Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?
I cannot be bothered with the concept of race, not only because a human being is a great deal more than her epidermis and phenotypes, but because mental apartheid is a sure path to true apartheid. In that sense, I am “color blind”.
It wasn’t too long ago that being racially color-blind was held in higher regard, and that it’s opposite— racializing people and being overly conscious of their race and skin-color instead of their character and deeds—was racist.
Nowadays, however, being color-blind is a matter of privilege, not principle. My “colorblindness comes from a lack of awareness of racial privilege conferred by Whiteness” (Psychology Today), as if color-blindness is limited to white people only.
But when I say “I don’t see color”, It’s taken literally, as if I cannot see the tone of someone’s skin, or worse, I cannot see them entirely. By being color-blind I am apparently choosing to ignore racism.
In fact, my color-blindness is now a “micro-aggression”, because by refusing to consider race as a valid categorization I “deny the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history” and “deny the individual as a racial/cultural being”, which I suppose causes her pain.
At any rate, when I judge someone by the content of her character and not the color of her skin, to the critic, I’m being racist.
I cannot understand it. Judging someone by the content of her character and not the color of her skin never once involves remaining ignorant of racism, or denying anyone’s experience or history. It never once involves literal color-blindness. It’s only about affirming another as an individual, without the need of dubious racial classifications.
So why are we back-peddling on racial color-blindness? Why are we teaching kids to be conscious of another’s race, and to factor it into their judgements and treatment of others? Are we heading backwards?
It wasn’t too long ago that being racially color-blind was held in higher regard, and that it’s opposite— racializing people and being overly conscious of their race and skin-color instead of their character and deeds—was racist.
Nowadays, however, being color-blind is a matter of privilege, not principle. My “colorblindness comes from a lack of awareness of racial privilege conferred by Whiteness” (Psychology Today), as if color-blindness is limited to white people only.
But when I say “I don’t see color”, It’s taken literally, as if I cannot see the tone of someone’s skin, or worse, I cannot see them entirely. By being color-blind I am apparently choosing to ignore racism.
In fact, my color-blindness is now a “micro-aggression”, because by refusing to consider race as a valid categorization I “deny the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history” and “deny the individual as a racial/cultural being”, which I suppose causes her pain.
At any rate, when I judge someone by the content of her character and not the color of her skin, to the critic, I’m being racist.
I cannot understand it. Judging someone by the content of her character and not the color of her skin never once involves remaining ignorant of racism, or denying anyone’s experience or history. It never once involves literal color-blindness. It’s only about affirming another as an individual, without the need of dubious racial classifications.
So why are we back-peddling on racial color-blindness? Why are we teaching kids to be conscious of another’s race, and to factor it into their judgements and treatment of others? Are we heading backwards?
Comments (1416)
I overtly refuse to consider race a "valid" categorization, and I overtly deny "racial/ethnic experience" as something that should be significant or focused on. I'm happy to do that. If we all did that we could move on and worry about things that are important to worry about.
I don't know why people want to focus on race so much now, but it's been a big mistake in my opinion.
Ideological subversion, is my guess.
Survivors are always seeing threats even where they aren't any; false positives are far less risky, and more readily correctable, than false negatives. Only privileged, non-survivors of racial-color hatred can luxuriate in the kumbaya mindset of "racial color-blind" utopianism in an era where I'd estimate a majority of people on this planet are subject to the indignities and discriminations of racism-colorism. The rest must soldier on daily, individually and in solidarity, surviving and resisting by 'calling a spade a spade' whenever possible or unbearable not to do so.
If there's "back-peddling" go on - "I'm shocked, shocked" - in the non-survivors' "racial color-blind" casino, that's certainly not good news for the survivors ... but nothing more shocking that a return of the repressed-like pendulum swing in the 'burbs. After all, the catastrophic legacy of the last half millennium of conquistador plundering, genocide, slavery has crushed our 'liberal republics' into ossified racial color-caste structures of cultural & economic imbalance. That's "the content of" everyone's (Western - at the very least) "character" - survivor & non-survivor alike (vide Bourdieu re: habitus). All y'all need is love ain't nearly enough by an effin' longshot (says the lifelong, rabid, Fabs fan!) :victory:
:up: :strong:
Actually, “color-blindness” is more a refusal to engage in “racial constructionism”.
I suppose, then, that it was only a matter of time that the oppressed would adopt the pseudoscience and superstitions of the oppressors, if not as a security blanket, then as a whip.
That sounds to me an admission of guilt than a statement of fact.
When in the master's house, learn from the master to use the master's tools in order to Master Oneself and/or master the master himself if one can.
Liberty, as I understand it, demands nothing less. :death: :flower:
Neither does hypocrisy.
You can't outrun your (people's class' society's ...) own shadow. Or jump out of your own skin-color with its historic scars. A "PC" parlor game for hypocrites & fools. Have fun diddling ...
Your opening post simply santizes the history and continued practice of racial subjugation, prejudice, exclusion, etc. History is nowhere awknowledged in your opening. The only way in which colorblindness is a viable anti-racist practice is if there was never a history of racial constructionism in the first place.
Again, colorblindness is a way of treating others that does not entail denying racism, just refusing to engage in and practice racism. Anti-colorblindness is a massive straw man in this regard.
Historically people have been treated as members of racial groups, convicted of some form or other of essentialism, and treated accordingly. It seems to me prudent to refuse engaging in racism if we want to banish it.
Accepting the history (and continuance!) of racism, as you acknowledge in this first sentence here, does not mean "engaging in racism". The best way to refuse to engage in racism is to understand how it affects people.
What I mean is, colorblindness is refusing to engage in racism. It’s to do the opposite of what racists have done throughout history.
The reason why “colour blindness” is out of fashion is because race baiting and victim culture are IN fashion. Part of the dogma of that trend is that white people are inherently racist, and “colour blindness” goes against that narrative. They do not want a white person to be able to escape a charge of racism by saying they do not see race, so they make the obvious defense against a charge of racism something in itself racist.
Its all part of the dogma and training coming out of universities these days, part of an authoritarian movement and the strategies used to push a toxic ideology. Its part of a complex set of talking points and nonsense meant to inoculate these types of people against criticism as well as to preserve their great weapon in their war for authoritarian control, the charge of racism. Its vital they can call every white person a racist, because then anyone speaking out against their authoritarian agenda can be dismissed, attacked or whatever...after all, who would ever defend or listen to a racist?
Its the same thing with terms like “nazi”, “alt right”, “alt right adjacent”, all used as a tool to smear and dismiss ideological opponents. All you have to do is attach the label, then all your work is done. You dont need to reason, defend your toxic, authoritarian ideology or even listen at all. Just sit back and wait for anyone to go “wait wtf?!” And then call them a racist too.
Its disgusting. Its foolish and its dangerous.
What exactly is the definition of racial constructionism, how are we confirming that there is such a thing, and how are we confirming its effect on people?
And why are you so counter-woke?
You think that those silly woke progressives blabbering about intersectionality etc. are genuinely some kind of a threat to our culture? You really think there is this "assault" against color-blindness, which is there to reinstate racism and racist thought to our time only in a different format? That really people are demanding us to look at each other not as individuals, but first and foremost as members of a race, gender and so one that define us so much that what people actually think doesn't matter?
How difficult is it to understand that when something is done to end totally open and apparent racism, when racism has been curtailed, the movement based on simple and very popular demands loses it's straightforward push. When any movement comes to it's third or fourth 'wave', the cries of "there's a lot more to do on this issue" become more desperate, more strange and more distant from the original objectives that have been met.
Common sense will prevail. The World isn't going to end.
I really do believe it. This is an aspect of racism that now permeates throughout American culture and is spreading, to the point that it has become institutional, manifesting in policies such as “diversity training” for example. It is being taught in school. I’m not sure where you live, but take a peak.
Why would you believe it?
You should learn more about the Soviet Union. You see, things that don't work... don't work. And they keep not working even if people imagine them working. And how large the Overton window is or isn't doesn't matter when it doesn't work.
In the Soviet Union they had there all these kinds of programs to create a new society and the prime way to do this was to create a New Soviet Man. This was to be done through educating the new generations (as current ones seemed to be such a disappointment). The new generation would create the socialist Paradise. But of course it didn't work and everything become just talking utterly pointless and empty bullshit, which was called "lithurgy". And in the end nobody didn't believe in the system that didn't work except we the people in the West. And homo sovieticus took a totally different meaning, basically meaning an average conformist just muddling through (and usually using a lot of vodka to do it).
Now your problem seems to be that you believe that it would work. Oh, they are having 'diversity training' in school! What will happen to new generations now? As if 'diversity training' would be highly successful.
Americans had this problem especially when thinking about communists and the Soviet Union. It can be seen in the stereotypes of Soviets in Hollywood movies during the Cold War. Never were these bad guys anywhere close to being actually Russian (or Ukrainian etc.), these happy go lucky sentimental slavs, who unfortunately have these monstrous corrupt societies.
Feel free to check out Ibram X. Kendi's excellent book, Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America, if you doubt the historicity of racism
No I don’t think it would work, and completely agree with you, but human bodies no less end up becoming the brick and mortar to their failed schemes, long before the dogma is abandoned. The Soviet Union lasted for 70 years.
What I worry about is the injustice of it all, plain and simple.
Quoting NOS4A2
oh wow
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/q-and-a/the-true-and-false-virtues-of-the-left-robert-boyers?source=EDT_NYR_EDIT_NEWSLETTER_0_imagenewsletter_Daily_ZZ&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_101319&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bd670e52ddf9c619438e798&cndid=23178531&esrc=&mbid=CRMNYR062419&utm_term=TNY_Daily
I think this article touches on a lot of the issues both of you are worried about.
This is worth looking at head on, because this is what we have come to. This is the logic that applies also at times to freedom of speech and justice, and above all the organisation of workers into unions.
Race is a social construct, therefore race does not exist.
Therefore diversity training is fake training.
This fake training unfairly affects white people, therefore it is racist.
I happens all the time these days, though not usually quite as blatantly. In fact it happened to me the other day on the Brexit thread. Pointing out racist tropes is said to be racist, and racism is something that only white people suffer from.
Similarly one cannot criticise people who say such things because 'freedom of speech'.
It's the political equivalent of 'He who smelt it dealt it.' And there's a lot of it about.
I don't know if we are back peddling on color blindness, I don't know of a time where race wasn't a big way in which many people see others. I think there are a few main reasons for the continuation:
1. Racial Histories - As for instance, an African-American, you have a separate history than a white American.
2. Racialised statistics - Crime, wealth, education, voting and so on, are all popularly divided by race which leads to a greater racial focus.
3. Low requirement for "racism" - Culture, religion, language, food and many other things can't be criticised without risk of being called racist. So even if you are not actually racist, people will say you are and this puts a spotlight on "race" which goes beyond what it should.
4. News on racism - I think people are very interested in this topic for a number of reasons, racism and racial differences is constantly reported on.
There are many more though.
With 1 & 2, it's clear you can't fix past injustices and racial inequality without making race an important issue. The only way to proceed with an unracialised perspective is to forget about racial histories (i.e. All Americans (or insert nationality) share a history, not based on skin colour) and forget about racial inequality. I think for many people, it's inconcievable to do that because it's seen as unfair, an outlook that requires 1 & 2. I think, ironically, the racism is being perperuated by the people who care about 1 & 2 because reducing racism is not the main goal and people who see color blindness as the solution don't see this difference.
Reducing racism at this point, will not undo the fact that because of the past, many non-white races are disadvantaged in many areas across life. It is also requires forgiving these inequities which is hard for some. People still see others as part of a racial history, African Americans are former slaves and whites are former slave owners and without changing this outlook, you cannot achieve color blindness.
Of course, the people who I say are perpetuating racism probably don't see it that way but I don't see racism going away where race is extremely important and they're making it very important. Racism would go away if everyone was color-blind but the inequities would remain, I think for some it's more important to keep color-blindness out rather than forgive the inequities.
I thought we might be able to discuss some of this stuff on this discussion board. Does that book define racial "constructionism" and explain the epistemological aspects of asserting it? That's what I was interested in.
I just checked on Amazon, by the way, using the "Look Inside" feature, and I searched in the book for the word "constructionism." Zero hits. So how would that answer the questions I asked?
How do you define race? You said its a social construct, so Im curious to how you would categorise some of the obvious physical characteristics such as skin colour.
I never constructed a definition of it before, and I'd have to search for one I agree with, but I'd say that it's something like, "An attempt to categorize humans by genetic connections where:
(a) there's a focus on extremely superficial characteristics,
(b) there's a lot of brushing aside of the many variations of those superficial characteristics among members of the same gerrymandered categories in question,
(c) there's a lot of brushing aside of similar superficial characteristics among members of different gerrymandered categories, and
(d) there's a lot of ignorance about the actual complex genetic connections between people all around the world (where the facts that we apparently all initially stem from a relatively small population in a single geographical area and the subsequently scattered offshoot populations have regularly, complexly interbred with each other are more or less ignored, in the context of a lot of genetic ignorance in general)."
You're going to have a hard time understanding Othello.
Well race just describes a certain set of differences between humans, like skin colour. Isnt that the standard definition?
If we leave out all of the detail, yes, but it's where there's supposed to be a significant genetic connection, and it's where we're brushing over differences among members in group A, brushing over similarities between members of group B and member of group A (re skin color, etc.), and ignoring the complex genetic interconnections there actually are between group B and A.
Sorry you lost me...those things you describe dont sound like social constructs, they sound like real, physical differences.
That’s the colloquial version, I think. But there is no gene that determines race.
What do you mean? Ones “race” is determined by genes, just like every other biological trait...no? If not, then what determines skin colour or other “racial” physical traits?
I’m not a geneticist. I was just reading Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
Again, per the definition I gave this is an attempt to categorize things this way where we ignore/are ignorant of a bunch of stuff that makes the attempt not make much sense.
It's not that genetics aren't real or that they don't result in any sort of appearance differences. It's that that doesn't at all map to the nonsense of "races."
Bear with me, Im dumbfounded by what you are saying.
What is the nonsense of races? Why are you attempting to make a definition that ignores physical distinctions? And what part of that makes it a social construct?
Ok, no single gene. Racial traits are a too diverse to attribute to a single gene. Makes sense.
So as I explained above, for one, in particular supposed "racial" categories, there's actually a very wide degree of variation among members in the supposed physical characteristics. Those differences are due to genetic differences.
And two, just like there is a far wider range or variety than the idea has it within a particular supposed "racial" group, there's also far more similarity between members of "different racial groups" with respect to those characteristics than the popular notion has it, and often those similarities are due to genetic connections.
The genetic map of humankind is extremely complex and it in no way coherently divides into "races" (even if we buy the idea of natural kinds, which is a necessary ontological idea to buy for the idea to make sense in the first place).
What I'm saying here isn't at all controversial in the biological sciences, by the way. People used to pay attention to it generally, but once the new racial narratives started taking over, which seemed to get launched around the early 1990s, folks started ignoring the fact that the biological sciences say that the idea of race doesn't make sense.
I think the biggest problem with the category “race” is that there is more genetic diversity within races than between them. So for instance, a tall black man is genetically closer to a tall white man, than a shorter black man.
Also with the standard "race" characteristics of skin color, hair type, nose shape, eye color. There's a huge amount of variation within a supposed "race" on those characteristics. The idea of "race" relies on ridiculous, caricatured stereotypes when it comes to that stuff.
Absolutely.
I don’t believe the species can be subdivided into races in any coherent manner, but apparently the debate is still ongoing. In philosophy it’s race realists vs race skeptics (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/). I’m not sure of where this debate is, but it would be worthwhile to check it out. I’ve read Kwami Appiah’s “The Lies that Bind”, but never really looked into the race debate in its entirety.
Ok, so you are saying that there is more genetic diversity outside the “race” paradigm than inside it? And therefore...those differences in race are by comparison...some sort of arbitrary or unnecessary distinction?
I understand that “race” is much less genetically important than other genetic factors in a persons biological make up but its still a physical set of traits that are distinct.
Also, I dont think that “racial”differences are just superficial, appearance based. Some are, like hair texture and skin colour, but others are not, like specific genetic diseases or physical prowess.
Well thats a description of race in my mind. Race is the distinctions that developed over time as the same species (human) adapted to different evolutionary stimuli.
I even think the idea that different biological sexes have significant dispositional and ability differences is mostly hogwash.
It's indicative of the tendency that people have to categorize and divide, but where it's just a bunch of nonsense. It's like when people make statements about Americans, or the French, or New Yorkers versus San Franciscans, or Yankees fans versus Cardinals fans, or anything like that--as if the fact that someone lives in America rather than France is going to tell you important things about their personality, their views, etc. It's a bunch of nonsense.
We even see it here in threads like that current one about atheism, where there are repeated attempts to paint all atheists with the same brush, merely by virtue of the fact that they're atheists.
The reason we make these gaffes is understandable--it's a relic of the necessity of thinking about things as kinds/types, because otherwise there's just too much information to have to parse on every new occasion, but we should also be able to easily see, on an intellectual level, just how stupid it is to suppose that all Americans, all French, etc. are the same in important respects, and different from each some important respects, where we're claiming that such things are simply correlated to being from America, from France (or being a Yankees fan, etc.)
There are tendencies and trends that a population to have, is accounting for that why you say “mostly” hogwash/nonsense?
Just avoiding objections from a strict literalist reading. For example, obviously women can do things associated with giving birth that men can not do.
To me you are describing stereotypes, not race. Stereotypes are trends/tendencies about groups/population.
That's the whole idea. As I wrote to NOS4A2 above:
"Also with the standard 'race' characteristics of skin color, hair type, nose shape, eye color. There's a huge amount of variation within a supposed 'race' on those characteristics. The idea of 'race' relies on ridiculous, caricatured stereotypes when it comes to that stuff."
Well some peoples ideas about race rely on the stereotypes, but it doesnt seem like stereotypes are intrinsic to “race” to me. Id call that conflating race and race stereotypes.
Anyway, thanks for being patient, I understand.
The logical dilemma is that you can't forward an idea of "race" that's accurate about what people and their genetic traits are like with the idea being coherent, because people considered the same "race" are at least as varied with respect to each other as people of different "races." So the idea has to rest on inaccurate stereotypes about the traits in question.
As far as I remember, there's evidence black cops are more likely to use lethal force than white ones.
Also black men aren't more likely to be killed by police than white men when controlling for crime rate, they're actually less likely.
In bulk numbers, about 500 white men are killed by police in the USA every year, compared to 360 black men. Those rates have nothing to do with population and almost everything to do with violent crime rate. See men vs women.
Well they wouldn't be varied as you describe on certain traits (racial ones), and the trends/tendencies (stereotypes) wouldnt be something thats always applied to all members of the race since thats not what a trend or tendency is (they arent things we expect to always be the case fir all members of the race).
So it seems like a conflation of race traits and race stereotypes you are making, and then rejecting the concept of “race”.
I understand that might be my own idiosyncratic distinction, just for the record.
I've never seen the scientific evidence for this, I hear it often but I'm sure it's a myth.
Now, the colonial way races were divided up which we still use may indeed not accurately reflect people's degree of biological relation (whichi si what race is). The best example of this is how much racial diversity there is in Africa among all "black" people.
But a nore accurate definition of race would be haplogroup. And that's what a race is in every meaningful way - a group of people defined by how related they are to each other compared to other groups. And haplogroups exist, which means race exists. People within that haplogroup will have more in common with each other genetically than they do with anybody from a different haplogroup.
The risk is the essentialism involved in racism, I think. There is an essence, characteristic, or set of “racial traits” for members of races, when such essences cannot be found with any exactitude, if at all.
I think it's because we now have true equality of opportunity. And under these circumstances, you get to see what people's TRUE differences in ability really are. And progressives do not like what they see.
Now that biological inequality is being rubbed in progressive's faces, they are reacted badly. They are reacting by upping their group bias in favor of underachievers to insane levels. This manifests as advocating more and more redistribution and forced desegregation. Including redistributing school grades, advocating new welfare programs, reparations and programs promote favored groups up the hierarchies of institutions, etc.
All that you'd need to do is look at people.
Risk? As in, if racists make it racist?
So look like each other = have similar genes?
The appearance factors in question are matters of genetic expression.
It's here.
Quoting Hallucinogen
In some respects, yes, but those characteristics will very unlikely be visually identifiable and most will be derivable from several unique alleles making distinction vague at best.
So minorities assume that the majority is thinking in terms of race, rather than how the OP is explaining that everyone should look at race. It racist to assume that a particular person thinks a certain way, or views others a certain way, simply based on the color of their skin.
How does someone come to assume what others think, or how they behave, because of the color of their skin? Most likely how someone was raised. If your folks were raised in a different time, then they're going to raise you as if there times are still relevant today. They aren't. We have, and are still trying to move past racism and the only way to do that is to stop dividing people and making assumptions about them based on the color of their skin.
That's not going to happen. Given [insert local history here] it simply is the case that people of ethnicity X are liable to be in danger from people of ethnicity Y in the places where people of ethnicity Y rule the roost and there is a history of conflict. This applies to honkeys in the South African townships, and blacks almost anywhere in the US or Europe. Only if you are of ethnicity Y that rules the roost can you afford to ignore the obvious facts of life on some theoretical principle.
One comes to assume these things because they are true, not because genes or skin colour make it true, but because social forces make it true. Just as Germans tend to speak German despite there being no gene for speaking German and no distinct race of Germans. It is a wonder to me that seemingly educated folks hereabouts cannot get their heads around this.
Well, but that mostly holds true not for "Germans" but "people living in Germany."
There are plenty of Germans (i.e., people of German descent) living in America who couldn't tell Spätzle from Knödel if their life depended on it.
It is a complex problem because self-labelling also becomes a factor... i.e. it's not merely true because [generic] "social forces" make it true, but also because the minorities themselves begin to self-identify with those labels and self-identify as victims.
I think it then becomes a valid question to ask whether we should continue to use those labels even though there is some historical social reality to it that still affects those minorities.
I agree with the description, but not necessarily with the prescription....I don't think anybody really 'knows' how to solve this problem.
Quoting Artemis
Well there you have it. One begins with a nationality, and it becomes a race. Such is identity. But what, then does one make of 'American'? Some Americans are Germans that don't speak German? Some Americans are Africans? Are there some American Americans? If there are, they sure ain't white or black.
Some Americans speak English - some Americans are English. It would be nice to be able to say this is all nonsense, and it is all nonsense in the same way that the holocaust was nonsense - lethal nonsense. And that is my point against the op and his ilk. You can make the denial of race, but are you putting your life on the line? Because if you aren't then you are abusing your (white) privilege. Because if those others start treating you just like any other nigga, you gonna freak out big time.
Are you stereotyping all black people as ghetto gang-bangers now? Ha! I know a few Nigerians who will get a kick out of that. Excuse me while I take a screen shot of this. :lol:
Well... They try.
Honestly, this is how I see the logic of people that focus on race so much. It is a social construct and I can promise you that the millennia of slavery and empires that have spanned the globe pretty much guarantees that most people these days have some degree of being mixed race. We are all pretty much mixed. OP is right. This is backpedaling.
Clearly, you're responding to what you've read into what I wrote and not to what I wrote.
I am freaking out Big Time.
There's a NY Times piece on how Italian Americans became white. It's pretty good.
In other words, how descendents of poor Euro-immigrants became American In-Groupies, thereby privileged enough to (eventually try to) blind themselves to still prevalent racial color-discrimination with kumbaya "racial color-blindness".
The problem, as I see it, is that you’re treating individuals in accordance with their group membership, their “identity”, and not their individuality. For Instance color blindness is not just practiced by white people, despite the claims of identity politicians.
The belief that the species can be divided into races, and the promulgation of that theory, is racism. It immediately sets the foundation for all hierarchical thinking regarding races. The mental segregation of disparate, unconnected individuals into categories of “race” ultimately leads to real segregation.
I think it’s self evident that even discussing this is putting something on the line for equality. I’ll continue to evaluate people on the content of their character but I can refrain from judging most based on that even then as I am familiar enough with psychology and trauma to have an understanding of the why in most people’s behaviour.
Men and women of all colour are Muslim, and many of all religions and “races” believe in equality and the human will and spirit. You don’t have to be any one thing in order to be a good person. All you have to do is help contribute to a stable future for life. If we maintain the arguments of race then the future is less stable. Now, that is not to say that being “colour blind” means you ignore racism, on the contrary you fight it with arguments like these. No one here is ignoring racism right now. The root of racism though, is the social construct of race.
These are the sorts of conversations that really need to be had with real racists though. It is quite foolish to watch the children in the playground argue over the best colour.
Thanks. Although I would point out 2 things: that it reiterates that we can cluster people into meaningful groups, and that characterising 377 microsatellites will give an underestimate of how different individuals/groups are from each other. This because it's not just the sequence of small areas that matters, but the areas around them and the distances between them as well. It's like measuring how often a word is used in two different books to say how similar they are. It's not just the words that matter but the sentences they are in. You'd have to do full genomic sequencing to truly see how different people are.
Could you let me know what it's called? What means does it use to prove that?
I've seen that Europeans never truly assimilated into America: that is that different European ethnicities have the same level of relative income, crime rate and alcoholism as they did when they arrived. e.g. Protestants from England and Germany at the top (highest income, lowest crime, lowest alcoholism) and Irish and Italians at the bottom.
I don't agree (at all) with OP that diversity training is some kind of malevolent cancer of society or anything like that, but I do generally think that policies ought to treat people without regard for race, and that that doesn't mean denying the history of racial injustice. And I'm wondering if that counts as "colorblindness" in the eyes of those who oppose that.
(I do think that policies ought to treat people differently according to their needs, and that that will automatically treat people of historically disadvantaged races better, exactly in proportion to the present legacy of that disadvantage, without ever having to explicitly discriminate on the grounds of race).
How do you/we know this? Cite some data or sources. Thanks.
Given that outcome is the product of ability and opportunity, if you assume there is equality of opportunity, then differences in outcome are indicative of differences in ability. But it's equally possible that differences in outcome indicate differences in opportunity.
We have independent means of measuring human ability, which generally show results that are normally distributed (i.e. on a Gaussian curve). If opportunity was distributed uniformly (equally), we would expect a normal (Gaussian) distribution of outcomes as well. But instead, outcomes are far from normally distributed. That indicates that opportunity is not, in fact, uniformly distributed.
Quoting Hallucinogen
I can point you to a history book - THE COLOR OF LAW (2017) - that will show that we do not have, and have not had equality of opportunity. We need not go back as far as the 18th and 19th centuries and slavery. Let's go back to the 1930s.
IN the middle of the Great Depression, Roosevelt recognized that the availability and quality of housing in the US was poor. Of course, there were fine houses being built, but across the board, housing stock was deteriorating and was in short supply. In 1934 Congress created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) which was charged with the task of promoting housing construction. One element of the law was that the FHA housing program was NOT TO RESULT IN INTEGRATED HOUSING. Blacks and whites would both be served, but not in the same places.
For white people there was an ambitious program of suburban community creation with tracts of new single-family housing located next to existing cities. For blacks, there was to be a large program of rental housing creation inside existing cities. Before these plans could be rolled out, WWII intervened. After WWII, the FHA program took off.
The quality of the housing was at least GOOD. The urban rental housing was sturdily built, and where they were maintained, FHA buildings remain in use and are in good shape. The suburban housing tracts were semi-manufactured, and were built very rapidly. Still, the quality was at least good. The houses were fairly small, and were situated on (usually) spacious lots. No city or suburban developer ever had difficulty finding urban renters or eager buyers. The housing was affordable but not "cheap".
Over time, the affordable suburban housing was improved by the owners. Rooms were added, landscaping was carried out, and services were upgraded. The value of the homes has, on average, continually appreciated. Some modest houses built in the 1950s now sell for $300,000 to $400,000.
The rental housing built in cities provided good housing, but renters do not accumulate equity. After 10 years of renting, a family is not better off in terms of equity than they were the day the moved in. Suburban families, however, stood to gain equity which they could either cash out, pass on to children, or keep by remaining in place. When they did cash out their property, they might enjoy a very large windfall that could be used for education, purchasing another house, or some other life enhancement.
Many cities had a weak commitment to maintaining the rental housing stock. If it was allowed to deteriorate, a downward spiral could--and often did--begin, which ended up with the rental housing turning into high-rise slums. Chicago had huge rental housing tracts built which were initially good, but ended up being altogether unlivable--owing to urban housing authority corruption and neglect.
The upshot of the FHA program is this:
After 40 years of official segregation, and 70 years of de facto segregation, suburban whites were much better off financially than they were immediately after WWII, and urban blacks were as bad off, or worse off, than they were in 1946.
Since education is organized along community boundaries, suburban communities have generally funded much better education than poorer cities. That's another way that opportunity is not equally distributed. Poor and poorly educated populations tend to have worse health outcomes than more affluent people. That's a third inequity of opportunity.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Like a MEGA boss! :strong: :clap: :party:
Also, thanks, BC, for the relevant literature. :cool:
Yes, but based on ancestry which it specifically then goes on to demonstrate does not reveal itself in any identifiable collection of physical characteristics. People's ancestry can be vitally important to identifying their genetic make-up, but it is not reliably identifiable by natural breaks in the scale of physical characteristics.
Quoting Hallucinogen
Those factors were measured, that's how they determined their ancestry groupings, but the number of loci required to generate a distinct cluster was regularly in the hundreds and most groups shared a large number of loci. So whilst this is important for epidemiology, it has almost no bearing at all on traditional concepts of 'race'.
Indeed, racism is not confined to white people either. I have already hinted at this. Colour blindness is however just practiced by dominant power groups. So in, say, a situation where the police, lawyers and judges are overwhelmingly black, they may very well claim to be colour blind, because justice is their job, but the white supplicant will be hyper vigilant about colour.
So when one speaks of white privilege it is not an inherent property of whiteness, but a property of power. The prejudices of Blacks in the US or Pakistanis in Britain, may be just as widespread, virulent and unconscious as those of European descent, but it has importance only to the extent that the group or the individuals have power.
Power is manifested in stereotypes (general rule) - positive stereotypes for dominant groups, and vice versa. Stereotypes have unconscious influence even on people who consciously reject them.
If you can, Patricia Williams Reith Lectures audio here or in book form is very informative on why 'colour-blindness' is not where it's at.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Studies (from the UK at least) show that education funding has very little effect on pupil's academic attainment and life outcomes.
Quoting Bitter Crank
And what's the evidence that bad health outcome is mediated by low education or poverty?
I can simply claim that people who have the personality factors that cause them to be in poverty are the same ones that cause them to be uneducated and make bad decisions for their health.
Anyway, any claim that there's huge variation in people's opportunities in America has to deal with the fact that the highest earners are Asians and Jews. Do Asians have the most opportunity?
In addition, the groups of people with the highest representaion among high social status jobs are Copts, Hindus, Indian Christians, Iranian Muslims, Black Africans etc. Does that mean those groups of people have a surplus of opportunity?
And the picture looks even better when you start looking at which people in particular succeed and which personality traits they have that predict future success. That shows that IQ and conscientiousness are the traits that pick out an individual from a group, regardless of what group they're a member of, for being successful in the future.
"Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2016 inflation-adjusted dollars)". American Community Survey. United States Census Bureau."
1 Indian $128,000
2 East Asian $85,349
3 White $67,865
The most socially mobile groups in the USA are non-white foreigners: 18 m 30 s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QyIMwzHuiCU&t=1110s
So largely, I view outcome as a function of ability, with very little difference in opportunity between people.
Here's a source for my claim that IQ and conscientiousness predict future earnings:
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/1/3
I'm confused by what you're saying here. You first make a claim that outcome is a function of ability, with very little difference in opportunity between people, then you cite an unrelated study about correlation between IQ and income. Am I missing something?
It's called How Italians Became White
Several historians are mentioned. The Times itself is used as a reference since it reflected popular bigotry.
Clearly you don't understand what you wrote. To assume that others think or act a particular way based on the color of their skin is racist. That is what you proposed that the minorities should do - assume that all whites are racists - which is racist. It's "fighting" racism with racism. It seems that you are blind to your own racial discrimination against "whites".
Quoting 180 Proof
You seem to be confusing blindness to race with blindness to race discrimination.
If one is blind to race. It means that they don't categorize people based on the color of their skin - just as we don't categorize people by the color of their eyes. Being blind to the racial discrimination is another thing. I can't be blind to my own racial discrimination if I'm not racially discriminating. I can however be blind to others treatment of others. But that's the thing isn't it - that not all white people are racist?
If you are so sure that racism is just a fact of life for cultures that have a majority/minority dichotomy, then what is the purpose of complaining about something that can't be changed? What's the point?
It comes down to how you are raised. Did your parents make it a point to distinguish between the color of peoples' skin? Did they categorize people as "black" and "white" and then treat people differently based on the color of their skin, or raise their children to believe that the other race is out to get them?
Mine didn't. So I grew up thinking that the color of one's skin wasn't a defining property of people - just as eye color or hair color aren't defining properties of people. Their actions are. Skin color is just another variable to being human. When you are raised to see everyone as human and not black and white, it has an effect on how you view others when you become an adult.
Now if you are raised to believe that there is a difference, and that the other side is out to get you, or hold you down in some way, then of course that is the mentality you are going to have as an adult. It's really that simple.
There is difference in cultures that racism is promoted by the state (Nazi Germany) and cultures where racism isn't promoted by the state and is rather promoted by individual families or groups, but it's not systematic (The U.S.).
Just to clarify I did not state diversity training was a malevolent cancer, only that diversity training is a manifestation of anti-colorblindness.
We could just call it “privilege”, then, without racializing it.
Do you prefer judging people according to the content of their character, or does the color of their skin factor into your judgement?
For the reasons you outlined, I have started to question the validity of an "equality of opportunity". Increasingly, it seems to me that "equality of opportunity, not of outcome" has become a kind of mantra, a signal more than an actual policy decision.
Equality is a value judgement, whereby we compare different states and decide whether or not these states are sufficiently similar in their characteristics to warrant being treated in the same way. In that sense, there is no way to establish equality of opportunity, because opportunity is not a state of affairs - it's another judgement.
So what we are actually doing when we assess "equality of opportunity" is looking at outcomes - just not at actual outcomes, but of predicted outcomes. I don't see how we could arrive at a judgement of "equality of opportunity" that wouldn't include a judgement on the equality of outcomes.
Another reason to be skeptical of equality of opportunity is that opportunities are only available in a particular time and place, out of the reach of a vast majority of the human population. There is no such thing as equality of opportunity. Perhaps it is a bad phrase.
But I think the main point of it, at least colloquially, is the removal of unjust barriers to participation.
Quoting Hallucinogen
In the US, education funding is largely a local matter. It may be the case that in the UK education funding is largely a national matter. How funding is distributed would be a factor in examining differing educational outcomes. In the US, the relationship between the average income of a school district (which generally overlap municipal boundaries) is very strongly related to academic performance. Income of households is certainly correlated with (even caused by) the personal characteristics of parents and children. Among any group one can find individuals whose life outcomes are much better (and much worse) than the average. Averages submerge individual achievements and failures.
Quoting Hallucinogen
The evidence is in both case histories and statistically large group outcomes. In the case histories one will find personality factors and bad decisions that resulted in poor health, but these disappear in large statistical groups, and other factors emerge. Being born in "the fried fish belt" of the Deep South, for instance, is indicative of poorer health outcomes. Why? Because of lower income, more smoking, more bad diets (too much fat, sugar), obesity, stress, and so forth. People with low income MUST behave differently than people with high income because their choices are limited by low income.
Quoting Hallucinogen
Of course. If you select people who have succeeded (however success is defined) you will find similarities. If you select out people who have failed (however failure is defined) you will also find similarities. Personal characteristics (conscientiousness, success-producing habits, successful role models, etc.) will be there In most cases.
You will have to read the book (The Color of Law, among others) to get the evidence on black/white achievement differentials.
I do not disagree with you that personal characteristics play a strong role in success. But group histories and characteristics amplify personal features. Take your high-achieving South and East Asians for example. My guess is that this high achieving group do not represented a cross section of the populations in South and East Asia from which they originated. This would be unlikely for two reasons: #1 immigration quotas in the US favor people who are educated and have skills that are in demand. #2 is that leaving South and East Asia to immigrate and settle in the United States would require considerable wherewithal. These people are successful here because they were successful there.
If you are ready to perform at a high level In technological fields and you settle in Silicon Valley or Boston, one ought to do well. Similarly, if you leave China and can afford to settle in Vancouver, you had to have been a success already. Success begets success.
Success begets success: this is a truth Americans do not love. The popular mythology holds that anyone can be a big success if they work very hard, save their pennies, invest wisely, and so on.
There are a few rags to riches stories that are true. In most cases, those who end up rich did NOT start out with rags. Most successful people started out with advantages: Successful parents with at least above-average incomes; stable homes; good schools; good community environment; good role models; (often) higher education; good health, stable personality.
In all cases of success, the brains and piles of wealth represented by investment banking step in (or not) to make good ideas a success. If the best idea in the world doesn't appeal to the bankers, you'll have to take a begging bowl out to raise funds. Unlikely.
But all that is about a tiny minority of the population--people who belong to the 1%. For people who make it into the top 10%, you will find that far more often than not, they came from the top 10%.
