Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Racism: Let's Talk.

Thread: Purgatory: Racism: Let's Talk. Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000956

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Between the Zimmerman thread and the Oprah thread, I think we should have a thread about racism without a specific incident to cloud the issue.

Let us start with a definition.

Racism is prejudice based upon the notion that characteristics are inherent in one's "Race".

Some would add that this must contain a negative view to be considered racism.
Some would add that only oppressor groups can be racist.

(Personally, I do not accept either addition. A attribution of a characteristic based upon race is racism and something can be racist irrespective of direction.)

I would like to discuss several things.

Racism in general
Racism and You. What effects you have seen.
Who is responsible for changing racism?
Why is Racism still such a problem?

Why? Because there is an obvious disconnect demonstrated on this board. I am hoping to increase understanding.

Study sheets for those wishing.
Racism in America.
Racism in the UK.
Racism in Canada.
Racism in Australia.

[ 13. November 2013, 20:55: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I was brought up in 1960s South Africa so I saw awful, institutionalised racism daily. My Dad worked in SOWETO and broke the law all the time (when he was stopped he pretended he'd just arrived from England and pleaded ignorance, promising to never do it again - it worked every time)

Because of this I have a very strong radar for racism. I have seen it decline considerably here in the UK over the last 30 years - but it still exists.

I haven't heard the "I'm not racist but ... " words for ages now. The 'but' is always followed by a racist comment.

When I hear such comments I start a conversation as to why they would think that, it helps folks to think through their assumptions.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Let us start with a definition.

Racism is prejudice based upon the notion that characteristics are inherent in one's "Race".
Some would add that this must contain a negative view to be considered racism.
Some would add that only oppressor groups can be racist.
(Personally, I do not accept either addition. A attribution of a characteristic based upon race is racism and something can be racist irrespective of direction.)

I would add to your definition that racism does not have to be a conscious action, and can be a result of an ingrained or learned bias.

The studies done in the US and Canada that showed having a "black" or "ethnic" sounding name on a CV identical to one with a "white" name was a significant disadvantage in getting an interview - there are signs of the same in the UK as well BBC News - Workplace Discrimination

That is obviously a manifestation of racism, even if on an individual basis the hiring managers do not consider themselves racist.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I see a surprising amount of racism with the young people I work with.

Within schools it is reportable and tends to be dealt with pretty severely. We had to talk a girl with learning difficulties out of a day's suspension when she'd retaliated following prolonged abuse and name calling: thick, moron, special, and called her tormentor "Paki" as the worst insult she could summon up. It wasn't true, he was of Turkish or Greek heritage. She was given a day in isolation instead.

Currently I work with a student who is very anti-Asian - a knock on from his brother being chased out of an Asian area by a group of men with weapons. That one seems to be a generalisation from a specific incident, which I've seen before.

And then you get the sort of racism that's drummed up by the Daily Fail. So anti-immigrant generally.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Within schools it is reportable and tends to be dealt with pretty severely. We had to talk a girl with learning difficulties out of a day's suspension when she'd retaliated following prolonged abuse and name calling: thick, moron, special, and called her tormentor "Paki" as the worst insult she could summon up. It wasn't true, he was of Turkish or Greek heritage. She was given a day in isolation instead.

Did anything happen to the person/people who called someone with a learning disability a "moron"?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Yes, that's why we argued it out: that she was using her somewhat limited language skills to retaliate against some pretty unpleasant name-calling and that there were two sides to this incident. We argued that perpetrator should not be allowed to play the racism card and get away with the name-calling that triggered her response. Removing the day's exclusion meant that she didn't get that on her education record, but the internal exclusion meant that racism was seen to be tackled.

Can't remember what happened to the boy, but he was left in no doubt that he had triggered the comment and his behaviour was unacceptable.

eta - I can type, honest

[ 13. August 2013, 08:48: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

People in general seem to regard the definition of racist as "a bit more prejudiced about race than I, myself, am" and of course by that definition nobody sees themselves as racist. I overheard a conversation in a swimming pool changing room when I was a kid. It was between two older white women and the gist was: "I don't think these darkies should be over here in this country. They're savages and they ruin everything. But I'm not racist or anything. I don't HATE them. I don't think they should DIE. I just think they should have stayed in Africa." Now, obviously this woman is horribly racist, whatever she may think. But that was my first experience of the "racism starts at a bit more prejudiced than I, myself am" viewpoint, which is why "I'm not racist but -" is such a common phrase. If you take people's own understanding of themselves, nobody's racist.

I suspect that much of the racism that goes around in society today is at a subconscious level. It creeps into assumptions about the young black man walking down the street at night, or interpretations of job applications (nothing as straightforward as "I'm not going to hire a brown person", but maybe something more of a pause on discovering this about a person. Or someone feeling that they'd rather see a white GP, but without really being able to articulate why.

People are going round making a thousand little assumptions about others they don't know, or barely know, every day. It saves a lot of mental effort and everyone does it to some extent. Our culture shakes what those assumptions are likely to entail, and our culture contains strains of racist bullshit everywhere, which creep into our minds. Most people are not hateful, or violent, and most people really don't want to be racist. But it is these little assumptions that can add up to entire demographics being marginalised for no good reason, and then, because nobody defines themselves as racist, they get told that they're imagining it because racism no longer exists.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

I suspect that much of the racism that goes around in society today is at a subconscious level.

Yes, absolutely. That's why this kind of discussion is always useful.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I too am very conscious of racism and all kinds of prejudice having witnessed it from an early age. I find one of the tests to weed out our own prejudices is to ask whether we would trust someone whatever their origin. If we couldn't tell their race unless they spoke, might we change our minds once they had?

Someone recently told me he didn't want to leave his case at a left luggage station as he thought the attendant would rifle through it.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Yes. Though perhaps this thread is preaching to the converted or the trying.

We all know how to behave on the surface, our observable behaviour. Internal attitudes and thought processes are another matter. It is much easier to have internal processes match the external if you've examined them, and I don't think most people examine them very much.

There are also habits, of things carefully taught in subtle ways during growing up years. You've got to carefully taught (youtube, South Pacific)

quote:
You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

[ 13. August 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Yes. Though perhaps this thread is preaching to the converted or the trying.

Given some of the responses on the two threads mentioned in the OP, and others over the years, I do not think so.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

We all know how to behave on the surface, our observable behaviour. Internal attitudes and thought processes are another matter. It is much easier to have internal processes match the external if you've examined them, and I don't think most people examine them very much.

The last sentence in this quote rings very true.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

I heard the "I'm not racist but " comment today. Bear in mind that this is a racially and ethnically mixed area where 40% are non British.

How do we address racism within communities, that's often tribal? How do we address racism towards "whites"?

Posted by BessHiggs (# 15176) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

I would like to discuss several things.
Racism in general
Racism and You. What effects you have seen.
Who is responsible for changing racism?
Why is Racism still such a problem?

Rascism in general: Here the rural American South, rascism is alive and well and not going away any time soon. We basically have three ethnic/racial groups in the area. Black, white and Mexican. Each group overtly and covertly expresses rascist opinions about each of the groups and everyone hates the couple from Mumbai who own the local convenience store.

I have noticed that the rascism, in any direction, is usually from the folks in the lower socio-economic brackets. The thinking seems to go along the lines of "I don't have a job because those {insert other group here} take them all." Which is complete hogwash, but there you have it.

Rascism and You - I have been openly criticized for allowing people of any skin color or ethnicity or sexual orientation to drink in my bar. It's fairly well established locally that unless you are lily white, you don't go into certain beer joints. Ever. Period. This attitude boggles my mind because I can't understand why any business owner would turn away cold hard cash - which is ALWAYS the right color - just because the person wanting to spend it happens to be a different shade. And FWIW, the only trouble I've ever had at the bar has been with drunk little white boys who can't hold their liquor.

Who is responsible for changing racism - We all are. And it's difficult, and it's scary sometimes. When everyone around you seems to think that rascism is not just OK, but normal, it feels a little lonely and daunting to speak up and tell them that it's neither. Add in the fact that I'm a liberal college-educated damn yankee and it's an even tougher row to hoe.

Why is rascism still such a problem? - Around here, at least, I think it is the culturally ingrained attitudes that folks here grew up with. I have listened to older people talk lovingly about the days when a black man, on meeting a white woman on the sidewalk, had to step off the curb, doff his cap and lower his eyes. It's still part of the common culture is these parts and I'm not sure that's going to change any time soon.

Add in a lousy local economy, rampant drug problems, and sub-par education and you get a festering mess of despair and anger. It's far easier to be angry at someone who doesn't look like you. It's easier to blame the other than it is to boot-strap yourself up and try to make things better.

Long winded response, YMMV.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
People in general seem to regard the definition of racist as "a bit more prejudiced about race than I, myself, am" and of course by that definition nobody sees themselves as racist.

I think this is very insightful.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
How do we address racism towards "whites"?

Reduce the oppression* of non-whites and I think we see a decrease in this.

*Yeah, oppression is a might strong in some cases, but not certain the proper word for a lesser form.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

I know a few people who admit to being racists. Its quite refreshing really. They are racists of course, but not particularly much more racist than some of their friends who won;t admit to it.

I'm afraid I hear "I'm not a racist but..>" (or words to that effect) very often. Maybe not every day, bt certainly every week.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

I am male, stale and pale, and have lived in racist communities and also experienced racism against myself and my family. I feel there is a problem when discussing racism because what is often going on is a reaction not to differences in race, but differences in cultural norms whereby accepted behaviour in one culture is not necessarily accepted in another.

Thus I freely admit I am 'behaviourist'. That means there are some behaviours I prefer not to tolerate. As a fairly safe example, let's take litter. There seem to be cultural norms regarding taking your litter home. Some types of people throw anything onto the street, some don't. If the school-children along my road seem to be the main culprits, does that make me ageist? I think not, I just prefer people who don't litter and I dissapprove of those who do.

Now, I have a friend in the bathroom fitting trade who refuses to do work for people of an certain (presumed) ethnic nature. This is because he has had repeated difficulties in getting paid for the work he has done. His observation is that there are certain types of people who are good customers (they pay on time and as agreed) and there are types of people who include those who are difficult customers (they don't pay on time and often don't pay the agreed rate). It seems this example is to do with cultural norms - it's the way business is generally done in one culture or another. My friend argues that he isn't racist, and I'm not sure he is, but he is certainly 'behaviourist' in that he tries to select out potential customers based on his past experience.

Other examples I could cite as cultural norms include queueing, spitting, courtesy on the road, bartering, attitudes to women, dress codes...the list is long, and some things are more tolerable than others.

I think that a lot of the times I hear people say "I'm not racist but...." there is a strong element of dissonance in cultural norms, or 'behaviourism' behind it. ISTM that when there is a clash of acceptable behaviours and interactions there can be tension, and unless these things are dealt with, the tension may possibly break out into racism.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

A test is to see if any of these "behaviourist" traits the speaker does not like are ever expressed about "native" UK residents. If it is only towards the brown and the immigrant...

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

I'm not racist, but....

Seriously, I have formed certain biases about certain ethnic groups. I am not proud of this fact, but it's true. These biases are much stronger now than when I was a teenager, and they are stronger for having lived in areas with very high levels of immigration.

Now, let me say immediately that these biases are based on cultural discrepancies, not alleged 'racial' ones. Let me also say immediately that I'm actually quite liberal on immigration, and strongly oppose the current government's policies of reducing it.

However, I find certain behaviours of certain cultures absolutely maddening. First and foremost being the Chinese, or rather than Mainland Chinese (friends of mine who are Hong from Hong Kong, Malayasia, and Singapore note the same things). Broadly speaking, 'Mainlanders' (to adopt a Hong Konger phrase) tend to be the least friendly and rudest people I have ever met in my life. There are, of course, honourable exceptions (I can certainly think of a few off the top of my head, at least some of whom agree with me about their compatriots), but their behaviour of Chinese visitors, particularly in groups, is maddening for me and, I imagine, to most British people.

Much of this must be the result of different cultural expectations, and mutual misunderstanding. Perhaps in Beijing scowling at people on the street, pushing and cutting queues aren't seen as rude.

I will, however, add that the groups of people I find nearly as rude and inconsiderate as Mainland Chinese are more diverse: Russians and Eastern Europeans, Germans of a certain age (young Germans are much better and Bavarians better than the rest of country), elderly French women (particularly if in positions of petty authority), Indian bachelors, middle class people from Southern England (especially if also middle aged), New Yorkers.

People I have found to be generally polite and friendly: the Irish, the Spanish and Italians, the Greeks, Scots and people from Northern England, working class people from Southern England (and actually also very posh English people as well), Indian women and married men, people from the Caribbean, French people not falling into the aforementioned category, and people from areas of the United States other than New York.

That's all based on anecdotal, but fairly wide-ranging evidence. It probably says nothing about other people, but I'm sure it says something about me.

[ 13. August 2013, 16:31: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Surely racism is merely a particular instance of the general phenomenon of otherism, i.e. my tendency to dislike anyone who isn't me? Otherism has a further tendency to group the "others" into definable categories. If it can fit its dislikes into a racial category, then it does. If it can fit its dislikes into categories based on sex, sexuality, relgion, age, disability, politics, or whatever, then it does that too.

But however it manifests, it always comes back to the annoying fact that the rest of the world Isn't Like Me.

(It is, of course, arguable that the reason I don't like anyone who isn't me, is because I don't like me.)

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

I find the "taking our jobs" thing interesting in the UK. To my mind, that is not necessarily a racist attitude. It is true that there are various problems here which are exacerbated by overcrowding: housing shortages, job shortages, strains on various parts of the infrastructure. One seemingly simple solution to this is to cut or slow down the rate of growth of the population, so closing the borders is to some a no-brainer. Is that sort of nationalism really racist or just a failure to grasp the finer points of economics?

I should add, that I myself do not hold this view as the problems some think would be solved by having fewer immigrants can be solved in more creative ways and in fact we need to import some skills and indeed have a duty to care for those fleeing persecution etc. but I do know a number of people who think this way without regarding non Brits as inferior, just as not belonging here.

Perhaps the test would be to say do anti racists necessarily have to believe in free migration for all, across all countries?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

There's a lot of talk about immigration and foreign cultures in regards to the UK.

That doesn't explain why the Met has a problem with institutional racism, or why an ethnic name with the same qualifications doesn't get an interview, or why black British parents complain that their sons are geared towards sport and music instead of academic subjects in schools, or why Oxford rejects more ethnic minority students predicted top A-Levels compared to white students.

Metropolitan Police race failings
Oxford ethnic minority applications

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

That is obviously a manifestation of racism, even if on an individual basis the hiring managers do not consider themselves racist.

I'm not sure that's the whole story. In the article to which you link, a young lady called Jorden wasn't getting invited to interview until she started using her middle name, Elizabeth, instead. But as she herself said, "I did not really understand this seeing as my name isn't stereotypically 'ethnic'" - and certainly I don't think I could infer anything about her racial background from the name "Jorden".

It is, however, not the conventional spelling of the name "Jordan", and whilst "misspelled" names don't say much about racial background, they do correlate strongly with the class and educational background of the person's parents.

In other words, "Elizabeth" is a nice middle-class girl, whereas "Jorden" is a chav.

I'm not trying to pretend that racism doesn't exist - of course it does, and some of the other examples in that article are clearly racist - but I don't think that racial discrimination tells the whole story - there is also discrimination based on social class and background (which also has a correlation with race, so you can get a result that appears "racist" without any actual race-based discrimination).

Fryer and Levitt have an interesting analysis here. One of their findings is that there is no difference in the life outcomes of black children given "black" names - Demetrius, Lamarcus and so on - and similar children given neutral or "white" names, but that in recent years the giving of "black" names has become strongly correlated with socio-economic status (ie. middle-class black families give their children the same kinds of names as middle-class white families, whereas poor black families tend to pick the distinctively black names).

This doesn't preclude racism - a racist employer who doesn't bother to invite Tanequa for an interview would probably find some other excuse to not hire the black Tracy that he did invite to interview.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
This doesn't preclude racism - a racist employer who doesn't bother to invite Tanequa for an interview would probably find some other excuse to not hire the black Tracy that he did invite to interview.

Not of necessity. There are varying degrees if racism. One who might invite Tracy in the presumption she is white might be persuaded by the interview to hire.

Posted by Beautiful Dreamer (# 10880) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Racism is prejudice based upon the notion that characteristics are inherent in one's "Race".
Some would add that this must contain a negative view to be considered racism.
Some would add that only oppressor groups can be racist.
(Personally, I do not accept either addition. A attribution of a characteristic based upon race is racism and something can be racist irrespective of direction.)

I agree with you re: additions. I've known people who insist that people in minority groups can't be prejudiced (or that any such prejudices are justified)...I don't buy it. I might see things differently if I weren't white, though. I don't know.

quote:

I would like to discuss several things.
Racism in general
Racism and You. What effects you have seen.
Who is responsible for changing racism?
Why is Racism still such a problem?

