As an Asian, I would STILL rather be white than black. Even with all the affirmative action and being able to pull the race card out of my back pocket. The effort it takes to pull the race card whenever bad shit happens (deserved or not) versus just going through life with the luxury of wondering if racism even really exists. Its a no brainer.
Sometimes Chris Rock pisses me off, but I listen to him because he’s very good at reminding me of uncomfortable things it is all too easy for someone such as myself to forget. Indeed, it’s often when he makes me uncomfortable that I most need to hear what he’s saying.
The playing field is NOT level.
When do you believe that it started that “blacks have a lot more institutional power than whites do”? When do you believe that “perceived or real instances of blacks being harassed are taken far more seriously than similar against whites” became true? Was it always this way in American history, and if not, when do you think this became the case?
Back when I lived in Albuquerque, 1990-91, I didn’t have a TV, so I listened to the radio at night. I remember Larry King claiming it was impossible for blacks to be racist since they’ve been the underdogs for so long. I see his point but am not sure I agree with that. To me, racist is racist.
How should I know? I know what I see now.
If I had to guess, I would say the dynamic been gradually building ever since the Civil Rights movement won over the public in the 50s and 60s. (Though it would vary a lot based on place and situation.) I couldn’t tell you when the tipping point was reached.
In any event, what I’ve stated in this thread is not at all contingent on the answer to that question.
Okay. You won’t be surprised to read that I disagree with your statement incredibly strongly. If black people had more institutional power than white people do, then one would think that black people would be overrepresented among institutions, and the policies black people favor statistically would be overrepresented among policies that are actually in place.
By the way, I don’t believe the Civil Rights movement “won over the public in the 50s and 60s” (though I’ll look it up to confirm) – IIRC, public sentiment about the Civil Rights movement in the 60s was quite similar to public sentiment about BLM now.
Here’s a link (Salon, which sucks, but they link to the polls). Actually, according to the polls in the article, the Civil Rights movement (and Freedom Riders in particular) in the 60s were less popular than BLM is now.
The concept that "my racism is OK because OPPRESSION’ is pretty broken when you actually look at it, but the people who adhere to hit like to make a lot of noise.
No, it would shock me if you didn’t.
I’m familiar with your ideology, by this point.
I assume you’re being imprecise here and what you really mean is “the policies black people favor statistically [and which white people don’t favor] would be overrepresented among policies that are actually in place”
If that’s what you meant, then what you say doesn’t logically follow. It’s very difficult for 13% of a population to impose its will on the majority, in a democratic society. But it doesn’t follow that they don’t have outsize institutional authority. This can be accomplished by winning over enough of the majority populations to your cause, which is what I’ve suggested has happened here.
Your cites seem to be about the public perception of specific tactics used by the CRM. My point is that the public was won over to the notion that 1) there was pervasive racism against black people in the US, and 2) that this needed to be eradicated. This created a heightened sensitivity to issues that are, or are perceived to be, part of that pervasive racism, and this gives black people institutional power than it not available to whites.
Sorry if my answer (which was four words long) and my argument are too complicated for you. But it is what it is.
I’ve always said what prevents institutional racism is the fear of outside intervention. And what’s outside intervention for a city? The state and national government. So the issue of city independence has been there all along.
I guess I should have made this point clearly. Oh no, wait, I did do that.
I’m not sure I buy that.
First of all, there was then, and still exists now, a group of white people who not only recognize pervasive racism against blacks, but they think that’s good thing, meaning they believe they (the white bigots) should be on top.
Second, you can agree that black people shouldn’t be lynched and should be allowed to use public bathrooms without thinking them your social, political, or moral equal. A lot of white folks agreed the more egregious abuses were wrong and should be eliminated but in no way thought black folks were in any way their equal.
So, while there is some consensus on some points, I doubt the general public is as fully sold on the notion of “eradicating” racism as you seem to think.
I’m talking about the majority of white people.
There are a minority of racists of the type that you describe, but their views are not what decides public policy these days, and as such are not relevant to this particular discussion.
I think the majority of the public probably was won over to this notion eventually – but I don’t believe they were won over by the 50s and 60s, and I don’t believe polling supports this.
Even if this is true, I don’t believe that this one particular type of possible institutional power comes close to matching the incredible institutional power that comes from actually owning and running institutions (e.g. big media companies, big corporations with lots of employees, high levels in government, etc.), for which white people are overrepresented.
OK, whatever the timeline was. At some point between then and now the public was won over.
OK, so that’s where we disagree.
IMO, having a lot of people of the same type as you does very very little if those people are not particularly inclined to favor you on that basis to begin with, and further constrained by the fear of electoral, legal, and PR consequences.
We clearly disagree.
First, as I’ve said, I feel institutional racism has significantly declined. I feel institutional racism is relatively uncommon and most racism in America now is either personal or situational. I think we’d agree on that point. And we’d probably agree that institutional racism against blacks has received more attention than institutional racism against whites.
But I’m pretty sure we’d disagree with the reasons. Because my position is that institutional racism against whites has never been a problem in America and therefore has never needed a solution.
I always like to find the actual points of disagreement! 
Considering that people, whether racially biased or not, are more likely to hire people that they know or that look/sound/act like them, more likely to react positively to (and portray positively in the media) people that look/sound/act like them, and similar phenomena, I think this sort of high-level institutional control is enormously influential in our society (and far, far more so than the possible factor you mention), and the best justification for policies like Affirmative Action, even as such institutional biases are less significant and influential now than in the past.
I understand you disagree, but I believe this is the drilled-down ultimate reason for our disagreement.
Why not? I don’t think anybody is going to agree that there’s an acceptable amount of murders. The ideal we’re going for is zero.
Can we ever reach that goal? Maybe not. It’s hard to see how we could do it. But look at things like cannibalism, human sacrifice, and slavery - these all used to be widespread and openly practiced. But they’ve all been virtually eradicated.
I don’t think who gets hired and how people react to other people is about “high level institutional control”, and ISTM that you’re conflating two separate issues.
Are you talking about “institutional racism” or “institutional power”?
ISTM that the conversation until now has been about the latter, and that you’re just switched the subject.
I think they’re highly connected and interrelated. Likelihoods of getting hired, and how folks are portrayed in the media, among other similar factors, are definitely a part of institutional biases and differences in power, in my view.