Conversely, people who "make it" into the bottom 10% generally came from the bottom 10% (except the very downward mobile). And on up the line.
Where does the African American fit into this? As a group, they tend to have started out poorer than average and generation after generation stayed poorer than average. Did they like it that way? No, they did not, do not.
Successive generations of poverty create an impoverished culture which imparts to individuals habits that do not lead to success. This is NOT unique to blacks: any group mired in successive generations of poverty (including anglo-saxons) will develop habits that do not lead to success, and they will -- by definition -- not have the resources it takes to leap out of the impoverished culture/comunity/family.
That's a fairly shitty question. I'd prefer to conduct a detailed interview following a written application, and then follow up the references. But when I'm walking down the street at 1.30 am on a Saturday night, I don't have that luxury. And that's why people who look intimidating tend to get shot by cops. They're not trying to be prejudiced, they don't prefer to be, they just are.
That’s a pretty shitty answer. I was merely asking if race factors into your own judgement, and if not, why should it factor into the judgement of others?
Ah yes. And to think we started out as fish.
Well, it may be that some people from "illustrious biological lineages" can fall into poverty (like, not so much as a room and a pot to piss in) and then in subsequent generations become magnates of industry. There is no reason why such a thing can't happen. But then, why do people from "illustrious biological lineages" fall into poverty in the first place if they are so illustrious? Lots of illustrious biological specimens went bankrupt in the Great Depression. It wasn't their fault that there was a depression that wiped out an enormous amount of wealth, but they were swept along to their financial doom. And their great grand children tell stories about their illustrious biological lineage who struck it rich, once upon a time. Meanwhile, the great grand children are living pay check to pay check, as did their parents and grand parents.
We are all products of at least somewhat illustrious biological lineages, because we are here. Really fucked up biological lineages get eaten alive -- go a ways back and that would be literally eaten alive.
Another problem with illustrious biological lineages is defining the thing. What is an illustrious biological lineage exactly? Perfect physical specimen plus very high IQ plus athletic ability, plus incredibly good looks, plus a big dick?
Peter Watson (you wouldn't know him) was an important person in mid-century modern art. What was Peter's biggest asset (besides good looks and a big dick, which he reportedly had)? It was income from a hundred million dollar trust fund. Plus, it was the years at "public school" (AKA private schools) such as Eton and Oxford. It happened that Pete flunked out of Oxford. Still, his family connections, his schooling, and his money gave him automatic entre to places that would tell schmucks like us to take a flying fuck. Peter Watson was smart, very well educated on his own as well as school, fluent in a couple of languages besides English. He knew a lot about art, which he learned on his own, mostly.
But then, there are quite a few people who are multilingual who are not "important people". There are quite a few intellectuals and artists that die poor, or at least, not well off.
Prejudice (e.g. "racial"-color stereotypes/biases) [b]+
Power[/b] (i.e. majority/over-Class) [b]=
Racism[/b] (i.e. modes/strategies of discrimination against "racial" minority/under-Class)
Quoting Harry Hindu
Thanks for proving my point, Harry. :clap:
I was a white kid who grew-up a racial minority and I can’t recall the luxury of being color-blind at the time.
I can say "wealthy families" instead, does that make it clearer?
You're assuming the conclusion of your own argument. The information I've linked to outright refutes this.
Also, with a spot of Googling you can see that receiving a private education produces little to no effect on life outcome, which is amusing because people pay so much for it. Having gone to an exclusive school is associated with having a higher paying job as an adult, but I shouldn't have to point out to philosophers that that doesn't mean it causes it. What causes it is the genetic advantage of the parents wealthy enough to send their kids to an exclusive school.
Where? I've already asked you for the information you're referring to proving that social factors don't have a causal relationship with wealth. All you've provided is evidence that IQ does have a correlation, not that other factors don't. In fact the very report you cited said, quite specifically, that sex at birth was also correlated.
Quoting Hallucinogen
The report you cite only demonstrates a correlation. You can't claim correlation is causation when it suits your argument and that it isn't when it doesn't.
My argument is that social influences are less than genetic factors.
Quoting Isaac
Wouldn't sex at birth be a genetic influence?
[Quote="Isaac;342681"]The report you cite only demonstrates a correlation. You can't claim correlation is causation when it suits your argument and that it isn't when it doesn't.[/quote]
I have difficulty seeing how attaining wealth could change one's genes. Or that necomjng wealthy would raise one's IQ, especially given pre-existing evidence that variation in IQ is ~75% due to genetic variation.
And I was saying that of course it does, and to pretend that it doesn't is fairly shitty. It shouldn't according to some fantasy of social relations, but it does. So I acknowledge the fact, and if you would have the honesty to do the same, then we could begin to talk about whether there is anything to be done about it. When I see @180 Proof walking down the street, I'm watching to see if he pulls out a weapon. And he knows my white fear, and he's watching me the same way. Until maybe we say hi, and then since we are both liberal to a degree, he might let me move in next door or marry his daughter.
Yet then it basically isn't talked as "(put the racial/ethnic term here) priviledge". And that wouldn't have the same connotations. In fact it's really stupid to take this term "white priviledge" out of the US context and generalize it to everywhere.
:victory: :death:
Yes, I gather that, but you said...
Quoting Hallucinogen
It does not. It demonstrates a correlation between IQ and future wealth. It shows a alack of correlation between class and future wealth. It does not "outright refute" the suggestion that class-related factors, or any other inherited advantages are not also correlated with future wealth.
Quoting Hallucinogen
Yes. You said...
Quoting Hallucinogen
Sex at birth is not an 'ability'.
Quoting Hallucinogen
That's not the point. The point is that to claim that the correlation between IQ at 10 and increased wealth is indicative of variation in genetic ability being responsible for variation in life outcomes, you'd have to show a mechanism, which is exactly what is missing from the correlations with other factors you dismiss. Where is your evidence, for example, that IQ at ten is not causally correlated with social opportunity more strongly that genetic ability?
I am referring Gregory Clark's research.
Do you have a link (or have you already provided one?)
Racism is a type of prejudice - not something separate.
You seem to have missed my post about the differences between cultures in which systemic racism exists (Nazi Germany) and cultures that don't (the U.S.). Do you know what "systemic" means and did you know that blacks are part of the system? It seems to me that Barak Obama, among many other blacks in the U.S. hold more resources than I do and therefore has more power than I do. So according to your formula, I couldn't be racist against Obama, but he can be racist to me.
It's much simpler (and consistent) to say that a particular type of prejudice, or any kind of treating people differently based on the color of their skin, is racist, and it can come from anyone regardless of their power - as we all have some kind of power over one another.
IQ, like most things, is not a simple thing to assess. Studies have shown that it's culturally influenced and tests a pretty narrow range of abilities.
But let's assume for a moment that it could accurately measure important skills. Adoption studies have shown over and over again that environment plays a huge role in determining IQ. It's a mixture of nature and nurture. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403216/
Just like height. We're born with a predisposition to be a certain height range, but nutrition and exercise and emotionally stable environments determine where exactly we wind up.
This “fantasy” was the goal of the best part of the civil rights era, and the message was used to end apartheid and Jim Crow, back when people were openly persecuted for their skin color. This “fantasy” was espoused by MLK and Mandela, both of whom were thrown in jail while speaking it. Rather than promote their “fantasy” you’re reiterating the same color consciousness as their jailers, and illustrate it by proving your suspicion of another man because of his skin color.
Exactly.
One of the many studies, no doubt, which form part of the "virtually all measures of social mobility previously developed by other researchers, which Clark claims are flawed" From Wikipedia on Gregory Clark, whom @Hallucinogen claims as a source who "outright refutes" the concept of social status affecting life chances.
Does your mind take no account of the mind of others and no account of society? It is all too often the the case that 'they' decide that you are Jew or a Gypsy, or a mental defective, or some other un meaningful term and have no consideration for your views at all as the assault, imprison, or kill you, in ways that your mind will find difficult to deny.
People say such things so frequently about race, but they very rarely say it about that other social construct, property and money.
Completely wrong. It predicts lifespan, lifetime earnings, hesd circumference, success in many school subjects, the sizes of numerous brain gyri and the size and speed of your brain cells.
Quoting Artemis
By huge, do you mean 20%?
Quoting Artemis
How many studies which actually measure heritability, which this one doesn't, did you have to disregard before cherrypicking this one?
From the study itself:
"Although the 2- to 5-IQ-point advantage in the adopted-away children is smaller than differences reported in earlier and smaller studies, it is important to bear in mind that the environmental difference between the adoptive and biological families was not especially large, compared with earlier adoption studies that intentionally sampled children from extremely deprived backgrounds."
The genetic effect on IQ is far bigger than 5 points.
Quoting Isaac
No, not exactly. https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014105
Are you reading these studies? This latest put heritability of intelligence by 12 yrs at 0.46, less than half. Ie intelligence at 12 is caused more by external factors than it is by genetics. It also specifies "Intelligence is associated with education and social class" as one of its key findings.
To support your position it is not sufficient to demonstrate simply that intelligence is inherited and is a significant factor in measures of future life achievements. You need to demonstrate that intelligence is the major factor and that it is more caused by genetics than environment. None of the studies you've cited so far demonstrate this. Every single one simply confirms what is now well known (the latest study you cite even refers to it as a 'law of genetics'), that any measure of human ability will be determined in part by genes and in part by the environment acting on those genes. The environment part is what people concerned with racial and class disparities in opportunity are trying to address. If you want to claim that those efforts are pointless, you'll have to demonstrate that they have no effect.
Sometimes it seems that people are intentionally not even trying to understand what the other one is saying and only trying to put the other one in the worst light possible. Just take the message the worst way possible. And oh boy, do people love their strawmen.
Is it really so that people here think that colorblindness is a fantasy, something totally unreachable? That we utterly cannot judge people by their actions and not the color of their skin? That hence to speak about colorblindness is actually something negative, harmful and wrong?
And the other way around for the other side:
Is it so now that people aren't judged at all by their skin? It's something really meaningless now? So is now everything really OK? Especially in a country where the white people call the poor people of their own race "White trash", just to give one example? So no xenophobia and judgement of others whatsoever worth talking about?
What I do agree on is that if we take this reinstate race and gender in an macabre way to our discourse, it's not going to improve anything. But then again, people can ruin anything worth doing something about.
At 12 years. In adulthood it is about 80%.
Yes, but IQ at 11 years is the only measure we have been given (in your previously cited study) to show a correlation with future measures of life achievement, so it is the heritability of that specific trait which is in question here.
Are you branching out into phrenology now?
Smart people tend to have certain life outcomes (maybe), smart people tend to do well in school (or not, because smarter people can also tend to slack off), and your points about brain speed are almost tautological. Like saying faster people's legs move faster and more efficiently.
Quoting Hallucinogen
Are you trying to say if it were 20% that would be negligible? By your own theory, that would correlate to a twenty percent better life. I think most people would say 20% is a big improvement on life.
Quoting Hallucinogen
This is such a ridiculous statement, especially coming from the dude who previously presented his own, singular, piece of evidence that wasn't even directly related to the issue of race and IQ.
Quoting Artemis
You said...
Quoting Hallucinogen
...and proceeded to cite a study which demonstrated exactly what @Artemis said - that IQ (in the context we're discussing) is determined in huge part by environment.
As you said, this another common strawman. Of course people are judged by the color of heir skin. That’s no question. Color blindness is merely that we shouldn’t judge people by the color of their skin. It’s not to deny racism exists, it’s to refuse to engage in racism, to refuse racialize others, and to refuse to utilize these outmoded categories.
Well, people are perhaps in love with their own narrative, so happy in their own echo chamber in the discourse and simply aren't willing to listen.
And people simply aren't anymore ready to engage other one's thoughts on the level of "I agree with you on x, however I disagree with y". Seems like you are giving your little finger to the Devil if you acknowledge that the people you disagree with have also a point.
And what point would that be?
HAHAHA!
Well, if you don't find ANYTHING you would agree on with the people for example here on PF you mostly disagree with and argue with, then the above description fits you. :wink:
I agree on some things and disagree on others. If they say the water is wet, I would agree. As for this particular topic, there is little to no agreement.
Just re-read the first page on this thread and it's totally obvious that people are talking about separate issues and without bothering to think about what others are talking about.
As you said above "Of course people are judged by the color of heir skin. That’s no question." Then read just from the first page replies like of Maw and 180Proof, and I'm quite sure people agree on something here… but, of course, that doesn't matter. You are worried about the woke intersectionality rising and the "attack" on colorblindness and the racialization of nearly everything and they just notice hmm…. perhaps hypocrite white denial or see right wing tropes and go on the counterattack. Or something.
In order to discriminate, on any level, one must have a difference identified between two things. You can’t discriminate ‘twixt two of the same. So, when we talk about discrimination toward people, this must be stemming from a perceived difference in said people. I deny the manifestation of genetic differences as having any ground to begin to differentiate people on any meaningful level. At least in terms of human and civil rights issues and basic “all men are created equal” values. (things like artistic, athletic, or intellectual gifts, etc. are not involved in what I mean with genetic manifestations, to be clear. Surface level bodily makeup stuff is what I’m referring to)
Meaningful differences between people start with cultural and ideological differences and thus my view avoids considering someone’s skin color or other genetic traits insofar that those traits (in and of themselves) should influence any sort of discriminatory or negative value judgement.
Labeling someone a Jew, Gypsy or mentally defective are examples of culturally constructed “types” and of course people are discriminated against for reason’s other than just “race”. I recognize not everyone holds my same view and of course I’m as vulnerable as anyone to be discriminated against.
I’m not sure I get what you mean--What do people frequently say about race and how is what they say related to social constructs like property and money?
I guess I’m unsure how this is a problem and why I am the one being called out on it.
I repeat, you can deny it all you want and I might even agree with you in one sense. but in another sense there really are differences of skin colour, and they really do make a significant difference to one's chances of surviving the KKK lynch-mob.
So we have skin colour as a partially genetically determined variable, and that, in a particular society, is closely correlated with the chances of being lynched. So what in this are you denying?
That's like saying 'Rape is a type of fucking - not something separate.' :brow:
Absolutely, well said. As if the taxonomy of the thing was the most important issue!
That's your response to my post? :lol:
Quoting Isaac
That wasn't the issue, but 180 wants to make that the issue to avoid what was said in the rest of the post they quoted.
Wow. Some people are still living in the 1950s.
There are differences in eye and hair color as well, but most people seem to be focused on skin color. Why? Probably because of how you were raised.
Or are you saying that there are real differences in the behavior of people with different skin colors? How do those differences come about - culturally (how you were raised) or genetically (how you were born)?
Exactly the same reason I value those particular bits of paper with the complicated design that say "£20" on them. What a munchkin eh? Good job there are some rational folk around that just throw them away.
Amazing how we can recognize social realities without necessarily condoning their effects. Mind. Blown.
cheers
:shade:
But you can see their inability to see in all of them? How does that work?
Layer onto this the diversity of human language, specific languages and the politics of individual and group diplomacy, and you’ll find ‘race’ is a term that carries weight due to its broad application outside of the scientific definition. Essentially ‘racial’ differences are ‘cultural’ differences - which are often encapsulated by physical features (phenotypes).
I think it was Charles Dickens who protested against ‘pity’? I may be completely wrong? Some guy way back any hows! He basically said that if you walk past a homeless person on the street not to have ‘pity’ but to understand that under other circumstances that person could just as easily have been you. This was not meant to induce ‘guilt’ or ‘pity’, merely a regard for the other person as a fellow human being rather than as someone in ‘unfortunate’ circumstances to be treated as ‘lesser’ - by patronising them or feeling personally responsible for their circumstances. They are there. Treat them with respect not ‘pity’, ‘shame’ or ‘guilt’ - be charitable with your words, time and attitude towards fellow humans.
We all carry biases and attending to them won’t make them magically disappear. Pointing out the faults of others should be muted compared to how we point the finger at ourselves. People are far more similar than different.
Was it Dickens? People let me know who it was. Thanks :)
It's potentially worse. Depending on intent, it can be a strategy for a dominant group, after ensuring a dominated group has been pushed to the bottom of society, to claim moral brownie points for doing nothing to right the wrong.
Nietzsche's a 19th century candidate - he rages against 'pity' for being akin to a contagion of Xtian sickness (or herd resentment/decadence). Yeah, blame Freddy the Pitiless ...
:lol: Here's an alternative metaphor: it's like stepping on someone's face and then demanding no-one recognize footprints.
As others have pointed out, it is in fact culture that gives you the most interesting information about who someone is. But people don't actually care as much about that as race, since it is not as simple and accessible. I will sometimes reply "are you interested in my culture or race?", which leaves the asker quite puzzled indeed and usually serves to alienate me from the asker.
For quite some time I rallied against the forces and tried to promote a new world where in fact we did not refer to people using color descriptors, but rather advocated for more accurate descriptions based on culture. It;s a tough fight though, trying to navigate the world describing people physically and culturally without linking the two.
So it was practically speaking somewhat draining. The other causal factor in my abandoning this approach was the deconstruction at the macro level of my ethical compass (due to a dislodged theistic belief system), The question that arises in my head now, is why should the privileged give up their privilege? Are not the less privileged simply advocating for their own self interest such that they can become more privileged? Why shouldn't the privileged do the same?
If "Europeans" aren't/weren't seeing color, then an argument that they are or were a culturally dominant group exhibiting racism wouldn't make any sense. The only way that racism from Europeans would make any sense is if they are/were seeing color and making decisions based on that.
Similar comments go for the other examples.
I’m wondering how you could know any of the following:
It sounds more like an admission of guilt or projection than of fact. Could I hazard a guess that you are an able-bodied European cis male?
This going back to the OP....
Quoting NOS4A2
You didn't give a reason (in other words - you aren't reasoning). You just gave another example of bandwagoning.
Quoting Baden
LOL. What is the point in recognizing differences when there is no purpose in recognizing them? Seems like a category error.
It seems to me that both you and unenlightened are saying that blacks and whites are more different than the color of their skin regardless of where they live. So it seems to me that you both are saying it is biological, not social.
Maybe if you'd both supply some reasoning behind your claims instead of trying to get a gold medal for mental gymnastics, we could get somewhere.
Quoting Baden
No, it's about being blind to the differences that don't matter. Eye color has no effect on your behavior. But it seems to me that both you and unenlightened are saying being black or white has an effect on you behavior regardless of where you live - where blacks are majority and white are a minority. What is the difference - other than the color of our skins - that you are referring to?
Quoting Banno
Minorities can be privileged. Define "privileged".
None of you seem to realize the difference between racism promoted by some government (The U.S. in 1800) and racism that isn't promoted by the government (the U.S. today). The minority has gone from not having any freedom to participate in the system to being part of the system , that you claim is still racist. It's irrational. In not recognizing the difference, you are playing down the moral error that existed in the U.S. prior to the 1860's.
What is your point - that whites recognize the color of skin and then do what - treat others with different color skin equally? I don't see how one is suppose to recognize someone as different yet treat them equally. What is the point in recognizing the differences? Is it just to recognize a difference in the color of one's skin or something more? I keep asking that question, but you all keep avoiding it. It seems pointless to be forced to recognize the difference in the color of our skins when they all come in different shades, yet ignore the other differences that we have. What makes a difference in skin color more special than a difference in eye color? What about our similarities that we share? We have more in common than we don't because we are all part of the same race - the human race. Why are we focusing on one difference that doesn't really matter? Or does it? I say it doesn't. You say it does. So you must think that blacks are more different than whites beyond the color of their skin.
What does "different but equal" mean other than the fact that the differences don't matter when it comes to how you treat people? Is that not what color-blindness means?
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting Banno
And no interest either to understand the question, obviously. As obviously NOS4A2 is a troll, right?
Here's the problem (if I in my stupidity understand it): you two are simply talking about separate issues and presume some meta-narrative in the other one's argument.
NOS4A2: Colorblindness, means that we should judge people on their individual merits and not on the color of their skin and this is a good thing. Yet woke people are against this!
BANNO: Colorblindness, means that white people ignore the minority status of others and think racism doesn't exist anymore when they don't "see color". Colorblindness bolsters dog whistle politics and gives refuge to white racism.
Feel free to correct me, if I've missunderstood.
Yes, I think you got it exactly. Nice observation.
Yeah, I don't see a need for reform when reform has already happened, or that there are rules in the books for treating people equally. When there are already rules for treating people equally or else you get punished, what else could you want - special treatment instead of equal treatment? It seems to me that you don't need more rules - just enforce the rules you already have. Good luck with that. How can you prove that someone rejected another person for a job because of the color of their skin or that someone doesn't want to associate with you because of the color of your skin?
Do you accept the possibility that someone can be falsely accused of racism - that racism is applied when it isn't applicable? If so, then shouldn't it be it be the responsibility of the accuser to prove racism happened instead of the other way around, especially in a country where "you are innocent until proven guilty"?
That could be what he's essentially saying, but if so, I don't see how that makes any sense. If people are colorblind, how would racism arise? No one would even see race.
Of course Banno can talk for himself. I'm just trying understand the idea.
Naturally you would have to follow American public discourse about the issue in order to understand the 'dog whistles' and intensions and beliefs people have about colorblindness. Without that context it might be difficult to understand. Basically it's about evading racial issues:
Perhaps the idea is easier to understand with gender/sex. Assume a sought after managerial job position would be open for everybody, males or females, but the requirements would be besides managerial qualities also that the person has to qualify at least two of the three demands: has to be 180cm or over tall, able to lift 100 kg and run 3000m in 12 minutes. Now of course there can be women that fill those requirements, but those are few, hence it's obvious that the selection prefers males. Naturally this doesn't mean that the requirements are indeed there to discriminate women, there can perhaps be a practical and logical reason for the height requirement etc. But if there aren't good reasons for it, then it is this kind selection is hidden discrimination.
Colorblindness, not speaking and thinking about race at all, can perhaps be used to hide or simply forget discrimination and racial problems. Yet I think it is quite a long stretch to go there. And then the term is simply abused in a way that forgets totally the intension.
Yet I don't think anybody here is against the idea that people should be judged of their actions, not based on the color of their skin.
An oddly self-negating construct: "all we need is the rules we already have, but they don't work".
Mmm. But isn't this your first post in reply to me?
Like I said above, it depends on intent. There's a political element to it (certainly in the US) that's transparently self-serving for right-wingers who don't care about racism.
Well, as long as it's not a bar fight.
Turkey declaring a ceasefire after it has annexed Kurdistan. That's fair. Any Kurds or Syrians who fight after the declaration of a ceasefire are acting in bad faith.
Whitefella give you your land back, unless it has something in it we can mine, or we need to put a road or pipeline over it, 'cause then it belongs to all of us, again.
All fair, all good.
Woke people are against it because the question of "individual merit" turns the value of people into a counterfactual question within racial relationships with in society.
Instead of understanding an individual of a racial group belongs to a society, the question of "individual merit" is pulled up before that belonging is granted. People are thought to have to something before we consider them to belong. When the merit understood by society (e.g. wealth, status,etc) is divided along some racial line, the notion of individual merit turns into a judgment of the belonging of people in that group.
In the racial context, individual merit is a problem. We need to understand even those of what might be deemed of lesser individual merit to have full value and belonging to society. Otherwise, our notion of individual merit is just acting as a proxy a racism.
I call 'em pubs, boss.
What would be requirements like that that have anything to do with race, though? You'd have to believe that there really are ability differences due to race, but there aren't.
And what would be some practical examples of requirements like that which affect gender that don't have something to do with the practical aspects of a particular job?
If people are colorblind, there can't BE any differences that stem from racism.
The upshot of this is that obviously there are a lot of people who aren't colorblind, and that's the problem.
But what have you provided as solution? More unenforcable rules?
And how is the rule, "treat people equally or there will be negative consequences" not working?
It would only not work if you wanted special treatment instead of equal treatment.
The racial context is the problem to begin with. Seeing everything through “the lens of race”, as critical race theorists propose, is to adopt the same race-thinking of their supremacist forebears. It’s not a denial of racism but the continued application of it.
Abstractly imprisoning people within these outmoded, superstitious categories is an exercise in mental apartheid, and when applied to real flesh and blood human beings, becomes actual apartheid.
You dont think there are ability differences between races? None? Why do american blacks dominate most american sports? Culture?
Obviously im speaking in general terms, but it seems like there are physical differences, and Therefore difference in some physical abilities. No?
What about the physical strength of say the Japanese compared to African Americans, or Scandinavians? Would you say absolutely zero difference in physical ability? (Again, generically speaking. Obviously there are outliers).
Would you explain differences as cultural instead of say, the geological area the race is adapted to? (Kenyans come to mind, My understanding is that the higher elevation has equipped the average Kenyan for endurance running more so than most other races).
Yes, I think that sports/"race" correlations are cultural, which explains why there are various shifts in the demographics of different sports over the years. For example, there aren't a ton of Hispanics playing baseball now because they only recently were allowed to play or because they're inherently better at baseball. It's because baseball is really popular in a lot of Hispanic countries/cultures. And eastern Europeans and Canadians aren't inherently better at hockey. Etc.
Quoting DingoJones
Correlated to "race," yes.
And right, re geographical factors having an impact on some things, too.
Another thing that's important here is what/where scouts put their focus, with it being the case that scouts will concentrate on geographical areas, schools, etc. that have produced a number of great players. People working in sports tend to focus on statistics in a way that's pretty blatantly superstitious (including that the vast majority of athletes are very superstitious, very ritual-oriented in that, etc.), where they strongly believe in streaks even when there's no rational reason to believe in them. So if a number of great hockey players have come out of Slovakia, say, scouts are going to put more attention on potential Slovakian players, because they believe in streaks.
Nope.
Define privilege. Its a privilege to accuse someone of racism and not have to supply any evidence other than the color of one's skin.
Ok, so bone density has no effect in difference of physical ability? (Its uncontroversially understood that black people have higher bone density that white people for exsmple)
Also, the geographical factors can result in differences in races, if one race spent most of its time in a specific place with specific geo factors and another race somewhere else...they would have different factors...wouldnt they?
Obviously there are physical differences in races, what is it that draws a line between those physical differences and physical differences that effect physical ability?
That sounds doubtful to me, but at any rate, even if it were the case, no, bone density isn't going to have any difference in athletic ability. We're not talking about breaking bones.
You've said a number of things that suggest you might be a bit racist, by the way.
Racist against which race? Just all races in general, or did you have a specific race in mind?
Anyway, so bone density has no effect on a persons ability to physically perform any physical tasks?
Racism involves believing (a) that there are real "races," real (at least significant) differences between them (due to genetics), and (b) that those differences make different races superior/inferior to each other with respect to those differences.
Don't you believe (a) and (b)?
Well there IS differences in bone density. Its a fact. Black people generally have higher bone density than white people. Are you saying that that science is either racist, or the work of racists?
Again, I'm skeptical that this is a fact, and a brief perusal of the claims online underscore that it's not clear that it is a fact (especially one that has something to do with genetics).
Ok, I would suggest more than a brief perusal because you are wrong. Look up the statistics for osteoporosis among black women and white women, that should be easier to focus your data search.
Also, I would like to address your definition of racism. Anyone who thinks there Are “races”, is a racist? Or being “a bit racist”?
Oh and who am I being racist towards? You never answered, all races or did you have a specific one in mind?
That’s far from an uncontroversial definition but it was the baseline definition we started from in the polisci class on the topic I had a decade ago.
Its a strange definition to me. I generally think of racism as involving hate, or general feeling of superiority of one race over another (as opposed to some, specific trait of each race).
Like, the differences in melanin results in black people being better at resisting the effects of sunburn than say, white people.
Thats a fact. So its racist against white people to say that I guess, by your view?
Is it fair to say that the counter thrust is something like: "We cannot undo the damage done to minorities by ignoring their circumstances"? Statistically, economic outcomes are worse for non-whites (save for asian outcomes), so the idea is to increase opportunity for minorities until the outcomes for whites and non-whites are the same. Am I on track so far?
There are two major issues I can see with this logic and practice:
1) It entails an assumption that active/passive/ongoing racism is a main or the main determinant of inequality perpetuation, which means swapping discrimination for reverse discrimination may be woefully inadequate, or it may not even have a significant impact on outcomes. What do I mean by this? Pretend that economically the black demographic was just as well off as the white demographic; we've successfully eliminated statistical inequality between demographics, but have we necessarily touched inequality in and of itself? The mean wealth of an ethnic group is not the same as wealth variance and wealth gaps within an ethnicity, or within the population as a whole. Another example would be achieving fair demographic representation in politics and other elite professions: the majority of people are not in an elite profession, and the middle class continues to shrink while the bottom class grows, so this would only benefit a minority within a minority. Equality on paper, with still roughly the same amount of suffering in the world.
The main rebut to this that I have heard is that if we had more minority representation, equality for the rest of the demographic would flow from that as a natural result (which again assumes that *systemic* racism is the main inequality perpetuator), but I've never seen this claim even vaguely substantiated other than to beg the operant racism question. Do white politicians and elite professionals look out for their fellow whites as a matter of course? And to the extent that they do, is this what perpetuates inequality? Granted, there is racism in some of our institutions (notably in the justice system), and it surely has an impact, but is this really how we want to explain away inter-generational poverty and inequality perpetuation? If so, why are there intergenerationally impoverished white families and communities in vast quantities? Is it a result of their individual genetics? After-all, they have white privilege, so there is nothing holding them back, right?
2) It reinforces a simplistic worldview based on a harmful schema/stereotype: the idea that our race defines our boons and burdens and station in society; that races act, feel, think, suffer, transgress, and are transgresses upon, as one. Psychologically, defining statistical outcomes as a group vs group effect very quickly leads to inter-group conflict along the classic "us vs them" lines (because individuals often define themselves by their group,and they leap to defend it from other groups when threats are perceived). So not only does it dissolve the individual, it also provides a neat and tidy framework for direct race-based conflict. I realize that racial tension, resentment, tribalism, and conflict is not the intended result of defining society as a system of racist causes and outcomes, but because of frail human psychology, it is the natural ramification.
I want to live in a society that treats individuals fairly, and we can't do that if ethnicity is a factor in the way we treat others. Poverty, education, health; these are all factors we can consider when we set out to create equality. Presumably, equality in representation and other outcomes would flow naturally from equality and fair opportunity at the lower levels, right?
What am I missing?
Treat everyone the same regardless of race. Including helping people in need regardless of race. If one race is more in need, you end up automatically helping them more exactly in proportion to their greater need.
I think I misunderstood what you meant by normative, I didnt take that to exclude something like resisting sunburn.
Could you tell me what exactly you mean by normative?
Methinks they protest too much?
“They”? Whom do you mean?
Differences, yes, but they may not be as large as you think (the reason this topic is taboo is because people are afraid of reaching conclusions that would support racist sentiments).
But yes, genetics do lead to deviation in trends when comparing ethnic gene pools.
Black athleticism is one of the more popular examples (NBA and playership, notably) but many factors other than genetics can and do lead to these disproportionate outcomes. For example, the black population is especially large in California,Texas, and New York, where I am to understand that playing basketball is a mainstay cultural passtime. Growing up poor (where basketball is free), and where basically everyone else is constantly playing it from as soon as they can bounce a ball (meaning they have a highly developed talent pool), is an extremely large advantage for skill development. In much the same way that the ultimate soccer players are selected and developed from a very young age, so too are modern NBA players developed from a young age. I'm not so sure if this would apply to New York, but playing ball all day long in the hot southern sun for a lifetime would also amount to insane endurance conditioning.
Another example is Jewish representation in media and entertainment. New York and LA have disproportionately high Jewish populations, and these are the two centers of American national entertainment (IIRC this fact closes the representation gap almost entirely). It may be the case that black genetics confer some-kind of advantage in sports like Basket-Ball, or that Jewish genetics confer some kind of advantage in writing/producing entertainment, but we need not, and must not, appeal to these things as raw monolithic factors that oversimplify complex realities. Much in the same way that some people claim on-going racism explains all social disparities, trying to explain everything in terms of genetics is likewise narrow.
There's some very odd posts here without any reasoning behind them - just wild accussations, generalizing people based on the color of their skin, etc. with no evidence.
Not to mention how a racist majority that makes the rules could end up making rules promoting equality without first abandoning their racism.
So you have a causation problem.
How does a society that is inherently racist make rules that aren't racist if it inherently racist?
How does one attain an equal society without first admitting that skin color has no bearing on a person's character?
Well, Im not sure what I said to indicate I thought the differences were “large”. Terra thinks they do not exist at all and thats what I was taking issue with. I didnt realise that racism was such a wide net term. I mean, Im aware of the taboo of the topic but the charge of racism came faster than I would have expected. Especially in an environment thats supposed to be about open discussion. My mistake I guess, I remember that Sushi guy posting a topic about some kinda Sophie’s Choice thing where you had to choose between killing 1 million people or everyone when I first joined the forum. Just an attempt at answering his question resulted in charges of sociopathy and such.
Anyway, I don’t disagree with anything in your post that I can see. Culture or even just individual preference seem to count for a lot more than racial tendencies. I think that having a passion for something is the biggest factor in success at it by quite a bit, I just dont see the merit in denying the racial factors...even if racists might glom onto those differences for their racist ideologies. They are gonna do that anyway, even if they have to make it up rather than reference actual facts.
P.S: I did not mean to imply you find great import in genetic differences. My writing usually airs on the rhetorical side, so my attempt to comment and add information usually takes the form of countering a specific perspective that I disagree with (which in this case is both the complete denial of genetic effects, as well as the supposition that we should organize society, or our judgments of others, based on these ultimately vague genetic trends).
Right, so in what way would that exclude the sunburn resistance? I guess its the implication that Im mentioning that difference between white people and black people because of my racist ideology? (Therefore touching upon the “loose morality” part of normative).
Indeed, race is one of those trigger issues. I knew that when I posted about it, so being called a racist doesnt really bother me much. (Plus, its laughably untrue).
Edit: yes I understand you weren’t implying that, now. I started with that just to make sure. All good sir.
Im still curious as to whether or not you were talking about me with the comment about defensiveness, could you answer that please? (If you do not, I will assume im on your unofficial ignore list and cease bothering you with directed comments)
Let's say we fund blacks-only scholarships to be given based on academic merit. It is a good enough idea, but what happens when already advantaged blacks disproportionately win the scholarship? Oops? O.K, let's make a kind of wealth requirement that excludes people from middle and upper-class families to better target the individuals who are in greater need the help. Isn't this the broader principle we should be following? Is it a demographic that needs help or is it individuals? When, where and how do we transit out of the statistical heuristic of race/demographics and into policy or practice?
I'm concerned that the geographic and economic mobility and absolute living standards of the bottom class does not reach an equitable minimum, which is a reality faced many black and white individuals and families alike (though disproportionately faces the black population). In the pursuit of equality, fairness, and improvement, I see this statistical outcome-parity stuff as nearly a complete waste of time because symmetry in proportional suffering between demographics simply does not address absolute suffering or the relative difference in burdens and benefits felt by the lower, middle, and upper classes. In caring so deeply about parity in the upper echelons, people seem to forget entirely about the majority left behind at the bottom.
You have said that color-blindness is just an excuse for white conservatives to justify the status quo by denying racism, but isn't color-wokeness just another status-quo-justifying lens of its own? One that says: It doesn't matter if our society psychopathically chews up and destroys those at the bottom of the bucket, just so long as the up-down color gradient has horizontal symmetry...?
Ok, thanks just curious.
As the problems of race come into view there are those who - for whatever reason - talk about 'colour-blindness' as if that does anything at all to help solve and/or resolve the historical problems of systemic racism in America.
For starters, it's nonsense. No one is color blind in the relevant sense. Everyone notices such things about others. It's how one uses that bit of knowledge that matters here.
Exactly. If we never focus upon race, it's much easier to avoid directly addressing the accumulated advantages of systemic racism. Colour-blindness can be used as self-congratulatory rhetorical drivel.
Great to see ya around here!
:wink:
I've missed ya.
This misunderstands identity as a question of merit. Stereotyping, generalising, etc., happens when we take an identity category, such as race religion, gender or ability, to mark the value of one person in comparison to others. We stereotype "X (identity) is...," "X (identity) can only...," etc., ascribing that belonging to identify is an a priori means of achieving value over the valueless mass of humans. Even the supposition that identity should not matter is caught in these terms. It holds the only way identity could matter is if it were a stereotype to gain merit over others.
Identity has another side, the binding of an existing person, in a social environment, under a concept of who they are. This side (which is a social construct, as are all our identity categories) of race, religion, gender, ability, etc. is real, the people who are distinguished by concepts, who exist is certain material conditions, who are related in specific ways to culture an organisation of society.
Race, religion, gender, ability, etc., always matter because they belong to the people of these identities. Not in the sense of the being some kind of special merit, but rather because they are of people who live within society. For these people, a society which values these identities is inseparable from one which values them.
A society which values equality does not see race, religion, gender or ability as irrelevant. It understands people with those identities are valuable. It sees them as part of society and recognises society will not be equitable if it ignores them.
Correct, if we are talking about capitalist-wokeness (disproportionately with a white flavour). The problem is capitalist-wokeness shares certain descriptive accounts with genuine investigation of issues. As is always the capitalist way, it commodifies and develops whatever ideas it wants in a way to maintain itself.