Why? Because there is an obvious disconnect demonstrated on this board. I am hoping to increase understanding.

I'm from the same part of the country as BessHiggs. I grew up in North Carolina and live outside Atlanta now. I *will* say that people in the 'big city' here tend to be less prejudiced, but that could be because so many of us are 'transplants'. In high school, I lived in a somewhat-rural area where there were blacks and whites...that's it. I heard some pretty sickening attitudes from both groups.

As for my experience-Has anyone here ever falsely been accused of/assumed to be racist? I'm a white girl who was incredibly shy in school, which netted me the labels of 'snob','bitch' and 'racist' on several occasions. I remember when I was on the flag corp (with band) in high school, some of the black girls thought that I was racist because I hung around one of the few white girls in the group more than the rest of them...what they didn't seem to notice was that that girl took me under her wing while some of the others could care less. It had nothing to do with race. The same thing happened with my first-year college roommate's boyfriend, although at least he was upfront with me. I can understand where they're coming from, but I kind of wish they'd bothered to find out what was *really* going on with me before making that assumption.

As for who's responsible for ending racism, I'd agree that it's all of us. I guess one of the best ways to do this is to teach our children not to discriminate...that's what my parents taught me, and they were from 1940s-50s North Carolina and Arkansas! That's one reason I don't accept being old as an excuse for being racist-if anything, my parents were *anti*-racist.

I agree with Bess that some people hold onto racism because it's convenient. That, and they just don't care enough to change their minds.

Sorry if I went on too long!

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not of necessity. There are varying degrees if racism. One who might invite Tracy in the presumption she is white might be persuaded by the interview to hire.

Possibly - but I'd imagine that would be an employer who had negative stereotypical impressions of black people because he hadn't ever really spoken to an actual black person, if merely having a good interview is sufficient to dispel his prejudices. (And note that the Fryer and Levitt paper found no difference in the career outcomes of Tanequa and her neighbour Tracy, which suggests that this kind of employer is quite rare.)

One of the other examples in the article seekingsister referred to was of employers assuming that Muslim women (who often have both identifiable names and identifiable dress) are going to quit work when they marry and/or have children.

In my (fairly limited) experience, this assumption is made most strongly by Muslim men, which adds an extra interesting wrinkle to the racism discussion - this is certainly racist discrimination, because it involves treating a person (the Muslim woman) as an interchangeable stereotype rather than as an individual, but is is performed by members of her own race.

Or what about black people calling each other "Oreos" and accusing each other of "acting white" - isn't that racist, too?

If we are discussing which forms of racism have the strongest effect, then racism by a dominant "oppressor group" against a disempowered race has to be the most important, because of the structural disparities in power involved, but that doesn't mean that the assumption that little Jaideep is going to be a good student and grow up to be a doctor or dentist is less racist.

[ 13. August 2013, 21:39: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Bear in mind that this is a racially and ethnically mixed area where 40% are non British.

"Non-British"...that is to say "non-white"? Or do the British non-whites not count as being non-white? Or, of course, perhaps the British non-whites don't count as British.

Enlight us, pray.

John

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Bear in mind that this is a racially and ethnically mixed area where 40% are non British.

"Non-British"...that is to say "non-white"? Or do the British non-whites not count as being non-white? Or, of course, perhaps the British non-whites don't count as British.

Enlight us, pray.

John

I remember a conversation I had with a stranger where I told her I was from Alaska, and she asked if there were many other Americans up there. I informed her that Alaska was part of America and almost everyone who lived there was American. I got a 'yeah, but you know what I mean' kinda response.
[Mad]

I do think it's important to differentiate between full-on racism and ethnocentrism. An inherent feeling that you're better than everyone else because of your ethnicity is IMO different than hating other people because of their ethnicity.

When I lived in Turkey I'm sure many of the locals viewed me as odd, hell-bound, inferior, or out of place. (All of which may be true, I suppose [Yipee]

) However, I didn't encounter many people that treated me with visible disdain because I wasn't Turk.

On the other hand, when I lived in rural Alaska I was probably viewed as normal, equal, of similar religious mind, and as one who more or less fit in. Many of the Natives still hated me because I was white. This is understandable to an extent considering our respective histories, but I was amazed at the number of people who blamed me personally (not my race, not my ancestors, etc) for their loss of culture, for their alcoholism, or for whatever problem they might be currently dealing with.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
That's all based on anecdotal, but fairly wide-ranging evidence. It probably says nothing about other people, but I'm sure it says something about me.

So, now that you've noticed these trends, how do they affect your conduct when you meet someone new? If you know they're Chinese / French / Polish or whatever, you you initially treat them as if you expect them to fit the preconception, or do you wait and see what they're actually like?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Surely racism is merely a particular instance of the general phenomenon of otherism, i.e. my tendency to dislike anyone who isn't me?

The thing is, some people's "otherism" is structurally supported in our societies and has a lot of power behind it. White racism and black racism (or Asian or Latino etc) are not merely flip sides of the same coin.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
White racism and black racism (or Asian or Latino etc) are not merely flip sides of the same coin.

But they can be, depending on where you are.

Anyone who lives and works outside the West becomes skeptical about implicit assumptions of the uniqueness of the West's alleged prejudice and bigotry.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... Anyone who lives and works outside the West becomes skeptical about implicit assumptions of the uniqueness of the West's alleged prejudice and bigotry.

I don't think anyone here has assumed that only Western culture is racist (and sexist). I think we're focusing on Western culture because a) we live here, and b) we're directly responsible. Other cultures - well, we can lead by example and / or persuade, which, again, is our responsibility. Any more than that gets into international relations, issues of sovereignty, cross-cultural communication, etc.

We could discuss racism in other cultures, but most of us would be discussing something which we have no direct experience or knowledge of (and maybe never will).

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The divisions where I live in western Canada are: white with unaccented English, eastern European with accented English (Ukrainian mostly, some German-Mennonite-Russian), First Nations (Cree, Dakota/Nakota and Dene). In this order of "betterness". With the First Nations groups being the most discriminated against. It is rather clear that the accent is the identifying marker, with the skin colour being secondary if the person speaks "properly". I think higher education is responsible for the acquisition of mainstream accent, and the denigration of people for their differences starts to drop away as that happens.

Black peoples are not really on the radar. I recall when the university program I attended was going for accreditation with an American organization in the 1970s that a woman self declared herself as black in support of the diversity part of it, and it had never occurred to me to consider her as anything other than "us" or mainstream. Which made me consider that one's self definition is also very important. And where does where "race" stop and "ethnicity" start?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
And where does where "race" stop and "ethnicity" start?

Given that race is more a social construct than a useful designation, this is not an easy thing to separate.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Anyone who lives and works outside the West becomes skeptical about implicit assumptions of the uniqueness of the West's alleged prejudice and bigotry.

It isn't unique in its existence, but certainly is in impact.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
And where does where "race" stop and "ethnicity" start?
Given that race is more a social construct than a useful designation, this is not an easy thing to separate.

"Race" is, in practice, phenotype - it's a set of physical characteristics that are typical of people with a particular ancestral background.

"Ethnicity" is more like with what social/cultural heritage does a person identify - it's more about how someone sees themselves than about how others see them.

I don't think this is quite right, but it's along the right lines.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
"Race" is, in practice, phenotype - it's a set of physical characteristics that are typical of people with a particular ancestral background.

Well, no. Two organisms with the same genotype can exhibit different phenotype.
Saw a snippet of a programme in which ancestry was traced. An a averagely pale, clearly white woman and a medium dark, obviously black man were receiving their results.
Guess which had more sub-Saharan ancestry.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
How do we address racism towards "whites"?
Reduce the oppression* of non-whites and I think we see a decrease in this.

*Yeah, oppression is a might strong in some cases, but not certain the proper word for a lesser form.

Ok ... at what point in the reduction does racism towards "whites" stop?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Bear in mind that this is a racially and ethnically mixed area where 40% are non British.

"Non-British"...that is to say "non-white"? Or do the British non-whites not count as being non-white? Or, of course, perhaps the British non-whites don't count as British.

Enlight us, pray.

John

Sorry not clear enough - 40% of the people who live in this borough locality do not have the UK as their country of origin as defined by the state.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
That's all based on anecdotal, but fairly wide-ranging evidence. It probably says nothing about other people, but I'm sure it says something about me.
So, now that you've noticed these trends, how do they affect your conduct when you meet someone new? If you know they're Chinese / French / Polish or whatever, you you initially treat them as if you expect them to fit the preconception, or do you wait and see what they're actually like?

Yes, in that I grit my teeth if I have to be in a shop with half a dozen mainland Chinese, and that German authority figures (police, ticket inspectors, museum guards) frighten me much more than their English (let alone Irish) counterparts. But in terms of individuals with whom I might interact professionally or socially, it's much less likely to be an issue. Mind you, given that I live in the UK and the economic sector I in which I work, the people with whom I'm most likely to interact are youngish, middle-class, university graduates. So, it's probably a case of one set of prejudices taking priority over the other (although it is also true that cultural differences tend to be less pronounced in that group than amongst older or less educated social groups).

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
White racism and black racism (or Asian or Latino etc) are not merely flip sides of the same coin.
But they can be, depending on where you are.

Anyone who lives and works outside the West becomes skeptical about implicit assumptions of the uniqueness of the West's alleged prejudice and bigotry.

There is a dramatic difference between discrimination against white expats in China or the Middle East, and apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow United States.

The world's most powerful countries institutionalized racism against Africans, Native Americans, and Asians through colonialism and empire, and exported that racism throughout the world. Let's put this into context here.

Europe is largely unmatched in this type of behaviour, whether one wants to accept it or not. Most other racism you find in the world is tribalism or sectarianism, rather than a political, social and economic structure based on subjugating certain people due to their physical appearance. Yes it happened elsewhere, but not on the scale achieved by colonial Europe.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
discrimination against white expats in China

A less trivial and parochial, and more informed, example would be discrimination by Han Chinese against other groups such as Uighurs.

quote:

Europe is largely unmatched in this type of behaviour, whether one wants to accept it or not. Most other racism you find in the world is tribalism or sectarianism

Given that tribalism, sectarianism, casteism etc are just as irrational and unjust as racism, there is not much point in drawing distinctions between them, and you can find all of them, along with imperialism and subjugation on various scales, throughout the world and at all periods of history.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
discrimination against white expats in China
A less trivial and parochial, and more informed, example would be discrimination by Han Chinese against other groups such as Uighurs.

quote:

Europe is largely unmatched in this type of behaviour, whether one wants to accept it or not. Most other racism you find in the world is tribalism or sectarianism
Given that tribalism, sectarianism, casteism etc are just as irrational and unjust as racism, there is not much point in drawing distinctions between them, and you can find all of them, along with imperialism and subjugation on various scales, throughout the world and at all periods of history.

My point is that racism experienced by minorities in the West is backed by institutions that go back centuries and are deeply embedded into the culture and psyche.

I responded to a point that the West isn't "more racist" than the rest of the world because European travel to non-white countries and face racism as well. I fail to see how this is any different from the way Spanish people view British expats, who are ostensibly the same race. It's ethnicity/tribalism/otherism, not racism as an institution. Wrong - of course it is. Equivalent to racism as it exists in Europe? No - not at all.

In Europe and North American the legacy of racist institutions remain and therefore the racism experienced by minorities on those places cannot simply be compared to the type of "don't trust the guy who's not from around here" behaviour that can be found anywhere.

There is a tendency for some to try and explain away the racism in their own societies by suggesting that "everyone does it." No one else has done it like Europe has unfortunately (and by extension Europe's colonies with race issues like the US, South Africa, Brazil, etc). And God willing no one else ever will.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
My point is that racism experienced by minorities in the West is backed by institutions that go back centuries and are deeply embedded into the culture and psyche.

Look up the Indian Caste system sometime.

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
My point is that racism experienced by minorities in the West is backed by institutions that go back centuries and are deeply embedded into the culture and psyche.

I responded to a point that the West isn't "more racist" than the rest of the world because European travel to non-white countries and face racism as well. I fail to see how this is any different from the way Spanish people view British expats, who are ostensibly the same race. It's ethnicity/tribalism/otherism, not racism as an institution. Wrong - of course it is. Equivalent to racism as it exists in Europe? No - not at all.

In Europe and North American the legacy of racist institutions remain and therefore the racism experienced by minorities on those places cannot simply be compared to the type of "don't trust the guy who's not from around here" behaviour that can be found anywhere.

There is a tendency for some to try and explain away the racism in their own societies by suggesting that "everyone does it." No one else has done it like Europe has unfortunately (and by extension Europe's colonies with race issues like the US, South Africa, Brazil, etc). And God willing no one else ever will.

It really isn't difficult to find examples of wholesale racist treatment of peoples that have been on the same scale as White Western Racism in terms of scale or duration. That's not to excuse WWR in any way, but just to add context.

You don't need to turn to the ancient world or the Old Testament either, although many examples are to be found there. The treatment of non-Han is a good example, just less familiar to us. Discrimination against sub-Saharan Africans by north Africans is comparable to WWR in scale and history, from the traditional use of central Africans as slaves to the violent discrimination against dark skinned Africans in modern day Libya. The treatment of Asian migrant workers in the Middle East both historically and currently is large-scale, longstanding and overtly institutional. Liberian law refuses citizenship to people who have lived there for generations because they are not of black African descent and appearance. Biharis who live in Bangladesh are overtly prejudiced on racial grounds; the law forbids many older members of that community to vote for instance. Have a look at the treatment of bushmen in Botswana and pygmy peoples in Congo for 21st century examples of brutal physical abuse of groups of people on racial grounds that is officially sanctioned and authorised.

I repeat that none of these examples, or any of the others I might have added is to excuse WWR, only to cast doubt on the proposition that it is uniquely wicked.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
My point is that racism experienced by minorities in the West is backed by institutions that go back centuries and are deeply embedded into the culture and psyche.
Look up the Indian Caste system sometime.

You're proving my point, which was in response to a suggestion that white people face racism abroad too and so therefore everyone is racist.

Systemic racism or ethnic subjugation cannot be compared to general xenophobia or otherism that almost all expats with a different physical appearance go through. They are on a different scale.

I have never heard any European accept that the racism they exported around the world is as bad as the caste system, so I'm glad to see you make the comparison.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pottage
Liberian law refuses citizenship to people who have lived there for generations because they are not of black African descent and appearance.

People of Korean descent are not allowed to become Japanese citizens although their families have been in Japan more than a century. This is especially unfair because at the time the Koreans immigrated, Japan was ruling Korea and deliberately destroyed the Korean economy. People had to leave Korea to find jobs.

Moo

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You're proving my point, which was in response to a suggestion that white people face racism abroad too and so therefore everyone is racist.

I thought your point was that nobody else is racist, just white westerners.

quote:
Systemic racism or ethnic subjugation cannot be compared to general xenophobia or otherism that almost all expats with a different physical appearance go through. They are on a different scale.

And yet when general xenophobia or otherism occurs in the west it's always given the "racism" tag. One rule for one, another for the rest?

quote:
I have never heard any European accept that the racism they exported around the world is as bad as the caste system, so I'm glad to see you make the comparison.

That's a rather backhanded way of agreeing that people other than whites can be hideously racist (rather than just xenophobic or otherist), but I'll take it.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I'm not racist, but I'm learning.

Why do I feel like this thread is a trap for some of us to voice opinions that will quickly be disissed as irrelevant utterances coming from white privilege?

I was raised in unusual circumstances that brought me to my teens completely colorblind. My parents had black friends who came to visit but they were always referred to by their names, never their race, and, although I probably noticed that they all had dark skin I just took that to be a family trait like the family of redheads who also came to visit. I never heard any mention of race at my school, either, it was entirely white. West Virginia is one of the whitest states as well as one of the poorest. When I was growing up I lived a few miles from the poorest town in America. Kids came to school barefooted in the snow and lived in shacks with no water or heat. That's why I laugh when I hear about my background of white privilege.

I finally heard about race classification and America's shameful history of slavery and I was truly horrified but I remained colorblind and for years I couldn't say after meeting someone whether they were black or white.

I started college in 1964. Some of the men I dated were black and I was amazed at the hateful reaction of other people from both races. I was drooped from a sorority over it but didn't really care. It was exciting times and I joined marches for civil rights and worked for equality for all people.

Years passed and things changed for the better. I saw schools integrated and black people in high position in businesses and banks, starring in movies, winning Oscars, gracing the covers of magazines. I knew there was lots of progress still to be made and that's why I voted for affirmative action and anything else that I hoped would push full equality forward.

Then things stared to change in a way I didn't understand. Black people wanted to be called African-American instead of just American as though they wanted to remain separate from everyone else. Instead of incorporating stories of notable black people in the history books there was to be a special Black History month. My son's best friend from age five through fifteen suddenly dropped him on the first day of high-school to join a group of all black teens. My black friend from my book club never spoke to me again after we read "Beloved," and I said I didn't like it. My husband, and the black woman he works for, both get called "racist," over the phone almost daily. It's a non-profit food bank and free store. If they have to say something like, "I'm sorry the free school supplies are all gone," or, "We're closed on Sunday," the 'r" word comes out. I was banned from a TV message board for saying something vaguely negative about the black contestant on "Big Brother." My son works in retail now and the same store policies he has to abide by with every customer are loudly called racist by his black customers. He's confessed to me that he's become afraid of them.

