the American Music Awards in 2013, she described it as an homage to Asian culture. Asian Americans disagreed with this assessment, declaring her performance “yellowface.” They also found issue with the song choice, "Unconditionally," alongside a stereotype of passive Asian women.

The question of whether it is a homage or an insult is at the core of cultural appropriation. What one person perceives as a tribute, people of that group may perceive as disrespectful. It's a fine line and one that must be carefully considered.

Just so we have context on this subject in the US. Rock/Jazz and music in general during the 19th century suffered from it. It went so far as to replace black artists with images of white people on album covers. There is a long history and has a bizarre relationship with history. Really it's just a matter of understanding history and context which is why it became relevant. It was overused and over applied.

 

[mckmas8808]

For the life of me I cannot understand how cultural appropriation became a thing. We want everyone to value each other's culture and see everyone as people. But then when people value someone else's culture enough to copy the style, food, etc., they can be chastised for it. It makes no sense to me at all. If I ever met a white person who tried to tell me they invented braids, or tacos, etc., I might understand. But that's still really doubtful because I would dismiss them as either an idiot, liar, or mentally ill person making random crap up.

No no no no no. "Reasonable" people don't get upset when someone of other culture copies another's style. Did you see what Dunki just said about braids? About how it was invented by white people in Greece? Did you see the fire that Kim Kardashian started when she stated she got braids from her latest photos from a white actress named Bo Derek?

Just give the proper credit and reasonable people will be fine with it.

 

[Vicetrailia]

The thing about cultural appropriation is well described with cornrows.

Black people have been hearing that cornrows are unprofessional in business, isn't sophisticated enough for modeling and all of these other things, despite it being a comfortable style or black people to wear due to their hair genetics. Plus, cornrows and dreadlocks can look really good if you do it right.

So cornrows = bad.

But then some white female model/celebrity will rock them and suddenly it's hip, cool, trendy, printed on fashion magazine covers and written about in articles despite black people already wearing them with more sophisticated styles as well. The problem isn't that she wears them, the problem is that she gets praised in media while others get shit on.

 

[WinterIsComing]

I never understood the cultural appropriation thing, specially regarding the braids on white people.

Why would/should I feel like something was wrong with this picture?

 

[TheGraykid]

For the life of me I cannot understand how cultural appropriation became a thing. We want everyone to value each other's culture and see everyone as people. But then when people value someone else's culture enough to copy the style, food, etc., they can be chastised for it. It makes no sense to me at all. If I ever met a white person who tried to tell me they invented braids, or tacos, etc., I might understand. But that's still really doubtful because I would dismiss them as either an idiot, liar, or mentally ill person making random crap up.

Cultural appropriation isn't truly valuing someone's culture or seeing them as human. It's taking elements of minority culture and using it for decoration, without even seeking to understand that culture or its people. It's people wearing Native American-style feathered headdresses on Halloween and calling an American football team "the redskins", whilst not even thinking about if that's okay. People use these signs, but don't even know what they mean. These things aren't costumes, they mean more than the frivolity they get treated with. If you're a minority that culture is your inheritance, and to see people take that and disrespect that is so shitty. If you're a white person, please understand that you can participate in minority culture, but minority culture is not a decoration, please take the time to understand others and what the symbols of other culture mean.

This is all heightened by the fact that minorities are often treated not well.

 

[Dunki]

No no no no no. "Reasonable" people don't get upset when someone of other culture copies another's style. Did you see what Dunki just said about braids? About how it was invented by white people in Greece? Did you see the fire that Kim Kardashian started when she stated she got braids from her latest photos from a white actress named Bo Derek?

Just give the proper credit and reasonable people will be fine with it.

I NEVER said they were invented by white people. I said the FIRST EVIDENCE was found near greece. Nothing else. I also said that Vikings had braids as well. Vikings did not even know Africa existed.

Cultural appropriation isn't truly valuing someone's culture or seeing them as human. It's taking elements of minority culture and using it for decoration, without even seeking to understand that culture or its people. It's people wearing Native American-style feathered headdresses on Halloween and calling an American football team "the redskins", whilst not even thinking about if that's okay. People use these signs, but don't even know what they mean. These things aren't costumes, they mean more than the frivolity they get treated with. If you're a minority that culture is your inheritance, and to see people take that and disrespect that is so shitty. If you're a white person, please understand that you can participate in minority culture, but minority culture is not a decoration, please take the time to understand others and what the symbols of other culture mean.

This is all heightened by the fact that minorities are often treated not well.

Yes they are customes. Just like a Ritter Chainmail, just like Lederhosen a Kimono etc. These are costumes you do not wear on a daily basis. They do not wear it because they want to mock it. They wear it because they think its cool. Like Cowboy and natives. Or better Cowboy and Indianer as its called here. Or wearing a victorian dress as it is the same.

 

[mckmas8808]

I NEVER said they were invented by white people. I said the FIRST EVIDENCE was found near greece. Nothing else. I also said that Vikings had braids as well. Vikings did not even know Africa existed.

Yeah but global trade did exist back then too. It's not like Vikings wouldn't have seen people in other areas with braids. But this part sorta defeats the entire point about braids. I think T TheGraykid and ssolitare explain it best. It can't be in Western society that cornrows and dreds are bad, until a white model wears them. And to your credit you did say that was wrong too. So we actually agree on this.

