You’ve now moved from arguing that it’s OK to choose ethnic stereotypes because they make people comfortable to arguing that Tex-mex food isn’t associated with Latinos.
I agree you’re probably on marginally firmer ground in the second argument, but only by comparison.
Again…ALL those white people were just sitting around doing nothing?
I’m not buying it.
Most of history has recorded that most people working their asses off from birth to death…yeah, much better to NOT be a slave…but AFAIK tell, there weren’t a bunch of Robin Leaches (gawd what appropriate name) lounging around either.
No, of course not. I never said or implied any such thing. In fact, only a very small percentage of Southerners owned a significant number of slaves. IIRC, it’s like less than 1% of whites owned more than 30.
Of course, your feeling that criticism of slavery somehow denigrates poor white people doesn’t come out of nowhere. It has a long historical pedigree.
Denigrates is your word choice (and quite telling I might add).
Sure some unhappy slaves picked a shitload of cotton. So did a shitload of one supposes slightly less unhappy white people.
Which brings us back to display of cotton at Hobby Lobby. And the over the top reaction to it (the college thing is a whole other can of worms).
Please.
I didn’t make a claim – you did. Do you have a cite for the claim you made, or was it plucked from the ether?
It isn’t only associated with Latinos. Would you have a second thought about serving Chateaubriand to a French? Jerk chicken to a Jamaican? Sushi to a Japanese? Unless we know that they 1)Don’t like the dish or 2)Know that they have an adventurous palate. Many are finicky eaters and it is polite to try to serve food your guests will be comfortable with.
Again, do you have a cite for this that quantifies this in any way? I’m sure that at least some white people in America have picked cotton. I don’t know how many, and you’re making a claim that more white people picked cotton than black people. What leads you to this conclusion?
The idea you’ve expressed here, that poor whites were only slightly worse-off than slaves, is an idea you have because of racism. The fact that you express it here so plainly should serve as a reminder to others how very much alive-and-well these ideas are in America in 2017.
It is telling that you compare Latinos to non-Americans. You may be surprised to learn that these Latino students were probably born and raised…in the United States!
If that was the only instance, then it could be nothing. But if there are multiple instances of serving stereotypical food to different groups, along with decor that can be quite reasonably seen (whatever the intent) to reference slavery, then criticism seems appropriate.
This isn’t such a huge deal. Criticism isn’t such a huge deal. It’s okay to talk about these things, and it’s okay to criticize someone if you think they’re being insensitive. Serving stereotypical food to folks can be seen as condescending, since they might interpret it as implying they don’t eat other foods. When you add the slavery decor, even if it wasn’t meant to symbolize slavery, the tone-deafness (at best) is even more clear. If someone is that tone-deaf (or worse), criticizing them is helping to give them the tools to avoid such appearance of condescension and feeding into stereotypes in the future.
I’m really curious what the thought process was when selecting cotton centerpieces. Was it like, 'let’s think about something that stereotypes ethnicity. Hmm…ok flaming crosses…nah that wouldn’t go with the drapes. Nooses…hmm, they take up too much space. I know, cotton!
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Not the end of the world, but certainly not a proud moment.
Basic numbers and economics…kinda like the Drake Equation…could be wrong I suppose but the logic is not fundamentally flawed IMO.
What leads you to YOUR conclusion?
PS…IFF I am fundamentally wrong as wrong can be…then a counter cite should be a piece of cake…
Subtle sarcasm is lost on you apparently.
So then…since most Latinos don’t come from the US… :dubious: You can do better.
Poe’s law. Glad to hear you didn’t mean it.
Before 1865, nearly all the cotton picking in the US was done by slaves. Notably, pretty much all the cotton was grown in the South at this point. I can’t find a single cite that any significant number of white workers in the US picked cotton before then. Why would they? Slave labor was far, far cheaper (room and board only, and very poor quality room and board) than having to pay workers, and slaves worked much longer hours (and were subject to brutalization if they refused).
Afterwards, until the mechanical cotton picker was invented (1920s, but wasn’t very useful or reliable) and made reliable (in the 1950s), a mix of black and white sharecroppers picked most of the cotton in the US. At first (1870s), only freed black families were sharecroppers. Later, some white farmers also became sharecroppers, and by about 1930 or so, slightly more than half of Southern sharecroppers (8 or 9 million total) were white. So from 1930 to 1950, perhaps it would be accurate to say that more white Americans than black Americans picked cotton. But for all of American history? That’s ludicrous. Before 1865, virtually all cotton was picked by slaves under brutal conditions. From 1865 to the early 20th century, most of the cotton picking still would have been done by black sharecroppers. At some point, that changed, but based on all this the notion that more white people picked cotton than black people seems to be extremely unlikely.
See, that wasn’t so hard was it?
Though I might beg to differ on some details.
Then why did you make the claim? Maybe you should re-examine some of your basic assumptions on the topic.
Did you KNOW that or did you THINK you knew that and found a cite after the fact?
Common knowledge can be a dangerous thing on all sides.
I didn’t make any claim before I looked it up. I strongly suspected that your claim was BS, but I wasn’t going to make a claim about it (and I didn’t – asking you for a cite isn’t making a claim) until I actually looked it up and had a cite.