Thread: Black and White Racial Equality in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

So, what are people's feelings on the cartoon?

I find the cartoon a gross oversimplification of history.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Do you find my assessment of the two 'camps' to be accurate?

More or less. Though, I think you got a bit off base by labeling them liberal and conservative.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

I find the cartoon a gross oversimplification of history.

Certainly, but political cartoons are meant to make a quick point, not necessarily educate the reader on the vast and nuanced history of black and white people in the US. Do you think the message it conveys has any merit or doe you think any merit it may have had is ruined by its perhaps biased take on US history?

More or less. Though, I think you got a bit off base by labeling them liberal and conservative.

Fair enough, I was hesitant at labeling them those as well, as they are admittedly not too accurate (I lean left and am against affirmative action, for example). For the sake of discussion, we can call them whatever. Camp A and Camp B, for all I care.

Pure crap, a simplification of an extremely complex issue. Like trying to base the entire theory of evolution on one specific variation within one species.

I don't think every white person in America got where they are on the back of someone else. But if they did you would need to include a much larger group of underdogs than just blacks.

Originally Posted by chassisman

Pure crap, a simplification of an extremely complex issue. Like trying to base the entire theory of evolution on one specific variation within one species.

Yes, we've already established that it is a very simplified view of a complex issue. Which is, essentially, the purpose of political cartoons.

Ignoring the cartoon, do you think the rest of the post has any substance to it?

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Do you think the message it conveys has any merit or doe you think any merit it may have had is ruined by its perhaps biased take on US history?

Depends on one's knowledge of history, I suppose. Personally, being an avid student of history, its merit is diminished by the simplification it makes.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I don't think every person in America got where they are on the back of someone else.

I agree, a vast amount of white people in this country did not own slaves. However, I think it would be hard to argue that even the non-slave owning whites benefited from social inequality brought about from slave owning whites. My family never owned any slaves in its history, yet we still had the distinct advantage of not being slaves in our history.

But if they did you would need to include a much larger group of underdogs than just blacks.

Can't argue with that, but I'd like to specifically address the relations and equality between blacks and whites, as it is unique in comparison to the relations of other races.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I agree, a vast amount of white people in this country did not own slaves. However, I think it would be hard to argue that even the non-slave owning whites benefited from social inequality brought about from slave owning whites. My family never owned any slaves in its history, yet we still had the distinct advantage of not being slaves in our history.

ehhh, a fair point. Still doesn't reconcile with what is being put forward in the cartoon you posted.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I was just curious as to what people's feelings were about the above cartoon. Obviously, they've taken a rather complex issue and simplified it in order to get a point across, but often times that's quite an effective method. And, for the sake of discussion, lets ignore that it uses the term "reverse racism", which doesn't even make any sense, since racism is racism is racism.

Personally, I think the cartoon does raise some questions about black and white equality in the United States. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of Americans, no matter what political stripe they are, want a truly equal country where the color of one's skin doesn't factor in to one's ability to succeed or get a higher education or land a good job. Obviously, this is still not the case. There are still racist people in this country who prefer one race over the other and we have programs in place that give benefits to one race over another.

There appear to be two 'main' camps in how to best achieve full on racial equality in this country.

The first camp is general the liberal side of things. The cartoon above kind of illustrates the views of this camp. It argues that white people got a huge 'head start' and a lot of (involuntary) help by exploiting black people. An analogy I'll use from now on is (coincidentally enough) a track race. It argues that white people got a five minute head start ahead of the black guy, so if we want true equality, the black guy should be given advantages now to make up for that five minute gap. They may be running at the same pace now, but that doesn't make up for the head start the white guy got in the first place. Running at an equal pace, white people will always be five minutes ahead.

The other camp is generally the more conservative of the two. They argue that true equality can never occur as long as race even plays a factor any longer or if one race is given an advantage over another (such as affirmative action). Such practices, they argue, only serve to further racism in this country rather than reach any sort of even standing between the two races. The argument is fair and it makes sense, this camp is correct that for the races to be equal, they must be treated equal. It's an obvious conclusion.

However, there are flaws with both camps.

The conservative camp does not take into account that "five minute head start". Even if our laws were completely color blind and both runners were on an equal pace, the black runner will not catch up to the white runner and the two will never be running side by side. Of course, an argument can be made that black people will just need to work an extra bit harder in order to make up for that gap. But this ignores that in these modern times, black people don't have access to the massive advantages that white people did in the past, namely subjugating and enslaving another race to do their bidding. They can't declare Asians as their slaves and use their hard labor to build up massive family wealth and long lasting government influence, for example. The 'five minute advantage' white people got is no longer available.