Colorblindness and equal treatment no longer seem to be the goal, in fact it's a dangerous way to be. On the contrary, these days it's wisest to be conscious of the color of the person we're dealing with and tread very softly or else face their wrath and all who wish to be seen as their defenders. So, as I say, I'm not racist but I'm learning to be.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I thought your point was that nobody else is racist, just white westerners.

Absolutely not, that was not my point nor do I believe it.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QB]And yet when general xenophobia or otherism occurs in the west it's always given the "racism" tag. One rule for one, another for the rest?
If you look at my prior posts you can see I specifically focused on non-immigrant related racial issues in the UK. In the US obviously most anti-black racism has nothing to do with immigration as black Americans have been around as long as America has thanks to slavery.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QB] That's a rather backhanded way of agreeing that people other than whites can be hideously racist (rather than just xenophobic or otherist), but I'll take it.

I do not think racism is imprinted on the DNA of white people. I do think Europe spread racism around the world for its economic benefit and the negative effects of that are still felt in a very real way today. And that white Westerners have internalized much, much more of that institutionalized racism than they are willing to accept.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm not racist, but I'm learning.

Why do I feel like this thread is a trap for some of us to voice opinions that will quickly be disissed as irrelevant utterances coming from white privilege?

I was raised in unusual circumstances that brought me to my teens completely colorblind.

[...]
Years passed and things changed for the better. I saw schools integrated and black people in high position in businesses and banks, starring in movies, winning Oscars, gracing the covers of magazines. I knew there was lots of progress still to be made and that's why I voted for affirmative action and anything else that I hoped would push full equality forward.

Then things stared to change in a way I didn't understand.

I'm not African American, although I share some of the same ethnic ancestry, and I'm interested in the issues. (I also have relatives in the USA.) I'd say two things to your long post.

Firstly, I find the notion of colour blindness a bit problematic. It seems to assume that the problems have all been overcome, and that everyone's exactly the same. Despite the success of the black middle classes in the USA and elsewhere in the black diaspora I don't think this has ever been true, and to say so suggests a certain lack of awareness of the wider issues. (And you do say that you were raised in unusual circumstances, which suggests that there were many realities that you were possibly unaware of.)

Secondly, what your post indicates is that there has been a sharpening of the divide between middle class black people and other black people in the USA. I've read about this elsewhere, and it's a feature in a lot of the African American comedy and commentary that ones hears on Youtube.

The fact is, despite some positive role models black people as a whole are suffering from enormous problems in the USA. Have you looked at the stats? It's unsurprising that many young black people become psychologically fragile and conflicted about white people, when they realise that the odds are stacked against them. For those who feel secure in their place as members of the black middle class it must be much easier.

FWIW I'm not interested in blaming 'white privilege', since that just reinforces the opposite notion of black powerlessness, which is unhelpful. But I'm sure one could blame a host of social factors, one of which includes inherited or imported understandings of blackness and whiteness. These notions have become pervasive around the world, which is why the idea of colour blindness makes little sense. I don't think racism can be defeated by colour blindness, I'm sad to say.

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

That's still racism Twilight. Have you ever been treated badly by white people? I'm pretty sure you have and I'm sure your husband and son have had bad and rude white customers before too. The difference is they blame individual white customers for their behaviour, but a few bad black customers and suddenly they start seeing all black people as bad.

I volunteer on multicultural housing estates here and generally have a great time. Occasionally I do get verbal abuse from teenagers or adults, and yes have very occasionally been accused unfairly of racism. However the last time that happened was at Christmas when a few of the Mums thought we (the multicultural group of volunteers providing free toys) were favouring a Somali Mum and child. A Sudanese Mum angrily accused us of racism. I have to say I laughingly denied this because it was so ridiculous - thankfully that didn't inflame matters as the Mum knew she was being ridiculous and was just trying to get extra toys for her child. Then a white Mum came up and smilingly asked if I had let the Somali Mum swap the toy her child chose. When I said yes, we had let her as the toy the child chose was not age appropriate, she turned horribly angry and accused me of ruining Christmas for her children. She ranted and raved and really killed the Christmas spirit temporarily.

On other occasions I have had to explain to angry white parents that our rides, food and activities are for everyone as they assume we are just there for the migrant families and have a chip on their shoulder because they think migrants get more than them.

Overall however not being racist is so enriching that I don't understand why people won't give it a go. I had such a great night tonight at tutoring with kids and tutors from numerous European, African and Asian backgrounds (and a few from other parts of the world too). Most of us Australians, others people here to study who still are happy to give their time to help Australians while they live here. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus all teaching, learning and sharing a meal together.

Then I had a great chat about politics, education, poverty and charity, and technology with a Singaporean tutor and a teenager who was born in Vietnam. So cool to learn from so many perspectives and to see people being loving to each other and treating each other as wonderful human beings.

You can't force other people to change, but I recommend doing all you can to make your community a loving and caring place. You might be surprised how many great people you get to meet and know and maybe even become friends with.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

I think your experience is interesting, Twilight. I do however think the issue of unconscious racism is a problem.

It's a two-edged sword though, which is a sad thing. I'd say that 5 or 10 years ago, I was much more 'colourblind' in that I didn't even notice someone's skin colour any more than I'd notice their hair or eye colour. It was just an incidental.

Learning about unconscious racism, which is a huge issue, has made me more aware of race than before. It means I'm more self-reflective. I have to think whether I'm prejudging someone based on their race or not. I'm more sensitive to it, which is both good and bad. There's a loss of naivety.

Of course, in an ideal world, we'd all be colour-blind. But we don't live in an ideal world, so I do think it's important to be aware.

I wholly agree on the notion of self-separation being a bad thing. I think that Clarke Carlisle, the chairman of the PFA (Professional Footballers' Association) was exactly right when he said that the idea of a separate black PFA could be divisive. I get the motivation of wanting more of a voice by setting up black-only (or women-only, or whatever-only) organisations, but I think in the long-run it is counter-productive in the quest for equality. It extends the us-them mentality, and it gives the message that non-blacks / men / whatever 'majority' it is reacting against don't have an important role in fighting for equality themselves.

I'm not gay, black or female, but that doesn't mean I don't strongly believe in gay rights, racial equality or gender equality. Self-separation says that, unless I'm a minority, I don't really have much of a role in fighting for equality.

(a couple of X-posts)

[ 14. August 2013, 14:16: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

I wholly agree on the notion of self-separation being a bad thing. I think that Clarke Carlisle, the chairman of the PFA (Professional Footballers' Association) was exactly right when he said that the idea of a separate black PFA could be divisive. I get the motivation of wanting more of a voice by setting up black-only (or women-only, or whatever-only) organisations, but I think in the long-run it is counter-productive in the quest for equality.

I can't comment on what's being proposed in this instance, but in general, such groups often arise because there's no great 'quest for equality' in the parent body. There might be sweet words or general indifference, but no 'quest'. In other words, sometimes waiting for other people to act on your behalf, especially when they don't see your concerns as a priority, might be a waste of time. Your quiescence might just be read as a sign that everything's okay. The fear of divisiveness is a fear of something that already exists; it's just easier to turn a blind eye if the dissenters are contained and controlled.....

[ 14. August 2013, 14:36: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
"Race" is, in practice, phenotype - it's a set of physical characteristics that are typical of people with a particular ancestral background.
Well, no. Two organisms with the same genotype can exhibit different phenotype.

Well, yes. I know. The thing we call "race" is emphatically not genotype. My phrasing was both careful and exact.

There are a set of physical characteristics which are typical of sub-Saharan African ancestry - the skin, the hair, the nose and so on - that form the "race" that we call black, or black African. Somebody who exhibits these features will be called "black", whereas the pale, blonde-haired tot with more African genetics will not.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

I wholly agree on the notion of self-separation being a bad thing. I think that Clarke Carlisle, the chairman of the PFA (Professional Footballers' Association) was exactly right when he said that the idea of a separate black PFA could be divisive. I get the motivation of wanting more of a voice by setting up black-only (or women-only, or whatever-only) organisations, but I think in the long-run it is counter-productive in the quest for equality.
I can't comment on what's being proposed in this instance, but in general, such groups often arise because there's no great 'quest for equality' in the parent body. There might be sweet words or general indifference, but no 'quest'. In other words, sometimes waiting for other people to act on your behalf, especially when they don't see your concerns as a priority, might be a waste of time. Your quiescence might just be read as a sign that everything's okay. The fear of divisiveness is a fear of something that already exists; it's just easier to turn a blind eye if the dissenters are contained and controlled.....

Yeah, I get that. Like I said, I understand the motivation.

However, I think what would be more fruitful, in that case, is to either:

a) Set up a new body whose express purpose is to lobby for equality. I.e., rather than Black PFA, a "racial equality in professional football" organisation, that anyone can join, which can promote and campaign for equality.

b) If one does have to set up a Black PFA (or whatever), then as part of the founding principles state that it is a temporary organisation, and that its ultimate goal is to merge with the pre-existing organisation, once it has raised sufficient awareness and played its part in promoting equality.

My opinion is that this kind of approach is more productive in terms of true equality than separating ourselves from each other, and highlighting our differences.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I have some sympathy for the colorblind way of thinking myself. I was also colorblind as a child due to the unusual places I was raised. It was great. Unfortunately, eventually we moved and I ended up in a much less diverse and somewhat more racist community. I had to learn to see race, because otherwise I found I was accidentally part of the problem. Still, I think not seeing race is definitely better. It's just that we can't mostly afford to do that until we can get rid of the problems in the institution.

[ 14. August 2013, 14:53: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
How do we address racism towards "whites"?
Reduce the oppression* of non-whites and I think we see a decrease in this.

*Yeah, oppression is a might strong in some cases, but not certain the proper word for a lesser form.
Ok ... at what point in the reduction does racism towards "whites" stop?

Perhaps when the statistically social, educational and economic disparities between whites and others have flattened out rather more than they have?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps when the statistically social, educational and economic disparities between whites and others have flattened out rather more than they have?

Is this a modern variant of the idea of the "noble savage"? Are you claiming that racism against white people is all a reaction to the oppression of other racial groups? Because I can assure you that people from all racial backgrounds are just as capable of being bigoted, insular and mean-spirited.

The only thing that sets white Europeans apart is the traditional power disparity, arising from the fact that most of the world was conquered and dominated by white Europeans.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Why do I feel like this thread is a trap for some of us to voice opinions that will quickly be disissed as irrelevant utterances coming from white privilege?

It is not intended so, but truly from the desire to increase understanding in all directions. I did not expect it to be smooth, however. Nor do I expect it will end contention on the ship. But I hope the balance at the end is positive.

quote:

I was raised in unusual circumstances that brought me to my teens completely colorblind.

As was I. Though I would not say "colour blind", but rather skin colour mattered no more than hair colour, height or anything else. They were descriptors, not values.
When first judged by the colour of my skin, it was rather shocking.

quote:

That's why I laugh when I hear about my background of white privilege.

White privilege is a group condition from which individuals might benefit, but are not guaranteed to.
To put this another way; a white person from West Virginia could lose their accent, work their way to a high-powered position and be treated no different than any other white person. The same cannot be said for people of colour.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Leorning Cniht

Nobility isn't the issue at all. My point was simply that the world has in recent centuries favoured the white West. It's therefore fairly unsurprising that some people who don't belong to that favoured category, especially those from formerly colonised groups, feel resentful about its success. The resentment may be mixed with all kinds of other feelings, some contradictory. Whether the resentment is justified or not in individual cases or circumstances is another matter.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The "white west" is far too much generalization. Western Canada has been much more interested in the discrimination from the rich (Ontario) east historically against the white (but swarthy) eastern European immigrants who populated the west, so much so, that they forced them to live in isolated homesteads instead of allowing them to live clustered together in villages or they might form political parties. Which they did, first the CCF/NDP (kind of like Labour in the UK but started with farmers), and then the various reactionary populist conservative parties later. The Regina Riot and the On to Ottawa train are part of the story.

This was predated with the two Riel Rebellions where the French Metís Nation (mix of Cree, French and Scottish) formed over 300 years or so were put down by British troops in the 19th century.

Thus, our experience is that those with power and money use whatever they can to maintain control, that the race aspect may be part of it, but has been secondary to culture/ethic derivation and the wish to keep the local economies in service to the established eastern oligopy.

Thus, my additional questions have to do with economic exploitation in, I suppose, the Marxist sense. Except that it is identifiable people who are exploited, race being secondary to the avarice and power motives.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
That's still racism Twilight. Have you ever been treated badly by white people? I'm pretty sure you have and I'm sure your husband and son have had bad and rude white customers before too. The difference is they blame individual white customers for their behaviour, but a few bad black customers and suddenly they start seeing all black people as bad.
<snip>

You can't force other people to change, but I recommend doing all you can to make your community a loving and caring place. You might be surprised how many great people you get to meet and know and maybe even become friends with.

What did I say that gave you the idea that my husband and son are racists or that either of them needed to be lectured by you on "making the community a better place?" My husband volunteers 30 to 40 hours per week to feeding and clothing people of all races. When he and the black woman he works with get called racist over the phone they just laugh. I'm the one who is irritated on their behalf.

Of course my son knows there are rude white people. He's been doing this job for years, but he has come to fear waiting on black people because of people like you. The white people who come in the store and are rude and dishonest don't have the power to damage his reputation in the town the way a black person can by standing halfway across the room and yelling "He's a racist!" at the top of their lungs. The other people in the store don't know that he only told them it was store policy to show a receipt for returns, the other people are like you and think he must actually be a racist and that he needs a little lecture about it. Your eagerness to think you are less racist than everyone else and that you are superior to them because of it is part of the problem.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Of course my son knows there are rude white people. He's been doing this job for years, but he has come to fear waiting on black people because of people like you.

I think you've crossed a serious line here.

Let's everyone take a step back.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

no prophet

I think your main point is that white people can be racist against other white people? That's certainly true. I've read about English and American attitudes towards the Irish in the past. And the Nazis built on the pseudo-science of a previous generation when they divided up different white ethnic groups into categories based on notions of superiority.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I am not a Host and I am not making a jr. hosting statement here. I am entering a plea for the sake of the intent of this thread that we might better understand each other.
Please let us moderate our responses and accusations. If there is to be a hope that this thread do an ounce of good, I think we must.
I realise I am perhaps the wrong person to ask, my on-line tone is very dry and easily mistaken for being curt.
I am not admonishing or instructing anyone and do not wish to, I am merely pleading. Perhaps I am a fool for such, but I do not wish to believe this type of discussion cannot exist.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

It is difficult to accept difference, even harder to love it.

But to "make allowances" for it is to inherently regard it as less good, and, therefore, be prejudiced against it.

I think there are some groups of people that I think I'm making allowances for. I think that probably makes me racist.

[Frown]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Of course my son knows there are rude white people. He's been doing this job for years, but he has come to fear waiting on black people because of people like you.

I think you've crossed a serious line here.

Let's everyone take a step back.

What line is that? I don't understand what has offended you so much or why you are vomiting.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

It's occurred to me that some people think Mili is black and that might change the tone of what I said.

Maybe Mili is black but based on her avatar and what I read as a patronizing, "Look at me I'm being nice to black people you should try it!," tone, I think she's white.

The sort of white person who would read my first post where I said my son is sometimes accused of being racist and believe that because he was called that, he was that. He is not racist. At all. In fact he sends a good part of every paycheck to Unicef with a view to helping poor black children.

His fear of waiting on black people is that if a black customer gets mad at him and calls him racist a white person like Mili, who believes that where there's smoke there's fire, will believe he is racist.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Several thoughts haev wacked me on the head (not for the first time) me as I read this thread.

1)

1) A number of people on Ship of Fools, especially those from outside the USA, are very quick to label things "racist," "homophobic," "sexist," as those these labels had the same obvious meaning (and effect) for all.

2) A number of people on Ship of Fools, especially those from outside the USA, haven't a clue as to how complicated and dysfunctional the use of the label "racist" has become in the United States.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Edited to remove post.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Apologies for double posting. Somehow, once again, I clicked "enter" while writing and the post was actually ... posted. I don't seem to have the knack for this.

However, the point I was going to make is that the perceptions, definitions, and charges of "race" and "racism" have a long and insidious history in this country. Almost 150 years after the end of slavery in this country, and 50 years since the passage of serious civil rights legislation by Congress, the issues raised by Twilight ring true.