The problem for us philosophers and sociologists is it doesn't make those accounts any less accurate. If we are to describe a social situation of a particular group or individual, to use in our efforts to understand and address a problem, we're going to have to use some ideas the capitalist has/admit the capitalist has got something right.
There is also a bit of tension with individualist culture here. If we are in a position of respecting notions of individual freedom, we have to admit the woke-capitalist more than just getting some ideas right. We would have to admit the up-down color gradient of horizontal symmetry (note: we do not really have this now, only certain touches here and there) is an improvement, since it will have altered society in which individuals of certain identities are better valued than before.
Race is NOT reducing people down to their biology (e.g. phenotypes & epidermis) you trivialize race which is likely a symptom of attempting to lobotomize yourself to non-biological facts/histories &., realities, etc. Race is the acknowledgment of personhood.
(Same thing with sex ..) it is not REDUCTIONIST (as the 65 gender fetishists like to claim), only making peace with what exists (i.e. acceptance > tolerance) - not so much not examining what THAT MEANS.... to deny race is to deny certain realities, what the Hallucinating guy is doing is reductionist (e.g. IQ's are biological - race is 'purely' biological') while there existing
Color-blindness is impossible to the extent that if you were to practice it would be willful ignorance; you are not blind so much as wearing sunshades indoors because it dims the light. Eraser of race, sex, and etc., is A PROBLEM and will never succeed.
Even so, those that are color-blinded are NOT blind to shades.
This is prominent today, the obsession with ERASING realities and "blending" everyone in with faux-positions that make no sense. No. We will RESIST. People love to silence and control what they feel THREATEN by.
The Hallucinating guy spends too much time on Stormfront with trite pseudo-scientific washed out IQ argument.
In the context of the thread ‘race’ is a cultural attribute that may or may not be shaped by phenotypes.
Race isn’t the acknowledge of personhood, but the denial of it. It is another mental nation within which one can dissolve his or another’s individuality, reducing the person to the member of a group, a “race”, affixed with all the baggage such thinking automatically provides.
No one who professes to be color blind is blind to color in the literal sense. In fact, I would argue that it is the race-conscious thinkers who are less likely to acknowledge the vast spectrum of human skin colors—are more color-blind in the literal sense—falling back on the typical false white/non-white dichotomy that has no doubt solidified in their mind as it did in their racist forebears.
Speaking of realities, we would never find a black or white race existing in nature. These are purely mental divisions, imposed or adopted identities, not actual ones.
How does it turn the value of people into a counterfactual question?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Unfortunately I don't understand what you say here. Could you rephrase this, if you have time?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
But that surely isn't at all what we mean by judging people from their actions. Wealth, status etc. are exactly the opposite of what is meant here: how wealthy you are surely doesn't give any insight about your morals, how well you behave or how honest you are. Criminals can be wealthy and people can inherit wealth even if they couldn't create themselves similar wealth, you know.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I guess the reasoning falls back on the idea of 'white priviledge'.
Basically that if it isn't requirements like being taller and running faster (than the majority of women), it is something similar that divides on racial lines, not because of inherent racial differences, but social advantages and disadvantages formed thanks to earlier (or present) discrimination etc.
I think the whole idea is quite condescending, because putting race and gender before individual abilities puts then these stupid ideas of race into the forefront and they are treated as given. The ludicrous outcome is that then we are judged by some stereotypes of us and denied the possibility of not being in that mold.
Also, there isn't much logic to it. Because why stop to race and gender/sexual orientation? The next logical step would be to treat similarly one truly important divide that makes us be treated differently in the world, and that is nationality, the way we are separated into being different citizens of countries.
This of course goes totally against the woke agenda: nationality is the one thing that is deemed fictional by the left. It is something to be opposed because it's the role that is cherished by the (extreme)right! This just shows how the whole construction is more political than something else.
There's your "woke" racial color-blindness, gender-sexuality blindness, class/caste-blindness, etc. Unisex and mandatory for all ages when in public (even at beaches & swimming pools). :yawn:
How about getting into the effects of AI and algorithms? This touches on numerous hidden prejudices not merely skin tone.
Except race ISN'T purely "biological" no more than than "slavery is purely black" and the "holocaust is purely Jewish"..
Race is NOT just 'genetics' which is demonstrated not JUST in this thread (is it "cultural"), but across ALL spans of history. Your laziness to acknowledge the fact that sex/race prejudices, sex/racial conflict, racial/sex inequalities PERSIST - in spite of - "policies" being in place, in spite of 'misogyny' being criminalized as a "bad word" .. shows that turning the blind eye to UNIQUE issues that persist in spite of your quasi-humanitarian efforts demonstrates that COLOR-BLINDNESS is nonsense..
Unless you're talking about 'I treat personally have friends that are black and queer ..' for cool points, or the 'I happen to be a male feminist' disguised as a means to bed women nonsense, to which NO ONE cares and NO ONE is taking the bait anymore.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes, reductionism is a no-brainer, except no one is talking about that.
Race is the ACCEPTANCE (i.e. tolerance of personhood - the anatomy - of those outside of higher order) - that "red/purple/blue" EXIST outside of the rainbow you are attempting to stir-up, which is really just a white light.
It DOES NOT pose that "races" are separate species (differences in capacities - in the flesh - different from one another, but acknowledges DISTINCTIONS among human groups - not at all "all biological or genetic"), which is what Hallucinating guy and his crazy Stormfront mumbo-jumbo is attempting to make seem interesting.
Colorblindness is a good thing only to maladaptive daydreamers, time to wake up now.
No one who professes to be color blind is blind to color in the literal sense. In fact, I would argue that it is the race-conscious thinkers who are less likely to acknowledge the vast spectrum of human skin colors—are more color-blind in the literal sense—falling back on the typical false white/non-white dichotomy that has no doubt solidified in their mind as it did in their racist forebears.
Something ONLY a "color-blind" person would say. You are talking about COLORISM (not racism) - and ironically, the only one that struggles with acknowledging COLORISM are 'white' woke liberals.. 'everyone is a rainbow, we're all one race and one sex' folks and the non-whites submitting to them.
Asians (east, southeast, and south), not just blacks, have NO issues acknowledging this.
I suggest you reread what I wrote. I never said race is just genetics? I merely pointed out an apparent conflation underlying the discussion and then highlighted ‘race’ in terms of culture. Everyone else seems to have understood.
Just to emphasis. I was referring to how AI and algorithms bring certain prejudices to the surface - like assuming a picture of a human cooking in a kitchen is a woman because there are more pictures of women cooking in the kitchen than men. Such things may push attitudes more this way or that due to possible psychological influences of advertising.
Yep.
The problem with what you wrote, is race is NEVER - EVER, "strictly biological if we are talking in a sense of genetics..."
Because we are NEVER talking in a "sense of genetics" so strict enough to biologically reduce an entire racial discussion to it - unless you are talking about unique illnesses, etc.. unique to the races, to which one can only ask WHAT'S YOUR POINT, in that discussion anyhow? The only one on this thread trying to "make of a point" of no-point is Strormfront DingusJones and the Hallucinating guy arguing the trite IQ argument and bone densities.
Quoting I like sushi
How, at all, is that relevant to the discussion of 'race'? You call the 'race problem' a no-brainer - YET have not solved nor posed any solutions and/or interesting thought - (let alone expressed any integrity to acknowledge the fact .. of race conflict) that PERSISTS, in spite of all the "no-brainers". The ultimate problem with color-blindness.
I'd go as far to say "AI" is currently a no-brainer (IN THIS CONTEXT), since it has no (human) brain.
”I never liked this humanitarian approach that if you really talk with them you discover we are all the same people,” he explains. “No, we are not—we have fundamental differences, and true solidarity is in spite of all these differences.” — Žižek
Acknowledge and accept differences rather than denying that they exist.
The point here is people conflate the two terms often enough. It’s a relatively easy slip to make given the scientific weight of the term ‘race’ and the political weight of the term ‘race’. I think this kind of conflation has lessened to a agree due to education, but it is tied to a history where the scientific community used to think there were distinct human ‘races’. The term ‘race’ stuck to cultural groups but the scientific definition was refined as scientific studies revealed the error in the assumption that all differences phenotypes strongly indicated a different classification of race (as a rule of thumb it is obviously more right than wrong, but given that we’re more acutely aware of slight variations within our species it’s no wonder we made such a leap). All chimps look alike to us unless we spend time lots around them whilst humans look far more varied.
I did clarify straight after that the context of the term ‘race’ in the thread is quite different.
Quoting Swan
I never said the problem of ‘race’ was a ‘no-brainer’ in the context you appear to have expressed. I simply meant that it is a ‘no-brainer’ that the term has carried certain misinterpretations and an misrepresentations over the years. Hence talk about the conflation of the scientific definition and the cultural definition. As pointed out by someone else above nationality is a more geography is a greater cultural difference - phenotypes are merely incidental and attached to geographical and cultural perceptions. I’ll admit there is a lot to unpack in delineating what precisely is and isn’t meant by culture, but I’m not trying to ignore history, language or art because I assume a reasonable degree of charity from the reader - which doesn’t mean I’m not open to people like yourself questioning what I mean or challenging what I say (far from it).
I generally look at prejudice as prejudice rather than honing in on any particular example of it. So ‘race’, ‘religion’, ‘language’, ‘sex’, ‘sexual preferences, or ‘political attitudes’ are just flavours of human prejudices. If it helps the issue of AI and algorithms does relate to ‘race’ as much as all the above mentioned flavours of prejudice. For example advertising has formed more around ‘white’ people due to the nature of the consumerism. Self-driving cars were more likely to hit a black pedestrian than a white pedestrian (initially anyway, as people overlooked the visual differences between humans). AI and algorithms can help reveal certain latent prejudices and by doing so we can then be careful about how we program future data gathering algorithms with these unseen, and I expect, mostly unintentional prejudices in order to avoid positive feedback (meaning allowing algorithms to fee the problems - I am not saying it is ‘positive’, but you can be sure that if I didn’t point this out someone out there would interpret it as such). There are problems with langauge.
As has been pointed out the very term ‘colourblind’ has been turned around to mean something that is almost in opposition to its originally intended meaning. The algorithms are literally ‘colourblind’, they just go through the motions and express our cultural attitudes as they are. This can be a serious problem as mentioned above.
That is why I think it’s a more serious topic as we’re quite aware by now (I hope?) that originally ‘colourblind’ was used to express something like ‘judging people by the content of their character’ and in recent times - partly due to certain data collections and advertising algorithms - has taken on a quite different meaning.
If no wishes to discuss how we’re to deal with the problems of algorithms and AI for humanity, both now and in the future, in terms of the cultural impact it is already having in many areas including commerce, politics and the empowerment/disempowerment of the general public (due to ready access to almost endless information) that’s fine. I thought the discussion looked like it had concluded there were two distinct uses of ‘colourblind’ and that this may be a good point to springboard into what I’ve mentioned.
I honestly think a good number of people accept that the term ‘colourblind’ has a double meaning. Some have grown up with it meaning something akin to Martin Luther King’s speech and others have come to know it through more contemporary use - refer to above and the issues with algorithms and AI facilitating the growth of our worse sides as well as pointing out certain unseen assumptions we all carry around with us (be it in terms of political affiliations, attitudes to sex, race, religion and/or science).
As with most technologies there is a mixture of good and bad and it’s up to us to steer through the minefield as best we can - some will inevitably misstep. Let’s just hope we’re careful enough not to blow up everyone :)
THere's little of philosophical interest in this thread. Might need another.
Feel free to get reasonably run down by the band wagon of your choice. I like money because the nice people at Walmart collect it, and they give me stuff in exchange for it. People get killed because of their race rather often. That is a reasonable reason for taking it to be a real thing. That it has no basis in genetics is irrelevant.
Take an extreme but sadly not uncommon situation where a neighbouring country is involved in a bout of 'ethnic cleansing'. Africa, Asia, Europe, at least have famous examples in my lifetime. Probably a good idea to segregate the refugees into Tutsi and Hutu camps, or whatever the division is. Unless the argument that everyone is the same is very very convincing, which it is not because clearly people are unconvinced.
Hu?
Or, take the example of being colourblind to disability: treating a wheelchair user as if they did not require ramps...?
BS. Prove that people get killed because of race often.
You're equating the frequency of people getting killed by race (and how do you know it's because of race, and what do you mean by "often"?) with the frequency that Walmart takes your money in exchange for stuff, which is just nonsensical. These are the arguments that you all are coming up with and it's pathetic. They're not even arguments. They're thinly veiled racist comments.
You go to jail if you if you take the stuff without giving Walmart money. You go to jail if you kill someone - anyone - regardless of race. What planet and/or what time did you come from?
I'm responding to things that you said in your posts. You don't own your posts?
You simply can't backup your claims with any real evidence or logic. It's just a bunch of nonsensical statements without any connection to reality.
Prove you have any intelligence.
That's one of the things I was looking at. Again, it's inconclusive that it has anything at all to do with genetics.
Yes it is, but obviously the way you think about the word “race” precludes any such distinction. I don’t think of race that way. There are obvious physical differences between humans from different areas of the world, when these physical differences are passed on to offspring they are being passed along by genes. Thats genetics, though maybe not in the same sense you mean.
Anyway, I don’t have much more to add that I didnt say already, so address any of that or do not at your discretion.
The 'racial' distinctions, of course, are very superficial indeed.
Depends on what you mean by superficial. Its not just cosmetic or trivial differences, there are actual important differences that concern medical health and physicality.
If by superficial you mean superficial to a particular persons value as a human being or something like that then yes, sure, I agree. This is so obvious that I wouldnt think it needs mentioning at all so Im not going to disclaimer myself anytime I talk about race with caveats like “but no one should be treated as a lesser human being or enslaved because of race”. Its tedious and unnecessary. (Except to appease certain peoples racial sensitivities, which Im also generally not interested in.)
Races are the mental chains that early racists strung around vast, disparate and diverse groups of people to justify their oppression and conquering. Color-blindness and the dream of a color blind society was always an ethos that propelled abolitionism, civil rights and anti-apartheid, while race-consciousness, “the Veil” of DuBois, was always the problem to begin with.
No distinction between groups, especially racist groupings born of superstition and stupidity, need be made. All groups are composed of individuals. And tossing individuals into taxonomies of shade and color is an exercise in racism, par excellence; it proves one is unable or unwilling to distinguish from one individual to the next.
I mean stuff like skin colour. 'Race' has very little indeed to do with actual genetic differences between people, surely?
Well skin colour is a genetic difference so Im not sure what you are getting at.
It is an extremely minor one - an evolutionary development to suit particular climates.
Every human being has an original genetic code or sequence unique to him.
Ok
Ok.
That's brilliant, Harry. So erudite.
Going back to the OP,
Quoting NOS4A2
That's a neat summation of the issue, yet does not include talk of genetics.
This is the challenge to liberalism. In denying the significance of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, liberals deny aspects that are central to an individual's identity.
I described it as a conceit for the privileged. The ascendency can afford to ignore race, ethnicity, gender and disability because their race, their gender, their ethnicity and their norms are taken as the default; they are the background against which others may be seen as different. So in claiming to be blind to those differences, the ascendency denies what makes those individuals who they are, and reasserts its dominance.
"Your skin colour, you aboriginality, your gender preferences, your disability, mean nothing to me."
That is offensive.
...and yet the colour of this skin is part of the content of their character.
Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in; it is a fantasy.
I agree; the old ideological sleight of hand, wizardry. I want to add that the elites are essentially sociopathic--little to no conscience or empathy, primarily driven by greed and desire for power--which has always made it easy for them to utterly disregard those below them in power and wealth. Any sociopath can pretend to be blind to differences.
Nations are founded on racism (read ethnic genocide and slavery in the case of the usa).
Earist.
So...the colour of someones skin comes along with certain immutable character traits? So MLK had it wrong?
Thats amazing to me, that anyone claiming to not be racist would be so focused on the colour of someones skin.
I guess it all depends on how one defines racism. How do you define it sir?
Immutable?
I can follow this as European liberalism not as American liberalism. Could confirm it's European. Do liberals on either side of the Atlantic really say that they are neutral on ability? It seems like both are fairly meritocratic.
No, it really isn't.
Maybe the wrong word, the colour of someones skin dictates the character of that person...in part, you said in part. Which part? For example lets use black Americans. What can we tell from their skin colour about their character? Is it their experience on the receiving end of racism that you mean? That all or most blacks carry that burden and you din’t want that to be forgotten or ignored?
What about white people? What can you tell me about a white persons character, based on the fact they are White?
And as a follow up if you are so inclined, would you say that race or nationality is the bigger factor?
For example, if I present to you a frenchman and a black guy, whose character do you have a more clear picture of?
As in ablest, not meritocracy.
SO literal.
The left finger.
Noticing someone's ethnicity makes a huge difference to how one ought act towards them.
What
the
fuck?
I expected an answer like this, but it's still not clear to me what you actually want people to do to do that.
Like, I meet two new friends, one of them black and one of them white. What should I do to "acknowledge and accept differences", besides simply not "denying that they exist", which I already wouldn't be doing just by treating them the same. I presume you don't want me to awkwardly announce my perception of what race they are and the presumptions I have about the difficulties or privileges I expect they have likely faced on account of their race?
If one of them tells me about hardships they've faced, I'll believe them (within reasonable limits of course), sure... but that's true of either of them, the black one or the white one. If one of them asks for some kind of help on account of those hardships, I'll do what I reasonably can... but that's true of either of them, the black one or the white one. Maybe the black one is statistically more likely to have accounts of such hardships and request such help, sure, but if I'm already believing those accounts and helping as I can without discrimination in either case, then I'm still treating them the same.
Quoting Banno
A general policy of accommodating all people equally based on their needs covers this. People who have greater needs get greater accommodation. There's an important difference between divisions between people along lines of physical, mental, or financial ability (so recognizing people's disabilities or poverty), that make a practical difference in the kind of treatment someone needs, and things like skin color that don't.
There's nothing a black person needs on direct account of their being black that a white person doesn't, or vice versa, only indirect correlations between skin color and things that do need direct accommodation like income. So long as you directly address those correlates (so be accommodating of people who are poor, for example), there is no need to address the irrelevant features that correlate with them directly; you'll automatically be accommodating of, for example, black people's greater statistical poverty, just by being accommodating poverty in general.
Ok, could you expand on that more? Im a fan of brevity but thats too brief, Im not clear on your stance here.
Like I asked, is it the experiences of racism that your worried about forgetting/ignoring?
And if its too literal to take you as saying you can make judgements about character based on skin colour/race, what exactly do you mean? You look at a person, identify their race by their skin colour and that indicates...what exactly? Youre saying nothing about their character directly but what their character is based on...history of racism or slavery?
Is it specific to the race?
That's culture, not ethnicity. You can ask a Japanese American anything you want.
You want me to tell you what to do in every case?
It's a bit of an unfair question.
You want a general rule of thumb?
Acknowledge the difference and be respectful.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Yep. The answer is not to ignore, so much as to rejoice in it.
SO the criticism presented here of liberalism can be answered in a fairly straight forward way. Differences of cultural, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability and so on might be accommodated in capabilities approach; that is, they might be recognised and encouraged to flourish within a liberal framework.
And of course there would be many issues involved in doing so, but it seems preferable to ignoring such differences or rendering them inconsequential.
Well, race is one thing and ethnicity, gender, disability, etc. are quite another. Though it is possible, I am unaware of anyone, liberal or otherwise, who says anything like this:
Perhaps it boils down to the misinterpretation of the arguments. Perhaps color-blindness is a poor term given its clinical application elsewhere and metaphorical usage here. I’ve mentioned this many times but it is not about not seeing color, at least for me, but to affirm and accept the individual on his own terms, refusing to racialize him into this or that taxonomy.
More of just an example or two, because I'm just trying to imagine a scenario where treating people equally is bad, and what would be the better alternative to that.
Banno, tell us how race is so absolutely significant to you, that it's central to your individual identity.
How do you get "identity only matters as a position in a hierarchy" from my moral claim that "race should not confer societal advantages and disadvantages"?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I understand that subcultures can run along ethnic or racial lines, but they don't actually. Groups are collections of individuals that all share something in common. Race can be used to define groups.but they're only as culturally, conceptually, materially, and economically homogeneous as the width and standard deviation of the bell curves that measure in-group diversity (that is to say, individuals are not actually defined or necessarily accurately described by the average situation of other members of their identity group). If you tried to define someone's identity based on their race, and they disagreed with your assessment, then you would have likely been employing a racist stereotype (although you could always accuse them of having "internalized white supremacy"). The moment someone says "All black people", or "All white people", they've departed from reality.
So my rebuke is that you're ultimately advocating we rhetorically divide ourselves into ideologically rigid groups in order to assign collective guilt or virtue, where you ought to be focusing on individual needs.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I'm trying to understand how ability relates to race, gender, or religion. I don't think ability is irrelevant, and since I think we should always be striving toward "equity" for those suffering the most, I fully support the initiatives required to help the disabled lead lives worth living. In assenting to this, I am tacitly admitting that disability is an intrinsic disadvantage; that it is better to be not disabled than to be disabled. Many disabilities are unique, but I think to be counted as a "disabled" an individual has to have some sort of reduced capacity that interferes with the normal living of life, hence, "all disabled people suffer as a result of their disability". We need not employ statistics at any point except when looking for the best bang for our investment buck when we erect or modify institutions to better accommodate the disabled, and at the same time, offering help that is tailored specifically to each disabled individual is how we can (at least forseeably) reduce the most amount of suffering among the disabled.
If we focus on the specific suffering and needs of individuals, regardless of group identity, I think we stand a better shot at delivering more change. We do need to recognize the ways in which we treat people unfairly because of their race, religion, or creed, so that we can cease the unfair treatment (which is the crux of 'colorblindness'). If poverty, immoral outcomes in the justice system, and a lack of access to quality healthcare or education are the things that disproportionately cause suffering in the black community, let's just address those problems directly, on the individual to individual level, and community to community level
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
But symmetry doesn't speak to absolute suffering; we could arrive at symmetry by "devaluing" the whites currently at the top, but that doesn't guarantee any changes for the individuals who suffer at the bottom (the Bolshevics brought about more up-down symmetry, but they certainly didn't do it by valuing individuals or menshevics).
I'm a white fella. I don't have to worry about my race.
I think he meant "victim status".
Quoting Banno
Yea. I think conscience is the most important thing. Transgress somebody's cultural rules, and they'll forgive you if they know you didn't mean any harm. Usually.
But I don't try to convince anyone of that. I just note when it's time to call a lawyer from the ACLU and otherwise chalk misbehavior up to some people suck.
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2019/10/21/ep228-1-social-construction-race/
(For those who'd like a more general background on the relevant social ontology, try episode 227.)
Also, clearly whites can and often do oppose systemic "anti-nonwhite racism" & overt hateful discrimination just as nonwhites can and sometimes do conform to - even cravenly support when it personally suits them - the very same "anti-nonwhite racism".
Anyway. Without impugning motives or casting aspersions, many commentors on this thread baffle me with their uncharitable (to say the least) responses to what Banno, TheWillowOfDarkness, Swan, Bitter Crank, Isaac, Judaka, et al (from both white & non-white perspectives) have quite clearly said thus far. An incorrigible muddle, I think, from a persistent and pervasive habit of conflating personal prejudice with social-systemic racism. That way leads to the burqa side (as suggested previously) ...
Oh, yeah. Hence my quoting Shakespeare...
Saves us from having to understand black fellas.
Because, I gotta say, that can be hard.
Australian aboriginals were not recognised as the indigenous owners of the land; indeed, the land was notoriously treated as terra nullius. Hence, there is a strong emphasis on recognising their very existence.
SO the advice in the OP would go down very poorly downunder.
Which is a far cry from recognizing or emphasizing difference, no?
The only one that needs THIS lecture is DingusJones arguing about bone densities and and so-called 'innate' racial IQ disparities to the point of reductionism, as if they have any strong relevancy to the topic.
And I don't think ANYTHING in the OP is culturally interesting regarding 'race'.
Quoting I like sushi
I don't think anyone here needs a Daddy; I think it is clear that people think "colorblindness" means 'my personal black queer friends are treated great by me," - attempting to make this some UNIVERSAL outlook - is what is delusional, not helpful, and frankly just ridiculous.
You're "hey guys, just so you know and are confused we're all one human race! =] .... and scientifically speaking [...] " is UNNEEDED, irrelevant, and just downright DISTRACTING/deflecting from real issues to the point where one can only be SUSPICIOUS of the motives - usually coming from a passive colorblind - less so the more aggressive ones like NOS4A2.
(Same thing with the: ... So, uh, hey what about AI's too) as well.
What's your point? Paying attention to racial conflicts (unique) to particular races, histories, degrees and distinctions are neither attempting to 'justify' racism/oppression or condoning non-white 'conquerers'/imperialism. :roll:
As I understand it, that's a COLORBLIND problem... unless you mean, "Colorblindness actually doesn't mean ignoring these things, but instead 'seeing everyone as equal'" ... So yeah, okay. WHAT IS YOUR POINT.. ("racial forward pedalling" - look at my noble act) - with the minority chick next door? And why should anyone care in terms of large scale racial realities..?
Quoting NOS4A2
Again, no one has time maladaptive daydreamers. 'Conscious people' know they exist. Now tell me what you maladaptively daydreaming about plow driving the minority chick next door (in the present - informally), does for your future curly-haired children growing up in society, where EVEN IN SPITE OF - "civil rights" - she is still SELECTED formally last on the basis of her curly hair.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
When did I say anything about IQ and race?
Whenever a tractable case of someone taking someone’s property is at hand, that is when an identifiable person took an identifiable property from another identifiable person, just reverse the theft and restore property to its owner. However in this case I suspect few if any such crimes will be so directly tractable, so...
Whenever you have some intractable mess of intergenerational poverty like we probably have in this case, address that poverty by addressing poverty generally (e.g. by programs to help people who don’t own land to do so), without direct attention to race. If as is probably the case here the indigenous people are disproportionately facing this problem, then addressing this problem generally will end up disproportionately helping them, as is appropriate, without the policy needing to pay any particular attention to race to achieve that.
EDIT to summarize:
Or to rephrase, when it comes to fixing ongoing problems left over from past racism:
I’m not avoiding the fact that visual distinctions are the first things we notice because I’m aware we’re more inclined to judge experiences by visual cues. Race is one facet of how prejudices operate. I’m interested in the underlying mechanisms of prejudice. In the middle east people look the same yet they’re still at each others throats - clearly there is more to human prejudice than phenotypical traits.
I don’t think it is at all sensible to ignore the way words are used over time either. If you don’t believe that other people took ‘colourblindness’ to be a positive thing years ago then you’re ignoring history and individual accounts expressed here. I don’t think anyone here worth talking to would equate treating people based on character with ignoring social inequalities.
You shouldn’t get so riled up. Frankly it looks childish and makes the underlying sense of what you’re trying to say seem superficial.
Even Banno has gone off target by trying to imply his appearance is part of his character. Another rhetorical use of a word that fits into his argument, but sadly in the context of the reference doesn't fit at all.
And to repeat. No here, as far as I can see, is even nearly suggesting that we should ignore people’s cultural backgrounds. The issue is we cannot see someones culture by looking only guess roughly what it might be. If I see a black person I don’t think ‘better treat them like a black person’. I undoubtedly make certain unconscious about anyone I see, and especially the people I meet for the first time - because when I engage with people my brain is trying to figure out who they are, what their intentions are, etc.,. If I’m walking down a street alone at night and there is someone walking towards me a huge number of factors play into how I regard the person. If I’m paying conscious attention then if the person was a woman I’d look at how she is walking (is she confident, worried, scared, drunk, etc.,.) which would factor into whether or not I may decide to cross the street or offer assistance. I am not blind in that sense, yet if she’s just walking along strident and unconcerned I may not even notice her. If it was a man then I may feel threatened due to their stance, my confidence level, their dress and/or their racial appearance. If I’m in Germany and the guy looks German then I’d be more likely to feel in danger, but if they were clearly English or another foreigner, I would see them as a tourist like me.
And before anyone says people don’t look German, they do. You actually have you spend a fair amount of time away from caucasians to glean the differences. I was quite surprised by how many Germans looked like some of my German friends. And when I returned to England I noticed subtle tells in what makes someone look English. There are some African people around where I live and it’s obvious they are African by their dress (although some have a certain American look to them).
I don’t actively TRY to ignore racial differences. I would agree that it is a bad thing. The thing is, whether you like it or not, when I was growing up and I heard the term I took it to mean ‘try to judge people by their character’, but we cannot ever ignore what we see and relate it to our experiences - which is why I find the influence of the internet a huge concern given many people spend lots of time online being fed positive feedback that will un/intentionally reinforce their biases.
As to the topic there are positives and negatives about focusing on racial distinctions. The benefits outweigh the negatives as far as I can see, but there are certainly instances where things go too far (as there with all social issues). It is no wonder racial tensions are high in the US because historically there is a helluva lot of baggage.
So, yes, people are blind to the lack of reason from which bizarre prejudices manifest. Actively trying not to judge someone by the way they look is a double-edged sword too, because some people will go over the top. Once people speak to each other most preconceptions quickly drop away, but without doubt there are certainly grains in us all that hold fast to certain views and opinions that fly in the face of reality.
Perhaps a specific example would make this clear. I see a person who looks Latino, or perhaps Greek. What do I know about his or her character now?
Dunno. but I'm sure it's not Australian Liberalism with a "L" - which is a pile of conservative stink.
Quoting Banno
And this without impugning motives or casting aspersions. :halo:
No, it’s not to refuse seeing skin-color, or saying someone’s identity does not matter, or to deny racial injustice in both personal and systemic fashions, which suggests color-blindness negates its own intentions. It is only to affirm that one’s skin-tone or preferred racial identity is irrelevant to one’s moral standing as a fellow citizen, a fellow human being.
Or to rephrase, when it comes to fixing ongoing problems left over from past racism:
I feel like your side is saying "Anti-colorblindness is not necessary", and the other side is replying "Colorblindness is not sufficient", as though that's a rebuttal. I think both things are true, and not in contradiction to each other, and that "anti-colorblindness" people should not be against colorblindness per se, but for something more than just colorblindness, which nevertheless does not have to be anti-colorblindness.
I have tried, and failed, to highlight items about the exchange of information and how advertising and new technologies are pervading everyone’s lives - even in areas of serious poverty (phones are widespread).
It is fascinating, to me at least, that algorithms can reveal our shortcomings due to living within a certain cultural framework. How innocuous streams of data can reveal social/cultural trends that we’re both proud of and ashamed of. I don’t imagine that we’ll ever assume a human cooking will always be a woman - but it is more likely globally - but should we at least limit how these images are spread in advertising and online? How education affects attitudes, how the loudest voices are now being heard where before they were ignored? What is good and bad these social changes? Have racial tensions and tensions around sex become more strained in recent years or is it at least partly the case that a previously unexperienced form of mass and immediate global communication has magnified people’s concerns (some for good and some for bad). Should we celebrate that we can discuss this and get to it or look for easy targets?
How about a steel-man argument from the main characters in this dialogue?
To anyone.
Feel free to say what think my position is here and I’ll happily present as solid an opposition to what you claim my view is without resorting to insults and evasive rhetoric. I am quite able to argue strongly against my own positions, it’s just that I tend to lean more toward one direct or another depending on the context - I’m not going for the fallacy of the middle here either.
Banno says so:
Quoting Banno
(Even though it's the only thing Banno has gotten right in this thread)
stop describing humans using simple colour labels that are imprecise and unsophisticated descriptors start describing humans more directly and clearly
if you want to talk about someone's physical characteristics...do so...he had dark curly hair with medium complexion and brown eyes
if you want to talk about someone's culture, do so, his parents were born in Egypt, but he was born and raised in new york.
the terms "white" "black" "brown" etc, imprecisely link physical appearance and cultural ties
they do nothing useful and we would do better to abandon them
That's your's, unenlightened and 180's position - that genetics isn't just relevant, it's all that matters. You're saying ignoring genetics (skin color) is racist. I'm saying that we should be ignoring genetics - especially where genetics isn't a factor, or part of what it is that we are taking about. Genetics/race should have nothing to do with choosing someone for a job for instance, but you're saying it should - that I should choose someone for a job because they're black. Race/genetics should only be part of scientific conversations of biology and medicine.
What is central to one's identity? Doesn't it differ from individual to individual? There are people who don't see their skin color as part of their identity - just as their eye color isn't part of their identity. Oh, and haven't you said that identities were social constructions, not something that an individuals can decide for themselves.... :roll: In your world, there is no such thing as an individual identity - only social ones.
It's both a cause and an effect. Block a minority's path to wealth and influence, then point to their diminished status as proof of their poor character.
Quoting Pfhorrest
True. Accessing wealth and influence takes time. Multiple generations.
Quoting Pfhorrest
True. That would just reinforce the misguded use of materialism that started the tragedy in the first place.
Quoting I like sushi
I believed earlier so too, but now I'm really not so sure anymore.
You see, earlier I too thought about in similar fashion as above, and thought there is no contradiction, that actually both sides are just making a different point.
Yet Banno has stated that race is central to his identity (or to the identity of people). He of course has no problems as he can enjoy all the white priviledge there is as a 'white fella'.
Let that sink in.
It's not that some people are racist or some people use 'colorblindness' as a mask and this has effects on everyone. Race and the color of your skin seems to be central. So not only is race something real and inherent, but also very important to one's identity, central to it. It's not something that you could overcome. So I guess that NOS4A2's above statement then is offensive.
Because it only involves recognizing the human rights of human beings who have settled an area before others.
What's race got to do with that?
To repeat, we all have prejudices (realised and hidden). If Banno says that I’m sure he has good reason too, but I don’t understand it - the explanation needs to be refined by him not us.
I doubt he meant that he woke up and thought ‘what is my whiteness going to be about today?’. Maybe he just thinks too many ignore racial problems? Maybe he’ll try and explain better?
I’m pretty sure I have more in common with an Englishman my age of any colour than I do with an American or an Australian my age. The mainstay is the cultural understanding - granted there are divisions within countries, cities and eveb neighbourhoods too.
I could attempt a steel-man to side with Banno. Should I?
The only people who don't agree with what NOS42 states there are racists.
NOS4A2 has a history of ridiculous trolling, so a casual glance at the OP leads one to think he's wanting to say that legislation designed to protect minorities is racist. Nobody believes that. It's not a thing (except to a troll).
After being hammered for his trollness, the thread was due to expire into the bit bucket when Banno began to bring claims that are identical to what a white supremacist would say: that race should guide us in the way we treat people. We might have been able to understand it as an Australian angle on the topic, except he felt the need to contradict MLK Jr.
Subsequently, NOS4A2 reverted to a standard view: that race has nothing to do with a person's moral standing.
So we did with this thread what philosophy tends to do. We made a pile of confusion out of a very simple issue.
That sounds about right, but I do believe racial-colorblindness is required in order to not be racist, that it is a fundamental step to refusing racism, and that color consciousness is a learned, racist behavior.
Well yes, preferential treatment for race groups is racism almost by definition. And it is a thing.
Troll away Tim, but let me know when you can add anything to the conversation, because your play by play of this thread and the piffle and snark of your posts weaken it.
Quoting frank
Isn't that a good thing?
Quoting frank
:lol:
That would be such a fitting motto for the whole Forum.
The interesting doors are left closed because people prefer to strut about with puffed out chests.
Hope for everything, expect nothing and enough the writing practice :)
I have not claimed or implied anything about "genetics" anywhere on this thread. Read what I actually wrote to find out what I've said is "racist". As pointed out in a previous post, you only seem interested in responding to what you've read into what I wrote rather than to what I wrote - why is that, Harry? :shade:
[quote=frank]So we did with this thread what philosophy tends to do. We made a pile of confusion out of ...[/quote]
... a complex issue.
Quoting I like sushi
Another useless autobiography that addressed no point (for yet another "middle man") .. your stance does a GOOD job as misinterpreting my posts and spewing irrelevant points, which leaves nothing but a FISHY after taste regarding this topic.
And no one, I repeat, NO ONE plowing the field cares about the flowering peach tree you grew.
Quoting NOS4A2
The only one sucking themselves DRY here with trivialization and trite 'points' is you. A long with the Pforrest human implying 'race conscious' people on this thread are anywhere CLOSE to 'anti'-anti racism.
Quoting NOS4A2
You MUST spout this because otherwise this entire thread would be for nothing (which it already is..)
I say it because judging people according to their race and not their character is a prerequisite to racism. I say it because race-consciousness and race-thinking were essentially written into law in places such as apartheid South Africa. The opponents of apartheid (to you, “ maladaptive daydreamers“) were, as is usually the case in racist systems, interested in a color-blind system.
That is a good point, thank you.
Quoting ssu
I'm seeing here an analogue to the argument between gender abolitionists and trans people, which is yet another argument where I think both sides have a point and are largely talking past each other.
Race/gender can be individually important to a person as part of their sociocultural identity, and yet at the same time race/gender ought to be morally irrelevant as a matter of public policy or social norms.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, I was thinking about that after I posted last night. Anti-colorblindness is not just unnecessary, it is impermissible; colorblindness is morally obligatory, even though it is still not morally sufficient. We have to be colorblind, but we also have to do more than just be colorblind.
