A white perspective of Racism and White Privilege in the US

[SirRumpole]

Anyway, this thread is about the US. May I suggest we discuss Australian issues in another thread ?

 

[SirRumpole]

OK there may have been slaves in Australia once.

There aren't anymore.

Just another way for radicals to attempt to make us feel guilty about things we had nothing to do with.

BTW , I'm not referring to anyone here, I mean the aboriginal leaders who want to keep blaming us for everything, forever.

 

[Smurf1976]

I was shocked to hear our Prime Minister being forced to apologise for stating a fact that slavery never existed in Australia.

I don’t know enough about the history of the issue in Australia to comment but I do see a definite problem with jumping on the PM for making a presumably honest mistake or due to context.

We seem to have a lot of people looking for a reason to be angry rather than accepting that nobody’s perfect.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

I don’t know enough about the history of the issue in Australia to comment but I do see a definite problem with jumping on the PM for making a presumably honest mistake or due to context.

We seem to have a lot of people looking for a reason to be angry rather than accepting that nobody’s perfect.

The PM didn't make a mistake. The government of the day never sanctioned or supported slavery; furthermore there is no evidence of people being traded as property. To be a slave you must be the legal property of another which is recognised by a governing authority. For there to be a slave trade, slaves must be traded. So there were no slaves and there was no slave trading in Australia.

As for the Blackbirding; the Queensland government actually attempted to regulate it with the Polynesian Labourers Act.

There was perhaps kidnapping, wage theft and worker exploitation; but there were no slaves and there was no slave trading.

 

[Smurf1976]

The PM didn't make a mistake. The government of the day never sanctioned or supported slavery; furthermore there is no evidence of people being traded as property. To be a slave you must be the legal property of another which is recognised by a governing authority. For there to be a slave trade, slaves must be traded. So there were no slaves and there was no slave trading in Australia.

I claim no expertise on the detail but in a technical sense I think you're right.

That said, the mistake he's made in my view is commenting at all. This debate is not being conducted rationally, it's being driven by emotion, and there's a lot of people just looking for a reason to trip others up. The PM is an obvious target there so from a purely political perspective he'd be better off talking about something, anything, else.

On the overall subject though, well I'll throw the grenade with a question:

How many Australians buy products they know, or would reasonably suspect, are produced by exploiting workers of predominantly a particular race?

Semantics and definitions of slavery and so on aside, the basic concept of exploiting other humans of a race different to our own is alive and well today and just about everyone in Australia, including those protesting, is supporting it with their purchasing decisions.

The argument that we can't afford to enforce proper pay, conditions, safety and environmental standards is after all the same argument used to justify slavery in the US and elsewhere in the past. Too expensive.

That doesn't cut it in my view. Cheap electronics or clothing is a pathetic excuse to justify exploitation of others who just happen to be primarily of one particular race. Don't expect the protestors to highlight it however, that would require looking in the mirror and seeing part of the problem and acknowledging that they personally are today still profiting from the exploitation of others.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

I claim no expertise on the detail but in a technical sense I think you're right.

That said, the mistake he's made in my view is commenting at all. This debate is not being conducted rationally, it's being driven by emotion, and there's a lot of people just looking for a reason to trip others up. The PM is an obvious target there so from a purely political perspective he'd be better off talking about something, anything, else.

On the overall subject though, well I'll throw the grenade with a question:

How many Australians buy products they know, or would reasonably suspect, are produced by exploiting workers of predominantly a particular race?

Semantics and definitions of slavery and so on aside, the basic concept of exploiting other humans of a race different to our own is alive and well today and just about everyone in Australia, including those protesting, is supporting it with their purchasing decisions.

The argument that we can't afford to enforce proper pay, conditions, safety and environmental standards is after all the same argument used to justify slavery in the US and elsewhere in the past. Too expensive.

That doesn't cut it in my view. Cheap electronics or clothing is a pathetic excuse to justify exploitation of others who just happen to be primarily of one particular race. Don't expect the protestors to highlight it however, that would require looking in the mirror and seeing part of the problem and acknowledging that they personally are today still profiting from the exploitation of others.

Totally agree with your entire post.

Our PM shouldn't have fallen into the trap of commenting because we are dealing with a very sensitive topic where facts don't matter and where established definitions are being redefined for political purposes.

