“Black People Were Just Less Smart Back Then” -Grandma
“Black People Were Just Less Smart Back Then” -Grandma
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/17967345
HOT DONUT DEPARTMENT
For a second I thought they had their own police outpost.
My grandfather started going on a anti-trump, anti-fascism rant and I saw him kind of pause to check if I was that trump cultist lol. It was very heartening
My other grandfather was a vocal racist, sexist, homophobe who died of covid because he believed Trump's lies. Rot in pieces
Trump literally killed off hundreds of thousands of bigots with his lies about covid. That was silver lining of his term
I'd like to know more about this Hot Donut Department
Well my grandparents wouldn't have been allowed in that shop, given there was an embargo in the us against people like my grandparents until 1943, though its not at all why my grandfather hated America and Americans for most of his life.
Unfortunately some folks identified with both.
Grandfather was a MoC, he still forbade my mom from dating black men because he thought they were all thugs.
That's not identifying with both that's just adhering to a slightly different cultural norm.
Yeah. Not that unusual for the time.
I don't understand what the image is depicting exactly, there's one black person in the picture and she's sitting there while that guy is about to drip something on the head of the woman next to her?
Is it a picture of white people bullying a group for having a black friend?
It’s a sit in, protesting laws that said establishments could refuse to serve black people (or serve them horribly,)
This was the form civil disobedience took, where they would go, make a scene, get arrested, and then argue in court that the law was unjust.
This is from the Woolworth's sit-in, where people sat at the segregated lunch counter in protest.
Other people who did not like this verbally and physically abused them.https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-anne-moody-20150211-story.html
Lunch counters were segregated in the US. A fairly common protest was black folk sitting at lunch counters and trying to order lunch. This often causes uproar and unrest, riots. I believe the woman who's about to have water poured on her head is black, it's just that the picture makes her look white, or she's fairly passing.
They’re having salt dumped on them too, for the grave offense of sitting at a Whites-only lunch counter.
If this mob of hick bullies wasn’t there to torment them, well, black people might eat lunch there. Obviously that would be the end of the world, and all would be lost.
No, but also essentially yes
Are we counting the people that ignored reality as the group behind?
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.
Apathy is participation when the issue is bigotry.
Yeah, there was certainly a third group who was willfully avoiding involvement.
There still is, but there was one back then too.
I believe they’re represented in the photo by the man in a white shirt in the top right corner who isn’t paying attention to anything. Kind of on the nose, really.
(Which is a somewhat uncharitable interpretation, he could be looking away in disgust or just happen to glance away when the photo was taken)
A lot of the time, willfully avoiding involvement still meant ostracizing groups.
False dichotomy is false. People are complicated.
If your moral certitude is so easily triggered that this purity test gets a "hell yeah." Then can you please pause to reflect?
My parents were on both sides of this. I am a very long distance from where they were. They taught me one thing, thought another.
Which does that make them?
You can't use "certitude" and "triggered" in the same sentance, it makes you sound like you copy pasted random shit from a script online about how to counter argue anti racism.
Homie, take a deep breath. This is a picture of civil rights protesters being attacked by explicit white supremacists. There's no false dichotomy here. The moderate whites didn't show up to attack civil rights protesters, or kill them, or set up bombs to kill anyone of color in KKK terrorist attacks. They stayed home, and clicked their tongues, possibly wagged a finger. There's no nuance here, you showed up to protest for civil rights, or you showed up to support white supremacy, or you stayed home.
If you think that's ''moral certitude'' (seriously stop using words you don't understand, your embarrassing yourself) you're just a fucking idiot or a white supremacist.
I'm not directly addressing the image. I'm addressing the text.
The text says there are two choices and only one is possible for any individual as their legacy of thought.
The picture is a defining moment in time. It catalyzed change. The legacy of thought that was passed to me was mixed...
That said, can you help me understand how the text message embedded helps move the racial conversation forward? Or how its message is at least not harmful to engaging those who need help to see the flaws in their racial mindset?
Because once I've demonized people, I don't communicate with them as well. I think that's fairly typical, really.
Right now the post just looks like an empty virtue signal that helps people feel righteous while also erecting bigger walls.
I'm growing increasingly skeptical of "people are complicated" being anything more than a method of shaming people for discussing certain subjects.
We need to discuss groups of people and that inherently involves generalising their beliefs. Nobody is going to track down every single person in that photo and confirm the nuances of their racism just in case they thought it was the line for hot doughnuts, so the conversation people are having here becomes impossible.
Your mother's specific views on black people don't matter to any conversation people are having in academic or social media circles. We're all perfectly aware that individuals have more complex opinions but we're not talking about individuals.
But even more bizarrely, why do you think your mother's views are some kind of "gotcha"? She was racist when it came to you dating a black person, which she inherently attempted to hand down to you. For the purposes of this conversation, we absolutely know what group she belongs to. She's doesn't get a free pass just because she didn't have the whole set.
Pointing out the fallacy in a post that weaponizes shaming is not shaming. I have not shamed.
If you feel ashamed by my words, then my point is poorly made or this is another attempt to bring things away from understanding and dialogue and back to how to resume righteous feeling.
We need effective persuasion. We need facts. We need discourse to change things.
Saying 60ish years ago a person was on a side and ergo absolutely made only one line of thought their legacy is a false dichotomy. I was taught equality until, as an adult, my parents didn't like interracial dating.
I used their holy book, reason, love. Not shame. Shame galvanizes and rarely leads its target to engage in open dialogue needed to move things.
