General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: They Dared Me to Post This... [View all]qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)Don't forget the Lexuses and Oprah.
Or my husband.
Or the Tea Party. Which had nothing to do with economics when it emerged, even if it is now bankrolled by people with a vested financial interest in keeping it going.
I accept that you can argue that it was a combination of economics and race in some cases. However, I think they can be separated. And there are cases, lots of cases, where race is not a factor, but poverty is - ergo crimes against poor white people. And there are cases, (check the Mellody Hobson, CEO of Ariel Investments, who was there with Congressman Harold Ford to meet with the press and got dragged into the back and told to put on a uniform because she had to be "the help" , where economics is not a factor.
But then, why are you trying so hard to rebut me?
Why does it matter so much to you to be right that you dismiss examples of racism that are not linked to economics?
To me, this is an example of someone who is more interested in fighting economic injustice, talking to someone who is more interested in fighting racial injustice, and defending the idea that fighting one addresses the other, SUGGESTING (I'm not saying definitely you, but it can be interpreted) fighting economic injustice should be "good enough", and if someone is not invested in fighting racial injustice, it should be acceptable.
Frankly, we "accept" it constantly. We have no choice. we are only 14% of the population, and we don't have enough power to force people to fight racial injustice. So, sometimes, we are STUCK accepting the fight for economic injustice. But we don't have to like it.