Why are Americans so obsessed with skin colour
It’s a nation founded on racism and the back of race based slavery. That shit doesn’t disappear overnight, unfortunately.
Buying something because it goes to a certain skin colour promotes racism CMV
Don’t cut yourself on all that edge before you graduate highschool kid.
The most impactful racism, that is also the hardest to fix, is systemic racism. I think the idea behind buying from black owned businesses is the individuals attempt to offset the systemic racism that they, individually, can do very little about.
it is still much more difficult for people of color to become professionally successful than it is for white people. That’s a fact. There are still laws in place (and not nearly enough protections), which disproportionately harm POC.
Do they not deserve to be just as successful? To follow their dreams? To be able to support themselves and their families?
Knowing this, why wouldn’t you seek out black-owned business to help counter systemic racism? Those in power in the US, at least, aren’t going to do it. This is by their design.
I care about the well-being of everyone (well, minus the 1% and Nazis), but those who continue to be harmed by a system—that I directly benefit from as a white person—simply require more attention if we’re ever going to have an equitable society.
Yeah that’s not how it works.
CMV
Nah I’m good.
Finding a farm close where you want is made unnecessarily difficult by the site’s interface. The grouping of states in regions is a hindrance and once you get to your state, the farms can’t be sorted other than by their name, so you have to look through every single one of them to find the farms close to you.
Great idea, terrible execution.
But probably not a difficult fix. Websites can be updated.
This is great. Is there something similar for finding local farms regardless of race?
You could try researching CSAs in your area. There are a few near me that sell farm shares with weekly pickup of seasonal veggies during harvest season. I’m in northern California, and our rate is under $20 per week after we split it with another couple. We usually receive more veggies than we would buy during a weekly grocery store trip, plus our farm let’s everyone pick fresh bouquets each pickup as a nice bonus.
I’d love to learn more about the ones in NorCal. I’m in the peninsula.
CSA huh
Yup, stands for community supported agriculture. They’re often called co-ops or farm shares, but I think CSA is the industry term that you’ll have most luck with when searching around online.
In Taiwan, we had “day markets” where local farmers and fishers sell produce directly to you from the previous day’s harvest. Every city has at least a few dozen day markets as well. It really serves the community and not big corps.
Some veggies still have live bugs(ladybugs) on it. That’s how fresh it is.
It also cost 1/4 the cost in a corporate grocery store.
We (the US) have farmers markets in a lot of places. They can have very specific times that I always forget about. Around here in the northern climate, the farmer markets stop during the winter or move indoors and shift to selling more jarred and canned goods. My neighborhood has a coop, but it’s more expensive than the grocery store and with a worse selection. We have options here, but they require more thoughtfulness.
That was a culture shock for me when I moved to the US. I knew that back in the day, in rural areas of my country, the markets only opened once a week. I was shocked to find that happen in urban/suburban areas in the US. Back home I could just go to the closest market any day. Morning news would have a report comparing prices in different markets across the city, so you could pick the one that has the best price for what you need that day.
I would really like an Imperfect Foods replacement. Originally, IF was scratch and dent ugly veggies on discount with some consignment items. Post covid, prices crept up and then you had to pick and choose to get a deal, but you could still get a good box for under $40 every 2 wks that also included things like farro and yogurt. Misfit Marketplace bought them out and it took on a Whole Foods by mail vibe. Double to triple the regular grocery store prices. It would be $80+/week for the same box content which is galling. And it’s not the groceries, it’s MM. Who is paying $3 for 1 cucumber? $4 for 2 apples? $8 for a single pound of grapes or a pint of blueberries?
New potential produce sources are most welcome.
I had to drop Imperfect Food as well from the same problems. It was just more expensive than I needed. I haven’t found a replacement yet unfortunately. We are now just buying food as needed. I have been interested in a CSA but haven’t done it yet
The unbagged produce was fresher than grocery store and didn’t rot on the shelf in 3 days like post COVID produce from the grocery store tends to do.
So this post has potential.