I write this as a former civil rights movement volunteer, white, life-long leftist, a believer in the goal of a MLK-ian "color-blindness" which has been mentioned earlier in this post. Twilight's experience -- which several posters here don't seem to "get" -- is not an uncommon one. Although my own experience has been different, I can empathize with Twilight's frustration. It's the frustration, I think, of man of us who, long ago, did not grasp how resilient the belief in "race" is in this country-- as is the willingness to use "race" in so many settings, for so many different reasons, and for so many different occasions. "Race" in the U.S. is the noxious weed that cannot be killed. It just seems to have become cleverer and more adaptive as the decades pass.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
no prophet

I think your main point is that white people can be racist against other white people? That's certainly true. I've read about English and American attitudes towards the Irish in the past. And the Nazis built on the pseudo-science of a previous generation when they divided up different white ethnic groups into categories based on notions of superiority.

Good point of clarification. I may be mincing words, but it seems to be something else if the race as in appearance is the same. Being of radical capitalistic left-right socialist persuasion I'm wondering about the race as the secondary characteristic that is used to justify the economic exploitation.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

As a matter of experience.

I was born a white Rhodesian. Not my fault.

In later years as a Methodist Minister I was offered a scholarship for a year at Union Theological Seminary.

The (multi-racial) Rhodesian Christian Council supported me.

I got as far as the UK on my way to the States to take up the scholarship. Then a telegram arrived from the States. " Sorry. The scholarship was for a Rhodesian national. We didnt expect a white national. Therefore we are sorry but dont bother to come"

So I booked a return passage. A victim of racism.

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

I'm sorry Twilight if you thought I was accusing your husband and son of racism. Perhaps I shouldn't type on here after midnight. I misunderstood your post to mean that you were learning to be racist because your husband and son had been verbally abused by black people - some black people have been mean to them and accused them of racism so now you mistrust all black people. I thought the problem you had was verbal abuse, which is also perpetrated by white people, but now I understand you are more upset that they have been accused of racism.

I dodged working in retail, but my sister worked in a department store for a while and came home with lots of stories about abusive customers who thought being abusive and reporting the sales staff to the manager would allow them to bypass the store policies and get a special deal on their purchases. It's sad that people will even use accusations of racism as one of these ploys to save money. In my sister's store they never gave into the customer however, and everybody who witnessed the abusive incidents would take the staff member's side. Sorry to hear this is not the case for your son and that people believe the abusive customers and their accusations sometimes.

As stated in my post I have occasionally had similar situations where I have been accused of racism, but again,no-one believed the accuser so although it was not a nice thing to go through it didn't impact my life.

And yeah I'm white, but have relatives and friends who aren't, and my Dad was born and grew up in Ethiopia, so that may make me a little sensitive when people say they are learning to be racist (or maybe I misunderstood and that's not what you meant in your original post) and blame black/Asian/Muslim people for it.

I wasn't trying to be superior either. I genuinely have seen the benefits of everybody getting along. When people in a diverse community respect and like each other (most of the time) it's amazing. I wish everyone in the world could live like that. There's lots of racism in Australia too so I really love it when I'm in community with people who are trusting and caring of each other despite ethnic differences.

I guess it comes easily to me though - my sins and temptations largely lie in other areas of my life eg. being a bit judgmental as I have been on this thread. I know it's really hard to fix the destruction that has occurred in the US and throughout the world from historic racism. It's really easy to have a dysfunctional community. Lots of years of work in community building and understanding can be undone by a few small incidents.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I do not think racism is imprinted on the DNA of white people. I do think Europe spread racism around the world for its economic benefit and the negative effects of that are still felt in a very real way today. And that white Westerners have internalized much, much more of that institutionalized racism than they are willing to accept.

I don't think Europe spread racism around the world. I think it was everywhere already. I happen to know more about Japan than about other countries, but I am sure there are equally bad stories about other places. I have already mentioned how the Koreans still suffer discrimination. The story of Ainu is worse.

During World War 2 the Asian peoples whose countries were occupied were shocked to discover that the Japanese treated them much worse than the European colonial powers had done.

Teenaged Japanese soldiers would routinely slap mayors and college professors in the face. Since they were Japanese they were obviously superior to all non-Japanese.

Racism is very evil, but it is a product of human nature, not of any specific culture.

Moo

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I do not think racism is imprinted on the DNA of white people. I do think Europe spread racism around the world for its economic benefit and the negative effects of that are still felt in a very real way today. And that white Westerners have internalized much, much more of that institutionalized racism than they are willing to accept.
I don't think Europe spread racism around the world. I think it was everywhere already. I happen to know more about Japan than about other countries, but I am sure there are equally bad stories about other places. I have already mentioned how the Koreans still suffer discrimination. The story of Ainu is worse.

During World War 2 the Asian peoples whose countries were occupied were shocked to discover that the Japanese treated them much worse than the European colonial powers had done.

Teenaged Japanese soldiers would routinely slap mayors and college professors in the face. Since they were Japanese they were obviously superior to all non-Japanese.

Racism is very evil, but it is a product of human nature, not of any specific culture.

Moo

Britain and the Netherlands maintained a physical presence in Japan long before WWII. The Dutch used Japan as a staging point for their colonial conquests in SE Asia. When Japan decided to open itself up in the 1800s they made a conscious decision to copy behaviour that it saw the European powers using in advancing its political and economic goals.

You're sort of proving my point...sorry!

Like I've said, racism exists in every society across the world. But European racism as part of a global economic strategy has had a great impact on the world and therefore requires a greater effort to overcome.

I don't understand why some are so loathe to accept this. Surely if China started enslaving Indians for the next 500 years, one would imagine that China in the year 2600 would have a major uphill battle in moving past that history. Why is Europe different? Too close to home?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
As a matter of experience.

I was born a white Rhodesian. Not my fault.

In later years as a Methodist Minister I was offered a scholarship for a year at Union Theological Seminary.

The (multi-racial) Rhodesian Christian Council supported me.

I got as far as the UK on my way to the States to take up the scholarship. Then a telegram arrived from the States. " Sorry. The scholarship was for a Rhodesian national. We didnt expect a white national. Therefore we are sorry but dont bother to come"

So I booked a return passage. A victim of racism.

Not necessarily. If the scholarship were designed to help black Africans, you simply did not fit. Just as if the scholarship were for a woman, your rejection would not make them sexist.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

LilBuddha

The scholarship was designed for " Rhodesian/Zimbabwean nationals" Its intention was to prepare 'nationals' to take the future lead in theological educdation.

It was only when Union Theological realised that "nationals" included some whites that they backtracked. A bit late in the day.

That was pure discrimination on the basis of colour. i.e. racism

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

It seems that primarily UTS was guilty of being assholes for withdrawing their scholarship, but I think their only other sin was to be incredibly unclear and ignorant. Unless you think that all scholarships intended to support particular minority groups are prejudice?

Posted by Beautiful Dreamer (# 10880) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm not racist, but I'm learning.

Why do I feel like this thread is a trap for some of us to voice opinions that will quickly be disissed as irrelevant utterances coming from white privilege?

(snipped)

Then things stared to change in a way I didn't understand. Black people wanted to be called African-American instead of just American as though they wanted to remain separate from everyone else. Instead of incorporating stories of notable black people in the history books there was to be a special Black History month. My son's best friend from age five through fifteen suddenly dropped him on the first day of high-school to join a group of all black teens. My black friend from my book club never spoke to me again after we read "Beloved," and I said I didn't like it. My husband, and the black woman he works for, both get called "racist," over the phone almost daily. It's a non-profit food bank and free store. If they have to say something like, "I'm sorry the free school supplies are all gone," or, "We're closed on Sunday," the 'r" word comes out. I was banned from a TV message board for saying something vaguely negative about the black contestant on "Big Brother." My son works in retail now and the same store policies he has to abide by with every customer are loudly called racist by his black customers. He's confessed to me that he's become afraid of them.

Colorblindness and equal treatment no longer seem to be the goal, in fact it's a dangerous way to be. On the contrary, these days it's wisest to be conscious of the color of the person we're dealing with and tread very softly or else face their wrath and all who wish to be seen as their defenders. So, as I say, I'm not racist but I'm learning to be.

Sorry to jut in, but to commisserate-
I had similar experiences to your son's when I worked in a mostly-black part of Durham, NC. There are some really nice parts of the area, but others are anything but. I was in a management training program for a rent-to-own furniture store chain, so I had to work in both local stores and learn all aspects of the job. Some of the black customers didn't seem to want me to wait on them...I thought it was something I said or did wrong until two coworkers (at two different stores and of two different non-white races) flat-out told me that the customer didn't like white people. One (black) friend told me that some of them actively resented and distrusted white people because they thought (and sometimes taught their kids to think) we were all racist backstabbers...in other words, they thought the worst of us the same way they accused us of doing to them. His comparison, not mine.

I once had a customer ask me if I was Jewish (I get that a lot, I guess it's my coloring) and, when I said I wasn't, his demeanor darkened toward me considerably...I guess when he found out I wasn't also a minority, it put me on the 'wrong' side. To be perfectly honest, sometimes I considered letting people think I wasn't a white girl so they'd be nicer to me.

I know that's crappy of me, especially considering that I was getting just a tiny bit of what some of them had (evidently)experienced through their lives. It seemed really weird to me because of what my friend said above-they didn't see any conflict with doing the same thing to others what they feel had been done to them. That doesn't make any sense to me; if you (generic) don't appreciate something being done to you, why would you do it to someone else, particularly one who had nothing to do with it and showed nothing but friendliness? That seems counterproductive to me. Am I overly naive?

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[ 15. August 2013, 19:15: Message edited by: Beautiful Dreamer ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Britain and the Netherlands maintained a physical presence in Japan long before WWII. The Dutch used Japan as a staging point for their colonial conquests in SE Asia. When Japan decided to open itself up in the 1800s they made a conscious decision to copy behaviour that it saw the European powers using in advancing its political and economic goals.

Here is a quote from this site.

quote:
In 1899 the Japanese government passed an act labeling the Ainu as former aborigines, with the idea they would assimilate—this resulted in the land the Ainu people lived on being taken by the Japanese government, and was from then on under Japanese control. Also at this time, the Ainu were granted automatic Japanese citizenship, effectively denying them the status of an indigenous group.
Ainu bear sacrifice.

The Ainu were becoming increasingly marginalized on their own land—over a period of only 36 years, the Ainu went from being a relatively isolated group of people to having their land, language, religion and customs assimilated into those of the Japanese.

Do you believe it was the influence of the British and Dutch that made the Japanese treat the Ainu the way they did?

Also, the idea of British and Dutch influence does not explain why the Japanese treated the residents of the occupied lands much worse than the British and Dutch had done.

Moo

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Not necessarily. If the scholarship were designed to help black Africans, you simply did not fit. Just as if the scholarship were for a woman, your rejection would not make them sexist.

Scholarships for black Africans, women, or other disadvantaged groups are quite explicitly examples of racial or sexual discrimination. This comes back to your initial point about is "racist in a good way" racist?

It is clear to everyone that because of the history of our society, black people and women face some disadvantages that white men don't. It is also clear that those disadvantages are getting smaller, but are not yet zero. In the face of this structural lack of parity, giving some individuals from disadvantaged groups an extra leg up can be reasonable policy.

[ 15. August 2013, 20:57: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Not necessarily. If the scholarship were designed to help black Africans, you simply did not fit. Just as if the scholarship were for a woman, your rejection would not make them sexist.
Scholarships for black Africans, women, or other disadvantaged groups are quite explicitly examples of racial or sexual discrimination. This comes back to your initial point about is "racist in a good way" racist?

It is clear to everyone that because of the history of our society, black people and women face some disadvantages that white men don't. It is also clear that those disadvantages are getting smaller, but are not yet zero. In the face of this structural lack of parity, giving some individuals from disadvantaged groups an extra leg up can be reasonable policy.

I would not call those scholarships racist, good or bad. They are not implying any characteristics, but assisting disadvantaged groups, as your second paragraph delineates.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
LilBuddha

The scholarship was designed for " Rhodesian/Zimbabwean nationals" Its intention was to prepare 'nationals' to take the future lead in theological educdation.

It was only when Union Theological realised that "nationals" included some whites that they backtracked. A bit late in the day.

That was pure discrimination on the basis of colour. i.e. racism

There are programmes designed to assist those who have been disadvantaged by racism, sexism, etc. Those programmes are not racist or sexist, inherently.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There are programmes designed to assist those who have been disadvantaged by racism, sexism, etc. Those programmes are not racist or sexist, inherently.

A program presumably cannot be racist, sexist, what-have-you. But those advancing it may be. I would tend to suspect that, when people of a given group advance a program to advantage themselves, even if it is justified as compensation for wrongs of other times or to other people, it may well have a tinge of racism or sexism in it. At the very least, it is self-serving -- pretty much by definition. Further, insisting otherwise strikes me as a tad paternalistic.

--Tom Clune

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

So then, Tom, how would you provide educational opportunities to people who have been traditionally blocked?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Dreamer:
Sorry to jut in, but to commisserate-
I had similar experiences to your son's when I worked in a mostly-black part of Durham, NC. ... Some of the black customers didn't seem to want me to wait on them...I thought it was something I said or did wrong until two coworkers (at two different stores and of two different non-white races) flat-out told me that the customer didn't like white people. One (black) friend told me that some of them actively resented and distrusted white people because they thought (and sometimes taught their kids to think) we were all racist backstabbers...in other words, they thought the worst of us the same way they accused us of doing to them. His comparison, not mine. ...

Well, let`s take a look at what is happening in North Carolina:

Black residents in North Carolina fear losing the ability to vote

So I agree that it really sucks when people automatically dislike you because of the colour of your skin. However, no one is trying to take white people`s votes away. Aren`t continued efforts to stop black people from voting fifty years after the civil rights movement kind of backstabby-racist?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
A program presumably cannot be racist, sexist, what-have-you. But those advancing it may be. I would tend to suspect that, when people of a given group advance a program to advantage themselves, even if it is justified as compensation for wrongs of other times or to other people, it may well have a tinge of racism or sexism in it. At the very least, it is self-serving -- pretty much by definition. Further, insisting otherwise strikes me as a tad paternalistic.

--Tom Clune

You lost me, Tom. I'm not getting how folks at Union Theological Seminary (which, as far as I know, is in NYC and has a student body which is diverse in race and religion) get "tinged" with racism or paternalism by setting up a scholarship for black Rhodesian ministers. Nor do I get how the scholarship policy somehow benefits the seminary (self-serving, I think you termed it), as opposed to the intended recipient(s).

What I do get is that a U.S. institution of higher learning might possibly be attempting to respond to a US variety of racism that may (or may not) be going on in Rhodesia.

That may be cultural ineptitude on somebody's part (I wouldn't know -- mebbe things are hunky-dory in Rhodesia), but I'm not understanding your post.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

That may be cultural ineptitude on somebody's part (I wouldn't know -- mebbe things are hunky-dory in Rhodesia), but I'm not understanding your post.

Just in case anyone doesn't know, Rhodesia is now called Zimbabwe, and I think it's well-known that just about everything in Zimbabwe is far from hunky-dory.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

So I gather, but that still doesn't help me in understanding tclune's post.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There are programmes designed to assist those who have been disadvantaged by racism, sexism, etc. Those programmes are not racist or sexist, inherently.

Well, I think they are, because these programmes don't look to see if the recipient has actually been significantly disadvantaged because of his sex or race, but treat anyone with the correct genitalia, skin tone or ethnic background as disadvantaged.

For example, it won't be all that long until the President's elder daughter, Malia, will be submitting college applications. Miss Obama will be eligible for scholarships aimed at encouraging African-Americans to attend university.

But Malia Obama isn't in any meaningful sense disadvantaged. Yes, she might experience racism, so she might find herself disadvantaged with respect to Chelsea Clinton, but any disadvantage that she experiences due to her skin is going to be far outweighed by the advantages of having the President of the United States of America for a father.

So the fact that Malia Obama is eligible for programmes aimed at disadvantaged youth, whereas a far more disadvantaged youth who happens to be white is not makes those programmes racist.

That doesn't necessarily make them a bad thing, and it may be that accepting some kind of affirmative action that favours Miss Obama over the impoverished son of a white West Virginia coalminer is a necessary consequence of having a system which is clear and simple, but it's still racist - it is based on assuming that the characteristic "disadvantaged" applies to all black people, which falls neatly into the definition that you gave.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

sigh
No. I think labeling them racist is decisive, inaccurate and misses the point of their reason for existence.
------
It is much more difficult to determine who escapes being disadvantaged. Malia Obama will escape most, if not all, disadvantage because who her father is. This is not something shared by the majority of blacks or females.

[ 16. August 2013, 05:40: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think labeling them racist is decisive, inaccurate and misses the point of their reason for existence.

Decisive?

I'm not being a smartarse, because I make typos myself, but in this case I genuinely can't guess what this was meant to be.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Britain and the Netherlands maintained a physical presence in Japan long before WWII. The Dutch used Japan as a staging point for their colonial conquests in SE Asia. When Japan decided to open itself up in the 1800s they made a conscious decision to copy behaviour that it saw the European powers using in advancing its political and economic goals.
Here is a quote from this site.
quote:
In 1899 the Japanese government passed an act labeling the Ainu as former aborigines, with the idea they would assimilate—this resulted in the land the Ainu people lived on being taken by the Japanese government, and was from then on under Japanese control. Also at this time, the Ainu were granted automatic Japanese citizenship, effectively denying them the status of an indigenous group.
Ainu bear sacrifice.