Some people deserve shame. But we, the left, are galvanizing wide swatches of the population against the very points we say we want to engage and spread. That means conversations we need to have, like CRB are getting rejected without even being heard in any meaningful way.
Weaponized shame on a mass scale says more about feels than it does about maturity and getting our stated goals.
And I suspect well over half the people driving these galvanizing mechanics are not the people CRB would most benefit. If you're a literal white crusader hell bent on dividing the world into the worthy and the enemy, I gotta wonder why.
I want a world where the realities of the past are discussed frankly. I want it decades or centuries ago. If I can't have that, I want it now.
How are we to have the conversation when our "enemies" galvanize enough to throw out the modest things that at least allowed toe holds? Does shame build dialogue?
What is the goal of the original post really?
Where were my parents in that picture? Silent. Absent. But not approving of the bullies. Not all the way aware of the shadows of their thoughts, but definitely sympathetic to those being bullied.
Otherwise, let's divide the world into the blameless and allies. I'm 50, I'm not blameless. But I've been an ally. I read, I engage, I vote my awareness of history and obvious enduring issues.
But I'm not blameless. Even the me that dated interracial, and married interracial had learning to do. Still do. Being righteous makes my own education less likely. How can I learn when I'm certain of my righteousness? I'm a fucking middle aged white dude. What do I know about living a black life? Even as a parent of biracial children I cannot attest to living a black life.
I have no holy hill to stand upon. I have no conviction so superior I can feel justified in placing my feels in they way of progress. And feeling righteous will only get in the way of hearing the voices of the actually oppressed.
I think that's happened enough. Virtue signaling whit folk (like me?) need to book up, read, educated ourselves beyond the facts. And we need to realize as we rightly become angered by history that that history still isn't about us - or if it is, it's more about other populations. And we need to leave enough space and humility for those to be heard.
And to learn how to be effective allies.
I'm not arguing against urgency. I'm questioning the efficacy of lumping people into a vast bucket scorned sinners. OP wasn't attempting to save or redeem those who were wrong.
It sought righteous feeling as an endpoint.
And fuck that noise. I want a more righteous reality. That's my goal. And I'd like it with urgency. And I don't care if I have to be humble and teachable along the way. Hell, that even sounds like a good idea.
There are ways to have the conversations I'm sure you want. But a Pic that says a person much choose ONE and does so with the kind of conviction I usually see from a virtuous white person... I'm not sure that's how we do it.
Ya follow?
Race is nuanced. Why a variety of people in the black commimunity are uncomfortable with interracial dating... That's also nuanced. It's best not handled as a strict either/or because shit's complicated.
And history matters. And the white disrespect of blacks throughout history may only run to the present in a new form. White folk aren't the story. The impact of white folk in history... That is.
How we make inroads, that's a conversation worth having too.
Can you tell me how Ops post helps?
I am sorry, what’s your point? Can you elaborate?
I was encouraged to read biographies of important black figures in US history. About Abraham Lincoln. Various different things that very naturally led me to see blacks as peers.
Then i dated a black woman. Same person who was happy and strongly encouraged the books had strong negative reaction to dating.
Which is the parent. The post says to pick **one. **
It is not a nuanced or adult take on people. It is a reactionary purity test of an adolescent mind (regardless of OP's age).
The same parent was both. OP does not allow that. But my mom was not purely one. Years of encouragement of specific reading wasn't an accident.
Dichotomies. Brightnlines of either or... Are very often false choices that deceive the credulous or unskeptical.
Were any of these kids found and interviewed later on in life?
The kids getting abused, yeah.
https://www.crmvet.org/nars/greensit.htm
The kids doing the abusing - strangely, no. No one’s interviewed them so far as a quick search could tell.
Interestingly, the waitress not pictured here was interviewed for StoryCorps. https://storycorps.org/stories/woolworths-lunch-counter-waitress/
That was in Jackson, MS, as opposed to the Greensboro one.
Wow, interesting! Thanks for the reading material.
What about the other groups that wouldn't have been with either side of this? There's more than two groups of people.
No there aren't; not in matters like this.
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.
The groups that didn't know it was happening? The groups that didn't believe in having a passive sit in and wanted to use non passive means? The groups that didn't want to go to a place where they felt unwelcome?
Yes, there are still a lot of other groups besides ones that just chose to stay out of it.
Describe the groups.
I did in an above comment.
Lol imagine having this take seriously though.
Because humans only produce like minded offspring, incapable of forming their own thoughts opinions and values. There has never been political tension between generations over schema shifts that also don't happen. E: big heckin /s in case that wasn't obvious
The point is that CRT is important because white people have often been fed a version of reality that has been heavily edited to make racism seem less impactful than it actually was/is at best.
If Grandma is telling you that people of color were lesser human beings back in the day or "uppity" and all that scholastic history teaches is "Racism was a thing, but then MLK and it all got better!" It devalues the entire lesson.
Racism is highly heritable. This comports to the research, personal observation, and common sense.
The observation that it's not 100% heritable is obtuse. Height is only 60-80% heritable.
Racism is highly heritable
No it's not. It's not passed down in the genes. It's something you're taught. The people who provided someone's genes (parents) may frequently be the ones who teach them as kids. But, for it to be heritable would mean that the child of a KKK member raised by Freedom Riders would end up racist because it was in his genes.
Many of these people are are still alive and voting. No one is saying generational trends can't be broken.
There is also not one single shred of evidence that exists to show that parents teach their beliefs to their children.
Not one piece of evidence.
slash ess
It's a little hard to interpret the level of sarcasm in your comment, which is why I think it's caused so much disagreement.