It’s cool, but buying produce from your neighbors is also cool. Strong communities thrive together
To everybody saying “reverse racism” or whatever your wording is to imply that buying specifically from black people is problematic, why? Do you think that you would have a hard time finding a white run CSA to buy? This is just a resource for people interested in supporting the black community and frankly I see any form of opposition to it as pretty blatant racism itself. I’ll return from a Google search with what I find for other race specified CSA indexes in a bit.
I’m back,
https://www.queerfarmernetwork.org/
Here’s an LGBTQ farm share directory. Is it reverse bigotry to purchase from them? I had to play with search terms a bit but a combination of CSA, farm share, agriculture share, and your chosen identifier should produce you results.
I am genuinely looking for an answer because I’m fucking baffled by this thread.
Some sort of brigading going on here, lots of comments with almost identical wording.
buying specifically from black people is problematic, why?
The problem isn’t that buying from black people is a problem, the problem is that it’s trying to be a selling argument, and that’s just stupid. Are the vegetables of a black farmer better than of a white farmer? Do queer farmers make better cheese than straight farmers? I somehow doubt it. In the end, it’s a matter of skill and you can have that regardless of your sexuality or skin color.
I’m seriously wondering how you ever expect something like “inclusion” to happen when you’re the ones that keep treating the groups you’re trying to include differently.
To flip this argument… Are the vegetables from a black farmer worse than a white farmer? Do queer farmers make worse cheese than a straight farmer? I somehow doubt it. Therefore, if output is equal, maybe it’s time to spread the love to these black and queer farmers.
You say, “in the end, it’s a matter of skill and you can have that regardless of your sexuality or skin color”… and that sounds great, on it’s face, but using that as your argument now, when, statistically, it’s shown over and over again that skill is rarely the factor that matters, is disingenuous. When we, as a society, can get to a point where we can regularly show that, statistically, race and sexuality (or any other reason humanity chooses to use to make “others” out of our fellows) truly do not effect ones prosperity, then, and only then, would your statement hold any meaning.
if output is equal, maybe it’s time to spread the love to these black and queer farmers
Okay but why? What’s the point exactly? Why discriminate against white farmers purely based on the color of their skin? Especially in the farming industry, both are doing an insanely tough job and they need people to buy their products. I think it’s wrong to not buy from a local farmer because he’s white and instead go to a black farmer that’s 30 minutes away, for example.
If I’m living in a village and we have a white farmer, I buy there. If it’s a black farmer, I buy there. And hell, I might buy from both if they have different products. Win-Win Situation.
This focus on skin color in literally every aspect of life is just getting really annoying.
You don’t live in a village. You live in a nation with easy access to products and produce from boarder to boarder (until someone decides to mess that up). You’re “local” farmer is easily both that white and that black farmer.
And if you’re tired of the focus of things being on skin color or sexual orientation, even more of a reason to level out those statistics because, while those statistics continue to show a disparity of opportunity between White and POC/Queer individuals, you’re damn right the focus should and will remain with the latter.
You don’t live in a village.
The 350 people in the austrian village I live in 80% of the time would disagree.
You’re “local” farmer is easily both that white and that black farmer
No. It’s a white farmer. I meet him like 5 times a week.
you’re damn right the focus should and will remain with the latter.
Sad tbh, but you do you. I will continue to support my local community, because strong communities strive together, regardless of arbitrary properties that they can’t influence.
In deed, man… If you fail to get it, that’s you then.
It’s about supporting marginalized people if one chooses to. If one chooses not to, they can just move one without comment. I’m just confused because it seems so simple and the only answer to me is deep seated, potentially non intentional racism.
The problem is that it’s a fundamentally good idea to support your local farmers and businesses, but you’re artificially injecting the race card yet again instead of just ignoring the skin color for once. It’s someone who sells you carrots and potatoes, why care about the race? Why support especially a black farmer? There’s no reason for it tbh - support your local business.
the only answer to me is deep seated, potentially non intentional racism.
Must be tough to try your hardest to see racism everywhere you go.