The Ainu were becoming increasingly marginalized on their own land—over a period of only 36 years, the Ainu went from being a relatively isolated group of people to having their land, language, religion and customs assimilated into those of the Japanese.
Do you believe it was the influence of the British and Dutch that made the Japanese treat the Ainu the way they did?

Also, the idea of British and Dutch influence does not explain why the Japanese treated the residents of the occupied lands much worse than the British and Dutch had done.

Moo

It's certainly possible the Japanese treatment of aboriginals was due to foreign influence. The Dutch got to Jaoan in th 1600s if not earlier. I don't know enough about the subject to comment further.

Do you believe that European colonialism and slavery has had a lingering impact on race, both in Europe and in places that Europe conquered? Yes or no.

All racism is bad, but is not all equivalent. A society that got rich literally off the backs of the black and brown, like Britain or France or Spain, is not the same as one where tribes bicker over resources.

Institutionalized racism, that is a result of this history, is what has the greatest oppressive effect on minorities. Not some EDL moron shouting the N-word. That's why I'm focusing on it and trying to emphasize how ingrained racism is into Western society.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think labeling them racist is decisive, inaccurate and misses the point of their reason for existence.
Decisive?

I'm not being a smartarse, because I make typos myself, but in this case I genuinely can't guess what this was meant to be.

divisive
Massive fail on my part. I'd blame the migraine, but it is just starting.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]It is clear to everyone that because of the history of our society, black people and women face some disadvantages that white men don't. It is also clear that those disadvantages are getting smaller, but are not yet zero. In the face of this structural lack of parity, giving some individuals from disadvantaged groups an extra leg up can be reasonable policy.

Sadly in the UK that isn't the case. Disadvantage is increasing both on the basis of race (although certain people of Asian origin seem to be treated by some as an exception as they are seen to work hard) - and socio/economic background. It is much harder, for example, if you are a white child from the "working class" to get a university or college place at one of the "Russell Group" of universities.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It is much harder, for example, if you are a white child from the "working class" to get a university or college place at one of the "Russell Group" of universities.

While at the same time Pakistani, Bangladeshi and black applicants are much less likely to be offered places by Russell Group universities than white applicants with the same grades.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No. I think labeling them racist is decisive, inaccurate and misses the point of their reason for existence.

Is the point of their existence to help disadvantaged youths, or to help black youths?

If the former, then it shouldn't matter what race the disadvantaged youth happens to be (or, conversely, what race an advantaged youth happens to be). If the latter, then by stating that all black youths are disadvantaged (and no white youths are) it fits easily into the definition of racism that you put forward in the OP, namely "attribution of a characteristic based upon race is racism and something can be racist irrespective of direction".

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No. I think labeling them racist is decisive, inaccurate and misses the point of their reason for existence.
Is the point of their existence to help disadvantaged youths, or to help black youths?

If the former, then it shouldn't matter what race the disadvantaged youth happens to be (or, conversely, what race an advantaged youth happens to be). If the latter, then by stating that all black youths are disadvantaged (and no white youths are) it fits easily into the definition of racism that you put forward in the OP, namely "attribution of a characteristic based upon race is racism and something can be racist irrespective of direction".

Black youth are disadvantaged compared to white ones even when taking their socioeconomic and educational backgrounds into account.

That's why you see Oxbridge accepting nearly 2x as many white students predicted AAA than black students with the same grades. That's why you see employers rejecting black or Asian sounding name applicants who have the same qualifications as white-sounding applicants.

quote:
A damning report by the Department for Work and Pensions sheds some light on the subject. It shows that people with white names are 74 per cent more likely to get called for an interview following a job application than candidates with an ethnic minority name, despite the two candidates having exactly the same qualifications. Their report, “A test for racial discrimination in recruitment practice in British cities”, involved submitting job applications from fictional white and ethnic minority applicants with equivalent qualifications for advertised vacancies across Britain in order to determine the extent of racial discrimination in the labour market.

It revealed that “a high level of racial discrimination” existed “across the board”, with ethnic minority candidates having to submit nearly twice as many job applications as white candidates to achieve the same level of success. Discrimination persisted across gender, though it was noticeably higher for males. “High numbers of candidates were denied access to a range of jobs in a range of sectors as a result of having a name associated with an ethnic minority background,” the 2009 report concluded.

Evening Standard

A working class white person who gets into university will fare better in the job market than their classmate with a black or Asian sounding name, regardless of the black or Asian persons socioeconomic background. So I would say the latter are disadvantaged.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Black youth are disadvantaged compared to white ones even when taking their socioeconomic and educational backgrounds into account.

From the rest of your post, I surmise that what you mean is "all other factors being equal, black youths are disadvantaged compared to white ones". And I wouldn't argue.

But I wasn't talking about instances where all other factors are equal. I was talking about a system that can define the President's daughter as disadvantaged, and the impoverished son of a white West Virginia coalminer as privileged. Those definitions can only be based on race, because by any other factor the "privileged/disadvantaged" categorisation would be the other way around.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So then, Tom, how would you provide educational opportunities to people who have been traditionally blocked?

I don't know. My point was descriptive, not prescriptive. But it is worth considering anyway. There is a serious flaw at the heart of much of the liberal approach to group equality. IME, the intent is to place individuals from the relevant groups in positions of prominence so that they will favor and mentor others of their group. Those in the black community who failed to do this were called "Uncle Toms" or "oreos," and subject to significant group opprobrium. The women's movement has similar expectations, although I am not aware of comparable terms that they may employ for apostates.

The point is that this is precisely the behavior that is being seen as despicable in the majority. Replicating it in the minority may, on a macroscopic level appear to make the society more just, as there are advocates for more different groups -- although each is acting in the same benighted way. It all seems rather Mandevillian to my eye.

As to Porridge's post, it is so challenged in reading comprehension that I have no idea how to respond to it meaningfully.

--Tom Clune

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Black youth are disadvantaged compared to white ones even when taking their socioeconomic and educational backgrounds into account.
From the rest of your post, I surmise that what you mean is "all other factors being equal, black youths are disadvantaged compared to white ones". And I wouldn't argue.

But I wasn't talking about instances where all other factors are equal. I was talking about a system that can define the President's daughter as disadvantaged, and the impoverished son of a white West Virginia coalminer as privileged. Those definitions can only be based on race, because by any other factor the "privileged/disadvantaged" categorisation would be the other way around.

I've never heard anyone claim that
race is the only disadvantage a person can face. Nonetheless a coal miners son does benefit from white and male privilege. He is much more likely than a black boy of any social class to reach 18 without having been harassed by the police, for a start.

I'm also confused as to why you think the coal miner's son wouldn't get any support. Speaking of presidents, Bill Clinton is from a poor background and got to Georgetown on a scholarship.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, let`s take a look at what is happening in North Carolina:

Black residents in North Carolina fear losing the ability to vote

So I agree that it really sucks when people automatically dislike you because of the colour of your skin. However, no one is trying to take white people`s votes away. Aren`t continued efforts to stop black people from voting fifty years after the civil rights movement kind of backstabby-racist?

Here is a paragraph from that link that shows the kind of provisions the law has.

quote:
Starting in 2016, the law will require not just that voters present a valid photo ID, but also that it exactly match the name on their voter registration card—an even stricter requirement than some past photo ID laws.

People have time before an election to make sure that the name on their voter registration card is correct. If not, they should contact the board that issues the cards.

The reason for these requirements is to prevent voting fraud. I don't know anything specific about North Carolina, but in some places in some states, the number of votes cast exceeded the number of voting-age residents.

Moo

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Britain and the Netherlands maintained a physical presence in Japan long before WWII.

They were allowed to trade at certain Japanese ports, but I wouldn't call that a physical presence.

quote:
The Dutch used Japan as a staging point for their colonial conquests in SE Asia.

What is your source for this?

quote:
When Japan decided to open itself up in the 1800s they made a conscious decision to copy behaviour that it saw the European powers using in advancing its political and economic goals.

How do you know about any decisions they made?

Moo

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
... The reason for these requirements is to prevent voting fraud. I don't know anything specific about North Carolina, but in some places in some states, the number of votes cast exceeded the number of voting-age residents. ...

Contrary to conservative propaganda, voter impersonation is incredibly rare in the USA. The purpose of voter ID laws is not to identify voters, but to select them.

One element of the NC law which clearly demonstrates its intent is that it eliminates advance registration for 16 and 17-year-olds. It also eliminates same-day registration. So if you happen to turn 18 on election day, YOU CAN'T VOTE. Happy birthday, young citizen. [Mad]

In Texas, you can use your concealed-carry permit as voter ID, but not your college or university ID.

Some of the voter ID laws even prevent officials from keeping the polls open if there are still voters waiting in line. Others mandate the same number of poll hours and poll workers in a county or polling area regardless of the number of voters in the area, so voters who live in sparsely populated areas can vote more easily than their urban counterparts.

That's the intent of these laws: to make it harder, more complicated, and more inconvenient for certain people to vote. Jim Crow used literacy tests and poll taxes and murderous intimidation, but his successor, James Crow, Esq. is far more subtle.

As a friend of mine used to say, don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Britain and the Netherlands maintained a physical presence in Japan long before WWII.
They were allowed to trade at certain Japanese ports, but I wouldn't call that a physical presence.
quote:
The Dutch used Japan as a staging point for their colonial conquests in SE Asia.
What is your source for this?
quote:
When Japan decided to open itself up in the 1800s they made a conscious decision to copy behaviour that it saw the European powers using in advancing its political and economic goals.
How do you know about any decisions they made?

Moo

You don't give a crap about Japan. You just can't accept that European racism is unique in world history.

But since you asked:

quote:
The Japanese knew that they were behind the rest of the world when American Commodore Matthew C. Perry came to Japan to try to issue a treaty that would open up Japanese ports to trade. Perry came to Japan in large warships with armament and technology that far outclassed those of Japan at the time. The leaders of the Meiji Restoration, as this revolution came to be known, acted in the name of restoring imperial rule in order to strengthen Japan against the threat represented by the colonial powers of the day. The word "Meiji" means "enlightened rule" and the goal was to combine "western advances" with the traditional, "eastern" values

and

quote:
Japan dispatched the Iwakura Mission in 1871. The mission traveled the world in order to renegotiate the unequal treaties with the United States and European countries that Japan had been forced into during the Tokugawa shogunate, and to gather information on western social and economic systems, in order to effect the modernization of Japan. Renegotiation of the unequal treaties was universally unsuccessful, but close observation of the American and European systems inspired members on their return to bring about modernization initiatives in Japan.

and

quote:
The Japanese government sent students to Western countries to observe and learn their practices, and also paid "foreign advisors" in a variety of fields to come to Japan to educate the populace.

and

quote:
The most important feature of the Meiji period was Japan's struggle for recognition of its considerable achievement and for equality with Western nations. Japan was highly successful in organizing an industrial, capitalist state on Western models. But when Japan also began to apply the lessons it learned from European imperialism, the West reacted negatively. In a sense Japan's chief handicap was that it entered into the Western dominated world order at a late stage. Colonialism and the racist ideology that accompanied it, were too entrenched in Western countries to allow an "upstart," nonwhite nation to enter the race for natural resources and markets as an equal. Many of the misunderstandings between the West and Japan stemmed from Japan's sense of alienation from the West, which seemed to use a different standard in dealing with European nations than it did with a rising Asian power like Japan.

From Wikipedia and Columbia University
Columbia University - Meiji Restoration

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:

The reason for these requirements is to prevent voting fraud. I don't know anything specific about North Carolina, but in some places in some states, the number of votes cast exceeded the number of voting-age residents.

.. and you know that a number of these allegations - especially the ones circulating via email have turned out to be urban legends? There's even a snopes page on it:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It's certainly possible the Japanese treatment of aboriginals was due to foreign influence. The Dutch got to Jaoan in th 1600s if not earlier. I don't know enough about the subject to comment further.

The Dutch and other Europeans reached Japan well before 1600, and before any European countries had the huge empires they later came to control. Europeans were known as nanban, that is to say Southern barbarians, because all non-Japanese were regarded as barbarians (most assuredly not as role models) and were categorised by the direction they came from. Europeans were wholly excluded from Japan on pain of death for over 200 years from the early 1600s until the later part of the nineteenth century. Their influence on Japanese culture, attitudes and prejudices throughout all that time was nil.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Do you believe that European colonialism and slavery has had a lingering impact on race, both in Europe and in places that Europe conquered? Yes or no.

The question is directed to Moo I know, but for myself the answer to your question is 'yes'. But your posts on this thread don't argue there is a "lingering impact" from this history in Western society (which is clearly true) but rather that you believe the legacy specifically of European colonialism and European-sponsored slavery (as distinct from thousands of years of colonialism and slavery for which others are responsible) is solely and uniquely to blame for the existence of racism. I don't agree with that.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
All racism is bad, but is not all equivalent. A society that got rich literally off the backs of the black and brown, like Britain or France or Spain, is not the same as one where tribes bicker over resources.

Yes, all racism is bad. That black and brown people in Britain, France and Spain (and elsewhere) suffer from racist prejudice despite well-intentioned laws to remove it is undeniable. It is a tragedy that countless people in those countries struggle against racist prejudice and in consequence disproportionately fail to make the most of their potential and to progress as far as they should in education and career, that they face personal slights and abuse for racist reasons.

But (to take one example rather than clog the thread with scores) is the traditional prejudice of some central African people towards pygmy peoples inconsequential and irrelevant by comparison? That isn't petty squabbling over resources but rather an ingrained attitude that pygmy people are not truly people at all. I've read that the UN has investigated instances of pygmies being hunted as game animals as recently as the 1990s for instance. The history of that prejudice is very long incidentally, predating by far the colonial era.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Institutionalized racism, that is a result of this history, is what has the greatest oppressive effect on minorities. Not some EDL moron shouting the N-word. That's why I'm focusing on it and trying to emphasize how ingrained racism is into Western society.

Yes, you're right and whilst abuse is bad being treated as a lower class of person, or even not really a person at all is worse still. That was a commonplace expression of colonial power of course, and I wouldn't disagree that the lingering institutional or ingrained customary racism in the West is rooted in those attitudes.

But I wouldn't accept the premise that before White Western Colonialism nobody ever had such attitudes and that but for the vestiges of that White Western Colonial thinking it wouldn't happen anywhere in the world. There are examples all over the world of one people treating another as inferior, and doing that 'institutionally' in ways that are sanctioned by long custom and practice or enshrined in the law of the land.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

I just want to clarify that I have never made any of the following claims:

- only the West is racist
- racism didn't exist before European colonialism

I am not going to respond to things that I have never said and that I do not personally believe.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I just want to clarify that I have never made any of the following claims:

- only the West is racist
- racism didn't exist before European colonialism

Then what exactly is your claim that all instances of racism in the wider world are purely a byproduct of white western imperialism supposed to mean?

You've been given the example of Japan, and you persist in claiming that that racism only exists there because it was learned from white westerners. What are you trying to prove by such assertions, if not that racism in non-white populations was learned from white ones?

[ 16. August 2013, 14:16: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I just want to clarify that I have never made any of the following claims:

- only the West is racist
- racism didn't exist before European colonialism
Then what exactly is your claim that all instances of racism in the wider world are purely a byproduct of white western imperialism supposed to mean?

You've been given the example of Japan, and you persist in claiming that that racism only exists there because it was learned from white westerners. What are you trying to prove by such assertions, if not that racism in non-white populations was learned from white ones?

How on Earth is anything I've said here an argument that all racism derives from Europe.

I will say it loud and clear.

Racism against minorities in the West that exists today is a result of systemic, institutionalized racism on a scale never achieved in the history of the world, perpetrated by the European colonial powers.

I have repeatedly limited my claims to Europe, North America, South Africa, and other former European colonies.

Someone mentioned Japan - not me - and I responded that Europe had a presence in Japan and in fact there is historical evidence that Japan mimicked what saw Europe doing in order to modernize itself. I did not bring that up myself.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

An academic article that I have just Googled - so clearly I am not making this claim up in my head.

White myths, black omissions: the historical origins of racism in Britain

Abstract
Racism in Britain is rooted in history. This article considers the ways in which Britishness was constructed around white visions of identity, rooted in imperial attitudes and assumptions. Although the dominant view is that the black presence in Britain was not significant before large-scale immigration after the Second World War, this article sheds light on the rich and varied nature of black people’s
experiences in Britain in the nineteenth century. The central argument is that racism
today can only be fully appreciated if we recognise the racist assumptions that
dominated the period between the mid-nineteenth century and World War II.

Institute of Commonwealth Studies

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I just want to clarify that I have never made any of the following claims:

- only the West is racist
- racism didn't exist before European colonialism

I am not going to respond to things that I have never said and that I do not personally believe.