The liberal side, however, has no real way of judging when the two runners are finally running side by side. They offer programs and social projects to help narrow the gap between the two runners, but they don't have any plan for an 'off switch' for these programs. When can they say "Okay, now we have full racial equality, let's get rid of all the programs and the entire mindset that give the minority race an advantage in catching up? In addition, these programs in place don't necessarily ensure that once the two races are running side by side that it will remain that way. In fact, they could be serving just the opposite. An argument could be made that these programs are the equivalent of giving the black runner a motorcycle to make up for the five minute gap. Once the black runner is even with the white runner and he gets off the motorcycle, will he still be able to run at the same pace? The black runner now has less exercise under his belt due to the motorcycle and now may find it difficult to keep pace with the white runner without the aid of the motorcycle.

So, what are people's feelings on the cartoon? Do you find my assessment of the two 'camps' to be accurate? Are there other mainstream camps that I'm completely missing? Are there ways to take the positive of both camps and create a camp that may serve our purposes better?

I'd say the cartoon is inaccurate. Affirmative action has been in place. White dude shouldve pulled the black dude up or something. Of course that doesn't make for a very poignant cartoon

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I agree, a vast amount of white people in this country did not own slaves. However, I think it would be hard to argue that even the non-slave owning whites benefited from social inequality brought about from slave owning whites. My family never owned any slaves in its history, yet we still had the distinct advantage of not being slaves in our history.

Can't argue with that, but I'd like to specifically address the relations and equality between blacks and whites, as it is unique in comparison to the relations of other races.

Many white people DO have a history of slavery in their ancestry...just not in THIS country.

I think the manner in which slavery was ended in this country was very unfortunate. I have heard the stories my black friends tell of former slaves being freed but because they had been taken care of for 200 years, had no clue how to survive on their own. Many perished because of this. Also, many who went north were summarily sent back to the plantations in the south. It was all handled VERY badly.

Some believe that the industrial revolution would have ended slavery. I can't say one way or another if it would or not. But expecting an upper class to immediately embrace a lower slave class as equals is completely unrealistic. Especially when that lower class has been foisted upon them as 'equals.' One has but to read the 'illegal immigration' threads on here to understand that the upper echelons will not accept the lower as equals. Even in Bible times, the Samaritans were the product of intermarriage between an upper class and a slave class. That is why the were so vilified and why the 'good Samaritan' was considered an anomaly.

It isn't about 'color'.....it is about class. Color has come to be considered the 'problem' in the last 50 years or so.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Depends on one's knowledge of history, I suppose. Personally, being an avid student of history, its merit is diminished by the simplification it makes.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

ehhh, a fair point. Still doesn't reconcile with what is being put forward in the cartoon you posted.

Curious, while the cartoon obvious omits vast amounts of American history, are their any specific historic events it omits that you think would nullify or at the very least weaken its point? I can think of a couple, just was wondering what your take was.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

The first camp is general the liberal side of things. The cartoon above kind of illustrates the views of this camp. It argues that white people got a huge 'head start' and a lot of (involuntary) help by exploiting black people. An analogy I'll use from now on is (coincidentally enough) a track race. It argues that white people got a five minute head start ahead of the black guy, so if we want true equality, the black guy should be given advantages now to make up for that five minute gap. They may be running at the same pace now, but that doesn't make up for the head start the white guy got in the first place. Running at an equal pace, white people will always be five minutes ahead.

...

The conservative camp does not take into account that "five minute head start". Even if our laws were completely color blind and both runners were on an equal pace, the black runner will not catch up to the white runner and the two will never be running side by side. Of course, an argument can be made that black people will just need to work an extra bit harder in order to make up for that gap. But this ignores that in these modern times, black people don't have access to the massive advantages that white people did in the past, namely subjugating and enslaving another race to do their bidding. They can't declare Asians as their slaves and use their hard labor to build up massive family wealth and long lasting government influence, for example. The 'five minute advantage' white people got is no longer available.

Whites have an advantage because of the inventions and high level of technology of their European ancestors. By your "logic", eastern Asians are morally culpable for inventing certain things before either Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, or any other group. The "head start" is therefore not a result of slavery. Rather, slavery was but one consequence of this initial technological advantage.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Many white people DO have a history of slavery in their ancestry...just not in THIS country.

I think the manner in which slavery was ended in this country was very unfortunate. I have heard the stories my black friends tell of former slaves being freed but because they had been taken care of for 200 years, had no clue how to survive on their own. Many perished because of this. Also, many who went north were summarily sent back to the plantations in the south. It was all handled VERY badly.

Some believe that the industrial revolution would have ended slavery. I can't say one way or another if it would or not. But expecting an upper class to immediately embrace a lower class as equals is completely unrealistic. One has but to read the 'illegal immigration' threads on here to understand that. Even in Bible times, the Samaritans were the product of intermarriage between an upper class and a slave class. That is why the were so vilified and why the 'good Samaritan' was considered an anomaly.

It isn't about 'color'.....it is about class. Color has come to be considered the 'problem' in the last 50 years or so.

Some good points here. I wonder if America's aversion to class equality (communism! socialism! ) plays a role in our difficulty in finding a decent solution to close a gap between blacks and white and yet set a foundation for lasting equality between the two.