urbanMSP

WHS: I'm happy to "agree to disagree".

For what it's worth, I work some with U.S. Paralympics and "disabled" is the term we use to describe the athletes. Certainly people have different tolerances, and I understand that. If you're a mom with a disabled child, you might be sensitive to certain language that feels like it limits your child, and I think most reasonable people would respect that. But describing a disabled person as disabled is not inherently offensive.

Similarly, it's not inherently offensive to describe a black person as black. I refer to AP Style, which is the baseline style for almost all U.S. newspapers. Again, some people will have their personal reasons for preferring African American, and normal people can respect those personal preferences. But if the most influential newspaper stylebook has determined that "black" is the appropriate word, it's hard to argue that it's inherently offensive.

I don't think either "black" or "disabled" are inherently offensive yet, but I do believe they're headed in that direction. Remember, "negro" used to be the polite term until it wasn't.

In any case, this discussion really isn't about these specific words so much as the general idea.

Related to this discussion, the important thing is not, in some sense, whether "person with disabilities" is preferable to "disabled person" (or the related "handicapped" vs. "handicapable") is important, but how we proceed when someone finds a term offensive. We should strive to not offend or put down folks. But probably something everyone can agree on is that calmly (and generally, if possible, not in front of a giant group of people) taking someone aside and explaining why a certain term is offensive and what might be better used in its place is preferable to shouting the person down, especially when these people who are calling out the person overwhelmingly are the privileged, upper-middle class, college-educated white folks who aren't generally in said groups.

Regarding language, I'd just advise that people try to be as respectful as possible when others do get offended by whatever word has been used. If it comes down to the individual or small, tight-knit groups, just do your best to apologize the first time around and get an understanding of why it's considered offensive, and try to use other phrasing when talking to them again in the future. If that sentiment is widespread enough, then try to avoid it entirely. There are so many words in the English language, it's impossible to keep track of every definition.

On the main topic, I have a few thoughts:

First, for individuals and families that are homeless, it sounds like the best solution anyone has found is just to give people housing, no questions asked. Most programs up until now have required some sort of stability beforehand, but that's inherently difficult if you don't have a place to go or keep your stuff on an ongoing basis. This should be tied in with health support service for both mental and physical problems.

For folks on other rungs further up the economic ladder and in perfectly good middle-class or better positions, there's a lot of other stuff going on, but it's harder for me to tease apart and understand. A lot of the disparity out there isn't necessarily coming from "racism", but unconscious biases that have formed over time. I know I've had to work on how I perceive black people when encountering them on the street, and I know I'm not where I'd like to be (though better than I was).

Research has shown that people from a wide variety of racial backgrounds (including blacks) tend to be less trusting of dark-skinned faces versus light-skinned ones -- that's quite the little brain-buster. Does that mean that black people are racist against themselves? We basically lack the words to describe what the heck is going on there.

One of the simplest ideas is that our brains are pattern-matching machines, so whenever we see one type of face, we immediately have certain associations based on other similar faces we've seen in the past.

To pull this away from race for a second, just think about how actors often get typecast in certain roles. A face that we might think of as being lighthearted and happy-go-lucky, or alternately evil and murderous might just be based on a casting director's choice for a recent movie -- and that person's choice was probably fed by movies, TV shows, and plays that he or she had seen in the past.

It's important to remember this when meeting new people -- the old advice about not judging a book by its cover should always be hanging in our minds, and that goes for a person's voice and mannerisms as well as their looks. (Hell, politics has become something of a beauty contest, which is really frustrating -- don't vote for someone just because they're physically attractive.)

Anyway, unfortunately, there are a lot of patterns that have been found where people are less trusting and more likely to complain about the actions of others who have darker skin. This ranges from more frequent and severe punishment for bad behavior in the kindergarten classroom (which is exactly the same level of bad behavior as from white kids) all the way on up to institutional, police, and interpersonal interaction between adults.

I bring up the classroom example because I heard that Texas had started collecting statistics on when kids were sent to the principal or had other punishment at school, and found a very stark difference between the rates for white and black kids. I'm not sure if they've made much of an effort to correct that so far, but that's definitely one critical thing to fix. Ensure that kids are being treated equally and then it will mostly be a waiting game as they grow up and push out us old fogies.

Research has shown that people from a wide variety of racial backgrounds (including blacks) tend to be less trusting of dark-skinned faces versus light-skinned ones -- that's quite the little brain-buster. Does that mean that black people are racist against themselves? We basically lack the words to describe what the heck is going on there.

Very true.

It's not "racism" because racism requires an element of institutional power based on race. Black people don't have race-based institutional power over other black people. "Bigotry" or "prejudice" is perhaps a closer term.

I try to use "racism" when talking about institutional/societal barriers and "bigotry" or "prejudice" when talking about individual attitudes. Another way to think about it is that policies, actions and outcomes can be racist but thought alone is not.

This is just a helpful way for me to process things. I'm not claiming it's how black people generally think.

And yes, we're all working on how we preceive black people. At least I know I am.

I bring up the classroom example because I heard that Texas had started collecting statistics on when kids were sent to the principal or had other punishment at school, and found a very stark difference between the rates for white and black kids. I'm not sure if they've made much of an effort to correct that so far, but that's definitely one critical thing to fix. Ensure that kids are being treated equally and then it will mostly be a waiting game as they grow up and push out us old fogies.

Yes, Minneapolis is working on this: http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/11/07 ... uspensions

To get back to the original question about why disparities exist between blacks and whites in MSP, my pet theory is that it's not driven by poor blacks being economically worse off than those in other communities -- as has been noted, Minnesota offers a better social net to help the poor than most other areas. It's driven by the absence of a large black middle class (and upper class) in the region, which was in turn driven by the historical absence of a large black population at all.