 

[TheMikado]

I never understood the cultural appropriation thing, specially regarding the braids on white people.

Why would/should I feel like something was wrong with this picture?

Ironically, this would actually be "reverse?" cultural appropriation assuming its not natural of course.

The history of chemically induced hair relaxers for black people is a horrifying.

Natural hairstyles such as braids or twists where considered "unprofessional and inappropriate"

For women of color the only semi-permanent hair alternatives would be straightening mechanisms which are chemically induced.
Chemically induced hair treatments become a literal matter of economics and survive for black women in particular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxer

Risks
The hair of some Africans is elliptical in shape and therefore very tightly curled (Asian hair tends to be round and Caucasian hair is in-between). The relaxer cream breaks down the chemical bonds of the hair shaft, disrupting the elliptical shape and reconstructing the bonds in a different way. Though hair follicles themselves are not damaged, the hair can become very brittle and break off. There is also risks of scalp burns if the relaxer comes into contact with the skin. Some professionals apply a scalp base cream or protector prior to application to protect the client's scalp from chemical burns. Cosmetic products are not subject to pre-market approval by the Food and Drug Administration and a complete list of ingredients is not mandatory, however many brands of hair relaxers list phthalate directly as one of their chemical ingredients. Phthalates from cosmetic products can be inhaled or absorbed by the skin and these have been shown to have estrogenic effects in cell models and experimental animals. It also can cause long term damage that may not recover.

Uterine leiomyomata
A correlation study published in 2012 showed a link between the use of relaxers by African-American women with an increased risk of uterine leiomyomata. The incidence of this disease is 2 to 3 times higher in African-Americans compared to Caucasian women.[6]However, the paper makes no causal connections between relaxers and uterine fibroids, even though some media outlets have reported otherwise.[7]

 

[Dunki]

Yeah but global trade did exist back then too. It's not like Vikings wouldn't have seen people in other areas with braids. But this part sorta defeats the entire point about braids. I think T TheGraykid and ssolitare explain it best. It can't be in Western society that cornrows and dreds are bad, until a white model wears them. And to your credit you did say that was wrong too. So we actually agree on this.

I aggree with this part but then you should not make it a generalisation but based on the people. For example if someone says it looks dirty and unclean on black people and then wear it yourself than it is a problem. It is not a problem when people thought it looks cool and not made this difference.

You can not judge everyone based on some people doing it like that. That is the problem I have with these kind of discussion. These generalisations

 

[TheGraykid]

I NEVER said they were invented by white people. I said the FIRST EVIDENCE was found near greece. Nothing else. I also said that Vikings had braids as well. Vikings did not even know Africa existed.


Yes they are customes. Just like a Ritter Chainmail, just like Lederhosen a Kimono etc. These are costumes you do not wear on a daily basis. They do not wear it because they want to mock it. They wear it because they think its cool. Like Cowboy and natives. Or better Cowboy and Indianer as its called here. Or wearing a victorian dress as it is the same.

I don't think anyone has any ill intent, but you can still be disrespectful, especially if when people whose ancestors own that culture tell you that it means more than you think and you should not wear it in the context that you're choosing to wear it. In the native American case, this isn't an equal exchange of culture, because the people who owned that culture were murdered and discriminated against for years after that. That all makes it in poor taste.

 

[Nightstick10]

This is a good chart to express the differences in opinions although this is on partisan lines rather than racial lines..

What surprises me about this chart is that the disparity isn't all that big for a lot of the questions.

I think it is difficult to reach any form of racial equality without politicizing identities. I also think the politicization of identities isn't solely a leftist thing, it becomes a right-wing thing the moment people try to push for any kind of financial equality, not explicitly, but I think it's difficult to ignore the long history of dogwhistling. I also think that there's always been a hyper-focus on identity in politics ( in inexplicit terms "rural, working-class voters are so important" et al, and in more explicit terms), the identity attempting to dictate has always just been white identity, I just think that now minorities are at the forefront of this conversation in a way that they haven't been before.

This is playing with fire. The moment that an identity of whiteness becomes politicized by a large enough population is when the shit is going to hit the fan. World War II is remote enough now that we are going to start seeing the collective global trauma and lessons gleaned from it start being shirked off by peoples, including the U.S. One of the big, if not THE biggest, lessons gleaned from World War II is making "White Pride" and the entire concept of biological essentialism taboo and distasteful. In my opinion, we are starting to see this taboo being rolled back. A part of this is whites politicizing their identities and thinking about what it means to be "white" due to demographic pressures (such as Muslim immigration, etc.) Me, personally, would prefer to steer whites away from really thinking about whiteness. This is why I think moving away from color-blindness is a huge mistake.

 

[Dunki]

I don't think anyone has any ill intent, but you can still be disrespectful, especially if when people whose ancestors own that culture tell you that it means more than you think and you should not wear it in the context that you're choosing to wear it. In the native American case, this isn't an equal exchange of culture, because the people who owned that culture were murdered and discriminated against for years after that. That all makes it in poor taste.