I have formed the contrary impression and was prompted to post because of posts such as this (emphasis is mine):

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
In Europe and North American the legacy of racist institutions remain and therefore the racism experienced by minorities on those places cannot simply be compared to the type of "don't trust the guy who's not from around here" behaviour that can be found anywhere.

There is a tendency for some to try and explain away the racism in their own societies by suggesting that "everyone does it." No one else has done it like Europe has unfortunately (and by extension Europe's colonies with race issues like the US, South Africa, Brazil, etc). And God willing no one else ever will.

and this:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The world's most powerful countries institutionalized racism against Africans, Native Americans, and Asians through colonialism and empire, and exported that racism throughout the world. Let's put this into context here.

Europe is largely unmatched in this type of behaviour, whether one wants to accept it or not. Most other racism you find in the world is tribalism or sectarianism, rather than a political, social and economic structure based on subjugating certain people due to their physical appearance. Yes it happened elsewhere, but not on the scale achieved by colonial Europe.

You made those posts in reply to people who were suggesting that racism is and has always been found around the world, that it is a form of the "fear/distrust of The Other" phenomenon. You weren't replying to anyone who had suggested (as nobody has) that that there is no racism in the West, or that there were no racist views held and spread by Western Colonialism.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

Nothing you highlighted says no one else was racist.

It says no one perpetrated racism in the same scale or manner as Europe. And I repeat - God willing, no one else will.

I stand by it and history generally supports me, so feelings aside I'm not going to back down from this position. Sorry.

I don't think anyone here (OK maybe one person here) is on a personal level racist or feels superior to other races. What your ancestors may or may not have done shouldn't be such a touchy subject.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It says no one perpetrated racism in the same scale or manner as Europe.

That's only because Europe happened to be the continent whose people were able to colonise the world first. I have no doubt that the result would have been the same (with the colours reversed, of course) had it been Asia, Africa, South America or North America who had been first to develop the technology to do so.

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Nothing you highlighted says no one else was racist.

It says no one perpetrated racism in the same scale or manner as Europe. And I repeat - God willing, no one else will.

I stand by it and history generally supports me, so feelings aside I'm not going to back down from this position. Sorry.

I don't think anyone here (OK maybe one person here) is on a personal level racist or feels superior to other races. What your ancestors may or may not have done shouldn't be such a touchy subject.

Ok, I'm keen to understand because I think your perspective is different to mine. Am I being true to your views in paraphrasing them as follows?

1. Racist views and attitudes are to be found in any society anywhere or any time. (This is what you seemed not to accept, but which I now understand you do.)

2. White westerners during the colonial era were particularly racist in their attitudes, more so than anyone else ever has been.

3. Because of the disparity of power between white western countries and the rest of the world during the colonial era, those white western countries perpetrated racially motivated abuse of power on a scale no other era has ever seen. That has had an unprecedented impact on the psyche, not only of the former colonial countries of the West but also on their former colonies.

4. Although racist attitudes are common to all humanity, the legacy of white western colonialism is so powerful that in those societies touched by it (whether coloniser or colonised, or perhaps even just as observers of it in the case of places like Japan) racism cannot now be understood in any other context.

I'm a bit of a history geek, and I'd take issue with some of those points, but I want to be clear that I am not misinterpreting you.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
no prophet

I think your main point is that white people can be racist against other white people? That's certainly true. I've read about English and American attitudes towards the Irish in the past. And the Nazis built on the pseudo-science of a previous generation when they divided up different white ethnic groups into categories based on notions of superiority.
Good point of clarification. I may be mincing words, but it seems to be something else if the race as in appearance is the same.

This assumes that racism is simply about appearance. But that's no so. Have you heard of the notion of 'passing for white'? This has always struck me as strange. After all, if a person 'looks white', then surely they are white?? Isn't whiteness is simply an absence of colour? Apparently not. Race is more of a construct (as someone has surely already said) than a physical reality.

And not everyone sees the same thing. What looks like whiteness to one group of people may look like something else to another. Americans from the Deep South and people from the Caribbean are probably much better at spotting the 'blackness' in the features of someone who in the North or in Europe would be assumed to be 'white'. The English Victorians saw the Irish as physically different from themselves, not as 'white' people who happened to come from an backward culture:
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/race/rc5.html

There are books on Amazon about how the Jews, the Irish and certain other immigrant groups gradually 'became white' after arrival in the USA. The processes involved were likely to be social, economic, political and psychological, and had little to do with changes in pigmentation or bone structure!

[ 16. August 2013, 15:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It says no one perpetrated racism in the same scale or manner as Europe.
That's only because Europe happened to be the continent whose people were able to colonise the world first. I have no doubt that the result would have been the same (with the colours reversed, of course) had it been Asia, Africa, South America or North America who had been first to develop the technology to do so.

Sure, it could have been space aliens too. Doesn't matter. Every individual has the capacity for racism and every act of racism is wrong, no matter who does it or what skin tone they have.

My overarching point was that racism experienced by minorities in the West goes beyond name-calling and hurt feelings, but is institutionalized and has a measurable effect on economic and educational prospects. It does not require individual acts of racism for British or American society to have the effect of excluding or mistreating minorities, because the structures are already in place.

I think I've made that point and so I will take a break and allow others who I'm sure have interesting positions and their own experiences to get a word in [Smile]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Sure, it could have been space aliens too. Doesn't matter.

It emphatically does matter, especially when you're using the fact that Europe happened to colonise the world first to claim that European racism is worse in and of itself than Asian, African or American racism.

Europeans aren't any more or less racist than people from other continents, it's just that they were the ones who actually had the ability to subjugate (most of) the rest of the world.

quote:
Every individual has the capacity for racism and every act of racism is wrong, no matter who does it or what skin tone they have.

My overarching point was that racism experienced by minorities in the West goes beyond name-calling and hurt feelings, but is institutionalized and has a measurable effect on economic and educational prospects.

See, this makes it sound like you think that no other (AKA not western white) culture has ever done anything worse than name calling and hurting feelings as their expression of racism (unless taught to do so by those evil white westerners, of course). But that's just not true.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

In Texas, you can use your concealed-carry permit as voter ID, but not your college or university ID.

Whilst I agree with you that the intent behind most US voter ID laws is to prevent poor people and black people from voting (because they probably vote for the Democratic party), this particular rule could be quite rational - because if you are going to require ID to vote, this only makes a shred of sense if the ID you require is government-issued with a certain degree of certainty attached to the identification, and I wouldn't expect a student ID card to necessarily meet that standard.

Personally, I am not opposed to requiring ID from voters, as long as you also make it easy for people to acquire ID (which means IDs are free, and mobile ID-issuing buses travel around so that poor people without reliable transport don't have to somehow make their way to the single DMV office in the county, and so on. And funnily enough, most of the people in favor of voter ID laws don't want to do any of that stuff.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So then, Tom, how would you provide educational opportunities to people who have been traditionally blocked?
I don't know. My point was descriptive, not prescriptive. But it is worth considering anyway. There is a serious flaw at the heart of much of the liberal approach to group equality. IME, the intent is to place individuals from the relevant groups in positions of prominence so that they will favor and mentor others of their group.

--Tom Clune

All systems have flaws, yes. But to address the line I bolded, this is exactly the system that was, and still is, in place which prompted disadvantaged groups to start their own programmes. The problem with a programme that allows no distinction is that it creates an environment in which discrimination flourishes.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

But I wasn't talking about instances where all other factors are equal. I was talking about a system that can define the President's daughter as disadvantaged, and the impoverished son of a white West Virginia coalminer as privileged. Those definitions can only be based on race, because by any other factor the "privileged/disadvantaged" categorisation would be the other way around.

But this is an unreasonable comparison. Malea Obama is no more a typical example of the Black experience than using George Burns to prove the health benefits of smoking.
Cracker was used on a recent thread. If you call a poor, white Southern American "cracker" this will be taken as an insult. However, if you say the same to a New Yorker or Los Angeleno, you will be more likely met with incomprehension than indignation. Call a black person nigger anywhere in the western world and you will be delivering an insult. From Honolulu to London to Gisborne. Savile Row suit to Potato Sack dress, being black carries a disadvantage.
It would be lovely if we could say, ["From this point forward, we will discriminate no longer, full stop", but this does not erase the centuries of disadvantage.
It is akin to a society in which running races is the determining factor for advancement. One group is allowed to train and compete. The other is locked in the cellar with iron shackles and only a small window to view the race. One day, the shackles are cast off and the cellar door open. "You may now compete! The race starts in 5 minutes, good luck".

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Sure, it could have been space aliens too. Doesn't matter.
It emphatically does matter, especially when you're using the fact that Europe happened to colonise the world first to claim that European racism is worse in and of itself than Asian, African or American racism.

Europeans aren't any more or less racist than people from other continents, it's just that they were the ones who actually had the ability to subjugate (most of) the rest of the world.

quote:
Every individual has the capacity for racism and every act of racism is wrong, no matter who does it or what skin tone they have.

My overarching point was that racism experienced by minorities in the West goes beyond name-calling and hurt feelings, but is institutionalized and has a measurable effect on economic and educational prospects.
See, this makes it sound like you think that no other (AKA not western white) culture has ever done anything worse than name calling and hurting feelings as their expression of racism (unless taught to do so by those evil white westerners, of course). But that's just not true.

Obviously you are committed to believing that's my position, so feel free to do so. It's not interesting for other posters to see a back and forth between the two of us that is not about race but about whether you think I think white people are especially evil - I don't, certainly my white husband would be shocked to hear it anyway!

Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on :

I think the arguments about cultural differences, which happen to often coincide with ethnic or race differences, ring true to me, personally.

I work in a store and live in an area that is very diverse. I'm put-off by the way some men speak to me and how they seem so keen to tell me how attractive I am in what I consider to be a forward, demeaning way. They interrupt me, derail the conversation, and one even told me how good sex feels. It happens that they have a certain accent and a darker skin tone.

It's not that white men haven't been known to do the same thing, but as a general rule, the men from this particular area of the world seem to be more likely to do that. Is treating women this way normative for that area, or are they getting a kick out of disarming a white woman.

Another group come across as very direct and rather abrupt and demanding, but perhaps in their area of the world abrupt and demanding is the norm for shoppers. In other words, I find them rude, but maybe they're not rude at all, given the cultural mores they're used to.

I have had African Americans play the games with me (you know, slowing down and blocking your way when you're behind them or trying to cross an intersection, asking a cashier tons of questions just to hold up the line, deliberately giving false information, and servers and host/hostesses in restaurants ignoring the white folks or seating the black folks first), but in general, I don't experience much racism towards me. There was the time when I was new in town and I applied for a job at a fast food restaurant, of the same chain I'd worked for in my previous place - and which gave me excellent reviews - to be told that the way he (the manager) hired was to have you work for a week and then he'd tell you how much he would pay you (yeah; you can see where THAT is going. I'd knock myself out and he'd tell me I would get minimum wage). Given that he wasn't keen on meeting me in the first place, but then found my excellent reference, and my observing that were I working that day, I would have been the only white person, I couldn't help but wonder whether my race was an issue with him. Maybe, maybe not.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
My overarching point was that racism experienced by minorities in the West... ..is institutionalized and has a measurable effect on economic and educational prospects. It does not require individual acts of racism for British or American society to have the effect of excluding or mistreating minorities, because the structures are already in place.

Do you have any examples of minorities mistreated by "structures" without individual acts of racism ? Because your thesis isn't self-evidently true.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Malea Obama is no more a typical example of the Black experience than using George Burns to prove the health benefits of smoking. ...

And if Sasha and Malia Obama happen to NOT be recognized, they will be treated just as any other black woman would be treated.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you have any examples of minorities mistreated by "structures" without individual acts of racism ? Because your thesis isn't self-evidently true.

Best wishes,

Russ

Not trying to answer for others, but just provide some context: the USA is still geographically segregated by race and income. So it isn't necessary for structures to have explicit racial aspects, because geographic discrimination can be used as a proxy.

I think it's really important not to get bogged down with the notion that racism has to always include an individual deliberately making a judgment about another individual based on race, because that just isn't the only way racism happens in the real world. It happens in lots and lots of subtle, indirect ways, and to perpetually argue them away is just a blatant refusal to acknowledge another person's experiences. There seems to be a fear that if racism is acknowledged, then some sort of personal responsibility is automatically incurred. Why? And why not? We're all part of multiple social structures that do things to people, and those structures really do look different from other angles.

"Let's talk" is never going to happen if the first response is always argument or denial. Or, to put it another way, "You're wrong / deluded / lying" is not a good conversation starter. Neither is "Things used to be worse" or "We're no worse than anyone else."

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I think it's really important not to get bogged down with the notion that racism has to always include an individual deliberately making a judgment about another individual based on race, because that just isn't the only way racism happens in the real world. It happens in lots and lots of subtle, indirect ways, and to perpetually argue them away is just a blatant refusal to acknowledge another person's experiences.

I could not agree more.

Here in The Atlantic is some information about how segregation born of American racism continues to affect black Americans:

quote:
On average, affluent blacks and Hispanics live in neighborhoods with fewer resources than poor whites do.
Census data from 2000, for example, showed that the average black household making more than $60,000 lived in a neighborhood with a higher poverty rate than the average white household earning less than $20,000.
A longitudinal study run from 1968-2005 found that the average black child spent one-quarter of his or her childhood living in a high-poverty neighborhood. For the average white child, that number is 3 percent.
The black child poverty rate in 1968 was 35 percent; it is the same today.
Minorities make up 56 percent of the population living in neighborhoods within two miles of the nation's commercial hazardous waste facilities.
Middle-income blacks (with household incomes between $50,000-$60,000) live in neighborhoods that are on average more polluted than the average neighborhood where white households making less than $10,000 live.

Why are things like this?

quote:
For decades, policies around who is eligible for home loans, where we pave highways, and what kinds of houses can be built in some communities have encouraged middle-class whites to leave the city and move into the suburbs. At the same time, ill-fated government ideas about public housing clustered low-income blacks in high-rise housing projects. Mass incarceration further weakened minority communities.

The problem of racism is much larger than the individual choices we make, as important as those choices might be in our own lives. Racism is built into the structures of American society.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So it isn't necessary for structures to have explicit racial aspects, because geographic discrimination can be used as a proxy.

For example, schooling. Various cities have bused children across the city in order to mix children from different areas in schools, because the areas themselves have been strongly racially segregated (partly due to things like redlining, partly due to self-selection), and there have been pretty much continuous legal challenges to this.

There are obvious downsides to busing, but the upside is that with pupils randomly assigned to schools, whichever group has political power can't favour "their" schools with more funding etc., because "their" kids are in all the schools.

Posted by Beautiful Dreamer (# 10880) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Dreamer:
Sorry to jut in, but to commisserate-
I had similar experiences to your son's when I worked in a mostly-black part of Durham, NC. ... Some of the black customers didn't seem to want me to wait on them...I thought it was something I said or did wrong until two coworkers (at two different stores and of two different non-white races) flat-out told me that the customer didn't like white people. One (black) friend told me that some of them actively resented and distrusted white people because they thought (and sometimes taught their kids to think) we were all racist backstabbers...in other words, they thought the worst of us the same way they accused us of doing to them. His comparison, not mine. ...
Well, let`s take a look at what is happening in North Carolina:

Black residents in North Carolina fear losing the ability to vote

So I agree that it really sucks when people automatically dislike you because of the colour of your skin. However, no one is trying to take white people`s votes away. Aren`t continued efforts to stop black people from voting fifty years after the civil rights movement kind of backstabby-racist?

I wasn't saying black people aren't or haven't been treated badly by the white majority. They certainly have. What I didn't understand is why individuals (those customers) don't want people to think that everyone in *their* group is bad and then turn around and do the same thing. They want to be seen as individual and not a stereotype, but they aren't willing to do that for others. My friend and I thought it interesting that something so obvious to us wouldn't occur to them. I suppose it's a natural defense mechanism.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

When I was at an international six form college, I remember a great deal of debate ensuing when a black American student alleged all white people are racist because of the slave trade.

Seekingsister's position is a lot more complex than this - basically describing / asserting institutional racism on an international scale (which I think is valid). However, if you feel defensive about accusations of racism - and frankly I am (not uniquely I think) - then it is easy to hear what she says as the same as that blanket condemnation from when I was 17. So then - everyone is/was racist we just happened to be powerrful is an obvious response.

I remember we used to have regular national evenings, when students would perform skits from their country or region. At the end of the evening they would perform their national anthem and everyone would stand for it. Everyone did this, including Germany with a preface about how the anthem changed after WW2. Then we had the British national evening, the Scots sang Flower of Scotland, the Welsh Sang their anthem partly in Welsh, the northern Irish sang Danny Boy and the English - the English sang if are happy and you know it clap your hands. No-one wanted to identify as British, and people often treat the British Empire as if it was in fact the English empire.