Now, because of that historical absence, blacks with the means to pick and choose where they'd want to live choose somewhere else that does have this established community (because everybody deep down likes to live next to other people who are like them). And the cycle continues.

To get back to the original question about why disparities exist between blacks and whites in MSP, my pet theory is that it's not driven by poor blacks being economically worse off than those in other communities -- as has been noted, Minnesota offers a better social net to help the poor than most other areas. It's driven by the absence of a large black middle class (and upper class) in the region, which was in turn driven by the historical absence of a large black population at all.

Now, because of that historical absence, blacks with the means to pick and choose where they'd want to live choose somewhere else that does have this established community (because everybody deep down likes to live next to other people who are like them). And the cycle continues.

There are very, very few middle class black communities in the nation, actually, and middle class black people tend to move to the burbs like most middle class people of any race. This of course leaves racially concentrated neighborhoods in even direr straits than before. (One unintended positive side effect of legal segregation -- there weren't many! -- is that trapping all black families in small areas allowed the growth of comparatively economically diverse black communities.)

The reason you don't see many black middle-class families in the burbs, closing those regional gaps, is simply that not many of them exist -- anywhere in America.

EDIT: also, sort of professionally obligated to point out that "everybody deep down likes to live next to other people who are like them" also functions as an excuse for exclusionary segregation and is a premise worth examining

WHS - If I may ask...
On one hand you seem to be a self proclaimed expert on "Black People." On the other, you demonstrate a narrow-minded stubbornness to racial sensitivity.
A few posts ago, you quoted: "If a black guy said he thought the word "black" was offensive (or, you know, "problematic," whatever that means), sure, I'd consider it. Ultimately I'd probably keep using it, because it's a common term and I want people to understand the words I use. That's a dialogue."

When someone called out your insensitivity, you responded with: "No, what it comes down to is that I haven't unilaterally ceded that right to them."
...All of this is followed by an "understanding" of black communities.

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?
WHS... What makes you an expert on black people and what motivates you to decide their rights and/or what "they" should and shouldn't tolerate?

There are very, very few middle class black communities in the nation, actually, and middle class black people tend to move to the burbs like most middle class people of any race.

Really? I can think of a fairly large number of urban centers throughout the country that have established black middle/upper class social structures.

EDIT: also, sort of professionally obligated to point out that "everybody deep down likes to live next to other people who are like them" also functions as an excuse for exclusionary segregation and is a premise worth examining

There are about a bajillion data points to demonstrate that this actually happens. Just think of all of the upper class white liberals who were redlined into living in SW Minneapolis.

WHS - If I may ask...
...
When someone called out your insensitivity, you responded with: "No, what it comes down to is that I haven't unilaterally ceded that right to them."
...

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?

I dunno, my reading of what WHS said was that one guy telling me what he didn't want to me say is one guy telling, not a whole community telling me. To get a sense of the what a community wished to refer to them it would take quite a few more than one guy.

From most of the social media responses to this story that I've seen, I get the impression that middle class white men don't understand the concept of 'disparate impact' at all and that they think privilege doesn't exist if they can't personally see it in action. I grow more depressed about the future of humanity every day.

I grow more depressed about the future of humanity every day.

Don't worry. It's probably not going to be a long future.

I'm pretty apathetic about the MOA situation but, man, the Bloomington City Attorney seems like just the worst. What game is she playing? Who is she being so difficult for?

Their aging-second-tier-suburban-stroad-ponzi-scheme relies heavily on appeasing the MOA. $$$

I'm pretty apathetic about the MOA situation but, man, the Bloomington City Attorney seems like just the worst. What game is she playing? Who is she being so difficult for?

Maybe trying to run for Hennepin County position, or State?

It's all good guys. Didn't you hear? She has a Franken sticker on her car: http://www.startribune.com/local/west/294766281.html

I haven't followed this whole thing closely, so forgive me if there's something I missed along the way. But if the entire point of this protest was to illegally trespass in order to make a point, shouldn't the protesters accept the consequences of doing so?

It seems like the protesters are basically saying "but we were there for a good cause" and "the trespassing law is unjust," so therefore they shouldn't get charged. But the cause shouldn't matter, and the MOA's property rights have been established by the Minnesota supreme court, if I'm not mistaken.

Or maybe I'm missing something?

Just because something is illegal doesn't make it immoral, (and likewise something being legal doesn't make it moral). The justice system should be viewed as a force for moral good via laws, not a force for legal good via morals. To this end, prosecutors have discretion, they are not legally or morally obligated to charge every single crime committed.

To hide behind "well they broke the law" is just a cowardly way to avoid thinking about morals or justice. You could step beyond that wall and still think they should be charged, but either way you should step out from behind that wall.

But the protesters went to the mall knowing it was illegal, and their being at the mall negatively affected private businesses during their most important time of the year, so it wasn't without victims.

You (and those arrested) seem to be suggesting that because you agree with the protest and disagree with the law that all should be forgiven?

Again, I'm not personally opposed to their action. I just think if you purposefully break a law by protesting that you should accept the consequences.

This was an act of civil disobedience, and I have no doubt the protesters were aware of that. But the mall had a choice in how to react. And the Bloomington prosecutor has a choice in how to react. Nobody here has been forced into their actions, but Bloomington is pretending as if they were.

And again, it's cowardly to just hide behind the black and what of whether or not what they did was legal or not. Of course it was illegal. But I think an act of civil disobedience born out of a group of people being denied their civil rights deserves a moral judgement, not a lawful judgement. If someone wants to look at it and make the moral judgement that they should be punished heavily, then so be it. But if we just look at it and say "it was illegal on its face" we're just ducking the hard societal questions, which is the whole point of a protest like this.