Some say so some do not most do not even care. Who decides who I should listen to in the first place? If its a person I know(Friend etc.) I would certainly listen and avoid it. However if some random person attacks other people in a very vile way why should I listen? Why should I listen when a white "feminist" tells me this? Why should I even care? And a lot of people were murdered in History. Still someone wears a toga to a party for example. See I do not like the "fact" that people try to silence or prevent other people from doing this because of history way past ago. These people had nothing to do with it. Black teens today had nothing to do with slavery just like we germans have nothing to do with the horrible event that did happen 80 years ago. Every nation/racehad some Horrible events happen to them. Be it Romes, Jews, greeks, Turks, Japanese etc. This should not prevent you from stuff like that. Quite the opposite. Wearing such a thing means also a celebration IMO.

 

[Moneal]

Some say so some do not most do not even care. Who decides who I should listen to in the first place? If its a person I know(Friend etc.) I would certainly listen and avoid it. However if some random person attacks other people in a very vile way why should I listen? Why should I listen when a white "feminist" tells me this? Why should I even care? And a lot of people were murdered in History. Still someone wears a toga to a party for example. See I do not like the "fact" that people try to silence or prevent other people from doing this because of history way past ago. These people had nothing to do with it. Black teens today had nothing to do with slavery just like we germans have nothing to do with the horrible event that did happen 80 years ago. Every nation/racehad some Horrible events happen to them. Be it Romes, Jews, greeks, Turks, Japanese etc. This should not prevent you from stuff like that. Quite the opposite. Wearing such a thing means also a celebration IMO.

I agree, at what point do people have to stop paying for the sins of their fathers?

 

[TheGraykid]

What surprises me about this chart is that the disparity isn't all that big for a lot of the questions.



This is playing with fire. The moment that an identity of whiteness becomes politicized by a large enough population is when the shit is going to hit the fan. World War II is remote enough now that we are going to start seeing the collective global trauma and lessons gleaned from it start being shirked off by peoples, including the U.S. One of the big, if not THE biggest, lessons gleaned from World War II is making "White Pride" and the entire concept of biological essentialism taboo and distasteful. In my opinion, we are starting to see this taboo being rolled back. A part of this is whites politicizing their identities and thinking about what it means to be "white" due to demographic pressures (such as Muslim immigration, etc.) Me, personally, would prefer to steer whites away from really thinking about whiteness. This is why I think moving away from color-blindness is a huge mistake.

I know you know this, but I still feel like I have to state it, racism didn't die with WW2. It continued long after in explicit and inexplicit forms for decades.

None of this is new. Racism isn't new. Minorities complaining and asking for things to change isn't new. White people feeling threatened and angling for a political backlash isn't new. White American people hated Martin Luther King when he was alive. White identity has always been used as a political tool.

I think the grand divide between the two of us is that you believe that there's a "colour-blindness" that we're moving away from, whilst I believe that "colour-blindness" never existed. Maybe that explicit nature of racism died down in public licensing use, but just because people are using different words that doesn't mean aren't saying the same things.

Some say so some do not most do not even care. Who decides who I should listen to in the first place? If its a person I know(Friend etc.) I would certainly listen and avoid it. However if some random person attacks other people in a very vile way why should I listen? Why should I listen when a white "feminist" tells me this? Why should I even care? And a lot of people were murdered in History. Still someone wears a toga to a party for example. See I do not like the "fact" that people try to silence or prevent other people from doing this because of history way past ago. These people had nothing to do with it. Black teens today had nothing to do with slavery just like we germans have nothing to do with the horrible event that did happen 80 years ago. Every nation/racehad some Horrible events happen to them. Be it Romes, Jews, greeks, Turks, Japanese etc. This should not prevent you from stuff like that. Quite the opposite. Wearing such a thing means also a celebration IMO.

If you're not a part of that group, you don't get to decide if wearing that thing is a celebration. You don't get to divorce a culture from its history so you can have a good time. It's not your place to say.

Every nation/race had some Horrible events happen to them, and if any nation or race asked me told me that something I was doing was of disrespect to their ancestors and culture, then I would stop it.

People aren't asking you to pay for the sins of your father's, people are asking for you to be aware of them. People just want the most basic of things, for people participating in a culture other than their own to be knowledgeable and respectful. I don't know why people are so hostile to that.

 

[appaws]

This is playing with fire. The moment that an identity of whiteness becomes politicized by a large enough population is when the shit is going to hit the fan. World War II is remote enough now that we are going to start seeing the collective global trauma and lessons gleaned from it start being shirked off by peoples, including the U.S. One of the big, if not THE biggest, lessons gleaned from World War II is making "White Pride" and the entire concept of biological essentialism taboo and distasteful. In my opinion, we are starting to see this taboo being rolled back. A part of this is whites politicizing their identities and thinking about what it means to be "white" due to demographic pressures (such as Muslim immigration, etc.) Me, personally, would prefer to steer whites away from really thinking about whiteness. This is why I think moving away from color-blindness is a huge mistake.

Yep, I have been saying this to leftist friends and acquaintances for a long time. There is a dangerous flipside to identity politics. If you politicize the identities of every racial group EXCEPT whites, you will not be able to keep that barrier up forever. It will blow eventually. You can use guilt, public shaming, and doxxing to hold it back only for so long....but people will not be blind to the double standard forever. I think the growth in the "alt-right" is the beginning of this, and I think a lot of what it means to be an American is in danger of being swept away.

 

[Moneal]

I know you know this, but I still feel like I have to state it, racism didn't die with WW2. It continued long after in explicit and inexplicit forms for decades.