Not even an attempt to self reflect.
Nothing to self-reflect on since you and your american mindset are hellbent on seeing a race issue here. No reason to try and talk you out of it.
Why do they have to be black? America is bizarrely obsessed with race, I’ve never seen anything like it both in person and on the internet.
I would prefer knowing my money is going to people who have been systematically disadvantaged for this nation’s entire history.
I suppose your post could imply other minorities could be included but the way I read your comment gives off big WLM energy.
Edit: spelling
deleted by creator
Because they were kept poor, imprisoned, and abused until at least 1965. So the kids born in the 1950’s had the first real chance to go to college. In reality though red lining continued right up into the 1980’s, making sure black people couldn’t get access to services and jobs because they were physically out of reach from the housing areas they had been pushed into decades prior. And job hiring racism still occurs to this day. It was in the 2010’s they did a study with applications that differed only by having an “ethnic” name or a “white” name.
So until black people can access the same opportunities as white people there needs to be support. Everyone wants to assume this shit ended in 1865 or 1965 but not only did it not, it’s still going on.
deleted by creator
I’m just going to set aside the fact that this is your second reply to this comment.
Are you seriously suggesting the US is in danger of an Apartheid government perpetrated by Black Americans?
deleted by creator
What are you paying for? Is someone forcing you to pay thousands of dollars a year to fund a scholarship or something?
And the reason they get help is because your parent’s actions (not your grand parents) prevented black people your age from getting the same opportunities you got.
deleted by creator
Dude you’re the one who talked about the decisions your ancestors made. And literal pennies from your taxes to fund it.
The victim complex of so many white people is truly fucking wild.
Are you not already buying food anyway? No one is forcing you to do anything. But people are going to call you out for being so uninterested having an equitable society.
deleted by creator
nice deflect. my actual point still stands, though.
Guy said he wanted to help people so have been and still are supposed and you took that as discrimination? I guess if we don’t help everyone all at once we shouldn’t help anyone?
deleted by creator
And this would be a great approach if systemic racism didn’t exist.
Everyone isn’t treated the same, so helping them the same leaves people behind.
deleted by creator
Pay for it? How are you paying for it?
Also there are programs that help non black poor people too. You seem like you’re not educated on this topic lol
Nobody alive has lived through this nation’s entire history
Because they still get shut out of opportunities based solely on their skin color, names, and application photos. So they work together to create their own opportunities and are rightfully proud of that. America can stop worrying about race when we finally end racism.
Do you ever stop to consider that it may be exactly because of your obsession with the skin tone of people, that you have so much racism?
Try imagining being just as obsessed about eye colors. It seems ridiculous right?
It does seem ridiculous to me but I’m not racist and we tried that. In the 1980’s and 1990’s they made talking about race a social taboo. You just didn’t talk about it. The only effect was to freeze racism in place while white people congratulated themselves on solving it because they didn’t hear about it anymore.
So it turns out that in order to fight racism you have to talk about it and give financial support to the class that’s been oppressed.
You get out of here you SOCIALIST. How dare you suggest we even the playing field for the people who we took opportunities away from for hundreds of years!
I know right? What’s next, paying the kids we feed to the machines?
I am not saying you should just ignore it, or making it taboo. But Americans have gone to the very extreme version where skin-tone apparently has to determine who you are. It seems you have made it taboo not to define yourself by your skin-tone.
I truly do not understand how you cannot see the problems with that.
It is absolutely not taboo to define yourself otherwise, such as by your job, hobby, state, country, etc… but the reason skin tone racism is such a big thing is because that’s what the racists use. Where in other countries it can be more about certain ethnicities regardless of skin color, in the US your skin color was enough to make you a slave or a free man and our racism is based on our slavery. We spent hundreds of years justifying skin based slavery and that pseudo science and twisted religion doesn’t just go away like a light switch.
Do you have a recent example of someone who was denied an opportunity, that is afforded to everyone, based solely on their race?
2024 hiring link, PDF Warning, EDU domain
The studies go on and on. The sheet brigade may not march in your town anymore but they’re still in positions of power pushing down on minorities.