You’re right, it’s not sufficient to combat racism as it exists in society, but it is at least sufficient to combat racism in ourselves and in our own behavior, I think. It certainly does not address racial injustice, the historical application of racism, and any racial disparities that result.
The descendents of slaves might have a not too dissimilar complaint.
Your answer is the classic liberal reply, claiming blindness as a virtue. It's what I am objecting to.
That's right.
Now if you can put these ideas together in a coherent way,. you will have understood what we have been saying.
I'm not denying any of that.
Quoting Banno
What more besides the things I already described (giving land etc back directly when the crimes are tractable, helping people to get new land etc when it's not) do you or they want in recompense? All that comes to mind is "kick all the white people out of the country", which is just retaliatory vengeance visited upon the innocent children of the original criminals and so is unconscionable. What was done to the indigenous people was unconscionable too, but two wrongs don't make a right. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it right either, true, but I'm not advocating that. I've advocated a means of making right without doing more wrongs, and I'm open to improvements on that plan too. Is there something more you want, besides just to do more wrongs in vengeance?
Not do much. There's the wrong of pretending that aborigionality is not important, that you would perpetrate.
This ought to be evident, but some people simply are quite infatuated with the rhetoric that ignoring race simply means denial of racial problems and gives a veil to racism. It seems there's not much effort to understand your point here.
I think one problem is that talking about identity here two different terms get mixed: first there is personal identity and then there is social identity. The norm is that we judge people as individuals with theirpersonal identity and their individual actions. What isn't tolerated is to judge an individual by a social or collective identity they have. Because that is what racism, xenophobia and misogyny do. (Then of course being 'colorblind' to people that have a collective identity is totally different from treating individuals equally.)
In the end the woke argument can easily turn on it's head: it can come down to the idea that people, especially white people, are inherently racist and anything else is just denial of this. And once we introduce race as something eternal, something central to the identity of the individual, something real, we naturally give it then credence. And once we give it credence, then we do create racial divides and literally divide people into races.
Quoting I like sushi
In the intersectionality roulette nationality and culture define by country isn't hip as it's the thing that the wrong people emphasize.
Yet nationality is a good example of a truly man made or "invented" identity, which can have absolutely dramatic consequences on how we treat each other. Just think what happens when countries go to war. Still, I would say that race, gender, sex, nationality, ethnicity are all not so determinative than wealth. Being rich gives you real privilege in this World.
The Study of Man: A debate on Race
?
Good riddance for 18th century 'scientific' racism.
Exactly right, but De Toqueville’s arguments are, it seems, still prescient today.
Is it that ignoring race is in and of itself harmful or racist? Presumably, because systemic factors continue to discriminate? (and if so, are those factors not the result of conscious or unconscious bias present in those holding positions of power? (e.g: judges, the wealthy, politicians, doctors, educators, police, etc..)) Is the attack on color-blindness ultimately a preemptive defense of "positive discrimination" as a kind of reparative justice?
I can see the sense of this, but how do we use positive discrimination to eliminate the systemic discriminatory factors that perpetuate these inequalities in the first place? Isn't that just treating a symptom and not the cause? (what exactly is the source of the systemic discrimination? (assuming systemic discrimination is the main inequality perpetrator)).
I think affirmative action was intended to boost social reform. To the extent that it put minorities in good housing and schooling, it was treating one of the causes of inequality.
Yes.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Re: In rich euro-american 'liberal' republics - historical class (i.e. White) privilege. Cui bono ...
And personally I don't think affirmative action went far enough. If we're going to intervene in inter-generational or community level poverty, half-measures and post-hoc reactions just aren't adequate. And with the looming of automation, AI, and the host other other incoming societal changes that guarantee an upending of our current economic way of life and status quo, no small amount of wealth redistribution or hole-ridden safety nets will make a difference.
If we're talking about inter-racial inequality, then affirmative action treats it directly as a symptom, but it does not exactly treat a cause per se (if lacking access to education is a symptom of poverty then I would treat poverty as the approximate cause. Even though it is true that lacking access to education can contribute to poverty, I reckon that poverty in youth predicts future education outcomes much more reliably than unjust education outcomes predicts poverty later in life (poverty is honestly the primary concern given that it is the main determinant of privilege in a commodified world)). And ultimately, I would support affirmative action for poor children and families of all colors and creeds. I don't really see a difference between the suffering of a poor white kid and a poor black kid.
Quoting 180 Proof
This reasoning seems circular to me...
"Overclass privilege" (read: the current uninterpreted state of affairs) can't coherently be both symptom and syndrome in the context of this discussion (the discussion of whether color-blindness would be harmful). Either we use the spirit of colorblindness to *attempt to* reduce or negate class segregation along racial lines (to confront classic racism and bias that is operant in society), or we're not really talking about classes that are maintained by racist discrimination (a better take away would then be that possessing disproportional existing power is a great way to maintain, or get more of it). If we're talking about the over-class, then we're not talking about "the white race", we're talking about a minority of wealthy elites, (most of whom are white, but many of whom are not (some of whom aren't even persons, but corporations)), and who certainly did not get there by allowing advantages and privilege to trickle down to the rest of us.
If you want to redistribute wealth along racial lines so that we can enjoy the aesthetic appeal of up-down color symmetry, fine, but the 1% are still set to own everything, and the melting pot still burns when the ingredients are fairly proportioned.
I think we need reform bordering on paradigm shift to confront absolute poverty and absolute equality disparities in modern society. So not only does a reparations style approach fail to address the rest of the poor and the suffering, it could never go as far as is required.
I just want to understand when where and why race must enter this discussion. Beyond self-perpetuating statistical trends, what is the discrimination, systemic or otherwise, that we ought be aware of, and why is colorblindness not useful in the spirit of confronting it?
Sorry, if your point is this:
Quoting Swan
and this ...
Quoting Swan
You’ll have to point out what I’m misinterpreted. If it was in a previous post please tell what I misinterpreted. Thanks.
I think you see the complexity of the situation. Is the goal at least color-blindness? Or rather color not being all that interesting? And yet we are supposed to get there by talking about color.
[quote=link]
As a white man, I primarily threat track other white men. They are the ones I watch to see if they are going get angry, to bully or hurt others. A lifetime spent around white boys/men taught me that. The most damaged among us become white nationalists or mass shooters.
[/quote]
https://medium.com/@remakingmanhood/why-i-primarily-threat-track-other-white-men-6437cd1c8830
It's as if we just can't help ourselves. Is our white man threat-tracking himself? It sounds like he's been bullied. Or was he doing the bullying? Or did he stand and watch? And even someone getting angry is something he feels the need to police. As you might guess, the post is also about toxic masculinity. Our godless times have new original sins to play with.
To me the 'liberals' are basically right (systemic racism, etc.). But some of them have just switched to a new kind of magical thinking. The 'alt-right' boogeyman, lurking in the shadows, is ready to pounce. I think most people are racist. But most of us consciously reject it as irrational and do our best not to be jerks. We're interested in difference when it's not threatening.
Maybe it's the quest for an impossible purity that results in a projection of the boogeyman. Even noticing that things have changed (that posts like the one I've quoted have become common) is suspect. So the left is right, but the loons aren't helping things.
Nice.
[quote= Dostoevsky]
Then--this is all what you say--new economic relations will be established, all ready-made and worked out with mathematical exactitude, so that every possible question will vanish in the twinkling of an eye, simply because every possible answer to it will be provided. Then the "Palace of Crystal" will be built. Then ... In fact, those will be halcyon days. Of course there is no guaranteeing (this is my comment) that it will not be, for instance, frightfully dull then (for what will one have to do when everything will be calculated and tabulated), but on the other hand everything will be extraordinarily rational. Of course boredom may lead you to anything. It is boredom sets one sticking golden pins into people, but all that would not matter. What is bad (this is my comment again) is that I dare say people will be thankful for the gold pins then. Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid, but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him in all creation. I, for instance, would not be in the least surprised if all of a sudden, A PROPOS of nothing, in the midst of general prosperity a gentleman with an ignoble, or rather with a reactionary and ironical, countenance were to arise and, putting his arms akimbo, say to us all: "I say, gentleman, hadn't we better kick over the whole show and scatter rationalism to the winds, simply to send these logarithms to the devil, and to enable us to live once more at our own sweet foolish will!" That again would not matter, but what is annoying is that he would be sure to find followers--such is the nature of man.
[/quote]
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/600/600-h/600-h.htm
I think you have to have a fairly strong middle-class before programs like affirmative action can create change. There's a downside to them also since they conflict with a merit-rewarding environment.
I think Americans are in the process of becoming more brownish than black and white. That might be the final solution, or part of it.
I wasn’t trying to pinpoint national identity, merely a common cultural/historical understanding - something that nations create and/or build on. This is why I think ‘nations’ will be gone by the end of the century - the internet will give everyone a common cultural/historical upbringing and in the future I would have more in common with people from other parts of the world than I do today due to having been raised through a common medium.
Of all the items mentions, including wealth, aren’t as determinative for commonality as language and environment as far as I can tell. At the extremes I do imagine the super rich understand each other well as do the extremely poor. The former have a common freedom to move and likely move in the same global circles or similar personal bubbles, and the later aren’t worried about much more than living through the day.
It is also true to say that I will have more in common with some black, disabled, or elderly people than I do with people from other regions - I don’t see how a common environment and language aren’t the most telling aspects of a persons relations to other humans. The so-called ‘nurture’ is more of an impact when it comes to what language I speak (including colloquialisms) and my sociopolitical attitudes and thoughts.
Clear enough racial distinctions are emphasised in certain regions too. It is rather strange that no one has yet mentions that racial distinctions are not necessarily apparent visually (racial/ethnic distinctions can be present in peoples of the same skin tone). That said I do understand that the US is the dominant world culture right now, and for the past several decades, so I’m not massively surprised about colour distinctions being brought to the fore.
I wasn’t talking about intersectionality directly. Just trying to look at the matter in a clinical manner and fish for, or point out, key features of human societies. There are plenty of disparities among populations so I thought it may be useful to look at the most common determinate factors before jumping into the discrimination/prejudice dynamic. I don’t think it is rational to come to the table pushing preconceived ideas about what is or isn’t the most impactful item.
I am very intrigued by how things will play out due to the information/communication revolution we’re living through. Some things will come of it that I can’t even imagine, but I’m just looking to see what telling impacts we can see now and how such technologies will determine the course of human cultures . The emphasis in this thread for me is how prejudices will play out and I don’t see skin tone being of major importance over all - because I don’t see for a moment how the colour of someone’s skin tells me anything about who they are, where they’re from, what religion they are or what language they speak. I could make educated guesses that would probably be based more on dress than skin tone. I could probably determine, with reasonable accuracy, that someone ‘white’ has likely been attached to a judeochristian society (European) or that someone ‘black’ has mostly ‘black’ relatives (note: I could be wrong there, hence the pointlessness of racial distinctions based only on phenotypical features rather than accounting for language spoken, religious culture, wealth, sex, dress etc.,.)
"All white people have white privilege" becomes a meaningless or prejudiced statement if all you're doing is generalizing from statistical outcomes. Having a better chance at winning the wealth lottery doesn't make a difference if you don't win. If you can bring up specific examples of systemic racist discrimination, how would it hurt to consciously target it with a color-blindness initiative?
AFAIK, the middle class continues to shrink, and it is definitely a factor that must be addressed in general before our other half-measures and stop gaps will have lasting effects. Being more brownish might help us with our racism problems, and with inter-racial equality, but it wont address absolute inequality.
"Your skin colour, you aboriginality, your gender preferences, your disability, mean nothing to me."
What you don't account for is there isn't always an ascendancy thing going on in all real life settings or societal/social situations. There's plenty of people that fall into any of the various categories you keep mentioning that neither feel like they are privileged or under privileged and with good reason. What you're espousing is a limited view of how all this plays out in the real world. Racial phenotypes, ability status, gender self identification, etc are parts of who people are but not nearly the whole story; despite what your claim seems to convey.
You and 180 seem to get along marvelously. There's a racial difference. Which of you is the privileged in this setting?
Not so. I even replied to you previously, VS, that it's a symptom treated - when it's even addressed - by e.g. "affirmative action", which is not "non-sequitur" at all. "Race", however, is just not the main problem or driver of racial-color discrimination & hatred, to my mind, at least not in (most) rich western societies like the U.S.
Maybe I've made my point more clearly on this thread titled
"White
Privilege"
or not. :yawn:
[quote=VagabondSpectre]"All white people have white privilege" becomes a meaningless or prejudiced statement if all you're doing is generalizing from statistical outcomes. [/quote]
Agreed if that's what I (or whomever) was doing. I've certainly not, however claimed or implied anything of this sort. Let's keep our strawmen to ourselves, shall we? Danke.
It is difficult, maybe impossible(?), to pick words and phrasing that doesn’t sew doubt in someone.
Right, individuality. The trump card over pretty much any other metric.
You aren't alone. One can make a conclusion from nobody giving a simple answer to this.
Quoting jellyfishA boogeyman lurking in the shadows and ready to pounce, against whom ordinary people have to prepare to defend themselves is part and parcel of American culture as baseball.
Starting from the burglar breaking into your house that one has to shoot or otherwise your family will be killed, it's one of those things that creates xenophobia and the fear against minorities, which then turns into present day racism. A tiny minority harbour ideas of racial supremacy, the fear of criminals or lunatic gunmen is far more typical. The 'alt-right' shooter is a just one version of this, which shows how universal the phenomenon is in America. Few crackpots capture the imagination of a huge country.
Quoting 180 Proof
Maybe I just can't get past the term "white privilege"?
If the primary or proximal force of inequality perpetuation is classism, why use the term "systemic racism" or "white privilege" to begin with when describing the phenomenon? If racial prejudice is not the main perpetuator of inter-racial inequality, then I can understand your opposition to color-blindness (in that it will not make a difference), but clearly your remarks about burkas and (and vague defense of those extolling the import of race as a determinant for interpersonal treatment) indicate you believe otherwise. What am I missing?
I'll candidly admit that the term 'white privilege' (and it's paramour, white guilt) deeply offends and upsets me. Not because I'm afraid of losing my unearned privilege, but because I believe that I've never been given any unearned privileges in the first place. It feels like I'm being assigned guilt for crimes that I neither committed, nor benefited from. And for that feeling, I'm rebuked as a part of the problem. How can I assent to a worldview that deprecates me for the color of my skin? Even if by misapprehension, such an emotional reaction is bound to consistently emerge to the extent that the generalizing and sweeping language invalidates individual experiences. Do we really want to encode such divisive sentiments in such loose simplified terms?
You might not intend these effects, but they're the obvious ramifications of your language. "Reverse racism" is roughly defined by @TheWillowOfDarkness' school of thought as "prejudice against whites" because racism itself has been redefined to mean "prejudice plus institutional power", where, since whites have all the power, it is they who decide the distribution of burdens and benefits ("All white people have white privilege" is true by its own definition, and some people within this school take it further and say "all white people are racist' (I won't speak for Willow on that point, but they do define racism purely as an outcome or state of affairs as opposed to an intention or even a specific action)).
And just as these aren't your actual words (intended usage) or arguments (strawmen), so too isn't the argument for colorblindness that we must ignore ad forget the existence of race at any or all costs, or even that we're capable of being perfectly fair and unbiased. Hence, I still don't get it.
I'm not so sure about that.
The internet has a lot of negative aspects too. Just like the printing press, which made books and texts common: it didn't only bring have the obvious positive effects, the printing press had a key role in the awful bloodshed called the wars of religion. The internet can divide us also in a similar way.
I'll candidly admit that the term 'white privilege' (and it's paramour, white guilt) deeply offends and upsets me.[/quote]
This probably contributes a fair amount to you reading me (or others on this thread) so poorly, VS. I see I can't win for losing with you either: on a thread purportedly about "White Privilege" you're perplexed as to why I point out that White Privilege is a symptom of what I argue is the more fundamental, or pervasive, problem of "Class Privilege" but then my focus on "Class Privilege" annoys you because you misread me as conflating Class & Race.
[quote=VagabondSpectre]If the primary or proximal force of inequality perpetuation is classism, why use the term "systemic racism" or "white privilege" to begin with when describing the phenomenon? [/quote]
Because Systemic Racism is one of the policing functions of Structural Classism that facilitates the socio-economic structure (i.e. status quo) reproducing, or perpetuating, itself.
Consider: the relation of Classism to Racism is analogous to the relation of Central Nervous System to Peripheral Nervous System in our bodies - the latter being an intergral function the former.
[quote=VagabondSpectre]... clearly your remarks about burkas and (and vague defense of those extolling the import of race as a determinant for interpersonal treatment) indicate you believe otherwise. What am I missing?[/quote]
You're apparently missing my satirical pique at the pedestrian quality of this thread discussion (and others like it), that is, you've missed the punchline of that post. So no, the burqa reductio doesn't indicate anything I believe whatsoever about Race, Class, etc
[quote=VagabondSpectre]... I believe that I've never been given any unearned privileges in the first place. It feels like I'm being assigned guilt for crimes that I neither committed, nor benefited from. And for that feeling, I'm rebuked as a part of the problem.[/quote]
Really? The victim card. O----kay ...
... "White Privilege" isn't about individuals who happen to be white (i.e caucasian ... (hetero & male too)); it's about what nonwhite persons and communities are up against - discrimination, etc in schooling, employment, healthcare, law enforcement, financial credit, housing, pollution, etc because they are nonwhite - all day everyday. None of that's about you ... unless, of course, you're a white person or community that happens to be poor (i.e. lower middle/working/under-class) and thereby catching hell on a daily basis too ... otherwise "White Privilege" and "Class Privilege" ain't about the social economic & political struggles you're not having.
One's only "part of the problem", VS, when one doesn't actively oppose, subvert or sabotage racial-color discrimination & class exploitation, however one can whenever one can, as I point out at the close of my first post from the other thread which you've quoted. And I'll add, as a more eloquent reminder from recent history, which you may be familiar with:
"The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people." ~Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr
We are what we struggle against as much as, maybe even more than, we are what we strive for. That's my criterion for reflecting daily on how much I've been a part of the problem today; no doubt, at the end of each day, it's all too often obvious that I could've done better ...
At any rate, VS, structures of exploitation and their sub-systems of discrimination are the complex cause of INJUSTICE, with which one is either willingly or obliviously complicit or one is not, regardless of whether or not one is white and whether or not one belongs to the upper/over-classes. Nobody gets an ethical free pass (or Get Out of Moral-Jail Free card), so to speak ...
If things keep in going the way they’ve been going I expect the main boundaries to be drawn in cyberspace rather than between populations. I’m just speculating. I don’t see for an instant that we fully appreciate the implications of how we have been, and will be, influenced by the mass global communications we have today. It’s the new frontier.
That's fair, but you sent me to those posts to contextualize your position here. I'm not annoyed that you would focus on classism, or even on racism, but I am perplexed how you can transition so vaguely between the two in order to rebuke color-blindness.
I am an opponent of certain radical left narratives, and apologize if I’ve conflated your position them, but it isn’t for lack of trying not to…
Quoting 180 Proof
I get this, but I can’t square it with opposing color-blindness…
Quoting 180 Proof
Though it is clearly a humorous comment, it still seems to make a plausible point (humor is still valid persuasion): that we’re incapable of refraining from acting on racial bias, short of total racial anonymity.
In my scramble to understand why you and others oppose color-blindness initiatives, it seemed a reasonable interpretation
Quoting 180 Proof
You seem to have made them into the only currency that matters, and as it happens, I’ve got a stacked deck, so why not?
Quoting 180 Proof
Why make the assumption and then correct yourself in the same paragraph? (I'll admit to being annoyed that the only way to avoid the kafkatrap is to appeal to my own experience, but it shows the inconsistency of how telling people they have "white privilege" can play out and spares me the enduring insult of strangers telling me what opportunities and obstacles I did or didn't have).
Quoting 180 Proof
So is vernacular like “white privilege” and anti-color blindness really the best vehicle for getting there or for stimulating positive action? I oppose the language as divisive and ultimately prejudiced, and I still can’t really comprehend why color-blindness as an initiative applied to discriminatory institutions is somehow bad.
The colourblind is a response to the idea of people gaining merit over others by identity. We ought to, according to the colourblind approach, not recognise or describe differences of identity, for identity is only ever a means by which someone gains merit.
In other words, it is an approach afraid of recognising who people are, for it thinks identity is nothing more than a trick to obtain merit. The position is running on an underlying idea people obtain merit through who they are (i.e. their identity).
It tries to eliminate this by giving everyone the same singular identity (person, human, man, citizen, etc. ), so everyone is granted the same merit. We are all just free citizens (unlike those slaves, immigrants, non-citizens, aliens, etc., who do not belong), so we must be of equal merit. Not only does the colourblind approach fear identity gives merit, but it ironically believes it too.
If identity wasn’t consider to grant merit, the colourblind approach makes no sense. If we are people of equal merit, what do we have to fear in our differences being recognised? We have nothing. Since we are people of equal merit, we are valuable no matter how we might differ from others. Our differences can be bold, on show, recognised constantly.
My point here is the colourblind approach begins in a fucked understanding of people.
It understands people have to take some specific form (the differentlessness, universal subject) before they have merit. It rejects, like the racists, the sexists, etc al., people have merit in themselves (whatever differences that might entail). Rather than grasping people have merit, a colourblind approach just continues the squabble over being “the right sort” to have merit.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Subcultures never run along racial or ethnic lines. Arguing so is a category error. Cultural actives one partakes in are distinct from having one particular identity or not. Former outsiders become part of groups all the time. Supposing a subculture only involves people of a certain racial or ethic group is just a form of racial essentialism.
Some subcultures might have a certain connection to people of particular racial or ethnic identity, but that doesn’t make belonging to the subculture only for that group of people. Family, relationships location and circumstance can always toss people of expected race or ethnicity into that culture.
Race, like any other identity aspect, cannot be used to defined groups. Identity is of the individual. If we are to speak about an identity, we are speaking about individuals. There is nothing homogenous about it. In any given ethnic group, there will be all sorts of people. Different cultural aspects, different concepts of self, variance in material and economic conditions. Identity specifically crosses in-group diversity, to include all sections of the bell curve. Rather the race defining groups, individuals of race define the group. A racial group is an identification of a similarity (racial identity) between these individuals of race.
The statistics you speak of here is a misstep. Or rather, the way you are using them is backwards. We can measure in group diversity, draw out particular relations, general trends, etc., of the group in society. What does this tell us? Certain numbers of people of the group are in particular cultural, material and economic conditions. It’s not a description of any one individual. Nor is it any absurd claim about what “all people are.” Measurement of masses of people are only useful for telling us a relationship of individuals in a social context about masses.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You misunderstand. I wasn’t trying to say ability relates to race, gender or religion in any particular way. I was referring to ability as identity. Just as someone might have a race, gender or relation, they have abilities which society might recognise or not. My point was an equitable society will recognise a person’s abilities as valuable, rather than trying to just ignore them (as the colourblind approach does with race).
In the case of disability for example, it means recognising the are valuable people in what they can do (assisted or otherwise). They don’t occupy some special category of lives not worth living. Sure, there is stuff they cannot do, but that is true of everyone else. An able-bodied person collapsed from hunger can no more walk then a legless person. Everyone relies on someone else. The need of a wheelchair to move around easily is no more of a “special” problem than able-bodied people needing farmers or/and environment to grow them food. It’s just a different need from the society or community to live a fulfilling life.
If a disability is to amount to a life not worth living, it’s got to be on features which define it (like terrible suffering, disconnection, etc. ), as for any able-bodied person. Anything else is just prejudice, a supposition the able-bodied get merit over the disabled by their able bodied existence.
With disability, we also the direction reaction between recognition and addressing problems. How can we hope to address the needs of this with a disability, if we ignore how they are different, the specific needs they have? To be blind to the difference means we cannot take directed action towards it. Addressing the problems on the individual and community level needs recognition of the individuals of the community.
Affirmative action, at least as it usually practiced, fails to address most structural problems for this reason. Giving a some individuals a position in a college or a company doesn’t address needs of the many which constitute that structural disadvantage, let alone other structural disadvantages of those of different identities.
Indeed, when affirmative action is mistaken for an exhaustive approach to racial disadvantage, it’s because people of a racial identity have been ignored. Imagined this way, it is effectively colourblind. It's repeating the same structural disadvantage, perhaps wth a limited number of people being able to break out due to getting a position. The work to recognise many individuals of a racial group and what they need for a structural disadvantage hasn't been done. Affirmative action needs to be understood for what it is, a potential way to bring diversity into a local culture/give select individuals a position.
(note: I think there are much more effective ways of affirmative action, ones which could seriously dent structural disadvantage, but they are much more complex and long term efforts. Stuff like giving people property, resources and building accompanying community and culture, but these aren't likely to be popular with capitalist developers or white inclined wealthy communities).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I've put these together because they speak to the same issue: focusing on individual needs in a social context is always a question of collective guilt or virtue. Not in the sense you would seem to assume here, where a person is supposedly especially good/bad in their identity and obtains merit/lose merit for it, but in the sense our society will be guilty or virtuous towards individuals. We cannot focus on what an individual needs from society without a notion who the individual is, how they belong, and how society has a collective responsibility to deliver what they need.
Addressing an issue of structural racism is question of dealing with a guilt our society has generated for a group of people. Our society is guilty of a mistreatment. Fixing this wrong is a collective responsibility which will have consequences for particular people. Certain white people, for example, will lose their vision of an all white community. Some white rich people will have to be less rich, more money going to black people on the bottom (amongst others as well, assuming we are also fixing some things for other groups on the bottom).
A "devaluing" of those at the top, many of those who are white, is exactly what it takes to change something for those at the bottom. I don't mean some violent revolution where everyone's property is being seized, just that those on top lose certain aspects of wealth, status and power when those on the bottom are understood to have merit and get a greater slice of the economic pie.
A simple example is a billionaire will only be able to say they have $2999985000 more than a poor person, rather than $3000000000. But that $15000 of "devaluing" is enough to drive some people to racial hatred or neo-liberal insanity.
It's descriptively wrong.
Since issues of structural racism have genesis the class structure, it is a material fact that our society/class structure forms a structural racism. One's race cannot said to be irrelevant because it has a social significance. In our society, it's a carrier of class prejudice towards some individuals (POC), but not others (white). To be colourblind is to ignore the significance of people, race and this manifestation of class in our society. It's to pretend an aspect of our society isn't there.
Or to borrow 180's analogy, to be colourblind is to think here is only a central nervous system, rather than there being a peripheral one as well. Do you think we would be doing a good job of describing the body if we only mentioned the CNS?
This is your first post in the thread:
Quoting 180 Proof
You're condoning the racial profiling of "white cops" as all possessing group-think - as if all white cops see race & color the same way - the way you do - because you are the one racially profiling people based on their "whiteness" - which is a genetic condition.
Quoting 180 Proof
So,
Power - Racial Prejudice = Racial Equality?
Isn't that what we have now in the U.S. Isn't racial equality law? Where is the prejudice? I'm not saying that it doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that it doesn't exist on the scope that you claim it does - to the point where you get to be racist yourself and judge all whites - even those without power (and if you claim that then your formula becomes invalid) - as being racist. I actually don't see any instance where it is okay to be a hypocrite - to "fight" racism with racism.
I did. The only coherent idea I get from your inconsistent posts is that you are inconsistent.
In other words, there are people that want special treatment, not equal treatment.
For what purpose should I notice one's skin color in a job interview? What does that tell me about how qualified for the job they are? As an employer, I am concerned about people's ability to do the job. What does skin color inform me about that? Nothing.
Now, if I wanted to know what kinds of diseases you might be more susceptible to, then your racial genetics will be useful to know.
Thank you for your lengthy contribution. Hopefully you do not think all that writing was in vain.
This sounds again like we're all talking at cross-purposes, then. The pro-colorblind side seems to be saying "race should not be factored into our prescriptive decisions"; that it ought not matter what race someone is, and we should act as best we can to ensure that it doesn't matter to our decisions. I don't think anybody is denying that race does matter to people, as a descriptive fact of reality; just that that is prescriptively, morally wrong.
?
I thought it is race, gender etc. and not identity. Hence in my view the above should be: "The colourblind is a response to the idea of people gaining merit over others by race. We ought to, according to the colourblind approach, not recognise or describe differences of race.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Again no. It simply is that we avoid using racial or gender categorization and look at the merits based on the individual's actions and ability. Merit is based on something totally else than some physical character of the individual. And the colorblindness just is one issue here.
I think you are confusing personal identity with social or collective identity. (But of course, I might be wrong)
Actually yes, because when the ideology starts from racism being central and an integral part how humans form social spheres, it is an inherent struggle. Equal treatment would be bad: it would just let those in power have all their 'white priviledge'. Equal treatment here is defined very narrowly. In my view this kind of reasoning don't make sense: on one hand you uphold something that you would want to destroy on the other hand. And then you get into the silly redefining of racism. It simply turns into a power game.
It's like the people who believe everything, utterly everything is propaganda. Once these people get into a place to operate themselves, they push the most incredible classic 20th Century propaganda ever. You would think they would opt out of the propaganda and try to look for the objective truth or the closest to it, but no.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yep. And structural discrimination, especially in a job interview, would happen when you wouldn't give someone similar focus based on their skin.. or simply their name and would use it as a positive or negative detail.
When you look at how structural discrimination is defined and the examples that are given, it's quite straight forward and easy to understand. It makes total sense. But when all these terms are used in the most excessive woke literature, all you get is a mush of confusion. And things get complicated.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Bullshit.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Ok. I get it now, you're just trolling. Basta!
Not by identity, by identity based discrimination. It's about addressing the mechanism by which identity confers merit. it amounts to proclaiming that identity should not confer merit.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I beg to differ. I believe it runs directly contrary to that position.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Are you sure it logically follows that intending not to judge others by their skin colour implies that one actually does believe skin colour indicates merit?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
The problem is there's also history and contemporary identity based discrimination to contend with. I don't think I'm afraid of recognizing differences (I'm comfortable recognizing more of them than most) but I'm afraid of delivering injustice or unfair judgments to others because of hasty or irrational schemas or stereotypes that the human psyche is heir to. In short, the colourblind initiative still makes sense if there is still racism, even if those promoting it believe race does not indicate merit.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
As usual, there is a vast chasm between our interpretations, but we do share common ground. I think that merit only makes sense (in this discussion) when we apply it to individuals rather than identities. It's fine to be proud of heritage and culture,but I don't think it's fair to wield it as an advantage over others, which is what colorblindness seeks to address.
The only modern (and non overtly racist) domain in which I've seen ethnicity directly equated with merit is in select management theory. They value diversity in employee ethnicity and culture because it enhances problem solving capacity and expands company perspective. Not to mention it lets them advertise that they're out to promote equality...
p.s:
I may need a few days to respond to the rest of your impressively long post :) . Thanks for your patience, and thanks for sharing!
Active (practicing) colorblindess = necessary preventative (and therefore, an effective method) - for reducing 'personalized racism', succumbing to stereotypes, discrimination, immoral deeds, causing harm, etc ... (religious-thinking - totalitarian?)
Okay.
Inactive colorblindness: All 'religions' matter; all religions welcomed (effective in theory) .. quasi-humanitarian aka laziness - 'the race agnostics'/I've seen the true light.
Racial conscious and/or non-colorblindness: 'Religious thinking' allowed (but uninteresting/ineffective - no one cares) - 'non'-religious thinking also allowed.
:cool: :up:
Paraphrasing the late great Albert Murray:
To fight dragons is heroic; to protest the existence of dragons is naïve.
Likewise, to wit: Anti-racism, with critical force multiplier Anti-classism, is heroic; 'racial color-blindness' in the face of persistent (Class-privileging) Race/Color/Native-isms is naïve ("woke") at best, and at worst ... :fire:
I agree with all of this. I'd just add the theme of class. Americans are afraid of poor people. And we hate poor people, who are often just a little poorer than we are. Or no poorer but just with the wrong manners. One can still say 'white trash' without losing one's job.
Someone will always end up playing the anti-exemplar. I don't think elitism can be escaped. That would be like a community without norms or ideals. We'll always have harsh words for whatever unsettles or disgust us. Someone will be the creep, the trash.
The gun issue is complex. It's not only about defending one's home from an actual threat. It's also about the masculine ideal. There's something so naked and lamb-like about a disarmed worker who lives among armed cops and armed criminals. 'Don't tread on me.'
That's a deep part of our psyche.
I thought you'd like it. I've been reading The Black Circle lately (Jeff Love). It's about Kojeve, which means it's about Dostoevsky too. The underground man is still fresh as a daisy. He's like ur-material out of which all the other beautiful and terrible maniacs emerge.
The term 'white trash' shows perfectly the structural racism in American culture. There's a lot of positive things in American culture, but this isn't one of them. As if then when you are referring to your "own race" such condescending and hateful terms of your fellow countrymen is acceptable. It's a way how the attitude for racism and xenophobia survives.
In then agrarian Finland such racist terms describing the poor people you did find in the 19th Century, a similar time when the term white trash was started to be used in the US. Then we had terms like loinen, parasite in English, which referred to poor people that didn't own a home and basically lived in the sheds of their employer. Yet in the 20th Century these terms weren't used or tolerated anymore. And 'human garbage' would sound really bad. It doesn't simply fit to a society with social cohesion. It does fit to a society with deep class divides.
Just as 180Proof points out, of course povetry is attached to this. Class is something that many Americans don't get as they confuse class with caste, and think about a caste system when talking about a class system. And of course, since the term is so loved by the socialists, Americans just turn away from using it.
You forgot to call this one.
Quoting 180 Proof
:rofl: If only we lived in a world where dragons actually did exist, or in a country where systematic racism did exist.
Quoting 180 Proof
But you aren't practicing anti-racism. You are being racist to "fight" racism. So you're actually a bad guy that has deluded himself into believing he is the hero.
Quoting 180 Proof
Asking difficult questions isn't trolling.
Talking about problems is generally better than ignoring them. There are circumstances where focusing every social issue with a certain vested interest/concern in one particular facet glasses can become a detriment to the main cause. Meaning, if we become too focused on one serious issue we can occasionally blur them with other serious issues. Being humans we tend to apply heuristics that work in one area to other areas assuming they apply equally as well.
Talking about ‘racial inequality’ in good, but talking about nothing else but ‘racial inequality’ tips every item of social concern toward being about ‘race’.
This is why I said it was a ‘no-brainer’. It’s a fairly commonsense position.
My concern is more with the underlying mechanisms of how prejudices perpetuate society: hence my attempts to bring the topic of information distribution and AI/algorithms to the fore.
You’re beating up a strawman (180 judges that all white people are racist) to give the appearance of winning the debate?
I’ve recently taken an implicit association test on race and it showed some bias, but does this constitute racism? No, it’s just subconscious conditioning that I need to be aware of and deal with the best I can. I can also put effort into changing this conditioning in myself and in society.
Quoting Harry Hindu
:lol:
One cannot be born with privilege anymore than one can be born with a trophy in his hand. Privilege is always granted, and it needs to be granted from living beings to other living beings. As a corollary, in order to acquire privilege one must first accept it from those handing it out. So yes, the term is silly at best, dehumanizing and racist at worst.
Cool! Thanks!
Indeed. I agree. The class issue hits us where we live. Even the talk of race and gender (which obviously has its value) gets tangled up in class-indicating manners. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are associated with poverty, especially with 'white trash' but also with blue-collar work. In our two party country, it all gets tangled up into something like mommy versus daddy.
Consider this article:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/us/california-mother-warning-white-supremacists-soh/index.html
To me the mother/son dynamic is fascinating here. The story assumes that its readers need a little glossary, at those who live in a bubble. It condescends. One of the words to watch for is 'SJW.' How clueless/insulated are these mothers supposed to be? Even liberal movie reviews are using 'snowflake.' The mean lingo is changing hands as each side tries to mock the other in its own terms.
[quote= Mom]
She responded to criticism that she was trying to "brainwash" her children.
"All parents are trying to bend their kids' minds. Whether it's getting them to wash their hands when they normally wouldn't or getting them to think about social issues in a way that's going to help society get better," she said.
She's found a positive way to engage her sons.
"The kids and I are conspirators together," she said.
[/quote]
She's right of course that parents are expected to shape their children. But there's something strange about mommy conspiring with her sons. She implies that modern religion is mostly political conspiracy theories, or at least that her boys are attracted to conspiracy theory (scapegoating). But that's what this article does, a sort of Satanic Panic. Class doesn't come up, just gender and race. Masculinity is associated with the threat of racism throughout.
This doesn't make me cry. It's even funny. Did AI write it? It's so weird. Did I dream it? I'm trying to point out how masculinity is tangled up with the race issue and make sense of some of Trump's support.
Some people are born with advantages, isnt that some kind of “privilege”?
I agree, which is why I remarked that culture doesn't necessarily gang with ethnicity.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I agree once more, I would only add the caveat that some people do partially define *themselves* according to their ethnic identity.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
it's a claim about a group of individuals, but you cannot apply it to all members of the group without generalizing, which is where i think there's room for error.
Actually quite hilarious. Even if the progressive mom likely isn't religious at all, she has a religious fervour to fight evil and save her boys from being lured into the Satanic cult of the alt-right.