You're spot on with the hypocritical people that buy the cheapest product on the shelf while they scream to high heaven about wage theft and worker exploitation.

No law professor can deny that a slave is the legal property of an owner, which is recognised by a governing authority.

 

[Smurf1976]

Putting aside the detail of racism for a moment, much of what's being seen here does have very real relevance to investing (this is a stock market forum.....) and that is herd behaviour.

There are real issues with racism, to be clear I'm not denying that, but we do have a lot of herd behaviour going on with people jumping on the bandwagon of things they don't really know much about but which someone else said they should support.

Other examples where this sort of behaviour often occurs are fashion, pop music and the stock market.

Fashion I know nothing about so no real comment there byond saying that by its very nature, fast fashion involves people following what someone else started doing.

Pop music though, well if you were to plot the chart success of artists whose career is mostly complete, so those who were popular some years ago and who aren't in the charts these days, then you'll find plenty of 3 stage bull markets complete with blow off tops and echo bubbles. Plenty of other technical patterns too.

In all these cases be it protest movements, fashion, pop music, stock market etc we're dealing with mass psychology. There are exceptions but a lot of people wear certain clothes, listen to certain music or buy particular stocks not because they think they're great but because others have started wearing, listening to or buying them. It is thus no surprise to find very similar patterns playing out.

Understanding what's going on with this sort of mass behaviour does have application to investing once you realise that the same basic patterns are playing out everywhere from tech stocks to the popularity of yo-yo's. It's all down to the collective psychology of the masses.

That's in no way aiming to diminish the importance of the race issues, I'm just highlighting that the broad concepts of how the masses behave do apply to many things and that has application to investing.

 

[basilio]

I claim no expertise on the detail but in a technical sense I think you're right.

That said, the mistake he's made in my view is commenting at all. This debate is not being conducted rationally, it's being driven by emotion, and there's a lot of people just looking for a reason to trip others up. The PM is an obvious target there so from a purely political perspective he'd be better off talking about something, anything, else.

On the overall subject though, well I'll throw the grenade with a question:

How many Australians buy products they know, or would reasonably suspect, are produced by exploiting workers of predominantly a particular race?

Semantics and definitions of slavery and so on aside, the basic concept of exploiting other humans of a race different to our own is alive and well today and just about everyone in Australia, including those protesting, is supporting it with their purchasing decisions.

The argument that we can't afford to enforce proper pay, conditions, safety and environmental standards is after all the same argument used to justify slavery in the US and elsewhere in the past. Too expensive.

That doesn't cut it in my view. Cheap electronics or clothing is a pathetic excuse to justify exploitation of others who just happen to be primarily of one particular race. Don't expect the protestors to highlight it however, that would require looking in the mirror and seeing part of the problem and acknowledging that they personally are today still profiting from the exploitation of others.

That is such a big, big challenge... Trying to untangle that can of worms would lead one into a rabbit hole of Alice in the Looking Glass proportions.

Yes. We all with miniscule exceptions purchase products from suppliers who badly exploit their workers. None of us really want to think about it too much. Suppliers don't want to know about what their agents source. We all keep mum and buy the next cheap goodie.

Principles of fair wages, safe working conditions might seem like a "good idea" but the world of economic reality (maximise profit, screw the workers and the environment) almost always wins the day.

And of course the biggest fight we have on ASF is about those bloody "virtual (sic) signalling " commies who are destroying our economy and culture by bashing on for fair ages/conditions/environmental safeguards. And of course slowing down the economic treadmill because we are facing a contagious epidemic...

Where to from here ? But I won't accept that this situation just means we cannot recognise and tackle issues. It is in fact the oldest argument in the book to deflect legitimate criticism of bad practices.

 

[sptrawler]

That is such a big, big challenge... Trying to untangle that can of worms would lead one into a rabbit hole of Alice in the Looking Glass proportions.

Yes. We all with miniscule exceptions purchase products from suppliers who badly exploit their workers. None of us really want to think about it too much. Suppliers don't want to know about what their agents source. We all keep mum and buy the next cheap goodie.

Principles of fair wages, safe working conditions might seem like a "good idea" but the world of economic reality (maximise profit, screw the workers and the environment) almost always wins the day.