Good resources and sharing.
I appreciate what you’ve done in the comments of this post.
I didn’t doubt it’s still happening somewhere; just curious how wide spread it is. I read the third link. It was interesting. I wasn’t aware the Justice department spent almost 2.5 years going after lenders.
That’s the mentality that perpetuates it though
Alright let’s break this down Barney style. You have group A and group B. Group A decides to pelt Group B with oranges every time they leave their house. So Group B moves in together and buys communal umbrellas to live as unmolested as possible. And you think that is perpetuating Group A’s conduct.
You don’t get it buddy, but that’s alright. Best of luck to you.
No I get it. Fox news screams reverse racism every time group B tries to go around the racist power structure instead of work inside it, and instead of critically examining that you’ve just accepted it as a truth.
I don’t watch fox news, it’s not even on TV where I live. But nice try lol.
Murdoch has news outlets in most of the world.
It’s because America is obsessed with race, and has systematically attempted to demolish black economic power from the foundation of the society, that people may choose to shop this way.
Yeah sure, but you’re just perpetuating. It should just be ‘buy from local American farmers’, race shouldn’t be a thing.
Intentionally buying from black owned businesses does not perpetuate a racist white man that is in a position of power that allows him to deny black people economic power.
No, but your mentality perpetuates segregation
Fighting racism with more racism.
I still love how everyone acts like America is the only racist country on the planet.
TIL posting/having conversations about a characteristic of one country implies that you believe that no other countries have that same characteristic.
While I’m sure the fact that the dominance of US news and culture on the internet is probably really frustrating for non-Americans, it’s pretty natural for Americans (or anyone, really) to talk about our own country and experiences… especially while having to grapple with how things have been escalating here. You’re certainly free to share your own experiences.
Funny how I rarely hear about racism in other countries. Except when someone like me brings up that other countries are also extremely racist but it’s been so normalized it’s not newsworthy.
the democrats have built their entire brand around performative racial justice where everything they do is designed to appeal to different groups. Its super toxic and while I am vehemently anti-racist this tokenization of policy is counter productive and the reason why a lot of people reject the democrats as “racist”
Bro, the US wins world champions in racism. There are ethno-nationalists in India that think Americans take it too far.
It’s also important to note that POC, black people or melenated people (take your pick - i.e Pakistani and some Indians are PoC) are not exempt from being racist.
In fact, if you suffer racism there’s a chance you’ll then turn racist, because it triggers pack instinct, paranoia, group think - etc. Humans gonna hume. “You’re claiming reverse racism” - bitch, did I stutter? Racism is racism is racism is racism.
That being said, zoning laws are still CRT based and some neighbourhoods in the US only get the most basic super markets - if even that.
“All I see is church, church, liquor store” - Black Milk.
If black people need access to raw produce in areas they can’t get access to it, then I think it’s completely acceptable. Sad, but acceptable.
I could also see a bunch of Karens buying out the stock so that they can brag that they eat “black produce”, effective depriving black children of proper produce.
To err is human, and also be awful is human, and also racism… is human, and also (say it with me now):
Humana gonna hume. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Americans always think they have the market cornered on everything. As if slavery and racism didn’t exist until the 18th century.
Sure, it can seem on the surface like wanting to support people of a particular race is in itself a kind of racism, or at least a situation that emphasizes unfair distinctions.
Unfortunately, race does still matter in America, even if we personally disagree with it or want to ignore it. The health and economic research data make it very clear that people of color in America, especially black people, experience harder lives in almost every category. This is due to both recurring experiences of present-day prejudice and discrimination, as well the inter-generational impacts of wealth inequality and psychological trauma.
You might already know about this, but redlining is one example of the way that patterns of discrimination can creates a systemic effect, which, in turn, can impact the physical and financial effects on a family across time. These kinds of systemic effects can then make it harder for current generations of these families to recover and live safe lives today though, we personally might celebrate that the policy doesn’t exist anymore, and even though we personally might say that we don’t support people acting like that anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
No one really has to do anything, but some people might choose to support groups of people or organizations who they think might have experienced similar kinds of hardships in their families, and might be glad to have a way to try to do something different with their money than give it to another multinational corporation every time.