The attitude is telling. It is one reason why politics comes to be so divisive and why we talk about politics becoming tribal. You see, it's not that political ideology that you oppose simply doesn't just work, is counterproductive and make things worse, it is are truly evil. And evil isn't something that cannot accept or understand, it's just morally unacceptable.
No one treats everyone the same. We treat each other differently depending on many different conditions and circumstances. This includes mere appearance, histories, whatever subconscious cultural bias we may have, etc, etc.
To answer your question, yes. Treating everyone the same would indicate a lack of capacity to sense important differences among people and treat them accordingly. But I have to ask: why would anyone want to be disabled in this way, or rather, why would anyone be inclined to feign this lack of capacity? It's certainly not fair to treat everyone the same. Fairness can't be achieved by disregarding advantages and disadvantages.
That's true, but race in itself is neither an advantage or a disadvantage; to claim otherwise is to say that some races are better than others. Race correlates with advantages and disadvantages like wealth or poverty, because of people treating some races as better than others. One can recognize those actual advantages or disadvantages, that correlate with race, without discriminating on the basis of race itself at all; and because of that correlation, the fair treatment of greater aiding people with greater disadvantages will correlate with greater aiding people of races that correlate with disadvantages, all without having to actually address race itself at all.
Indeed. Religion (or something like it) hasn't gone anywhere. We're a haunted species.
Quoting ssu
I agree. There's also the issue of tone. Often political arguments get so nasty that persuasion is no longer the point. Instead each side is just performing for those overhearing, for those already in their tribe.
I don't want to pretend to be entirely above this. I understand its appeal. We like fights. We like violent movies. And it's easy to feel that the whole thing is a spectacle. Do people want change? Or do I/they need the enemy to structure their sense of self?
No one is focusing on "one specific" issue with discussing racial affairs. That is my point. No one 'racially' conscious person (here) anyway, is or was discussing 'just race' .. that is your own poor misinterpretation (passive colorblind screen..) - which I attribute to laziness (e.g. conflict apathy/conflict avoidance) -the symptom, at least the ACTIVE totalitarian color-blinds are being forward with it. Rainbow middle man 'fixes' nothing when he refuses to pick up the tools, just prevents necessary clashes.
You are not 'broaden' the topic talking about AI, you are derailing it (what you think - as a symptom of passive colorblindness) is simple enough to be "less focused" on.
Quoting I like sushi
OK.
I don't think all "prejudices" and "heuristics" need to be addressed or met with the same degree of scrutiny as racial (racism) - & some harmful prejudices, & affairs. This is something else all together; which is why I find your position suspicious and struggle to see how it is first all that relevant. The very fact you want to 'equalize' prejudices (personal) mostly, as being 'equally' problematic in itself doesn't make sense to me and comes off as an aesthetic/superficial position - nor do I find it holding that much personal integrity or self-reflection.
But sure, if 'personally treating everyone equally' is the colorblinds' choice, so be it. It is not realistic and dare I say hardly possible (if not a trivialization) of this entire topic. I WOULDN'T urge people to reduce their personal prejudices (even when it comes to race - in a low grade ghetto of South Central), in any sense - no more than I'd urge women to be less cautious (aware & by that I mean, prepared) in particular situations - NOR suggest this is some morally superior approach - unless they are interfering with systematic problems (e.g. job hiring, etc..). 'Heuristics' are hardly half of it.
Quoting I like sushi
Except 'talking about racial inequality' isn't just talking about 'racial inequality' .. (unless you mean DingusJones, Harry and others) .. which is where you (and the active color-blinds) seem to misinterpret everything. Hence: my previous posts.
Quoting I like sushi
Yeah, my point. No one cares about personalized 'common sense' positions in the light of systematic racism. Well I don't anyway. So I ask again in a "nicer" tone, what is your point?
The issue of the OP has been dealt with. Are we backpedaling on the term ‘colour-blindness’? Have things gotten a little topsy turvy? There is a need for discussion - no-brainer - and it goes mostly without saying that extreme ends for or against the use of terms like colourblind present good reasons. That was the topic and it has been dealt with - clearly some view the term as being manipulated over time from a good intentioned meaning to a political weapon, and others view it as being a term to reveal ‘racial’ prejudices. Both have weight, but the modern use seems rather a poor choice to me because ‘colour’ (skintone) doesn’t determine ‘race’. If it was coined ‘racial blindness’ then that would make more sense.
I mention the fallacy of the middle. Why are you accusing me of such in every post since? Seems quite strange given that I’ve merely been pointing out that there is weight to both interpretations of the term. I don’t think it’s a great term (see above) but if that is how people wish to use it they can. I’m not fond of it for the same reason I’m not too fond of ‘race’. It’s a dated term and has taken on historical meanings that have since been proven wrong. It seems to be the case that many people assume skintone dictates ‘race’ (which actually says very little about a persons genetic heritage) so even if there were different human races (which there are not) skin tone most probably wouldn’t be a determining factor in distinguishing different hypothetical ‘races’.
None of this is a denial of social divisions based on skintone. It is a problem. Given that the thrust of the discussion is about the use and misuse of words I don’t think I am going off piste here. There is no derailing of the discussion. It’s been had and that’s that.
Maybe it does appear to you that I am avoiding the discussion about racism? That would be intentional on my part, not blindness. I know what I am doing. I don’t think the issue can be dealt with by finger pointing. I am merely trying to break things down and look at the underlying mechanisms of general prejudices before looking at the specific differences.
Quoting Swan
I do think prejudices need to be look at as prejudices before being delineated. If we have a broader picture of how prejudices operate in human social structures then we can distinguish between the marked differences between them rather than conflate them. If the underlying common principles are bigger factors than the individual differences then we’re not doing anything much other than looking proactive in the pursuit of a means to deal with the problem of racism.
This is not me saying ‘all prejudices in society are of equal detriment’. Far from it. I’m merely putting across that if we don’t look at the way all prejudices perpetuate in societies then we can’t seriously expect to see the important differences and end ip either conflating items or ignoring others altogether - an example would be racism within feminism (a point where people fighting for one societal prejudice to be righted blindsighted themselves from their own racism).
I think it is important to learn that self-driving cars were more likely to run over a black pedestrian than a white pedestrian. These can or unseen mistake can easily slip through due to what some would call ‘colour blindness’ and some would term ‘systemic racism’. It was just a case of algorithms working with the data they were given. If the AI system was designed and tested in Africa then they’d have been more likely to hit white people. The point is algorithms can point out certain problems humans have in terms of not seeing how people are different. Understanding distinctions helps with medicine too (some medicine is better for black people due to blood make-up etc.,.).
Quoting Swan
I am not trying to misinterpret anything anywhere. I certainly have social blind spots, but I don’t know what they are. The same goes for everyone including yourself. That is how humans are.
This discussion started with one of us questioning the other. The best we can do is give up, or account for the misinterpretations by pointing them out without accusations or feelings of suspicion - it doesn’t help anyone understand anyone if we can only resort to a blame game. You’ve voiced that I have been patronising in some posts, I accept that you feel that and can only express that it wasn’t my intent. The tone of my writing can easily been seen as patronising probably because I’m trying to be careful with my words and clinical with my approach to the topic.
I’m certainly not here to ‘win’. I find those discussions to be pointless unless each participant is arguing against their own position (steel-maning).
Quoting Swan
I’ve answered above quite thoroughly I think. To emphasis, for the sake of clarity, it is clear we can learn a great deal about human prejudices by turning to what data sets tell us. Algorithms and AI can unveil, and have, unseen biases within data sets. Given that the world is connected it seems a small leap to suggest that these prejudices can be lessened by manipulating algorithms where they would previously reinforce known and unknown biases. Basically, they can show us human interactions and biases we cannot see and show us where we’re feeding into known biases.
If you can suggest a better means of dealing with the issue of racism across societies - which doesn’t always fall under issues of skin colour - I’d be interested to hear your ideas.
Thanks for your patience.
Yeah, this is getting nowhere. I have nothing else to say, maybe someone else will answer. I'm withdrawing from the discussion. Adios.
It's not a strawman. I'm attacking 180's double-standard.
So, you're saying that prejudice exists in everyone? What about minorities? Do they have biases? If so, how do we determine who's bias is the problem in some situation like when a white cop interacts with a black person? Should cops be thinking about how the minority sees race and color as well - and about the minority's biases? Whose bias is the one causing the problem in this instance, when a minority black runs from a white cop because he thinks the cop is racist? How does he know the cop is racist? If I ran from a black cop, can I say that the black cop has the power and he's prejudiced, therefore he's racist? Does that make me prejudiced, or racist?
180 could have defended his statements himself. The fact that you're coming into our conversation near the end while disregarding everything else I have said, shows that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Quoting praxis
This is a straw-man (since you don't seem to know what a real one looks like). Like I've said numerous times (that you somehow missed or are you cherry-picking), we should treat everyone the same when our differences don't matter. The only difference that matters when I'm being considered for a job is how qualified I am compared to the other applicants, not anything to do with my skin's color. Our differences in skin color comes in handy during medical or biological conversations. It's not about not acknowledging our differences at all. It is about acknowledging our differences when the differences really do matter, and not when they don't. People like you and 180 don't seem to understand that. Acknowledging differences in a case where the differences don't matter is a category error.
Equal treatment simply means treating people the same in a particular instance when the difference between people doesn't matter in that particular instance. It doesn't entail treating everyone the same all the time, in every instance. That would be illogical.
Quoting ssu
Which examples were given? I can see what you're saying could happen in a unapologetic democracy, but the U.S. isn't an unapologetic democracy. It is a republic welfare state. Just look at how much money the U.S. spends on welfare programs compared to defense and law enforcement, and tell me where the structural discrimination is.
Another thing is that the other side only wants you to recognize race in particular instances that benefits them, not when it doesn't. Don't acknowledge race when a person is getting arrested, but we need to acknowledge race when hiring someone?
Another thing, these same people want minorities to be over-represented - as if they count for more than just 15% of the population, yet get their panties tied in a knot when the Electoral College over-represents states with low populations. :chin: This is an instance where they actually support a majority rule with the popular vote choosing a president! This is what seeing everything through the prism of politics and race does to you - it makes you inconsistent.
Quoting Harry Hindu
There you go again, Harry, taking my name in vain ...
Quoting Harry Hindu
... and, of course, proving my point (re: you not reading what I - or anyone else it seems - actually writes here). Again.
:yawn:
Perhaps you could show how this works in a real-life situation. In America, black men and boys are 2.5 times more likely than white men and boys to die during an encounter with police. How does one try to solve this problem without addressing race?
(1) Harryhindu posts in a thread regarding a prejudice or systemic injustice.
(2) Harryhindu attacks all narratives which affirm the relevance of the prejudice and the existence of systemic injustice by trying to beat them at their own game: the people highlighting said prejudice or systemic injustice are the real prejudiced people.
Move along people, move along.
If we group the victims of police shootings according to race it is almost a necessity that we will have varying results. But the race of the victim does not account for the reasons of the shootings, which may or may not have nothing to do with race at all. So I think the problem is in assuming race is a factor before the reasons for the shootings are apparent. This isn’t to say there are no racist cops, of course.
The issue is fixating on racism being the singular issue and possibly painting a false picture thus damaging any real chance of addressing the racism I believe is part of the figures you gave. It’s tricky.
You mean racial prejudice? I didn't say that, no.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Police may be more prone to shooting black men and boys, compared to whites of the same, because of the perceived degree of threat they have of them and not because the officers are racist. It would be responsible for police officers to be aware of their biases and deal with them as best they can.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I reviewed your comment pretty carefully before reaching my conclusion. I notice now that you don't try to disprove it was a fallacy.
Not that this will prevent anyone from taking out of context or strawmanning the actual argument I've made, which I summarize here:
Class privilege denotes an individual or community that's a member of the first (i.e. highest) quintile of net worth/income being free of the fear and/or adverse consequences (i.e. historically accumulated legacies) of (1) economic exploitation and (2) social discrimination.
Racial-Color privilege - e.g. "white privilege" in rich western liberal republics - denotes an individual or community that's a member of the prevailing racial color/ethnolinguistic majority being free of the fear and/or adverse consequences (i.e. historically accumulated legacies) of (1) racial color-profiling, policing & prosecution/deportation and (2) social de jure/de facto segregation & discrimination in housing, employment, education, healthcare, financial credit ... (i.e. public goods)
Thus, "racial color-blindness" is a luxury wary nonwhite survivors of racial color-discrimination cannot afford so long as many, if not most, upper/over class (privileged) whites talk the "racial color-blindness" talk but still walk the racial color-discrimination walk as systemic agents (or functionaries) and/or prejudiced individuals. The answer to the OP is simply this: because (predominately, though not exclusively, elite) Whites have dropped the pretense of "racial color-blindness" vis-à-vis Nonwhites, etc.
I think you mean to say that the problem is in assuming racism is a factor... I didn't say anything about racism in the situation that I mentioned. I asked how the problem could be addressed without considering race.
Thanks for the explanation. But this sounds to me to be an argument in favor of racial-colorblindness, that had the racists been color blind, all of it might have been avoided. This is not only the legacy of racism, but as a corollary, of race-thinking in general.
No I mean race is assumed. The problem could be addressed by looking at each individual case rather than relying on race statistics, which automatically presume race is a factor.
The problem could be looked at in many different ways and many different approaches could be taken to address it. That doesn't negate the fact that taking race into consideration is essential for understanding and solving the problem in the best or most efficient way.
Why would you disable (color-blind) yourself when trying to solve a problem?
It’s like saying bald men are 2.5 times more likely to be shot by police than men with hair. How can we address the problem without considering baldness? Baldness is presumed. That’s my point. You’ll never be able to address the problem because the reasons for the shootings are not addressed.
There's no 'reason-blind' movement that I'm aware of. Are you trying to start one?
Ha. No. And I do not doubt that racial-injustices occur. My problem is with the taxonomy of race and looking at things through the lens of race. I believe it is as superficial as, say, height or foot size. If we categorize according to these superficial categories we will automatically find disparities between them.
Then define "prejudiced".
Quoting praxis
So you're saying it's okay to view police as a perceived threat, but not to view someone being belligerent and refusing to obey orders (because they have this preconceived notion that police are a threat (and the orders are meant to keep both of them safe because the police officer is walking into a situation that he has no knowledge of who you are)) as a perceived threat? :brow:
You're the one not seeing things in an objective manner.
Quoting 180 Proof
How about some real-life (no dragons or fairies) examples for once?
Quoting 180 Proof
Your solution is for the "prevailing racial color/ethnolinguistic" to experience (1) racial color-profiling, policing & prosecution and (2) social de jure/de facto segregation & discrimination in housing, employment, education, healthcare, financial credit ... (i.e. public goods) because you want employers, police, prosecution, etc. to give you special treatment as opposed to equal treatment, and when a certain group gets special treatment, then logically other groups are being treated unequally. Minorities are segregating themselves with BET, black colleges, etc.
My solution involves using logic. My solution involves recognizing our own biases and prejudices because we all have them, regardless of race, or economic background. It is only logical to recognize any biases you may have that aren't applicable to the decision you are making. In other words, it involves not making a category error - which is essentially what racism and sexism are. My solution involves ignoring race in situations where race isn't a logical factor. It is beholden upon all of us, not just the majority because there are members of the majority that aren't racist, to avoid making those category mistakes. Now, what percentage of the majority makes those category mistakes purposefully to say that it's systematic? Isn't that up to you to show?
It’s also a matter of justice. If justice should be color blind, and we are to be just, we too must be color blind.
:up: :hearts:
Your problem, as you put it in the previous post anyway, is looking at things only through the lens of race. I think that would be a problem also because you're essentially blinding yourself to other factors.
Race is not superficial or insignificant. Do you actually claim that it is?
Sorry, let me rephrase:
Police may be more prone to shooting black men and boys, compared to whites of the same, because of the perceived degree of threat that police officers have of black men and boys, and not because the officers are racist. It would be responsible for police officers to be aware of their biases and deal with them as best they can.
I do believe it is superficial, but obviously it is significant to many.
That is a case of ongoing racial prejudice (on the part of the police), which can be solved by the police not discriminating between people on the basis of race, which is what those advocating for colorblindness want. I don't know specifically how to get police to stop racially discriminating, but somehow making the police do that (i.e. act colorblind) is the solution to that problem.
Alternatively or additionally, that is a case of class prejudice, the police treating poor people badly, plus blackness correlating with poverty, which is solved by having the police stop treating poor people badly (again, I don't know how to make them do that), regardless of race, which will have beneficial effects disproportionately for black people precisely because black people are disproportionately poor.
Additional fixes to the second case are to help more people get out of poverty, regardless of race, so that they aren't poor in the first place even if police are still discriminating against the poor. That again will have beneficial effects disproportionately for black people precisely because black people are disproportionately poor.
:point: :100:
To whom?
And if you say my (s)kin doesn't matter, but I say it does, who decides?
I don't think he said that. His accusation was inconsistency.
So i think it might be useful to separate two different kinds of "valuation" that we apply to others. The first kind is like respect and kindness; to be a valued human being means people think what happpens to you is important. Another kind is when someone values another person for economic reasons. Ability and disability can have a strong impact on the latter kind of judgment, but it should not have any impact on the former. Race, however, should neither have an impact on the former or the latter type of judgment.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Life worth living isn't necessarily related to ability, disability, merit, or value. Primarily it relates to happiness: I'm not suggesting that able bodied people have more valuable lives, I'm saying they by definition do not suffer from disability, where suffering has an impact on happiness.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I have no problem recognizing special needs that stem from disability or disease. But I do have a problem recognizing special needs that intrinsically stem from race. This is why I think the comparison between identity and disability is too fast and loose. Comparing race to ability is the exact opposite of what I'm trying to do with color-blindness.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
We're on the same page here. I think affirmative action could work if it was earnestly attempted, and while we're at it i would have us focus directly on those individuals who are left behind, regardless of race.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
The enduring problem i can get past is that trying to understand individuals as a function of their race or other identity leads to a lower-resolution understanding of any given individual (that is to say: to understand the individual, we must look most closely at the individual). When it comes to those who bear guilt, the same statistics based heuristic becomes rhetorically problematic.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I agree that absolute wealth inequality and poverty is obscene in seemingly every nation on the planet, and I would probably support a stronger stance than Bernie Sanders in trying to eliminate those gaps. But my point is that, essentially, who or what is at the top (wherever and whatever that top may be) matters much less than improving conditions for those at the bottom. A symbolic or physical devaluing of those at the top could make a difference for many reasons, but the poor cant eat symbols; they're means and not ends: the end goal is to improve lives, ideally starting with those who suffer the most.
Quoting Harry Hindu
(previous thread)
Quoting Harry Hindu
Quoting frank
You're right. It's not just that. It's:
Your position is internally inconsistent.
But If it weren't, you (or the worldview you promote) exhibits the prejudice.
The Card Says "Moops".
I don't have time to respond at length, but I wanted to clarify what I meant it the last quote because it is so crucial. When I speak of the "devaluing", I am talking about improving conditions at the bottom.
The billionare is being "devalued' in the improving of conditions at the bottom. In virtue of the system which improves the life of.people on the bottom, the billionaire loses some of his status over those on the bottom. "Devaluing" is a material condition of improving lives on the bottom. If the people on the bottom are richer, the billionaire loses some of the status he has over them.
It is our end which "devalues" here, no matter which metric (wealth, race, sex, etc.) might be invoved. When the bottom is no longer the slave, the top is no longer the master (i.e. the top is "devalued" ).
"Devaluing" is descriptive fact of the material social condition of any relationship of emainpation.
The former quote appears to be a warning against profiling white cops. There's nothing alt-right about that. In the latter quote he's questioning whether there is systemic racism in the US, by which I assume he means racism that is an aspect of the system. With a narrow definition of "system" as the government, Harry is right. If there is some other system that is exhibiting racism, someone should just point it out to Harry. My own opinion is that racism is primarily the same as sexism: it's a way that people make themselves feel better about themselves, so it's personal. There is a portion of the US population that would like racism to become systemic. They're white supremacists and neo-Nazis. At present, they aren't in charge. I don't think Harry wants them to gain that control. I agree with about 5% of Harry's philosophical ramblings, but he's never struck me as a neo-Nazi. Did I miss something?
Quoting Harry Hindu
What? I didn't understand the other quote either.
I agree that people should move along and pack up their ridiculous virtue signalling as they go (sorry, I had to get that out.)
You don’t appear to have said anything extraordinarily strange, but you’re making it appear quite obtuse. The constant bolds don’t really help.
I’m sure you can understand the OP is making the claim that talking about racism benefits racists. This is true. What I think the OP is not taking into account is that talking about racism also combats racism and helps equip the victims of racism with a means to combat it and to expose to others who aren’t victims a problem they are ‘blind’ too.
Again, none of this is a particularly unique or probing. Somehow I get the feeling these pointless exchanges will continue for several more pages (or more) without any sense of direction or cause.
That was from another other thread.
Turns out I wasn't wrong.
:point:
Quoting 180 Proof
:eyes:
[quote=180 Proof]The answer to the OP is simply this: because (predominately, though not exclusively, elite) Whites have dropped the pretense of "racial color-blindness" vis-à-vis Nonwhites, etc.[/quote]
:meh:
So people who do actually do it should be free to talk it too then, right?
The issue, as has been pointed out a dozen times, is a misconception/different/misunderstanding of the term ‘colour-blindness’.
I haven’t seen anyone disagree with the basic principle of judging people based on character rather than their appearance. I doubt anyone would disagree that we do always judge by appearances to some degree. I am pretty sure that everyone here has also said that ‘racism’ is a problem too. No one is saying we should ignore ‘race’ only that we shouldn’t put emphasis on someone’s ‘race’ when judging them as human beings.
I do prefer your use of the term ‘racial colour-blindness’. Perhaps people will pick it up so matters aren’t confused.
I still don’t really think what you’ve said is crystal clear ... “dropped the pretense of ...” meaning “stopped pretending” ? It’s not clear what you mean - at least not to me. Please reword/clarify.
Thanks
Quoting Pfhorrest
Cynical (or naïve) hypocrisy.
That's like talking about fucking: if you're talking about doing it, then ... :shade:
See my confusion?
I don't see how this makes any difference. My response would be the same. Why would it not be responsible for black men and boys to be aware of their biases against cops?
Great! I'm so glad that you finally see the error in your logic, Donkey.
Logic. Your skin color only matters in biological/medical contexts, not in political/judiciary contexts.
Quoting fdrake
Then define "prejudice". Is this really that difficult? You're the ones throwing around this word inconsistently. How exactly are you using it? It seems to me that you believe the "prejudice" is only a characteristic of people with a certain genetic condition of having pale skin. Is that not an example of prejudice?
No, you haven't missed anything.
I have asked numerous times for the ones making these spooky claims to point to the racist culprits, but I can't get any names. I asked them to define the terms they are using, but those requests are ignored. So no one has any clear idea of who, or what, this boogeyman is that is holding down minorities even though I see minorities in positions of power that can change my life for the worst if they wanted. This is the typical "squeaky wheel gets the grease" political tactics where the loudest groups get the special treatment, while the silent majority gets their rights trampled on.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Why did those bloody abos get an apology when I didn't..
Have your rights been trampled on?
I did not.
In my defense, Judging people according to their character and not their race does not involve not talking about racism. It is simply to refuse being racist, in my mind. We should talk about racism wherever it manifests, and it manifests also in race-consciousness.
So the OP was basically condemning racism?
"By the way, racism is bad. Sincerely, NOS4A2."
I look at it like this. “Race-thinking” (Arendt’s term) leads to, by necessity, a hierarchy of races. The belief that the species can be subdivided into races is the foundation, the ideology, upon which racism is founded.
Obviously the species can be divided into races. We did it.
Only in thought or by brute force and coercion.
Its still what racism is founded upon. Thats why these sorts of discussions are so contentious, because racists can co-opt terms and positions, even facts, and work it into their racist ideaology.
Yes. And in the process wounds were inflicted. Some wounds take a long time to heal. You cant make them go away by asserting that they shouldn't have happened.
Well it can also just be useful categorisation, like Harry mentioned with medical purposes. The problem isnt the categories, its using those categories to justify different rights for “inferior” races. Right?
Neither can you banish racism by continually evoking it and applying it in our day to day thinking.
I think the problem are the categories. I think personalized medicine, tailored to the individual, is better than race-based medicine.
True. Give it time.
Just so we are clear, can we admit that at some point in history there WAS DEFINITELY systemic racism in the USA? When did it end 100%? What date/ court ruling/ law passage suddenly eliminated ALL remaining vestiges of systemic racism? Same with systemic sexism...surely ALL systemic sexism did not end with the right to vote? Or the passage of some amendment?
Also, assuming all systemic racism has been eliminated (I do not agree with this, but for the sake of argument), surely there are lasting effects? I assume you are more ok admitting that there is systemic classism? Surely our system has clear benefits for wealthier people...or not? Aren't the people who WERE subject to systemic racism in the past, FAR more likely to be poor on average? Aren't the people who formerly embraced systemic racism likely to retain or pass on SOME of those feelings? I can agree that each generation will lose SOME of those outdated notions, but it will take time.
And, you strongly implied with "narrow definition" that you are aware that there is more to "the system" than the government. Segregation was "systemic" whether it was de facto or de jure. Economics are a system as much as any government. Mainstream social norms are a system as much as government.
Well its not...not always. Sometimes race can be a much stronger/reliable basis, such is the case with Osteoporosis or certain genetic diseases.
It seems to me that precision medicine will account both for racial and individual characteristics, without the need for race or ethnic categorization.
I think you are misunderstanding Arendt. I don't think she would agree with or find your your 'color-blindness' shtick interesting in this age, if not problematic. It was also Arendt that said if you are going to resist racism - you must not do it blindly (as this is the way to make a difference) - as you keep posing.
Well, maybe. I dont see how though. If you can tell by someones race whether or not they are suffering from a genetic disorder or not, how isnt that useful? Should we take it iff the table just because racist might skew it to support their ideology? I do not like ceding anything to racists.
[quote=Harry Hindu]Riiiiiiiiight ... Ok, Shrek. :up:
— 180 Proof
Great! I'm so glad that you finally see the error in your logic, Donkey.[/quote]
Well, thank you, Harry! All the cool kids think Donkey is dope - without him, Shrek'd still just be another grousing old palm-blistered chicken choker. I've tried to help you with that, but I guess, Harry, the analogy has it limits.
:cool:
"BLUE FLOWER, RED THORNS, BLUE FLOWER, RED THORNS... THIS WOULD BE SO MUCH EASIER IF I WASN'T COLORBLIND!"
~Donkey (2001)
I’m not passing off Arendt’s thinking for my own. I am simply using the word she employed here:
Race-Thinking before Racism
As for racial-colorblindness, that is an idea expressed by the likes of MLK and Nelson Mandela. As for “white privilege” and arguments against color-blindness, these are ideas from academia, from privilege in the general sense.
One cannot ever apply it to an individual. The mass measurement is a different order claim. If I'm talking about a certain trend of occurance in a population, I'm not talking about an individual, not even individuals who are part if the trend.
If I want to describe the individual, I need a different concept, a specific description of them. "X group are 30% poorer" does not give "Sam is of X group and they own 30% less money" and vice versa.
Following on from the above, this does not happen. There is no move to a lower understanding of an individual because the measurement of trend was never measurement of an individual in the first place.
Trends descirbe a social trend, not an individual. We cannot draw implications about an individual from a trend. The trend is it's own particular fact of society, concurrent to individuals who we might describe. (which is why, for example, the presence of a rich black individual doesn't take a away the trend poverty amongst black people as a group. Or convesely, why the destitute whitw person doesn't take away a trend of wealth in thre group).
There are no generalisations to make. All are false because they amount to a catergory error, a confusion of one kind of description (trends in a population) for another (description of an individual), even in cases where an individual might have a trait identified in a trend.
I'm out of time again, the rest will have to wait for another day.
I've read that, but I think in a broader context of her work to see you using the (term) the way you are, I don't think would be her intentional usage of the term to defend your position.
Great, now I want to watch Shrek. :lol:
Ah yeah, watchin' dat ass! :razz:
The problem is that we are not rational beings and can't simply choose to be color-blind. It's something that we need to work towards, and that work necessarily involves seeing color.
Try one of these implicit association tests to get a feel for your biases:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
That sounds more of an admission of guilt than a statement of fact.
According to the test on race, I have a slight bias against black people. I’m inclined to attribute that to negative depictions in the media that I’ve grown up with, as well as too little personal experience. Up thorough junior college there were no African Americans in any of the schools I attended, for example. I can’t recall having any negative experiences with black people personally, and I have a couple of friends that I’ve known for over a decade that are black.
I suppose that if the test showed no bias it would indicate ‘color-blindness’ in the sense that it’s being portrayed.
IMV, we could use more admissions of guilt. Innocence is ignorance, purity fiction. To me knowledge almost requires guilt. That's the toll to be paid, a loss of innocence.
I respect what @praxis did above.
Yea verily!
Rolling my eyes hard- Black guys everywhere
I love your honesty. I’d be weary of that test, however. Perhaps you’re not as biased as you think.
For years, this popular test measured anyone’s racial bias. But it might not work after all.
I was raised in a fairly diverse neighborhood, so perhaps you’re right. I figure these sorts of fears can be waylaid by travel and human-to-human interaction. The exposure of travel is enlightening. the essential elements of humanity are the same everywhere.
Why are you quoting my posts and then editing them without any notification that you edited them (trolling), instead of answering a simple question I asked?
Every time an employer hires a person because they are black. I'm a current participant in the job market.
But this goes back to another thing I said, which perhaps you did miss, and perhaps may even be a response to your retort after reading my first statement. How does one prove that racism occurred? Do I launch an investigation into the corporation because they're showing preference to minorities? Should there be a quota on what percentage of which race each company has? That would be extremely difficult for many small businesses which only operate in a local area where certain race group are more dominate. What is the solution?
My whole point is, if you can use logic and reason to come up with a solution that is better than being part of the problem you're trying to solve, then why not prefer that solution?
So there are two problems with what 180, Banno, fdrake, and unenlightened are saying. One, they have yet to point to racists. All they can do is make these wild general accusations that don't fit observations (being prejudiced). And then their solution is more prejudice.
After reading this part, did you laugh out loud as if I had a chance in hell to launch an investigation into the corporation because they're showing preference to minorities, because society would laugh at me. Where would my white privilege be in this instance?
Why did you pretend to be a trans person in another thread you tried this crap in?
So instead of answering the question to define your own use of terms, you swing at me with this off-topic crap?
If you want to take this to another thread, I'd be happy to.
Lots of companies have voluntarily adopted diversity quotas. It's marketing. Get a lawyer and challenge the practice if you feel trampled by it.
What do you mean, "It's marketing"? What are they marketing and to whom?
Why would you need to declare that you are treating people fairly? Why is it called a diversity quota rather than a fairness doctrine?
They're marketing their product to a diverse population.
Quoting Harry Hindu
These are private companies. They can do whatever they like within the law.
If you dont like it, start your own company.
Nothing surprising. I’m sure that I could easily skew the test results any way that I wanted by priming myself for a particular outcome. The subconscious is not as ridged as we tend to think, I believe.
The fact the we can influence our subconscious suggests to me that we have a responsibility to reduce disparities between implicit and explicit views.
Hahhaha. Imagine how black people feel every time a white person is hired.
Here is a fairly detailed review with excerpts so people don't necessarily need to read it to get the gist:
https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2017/arts_entertainment/colorblindness-isnt-answer-humanism-challenge-race
I don't have time to respond now, but will later.
It would be tough to prove, but at some point statistical likelihood comes into play.
Humanism isn't as appealing to people (regardless of race) and theology is precisely because it make you feel more special than you really are. Humanism brings us all back to the same equal level.
Why would minorities embrace a white, European concept such as Christianity if they thought that they were being oppressed by white systems and concepts?
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Are you saying that all black people don't want any whites to ever be hired? Isn't that racist to put all black people into the same box, as if they all think the same because they have the same skin color?
And this:
Quoting praxis
Isn't this saying that we shouldn't hold black men and boys to the same ethical standard that we are trying to hold police too? We don't hold sharks and lions to the same ethical standard as human beings either, so does this imply that blacks aren't equally human? Statements like this and the previous one would offend me if I was a black man (I'm actually offended as a human being that other human beings talk like this). Is it a "human thing" or a "white thing" to have prejudices and biases and should we have equal expectations of all humans, regardless of race, when it comes to restraining your biases and prejudices?
Nope. Just saying that FAR more black people have been NOT HIRED because they are black for the last 50 years than those who were hired to fill diversity quotas (and obviously it was WAY worse before the civil rights movement). This does not seem all that contestable to me, but if you require absolute proof, I can't do that...but I also cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow despite having a lot of information suggesting that it will.
Not sure where that comes from? Are you saying that all whites don't ever want a black person to be hired?
You may not have noticed, but if you point out the reality of racism in any form, @Harry Hindu will find a way to accuse you of racism. It's his one game here and he never ever gets tired of it.
As Michelle Alexander wrote in The New Jim Crow, the more things change, the more they stay the same. I'd also add that probably far more black folks have been murdered by paranoid policemen and women (who took over the job after the KKK's glory days waned) than have been hired due to EEOP. The usa's foundational fictions deny the supreme importance of genocide and slavery in forging this great democracy, but you don't have to look very hard to see that all social institutions are permeated with white supremacy. You just have to come out of denial.
I teach at an HBCU; I hear about the subtle and not so subtle operations of white supremacy every day, and I see their effects on my students. This is no democracy; there is no equality.
I'm talking about putting effort into being aware of our subconscious biases and dealing with them responsibly.
Any subconscious biases that black and brown people have against the police and judicial system may be wellfounded. In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander argues that the mass incarceration of black and brown people in the United States that started with the 'war on drug' has stripped away their civil rights to a point comparable to the era of Jim Crow ("the more things change, the more they stay the same").
Mass incarceration due to the "war on drugs."
Incarceration rate by race:
Note that many studies show that there's no substantial difference in the rate that white people consume and sell drugs compared to that of black and brown people.
Is the American judicial system colorblind?
Yeah, I just copied and pasted a line from your post to mine.
I think it’s safe to say that any racially-motivated injustice, whether institutional or not, is by definition not color-blind. If it was color-blind, the race of the accused would not matter and other reasons would account for those disparities.
haha, I am slowly learning. But ego gets in the way. If they just heard one more perspective maybe it would change their mind...and of course I have that perfect perspective ready to go :roll:
Sometimes I read a whole bunch of careful, intelligent, evidenced arguments being denied (or flipped as you mentioned), and think maybe if I phrase this in a simpler (dumber) way it will work. Like I said, I am learning slowly (I was actually trying to do his flip thing back to him, but I should know you can't out flip The Flipper).
I was about to say "the good new is", but that seems wholly inappropriate, how about "a reason for some hope" - I received my high school history teaching credentials in 2013; many teachers are far more liberal, and are teaching U.S. history in a way that is at least trying to be true to the facts rather than CREATING a narrative. Ironically, this gets called "revisionist history" by those who think the founding fathers are deities, slavery was a minor issue (ie Texas textbooks calling slaves "workers"), america is the best country that has ever existed, and America is a model that is the only reason freedom and democracy exist anywhere in the world :roll:
I get this more accurate instruction of history does very little to help people who are currently suffering, but it may give us reason to think people will be more supportive of their plight in the future. I guess that is easy to say as someone who does not have to suffer from these same problems.
Quoting uncanni
What always shocks me is that we know for sure that Jim Crow laws were only made illegal in the 1960s. So until then, white supremacy was basically a government policy...why do people think there are no remaining aspects of white supremacy in government, our legal system, people's behavior's (even people who are not white supremacists will have old habits), etc?
Quoting uncanni
How does the future look from your perspective? Am I overly optimistic in my hopes that things will be improving as more liberal (accurate?) understandings of history become the norm in school classrooms? Is it just a privilege to have the time to worry about the distant future?
Dear fellow teacher: I'm glad to hear about the high school textbooks, and I believe that things are improving for black Americans, little by little. The wheels of history grind slowly
I'm in SC, one of the most backasswards southern states; I'd say that around half of my students are solid middle class, and the other half is solid underclass. I think about the differences between these two groups every day, because it's a catch-22 to expect middle class values, understanding and behavior from the latter group. While it's gratifying to see many of these millenials with "post-racial" mentalities--by which I mean that they know that they don't always have to think in racial terms or mistrust every single white person they meet--, students from the underclass tend to come from so much familial trauma, all the pernicious effects of either inner city or rural southern poverty and lousy k-12 education, that sometimes I'm afraid that I can't help them at all: their defenses and modes of behavior are too set. One does the best one can.
As for the distant future, I'm so cynical about the usa and its entire mythology of who it is: the nation's defenses are also too deeply set in place for it to come out of denial. What I call the Obama backlash, which I believe is a huge part of what put trump in office, was so strong, so many people who seethed with rage for 8 years at having a black man in the white house, runs so deep and so strong in provincial white america. I l taught for 18 years in TX--the scariest and most provincial place I've ever lived. The bible belt is a horrifying place--pathologically ignorant and irrational.
Fdrake made a similar argument. I asked him to define "prejudice" and never answered the question. So, I ask you: define "racism/prejudice/bias". If it walks, talks and acts like a duck, it's a duck.