I have non-white friends, but I have no black friends - this is not a conscious choice. I met most of my friends through my professional trainng or through my main hobby - there were/ are no black peers in those cohorts. I live on street where there are no black families. I do live in quite a multicultural area - but that diversity exists largely in the university students (much younger and self-contained peer group) or via immigration from other communities - Asia, Persia, Eastern Europe, Portugal. Where my parents live it was news when they got a black traffic warden in the village - he was the only black person you saw amongst the permenant residents.

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

It's hard to explain institutional racism. Some people now use 'privilege' to try to explain it, but this is often misunderstood. White, rich, straight, able bodied men in particular might get defensive because in this world view they are privileged above everyone else. It doesn't mean they don't have any problems, but I can see how it could be understood this way. We don't get to choose who we are born as, where or when and many people get defensive if their group is said to have more advantages than others.

However it's a very short time since many white people were proud to think of themselves as above and more intelligent than everyone else, and men naturally saw themselves as women's betters and leaders. Some people still think this way and the results continue to be reflected in positions of power in majority white countries.

If individually you are working at treating everyone as your equal I don't think you should feel defensive when issues of racism and sexism come up, however psychologically I guess it makes sense to feel defensive if you feel criticised. I'm sorry again for not being more sensitive to Twilight further up the thread.

I used to feel really grumpy when people trotted out the usual white Australian stereotypes (drunk, no culture, unintelligent, racist, criminal, boorish, promiscuous etc.) Then I accepted that some Australians are like that, but I'm not and neither are many white Australians I know so I don't care what others think. It can't be compared to racism though - white Australians find it easy enough to find work, friends and social acceptance in majority white countries and most other countries too. When I lived in London I had lots of teaching work, mainly of non-white kids and no-one judged me for being white or Australian. And no white British people told me to go back where I came from or accused me of taking British jobs either.

As to England itself, I saw a sea of English flags during the 2006 Football World Cup. Every second person in London seemed to wear an English top at that time. So maybe things are changing - or is it just when it comes to sport?

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

I think it's really important not to get bogged down with the notion that racism has to always include an individual deliberately making a judgment about another individual based on race, because that just isn't the only way racism happens in the real world.

Do you see that this makes no sense at all to people who use the word "racism" to mean something like "an individual treating another individual less favourably because they are of a different race" ?

"Let's talk" gets nowhere if different people use the same word for different things.

On planet Russ it makes sense to ask questions like "how much of the relative poverty of immigrants is due to racial prejudice?". If you use language in a way that that question becomes "how much of racism is due to racism" then it's going to be hard to get meaningful answers.

Hope you see what I'm getting at even if I haven't said that quite right.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I'm confused, Russ.

Racism is prejudice based upon the notion that characteristics are inherent in "Race". How does the notion that this must be an individual act apply?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
As to England itself, I saw a sea of English flags during the 2006 Football World Cup. Every second person in London seemed to wear an English top at that time. So maybe things are changing - or is it just when it comes to sport?

It's just sport.

I don't think the lack of English national symbols is solely due to embarrassment. English cultural assertion is usually expressed by treating Englishness - or even London-and-South-East-ness - as the normal state and everything else as a colourful aberration. The English have been the dominant power for long enough that they don't really need any assertive nationalism.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
English cultural assertion is usually expressed by treating Englishness - or even London-and-South-East-ness - as the normal state and everything else as a colourful aberration.

Messrs. Flanders and Swan hit the mark, as usual:

quote:

The English, the English, the English are best
So up with the English and down with the rest.

It's not that they're wicked or natuarally bad
It's knowing they're foreign that makes them so mad!

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

Is racism, on the micro level, fundamentally any different from tribalism? The macro consequences are not the same, but is there a fundamental difference between black vs white and Tutsi vs Hutu* or Montague vs Capulet or Serb vs Croat vs Bonsiak?

(Obviously the ubiquity of racism makes a macro difference - you can, in principle, travel somewhere where nobody knows that you're a Hutu or a Montague, but you can't escape your skin tone.)

*To save seekingsister the need to point it out, I am familiar with the theory that the Tutsi/Hutu division was artificially created and sustained by European colonists as part of a divide-and-rule strategy.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

I think it's really important not to get bogged down with the notion that racism has to always include an individual deliberately making a judgment about another individual based on race, because that just isn't the only way racism happens in the real world.
Do you see that this makes no sense at all to people who use the word "racism" to mean something like "an individual treating another individual less favourably because they are of a different race" ? ...

Well, of course it makes no sense to them. It makes no sense because they're wrong. They have created their own reality, where racism has been ended by defining it out of existence and everything is hugs and puppies and rainbows and all those people complaining about racism are whining about nothing.

It's quite easy to make sense of, however. All it takes is acknowledging that their definition of racism is incomplete. How hard is that? Because right now their contribution to the conversation on racism is "LALALA that's not racism LALALA that's not racism."

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

I think it's really important not to get bogged down with the notion that racism has to always include an individual deliberately making a judgment about another individual based on race, because that just isn't the only way racism happens in the real world.
Do you see that this makes no sense at all to people who use the word "racism" to mean something like "an individual treating another individual less favourably because they are of a different race" ?

Part of the point is that some of that less favourable treatment is subconscious. For example, suppose an employer deliberately favours people like him. On the surface, that's maybe not so bad an idea - he's done well at his job, so it's not unreasonable to think that other people with the same kind of background and experiences will do well too, and of course he has to work closely with this new hire, so if they have the same cultural referents, that will make the wheels of collaboration run a little more smoothly. None of this is necessarily particularly conscious - it's just that he's recognizing the qualities that he has in the applicants that are similar to him.

Now, because of past history, the employer in question is most likely to be a white man, probably from a middle-class or better background. When he, and many other men like him, looks for new employees, he may well subconsciously favour other white middle-class men.

Without a shred of bigoted intent on anyone's part, you still get a result which is racist (and sexist...)

What words would you like to use to describe this?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
When I was at an international six form college, I remember a great deal of debate ensuing when a black American student alleged all white people are racist because of the slave trade.

The trans-Atlantic slave trade is actually evidence of the universality of racism.

When the Europeans bought into it, it had already existed for centuries, with sub-Saharan Africans enslaving sub-Saharan Africans from other ethnicities/regions/language groups, and Arab slave-traders operating as the entrepreneurial middlemen.

Its extension overseas on the part of Europeans was due to their superior technology, especially marine technology.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

Pardon my coming to this late but a vacation intervened.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBhudda
Let us start with a definition. Racism is prejudice...

There is the heart of the problem; pre (before) judice (judging). The thought occurs instinctively and sub consciously. It is basically a survival instinct from our primate forebears. It recognizes something about the "other" that hits the f;ight or fight instinct. A lot of million years have somewhat softened the response but it still remains. It can be seen in the tribal inclination to gather in groups "like me"; be they national, occupational or whatever.

This is an inherited trait that can only be modified by living in the shoes of the other; that is, the Golden Rule. Johnathan Haidt, an evolutionary Psychologist, writes in his book, The Righteous Mind, that these built-in reactions cannot be easily changed except by experience and empathy. As for experience Haidt recounts his experience in India and suggests there is a normal human capacity for empathy.
[QUOTE]As empathy kicked in, I liked these people who were hosting me, helping me, and teaching me. If you really want to change someone's mind on a moral or political matter, you'll need to see things from that person's angle as well as your own. And if you do truly see it the other person's way - deeply and intuitively - you might find your own mind opening in response. Empathy is an antidote to righteousness, although it's very difficult to empathize across a moral divide. [QUOTE]

[ 19. August 2013, 00:40: Message edited by: IconiumBound ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

KC,
Slavery has existed for millennia and in cultures accross the globe. However, I ask you for examples with the scale and brutality with which Europeans treated Africans.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
marine technology.

D'oh!

Meant to write maritime technology.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
KC,
Slavery has existed for millennia and in cultures accross the globe. However, I ask you for examples with the scale and brutality with which Europeans treated Africans.

Are you talking absolute numbers, percentage of a population, or as a system integral to a society ? (There was a fair amount of bog standard genocide around in the world too of course.)

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
KC,
Slavery has existed for millennia and in cultures accross the globe. However, I ask you for examples with the scale and brutality with which Europeans treated Africans.

Slavery under the Roman Empire (proto-European if you like, but not what people usually mean when they use the term European in this context) would have come pretty close, and if you add the slavery practiced in Africa and Asia over the millennia, the numbers enslaved by Europe, obscene though they were, are greatly exceeded.

As to racism in general, Han dominance in China, the world’s most populous country, has already been mentioned, and in India, the second most populous, successions of migrations over the centuries from the north exterminated, subjugated or uprooted India’s indigenous peoples, the remnants of whom are known as Scheduled Tribes, or Tribals.

The same thing happened in South Africa shortly before white settlement, when migrations from the north dispossessed the indigenous peoples, the remnants of whom include the Kalahari Bushmen.

Europe’s sorry history of racism is too well known and acknowledged to require exaggerated claims of uniqueness.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The trans-Atlantic slave trade is actually evidence of the universality of racism.

I don't think it is. People have traded slaves for millennia without bothering themselves about race. Racist theories arose in Europe because people were coming to believe that slavery was wrong and still wanted a justification for doing it. Racism grew up as a justification for saying that while slavery in general is wrong, enslaving these people isn't.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
My overarching point was that racism experienced by minorities in the West... ..is institutionalized and has a measurable effect on economic and educational prospects. It does not require individual acts of racism for British or American society to have the effect of excluding or mistreating minorities, because the structures are already in place.
Do you have any examples of minorities mistreated by "structures" without individual acts of racism ? Because your thesis isn't self-evidently true.

Best wishes,

Russ

Felon disenfranchisement (i.e. not allowing convicted felons ever to vote) is de facto racist. If you tie that into racial profiling and the poor quality of legal advice/public defending that many accused have access to, you get a picture of black people more likely to be arrested, more likely to plead guilty on bad advice, more likely to therefore be barred from voting.

Felon Voting Rights

The Innocence Project is something that should scare any good person. It uses DNA to exonerate people who have been falsely convicted. About 2/3 of the people who have been exonerated with DNA evidence are black. Some of them were in prison for 15-20 years before being released.
Innocence Project

The Innocence Project also points out that 40% of the cases had incorrect eyewitness testimony that was cross-racial. For example, a white witness who misidentified a black suspect. Again that's not racist as in someone hating black people, but because they don't know black people or see us often, they misidentify us or confuse us with others.

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The trans-Atlantic slave trade is actually evidence of the universality of racism.
I don't think it is. People have traded slaves for millennia without bothering themselves about race. Racist theories arose in Europe because people were coming to believe that slavery was wrong and still wanted a justification for doing it. Racism grew up as a justification for saying that while slavery in general is wrong, enslaving these people isn't.

I think that's only partly true. It was perhaps true of the enormous African trade in slaves internally, and it may have been more the norm in the ancient world. Much historical slavery though has been a trade in people who were appreciably 'different' from the slave owners.

Arab slave trading from Africa predated the white western traders by several hundred years and continued unchecked after the west abolished it. In aggregate numbers it was a trade at least comparable to the western slave trade and may well have exceeded it considerably. The mortality rate of slaves taken to Arabia was perhaps even more horrific than that of the notorious middle passage.

Arab and Turk slave traders also dealt extensively in European slaves. Not just the famed Barbary pirates (who are thought to have taken 1.25 million western Europeans into slavery most of whom perished in conditions of brutality), but also at least twice as many people harvested in Eastern Europe by Tatars and sold into the Ottomon empire's slave markets.

quote:
"the Black nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Blacks) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals".

That isn't a quote from an 18th century white western slave captain. It's from the 14th century scholar ibn Kaldun.

I've picked an example that's easy to demonstrate and I could have used others, from Asia perhaps. I don't for a moment mean to defend the trade in African slaves operated by the European colonial countries. It was shameful and abhorrent. But I don't think it's easy to argue that it was so much more evil than any other example that it defines the very issue of discrimination on grounds of race.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Ye Gods, I did not intend to start a debate over who's slavery was worse. It was a reaction to a comment which seemed to be the "everyone has done this" argument often intended to reduce culpability.
I can do a decent argument in the slavery debate, however this is a tangent.
Though I will note that the barbarity with which the Europeans and Americans treated black Africans as well as the rational used by Arabs, Europeans and Americans to enslave black Africans was race-based and germane to the discussion.

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ye Gods, I did not intend to start a debate over who's slavery was worse. It was a reaction to a comment which seemed to be the "everyone has done this" argument often intended to reduce culpability.
I can do a decent argument in the slavery debate, however this is a tangent.
Though I will note that the barbarity with which the Europeans and Americans treated black Africans as well as the rational used by Arabs, Europeans and Americans to enslave black Africans was race-based and germane to the discussion.

Agreed. To my mind the slavery debate isn't an especially good way of shedding light on the nature of racism. Not only is it an extreme example (likewise genocide), but the motivations behind slavery are usually mixed - economic as much as racist - which makes it also a poor example.

There does though seem to be a strand of thinking that all forms of racist prejudice originated with White Western Men of the colonial era and is perpetuated now solely by people who are - consciously or not - influenced by them. I don't think that stacks up. In particular, to accept it you must consciously ignore materially equivalent examples of slavery practised by people who are plainly not WWM (the Arab example is the easiest to cite, not the only one).

Adopting the WWM Hypothesis makes it impossible to view racism in the wider context of other types of equally unfair discrimination, for example against people with disabilities. Discriminating against people who are different is ubiquitous. That doesn't mean that it's acceptable, or that anyone should be excused. Theft and violence are also common in all societies.

We should start from the premise that everyone has the capacity to be influenced by prejudice against people who are different, are a minority. That's not so we can shrug and allow ourselves a free pass because "everyone has done it" but because if we don't assume that everyone is capable of prejudice how can we face up to it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I agree that everyone is capable of prejudice. And that it is often directed towards difference and perceived weakness.
I focused on racism specifically due to issues raised on the Oprah and Zimmerman threads.
Understanding the mechanisms is important. Understanding this is a human failing is important as well. (I have given the "White people are not inherently evil" talk many times.)
Though, currently in the Western world, WWM are the most culpable. That it is by circumstance rather than inherent trait is to be noted, but it is still no excuse.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Though, currently in the Western world, WWM are the most culpable. That it is by circumstance rather than inherent trait is to be noted, but it is still no excuse.

Interesting words, "most culpable." I don't think I agree.

Racism by WWM certainly has by far the largest effect, because those WWM occupy most of the positions of power, but I don't think that makes a racist white man more culpable than a racist black lesbian in a wheelchair - it just means that he does more damage.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Not certain I agree.
If one has power, I do think this makes one more culpable for its misuse. One might argue racism is the tool, and the abuse of power is the cause of culpability. From a practical POV, however, this is irrelevant. From a moral POV, it is intent as much as action, so equally guilty.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not certain I agree.
If one has power, I do think this makes one more culpable for its misuse.

I think if one has obtained that power by skill and training (for example the martial art expert) than one can reasonably be expected to have learned appropriate self-control to go with it, and so by extension there's more culpability for the martial artist who starts hitting people.

So we can certainly consider experienced managers as more culpable than the office boy.

I am not sure that we usually hold an un-trained but strong man to a higher standard of restraint than a weak man, though.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Slavery under the Roman Empire (proto-European if you like, but not what people usually mean when they use the term European in this context) would have come pretty close, and if you add the slavery practiced in Africa and Asia over the millennia, the numbers enslaved by Europe, obscene though they were, are greatly exceeded.

As to racism in general, Han dominance in China, the world’s most populous country, has already been mentioned, and in India, the second most populous, successions of migrations over the centuries from the north exterminated, subjugated or uprooted India’s indigenous peoples, the remnants of whom are known as Scheduled Tribes, or Tribals.

The same thing happened in South Africa shortly before white settlement, when migrations from the north dispossessed the indigenous peoples, the remnants of whom include the Kalahari Bushmen.

Europe’s sorry history of racism is too well known and acknowledged to require exaggerated claims of uniqueness.

Of all those nations and continents listed above, which still even exist? The Roman Empire is gone, the Egyptian pharaohs are gone. China and India have some continuity to today, as do some African and Arab nations.

But of all those, which are now the wealthiest?

It's impossible to meaningfully compare numbers, cruelties, across time and space. It is possible to observe the wealth that has been accumulated through slavery and colonialism (which also has a racist component) in different times and places.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I am not sure that we usually hold an un-trained but strong man to a higher standard of restraint than a weak man, though.

I disagree. To paraphrase a line from Spider-man, "With power, comes responsibility". It matters not if this is inherent or earned.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I am not sure that we usually hold an un-trained but strong man to a higher standard of restraint than a weak man, though.
I disagree. To paraphrase a line from Spider-man, "With power, comes responsibility". It matters not if this is inherent or earned.

Can you provide any non-comic book examples of larger men being held to a higher standard than smaller men?

Relative size can sometimes be an aggravating factor in an assault conviction (ie. the assault does more damage because you're a big guy hitting a little one, so the punishment will be bigger) but I'm not aware of it making much difference to the guilt of an assailant.

