The message is reflective of the sentiment that “most people would feel little sense of pride or accomplishment in winning a race they started with an unfair advantage” (Rothenberg p.4). It is to the detriment of races to harbor ill sentiments towards each other, therefore the revelation of the particularity of whiteness could clarify aggressions and false notions. For example, due to the egotistical and oblivious belief, by whites, that the country is theirs, whites will not be able to understand the sense of debt African Americans believe they are owed. The power and rule of white power is another reason to study whiteness. By understanding it we could possibly end its innate hold on society and clarify the false promise of meritocracy.
Therefore, there are some opinions/contributions I have concerning the information these sources have provided. The first article Critical Race Theory, could elaborate more on how exactly CRT was influenced by other philosophers and previous moments. This can help the reader further understand the important ideas CRT got from others. Additionally, Peggy McIntosh’s article lacked the male prospective in her 46 conditions. By providing male experiences, it would offer the reader further understanding of how white privilege affects the male and female African Americans and whites.
The main difference that we see between both racial ethnic groups is that white Americans believed that they could strip Native Americans from their culture and civilize them while “nurture could not improve the nature of blacks” (67). Although some Native Americans did try to live under the laws of white Americans, they were eventually betrayed and forced to leave the
It 's not just the defendants that show the prejudice, bias and corruption going on the American Justice System but rather the people that make up of it too. Particularly the jurors from both texts and Bob Ewell in particular. The mentality of the them in particular is that "a fair trial is only for fair skin" which Bob Ewell benefited from despite being "poor white trash" and his family being "disgrace of Maycomb for three generations" and Tom Robinson was quite a respected member from the negro community and even
DuBois also wanted it to be recognized that high unemployment among blacks was not because they were lazy it was because whites did not want to employ them. (PP. 241,242) Slide 6 Most contemporary sociologists agree with Weber’s view of ethnicity Most contemporary sociologists also favor DuBois’ position The reason why most contemporary sociologists will disregard Weber’s view of race is because most contemporary sociologists think we may even have a subjective perception of biological similarity. (P. 242) Slide 7 Historically race has mattered more to people than ethnicity did Ethnic groups face discrimination as well but they do not not experience it to the degree that race does Racial categories are basically given to people while ethnic groups are usually chosen by people for themselves (although it wasn’t always this way) (P. 242) Slide 8 The textbook mentions a lot that many different sociologists find that they see race and ethnicity overlap in many places which makes the differences between the two so hard to
While certain laws prohibit discrimination based on race, they do not abolish racism completely. Some people are open to accepting change, but others, especially in the south, prefer to stick to their moral values. But regardless, people need to start accepting that racism is a myth. In the words of Grant Wiggins in the novel “A Lesson Before Dying:” “A myth is an old lie that people believe in. White people believe that they’re better than anyone else on earth – and that’s a myth.
Blacks were consistently denied their deserved voting rights due to reading tests. Some Social Darwinists believed that it was lawful and proper for all these injustices to occur because some nations had the right to command and control “lesser people”. Even some presidents of the time would not look into the issue and avoided talk about elevated levels of racism and nativism. Minorities and the inequality they saw everyday was extraordinarily jarring and still visible
This is often related to the stereotypes that are correlated with code-switching. After reading THUG and Youngs article against code-switching, a question might arise; When is the person code-switching stupid and when is it okay? While being a white well-known, maybe even famous, man or woman, some might think they are less intelligent for using code-switching words like, “ain’t” or “sayin’”. While society expects African American citizens to use code-switching, they do not have the same expectations for a white citizen. If the “slang” words are used by this important white figure, like a president or a motivational speaker then they are taken less seriously and often stereotyped as dumb or stupid.
This video was all about exposing white privilege in our society today and how and why white people are still blind to it, as they have been throughout history. Systematic racism started near the beginning of our society, when poor white people and poor black people banded together to fight for justice against the elite white people, but the elite whites weren’t about to have that, so they told the poor white people that they had more in common with them, the elite whites, than their poor black peers, even though that was a complete lie. But that lie still permeates our society today. However, today that racism is less on an individual basis and more on a systematic basis, where everything from housing to healthcare to law enforcement is racist. And white people don’t see it because that racism benefits us; we sometimes see that people of color are downtrodden in our
One of them even had a research in it of a mock trial that showed the bias of white jurors against black defendants. What ever one sources lacked the other had plenty of. For example the policy report missed things that had to do with the Supreme Court like the “stop and frisk” decision of Terry v. Ohio, this is talked about in the law review though with several pieces of data about the usage of it by the NYPD. The law review lacked more modern information focusing more on different Supreme Court cases, the other two sources in the other hand looked at what things are like now. The peer review lacked information on things like unequal prison rates instead focusing a lot on the death penalty, still the fact that it had a legit experiment helped prove my point a lot.
One concern is that BWP leads to over incarceration, which Kelling and Bratton respond to this by admitting that, yes, it does; however, the crimes people are being imprisoned for are far less serious than those that are being prevented by BWP and their sentences are thus much shorter. But, the main concern is that SQF, and therefore BWP is inadmissibly discriminatory towards minorities. Once again, Kelling and Bratton give ground by not defending the abhorrent results of the 2011 SQF’s, which resulted in over 700,000 stops and only a 6% success rate. They instead talk about how much their methods have improved with far fewer stops and a higher success rate. This may seem like an odd way to address the claim of discrimination, but the point is that they now are making much more calculated decisions when stopping people, and not just frisking minorities at random.
So far in 2016 white criminals account for 71% of police officer killings. How is it possible that a crime that often demands the death penalty has an overwhelming percentage of White perpetrators, yet these same people are executed much less frequently? The answer is that if the system was not racist, these results would be impossible. Many supporters of the death penalty often cite the “eye for an eye argument,” meaning that if someone kills another individual, the murderer should suffer execution. This argument, although not the most peaceful, is undoubtedly the most fair way of going about things, assuming of course there are no outside factors that would make the results biased.
I think Justice‘s Harlan‘s predictions that because of the court‘s ruling, society would come to the belief that the two races were not created equal, did come to pass. After the court rejected Plisse‘s argument, more segregation did happen in many areas. The ruling did impact the country in that it allowed segregation to exist in business and public places furthering the idea that one race was inferior to the other. I think the rest of the court ignored his warnings because they didn‘t think prejudice should be regulated by the law. They didn‘t believe that forcing the two races to exist together would overcome racial prejudices and that the 14h Amendment was not created with that intention.