None of this is new. Racism isn't new. Minorities complaining and asking for things to change isn't new. White people feeling threatened and angling for a political backlash isn't new. White American people hated Martin Luther King when he was alive. White identity has always been used as a political tool.

I think the grand divide between the two of us is that you believe that there's a "colour-blindness" that we're moving away from, whilst I believe that "colour-blindness" never existed. Maybe that explicit nature of racism died down in public licensing use, but just because people are using different words that doesn't mean aren't saying the same things.



If you're not a part of that group, you don't get to decide if wearing that thing is a celebration. You don't get to divorce a culture from its history so you can have a good time. It's not your place to say.

Every nation/race had some Horrible events happen to them, and if any nation or race asked me told me that something I was doing was of disrespect to their ancestors and culture, then I would stop it.

People aren't asking you to pay for the sins of your father's, people are asking for you to be aware of them. People just want the most basic of things, for people participating in a culture other than their own to be knowledgeable and respectful. I don't know why people are so hostile to that.

By saying you can't do something because your fathers did this is exactly paying for the sins of the fathers. The problem isn't that a nation or race is asking people to stop. small groups are trying to speak for the whole of those groups. People complain about the redskins specifically, but polls have shown most native americans don't care about it.

 

[prag16]

People aren't asking you to pay for the sins of your father's, people are asking for you to be aware of them. People just want the most basic of things, for people participating in a culture other than their own to be knowledgeable and respectful. I don't know why people are so hostile to that.

You say this like it matters. There will be usually an angry lunatic fringe no matter how "knowledgeable and respectful" people are. The colorblind racism concept is a nonstarter. Telling people that treating everyone equally regardless of skin color, is actually racist. That dog don't hunt. And the left is going to lose with this mentality.

 

[mckmas8808]

By saying you can't do something because your fathers did this is exactly paying for the sins of the fathers. The problem isn't that a nation or race is asking people to stop. small groups are trying to speak for the whole of those groups. People complain about the redskins specifically, but polls have shown most native americans don't care about it.

This is a perfect example of a certain collection of people speaking for other people. In that poll the majority of people that answered didn't even know what tribe they came from. So why are we treating that poll as if it actually matters with that being the case?

 

[mckmas8808]

You say this like it matters. There will be usually an angry lunatic fringe no matter how "knowledgeable and respectful" people are. The colorblind racism concept is a nonstarter. Telling people that treating everyone equally regardless of skin color, is actually racist. That dog don't hunt. And the left is going to lose with this mentality.

Why would treating people equally regardless of race be racist?

 

[prag16]

Why would treating people equally regardless of race be racist?

"Colorblind racism".

 

[Moneal]

This is a perfect example of a certain collection of people speaking for other people. In that poll the majority of people that answered didn't even know what tribe they came from. So why are we treating that poll as if it actually matters with that being the case?

where did you get the number of people that didn't know what tribe the came from?

 

[Dunki]

"Colorblind racism".

I will never understand this. Coloblindness is the best way to end racism. As an example I always use kids which in the begining are totally innocent without the whole social garbage. They do not care what color you are they do not care if you a a girl or boy only society makes them like this. In this regard I always bring up this video which has nothing to do with race however it has something to do how children see the world and how its often much better if we all would act like this.



So we can see this way more often

Two children try to trick his teacher with the haircut.

Black and white friends try to trick teacher with matching haircuts

 

[TheGraykid]

By saying you can't do something because your fathers did this is exactly paying for the sins of the fathers. The problem isn't that a nation or race is asking people to stop. small groups are trying to speak for the whole of those groups. People complain about the redskins specifically, but polls have shown most native americans don't care about it.

I would be cautious about drawing huge conclusions about a group of 5 million people, based on a sample size of 500.

Saying that you don't have the holy right to include a certain culture in your fun, is not paying for the sins of your father. It's the bare minimum of respect that everyone should be afforded. Paying for these specific sins is too much for anyone to afford.

You say this like it matters. There will be usually an angry lunatic fringe no matter how "knowledgeable and respectful" people are. The colorblind racism concept is a nonstarter. Telling people that treating everyone equally regardless of skin color, is actually racist. That dog don't hunt. And the left is going to lose with this mentality.

Following that logic to its obvious conclusion. "Why should we be nice or respectful to anyone? A small amount of people will dislike us irregardless."

You can't live your life like this, that's not how you create a functioning community. That's called being an asshole.

The Western world has treated different races differently. You don't fix a world filled with inequality by treating people the same. That's just keeping the status quo.

 

[i_am_ben]

We also had polls that said Hillary was going to win in a landslide and that Brexit would never happen.

Final polls for those were in the margin of error

 

[Moneal]

I would be cautious about drawing huge conclusions about a group of 5 million people, based on a sample size of 500.

We use smaller sample size percentages for election polls.

 

[prag16]

Following that logic to its obvious conclusion. "Why should we be nice or respectful to anyone? A small amount of people will dislike us irregardless."

You can't live your life like this, that's not how you create a functioning community. That's called being an asshole.

Except that's not remotely what I said whatsoever. That's a nice strawman.

The Western world has treated different races differently. You don't fix a world filled with inequality by treating people the same. That's just keeping the status quo.

Colorblind racism again. You'll have to do better than that of you want to win over anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders.

 

[TheGraykid]

We use smaller sample size percentages for election polls.

And in those cases no one really looks at a single poll and uses that as the foundation of their arguments. There are so many polls being done at once that as an observer you benefit from a way higher sample size than any of those one polls. Here we're just looking at one poll.