And of course the biggest fight we have on ASF is about those bloody "virtual (sic) signalling " commies who are destroying our economy and culture by bashing on for fair ages/conditions/environmental safeguards. And of course slowing down the economic treadmill because we are facing a contagious epidemic...

Where to from here ? But I won't accept that this situation just means we cannot recognise and tackle issues. It is in fact the oldest argument in the book to deflect legitimate criticism of bad practices.

I think the whole social upheaval that is happening, will bring clarity to all the issues that need addressing, I also think many of the outcomes wont be what people think.
The system cant bring about change, without an increase in endeavour and application, currently those who are demanding change are wrecking public property, which will require those who are already working the hardest having to fund the repairs.
This cant end well, someone needs to ask, what do you want? Really what do you want?

 

[basilio]

That is such a big, big challenge... Trying to untangle that can of worms would lead one into a rabbit hole of Alice in the Looking Glass proportions.

Yes. We all with miniscule exceptions purchase products from suppliers who badly exploit their workers. None of us really want to think about it too much. Suppliers don't want to know about what their agents source. We all keep mum and buy the next cheap goodie.

Principles of fair wages, safe working conditions might seem like a "good idea" but the world of economic reality (maximise profit, screw the workers and the environment) almost always wins the day.

And of course the biggest fight we have on ASF is about those bloody "virtual (sic) signalling " commies who are destroying our economy and culture by bashing on for fair ages/conditions/environmental safeguards. And of course slowing down the economic treadmill because we are facing a contagious epidemic...

Where to from here ? But I won't accept that this situation just means we cannot recognise and tackle issues. It is in fact the oldest argument in the book to deflect legitimate criticism of bad practices.

IMV one critical issue on why fair wages, quality products and environmental safeguards are losing badly at the moment is the intense competition amongst capitalists to be the richest guy on the block (or the world)

The evidence is that since the early 80's the share of national income that has gone to the top 1% or less has risen dramatically. This determination to extract ever increasing profits from the economic system has inevitably meant keeping ages down, reducing work opportunities and cutting every corner when it comes to environmental issues.

Since 1980, the World Inequality Report data has shown that the share of national income going to the richest 1 percent has increased rapidly in North America (defined here as the United States and Canada), China, India, and Russia and more moderately in Europe. World Inequality Lab researchers note that this period coincides with the rollback in these countries and regions of various post-World War II policies aimed at narrowing economic divides. By contrast, they point out, countries and regions that did not experience a post-war egalitarian regime, such as the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and Brazil, have had relatively stable, but extremely high levels of inequality.

Check out the figures. There are some quite astounding graphs on the wealth of a few individuals vs the rest of the world

https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/

 

[wayneL]

IMV one critical issue on why fair wages, quality products and environmental safeguards are losing badly at the moment is the intense competition amongst capitalists to be the richest guy on the block (or the world)

The evidence is that since the early 80's the share of national income that has gone to the top 1% or less has risen dramatically. This determination to extract ever increasing profits from the economic system has inevitably meant keeping ages down, reducing work opportunities and cutting every corner when it comes to environmental issues.

Since 1980, the World Inequality Report data has shown that the share of national income going to the richest 1 percent has increased rapidly in North America (defined here as the United States and Canada), China, India, and Russia and more moderately in Europe. World Inequality Lab researchers note that this period coincides with the rollback in these countries and regions of various post-World War II policies aimed at narrowing economic divides. By contrast, they point out, countries and regions that did not experience a post-war egalitarian regime, such as the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and Brazil, have had relatively stable, but extremely high levels of inequality.

Check out the figures. There are some quite astounding graphs on the wealth of a few individuals vs the rest of the world

View attachment 104750


https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/

I think this is the reason behind the reason, moreso than perceived racism.

One small point of order, this system is not capitalist, nor are the beneficiaries. What we have is corporatism... Socialism for the elite.

 

[wayneL]

Racism.... Thread

 

[dutchie]

The BLM movement and stirring up racism is just an orchestrated step in overthrowing the West to be replaced by communism.
So far they are winning (anarchy in US and UK)
Do not be fooled by the media and politicians that it is anything else.