And I've been asking for awhile now for people to point out the racists in our society, when all along they are right here in this thread!
As a Libertarian, I'm against any war, or laws on drugs.
The second chart doesn't show why blacks are being arrested. Why don't you look at the correlation between how you were raised and whether you end up in prison because you have a higher change of joining gangs or other crimes because of your socio-economic situation? There is no such thing as "white privilege". There is such a thing as "loving two-parent privilege". Cops could have a wellfounded reason to think about blacks in a certain way. I'm saying that they both should be aware of any biases they should have, and that it isn't up to just one side to check their biases.
What you are attempting to show is that it's not just the cop who is racist, but the prosecuting and defending attorney, the judge and any witnesses, who could go on TV and declare racism is why the black man is in jail for that particular case and the media would be all over it. It's a ridiculous claim based on the current environment in the U.S. where any claim of racism is put front and center by the media.
You don't even need any proof. You can just scream "Racism!" and you'll have cameras and microphones in front of your face. That is the current environment in the U.S. Do you disagree with this?
Just as we seem to notice that white kids get gunned down at schools and we clamor for gun control, we ignore all the deaths of blacks on the inner city streets by gang and drug violence with handguns, which far exceed the number of white deaths in schools by AR-15s. It seems racist to me to focus on the banning of AR-15s when more than half of people killed in violent hand-gun confrontations are black.
But then what about the astounding suicide rate of white males compared to other groups? Define "privilege".
uh, so a claim without any proof isn't contestable? MMMMkaaaaaaay..................
Unicorns are racist because there are mostly white unicorns.
Again, spitting in the fan ... :confused:
Racism. This is prejudice instituted (i.e. made normative) and executed by Business Practices in tandem with State (and/or Church) Policies.
Prejudice. This is socialized (or experientially conditioned) self-serving bias against members of (designated or not - ethnic/color, class, gender/sexuality, sectarian, etc) Out-Groups.
Bias. This is involuntary (though not intractably incorrigible) reflex of perception/cognition-blindness to complexity or to one's own perplexity.
These are interrelated, nested, concepts lost on too many like you, Hindu, apparently due to (cognitive? or ideological?) bias. :chin:
What do you call it when someone hates someone based only on the colour of skin/race?
You keep saying this and I keep responding with requests for you to point to the Business or business practice and State, Church (remember when I asked you why blacks embrace a white, European concept like Christianity if white systems and concepts are racist, and you didn't respond?), and policies that are racist, and you don't respond.
We have equal treatment laws in the books.
There are many minorities in positions of power that can change my life for the worse if they wanted.
Minorities have the power to call someone racist without any proof and the media comes running.
Many businesses, states and churches are run by minorities, or have minorities at the top of the hierarchy of these institutions.
So for the umpteenth time, where is the systematic, institutionalized racism?
Quoting 180 Proof
What is the difference between something that is socialized and something that is instituted? You still haven't made a clear distinction between what is prejudice and what is racist.
Quoting 180 ProofAn involuntary blindness to complexity? How do you expect to change the ideas of someone who has involuntary blindness? How do you expect to change their minds? I thought the first two definitions were whack, but this one takes the cake. This definition seems to say that no one could ever be aware of and therefore mitigate their biases.
There must be a purpose for me to notice skin color. What would it be for? In what context?
With the definitions you provided, I have shown that minorities, and many people in this thread who argue from the same side as you, fall into those definitions, and that we should hold them equally responsible for their biases, prejudice and racism.
What is the racial composition of the mods that run this forum? Is this forum run by mostly whites? Is this forum racist? It seems that your definitions make the case that this forum is racist. If it's not modded by mostly whites, the what does that say about whites being the only ones in power?
Involuntary doesn't mean imperceptible, and the definition explicitly stated that biases are "not intractably incorrigible."
We can influence our negative biases by providing positive experiences that counteract them, simply. This can be done deliberately or unintentionally to ourselves and others. Of course, it can also occur by chance. For an example in popular culture, I saw a movie last night that appeared to be trying to counteract the negative image that the Trump administration is painting of South American immigrants. In the new Terminator movie [spoiler altert], it's an illegal border crossing Mexican woman who turns out to be the savior of humanity. If Trump made the movie, the hero would be a blond-haired white dude and all the killer robots would be Mexican. See how that works?
Perhaps it was the writer’s negative biases that led him/her to kill the previous savior of humanity, a white dude, and replace him with a female illegal immigrant.
indeed. I guess as long as things are moving in the right direction there is reason to think positively (I don't know if the Trump movement is society moving backwards or a highlighting of the problem that may actually speed up the improvements we want? - maybe both?)
Quoting uncanni
Well the first state to secede probably hung on to that "Lost Cause" garbage longer than most (I say that like they are done believing such nonsense, ugh).
Quoting uncanni
Your understanding of sociology seems to be at a higher level than my own, but I agree that projection and assumption of values as "right", leads to entire groups of people being labelled "wrong" for simply existing.
Quoting uncanni
:yikes: My life has been too easy, so I can only feel bad...there is almost no way I can relate.
Quoting uncanni
Well thanks for doing it. I am working in a relatively affluent area, so, while I can't afford rent, my job is fairly easy as I am not exposed to major systemic problems (I suppose the top level education received in affluent areas IS part of the systemic problem as funding stays local).
Quoting uncanni
Indeed, if Trump has emboldened the racists in public, the election of Obama got them grumbling, people were just more careful to not mention race specifically...but every time I heard "Obama is the worst president in US history", it simply reeked of racism as there were no other factors that could possibly justify such an assertion (and unfortunately, I heard that whopper quite a bit).
Quoting uncanni
Yeah, I don't remember exactly, but it was recent, sometime in the last 5 years or so, that Texas was sued over textbooks calling slaves "workers". Very worrisome when considering that textbook companies prioritize their content for Texas as the state school board buys ALL books for every public school in the state.
Thanks for the added perspective.
Why would someone want/need proof that the sun will rise tomorrow? There is plenty of evidence, just zero proof.
The point that you apparently missed is that people deliberately attempt to bias (negatively and positively) others. As someone who’s fallen under Trump’s spell, you should know this well, if only experientially.
You shouldn't feel bad; we all need to teach our students to subvert the dominant paradigm!!! ;-}
Ad hominems.
When did it become incumbent upon those who disagree with you to research and defend your own arguments? You're the one that is lazy. I'm asking questions about what you've already written on this thread and you just keep repeating yourself or avoiding the questions. You simply can't be intellectually honest, and it's truly pathetic for someone of your caliber.
Yes, and if you go to another country their movies are even more xenocentric. In other words, the U.S. is more open-minded and less xenocentric than most other countries, yet you and your side are lambasting the U.S. You just provided evidence that supports my argument. See how that works?
As a matter of fact, I Googled the book you posted about, provided a link to a review of the book with excerpts, quoted an excerpt in a response to your post, and questioned you on it, and you simply can't respond to it. So, I have actually done what you requested and you still avoided it. I thought you were a better debater than this. It goes to show how politics, like religion, can be a detriment to a logical mind.
Evidence that we try to influence each others biases supports your argument? Okay.
Without reading it, I don’t think you selected the most relevant portion of the book to respond to, in relation to the topic and the context that it was presented. Also, your response to the excerpt was rather simplistic. It’s easy to see why someone may not give it any attention.
The book review gives a detailed outline but I don’t know that it offers the gist of it.
We probably ‘should’, but it’s far easier to work from assumptions based on hearsay and perpetuated ideologies. We’re only human, don’t be so harsh on everyone.
Some people will be obstinate about their positions, some flexible, and some seemingly groundless, but you can pretty much always guarantee that nearly all of us idiots think we’re more ‘centred’ than the idiot standing next to us.
One day we die. In the meantime we can choose to try an accept that other people have different ideas and used of terms and carefully tread around what they say, what they may mean, and what we may be thinking they mean that they don’t.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to argue against someone else’s definition of ‘racism’ too harshly. Simply state your view and make clear it is okay to have some slight differences of opinion and then work toward a workable definition that covers the problems embedded within the disagreement of ‘meaning’.
OR get stuck amending a singular statement for several pages on a forum.
My own view is that the term ‘racism’ is more about cultural differences than skintone. Tribes go to war over numerous differences and the visual prompts just so happen to be easier to distinguish.
What concerns me more than anything is how to tell what has happened to a society where ‘racism’ isn’t a topic of any concern. If such a day comes would this mean we’ve risen above such silly prejudices (institutionalised or otherwise), buried the ‘racism’ from view, and/or shifted our prejudices (institutionalised or otherwise) to other areas: such as religion, height, age, language, etc.,.
Then again, a little kick up the arse can prove productive ... I’ve not been following every word of the discussion so maybe HH will respond better to a prod or choke than to a parley?
Good question by the OP. My answer is: we're back-pedalling on being "colour-blind" because "colour-blindness" has been co-opted by racists. White anti-racists like me (and, I presume, the OP) are subject to the historical currents of the ongoing civil rights movement. Being "woke" to them isn't a backwards step. The current state of affairs may be flawed, but it's essentially progressive. The criticism of "colour-blindness" isn't a criticism of an individual white anti-racist's way of approaching people of colour - it's a criticism of (white) racists who boast about their "colour-blindness" while continuing to blithely practise personal and institutional racism - and continuing to deny the pervasive historical structures of racism.
(1) People who think of racism as only an attitude; agent-agent racial prejudice based on sentiment.
(2) People who think of racism as an umbrella term which covers (1) and also includes system-agent racial discrimination which in the aggregate exposes demographics to adverse (growth impeding, opportunity constraining) conditions.
The only system allowed to be treated as a system in an internet reactionary conservative's worldview is the market. If they were more consistent with their thinking, they would propagate the insights they have about the causal structure of the market into all the other systems staring them in the face.
Ideologically, this thinking is promoted through too heavy an emphasis on individualism in social ontology; a focus on the individual as the causal locus of all analysis. Except the market, which is just "the free actions of individuals together"; rather than an emergent phenomenon that selectively constrains and enables individuals and demographics effected by it.
If you think "an emphasis on individualism in social ontology" is a contradiction in terms; you're probably not an internet reactionary. If you don't, and further if your worldview is informed by such a reduction, then you're probably baffled by how everyone else can be such an incoherent idiot.
The "incoherence" of systemic critique is only there because reactionaries haven't learned to ask the right questions yet (on the most charitable, "they're not trolls or crypto" interpretation anyway). And usually, they won't, especially not in public, because the system of justification built up around it is ultimately a performance of their identity; an opportunity to display strength, certainty, and to defend the borders of their mind as rightly there.
If any of you think fisking a book review for low hanging seeming contradictions to be used solely for calling someone an idiot on the internet is a good substitute for actually doing research on a topic, stop thinking of yourself as reasonable and logical and begin to wonder why you're perpetually failing to understand what the "other side" of the political spectrum is saying. Spoilers: it's not because they don't know wtf they're talking about, it's because you don't know wtf they're talking about.
Am I saying that all the results of systemic critique are right? And that you can't take conservative talking points from a reasoned perspective? No, we have a great example of a well informed person who disagrees with the results of common systemic critiques and knows how to research on this site - @VagabondSpectre.
Does this also extend to other genetic expressions, such as eye and hair colour?
Quoting dazed
Pretty sure skin colour falls under physical characteristics.
Quoting dazed
As far as evidence goes, "it works for me" is pretty flimsy.
While I agree somewhat with the sentiment, when you said describe physical characteristics I immediately thought that skin colour is a physical characteristic and that people with Ginger hair still face discrimination.
I feel that physical description isn’t about describing the person it’s about describing the different ways being human physically presents itself.
Also, I’d say if we we are describing character traits we are still somewhat talking about physical descriptions. For example; I could say a person is courageous or I could say that they have a brain which allows them to be courageous.
Personally the only race I identify us all to be is human.
Good post, I think you captured an important distinction in a nutshell.
It's not the physical description that poses a problem but all besides that.
Hey! I'll take that.
Anyway, there is surely more damage involved if those groups treated differently are without protection from the law. If the idea that people can be racist is inhibited then there can be no accusations of racism where racism exists. It’s better to see the scars and wounds of society in the open rather than let them fester and slough off sections of human culture simply by averting our gazes.
It is certainly a conundrum. It makes sense not to make too big a deal out of every apparent ‘racist’ comment, yet it also makes sense to not belittle every ‘racist’ comment. Simply ‘de-naming’ a social problem doesn’t make it disappear. We wouldn’t tell doctors to stop writing ‘cause of death starvation’ and then think starvation had ended.
Note: This is not to say some people won’t go too far. The unfounded accusations are a necessary trade off against a greater a more virulent catastrophe.
I came to the same conclusion myself - but it's difficult to practise. The scenario is that you're describing a person of colour to a third party, and you don't want to use "race"/skin colour descriptors. You've suggested describing physical characteristics. (Unlike other contributors, I'm happy to imply that you obviously meant characteristics other than skin colour.) The question arises: how important is it that the third party can recognise the described person. The UK police, out of necessity rather than racism, use numbered "race" categories. I'll continue to struggle with this one. I don't like to say, "black", but sometimes I have to. "African" isn't always appropriate. Same with "brown" and "South Asian". "Mixed race" sounds wrong to me. Is "mixed ethnicity" any better? I'm with the OP - lets do it!
One doesn’t need to stop using these particular adjectives to refute the concept of race because, though they are not completely accurate, they are so entrenched that they work. One just needs to refuse to supply any significance to them.
It's easy for you - you're colour-blind! ;-)
Any example of these “(white) racists who boast about their "colour-blindness" while continuing to blithely practise personal and institutional racism”? I’m trying to find one to determine if his abuse of color-blindness offers enough reason to abandon color-blindness altogether.
Quoting praxis
No, evidence that the U.S. is already an equal-treatment country. Didn't I say that? Yes. I did.
Quoting praxis
Quoting 180 Proof
Because the rest of it was the same dribble we've been hearing, I've been responding to, and then you just ignore what I said, call me a troll, and repeat yourself. Those aren't valid arguments. If I was sooooo wrong, it should be simple to tell me why, and establish that you are not afflicted with the Dunning–Kruger effect yourselves. It would seem to me that engaging in ad hominems and ignoring my points, and then repeating yourselves is evidence that you, 180 and the others are the ones afflicted, not me.
Whats important about the distinction is that when people hear you use “colour blind” in the non-racist way you mean, they take you to mean “color blindness” in the sense a racist might use that word as a cover for racist sentiment. Thats what happens when people see racism in everything and everyone (everyone white anyway, which seems kinda racist, but welcome to the wacky world of diluted terms we find ourselves in.)
So why don't we get a rundown of everyone's race here and the mods? If it's so important that our race be in people's faces, then why aren't we doing it? Why aren't the mods demanding your race when registering and displaying it with our posts? If being color-blind is now what it means to be racist, then the owners of this forum are breaking their own rules to not be racist! It's the complete opposite of what MLK advocated.
I consider myself an anti-racist. I have pale skin, but I don't see what that has anything to do with it, as you said yourself, not all whites are racist, so who are the racists then, and what does your color of skin have to do with being racist or not?
If you engage with them on their terms, the framing of the debate has already shifted to a terrain in which your worldview is necessarily incoherent; and they will continue to do this. They will not try to assimilate your worldview and meet you 'halfway' through charitable analysis of concepts and nuanced, contextualised debate (like they say they want). If you want to refute their arguments, you're already playing their game.
They will always assert their worldview as a necessary frame of interpretation; fundamental presumptions in it will not be challenged. They cannot be, by their own construction. It's like trying to refute an axiom within a system. The system is presented to argue against doubt of the axiom. Before this is portrayed as something everyone does all the time necessarily; consider that people participating in good faith will highlight their assumptions when called for, they will not repeatedly put them in the background as a framing device.
The left knows that it relies upon systemic critique methodologically, and thematises such as a concept. There are so many circular firing lines among our ranks precisely because we're all too attendant to conceptual structure and internal contradiction. We spend most of our time shouting at each other (like Marxists getting pissed off with Foucauldians and vice versa), the reactionary internet right spends most of its time shouting at us. Notice that, for all their alleged plurality of worldviews, they rarely shout at each other.
Once you have established that someone heavily relies upon bad faith as an argument strategy, you don't play that game with them any more.
It seems that in most cases, racism is always presumed before it can ever be proven. Lacking the evidence of someone’s overt racism, the anti-colorblind must then resort to making uncharitable assumptions about another’s mental states and thought processes to maintain his position,
I think its because people are not thinking clearly, they have been trained and indoctrinated to see racism where the is none. That certain words make a person racist, rather than what a person actually believes about race. (To varying degrees, some people think anything about race coming out of someones mouth is racist).
You’ve heard of Trump derangement syndrome? I think racism derangement syndrome is a thing too.
People lose their fucking minds about Trump and race.
Believing that the system is rigged will also make a capitalist blind to the power of the thing that really is 100% quintessentially colorblind: money.
No.
Being color-blind doesn't entail ignoring skin color all the time - only in those times where it isn't applicable - like when you're an employer hiring someone, or as a citizen voting for someone. It only make sense to talk about skin-color and race in biological/medical contexts - and yes, when describing someone so that they can locate them in a crowd when the crowd is made up of both blacks and whites. You wouldn't need to point out skin color in a crowd when everyone's skin color is the same.
I mean, this is all pretty basic, logical stuff. I don't get why people are so hypersensitive about it.
Emergent statistical effects like this. In terms of race, these largely come from past geopolitical strategy (genocide, slavery--colonialism/imperialism, usually economically motivated) on the colonised community, which are then reintegrated into the society in the lower classes (cheap labour) and impoverished areas (cheap areas, ghettoisation); as well as a nationalist/racist propaganda to legitimise mistreatment of the colonised group and stymie collaborations between workers. The story of the Irish in the US is instructive on the latter point, as is the UK's struggle with Pakistani and Indian immigration after WW2 (both colonies were invited to come in here and take our jobs and then demonised for doing so).
Edit: if you wanna talk about people being prejudiced, you always gotta ask: why here? Why now? Why so many? Where does all this "individual sentiment" come from?
I don’t doubt that there are racists who use color-blindness as a cloak to hide their racism. But we should also remember that people like MLK and Nelson Mandela expressed color-blind principles. I don’t think we should abandon color blindness because some have exploited it for their own ends, anymore than we would abandon kindness because a murderer pretended to be kind.
Oh, yes. How about:
[quote=Ivanka Trump"]My father... is color-blind[/quote]
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/the-myth-of-trumps-colorblindness/594124/
It's not kind to deny that racism and race privilege continue to exist.
It’s obvious racism exists. I’m just surprised it’s being used in the spirit of ending racism.
You should be ashamed of yourself. To be racist is to indulge in bullying, based on a redundant anti-stranger instinct. Pseudo-scientific racism is even worse, like a drunk trying to act sober.
Prior to this, you wrote: "the U.S. is more open-minded and less xenocentric than most other countries." Assuming this claim is true, it's still not evidence that the USA is an "equal-treatment country."
Are you being ironic or genuine? Presumably one or the other. If genuine, I apologise. I think we humans are all racist. Or rather, we're all instinctively wary of strangers. (The instinct probably evolved as protection against communicable disease.) Racism as such is probably a modern European colonial cultural twist on that instinct. If we're aware of that, it's easy enough to choose to live above it (as with other twisted antisocial monsters from the id).
King said he didn't want his children judged by the colour of their skin. He never said he wanted the colour of their skin to be ignored.
O... K...
Once again without mentioning your name, Hindu, you don't keep anyone guessing and self-identify. That's mighty "colorblind" of you. :ok: "I bet you think this song is about you ..."
Quoting fdrake
In other words: Don't feed trolls! Right on. :victory:
@Chris Hughes :up:
@praxis :up:
:100:
That’s the essential point of colorblindness, to refuse to judge by the color of another’s skin.
That's true. However, googling produces many articles about conservatives misusing King's "Dream" speech to justify ignoring racism. Eg:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/martin-luther-king-dream-speech-misunderstand
The point about affirmative action is true. We cannot favor races in policy while discriminating against others, especially at the institutional level. It’s institutional racism.
That sounds remarkably like alt-rightism.
I wish that they were just trolls. Trolls are nihilistic, just doing what they can to get a rise. This is a performance that's been picked up because it works; it looks like putting people in their place with witty comments to uninformed readers and passers by, it's easier to come up with than any rebuttals (the truth is complex) because it doesn't need research or fact checking, and it is more compressed, so travels further. It's a groupthink meme that propagates groupthink memes; an emergent conservative propaganda machine.
If it's done intentionally, it's dangerous, if it's not, they're a useful idiot for dominant (racist-colonialist/imperialist-capitalist-patriarchal) ideology. The same patterns of argument have been used for a long time.
Selectively invoked free speech arguments (yes this is horrible but people have a right to say it... I disagree but want people to say it due to a higher principle...), personal responsibility narratives (yes but not all are effected by... if only these people would stop complaining then...), accusing opponents of acting on mere sentiment rather than reason ("triggered!" "snowflake!" "cuck!" for some modern ones).
Framing tactics like:
When, in fact, they do. And this has been shown repeatedly. Higher arrest rates, conviction rates, poverty rates, education differentials, based on (socially constructed) race demographics. The current law evidently isn't enough (at least in the UK and US) to allow equality of opportunity for all; hence cultural and economic change is necessary, hence state involved action is necessary (they have all the of the easy to pull systemic levers), hence political pressure is necessary. This is what 'amplifying voices' most often looks like; turning pain into empowerment (as Lowkey puts it).
There are always stories to make the facts go away. But as they like to say, "facts don't care about your feelings".
Do you believe a government should discriminate between its citizens on the basis of their race?
Given the history of slavery, yes.
Slavery was also state discrimination against citizens on the basis of their race, as was segregation, apartheid, programs and genocides.
Except no one said that. All this talk of bad faith and this is the result?
Again, the OP just meant to point out that racism is bad, and then they clobbered you, bless your heart.
I’m quite fine. They clobber their straw men, making sure to make a show of it while doing so.
(Everyone should get slavery reparations or no slavery reparations should be made).
(Slavery is just like slavery reparations in all relevant respects for this discussion).
And when you point out trivial implications which they intended in their posts:
They'll never come out and say what they actually believe, or believe what they are logically committed to, Maintaining ignorance of the implications of their beliefs is a necessary feature of internet reactionary praxis. Any awful consequences of their worldviews can be disavowed because they were never explicitly stated; it's not that my beliefs entail horrors, it's that you misread me. Never play defense - if you're always the one making the accusations, always the one doling out buckets of fisking condescension, you never have to systematise your beliefs or check them for consequences.
Lovecraft was right:
It's atrocious. Why did you think to make a thread about how racism is bad? Did you think it was debatable?
Yes, that was the point: to show that all are similar insofar as they are forms of institutional racism. And I was speaking of affirmative action, not reparations.
You could just ask, but it looks like assuming the worst possible motives and further assuming you’ve chosen the right ones suffices.
I kind of thought we’d all agree that racism was bad, and that we could discuss the proposed prescriptions.
What proposed prescriptions?
Whether we should be colorblind or color conscious.
In what areas of life?
In all of them, as a matter of principle.
He's kind of installed himself. He's doing no harm.
Act out of love, not principle.
Quoting Chris Hughes
Quoting Chris Hughes
I don't think this one's a troll, unfortunately. I don't think they're alt-right either. It's very common conservative talking points; that they're hard to distinguish from chan culture bollocks is problematic, but it's not their fault this stuff propagates like it does. Conservatism's always been a slippery downward slope to fascism, all it takes is a push.
Not as far as I'm aware. Maybe in your part of the world.
On the anglophone internet and twitters.
Probably the same kind of batshit mental contortions involved in pretending someone said such a thing.
I’m a liberal.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
Slavery = apartheid = affirmative action, insofar as they are all racist. When I say this:
Quoting NOS4A2
Note: individuals or groups acting differently based on or motivated by people's socially constructed race is not necessarily racist; without this distinction the civil rights movement was racist (since it appealed to the affected community to seize power and gain representation). This similarity needs to be strengthened to equivalence for the argument as presented follow; alike in all relevant respects for a property to transfer over a similarity claim. Either the argument is invalid, or it's based on framing devices that smooth out the differences, or both. Whether this is done intentionally or not does not really matter.
Edit: ultimately this cashes out, collapses down, into an argument where someone further to the political left repeatedly throws statistics at someone on further to the political right. A clash between systemic analysis and personal responsibility; between collective and individual patterns of thought. Whether we're 'really' in a state of equality of opportunity between races; and the excuses used to portray that we are, when we in fact are not. Not within countries, not between the imperial political north and the colonised political south.
I'm going to make this simpler for him.
A basic definition of racism: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
(Oxford dictionary.)
Now find the odd one out:
1) Slavery
2) Apartheid
3) Affirmative action
I guess I'm out of touch.
I'm a raging lefty. You probably gathered.
Thanks for the advice.
Institutionally racist, to be more precise. Perhaps I may be using it wrongly, but by institutionally racist I mean racial discrimination at the institutional-level, racism as a method and policy of institutions. Perhaps someone can correct me on the correct term.
I just happen to believe that using racism to correct racism defeats that purpose at the start. I also believe that using racism at the institutional level is dangerous.
I don’t bother with throwing people into political camps. If it came to it, we’d probably be in the same foxhole fighting the same enemies.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, the alt-right. Liberals and lefties of the world unite! :cheer:
Good to have you with us at last, you devilish young man.
Well, I’m not big on consensus and uniformity. It would have to be very rare circumstances.
Well, I'm trying to be as charitable as I can. Usually, I don't hesitate calling a spade a spade; while engaged in what's purportedly a philosophical discussion here, however, 'dropping the troll-card' seems just as apt as 'playing the racist-card' but less inflammatory (i.e. provoking knee-jerk feigned 'anti-racist' outrage). The latter ends discussion whereas the former prompts detours around bad faith nonsense in order to push the discussion further. I'd rather play a rodeo clown than be the bull ...
[quote=fdrake]I'm a raging lefty.[/quote]
Libertarian socialist (re: economic democracy) here. :up:
Say there's a school in a poor area. The local council spends some of its funding to put in a school lunch scheme. So the poorest can eat at least one hot meal a day guaranteed. This is thereby prejudiced towards kids. This 'prejudice' moves the area a little bit closer towards equality of opportunity - not worrying about constant hunger for kids.
Say there's a large housing estate in a city with lax standards on house safety, and the landlords don't take care of the property; using cheap lead paint, asbestos and shit. Say these areas are impoverished, so the poorer people move in, poverty is strongly correlated with (socially constructed) race in the US. Now you got a whole load of minorities with lead poisoning and other health issues, which fucks up your brain development. Say you're a concerned government and offer legal aid to the effected to sue for damages, and this works - this is a 'racial prejudice' generated to partially address huge social costs rooted in equality of opportunity differences.
Say you're MLK and you want your people to get the vote, this means that the government has to change your constitution just for "you and your people", and no group of people deserves special treatment just because of who they are. This is racist because it's a minority group 'amplifying their voice' through political action.
Say you're the suffragettes, you're protesting for social recognition and equal opportunities for women...
Quoting NOS4A2
Aye. :)
It's not your fault I've been on a tear recently, apologies you got caught in my fallout. I'm super sensitive to the posting style and political framings I've seen you use in political discussions; it's very vulnerable to being co-opted by far right rhetoric.
If you're willing to entertain that affirmative action and slavery resemble each other for the purposes of an argument, or in some politically relevant respect, and you're sincerely thinking these thoughts, you're going through a thought process that literal Neo-Nazis use. Jared Taylor for example is very happy to portray whites as a victimised minority due to political focus on mitigating 'racism' (through affirmative action, reparations, racial sensitivity training in workplaces). They're using the same elision between 'distinction' and 'discrimination' that I pointed out in your post, and they know it.
I don't think that believing any of the things you've said individually make you a racist, or a neo-Nazi, or alt-right or whatever, it's more that thinking in that way makes it easier to be coopted by the barrage of polarising propaganda we both probably see every day and hate.
If you wanna resist that stuff and free your mind from it, go left.
Edit: to me, go left means - a focus on democratisation (politics) and systemic critique (methodology)
:up:
You're right that statistical analysis is not a measurement of any one individual, so even when there are very clear trends that apply to a given "identity group", we would be mistaken to make any hard assumptions in applying them to individuals. This is one of the reasons I reject the intersectional framework; it's concerned with trends of suffering at the intersection of identity groups rather than the much more complex intersection that discrete identities and individuals actually inhabit.
Racial demographic statistical analysis can be a useful heuristic that points us toward systemic causal problems (such as racism and various forms of unjust discrimination), but we need to actually figure out how the system produces those results, else we're just begging the same question in an endless self-undermining cycle (self-undermining because it assumes causal origins without ever testing for them, which negates the need for research into other possible causes (causes that don't turn on race alone)).
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I've been busy myself (sorry for the late response).
So we seem to agree that statistical trends in outcomes are not an appropriate basis for discrimination of individuals. I think we would disagree, however, as to whether or not disparity in statistical trends between demographics warrants the appeal to systemic discrimination (to the degree that "color blindness" becomes problematic). A part of our disagreement may be in the way you equate statistical disparities with "systemic discrimination". I believe this is a hasty assumption because of the many other known and unknown factors that can contribute to individual and group outcomes.
"Sensitivity to starting conditions" is one of my larger sources of doubt. The eventual outcomes of complex systems can be very sensitive to initial or starting conditions, where small changes to the starting (or current) state of affairs can have extreme ramifications on the end (or future) results. For example, the economic legacy of slavery and jim crow determined that even in the supposedly post-racial seventies, the black demographic was still massively impoverished compared to the white middle class. And starting around the mid 1980's, the middle class began to shrink; any gains the black community, on average, had at that time, would have began to evaporate. So when we look at the raw statistics of today, how can we easily differentiate between outcomes determined by on-going individual or systemic racism/discrimination, and outcomes determined by the myriad of other forces?
Almost as if by irony, were we to focus on race and racism at the expense of focusing on such other systemic forces, our efforts to course correct will be futile. If we managed to legislate the burka (achieved full-blown color blindness), what is going to prevent the middle class from continuing to shrink, and the wealthy few from continuing to break away from the rest of us at greater and greater expense? I'm not trying to deny that racism exists (color blindness is good in my opinion as we attempt to ourselves be less racist), but I am loathe to define it as an inherent component of the system (as you yourself use the term,it would merely be synonymous with "statistical outcome disparities", as if merely to say, society isn't fair.)
Then there's the problematic human psychology of normatively focusing on race as anything other than cultural or genetic happenstance (being interested in one's heritage is not a faux pas in and of itself, and in that sense our racial identities are benign, but it's possible to go too far). When racial heritage becomes too important, we naturally start thinking xenophobically: "Since my well-being is attached to the well-being of my group ([i]irrational), I had better favor members of my group, and disfavor members of other groups"[/i]. Even if people don't believe they would act in a prejudiced way, they still have that capacity (how we think we will act, and why we think we acted the way we did, often differs drastically from the actual causes of our behavior). This phenomenon can happen with everything from sports clubs to zodiac signs.
I have no way to predict the future, but I'm pretty sure that by focusing on race - by telling people it is an important part of identity (a group defining identity) - we're just going to wind up stimulating an increase in racial bias in general (because race then becomes a more central part of our world-view schema), and in some cases people will just outright embrace racial conflict as some kind of inherent feature of human society (for example, the alt-right's rejection of "diversity" is 100% founded on a group vs group mentality).
Implicit bias is a rather controversial subject in social psychology (how we measure it and whether those measurements means anything), but there are a few practical approaches to reducing them. One is to simply be aware of how our psychology can be affected when we are in groups (how we seek to conform, to justify, etc...), where eventually individuals become better at recognizing the emotional and environmental cues that trigger biased behavior. My own interpretation of color blindness is that it is a self-motivated attempt to realize when the race of others causes us to discriminate in our interactions with them,and to correct that behavior. I stand by the merits of color-blindness initiatives...
Definitions of racism typically include the idea of viewing one's race as superior. Slavery, assumes superiority. Apartheid, assumes superiority. Affirmative action and similar policies do no such thing. They are RACIAL (as in related to race) government policies, they are not RACIST. I get that you still may not like them, but it would save you a lot of debate to phrase things more appropriately.
I am interested what you think about how racism could be addressed without racial policies?
With the ‘huge’ exception of being fully onboard with the Trump cult.
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting Harry Hindu
But you keep feeding me the same bullshit leftovers, 180. You sound like a broken record.
That's fine. It's evidence that the U.S. isn't as xenophobic as you think. Letting in millions of legal immigrants each year is evidence of that as well. For evidence of equal-treatment, just look at the laws we have. I keep asking you and 180 to provide the names of the entities or laws in the U.S. that are racist yet you can't even do that. You and 180 can't provide any evidence for your claims. You're talking about boogey-men that don't exist, so your whole argument is based off of an imaginary entity - kind of like religion, and you even make the same type of logical errors that the religious do when making their case for their boogey-man that tortures people with fire that don't believe in it.
So if there is no explicitly racist law in place then no systemic racism can possibly exist? That's your claim, right?
Isn't that what it means to be systematic? Which system are we talking about?
Can you just answer the question? Feel free to use a dictionary if you need to.
If there's a claim of systemic bigotry, I need more than a picture of suffering minorities. It would help if I knew what's meant by "systemic."
I'll post my own definition afterwards, but I don't want to be accused of prejudicing any replies. I want Harry to look it up himself from a neutral source and figure out if that's what he's saying.
Yes.
Definitions of racism are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term. It’s easy to appeal to the dictionary, but I would suggest those definitions are incomplete. Those definitions flower from on belief: Race-ism (the belief in race), racialism, and the pseudoscience it was founded upon.
The first thing we should do is stop being racist, to stop using these outdated and tyrannical categories in our policies, for our statistics, for our stereotypes and judgements.
"The median wealth of black families in America is a lot less than the median wealth of white families in America"
Is this racist because it highlights a racial disparity?
Did he whost smelt it dealt it?
It is not racist to get the government to treat all people equally under the law, to live up to its founding principles and apply them to all citizens. This is what MLK did and did best.
We do not need to evoke race to solve those problems. That’s one the problems to begin with: race is assumed before actual causes are even addressed.
Neo-Nazis are color conscious, identity politicians. Like the hard left, they seek to address their grievances on racial grounds. I treat all of that piffle with contempt, and for the same reasons.
I would argue it is racist because it categorizes disparate and unconnected human beings into categories of race. This is evidence of a type of thinking that precedes all racial injustice.
But the reality (historical effects of policies, different treatment, entangling of poverty and race) that creates that racial disparity is racist too?
Yes, the racial policies of the past has led to racial disparity. All the more reason to stop racist policies.
Law: the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
Policy: a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual.
Even if people have equal treatment under the law, it is still possible (and it happens) that policies disproportionately effect people along demographic lines. Moreover, a policy like "allocate funding for poor child education in Glasgow to try and stop knife crime" targets a specific demographic (poor children and families in Glasgow). If a policy targeting one demographic is necessarily prejudicial against other demographics simply because it targets one demographic... then I don't know what to tell you? Targeted policies are impossible? Policies are impossible? There's no such thing as politics? Political action to highlight concerns shared by a demographic or community is necessarily prejudicial (and hint: should not happen)?
This is just nuts.
Quoting NOS4A2
Good. Now what do you think is keeping the disparities in play?
Mostly the way you frame them. If you view it through the lens of race, racial disparities necessarily arise. Of course it isn’t true that all members of all races are encapsulated into these disparities.
...
Black people are poorer in America because some guy who lives in Norway highlights racial disparities in America?
What even is this.
You can't tackle a problem with targeted policies without recognising it for what it is, and how it works. Maybe you know this. Maybe this is the entire point of you writing like this. "Things are good for everyone, I am good".
If you search for disparities between tall and short, fat and thin, you’ll find them. The point is you’re not tackling a problem at all, but projecting groups and taxonomies onto vast swaths of disparate individuals.
I don't think the U.S. is particularly xenophobic. I think the current administration has heavily politized immigration issues to garner support from a minority demographic that may tend to be more xenophobic.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I've shown statistics that may indicate systemic discrimination, which you dismissed out of hand. It looks as though only explicitly racist laws or policies would satisfy you, so I think it would be a waste of time to try providing any other sort of evidence.
The New Jim Crow is an important book that I think every American should read. As someone interested in philosophy, I'd think you'd be interested in a strong argument that is counter to your apparent beliefs.
The essential problem centers around acquiring and maintaining power or advantage. People don't discriminate against those with superficial differences for no reason. In order to correct the unfair practices, you need to address whatever established taxonomy has been used. Naturally, it will be an uphill battle because people generally hate giving up an advantage.
Would you say that's a sign of systemic racism? I'm asking.
I can agree with that. I just think the very first step to correcting them should be to refuse using those taxonomies. They automatically lead to the hastiest of generalizations, unable to account for the disparities between individuals who may or may not be a part of those groups.
One of the first steps, in my opinion, would be to look at these 'hasty generalizations' that you mention. Look at what's behind the taxonomies.
Quoting frank
No.
:up:
When we talk about systemic racism are we mainly talking about demographics?
For instance, if Latinos are statistically poorer than blacks, would we see that as a sign of more potent racism for Latinos vs blacks?
Or are there upstream facts that we use to make our assessments?
Bullshit.