Except that's not remotely what I said whatsoever. That's a nice strawman.


Colorblind racism again. You'll have to do better than that of you want to win over anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders.

If your argument is (and please correct me if I'm wrong) "people just like being mad and being nice and respectful will get you nowhere, because those people will still hate you." Then I can't really see how I strawmanned your argument.

And with your "colourblind racism" comment, do you actually want to discuss points or do you just want to continue making meta commentary?

 

[SatansReverence]

Be it Romes, Jews, greeks, Turks, Japanese etc. This should not prevent you from stuff like that. Quite the opposite. Wearing such a thing means also a celebration IMO.

Don't dress up like an emu in Australia, we are still salty about that one.

 

[mr2xxx]

As equality increases, the complaints of cultural appropriation decreases.

 

[prag16]

If your argument is (and please correct me if I'm wrong) "people just like being mad and being nice and respectful will get you nowhere, because those people will still hate you." Then I can't really see how I strawmanned your argument.

And with your "colourblind racism" comment, do you actually want to discuss points or do you just want to continue making meta commentary?

That wasn't exactly my argument. But it's also actually kind of true for the lunatic fringe. Like those who burned down gaf and witch hunt people on Twitter.

What metacommentary? I reject the idea that treating people equally is actually stealth racism. That's commentary commentary. Not metacommentary. Identity politics isn't the answer to anything at this point.

 

[Nightstick10]

I know you know this, but I still feel like I have to state it, racism didn't die with WW2. It continued long after in explicit and inexplicit forms for decades.

None of this is new. Racism isn't new. Minorities complaining and asking for things to change isn't new. White people feeling threatened and angling for a political backlash isn't new. White American people hated Martin Luther King when he was alive. White identity has always been used as a political tool.

I think the grand divide between the two of us is that you believe that there's a "colour-blindness" that we're moving away from, whilst I believe that "colour-blindness" never existed. Maybe that explicit nature of racism died down in public licensing use, but just because people are using different words that doesn't mean aren't saying the same things.

WW2 had a huge fucking impact on racism. Racism today doesn't even come close. It cannot be emphasized enough how much impact the Allied Powers' efforts for the complete eradication of any ideology rooted in biological essentialism from mainstream discourse had. Its impacts still reverberate loudly TODAY

It started with a pebble and then became an avalanche after V-E Day and V-J Day. The elimination of segregation in the armed forces, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Civil Rights Act, Title VII, Voting Rights Act, Repeal of Alien Immigration Act, Affirmative Action, Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Obgerfell v. Hodges....Do you realize just HOW MANY of our personal civil rights, especially minorities, stem from the post-World War II view that ideologies rooted in biological essentialism are, to put it charitably, unfashionable? Modern genderqueer theory would never have existed otherwise.

To equate racism as one unbroken continuum in our nation's history is patently absurd. Before World War II, racism consisted of sterilizing undesirables, shoveling undesirables by the bushel into ovens, concentration camps, forced relocation, and deliberate extermination based on gene and blood.

Color-blindedness, or the "melting pot", was the ideal societal Utopia Americans were striving for until the late 90s. Then it all changed for some reason. Now, people cannot shut the fuck up about who owes who because of skin color. Everyone using biological essentialist ideologies (our skin is our uniform!) type arguments is making a big fucking mistake. It took the most devastating conflict in human history to make biological essentialism a completely unacceptable taboo; people want to dig it up now and re-weaponize it because they didn't like something they read on Twitter.

For shame.

 

[saucyrobot]

What surprises me about this chart is that the disparity isn't all that big for a lot of the questions.



This is playing with fire. The moment that an identity of whiteness becomes politicized by a large enough population is when the shit is going to hit the fan. World War II is remote enough now that we are going to start seeing the collective global trauma and lessons gleaned from it start being shirked off by peoples, including the U.S. One of the big, if not THE biggest, lessons gleaned from World War II is making "White Pride" and the entire concept of biological essentialism taboo and distasteful. In my opinion, we are starting to see this taboo being rolled back. A part of this is whites politicizing their identities and thinking about what it means to be "white" due to demographic pressures (such as Muslim immigration, etc.) Me, personally, would prefer to steer whites away from really thinking about whiteness. This is why I think moving away from color-blindness is a huge mistake.

I think that I understand your intentions in making this post, but the way you went about it was, honestly, [REMOVED BY MOD]Let’s break it down.

The idea that WWII and German expansion was a result of “white pride” makes no sense after even a cursory glance at history. The majority of countries fighting on the side of the allies were predominantly white. Why, exactly, would “white” countries fight against “white pride”? When you say “white pride”, what you mean is “German pride”. The fact that you can’t seem to differentiate between those two things speaks to a genuine lack of effort on your part. Then, you take this already beligured argument and try to apply it to the U.S. - a country that fought against Germany in the war - as a warning of things to come.

Again, I think that I understand your point. Nationalism, i.e., tribalism, is unhealthy and potential dangerous. True enough, but, the more that you try to compare white America to Nazi Germany, the less people will take you seriously. Yes, there are issues with racism in the U.S., but comparing them to Nazis does more to undermine your point than bolster it. If you can’t understand the difference between white Americans in 2018 and white Germans 1940, then you need to take a very serious look in the mirror and wonder what it is you’re arguing for or against. [REMOVE BY MOD]

 

[Nightstick10]

I think that I understand your intentions in making this post, but the way you went about it was, honestly, [REMOVED]. Let’s break it down.

