The argument is that living as an ethnic minority in the US generally means being subject to repeated and ongoing racial microaggressions. Do you disagree with that statement, or merely think it is NOT a burden to be so subject?
I don’t agree that such claims should be made of such a large group of individuals. It is in very poor taste to assert that someone lives under burden because they are an ethnic minority.
! Including the slavery stuff? Wow, now there’s an unquestionably burdensome aspect of ethnic minority status.
What about it is in “poor taste”? While I concur it would be rude to make that the focus of one’s conversation upon meeting any member of an ethnic minority group (“Nice to meet you, and my deepest sympathies on the unfair burden of discrimination against your community because of their ethnic minority status!”), there is nothing rude or tasteless about acknowledging that basic fact in the context of a serious sociopolitical discussion like this thread.
I would add some anecdotes, but one can look at data here, a recent study (very related to the issue at hand) showed that minorities are not being helped properly during the pandemic in many states.
The aim of these metrics is to measure how governments protect and accommodate the needs of marginalized populations, the release said.
“The Covid-19 pandemic produced stark disparities by race, age and other demographics that reminded us of the vulnerability of certain marginalized communities as well as inequalities in health care access and policy. Our Covid Index and analysis confronts this reality,” co-author Stephen Menendian said in the release.
The top-three states in the institute’s study were Vermont, Alaska and Maine.
Worldwide, the U.S. ranked 161st out of 172 countries, while the United Arab Emirates, Denmark and Iceland ranked atop the national rankings.
link to the site with a download link to the study:
One more thing to take into account for the ones that nonsensically think that giving priority to a group is unconstitutional, one does get the impression that they complain a lot even when most of the minorities are behind in Vermont and for a reason too. The authorities in Vermont are doing the step of looking at minorities only after the very high risk group (people that are older and are almost all white there) got their vaccine already.
It’s not a “basic fact”. A burden is something felt by an individual.
I’m placed in the poor position of discussing manners on a message board, but let me just mention the long line of Black intellectuals who have looked at their blackness as empowering and far from a burden. You never know, with today’s racial discourse, this line of thought may have been suppressed such that you and others are not familiar with it.
Also, in case you didn’t know, one can take an originalist view of constitutional amendments such as the reconstruction amendments.
Did those same intellectuals regard being subject to microaggressions over and over and over again as empowering? Being so subject correlates with blackness, but isn’t the same or identical thing as blackness.
Let me guess, @Earl_McCabe : You’re white, aren’t you. You know what’s really presumptuous? A non-minority telling minorities that they shouldn’t regard racism as a burden.
Feeling empowered does not mean that those intellectuals are given lots of opportunity and a voice just like very unsavory conservatives. (Just check the really, really unhinged criticism of intellectuals of color using a framework like the Critical Race Theory).
Also, being smart does not lead to a reduction of the prejudice they encounter, in reality it is more likely that several conservatives are more weary of minorities that are smarter.
Those aren’t original. And there is an unsavory origin to the originalist point of view that I have seen being used nowadays by “race realists” or “scientific racists” also.
I never spoke for a race or said their “status as an ethnic minority” was a burden. Try reading it again:
Also, some of the underlying conditions might be long term effects of being people of color living in America. There is starting to be a quantification of the deleterious health effects of being under the stress of that burden every day of your life.
There is certainly a burden that comes from being a person of color living in America.
I you find it unspeakably rude to mention it, I don’t know what to say, other than, not mentioning it is part of what adds to the weight of it.
People can be proud and uplifted by their identity and their heritage, and still feel an external burden.
You shouldn’t speak for another. It’s rude. In the future you should reference those that have expressed the feeling of a burden so the claim is in context.
As a Hispanic that lived in Arizona under racist sheriff Joe Arpaio, I also hope you will be well. While I also do know that you are likely to do better.
@Kimstu thanks for those case links that really do seem to answer the question definitively.
My side is that it is clearly justified as public health policy. Narrower parsing of demographics MIGHT do more good but more likely any gain would be offset by the problems of added complexities.
As to the hijack - being a specific minority is not a burden; dealing with the inequities inherent in our society imposed by others and by structures upon someone on the basis of that identity is. To claim otherwise is absurd.
I have given you a lesson in etiquette is all. I’m not speaking for anyone other than myself. I have made reference to some things that run counter to your assertion. Where have I spoken for anyone?
Your interpretation of etiquette is drastically inappropriate to this situation. You are confusing a discussion of the burdensome effects of systemic discrimination as a general sociocultural phenomenon with a presumptuous attempt to “speak for” somebody else’s individual experience.
Nobody here has been making any such attempt, so your “etiquette lesson” is irrelevant.
As a person of color, liberal, and a lawyer (in that order in terms of how mutable each characteristic is), I find this rule concerning. I’ll wait and see if the governor’s office has clear statistics that justify this rather vague distinction before clutching my pearls, but it’s hard for me to see how this could be constitutional.
I don’t agree with you about the dictates of etiquette here, but even if I did, I’d rather be considered rude and acknowledge racism and our history as a white supremacist nation, and the burden that places on some people than to be considered polite and keep those realities under wraps.
I think perceptions of etiquette can sometimes be at odds with doing the right thing. Like speaking up when someone is being bullied or oppressed. Telling someone their joke is not OK can be considered rude by the joke teller – why not just politely chuckle and let it go? But that ignores the people that are hurt by not speaking up. What’s the polite thing to do in relation to the person who was the butt of the joke?
At any rate, as has been pointed out, the point I was making was appropriate for this discussion, and it was based on the data that others posted. It is part of the medical background that makes the OP decision sensible.