Belief in race does not equate to devaluing one because of their race. The former is necessary for the latter, but not all belief in race includes devaluing one because of race. The former is not what we are referring to by "racism". Rather, it's the latter.
You're abusing language here.
To defeat racism is to value people equally regardless of their race.
If you do not include race in the discussion, then racial disparities aren't able to be identified!
:brow:
Hence, one can claim color-blindness as a means to intentionally not address the problems.
Yes.
Like what?
Sort that one out, folks.
There are examples in housing, loan practices, the judicial system, health and environment. None of them will be very overt, in this day and age. Do you need convincing or what? It seems like many of those who don't want to see it can't see it. Well, I don't want to see it but the evidence is there.
I could go on and on, dividing up black perspectives into categories like the Spike Lee attitude, the Bill Cosby viewpoint, etc. etc. etc.
I don't join teams because it's not a football game to me. What I'll note is that though many fans of systemic racism have spoken in this thread, none of them seem to be able to give a specific example of it or even explain what the hell it's actually supposed to be.
I thought you might correct that. And you better be friendly to me or I'll bombard your inbox with youtube videos about American expressionism.
It’s not a game to you but you won’t even exert the marginal effort it would take to look this shit up yourself. :chin:
Where I live are racial disparities, yes, and a legacy of racism and racial policies.
That's it. Say hello to Jackson Pollack.
Are racial policies still in place?
I never said the belief in race equates to devaluing one because of her race. What I’m trying to say is that the belief that the species can be divided into such subgroups, it’s assumptions, the race-thinking, provides the foundation for all racist discriminations and hatred. It’s a false, a superstitious and dangerous taxonomy. To see it continue to metastasize in government, corporate, and cultural institutions should be cause for grave concern.
Racial policies still exist but in the form of affirmative action.
Right!
You said belief in race is racism. It's not!
Racism is devaluing someone based upon race. Belief in race is not racism.
We’re talking about race. At no point do I deny or ignore the legacy of racism.
Affirmative Action is an American thing, sparky. Good try, though. :kiss:
Good. Assuming you - like other reasonable considerate people - want to work on correcting racism, you must realize that it cannot be corrected by denying race.
And next you’ll appeal to the dictionary.
Appeal to the dictionary? For what. Belief in race is not racism. It's necessary for racism, but not sufficient.
You dont buy that definition of racism? How do you define it?
Nice try. They go under different names elsewhere.
You mean for college admissions? Affirmative action was much bigger than that. So no, it's not the same thing.
Race-ism. It’s quite simple. The suffix ‘ism’ is attached to the root word ‘race’.
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/download/5672/5065/
Don't be such a dumb fuck! There is a long history of what racism is, of how the word is used, of what it refers to, of what it picks out to the exclusion of all else....
It does not pick out belief in race.
I don’t doubt the term has gone through changes; I only doubt that the meaning is accurate.
Do you believe a government should enact racial policies?
Absolutely. Due to my vast inability to do research, I can tell you that Thurgood Marshall talked about the discriminatory aspects of affirmative action. He said that what a young white person should understand is that though AA did disadvantage them in some respects, they were given an advantage at birth.
AA didn't balance the scales. It was just an attempt to jumpstart that process.
Who knows when HH will show up. So, might as well give you my own definition I held back earlier. Doubt it differs much from the standard.
Systemic racism is a form of racism that is expressed through the practices of institutions in their interactions with socially dominated racial groups, and that serves to reinforce the dominated status of those groups. Systemic racism may be enshrined in law (e.g. apartheid systems) or it may be a matter of practices/policies involving legal interpretation and/or extralegal actions discriminatively applied by those with discretionary power, direct or indirect, at any level of the system. Examples of systems where systemic racism may apply include justice, education, and health in both their private and state-managed manifestations.
But they still continue. For how long should these policies continue? In a more recent case Judge OConnor and Thomas concludes affirmative action will be illegal in 25 years.
I love Thomas’ dissenting in this particular case. Worth a read.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZX1.html
You meant abstract expressionism. I wouldn't kill you to do a little learning on your own. :razz:
The word "racial" is neutral. It just means pertaining to race. There are good and bad ways to address issues concerning race. So, it means nothing to ask that question unless you specify what policy you mean. And if you're trying to infect the word "racial" in a general sense with the connotations of the word "racist", you're barking up the wrong tree with anyone who understands English.
Along with Trump, another great liberal hero of yours, I guess.
The word “racial” is a descriptive term as well. It describes something, in this case particular government laws and policies. Simple grammar.
Another excuse to avoid his arguments I suspect.
Yea that. Mark Rothko says hi.
No idea what this has to do with my post.
Hardly. But he's unlikely to come here and debate, so you'll have to do.
In America contrary to "racist stereotypes", affirmative action (like welfare programs), has always mostly benefitted white women instead of nonwhite minorities. An easy to find, highly corroborated and reported, fact for any honest, thinking person who's more interested in opposing than ignoring or defending (re: alt-right trolls) the legacies as well as current forms of systemic adverse discrimination (i.e. racism, hetero/sexism, etc).
:up:
A common argument against racial preferences and affirmative action, besides the unequal treatment, is that they do not help those they are designed to favor.
He’s harmless. I think if was Frank who said he’s like a pet. The forum pet troll.
I would guess you expect this response, but I suppose that means you will have a response...
If we can just "stop being racist" why didn't we try that option with other laws/regulations? Why do we need murder laws, can't people just stop killing other people?
I don't think he does (define it). If a person simply denies everyone else's definition while never providing one, they can never be proven wrong. Unfortunately, the rest of us are left wondering what we are supposed to be proving.
Based on his comments so far though, his definition of racism would be:
"anything that takes race into account"
Which I don't think any dictionary or any person here would agree with???
You’ll note my sentence didn’t end there. I said:
“The first thing we should do is stop being racist, to stop using these outdated and tyrannical categories in our policies, for our statistics, for our stereotypes and judgements.”
Actually I suggested “Race-ism (the belief in race)”. This was taken from my reply to you.
Yes, that seems a very poor definition of racism to me as well, I dont think thats what NOS has in mind though.
How about it NOS? How do you define racism?
In it’s purest form, racism is the belief that the species may be divided into separate biological taxonomies called “race”.
What the hell? I've asked you questions that you ignored and now you demand that I answer your questions? This is the level of hypocrisy we have to deal with on this forum. Start treating me with the same respect that you expect for yourself and maybe we can have an actual discussion.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Quoting Harry Hindu
LOL, I have a life and don't live on these forums, or only participate on these forums.
It's not incumbent upon me to define your god for you. You're the one making the claim that racism is systematic. Now define systematic, and point out the system and members of the system that are racist.
Yeah, hence the comment. If I thought you spent all your time on the forums, I wouldn't have said that, would I?
Quoting Harry Hindu
The only question in that is what race I am and why we aren't demanding posters' races. I think you can work that out yourself.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Holy sweet Jesus. Where do I start with this? You still haven't found a dictionary. You still don't know what you're claiming. You're still using the wrong words. And I actually did define the term in question.
(In fact, I've provided definitions of both "racism" and "systemic" racism).
Then you didn't take the time to read it.
It seems that you can work out your own definitions then and we don't need to have this discussion.
The reason you won't say why Admins on this forum aren't demanding members' race is because it contradicts your and 180's other arguments.
Quoting Baden
Then repost it because I missed it.
The fact that you are too lazy to scroll up and read is indicative of the pointlessness of dealing with you. You've earned Chrome ignore. Good luck.
What are the names of the institutions? Aren't there institutions that are socially dominated by blacks in the U.S.?
So, what is the solution to this form of systematic racism? Blacks need to pump out more babies so that they are no longer the minority? I love how these definitions are pronounced without even understanding how one would solve such a problem the definition entails.
Okay, Harry. Prove you're not a cunt. :chin:
(re: Bitter Crank's post 3 weeks ago, p.3 of this thread*)
"Systemic racism" isnt the best terminology for it because much of it, as Bittercrank pointed out, is the legacy of historic racism, and corruption that may or may not be related to racism.
It's more poetically speaking that racism is embodied by economic, political, and judicial systems.
:meh:
Quoting Bitter Crank
But this is 2019. What are the racist institutions in 2019? Are you saying the FHA is still racist today? Did it take this long for you to point out the racist institution?
Quoting frank
Right, so we don't have laws and institutions where the way society allocates resources and protects one race and exposes the other to social disintegration today. It's more about that the effects of the racism in previous systems that have carried over generationally. Given that, what are the proposed solutions? More vague generalities?
If noticing color in the past lead to racist systems and institutions, then why isn't the solution to be color-blind today? Why isn't the solution to ignore race and treat people equally today?
We like to point out racist people from previous generations and take down their statues, so why would you want to go back to those racist ways by using race to divide people?
On one level you're right: part of the cultural problems surrounding race is to do with how we form inappropriate social expectations - how we stereotype, how we selectively know and do not know, how we selectively include and exclude people from our social groups.
This is the kind of thing that inspired a girl (this happened to my friends and I while out) to ask me to protect her from my arabic friends because they seemed like a threat in the bar.
Even on this level, we have to think about where these expectations are coming from; how are they produced and reproduced in the culture.
On another level; you're not saying anything of relevance to a vast swarthe of conditions that differentially effect demographics. The causal mechanisms here are economic trends and policies on the back of historical prejudice. These are not reducible to inappropriate expectations, even though their public legitimation often comes along with cultural production of racial difference (propaganda, nationalist sentiment, "coming over here and taking our jobs" etc).
If you reduce everything to cultural expectations, you miss one of (and the major source) the engines keeping inequality of opportunity in place.
To make sense of what follows this I think you should probably explain exactly what “noticing color” means in this sentence.
Any time you spend blaming your problems on what other people are doing is wasted time.
What's the solution to race problems in America? There is no solution. If everybody adopted the anit-Rand attitude of: your problems are my problems, then a solution would develop naturally.
The funny thing about that: the people who advocate the anti-Rand attitude can be relied upon to turn on their fellow humans who happen to be conservative like a bunch of rabid dogs. They'll turn on each other in a heart beat. The Europeans ones will foam and bark about their fellow humans who happen to be American. IOW, it's all talk, or rather it's all endless fucking whining with no interest at all in follow through.
Such is life. All problems end in the grave.
According to the OP, it's to be colourblind, meaning (according to the OP) not being racist. I suppose the OP has a point, whatever suspicion of alt-right sophism is aroused. Since the abolition of slavery, systemic racism has continued to blight black lives. The OP apparently admits that, and prescribes systemic colourblindness. Hmm.
Tomorrow is nearly yesterday and everything is stupid.
But out of that mindset, part of it is figuring out wtf to do, wtf we can do. The anglophone internet's a good place for that, being a microcosm of our shared culture.
So Zhou is essentially correct in how you define racism. Ok.
It's true that social engineering meant to reverse the effects of racism has unwanted side effects.
Is that what you mean?
About the fact that humans are assholes?
We can be assholes. Ideally we set things up so the effects of us being assholes are minimised. You know, good laws and policies.
It's so great to get Norway's insights on that issue.
You don't get Norway's insights. You get an irritated internet lefty's. Mine. But I do find value in reminding people about the relevance of politics in public. And of thinking about what to do.
Fair enough.
Fair point.
That’s another problem: the causes are so innumerable that disparities cannot be chalked up to just discrimination, privilege or systemic whatever. These causes are not limited or confined to this or that group.
I suggest we’ll never know the causal mechanisms until each case is taken into account, and we abandon demographic, ethnic or race thinking from our analysis. We’ll always see disparities between these groups, but by looking for them through such a lens we risk blinding ourselves to every individual case therein that might not fit within such a mental apartheid. So to flip the criticism, the ones ignoring the disparities between individuals and the causes of these disparities are the color-conscious.
I’m not sure that’s the case.
What is the difference between your definition and his characterisation of it?
Aren’t you saying that racism is when someone thinks there are categories of humans defined by physical traits?
I don't think that's true. The value of framing things systemically is precisely to highlight that such issues should also be addressed through policies and political action; thinking of things systemically lets you get a handle on what's causing what.
So, Glasgow's knife crime goes down a lot due to child education in poorer families and benefit schemes, with little to no additional investment in police presence. This policy came from looking at who was committing the knife crime (demographic factors), looking at case reports, economic data... It wasn't 'because the kids were Glaswegian", it was "because the kids were poor and disadvantaged and desperate".
London's knife crime and police presence? Not the same story. Extra police, not doing anything about the knife crime. The media framing it as a black on black violence problem? This is exactly what highlighting that an issue is systemic in a public arena attempts to mitigate. And what do you know, when policies are adopted that are a result of well structured analysis... They work better.
Looking at things in that way is how you criticise, make and propose effective policies. Looking at things on an individual level is how you resist any such policy as unfair.
"Colour-blindness" ceases to be a cause for equality of opportunity when it is invoked to argue against well motivated policies to address racial disparity (race here is really an economic proxy variable, racial minorities have poorer conditions for historical reasons which have remained unaddressed). It ain't 'because they're black' or 'because they're white' now, it's where they are, what they have to work with, and how that constrains or enables their capacities.
Edit: one part of this, which remains unaddressed, is that governments know that race and economic class intersect, this is why euphemisms work. In the US, just look at how "Border control is a jobs issue" transformed into "Mexicans are rapists and thieves". The same people who support those who say "border control is a jobs issue" are now those who support "Mexicans are rapists and thieves"... coincidence? Nah. Political discourse employs euphemisms so white dupes like us can be colourblind and have our racial disparities...
My definition is “ In it’s purest form, racism is the belief that the species may be divided into separate biological taxonomies called “race”.
His characterization is “ anything that takes race into account”.
No, I meant that the Count prescribes no race-based social engineering at all because, supposedly, it's based on a false distinction. (Hence, supposedly, the unwanted side effects.) There's a slippery circularity there. Hence my suspicion of alt-right sophistry.
He's definitely a troll. Hes not in the US, so maybe not alt-right, but one of its kin.
It’s true. I think me examining these things on an individual level leads to me seeing them as unjust. To my mind these “well-motivated policies”, what they call “positive discrimination”, are unjust, because they favor certain racial groups at the expense of others, whether they are effective or not.
Political action on racial grounds is wholly dangerous. Even if they are effective, the last thing I’d like to see are race-based groups vying for political power on those grounds. Perhaps, as you said, it shouldn’t be done on the individual level, but they they can never be fair or just in their application.
If you guys can be trolled by opposing opinions perhaps I’m not the problem.
Well taxonomy is a scientific term, a scientific biological categorisation. I dont think thats whats commonly meant when people refer to race, I think they mean a category based in obvious physical differences.
Maybe thats why there has been such contention on this topic, some people are using the academic meaning of “race” (as it might be used to describe an alien “race” for example) and others a laymens usage that is simply noticing differing physical traits like skin colour or bone density or hair color.
So what word do you use to describe the latter cases? If thats not “race”, what is it?
The people who are disenfranchised or adversely effected as a demographic aren't, like, demanding stuff because they're black or trans or whatever. They're demanding stuff because of concerns common enough that it makes sense to organise as a demographic. Adopting the signifier of the demographic as a name, like marketing, forming broader lines of solidarity. That these concerns are reflected by social/economic conditions is what justifies organising along those lines.
Some poor black single mother in a ghetto trying to work 2 jobs and raise kids at the same time, kids don't get food every day at home due to poverty (choice between electricity and food, say). She'd not be like "my kids need food because I'm black", she's like "I live in this place that makes it hard to live, so do other people nearby... so do lots of racial minorities... huh, let's organise along those lines to try and get some food".
It isn't just "identity politics", it's organising around common concerns that happen to coincide with racial consideration (due to the history of colonialism-racism and how that interacts with economic conditions).
A vampire?
Trolls don't oppose opinion, they distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory messages with the intent of normalizing tangential discussion.
I don’t know, I think I may just have trouble with grouping people in general. Even more acceptable Terms like ethnicity or population bother me. I can’t quite put my finger on it. Maybe I lack the ability to abstract flesh and blood human beings in such a manner. I blame travelling. The narcissism of small differences reveals itself to be a farce upon discovering that human beings are the same everywhere.
It would follow that one who had no knowledge of biological taxonomy could not be racist. It would follow that all who used such divisions are/were racist.
Wouldn’t that be more class than race? I can imagine groups that organize on terms of socioeconomic status are multi-racial.
Well they are the same in most ways, the important ways, but its silly to act as though there aren’t any differences at all isnt it? There are obvious physical differences, thats the reality.
I think that’s close. But I think in order to be racist one must apply biological taxonomy in his thinking.
That's more specifically a definition of "race realism".
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/race_realist
No its not, NOS included no “discrimination” in his definition. Recognising a difference is not the same as discriminating based on that difference.
Class and race are conceptually independent - they don't logically imply each other. You can be a black president or white trailer trash. But they're dependent politically and socio-economically. In a world with a history of racially motivated colonialism and imperialism (not that it's over now, it just looks different), and racism in the home territories, this is exactly what you'd expect. The poorest areas in a country tend to be minority saturated. This isn't a coincidence. Class issues and race issues intertwine.
Of course there are differences, but most are so superficial that a vast majority of the biology is left out of it.
I can agree with that.
That's funny, in discussions about Trump you have no difficulty grouping people and blanketly attributing them with particular characteristics.
In a word: trolling.
Well sure, but simply recognising those differences doesnt seem like a problem to me. So if you define racism as recognising those differences then racism isnt really a problem...which makes it a problematic way of defining racism.
The “race realism” definition seems like a much better definition of racism, because it includes mistreatment based on race.
Its bizarre that such a thing would be called “race realism”, as if its realistic/fact based to discriminate based race. Never knew what “race realism” was...just sounds like plain racism to me.
I group people according to their ideologies and superstitions, sure. I’ll concede that much.
Quoting NOS4A2
So, all people fighting against the unfair treatment of people based upon their race are racist?
Look at the various definitions:
This one:
"2. One who believes that the human species is divided into observable races."
is pretty much exactly:
Quoting NOS4A2
I'm aware that race realists are generally racists and use pseudoscience to try to justify discrimination. But bare-bones race realism as defined by @NOS4A2 is not exactly synonymous with racism; hence the separate term.
Will you also concede that you were lying when you claimed that you have difficulty grouping people?
What do you call people who believe that black people are somehow inferior to white people simply because they are black?
We get it. NOS is an evil trumpest troll blah blah blah.
Why dont you just shut up about it and try actually contributing? Youre the one playing the role of troll by disrupting other peoples conversations.
You're no fun.
It think it just makes sense. Attach the suffix “ism” to the root word “race”. The belief, practice, ideology or doctrine of race. Put into practice discrimination automatically results in discrimination. Hence viewing one race as underprivileged, privileged, inferior, superior, and so on. These sorts of conclusions are the necessary, logical consequences of race-thinking.
I don’t group them. They group themselves. Cheeky enough answer?
Edit: racists in general, supremacists in particular.
The problem with this line of thinking seems clear to me...
People have been devalued by others based upon the color of their skin long before it was talked about as such(racism).
You're making it appear that the grouping mechanism is just conceptual, like it occurs in ideas and expectations alone. You already know it doesn't, since class and race intersect.
Ok.
What do you call people who are fighting against the racist ideology?
I’ve seen people form groups. I could draw a line around them and say “that’s a group”. You cannot do so with a race.
I suppose anti-racist?
It's possible to troll and value truth, but that would require having principles.
These are the racial demographics and localisations in Detroit.
(Red = caucasian, blue = black, orange = hispanic)
They were there before the data analyst colour coded them.
Now you have to convince me that I’m trolling you and you aren’t trolling me.
Ya, I noticed 2 was the odd man out, the other definitions are clearly racist imo.
Im honestly new to the term so I focused on the parts specifically about...well being racist. Still kinda floored its called “race realism”.
Thanks for the education on that.
Lol...im...sorry?
Quoting NOS4A2
That makes sense to me. However, what doesn't make sense is that both groups satisfy your definition of racism. Thus, you've reached a point where you must either adjust the definition you're using or admit incoherence(self-contradiction).
The economic effects of what the FHA began doing in 1935 and (supposedly) ended in the 1980s are enduring. In addition, disinvestment in housing continues to occur, which is why some parts of cities descend into slum grade housing, or stay that way.
There are, of course, other important factors at work. Loss of manufacturing jobs, poor education performance, deteriorating family structures, alcohol and drugs, and on and on. There are also cultural factors at work that aren't institutional. Individuals make decisions that affect their lifetime outcomes, for better and for worse.
Does this response address your question? I'm on my way to a funeral just right now, so not much time.
I don’t think one has to believe in the theory of race to oppose racism.
I do not agree. I think you can notice differences without discriminating, the same way you can between individuals of all kinds. If I recognise a tall guy and a short guy are different, thats not a problem. If I then say “get the tall guy, inferior genes! Undeserving of human rights!” Or somesuch, then its a problem. “Tallism”.
I think you can even recognise advantages and disadvantages and its fine. The tall guy is better at getting stuff from high shelves. Doesnt mean the short guy is lesser, just different. The problem is racists who use that type of distinction to draw Their racist conclusions but we shouldnt concede the language to them.
Sure. Some folk who oppose racism may not believe in the theory of race.
The problem is that others do, and fight against racist ideology(that some races are superior to others simply because of the race).
The problem here is that all of those people who believe that there are human races satisfy your proposed definition of racism, as can be seen by looking at that definition. It's below...
Quoting NOS4A2
My worry is the thinking furnishes a foundation of essentialism, magnifying a set of qualities that overshadow the vast majority of the reality.
How is that a problem?
Oh no, I'm sorry for disturbing your delicate concentration.
Not all who believe that there are human races also believe that some races are superior to others. Your definition does not take that into account. So... following from your definition, the anti-racists are racist if they believe that there are human races regardless of whether or not they also believe that one race is superior to another. That subsequent judgment is what's different between racists and anti-racists.(not racist). Your definition cannot draw that distinction between racists and anti-racists.
That's how.
Alright, but you'll need to be honest. Why did you lie about having difficulty grouping people?
It’s true that not all racists believe in race supremacy, or race nationalism or race segregation. I still don’t see any problem here.
Mr. Soul is right, thats precisely the problem I see with defining racism that way. I understand your concern about such differences overshadowing other more important things but who else but a racist (in the sense of discrimination based on race) is going to do that? Right? We dont want to set up the definition of racism to include people who do not hold views about the superiority of one race over another just so we can include the people who DO have those beliefs. We do not need to, we can easily identify those types of people (”racists”) by their views about racial inferiority Etc. No need to cast such a wide net.
I didn’t lie. I said “ I think I may just have trouble with grouping people in general“. I never said I never group people. So why lie?
Thats only because you use the “wide net” definition of racism. I think believing in race superiority/inferiority IS what racism is. If you dont believe in racial inferiority/superiority, then there isnt a problem. Right?
Ill forgive you this time I guess. :wink:
Your definition excludes the underpinning ideology, the foundation upon which all racial discrimination is built.
All anti-racists who believe that there are human races are racist according to your definition.
Yes. I suppose they are not so anti-racist then.
Wow. Biting the bullet.
It's a lie because, as I've previously mentioned, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no difficulty at all in grouping people and blanketly attributing them with particular characteristics.
For example?
No it doesnt. The opposite actually, it specifies those idealogical underpinnings as necessary for racism. What im excluding is people who simply recognise there are differences between certain people from different places, which we categorise as “race”. Those people are not racist.
Your definition doesnt have very good accuracy or utility, but maybe Im missing something. What good does defining racism in that way accomplish?
Those people are racist by my definition. Perhaps your classifications are inaccurate and without utility.
I do not think so. There are physical differences between certain groups of humans from different places/heritage. Of these physical differences, some generally correlate to skin colour (which is itself a physical difference). Examples might be hair colour (chinese generally are not born with blonde hair for example) or resistance to skin damage caused by sun exposure in the case of black people.
Thats accurate, and to include that as “racism” is too call anyone capable of noticing plain reality a racist. Thats not a good thing, as now it becomes more difficult to sort out the bad actors from the good ones, which is the reason why my way of defining racism had more utility. It helps identify bad actors...yours doesnt.
Obviously you are free to define it as you see fit, I just dont think it makes much sense.
Can you answer my question about the utility your definition provides? Im happy to change my mind for a better way of looking at this issue.
There's quite a bit of irony here. What you've proposed here is not even necessary for one to be racist, let alone sufficient.
1. Some people deny that race is an actual biological category and yet still devalue another based upon the color of their skin. None of those people are racist according to your definition.
2. Some people devalued others based upon the color of their skin long before we took account of skin color with the term "race". None of those people are racist according to your definition.
3. Some people do believe that there are human races and do not devalue another based upon race. All of these people are racist according to your definition.
4. Some people fight against the ideology of devaluing another human based upon the color of their skin(race). All of these people are racist according to your definition.
Earlier I asked you what you called someone who devalues black people based solely upon their being black. You answered "racist".
How do you reconcile that answer with the other things you've claimed?
What about someone who does not believe that race is an acceptable grouping but devalues black people solely because they are black? Are these people exonerated from being racist simply because they do not believe that race is an acceptable grouping, regardless of the fact that they devalue blacks simply because they are black?
:brow:
I edited my earlier answer.
My participation here is meant for the reader who may have been misled to think and/or believe that there was a valid meaningful point being made by NOS4A2. There's not. He's clearly talking nonsense. His use of the term "racist" not only goes directly against the history of it's use, but his proposed definition renders an otherwise perfectly useful notion useless.
His definition is utterly incapable of referring to the kinds of people the term "racist" is supposed to pick out, while simultaneously referring to and picking out all sorts of people that it's not supposed to pick out.
Not only have you grouped people together who oppose Trump, which by the way consists of over half the nation at this point, you've attributed fictitious qualities to them. You might say that all those who oppose Trump are not necessarily Anti-Trumpists, just the ones that want him to fail and are willing to ruin the country to do it. This would, however, be an even greater demonstration of the ease in which you can group people and apply characteristics to that group, because it's purely imaginary.
So again, why did you lie?
I’m not aware of any race skeptics who devalue another based on the color of their skin. Perhaps an example?
Yes, if the definition fits it fits.
Seems pretty accurate to me.
Your definition does not fit the historically accepted use of the term...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism
Your definition does not agree with what you mistakenly believe supports you...
Toodles!
Impervious to self-contradiction... May be Trump himself, or a minion. What's that blonde's name again? Fairly up to date on fairly private geopolitical matters.
You fail to note the semi-colons between them.
Good riddance.
So... why did you lie?
I didn’t, though if I knew someone was going to cherry-pick one statement from the thousands of previous statements in order to call me a liar, I might have chosen my words more carefully.
You're such an idiot sometimes...
The semicolon joins all the different things that all need to be present - on that account - to qualify as racism. That article contradicts the definition you've proposed...
And you’re kind, brilliant person...
The definitions are related, but one doesn’t qualify the others as you so claim.
So you're saying that it wasn't a lie, you just misspoke? Are you being honest?
You're completely wrong on this point and @creativesoul is right. Separate definitions are separated by numbers in dictionaries and such, or if not, it's made clear what's what. The "and" after the semi-colon is the rest of that definition and not a separate alternative in the version you posted. Hence "and" not "or". You do yourself no credit by clinging on to the falsity that racism is defined fully by the one sentence you cherry-picked from the definition. It just makes you look either intellectually dishonest or lacking in basic comprehension skills.
I am going to repeat a post I made in case you missed it again. The conversation suddenly devolved and everyone else seems to have given up on discourse with you in this, but Im still interested in sorting this out with you. In particular, Id like to understand what utility you are getting out of defining racism that way. To me, the utility would have to be quite high to compensate for its flat denial of obvious facts about physical differences between some groups of humans. Also, I hope you arent taking my comments to be hostile. We disagree, and if Im wrong on my end Id like to hear why/how that's the case.
So here is my last comment:
“I do not think so. There are physical differences between certain groups of humans from different places/heritage. Of these physical differences, some generally correlate to skin colour (which is itself a physical difference). Examples might be hair colour (chinese generally are not born with blonde hair for example) or resistance to skin damage caused by sun exposure in the case of black people.
Thats accurate, and to include that as “racism” is too call anyone capable of noticing plain reality a racist. Thats not a good thing, as now it becomes more difficult to sort out the bad actors from the good ones, which is the reason why my way of defining racism had more utility. It helps identify bad actors...yours doesnt.
Obviously you are free to define it as you see fit, I just dont think it makes much sense.
Can you answer my question about the utility your definition provides? Im happy to change my mind for a better way of looking at this issue.”
Quoting creativesoul
That's the utility.
It’s an encyclopedia. I never cherry-picked any definition and in fact included all of it. The rest necessarily precede from the first. The definitions you guys propose completely exclude the first two “qualifiers”, cherry picking the last.
It’s not only a matter of utility but of basic fact. No accurate demarcation can be made between races. I see no utility in adopting unsubstantiated, and in my mind superstitious and pseudo-scientific taxonomies upon groups of disparate people. As I’ve already stated, all subsequent expressions of racism flower from this one ideology. We know where this ideology leads.
Sure if you want to group people into races, be my guest. But you are applying the same ideology of the worst of humankind.
Well there isnt much utility in that, obviously, so im giving him the benefit of the doubt that there is more to it.
No, that's not what happened. Done here. And another goes on ignore.
Welcome to intersectionality. :rofl:
Well that response ignores most of what we have discussed so far...its just a repetition of your premiss which Ive said I disagree with. Now im asking you to defend that premiss.
Ill try one more time, from the start: there are clear physical differences between certain groups of people, such as those with “white” skin colour, and those with “black” skin colour. What word would you use to describe that difference, if not race?
It’s just genetics.
The problem for me is you choose to draw the demarcations in a way I want nothing to do with.
Refusing ostensibly superficial demarcations only underscores their importance. Not the best way to deal with them, however.
None of the first two qualifiers make up racism; it requires all three. Have your read the entire entry? What do you make of this in that entry:
How do victims come about if only the first two already make up racism?
But never mind that. Why don't you look up how Brittanica uses semicolons? I just did. :smile:
Finally, why are you persisting in trying to redefine racism in a way that nobody uses the word? Do you simply enjoy disagreeing with everyone?
No doubt, many still see them as important, to the point that people get angry when they’re questioned. Many anthropologists and geneticists refuse to use them. How would you deal with them?
Yes, its genetics. Genetics that we differentiate using the word “race”. What else would you call it? You are not going to call both people “genetics”. Right?
Whats wring about racism is the discrimination part, the treating of people as lesser part, the one type of person is superior to another type of person part. Take those away, what is the problem with racism as you define it?
But the third explicitly assumes race. How can you believe one race is superior to another if you do not first believe “that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races””?
As I’ve stated, the rest necessarily follows from the first.
Descriptive terms suffice to describe human beings. A white man is a man with fair skin, not necessarily the member of some race.
Ok, well there are physical traits common to people of those groups. More than just skin colour. People categorise these traits as “race”, and when they do so they aren’t implying a difference of species, or anything about anyone being inferior. They are just noticing actual differences, then applying a category for ease of reference. Whats the problem with that, other than a hateful person twisting it to suit their twisted views? They are going to do that anyway, why should we deny reality and pretend? That just doesnt seem like a useful way of doing it.
You have yet to tell why you find it more useful.
By revising what’s behind (the meaning and implicit associations) the demarcations to better match reality. Simply not using them doesn’t do that.
I don’t think they are noticing actual differences, but are rather putting actual differences aside in search of qualities and essences in individuals so as to group them. You cite “black” as a race for example and used skin color as a marker.
The demarcation is not useful to me and is in my eyes unethical.
The difference in skin colour is an actual difference, isnt it? There are more differences than just that, but start there.
Is that an actual difference?
Sure it does. We abandon old concepts for new ones all the time, as anthropologists and geneticists abandoned race in favor of better ones,
There is a vast spectrum of skin colors. At what point for you does black end and white begin? At what color is your line drawn?
Fucking idiot.
The former is the problem, not the latter... which merely names the problem.
Then why do you say “skin color” and “ethnicity” and not “race”?
No one said it would correct anything. I’m merely arguing that abandoning the false and superstitious ideology of race gives one no grounds to be racist.
One need not employ the notion of race in order to devalue another human based upon the color of their skin or their ethnicity.
Its genetics, remember? There is an actual, genetic difference behind that skin colour.
Anyway, you are being pretty evasive here and I understand your position to my satisfaction (and disagree obviously) so...thanks I guess.
I’m not quite satisfied. For instance, how light-skinned can a black man be before you classify him as white? Where are these sorts of lines drawn for you?
Its informed by genetics. Thats where those sorts of differences come from. Its not about the colour of skin per say, its about a genetic expression.
Its no different than noticing red heads generally have freckles.
Anthropologists and geneticists use terms like ‘white people’ and ‘black people’. Why wouldn’t they? And what new and old concepts are you talking about?
I would like to once again apologize for disturbing your meaningful discussion.
Apology accepted.
So what? They are still behaving in a manner we find atrocious. Calling that atrocious behavior "racism" is likely at the bottom of most people's priorities. We want the behavior to stop. Sometimes these bad behaviors are committed by individuals, sometimes there are systemic aspects left over from a long history of atrocious behavior. For decades the world has referred to these behaviors as "racism". Does it matter if "race" is a scientific thing vs just a semantic symbolic thing (like most words)?
{edit} I should probably correct myself: I implied that all systemic atrocious behavior was just leftovers from distant history, some is still be due to current intentional bad behavior (notice how wordy this discussion must become when we can't use the word race or racism).
I guess not. Stamped: NOT PROVEN. :cool:
Quoting Chris Hughes
:up:
Quoting NOS4A2
:rofl: :shade: alt-right Troll is as alt-right Troll does ...
Also, while you're at it; are you familiar with the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition?
When I use ‘race’ in cultural terms I make sure it is clear enough in the context. In scientific terms there are no human races, yet there are some extremely subtle differences within the gene pool. It should be noted that there are larger differences within any give group of people than there are between groups.
The problem that does persist, as I pointed out several pages back, is the ill-informed opinion that conflates ‘race’ (scientific definition) with ‘race’ (cultural definition). We are not going to eradicate the term ‘race’ from the English vocabulary and given the growth of our understanding over time - when we were mistaken into thinking that relatively small differences in appearances are key to determining scientific demarcations - we’ve naturally dragged along outdated, and misused, terminology into today’s world.
All you have to do is state clearly how you are using the term as honestly as possible and bring understanding to the discussion that some people are going to get twitchy about the subject matter given the historical implications, different national attitudes, and/or there scientific inclinations.
I don’t think it helps matters when people insist their definition is the true definition. In those situations the best thing to do is to express your understanding of their term and then state as clearly as possible what your take is and ask how they would articulate your definition as best they can.
If these forums are good for anything surely they offer the opportunity to educate ourselves about the perspectives of another. The more opposed the perspectives involved the more room there is to gain understanding.
I think it was Hegel who said something like that? To paraphrase, ‘Education for society is about understanding people’s different perspectives’.
What fascinates me is that points have been made and few seem willing to accept another’s perspective being more inclined to shout out there own under the delusion of actually having a rational impact in the discussion.
No doubt I’ll be called patronizing again. It’s fine. I don’t really mind. It appears that Vagabond has managed to make a very rational post, but I do wonder if some people bothered to read it?
Agreement is useless without a willingness to simply accept someone else’s perspective.
I thought I was using the phrase the same way everyone else was - recognizing the race of an individual for a particular reason. Per , The FHA "noticed color" for the purpose of segregating "blacks" and "whites". That is what I was referring to. Does the FHA still "notice color" for the purpose of segregating whites and blacks today? I didn't get an answer - just more ad hominems.
It is my position that we don't "notice color" as that is what the FHA did in the past. My position hasn't changed and Bitter Crank's post doesn't change it. It supports what I've been saying.
Systematic racism existed in the past. It doesn't now. There are pockets of racism that still exist on both sides. It will take a few more generations to weed out the stragglers. The way things were for thousands of generations will take at least several generations to change. The necessary change to the system has happened and we need to wait for the effects to propagate, not make the system become racist again. We have equal rights laws and that is meant to minimize what the stragglers can do, but it can't be applied unequally where only "whites" get accused of "racism" if "blacks" want to be treated equally.
If racism is related to power, and minorities now hold positions of power, then that means that they can be accused of racism and passing laws that benefit one race over another would be racist as BitterCrank pointed out. That is what YOU and 180 and Baden and fdrake, etc. want. That isn't what I want. I want people's race to only be noticed in biological/medical contexts and not in the context of politics because that is when it becomes racist, as BitterCrank's post shows!
Quoting Harry Hindu
Let's look at the post in question, and see if it supports the idea that there's no systemic injustice now.
Quoting Bitter Crank
"Do not have" - we don't have equality of opportunity now.
"Have not had" - we didn't have equality of opportunity then.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Present tense, worse off now.
The presence of these disparities and the mechanisms that keep them in place? That's systemic injustice; a systemic racism.
All you did was reinstate: systemic = legal = institutional, despite that being undermined by the post in question; it showed how policy and legal inequalities manifest now in economic and cultural disadvantages. There were laws and policies that caused disadvantages, and those disadvantages both remain and have amplified.