The idea that WWII and German expansion was a result of “white pride” makes no sense after even a cursory glance at history. The majority of countries fighting on the side of the allies were predominantly white. Why, exactly, would “white” countries fight against “white pride”? When you say “white pride”, what you mean is “German pride”. The fact that you can’t seem to differentiate between those two things speaks to a genuine lack of effort on your part. Then, you take this already beligured argument and try to apply it to the U.S. - a country that fought against Germany in the war - as a warning of things to come.

Again, I think that I understand your point. Nationalism, i.e., tribalism, is unhealthy and potential dangerous. True enough, but, the more that you try to compare white America to Nazi Germany, the less people will take you seriously. Yes, there are issues with racism in the U.S., but comparing them to Nazis does more to undermine your point than bolster it. If you can’t understand the difference between white Americans in 2018 and white Germans 1940, then you need to take a very serious look in the mirror and wonder what it is you’re arguing for or against. [REMOVED]

You clearly did not understand my point or all you read was "white", as you are droning on nonsensically with a half-baked, at best, understanding of history.

First, familiarize yourself with the following terms: Social Darwinism, Craniometry, and Biological essentialism.

Second, shore up on early 20th century eugenics policies in the United States and Europe, Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek genocides, Trail of Tears, and Manzanar.

Next, read through the timeline of events of World War II.

You have to be remotely aware of this event to have understood in order to catch everything I was alluding to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question

Lastly, read about the landmark Supreme Court cases I had listed as related to being possible only due to the erosion of the acceptability of biological essentialism.

Clearly, you miss the point I was making. By a very large margin.

 

[TheGraykid]

That wasn't exactly my argument. But it's also actually kind of true for the lunatic fringe. Like those who burned down gaf and witch hunt people on Twitter.

What metacommentary? I reject the idea that treating people equally is actually stealth racism. That's commentary commentary. Not metacommentary. Identity politics isn't the answer to anything at this point.

I'm sorry if I'm wrong, that wasn't exactly your argument. Please do spell out what you were trying to say, because if your argument is "people just like being mad and being nice and respectful will get you nowhere, because those people will still hate you." then I think that's just attempting to find excuses to be a dick to people.

The point isn't that treating people equally is racist, the point is that it doesn't go far enough to fix the issues people have. If we wake up tomorrow and live in your colorblind world, maybe people stop actively racially abusing people on the internet, but none of the real institutional problems with racism get solved. Black people will work at worse jobs and still make less money, still get worse educations, still be jailed at extraordinary rates, will still die earlier. None of that gets fixed. The world has a momentum to it, you have to work to fix that. A colourblind world is a status quo world, however, I guess people are nicer so that's cool. Right now, we don't even get that.

WW2 had a huge fucking impact on racism. Racism today doesn't even come close. It cannot be emphasized enough how much impact the Allied Powers' efforts for the complete eradication of any ideology rooted in biological essentialism from mainstream discourse had. Its impacts still reverberate loudly TODAY

It started with a pebble and then became an avalanche after V-E Day and V-J Day. The elimination of segregation in the armed forces, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Civil Rights Act, Title VII, Voting Rights Act, Repeal of Alien Immigration Act, Affirmative Action, Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Obgerfell v. Hodges....Do you realize just HOW MANY of our personal civil rights, especially minorities, stem from the post-World War II view that ideologies rooted in biological essentialism are, to put it charitably, unfashionable? Modern genderqueer theory would never have existed otherwise.

To equate racism as one unbroken continuum in our nation's history is patently absurd. Before World War II, racism consisted of sterilizing undesirables, shoveling undesirables by the bushel into ovens, concentration camps, forced relocation, and deliberate extermination based on gene and blood.

Color-blindedness, or the "melting pot", was the ideal societal Utopia Americans were striving for until the late 90s. Then it all changed for some reason. Now, people cannot shut the fuck up about who owes who because of skin color. Everyone using biological essentialist ideologies (our skin is our uniform!) type arguments is making a big fucking mistake. It took the most devastating conflict in human history to make biological essentialism a completely unacceptable taboo; people want to dig it up now and re-weaponize it because they didn't like something they read on Twitter.

For shame.

I feel like you completely understate how apathetic-hostile white people were back then to the race focused laws that you're talking about. It's crazy to hear you talk about all these laws and mostly advocate them to WW2 focused changing viewpoints, and not to the many black people of the time who protested and rioted in order to even put these issues in the public eye. And I'm not even going to talk about all the southern politicians at the time who did all they could to stop these laws from going into effect for their constituents. Black activists who were hated by most white people at the time. John F Kennedy was assassinated, Martin Luther King was assassinated.

There is no grand racism turning point. Every couple of decades the views adjust. Yes, things are better in 1950 compared to 1910, but in the same way things are better in 1930 compared to 1890. Civil rights movements didn't just occur one time in 1950-60. There were civil rights movements before then and there will be civil rights movements after.

Also I think it's necessary to repeat this again.