Keep playing around with stock trading, make the most of it while you can, because your kids won't be able to.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

IMV one critical issue on why fair wages, quality products and environmental safeguards are losing badly at the moment is the intense competition amongst capitalists to be the richest guy on the block (or the world)

The evidence is that since the early 80's the share of national income that has gone to the top 1% or less has risen dramatically. This determination to extract ever increasing profits from the economic system has inevitably meant keeping ages down, reducing work opportunities and cutting every corner when it comes to environmental issues.

Since 1980, the World Inequality Report data has shown that the share of national income going to the richest 1 percent has increased rapidly in North America (defined here as the United States and Canada), China, India, and Russia and more moderately in Europe. World Inequality Lab researchers note that this period coincides with the rollback in these countries and regions of various post-World War II policies aimed at narrowing economic divides. By contrast, they point out, countries and regions that did not experience a post-war egalitarian regime, such as the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and Brazil, have had relatively stable, but extremely high levels of inequality.

Check out the figures. There are some quite astounding graphs on the wealth of a few individuals vs the rest of the world

View attachment 104750


https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/

I would rather live in a world of capitalism, with all its imperfections, than a communist world where everyone is dead poor.

 

[basilio]

I would rather live in a world of capitalism, with all its imperfections, than a communist world where everyone is dead poor.

How about a fairer world where people got a decent wage and there were worthwhile jobs ?

If you checked out the graph I posted and the website you would see that pre 1980 economic progress had been made across the whole economy. Since then whether it was the US, USSR/Russia the countries wealth has flowed to the richest and hang the rest.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

I think this is the reason behind the reason, moreso than perceived racism.

One small point of order, this system is not capitalist, nor are the beneficiaries. What we have is corporatism... Socialism for the elite.

I think many are just jealous of other people's success. Most of the top 1% today, in the USA, came from modest wealth. Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffett etc. These guys made their fortunes, a great deal of luck, timing and help from others; but they came from little.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

How about a fairer world where people got a decent wage and there were worthwhile jobs ?

If you checked out the graph I posted and the website you would see that pre 1980 economic progress had been made across the whole economy. Since then whether it was the US, USSR/Russia the countries wealth has flowed to the richest and hang the rest.

I believe in a meritocracy; where the most talented and hard working are rewarded in society. That is what's fair in my eyes.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

How about a fairer world where people got a decent wage and there were worthwhile jobs ?

If you checked out the graph I posted and the website you would see that pre 1980 economic progress had been made across the whole economy. Since then whether it was the US, USSR/Russia the countries wealth has flowed to the richest and hang the rest.

Are you suggesting that communism is the answer for everyone getting decent jobs and better pay?
Communism has failed in Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, even China until they embraced capitalism. Communism has always led to death and disaster; recorded history speaks for itself.

 

[basilio]

I believe in a meritocracy; where the most talented and hard working are rewarded in society. That is what's fair in my eyes.

That is not what is happening Chronos.

The concentration and accumulation of wealth amongst a smaller and smaller group of people isn't because they are talented and hard working.

It's because they are (mostly) ruthless people who have managed to create an environment where anything they do to accumulate money is acceptable and promoted but if workers organise to get a living wage they are threatened with losing their jobs and accused of being "commies".

It's because these organisations now pull the strings of their Governments and get the multi trillion dollar tax breaks that mean the richest people in the US are on lower tax brackets than low paid employees.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

That is not what is happening Chronos.

The concentration and accumulation of wealth amongst a smaller and smaller group of people isn't because they are talented and hard working.

It's because they are (mostly) ruthless people who have managed to create an environment where anything they do to accumulate money is acceptable and promoted but if workers organise to get a living wage they are threatened with losing their jobs and accused of being "commies".

It's because these organisations now pull the strings of their Governments and get the multi trillion dollar tax breaks that mean the richest people in the US are on lower tax brackets than low paid employees.

I think you're misguided. I would rather live in a world where the individual is free to pursue and seek what they wish; whether it be fortune, fame, glory or knowledge; or a combination there of.
There are no guarantees in life and we don't live in a perfect world.
Capitalism as it stands at the moment, could be more fair to those who are talented and hard working, no question about it; but communism is certainly not the answer, if this is what you're suggesting.