:up:
Quoting I like sushi
It's not really that simple. When it comes to politically loaded terms, definitions can have important consequences. If you dilute the definition of racism too much, it helps those with ulterior political motives to forge false equivalencies between very disparate groups—for example, those proposing affirmative action and white supremacists. That's really what's at issue here. Attempts to gerrymander a definition in support of a political point. And I suspect the point that's being pushed for under the guise of a very liberal-sounding anti-racism is that a lack of colour-blindness as advocated for in the OP can be considered a form of racism.
But regardless of whether that's the intention or not (@NOS4A2 is a paradigmatic pin-the-jelly-to-the-wall poster so who knows), no sensible debate can be conducted until an agreement is reached on the meaning of the terms under debate. And the arbiter of such meanings has to be some kind of mutually recognized authority interpreted correctly.
Quoting I like sushi
I admire your call for moderation, but some perspectives are better than others. Particularly when discussing issues that have political implications.
Then the FHA is still racist? Did Obama know this when he was president? Did he know that Chicago is one of the worse places for African-Americans? Does Maxine Waters know this, because if she did, you know she'd be looking for a microphone and camera and calling them out.
Ok, so we've established that the FHA is still racist. What other government entity is racist? I need more names to send to Maxine Waters.
Quoting fdrake
All you have to do is use your eyes and you can see that blacks are not worse off now than they were in 1964.
Quoting Baden
That's the problem - being color-aware for political purposes rather than for biological/medical purposes. When race becomes a part of a political discussion rather staying in the domain of biology/medicine, then racism raises its ugly head. We should be color-blind for the purpose of pushing a political agenda and only color-aware for the purpose determining which diseases you might be more susceptible to.
I do think it is as simple as I made it out to be in order to have a rational exchange. Just because it is ‘simple’ I didn’t for one second mean to imply that it would be easy.
It may take some strength on an individual’s part not to be baited into outrage - they will suffer the consequences eventually if they lack the strength.
There is no ‘dilution’ of the term here as far as I can see. I can then ask you where you see this, could you be overreacting, what can we do about it, how can we use the term, and what other means we have of using the term for civil progress? There are many more questions of course.
No one is suggesting that white supremacists aren’t racist because many of them believe in genetic superiority. They are deluded, confused and/or pushing unfounded prejudices for personal gain. Politics can be, and is often, used as a means of exploiting human frailties.
I am NOT insisting on a universal use of the terminology. All I am, and have been, saying is that to insist someone use your nuanced definition of a term without the other person knowing how you’re using it is a fruitless endeavor and likely to increase friction, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, thus playing directly into the hands of those I believe we’re both essentially opposed against: those using these terms to gain unfounded and irrational political leverage.
Was that the claim? No. Was the claim "Blacks are worse off now than they were in 1964 in the US"? No. Let's grant your claim that all policies are colourblind now, and at least have been since 2008. What would you expect to happen? I'd expect that without targeted intervention on effected communities, we'd see that economic indicators like poverty for black people would have a roughly constant difference from those of white people. And that is what you see.
Now, the claim wasn't that "black people in the US are worse off than they ever were relative to themselves", it was that "black people in the US are still worse off than whites", and years of "colourblind policy" (in your model of the world) is doing absolutely nothing to change that.
Edit: this post was badly written, I should've wrote "Let's assume policies have been colourblind since 2007 and further that colourblind policies are sufficient to address disparities in poverty". Under this assumption, the roughly constant relative discrepancy between blacks and whites in the US negates the disjunction, so either the policies have not been colourblind, or that colourblind policies are not sufficient to address racial disparities in poverty.
Harry further assumes that policies are colourblind now. But that would then mean that he would be committed to that colourblind policies are not sufficient to address racial disparities in poverty in the US assuming he believed the evidence was valid (which is unlikely, because Harry is Harry).
Assuming you’re talking about the US here, just because things are ‘better’ doesn’t mean they cannot be better still. I don’t believe it is justifiable to suggest things are completely equal between blacks, asians, causasians, Italians, Irish, Jews and latinos in the US. The recent historical shifts (and historically we’re talking relatively recent) are still clearly felt throughout US society. That said I wouldn’t be entirely opposed to any statement saying it’s been talked about for too long, but I wouldn’t side with that position because such a history that effects, and has affected, generations living today it about as clear as can be. I’m not fooled by the occasional overly outraged cry from any position and I’m human enough (just about) to understand the emotion involved nevertheless.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/11/16/racial-disparity-cities-worst-metro-areas-black-americans/38460961/
It looks like the Midwest is where we should focus then, particularly Illinois?
It is unrealistic to think that what was the norm for thousands of generations can change in 11 years. Short of taking people's children away and raising them to be color-blind by the state, what is your solution? I keep asking for specific institutions and specific solutions and you can only speak in vague generalities. It can only make one think that there really isn't a problem to be fixed, or that the solutions you have wouldn't really solve the problem, or include more segregation based on skin color.
This isn't very responsive to my post. I'm not calling for outrage, for example, I'm calling for awareness, preciseness, and diligence in the use of words. But I'll get back to this in more detail later.
I don’t really know what those sentences mean if I’m being completely honest. If you could rephrase (possibly add more detail) from “If ...” onward I may be able to respond better.
Thanks
Thanks for the advice. But I prefer disputation and contention more than uniformity and consensus. Those are the enemies of the open mind and the open book.
Believing the species can be subdivided into distinct biological entities called races is much different than noticing the difference in skin colors. People get their genes from their parents, not some race of peoples.
But many have abandoned the use of “race” in their field. No one said they stop using those phrases. What a strange misrepresentation.
Generally speaking, the reason is to take advantage of people in a minority or weaker position. Skin color is merely an identifier and an unnecessary condition. The Nazis didn’t have any trouble identifying Jews during the holocaust, for example. Godwins rule. :grimace:
Do the institutions of today systematically take advantage of people in a weaker position? Of course they do. You identifying as a libertarian, I understand your ideological objections to interference or regulation. Still, I’m sure you can appreciate that liberty must be fought for. Ignoring the problem won’t make it go away.
If?!
Quoting Harry Hindu
I’d like laws and policies that protect people in a minority or weaker socioeconomic position. It would make a stronger democracy and a more stable economy, morality aside.
Well, if that was meant as an analogy it’s a bad one, for reasons that should be clear.
My only point was that many refuse to use race in their scientific endeavors, not in their day to day speech.
Devaluing another human based upon their skin color is the problem we call "racism". It need not be identified as such in order to be a problem. Call it by any other name and it's still the same problem. It's not corrected by abandoning the notion of "race". It was a problem long before the notion of "race" was even invented/coined. It was a problem long before scientific classification. It will remain a problem as long as people devalue another based upon skin color and/or ethnicity(mainly visual appearances).
Thus, this notion you have of removing the ground of racism is nonsense. There is no such ground to begin with. The classification merely allowed those who were determined to be racist to talk about it in new terms that made it seem as though science supported their devaluation of others.
Completely irrelevant to the line of discussion we were having, and we both know that you know that.
If there was never any grounds in the first place, why would we continue utilizing that concept in our thinking?
Oh right, the “discussion” was you rifling through my posts looking for transgressions.
Not all who use the term "race" are using it to justify the devaluation of others. In order to reduce racism, it must be identified. That's part of the problem with your proposed definition. It does not do that. It picks out some individuals that do not devalue others based upon race, and fails to be able to pick out some individuals that devalue others based upon skin color(so long as they do not use the term "race").
My pointing out an attempted deception from you was part of a different line of discussion... and we both know that you know that.
Using the term “race” is a lot different than believing the species can be subdivided into discreet biological units called races. My definition applies to the latter, not the former.
Me pointing out your gossiping and backbiting and misrepresentations reveal a far insidious form of deception I want nothing to do with.
According to your definition this person is not racist.
Imagine person B who uses the term "race" and believes that there are such things as human races, all the time in a concerted effort to fight against the devaluation of another based upon race.
According to your definition this person is racist.
Quoting NOS4A2
There are countless posts here which show that you are not drawing that distinction.
It is improbable for it to change a lot, but not improbable that racial disparities in US poverty rates would decrease (rather than stay constant) if well addressed. Even if you grant that everything's been colourblind since then, it isn't doing a damn thing to address poverty rates. Which is strange; why are there persistent racial disparities in poverty in the US if colourblindness assures equality of opportunity? This is granting the polices are colourblind, of course (in this world of Harry's where there's no extant politics of prejudice).
This is even a relatively benign example (though still horrible), trying to talk about colonialism or imperialism here as the most pernicious forms of structural/systemic racism would just look like lefty buzzwords.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Your argument: "If this guy I'm shouting at on the internet can't solve all of a country he doesn't live in's problems, I am right and he is wrong".
Again, using the term “race” is a lot different than believing the species can be subdivided into discreet biological units called races. My definition applies to the latter, not the former.
By your misrepresentation of my definition, I would be racist because I use the term race.
I was careful with my formulation of the definition, and at no point did I say “using the term race” constituted racism.
Not a misrepresentation of what you wrote. Perhaps, what you wrote misrepresented what you think or believe, but that's not my problem.
Quoting NOS4A2
See that? The above quote shows that you are clearly equating all belief in races with racism... They are not the same.
Believing that there are races, and believing that some races are inferior to others have the commonality that both believe in race. They are the same in that regard. The difference between them is the devaluation aspect. One can believe in races without believing that one race is inferior to another. The former(belief in races) is not racism, whereas the latter is. Without that additional component(the devaluation of another based upon race, skin color, ethnicity), there is no 'racism'.
Yet you've not drawn that distinction, despite the fact that the encyclopedia article you offered did.
Yes, that is clear from what I wrote. What is not clear from what I wrote is your misrepresentation that using the term “race” is racist, which seemed to be pulled from thin air.
Don't be such a drama queen. It doesn't invalidate anything I've posted, and it's rather pathetic of you to think it would.
The FHA does not now engage in racial segregation as a matter of policy. They have been reformed by court orders, legislation, and large changes in the political personnel--different than what existed in 1935. In 1935, southern congressmen could force racial exclusion into federal law. The segregationist congressmen, and their allies north and south, have died.
The point I was making is that, even if we became color blind over night racial segregation would continue. Why is that? It would continue because white people, even if they are 100% enlightened about race, possess so much more valuable real estate than any other group. A big hunk of the wealth advantage is a legacy of the earlier segregation. how? After WWII, vast suburban building projects serving many millions of families, were sold only to white people. These were very good housing properties and they appreciated in value several times over. As the older generation moved on, they liquidated that large value and a younger (white) generation inherited the wealth. Real estate, and racially preferential employment policies, has cemented the white advantage.
Most non-whites lack the accumulated advantages of real estate appreciation and preferential employment. THEREFORE, they will not be able to buy into economically segregated communities. The suburbs stay mostly white because blacks can't afford to buy houses there.
The economic crash of 2007 created conditions for some racial integration. Homes owned by bankrupted victims have, in many cases, been bought up by rental companies. Minorities can often rent a house in an otherwise mostly white neighborhood. Rental companies owning large numbers of housing in a community is never a good thing for housing values, but it opens up some opportunities. If housing prices rise sufficiently, the rental houses will be sold to buyers, who will probably be white.
It doesn’t invalidate anything. It just shows what type of person you are.
I'll accept that, for now, you are not claiming that using the term "race" is equal to being racist.
You need to make sense of the earlier equivalence drawn between all people who believe that there are human races. According to your definition all of them are racist, even those who fight against the devaluation of another based upon race.
Again...
Quoting creativesoul
Do you not see the problem here?
Person A is racist, and person B is not. Thus... your definition is wrong.
Yes, as I proposed, a racist is one who believe there are racists. This ideology or worldview, upon which all devaluing and valuing is built, is mental apartheid, mental segregation, and we all know too much where it leads. Would calling them proto-racists suffice?
:point:
I want you to directly address my last post.
Sorry I am not sure what you want exactly.
Quoting creativesoul
What is your answer to this?
I don't know why this is difficult. The FHA could be 100% color blind, and the black housing conditions could be worse now (which they are). Ameliorating the damage done to the black community in the area of housing would require reparations. The FHA is not charged with the task of paying reparations, and nobody else is, either -- as you know.
There are two other sets of actors in the real estate industry: real estate brokerages and banks. Their roles are at least as critical now as the FHA's role.
Again your misrepresentation of my definition is wrong. According to my definition that person is not racist.
I'm intolerant of deception, yes, as I imagine many on this forum are.
According to your definition, person A is not racist, but person B is.
Im not talking about scientific, biological entities of differing kinds of species, And thats not what people generally mean when they use the term “race”. Im not saying we have Morlocks and Eeloys.
Its simply the term that references the differences amongst groups humans.
There are two different senses of the word, you keep conflating them. There is a clear difference between skin colours and other physical features amongst certain groups of people, “race” is the word that describes them. (That is, its one of the uses of the word, the way Im using it).
Imagine person A who does not use the term "race" but hates asian people, and does not think that they should be allowed to live anywhere near person A and their family.
According to your definition this person is not racist.
Imagine person B who uses the term "race" and believes that there are such things as human races, all the time in a concerted effort to fight against the devaluation of another based upon race.
According to your definition this person is racist.
They are both racist because they both subscribe to the racist worldview. My contention is one cannot hate Asians unless he believes such a distinct group exists.
A Wells reference? I love it.
If there is a clear difference, what color on the human spectrum constitutes the dividing line between them? In other words, what color is the darkest white man and what color is the lightest black man?
I always thought ‘color blindness’ is more an ideal to aspire to than a trait people have. The idea that you should treat people equally regardless of skin color. It seems a pretty straightforward and laudible principle to me.
That there are actual racists who disagree with this, and that many of them of them don’t recognize their own vile pettiness for what it is, strike me as inevitable and mundane. They’ve been using a redefining-language strategy with some irritating success for some years now. I assume there is a special place in hell for the word-changing-language-degrading types.
Well said.
The deliberate erosion of language is, in my mind, a ploy in the service of megalomania.
A pointed question...
Are you racist?
I am not. I’m a content of character kind of guy.
So... Asians do not exist on your worldview?
Asian is an adjective describing people from Asia. But no I do not believe there is a group of people called “Asians”.
So then, when you use the term "Asian" what on earth are you picking out if not the people from Asia?
I answered already, its not the colour/shade of the skin its about the genetics that inform that physical trait. I use skin colour because its a very easy way to illustrate that there are clear physical differences when someone denies there are differences.
The differences are clear, the distinctions might be less clear depending on the trait. You are right, there might be skin colours that dont indicate clearly a specific “race”, but thats exactly the point. You will be able to tell by the genetics, and other common traits to the group. Its not just skin colour.
Yes, I would be picking out people from Asia when I use that term.
See you just referred to a group of people called asians and then denied there was a group of people called asians. That doesnt make sense.
That’s the point. The differences are not as clear as we often make them out to be. Freckles, for instance, are present on all shades of skin, not just red-heads. Red hair is not just present on fair-skinned Europeans, but can be found in varying frequency around the globe.
To clarify, I don’t believe there is a biological group of people called Asians.
No, I’m saying there is no biologically distinct group of people called Asians.
Yes, people from Asia exist.
Quoting NOS4A2
What are they called again... on your view?
"Asians"...
You've been hung by your own rope.
You refused my clarification. Hung by your own bad faith.
It's a matter of geography and culture.
And Asia is huge. There's a lot of cultural variation in it.
Then there's the Asian stereotype(s), which should be guarded against.
I don't think @NOS4A2 is that stupid here, I just think he's not articulating himself very well. Why it seems difficult to draw these distinctions clearly for him is a different matter?
Except I’ve defined my terms to you countless times, and you jumped on the one time I neglected to differentiate between the race “Asians” and the people from Asia. Textbook example of bad faith and sophistry.
I'm simply attempting to show that believing that there is a group of people called Asians does not count as having a racist worldview.
It's not my problem that he will not admit to believing that he's picking out a group of people just like the example he charges with "racism". Then perhaps, we could move towards realizing that that is not enough to count as being racist.
Aye. "I am always consistent" is a weird vantage point to pick apart.
Do you belief there is a biologically distinct group of people called Asians?
That does not matter. Belief in race does not make one racist. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. It's not even necessary.
If you have milk and eggs, does it follow that there's no way to avoid having scrambled eggs?
I’ve been kind enough to answer your questions. I wonder if you will offer the same kindness.
Do you believe there is a biologically distinct group of people called Asians?
That's what's in contention here. You claim it is, and I'm claiming it is not. At least one of us is wrong.
Since you won’t answer I’ll assume you do believe Asians are a biologically distinct group of people. Correct me if I’m wrong.
It’s racist because it refuses to acknowledge the genetic diversity of Asia, and assumes all Asians look and act a certain way.
I’d say both. It’s not really the case that the scientific history of the term ‘race’ hasn’t played a significant part in the development of racism.
All you have to do now is agree to understand those partially opposed perspectives on those two points then maybe address the point of the thread.
To clarify. Asians, determined by genetics or cultural points, are still a relatively distinct group demarcated by geopolitics. With asia there is a great variety of cultures as there are within any other geographic area.
Either way people do actually act differently (generally speaking) based on where they are from. Calling someone ‘racist’ for stating different human behaviors exist would be too much of a stretch for me. I do see the point your pushing though, just rather flat and trivial.
Differing cultures and customs and language is more ethnicity than race, so I wouldn’t call someone a racist for distinguishing between ethnicities, though I would if they conflated the ethnicity with the biological races of those involved.
Well, no... That's being ignorant. Lots of racists(most) are ignorant, but not all people who are ignorant are racist. One can think that there are human races without being ignorant of the diversity within in each. One can devalue another based upon race without being ignorant.
Not all racists look and act and believe the same things. The common denominator is the devaluation of another based upon race, skin color, ethnicity, etc. The devaluation is the part that makes it racist.
What's a biological race such that it can be conflated with ethnicity?
So is the Asian race more Chinese or Indian? More Persian or Malay? More Iraqi or Indonesian?
First, there are no biological races, but an example might be the conflation between Arabs and Islam.
Then what were you talking about when you referred to confusing biological race with ethnicity?
Oh, is this another game you’re trying to play?
Answer?
You tell me. I do not think that there is such a thing as an "Asian race". You're the one using the terms. You're the one who needs to answer.
What's a biological race such that it can be confused with ethnicity?
The point about racism towards asians is that that is a real thing despite the fact that there is no Asian race. Thus... your definition fails yet again.
That’s right. There is no Asian race. Have a cookie.
Do you believe there are distinct biological groups called “races”?
Quoting NOS4A2
So... what is a biological race such that one could conflate it with ethnicity and in doing so qualify for being racist?
:brow:
What does that amount to if there is no such thing as biological race?
Note: I always write ‘human’, leave or blank or tick ‘rather not say’.
How about if I state that there is only one human race and then say I hate latinos? Can I be called ‘racist’ then? By your definition I’m not being ‘racist’ am I? If not then what would you call me? An ‘ethnicist’ maybe? The term doesn’t exist, instead we use ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’ and/or ‘prejudiced’.
It relevant because you’re assuming race when there is none. You say a belief in race is neither necessary nor sufficient then go on to say people are devalued because of their race.
How can one devalue someone because of their race while at the same time believing no such demarcation exists?
Yes, people use the term race all the time.
I would call you racist because you assume a group of people called “latinos” exist and that you hate them.
I fell behind cuz Im working, but just wanted to add something since Creativesoul is making the same point I would be making. Creativesoul is making the correct argument but I think using the wrong example. “Asian” should be replaced by something more specific, like “Chinese”, then hopefully the impact of the argument will get the point accross. “asian” describes geography, the biology of “asian” peoples is too diverse for it to be a useful biological “race”. Chinese people have definite common, biological traits where using a term like “race” is useful.
The same way you can say that one is conflating race with ethnicity while at the same time believing no such demarcation exists.
You did it again, that's exactly right. The “hate” part is what makes it racist. Simply recognising a group called “latinos” is not. The way you have defined race previously did not include the “hate” part, and that is what is causing the disagreement.
Even so, you just admitted you’d call me racist even though I didn’t in any way make a distinction of ‘race’ so calling me ‘racist’ for hating latinos, when I stated I don’t believe there are human races, must - by your own definition - make you ‘racist’ for calling me ‘racist’ because you’re falsely accusing me of hating a group of people based on ‘race’ when I very clearly said I don’t believe in ‘race’.
Note: I’m just following your reasoning here.
I understand what you're getting at. However, my whole project here is to show that the belief in the biological taxonomy of "race" is irrelevant. People were racist before the term was invented.
I’m working too (or at least should be)
A man of European ancestry could be born and raised in China, complete with the socio-linguistic and cultural norms. Is he Chinese or European.
That’s fair. I suppose you’d hate an ethnicity, not a race. I’m not sure of the correct term in that case.
How can you charge another with conflating race and ethnicity if there is no such thing as race?
It's not even that, creativesoul. They are confusing race with biology. Race was never a biological fact, even though some people might have thought it so and wanted it to be.
All along race has been a certain social distinction, a category not of biology, but a social category about people who exist (who often have a skin colour, culture or ethnicity).
Yes. I'm simply making a concerted attempt at setting out the underlying habits of mind, the kinds of thinking, that constitute racism and having a racist element within one's worldview.
Believing that there are different human races may be a false belief, but it does not make one racist in the sense of being racist that matters... the kind of worldview that needs to be corrected and/or shunned...
So that wasn't quite my point. My point was that race wasn't biologcal, not that a category of race itself was a false belief. Categories of race may be (and are) entirely true, just as a social relation and construct.
In many ways it is a none question because they moment a group has been identified as a race, there is a person related to socially. If I set out a social category of these people, it gets used across society, the question of whether I might want to use it beccomes sort of moot. The people who exist, have been classifed by race and are treated in certain ways, are still there.
To be colourblind doesn't work becuase these people how exist and are affected are still there. It just doesn't get rid of significance of racial groups and how people have been affected.
Of course! The scientific history of the term is atrocious! A synonym for species nonetheless!
However...
A lack of belief that there are such things as races does not guarantee that one does not have racist elements within their worldview, just as a belief that there are races does not guarantee that one has racist elements within their worldview.
As it pertains directly to the OP subject matter...
Denying race may equate to some folk's idea of what it means to be color-blind, but it does not guarantee that such a person does not have racist elements within their worldview. One can claim color-blindness by refusing to talk about race. That will not correct the problems that need corrected. It could be used to willfully exonerate one from addressing the issues head-on so long as such a person garners enough agreement from enough people that all talk of race is to be avoided because it is believed that it will further perpetuate racial discrimination or some such.
Placing all talk about race on equally unethical ground is foolish at best, and heinous at worst.
Ok.
Yes.
So you would agree that people can use the notion of race without believing that it is a legitimate method of scientific classification.
More along the lines the understand it to legitimately identify certain people, such there is a group talked about, thought about, understood to be treated certain ways or not, is there.
All without thinking race is biological or ascribing it defines some essential quality or predjudical value to a group.
Well for the last 80 years or so, the world has used the word "racism" to describe the above. In fact the term has been used so consistently that almost no one is confused by it despite the scientific technicalities you have pointed out.
I also call tacos, "tacos", despite them technically being a wide variety items that could be made from corn or flour tortillas (or something else) and filled with some sort of meat (or not). As we get into it, the word "taco" can mean such a wide variety of things that it would almost seem meaningless, and yet we all know what someone means when they say "taco".
What is your actual point? Are we pretending that you really don't know what people mean when they use the word racism? Or are you just trying to say that the term is not precise? If the latter, to what end? Most words are not very precise.
I don’t doubt the frequency of usage. We also shouldn’t deny that it defined in various ways in different fields. I’m only suggesting that the defining feature of racism is the attaching of significance to race.
Yes, that is what you are suggesting. However, you are the first person I have ever heard define it that way, so it doesn't seem to accurately reflect usage.
As no one is confused by the word "racism", it is hard not to assume ulterior motives from those who attempt to redefine it.
The conclusion is that we need a term to distinguish the kind of person I set out above who falls outside the definition the OP prefers. We have terms of endearment and terms of scorn. Not to mention the obviousness (at least to us) of the term being used to wheedle out such crimes in society rather than assume they’ve ceased to exist.
That person would be a Chinese citizen of european descent/origin. They would not share the racial traits of a Chinese person, as these are genetic traits formed through generations of exposure to a specific geography/environment. (And of course, im using my definition of rape...basically yours but with hate/discrimination as an additional requisite.)
... for (via policy and/or custom) the manifest purpose of (agents & bureaucrats of) business church or state discriminating (1) against members or communities of a color/ethnic out-group or (2) for members or communities of the color/ethnic in-group (e.g. in the Americas, Eurozone, Australia: "nonwhites" and "whites", respectively; in the PRC: non-Han (e.g. Uyghurs, Tibetans) and Han, respectively; in Turkey, non-Turk (e.g. Kurds, Arabs) and Turk, respectively; in Rwanda, Burundi, the DRC: non-Hutu (e.g. Tutsis) and Hutu, respectively; in India: non-Indo-Aryans (e.g. Dravidians) and Indo-Aryans, respectively; in Israel: non-Ashkenazim (e.g. Arabs, Sephardim) and Ashkenazim, respectively; and so on).
Btw, "race" is nothing but a bureaucratic (i.e. demographic) shorthand used primarily, and effectively, by color/ethnic in-groups in order to designate - brand, stereotype, essentialize - color/ethnic out-groups. Continuing to conflate the mention of "race" with the weaponizing of race at this point, when others have pointed this out already, is just trollish bullshit, NOS (et al). :shade:
Thus, "racist" seems an apt epithet for accusing anyone who, regardless of demographic traits or personal prejudices, (A) enjoys and actively seeks benefits from the accumulated historical legacies and/or (B) (via inaction or action) implements or supports current policies of (1), (2) or both, mentioned above.
NB: UN Reports on Human Rights, UNDP, WHO, ICJ @ the Hague and other international human & civil rights NGOs thoroughly document and annually publish accounts and analyses which track both manifestations and the effects of racism (as well as other modalities of systemic discrimination). Anyone who doesn't know about these pervasive and persistent injustices simply doesn't want to know because s/he has the in-group privilege of not having to survive discrimination, even open persecution, as members of out-groups everywhere must. And what one doesn't know about one doesn't care - give a fuck! - about, which shows.
Then I’ll take credit.
It is perfectly understandable in this regard that there are likely many more people out there who see the term ‘race’ and assume it has a literal scientific application to different human groups demographically distinguished by the same word.
I think there is a reasonable argument about the linguistic use of the term and I don’t find it a huge stretch that some people out there would react to the whole ‘colour-blindness’ issue outlined. Some people are extremely rigid and literally minded.
Understand that the OP has called himself a ‘racist’ by accident (as I have shown in the last few posts I made) and that should be enough to show the flaw in logic and the nuance of language beyond hard, cold logic by way of rigid adherence to a singular interpretation of a term without deeper thought put into how context can become blurred due to political motives, emotional stances, historical shifts and general fluid nature of all languages.
‘Race’, on surveys, is also used to protect minorities from racism as well. If you think it’s misused then you should effectively be agreeing with the OP. I think the advantages of keeping an eye out for racism far outweigh the possible calamity of turning a blind eye and hoping we’ll just stop being prejudice because we no longer use the term ‘prejudice’. Language is effectively an extension of human reasoning through which we can both question each other and ourselves about out attitudes and actions. Removing the concept of ‘rape’ from all languages would only remove the word concept from society not the act, thus removing a huge tool for recognising and tackling the said act of rape through reason and dialogue.
By all this I mean to point out that the opposite is just as dangerous. Extending a term into areas that take certain liberties, some more or less justified, will lead to further destabilisation of the term in question. Really the OP is looking at language and the fact that ‘race’ is the item under scrutiny is neither here nor there to me. The same has, and will no doubt continue to happen for terms like ‘rape’, ‘sexism’ and ‘violence’. This is not to say the particular case of ‘race’ isn’t more potent - I believe it is by historical accounts and fact that issues of race and racism are very much in the limelight around the globe. I certainly don’t think turning a blind eye to the term would do anything other than allow it to grow in the darkness.
The day we stop talking about ‘racism’ will be the day when some other (or the very same) ugly effect of human society will lurk out of the darkness and slaughter sections of humanity. Maybe it will take a whole new iteration and temporal distance to give the term ‘racism’ a more distinct coinage? At the moment I prefer to think we’ll not have to go through the whole travesty again and again in order to merely stumble on a better terminological framing that allows us to see through to the heart of human bias.
I’m happy to say, and proud to say, I have certain prejudices/bias when I meet people. I say this because I’m quite aware that I hold, as everyone does, some quite idiotic cultural priming dependent upon mere appearances and mannerisms. I can say I am proud of this because I’m glad I can attend to this in my daily life and recognise it as part of being human rather than pretend it doesn’t exist or feel deeply guilt ridden because of this. I don’t feel guilty about it because I’m aware of this initial idiotic ‘reading a book by its cover’ bias apparent in every human and have noticed that it disappears once I start to talk to the person with this or that accent, this scowl, this or that skin tone, wearing this or that attire and/or by facial expressions and general precision of speech. All that said I will no doubt err from time to time - I did so last actually, but I wasn’t ashamed I just took serious account of my thoughts and actions and made a mental note to check myself again if something similar occurs (which I guarantee it will).
How did I single myself out as racist according to my definition? I haven't once professed any belief that there are distinct biological races. In fact I professed the opposite.
Not once have I conflated the mere mention of race with the weaponizing of race.
Rather it is you who abuses the false demarcation of the color line, that perverse ideology which you use to justify hoisting racial assumptions upon the disparate individuals involved.
You have previously stated that calling someone racist means you are racist because you’re perpetuating the term ‘racist’ by doing so. You then accused my rendition of someone who hates latinos as ‘racist’ even though I stated the prejudice wasn’t set within the parameters of distinctions of race between humans. You then admitted you falsely accused said rendition of being racist which mist necessarily follow that you were racist because you missed the initial position laid out and added the ‘race’ element in order to accuse that rendition of me as ‘racist’.
Here:
Quoting NOS4A2
Followed not long after by:
Quoting NOS4A2
Yet you accepted what I said here and questioned yourself:
Quoting NOS4A2
In the above you’ve called that person ‘racist’ even though it is crystal clear that person doesn’t believe in distinctions of human races. Thus you were perpetuating the worldview of ‘race’ so in your own words:
“racist because they both subscribe to the racist worldview.”
You clearly subscribed to the ‘racist worldview’ where, to repeat, the statement made expressed hatred based on a premise that didn’t hold to the view that different human races exist.
Of course, I’m merely trying to show how your views must necessarily shift with context. You didn’t hesitate to call out the above hatred as ‘racist’ yet it is not aligned to your own definition. So if you’re calling someone racist who isn’t racist (by your own definition) then surely you were perpetuating the racist worldview - albeit accidentally - thus making your accusation unfounded, false, dangerous and/or hypocritical. Personally I’d say your response was instinctually correct and proof that you may state one idea of how you wish to use a term yet when it comes to answering a question you still call someone ‘racist’ based on their dislike of culture.
Note: I’m not trying to trick you here just showing how your claimed use of the concept ‘race’ doesn’t actually hold up in colloquial speech - a good sign for me that you cannot actually hold fast to your own definition and no matter how hard you try commonsense wins through.
You accepted the disjoint well enough by calling said person ‘racist’ then realising that it didn’t fit into your coinage of ‘racist’ and being stumped as to what to call this hideous attitude based only on cultural prompts. Everyone else calls it ‘racism’ and you did too on instinct.
The big question now it whether or not you can accept the further nuance surrounding the term ‘colour-blind’ and, more so for some, whether they can accept your take on that term from your first post.
Well, the first sentence is false. I have never stated such a thing. Not a great start. The rest of your misapprehensions arise from this misapprehension.
As for your mental gymnastics, I simply did not know whether Latino was considered a race or ethnicity on the US census, never once implying that I believe there is such a biologically distinct entity. But no, instead of allowing me this minor correction or allowing me to clarify, you offer me some uncharitable interpretation of my views in order to accuse me, in a round about way, of calling myself a racist.
If you wish to explain whether you think calling someone racist is or isn’t racist in and of itself it may shed further light on the situation?
For the sake of honesty and clarity I am expecting a problem with how we are, and you are, to interpret ‘perpetuating worldview of racism’ within this framework. I think it is not as easy a task at it first seems. I’m pursuing clarity of language not a means to snare someone in some pointless one-up-manship.
If my aim isn’t clear already, it is to moderate between conflicting perspectives in the hope of broadening the discussion so reason wins through over personal motive.
I wasn’t insinuating that you’re racist. I was just following through your reasons and tried to wed them to the phrase ‘perpetuating racism’ in like of how you define the term in a manner that seems far too rigid from my perspective as it doesn’t hold up either in your own reply (as I highlighted) or in differing contexts.
Give me some respect here. I quoted the relevant posts so simply clarify the phrase rather than look to be offended by my genuine interpretation. For the record I haven’t seen anything in this thread to suggest you’re racist - far from it. I have seen a strange rigidity in how you articulate your thoughts in a manner that is frankly quite naive given the topic and medium you’re using. Just because it’s a philosophy forum it doesn’t mean people are going to be on their best behavior and/or use rational discourse. It’s rarely the case especially with a politicised topic.
Anyway, you get the idea I believe. Maybe you’re persisting not out of naivety, but out of hope. I’m willing to hold yo the later, but it doesn’t hurt to say how things appear at a glance.
The disputation is the point of it for me. The best insights are found in the sparks from the clash of ideas. Your moderation is well-intended but unwanted, for me at least. Rather, let’s talk about what we believe and what we stand for. I want to have my ideas scrutinized and I hope to be forgiven for defending them.
I was merely articulating what I believe racism is and why I believe it. I wasn’t calling anyone a racist. But I never said nor implied nor believe calling someone a racist is racist, so perhaps you are confusing me with someone else here.
Quoting NOS4A2
My emphasis being in the bold.
I never called you racist. Neither do I hate latinos, I was just working with a hypothetical which seemed to reveal a telling disjoint in your use of terminology.
I guess I’m wondering how you can construe that to mean me believing that calling someone a racist is racist.
As for “subscribe to the racist worldview”, I mean they believe the species can be divided into discrete biological units called “races”.
Anyway, you agree that you wasn’t sure if you could call someone racist who hates latinos but doesn’t believe in differences of race in scientific terms. It is there that the clarity your and other people’s perspectives is confused.
In terms of ‘colour-blindness’ I’ve those opposing you guilty of the same kind of misconception and being adamant that their concept is irrefutable.
On the surface it appears everyone here actually agrees yet not everyone agrees with the use or application of the terminology in play.
I don’t think arguments put forward by HH hold up - regarding some kind of blanket ban of the term and/or phasing it out. I think it is a necessary thorn in the side of civil society to remind us of our imperfections and take note.
it will take a while (just as some people still believe the world is still flat), but the day will come
I myself no longer label people using these archaic and inaccurate categories and it's definitely a shift in thinking that means at least I am no longer prone to bias based on race, I can't prefer something that isn't there in my conceptual world
join the race transcenders (a concept coined by Carlos Hoyt) and be part of the solution instead of the problem
I've already pointed to the disparity between people that are raised in a two parent home with a more cohesive family and those that aren't. Are you so unwilling to accept that there might be other causes to the problems you are pointing out. Is every problem the result of racism?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, but I already moved past your point and I am now asking what we do about it that doesn't entail doing what created this problem in the first place. Are there no other options to consider, or is the only option to be a hypocrite?
Quoting Baden
You also have to think about what this implies and whether what it implies is reasonable. This implies that all police, prosecuting and defending attorneys, judges, and witnesses are racist. I think that is a very weak limb to stand on.
Why aren't we talking about the percentages of black children being raised in single-parent homes and how that plays a role in these statistics. How do we know that the stats for the convicts being treated more harshly is because they were repeat offenders? When you get caught in a never-ending cycle because of the circumstances you were born into, then we can see these kinds of statistics and it has nothing to do with systematic racism.
What do you think changing our drug laws would do to those statistics rather than accusing others of being racist with no proof?
That’s right “latino” is not considered a race. It’s an ethnicity, meaning It applies to anyone of any race so long as he is Latino. So the man would be expressing some form of ethnic hatred rather than racism. I don’t see what’s unclear about it.
Quoting I like sushi
Right, so maybe we should take a step back and remember what the title of this thread is:
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?
Without saying anything about the existence, or non-existence, of "systematic racism" today for the moment,...
There was systematic racism by way of providing government benefits to one race over another in the past.
The effects of the systematic racism of the past has carried over into subsequent generations.
What is the solution for handling the effects that don't resort to back-peddling on racial color-blindness?
If providing government benefits to one race over another is why we are in this position, and it is morally wrong to do so, then why go back to doing it, but in reverse (reverse discrimination)?
Are there are other solutions that don't make us back-peddle on racial color-blindness that we can (or should) consider? It doesn't seem like the other side is open to considering anything except that all whites are racist and we need to give them some of their own medicine.
Don't think that racism / ethnicity have any true logic to themselves. It's all horse manure that in the end simply justifies xenophobia and is fitted to the present situation whatever it is.
Stop looking just at the racism in the US. The history of European racism and the true race ideology divided the "white" people as happily and eagerly as Americans are dividing their own citizens into races. Serbs, Poles, Russians, Belarusians, Czechs, Slovaks, and Ukrainians, all were there with the Jews subhumans. And Americans would now refer to these people being "white". It doesn't make any sense.