The point isn't that treating people equally is racist, the point is that it doesn't go far enough to fix the issues people have. If we wake up tomorrow and live in your colorblind world, maybe people stop actively racially abusing people on the internet, but none of the real institutional problems with racism get solved. Black people will still work at worse jobs and still make less money, still get worse educations, still be jailed at extraordinary rates, will still die earlier. None of that gets fixed. The world has a momentum to it, you have to work to fix that. A colourblind world is a status quo world, however, I guess people are less explicitly racist so that's cool. Right now, we don't even get that.

 

[Nightstick10]

I feel like you completely understate how apathetic-hostile white people were back then to the race focused laws that you're talking about. It's crazy to hear you talk about all these laws and mostly advocate them to WW2 focused changing viewpoints, and not to the many black people of the time who protested and rioted in order to even put these issues in the public eye. And I'm not even going to talk about all the southern politicians at the time who did all they could to stop these laws from going into effect for their constituents. Black activists who were hated by most white people at the time. John F Kennedy was assassinated, Martin Luther King was assassinated.

There is no grand racism turning point. Every couple of decades the views adjust. Yes, things are better in 1950 compared to 1910, but in the same way things are better in 1930 compared to 1890. Civil rights movements didn't just occur one time in 1950-60. There were civil rights movements before then and there will be civil rights movements after.

I feel like you are being so black-centric that you aren't even really reading what I was saying. My original point re: World War II wasn't even about blacks or even America specifically: it was about Racism--- Scientific Racism-- as a concept. World War II dismantled the legitimacy of biological essentialism as an acceptable basis for an ideology-- THIS is something you need to understand if you want to talk about racism.

Read this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question

This is the first step in modern history to try and dismantle biological essentialism. This happened because the Allies were horrified by the concentration camps.

After World War I, the European Powers REFUSED to issue a general proclamation on the equality of races, telling Japan to politely fuck off. This refusal had grave reverberations for East Asian nationalism, leading to the Japanese Empire as well as inspiring Ho Chi Minh.

In the New Imperialism Era, tropes like the White Man's Burden and the horrors of Belgian Congo were almost trite. This was because the races were viewed as cousin species, not one species.

Scarcely a generation after the League of Nations refused to proclaim the human race as one race, the UN tried to get the leading scientists to dismantle biological essentialism as an acceptable ideology and point out the human race as one race.

It is not an accident that the BIGGEST strides in the improvement of race relations happened in the epoch AFTER biological essentialism was dismantled. More progress has been made since 1945 than 1500-1945.

You are focused only on blacks. Blacks in America at that. I am talking about how World War II made things like the Civil Rights Act even theoretically possible.

One war went from scientists measuring craniums to prove humanity was really four separate subspecies to scientists studying DNA cells specifically to show how similar all human beings are to each other.

If you care about racism, how can you possibly be dismissive of the mindblowing, paradigm-shifting importance of this?

 

[TheGraykid]

I feel like you are being so black-centric that you aren't even really reading what I was saying. My original point re: World War II wasn't even about blacks or even America specifically: it was about Racism--- Scientific Racism-- as a concept. World War II dismantled the legitimacy of biological essentialism as an acceptable basis for an ideology-- THIS is something you need to understand if you want to talk about racism.

Read this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question

This is the first step in modern history to try and dismantle biological essentialism. This happened because the Allies were horrified by the concentration camps.

After World War I, the European Powers REFUSED to issue a general proclamation on the equality of races, telling Japan to politely fuck off. This refusal had grave reverberations for East Asian nationalism, leading to the Japanese Empire as well as inspiring Ho Chi Minh.

In the New Imperialism Era, tropes like the White Man's Burden and the horrors of Belgian Congo were almost trite. This was because the races were viewed as cousin species, not one species.

Scarcely a generation after the League of Nations refused to proclaim the human race as one race, the UN tried to get the leading scientists to dismantle biological essentialism as an acceptable ideology and point out the human race as one race.

It is not an accident that the BIGGEST strides in the improvement of race relations happened in the epoch AFTER biological essentialism was dismantled. More progress has been made since 1945 than 1500-1945.

You are focused only on blacks. Blacks in America at that. I am talking about how World War II made things like the Civil Rights Act even theoretically possible.

One war went from scientists measuring craniums to prove humanity was really four separate subspecies to scientists studying DNA cells specifically to show how similar all human beings are to each other.

If you care about racism, how can you possibly be dismissive of the mindblowing, paradigm-shifting importance of this?

I can view it as of some importance, but I find it difficult to point to that as the sole turning point in the presence of evidence to the contrary. It's a step on a long long staircase. It's all just a step. It's great that scientific racism dies there, but, racism as a whole continues unabated for decades after, public opinion is not instantly changed. And when public opinion does change it's not because of the arguments laid out by race specific scientific researchers.

 

[Dice]

All relations did. The internet and polarized news media has led to an enmity culture on all major topics. Almost no one listens to words anymore, only what possible hateful sneakery you could be scheming behind your words, and a feasible chance to the most paranoid mind is as good as proof. I've lamented this enmity culture for probably 15 years now and it has only gotten worse.

Most don't seem to realize that while addressing an instance fairly will not fix the climate, and that the instance may be a product of the climate, the instance is not the climate and must still be treated as an instance to be rightly resolved, and if we properly resolved instances according to their need and immediate context and scale without blowing them up to climate proportions, the climate would be better and the instances produced by it less extreme.