Yeah I’ve heard these arguments. I still hold my opinion. America needs to move away from the race obsession.
Completely fair - do you have a counterargument? I’d be interested in hearing the other side.
Constantly talking about race makes race a topical issue.
As in
- Not talking about race will solve the lingering systemic race issues, or
- There are no lingering systemic race issues, so we should stop talking about it?
Not OP, but keep seeing the world as if it is “us vs them” or “black vs white” or “right vs left” or “rich vs poor” will not help find common ground and compromises. There is no compromise for racism, but people putting more attention on it will only promote looking at the situation in a way where the difference matters.
Oh no the US is a shitshow of systemic racism, like super ridiculous on every level. There is such a wild undercurrent, surface levek and then an even weirder like super liminal racism where it just has to be mentioned.
Watch like any late night and they will make a self depricating white person joke, middle aged white guy thing. Just stfu about all of it, address the systemic issues with actual actions and then just you know…live as neighbours as americans.
So the US is a shitshow of systemic racism but you want everyone to stop talking about race? Sounds like a way to never fix the problem.
If racism still exists race still needs to be talked about…
Right. Its going so well for you guys so far, remind me again which breed of nazis are in power, and whicj programs they are focusing on destroying?
So you are going to act like everyone in America is the exact same. With the same views? Did you miss the election where roughly half of the country didn’t want this or are you just lashing out because your stance was questioned.
Right but as far as I understand it the supermarkets and wholesalers screw all farmers over equally race isn’t a consideration.
I rather not give people money by merit of the colour of their skin, though. Fuck me, right?
No one said fuck you lol
Yeah, that’s not what’s happening.
But keep playing the victim.
Lots of deadlinks and farming alliances with mission statements.
Not a lot of links to buy food from farmers.
So every “farm” in my region is actually a community plot you can rent space in or a non profit outreach…no farms to purchase from.
How is this not racist? If there were a service where you could choose to buy directly from white farmers peoples would lose their minds
Well why do you think it is? Genuinely curious
Because racism is the discrimination of someone based on their ethnicity. If you are choosing one person over another due solely to their ethnicity, isn’t that discrimination? Shouldn’t people be judged not by the color of their skin? Explicitly advertising that you are selective solely based on race is racism.
I have seen this discussion happen over and over again and a big part of the misunderstanding is some people in the US have the definition of racism also involving power and some don’t. If your definition is the former, it’s what allows people to say “Fuck white people” isn’t racist with a straight face. Before you ask someone if something is racist, ask them what they think racism is. It will save a lot of time and aggravation for everyone.
Some white people have no power and some black people have loads of it. Can we just stop this categorization of people by race for if they can or can’t do something?
deleted by creator
Your comment made me think of this:
Because, on average, black people are more economically disadvantaged than white people.
Choosing to explicitly buy from black farmers will, on average, tend to support those with the least financial means out of the general population of farmers, whereas choosing to explicitly buy from white farmers will, on average, tend to support those who are already more financially advantaged.
One side is directly choosing to help those most likely to be economically disadvantaged, the other would be explicitly ignoring those with the least means in order to help those who already have the most, thus the situations are not quite comparable.
I personally would prefer an index that directly assessed farmers based on overall wealth to determine who you should buy from, but because that’s extraordinarily difficult to constantly update & maintain, verify, etc, it can just be easier to divide among racial lines since that still tends to produce a grouping that is relatively similar.
deleted by creator
Should we just stop using statistics then? Numbers don’t matter if they are about people? (I genuinely want an answer here. Should we?)