 

[Nightstick10]

I can view it as of some importance, but I find it difficult to point to that as the sole turning point in the presence of evidence to the contrary. It's a step on a long long staircase. It's all just a step. It's great that scientific racism dies there, but, racism as a whole continues unabated for decades after, public opinion is not instantly changed. And when public opinion does change it's not because of the arguments laid out by race specific scientific researchers.

There is no evidence to the contrary and dismissing the death of biological essentialism as "of some importance" is astonishing to me. It was not a step; it was a bridge over an unpassable chasm. Scientific Racism's demise is the difference between concentration camps and no concentration camps, the difference between Asians not allowed to immigrate into the country and Asians being actively courted to come here, the difference between black kids being lynched for whistling at a white lady and legalization of interracial marriage.

 

[TheGraykid]

There is no evidence to the contrary and dismissing the death of biological essentialism as "of some importance" is astonishing to me. It was not a step; it was a bridge over an unpassable chasm. Scientific Racism's demise is the difference between concentration camps and no concentration camps, the difference between Asians not allowed to immigrate into the country and Asians being actively courted to come here, the difference between black kids being lynched for whistling at a white lady and legalization of interracial marriage.

No, the difference between those things isn't science that proves the contrary, it's average everyday people, who had probably never even heard of that science, deciding to stand up and change things. These people didn't stand up because science had undermined a racist argument, they do so because deep inside their hearts they believe it's the right thing to do. The end of slavery and civil rights movements after that were not pushed by scientific literature, but by people who believed that the world could be a better place. Civil activism is way more important than any scientific literature when it comes to actually enacting change. That's why I consider what you're saying an important step, but not a grand turning point like you do.

 

[redfox088]

The rise of media/Social media

 

[Hamster Plugin]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/09/california-police-white-supremacists-counter-protest

As evidence, Ayres provided Facebook photos of the man holding up his fist. The officer wrote that the man’s “Black Power salute” and his “support for anti-racist activism” demonstrated his “intent and motivation to violate the civil rights” of the neo-Nazi group.

Nazi flags = we're just doing free speech
Holding up fist = fucking "Black Power salute" or some shit

Allegations of police bias and collusion with neo-Nazis have emerged in similar cases across the US. Last year, US prosecutors targeting anti-Trump protesters in Washington DC relied on video evidence from a far-right group with a record of deceptive tactics.

At an Oregon “alt-right” event, police allowed a member of a rightwing militia-style group to help officers arrest an anti-fascist activist.

Police in Charlottesville were widely accused of standing by as Nazis attacked protesters, and a black man who was badly beaten by white supremacists was later charged with a felony.

When you have the police blatantly siding with one side, you don't have to wonder what's happening and why tensions are higher than ever. Trump is just contributing to this problem.

 

[Nightstick10]

No, the difference between those things isn't science that proves the contrary, it's average everyday people, who had probably never even heard of that science, deciding to stand up and change things. These people didn't stand up because science had undermined a racist argument, they do so because deep inside their hearts they believe it's the right thing to do. The end of slavery and civil rights movements after that were not pushed by scientific literature, but by people who believed that the world could be a better place. Civil activism is way more important than any scientific literature when it comes to actually enacting change. That's why I consider what you're saying an important step, but not a grand turning point like you do.

None of that is even POSSIBLE without the death of biological essentialism. More civil rights were enacted after 1945 than the 400 years prior to World War II. It is no coincidence that decolonization happened AFTER the death of biological essentialism.

Your belief that the people just got together and demonstrated and then enacted mass changes is absurd. Had World War II never have occurred, it is debatable whether or not the West would see the human race as one race.

 

[pramod]

BTW the Black Panther movie is another example of what I'm talking about. It's a super hero movie that somehow has become on social media another huge milestone in social justice. But I really don't see what the big hoopla is. This isn't the first movie starring a black superhero. Back in the 90's no one would care if a black guy like Will Smith or Wesley Snipes starred in all those superhero movies or we had a movie all about black people. It would just be another movie. But everything these days every single one of these movies has become an "event" and has become about race or social justice. Why do we have so much race pimping and race baiting compared to 10-15 years ago?

 

[TrainedRage]

Can I have some data to show how "great" race relations were 20 years ago? Because im not seeing it. I have only seen it get slightly better as time goes on. But if people want to go back to the 90's hey, sure.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

BTW the Black Panther movie is another example of what I'm talking about. It's a super hero movie that somehow has become on social media another huge milestone in social justice. But I really don't see what the big hoopla is. This isn't the first movie starring a black superhero. Back in the 90's no one would care if a black guy like Will Smith or Wesley Snipes starred in all those superhero movies or we had a movie all about black people. It would just be another movie. But everything these days every single one of these movies has become an "event" and has become about race or social justice. Why do we have so much race pimping and race baiting compared to 10-15 years ago?

How is it race baiting for people to get excited over a movie? That's seems like quite a stretch to me.

My take on it:

1) You might want to read up on the historical significance of the Black Panther character. First black superhero in mainstream American comics. Finally getting a big budget Marvel film has the same weight behind it to a lot of people.

2) Do you really not see the difference between Hancock or Blade and Black Panther? Black Panther is a celebration of a powerful, wealthy and technologically advanced African nation. That culture is essential and fundamental to the character and the comic. There's nothing African at all about Hancock or Blade, and neither really even focuses on any unique facet of African-American culture either. They're superheroes who happen to be black. They're not exactly meant to be inspiring or role models in any way.