Statistically, one societal class of people needs more support than the other to have the exact same quality of life, generational wealth, and opportunities. Thus, when deciding who to buy, in this case, produce from, it simply makes sense to purchase from the group most disadvantaged, until their disadvantage is no bigger than the other group, and we can then switch from buying from “small black farmers directly” to “all small farmers directly,” because all of them would then need a near identical level of support, financially speaking, to get the same outcomes.
deleted by creator
Group A is historically not discriminated against, and now on average, has a net worth of $100,000.
Group B is historically discriminated against, and now on average, has a net worth of $80,000.
In both groups, some will own more or less than the average, but the largest number of poorer individuals reside in Group B, because the average is lower.
On a per person basis, everyone has $20,000 to spend. Should they give it:
- Exclusively to Group A? (and “discriminate” against Group B, but raise their average net worth to $120,000)
- Exclusively to Group B? (and “discriminate” against Group A, but raise their average net worth to $100,000)
- Split evenly between the two? (bringing Group A’s average to $110,000, and Group B’s average to $90,000)
Which option is most likely to uplift the most poor people to a less poor status?
This is why your argument of “discrimination” doesn’t hold up. The choice to make a purchase from Group A while ignoring Group B only entrenches existing wealth disparities. The choice to make a purchase from both evenly keeps the wealth disparity where it is. The choice to buy exclusively from Group B eliminates the disparity.
This decision is not being made because of race on its own, it is being made because of the common socioeconomic context within which people of color often reside. If white people were the ones who had a history of economic discrimination, even if all other actions regarding past and current racism remained equal, then economically supporting the white farmers specifically would make the most sense, because they would be most economically disadvantaged.
You cannot have a meritocracy when people start on uneven ground, and there is a very demonstrable difference in existing generational wealth between the races, as a direct consequence of past injustices. The way we fix that as individuals, and as a society, is by doing what we can to elevate groups experiencing a disparity until they no longer do.
deleted by creator
Of course there are, but as has already been shown through many attempts at creating welfare programs that directly test the means of the recipients, the administrative cost to provide funds to people based on highly specific factors about themselves (e.g. total net worth, rate of income, spending, cost to employ farm employees, profit margins, etc etc etc) can cost significantly more than blanket assistance.
It’s one of the reasons why UBI works so well compared to traditional welfare in administrative costs, since it doesn’t need to be means tested.
Now obviously this isn’t a one-to-one comparison, but let’s say we create an index just like the one at question here, but it’s specifically the “poor farmer’s index.” To do so, we need to:
- Request extensive documentation from all farmers applying
- Somebody then has to verify the net assets, income, expenses, etc of all farmers who apply to be listed in the index via that paperwork…
- …and continue to verify that data over time, as it obviously changes year-to-year. The eligibility of every participant would have to be re-verified regularly, otherwise someone could become not poor, but stay in the index. This is a perpetual expense that grows linearly over time as more people are added to the index.
Who will do that work? Now somebody needs to be paid to do this, or spend many hours doing volunteer work just to verify eligibility. Now, in the end yes, that kind of system would be ideal for determining who needs the most help, and I would pick that system every time over a “black farmers index” if it existed in a functional form.
The problem is that it has significantly higher costs and requires consistent administration over time, something that is obviously hard to expect from a random volunteer project that, based on their staff information, only has 2 “Data Entry and Logistics” roles that are currently filled. Imagine two people handling the ingesting, data entry, and administrative tasks for all the farmers applying to this index across the entire United States, having to verify every single individual’s financial situation. It’s difficult, and costly.
So yes, as I stated just earlier in this comment, and in my original post, of course I’d prefer an index that directly assesses the economic viability of every individual. However, because doing so is costly, and we know that race is a good proxy for the estimation of general wealth, it makes sense to use that for a small, relatively inexpensive, independently run online site, that now only needs to verify one factor, that doesn’t change over time, to get a good enough approximation of lack of wealth.
This entire discussion revolves not around the ideals of what we should have, but what is feasible. If it is not feasible at the current point in time for such an organization to directly assess the needs of individuals, it makes sense to use a substantially cheaper to assess proxy, instead of not being able to have any index at all.
Just don’t buy meat directly - especially if you are hungry for bat and live in China.