Similarly, one might be inclined to punish white-on-black racism a little more heavily than black-on-white, because the white-on-black stands to do more harm, but I don't think this alters the degree of culpability.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

cul·pa·ble
/ˈkəlpəbəl/
Adjective
Deserving blame.

I maintain that one who is advantaged holds more responsibility for their actions to those less advantaged, therefore more culpability. I admit this is a moral judgement.
Does this make the more powerful person the inherently worse person? We cannot know as we do not know what the less powerful person would do in a reversed situation.
Let us use your large, powerful untrained man vs. the small, weak man. They are arguing in the street. If the large man decides to strike the smaller man, he has a greater expectation of causing damage; therefore more deserving of blame than should the situation be reversed. It is not merely the action, but the knowledge of the damage said action will do.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If one has power, I do think this makes one more culpable for its misuse.

The problem, of course, is that the majority of White Western Men don't have power either. Yet they are being held to be more culpable simply because they happen to fall into the same ethnic group as most of the people who do have power.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
I maintain that one who is advantaged holds more responsibility for their actions to those less advantaged, therefore more culpability. I admit this is a moral judgement.

I remember a discussion some months ago on the Ship concerning cyclists vs. motorists on the road. One contributor claimed that, because, in an accident, the cyclist would come off worse, the presumption of guilt should fall on the motorist. I found this idea outrageously unjust and immoral. Moral guilt should never be apportioned in inverse proportion to the severity of adverse consequences suffered. In this example, the motorist could be an entirely innocent victim of a collision with a reckless cyclist who jumps a red light. The motorist may be uninjured, and his car barely damaged, and the cyclist may be severely injured - or worse, but culpability lies with the one who flagrantly violated the Highway Code, not with the 'stronger' party.

Anyone who doesn't agree with this view holds a 'moral' position, which is truly terrifying. It means that the idea of guilt has been radically wrenched away from personal responsibility, and assigned according to a person's amoral status, such as race (the white person is inherently more racist than the black), gender (all men are presumed to be abusers and parentally less competent than women), authority (he has political power, therefore he must obviously be corrupt) and so on.

Defining a person's moral status in accordance with amoral factors is the methodology of the tyrant and the justification for miscarriages of justice. It's evil, in other words.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The problem, of course, is that the majority of White Western Men don't have power either.

The majority of white western men have the power to walk down a street with the reasonable expectation that the police won't randomly stop and search them.

Just how far down society do you think power stops? The cabinet? MPs? Business managers? Journalists for national news?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

It's impossible to meaningfully compare numbers, cruelties, across time and space.

It is possible to conclude, however, that there is a universal tendency to dehumanise an "Other", with invariably unpleasant, if not always quantifiable and comparable, results.

quote:
It is possible to observe the wealth that has been accumulated through slavery and colonialism (which also has a racist component) in different times and places.

I make no claim to be an economic historian, but I know enough to be aware that it is not that simple.

Colonialism in itself, in the sense of subjugation, dispossession and exploitation, which has happened everywhere throughout history, has by no means always produced lasting prosperity for the colonialists.

Even in Europe, Spain's immense empire (including slavery)did not result in lasting wealth, because Spain did not undergo the political and economic changes (democracy, capitalism, industrialisation, which were the real engines of economic growth) of other colonial powers such as England and Holland.

Germany's phenomenal development after 1871 was achieved despite its lack of useful overseas possessions.

Slavery was always of dubious economic value, and it has been argued that Britain got rid of it as much because of its inefficiency, as because of the abolitionists' efforts.

Likewise the slave-owning American South was far more backward than the North.

To claim that the West's present economic position relative to the so-called "developing world" can be ascribed entirely to past slavery and colonialism is questionable, to say the least.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Defining a person's moral status in accordance with amoral factors is the methodology of the tyrant and the justification for miscarriages of justice. It's evil, in other words.

Maybe if you're a Kantian.
For every other ethical position, there is no such thing as a purely amoral factor. Anything might be morally relevant, since anything might become a good or an evil to some person.
Suppose I have a lot of food and my neighbour has none. That is presumably amoral; one needs no moral sense to recognise that. But it immediately imposes on me a moral responsibility to share my food. Likewise, race, class, status, whether you're riding a bike or a car, these all impose moral responsibilities upon the agent who possess those advantages. Because morality is not solely about moral factors; morality is about the whole of life. There are no amoral factors.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Something else which I think it's worth considering here: the background which leads to a person developing the views that they do. It's a well-known fact that Nina Simone was none too keen on white people in general. However, this was someone who experienced horrific levels of racism directed at her and her loved ones and experienced real hardship as a result. Her response was to perceive white people as the enemy and be very suspicious of the group as a whole. Was that, strictly speaking, fair? No. Many of the white people she mistrusted had done nothing to harm her. But I do think it's understandable.

Developing prejudice from having been abused is different from developing it from a position of privilege. It's very different from the perspective of many white people from the same time and place who disliked black people, but not because black people had actually done anything to harm them - just because the culture had taught them that black people were untrustworthy and inferior.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Dafyd -

Please could you explain how the mere fact of possessing lighter skin pigment confers "moral responsibility" on a person, which is greater than the moral responsibility of the person with darker skin pigment.

I'm intrigued...

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Dafyd -

Please could you explain how the mere fact of possessing lighter skin pigment confers "moral responsibility" on a person, which is greater than the moral responsibility of the person with darker skin pigment.

I'm intrigued...

Don't want to speak for Dafyd, but you seem hung up on the racial aspect. It is not inherent to one's skin pigment.

Someone in a position of privilege does have more responsibility. In the West that means white men. In Saudi Arabia it means Arab men. Sadly regardless of race it does tend to be men!

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

Developing prejudice from having been abused is different from developing it from a position of privilege. It's very different from the perspective of many white people from the same time and place who disliked black people, but not because black people had actually done anything to harm them - just because the culture had taught them that black people were untrustworthy and inferior.

Interesting I've seen many people claim justified racism against black people because they were the victims of crime by a black person once.

Yet a black person who had had a lifetime of ill treatment by white people is less justified in having a similar prejudice, and the same people moan about "reverse racism."

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

I think it gets expressed in different ways, too. It's the contrast between a) "I don't trust you - get away from me" and b) "You need to be put in your place."

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The problem, of course, is that the majority of White Western Men don't have power either.
The majority of white western men have the power to walk down a street with the reasonable expectation that the police won't randomly stop and search them.

Just how far down society do you think power stops? The cabinet? MPs? Business managers? Journalists for national news?

Power means the ability to control what happens around you. Being able to walk down a street without being stopped by the police isn't an exercise of power, because it's not within your control - it's entirely up to the police officer in question.

If the police are acting in a racist way, then that is the fault of the police. It is not the fault of any person they allowed to walk by, because those people have no more control over the situation than the ones being stopped.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Someone in a position of privilege does have more responsibility. In the West that means white men.

Fine. So what do you want us to do with that responsibility, given that very few of us have the power to actually change anything?

Or do you just want us to stand meekly by while you keep calling us evil?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Someone in a position of privilege does have more responsibility. In the West that means white men.
Fine. So what do you want us to do with that responsibility, given that very few of us have the power to actually change anything?

Or do you just want us to stand meekly by while you keep calling us evil?

A good start is taking us seriously when we point to racism in society, and not assume that we are playing the "race card" or trying to get attention.

The next stop is not to be over-the-top defensive and say that any criticism of racism in the West is tantamount to calling white people evil.

If we can get that far, then there are many policies in education, employment and hiring standards, and social issues (housing, policing) that would come next.

Are you interested in responding to the issues I raised about Oxbridge admissions or CV discrimination? Or do you want to just attack me because you don't like my opinions?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
Someone in a position of privilege does have more responsibility. In the West that means white men.

Of course it does not! It may mean SOME white men. But to generalise about ALL white men is ridiculous. There are millions of white men in our society who are struggling financially, relatively powerless and vulnerable. How cruel and spiteful it is to stereotype people like this! In fact, it's this psychology of stereotyping people which is at the heart of racism and all forms of discrimination.

You may not be an overt racist, but your attitude is exactly that of someone who makes sweeping statements about large groups of people, based entirely on some outward factor which defines a category. This is indeed the psychology of racism. Why don't you stop categorising people, and start treating others as individuals? Ah, but that sounds too much like hard work, doesn't it? So much easier to stereotype, categorise and depersonalise people, isn't it?

Buy a mirror.

[ 20. August 2013, 12:39: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

I think we need to get away from guilt-tripping, and feeling guilt-tripped. You're right, Marvin, that plenty of white men have no significant power over their lives. In particular, differ significantly from the crowd, and the crowd will stuff you, WWM or not. And being able to walk down the street without harassment isn't a power, it's just a lucky break.

However, getting such a lucky break brings duties. That's the way to look at it. I had a shit childhood, a relentless nightmare of bullying from my fellow 'Western White Boys'. At the time, I couldn't understand it. With hindsight, I'm content to be who I am, and what the experience made me. As an adult, if I can do anything to work against the kicking so many get from the status quo, I will. Not out of guilt or shame, but because I want to.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
Someone in a position of privilege does have more responsibility. In the West that means white men.
Of course it does not! It may mean SOME white men. But to generalise about ALL white men is ridiculous. There are millions of white men in our society who are struggling financially, relatively powerless and vulnerable. How cruel and spiteful it is to stereotype people like this! In fact, it's this psychology of stereotyping people which is at the heart of racism and all forms of discrimination.

You may not be an overt racist, but your attitude is exactly that of someone who makes sweeping statements about large groups of people, based entirely on some outward factor which defines a category. This is indeed the psychology of racism. Why don't you stop categorising people, and start treating others as individuals? Ah, but that sounds too much like hard work, doesn't it? So much easier to stereotype, categorise and depersonalise people, isn't it?

Buy a mirror.

I have focused my entire argument on institutional racism, never on personal racism. Look back at my posts and tell me where I said that individual white people being racist is the problem with race in the West.

If you can point me exactly where I have ever suggested that all white people are racist - rather than saying that white people by virtue of being in power have the repsonsibilty to address the institutional racism - then perhaps I'll be willing to listen to you.

What I see is defensiveness and unwillingness to hear someone else's POV.

I have white people in my family and we talk about these issues, actually. Their responses are much different than yours, thank God.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... To claim that the West's present economic position relative to the so-called "developing world" can be ascribed entirely to past slavery and colonialism is questionable, to say the least.

Where, exactly, did I use the word "entirely"?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Buy a mirror.

Yeah, racism would be over if only 'they' stopped talking about it.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

Oh gosh, here it goes again. The emotive guilt-exchange.

A bit more personal history. As well as the bullying, I had to cope with an alcoholic father and mother, with valium-addiction thrown in for good measure. Plus being the eldest of 3 by a wide margin, with responsibilities to my siblings. It's ok now, but then, I felt about as privileged as something you might squish under your foot on the pavement.

All history. But see, not knowing people's history, how many landmines you might be treading on here talking in generalities? Go gently people.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

The word "privilege" unfortunately has a lot of cultural baggage and means different things to different people. I sort of wish that a different word had been picked to take on this particular meaning, because people hear it and think that it means that you're in the first class lounge of life or something. All it really means in this context is that there are a certain set of problems that you don't have to deal with. It doesn't mean that you don't have to deal with any problems at all - you just don't have this particular set. If you're white, male, heterosexual and able bodied, each of these effectively comes with a free pass out of a certain set of problems. The existence of this pass doesn't make you a bad person or indicate that you, personally, are prejudiced against others. It is what it is.

However, other people may very well see that you have ticked off several squares on the "bingo card of characteristics which most of the most powerful people in the world have", and they may be aware that they experience difficulties you will never have to deal with. You can listen to the experience of these people and try to improve things for them, or you can point to the "rich", "stable upbringing" and "expensive education" squares on the aforementioned bingo card and say "why are you calling me privileged? I don't have anything at all in common with the most powerful people in the world! Nothing!"

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
Yeah, racism would be over if only 'they' stopped talking about it.

Racism would be over if all of us stopped stereotyping and depersonalising others.

It's really very simple: don't discriminate against others on the basis of race. End of. The responsibility is on all of us, not just "white men". Singling out one particular race (and sex) as somehow more in need of addressing this issue is itself a form of racism. And it's this hypocrisy that is so damaging to the health of our society. It is doing nothing to address the real issue, and only stirring up bitter resentment among people who are being falsely accused of something of which most of them are not guilty. Hiding behind the issue of "institutional racism" is missing the point.

As it happens, I don't really believe in the concept of 'race' anyway, except as an extremely crude description. The distinction between 'black' and 'white' is, of course, entirely artificial (and biologically laughable, if you think about it), and frankly, most of us have grown up enough to see our black, Asian, Chinese etc friends (of which I have some) as individual people and not as members of crude stereotypical categories.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
The word "privilege" unfortunately has a lot of cultural baggage and means different things to different people. I sort of wish that a different word had been picked to take on this particular meaning, because people hear it and think that it means that you're in the first class lounge of life or something. All it really means in this context is that there are a certain set of problems that you don't have to deal with. It doesn't mean that you don't have to deal with any problems at all - you just don't have this particular set. If you're white, male, heterosexual and able bodied, each of these effectively comes with a free pass out of a certain set of problems. The existence of this pass doesn't make you a bad person or indicate that you, personally, are prejudiced against others. It is what it is.

However, other people may very well see that you have ticked off several squares on the "bingo card of characteristics which most of the most powerful people in the world have", and they may be aware that they experience difficulties you will never have to deal with. You can listen to the experience of these people and try to improve things for them, or you can point to the "rich", "stable upbringing" and "expensive education" squares on the aforementioned bingo card and say "why are you calling me privileged? I don't have anything at all in common with the most powerful people in the world! Nothing!"

Surely in a thread about race, the meaning of privilege in this context is obvious?

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

The trouble with this "let's all forget about it - we're basically all the same" thing is that you can't escape the objective facts. These are that throughout the western world, outcomes are worse for black people than for white people, even if you control for other variables. Black people are more likely than white people to be unemployed, more likely to go to jail, less likely to get a university degree, less likely to rise to the top of an organisation, more likely to live in poverty, and so on.

Those are the facts. We as a society need an explanation for these facts, and there are two basic categories of explanation here. Either black people just suck, or there's a whole lot of cultural factors (ie the institutional racism which you don't want to talk about) which are getting in their way and holding them back.

What people forget when they say "Why can't we all stop going on about race? We're all human!" is that most black people would dearly love to do this. They'd love to live in a world where it doesn't matter. But we don't live in that world. And pretending that we do means that nothing changes. Which is fine if nothing needs to change. Which brings me back to the set of facts laid out above - I think these things need to change, and to do that we need to have this conversation. In fact, we need to do this even if it makes some white men uncomfortable.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

'Race' doesn't exist biologically. The genetic differences between, say, white Europeans, Africans, South and East Asians are insignificant compared to the variations which exist among members of each of those populations. The trouble is that such variations that there are, of pigmentation, hair and facial features, adaptations mostly to local climate, are highly visible and just what those who want to discriminate can latch on to.

[ 20. August 2013, 15:20: Message edited by: argona ]

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Surely in a thread about race, the meaning of privilege in this context is obvious?

I don't know. It has a very particular meaning in discourse about racism, sexism and so on. But if you don't spend a lot of time thinking or reading about those issues, you might get it muddled up with the more generally-used meaning of having an all-round easy life, or of being very rich.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
Yeah, racism would be over if only 'they' stopped talking about it.
Racism would be over if all of us stopped stereotyping and depersonalising others.

It's really very simple: don't discriminate against others on the basis of race. End of.

First, racism will never end;it is one of the easiest, most obvious prejudices. IMO, the best we can hope for is a reduction.
Second, we have laws to prevent discrimination based upon race. Do you maintain that no discrimination still occurs?
Even should a magic switch be thrown and no one ever thought in terms of race, how do you erase the centuries of disparity and its consequences?
As I stated upthread:

quote:
It is akin to a society in which running races is the determining factor for advancement. One group is allowed to train and compete. The other is locked in the cellar with iron shackles and only a small window to view the race. One day, the shackles are cast off and the cellar door open. "You may now compete! The race starts in 5 minutes, good luck".

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
The word "privilege" unfortunately has a lot of cultural baggage and means different things to different people.

The 'problem' with the word 'privilege' is that many people hear it in this context and assume that it is something that 'the other' wishes remove from them, when in reality it is being used to describe a state of affairs that should apply to everyone.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
'Race' doesn't exist biologically. The genetic differences between, say, white Europeans, Africans, South and East Asians are insignificant compared to the variations which exist among members of each of those populations. The trouble is that such variations that there are, of pigmentation, hair and facial features, adaptations mostly to local climate, are highly visible and just what those who want to discriminate can latch on to.

You sound a bit as though you're arguing against a point that nobody has actually made on this thread.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

Indeed. I'm not going to bang on about my own life, but I hope what I've said shows that slapping 'privilege' as a blanket wash over a whole socio/racial group is going to leave some people feeling kinda crushed. That's all I was saying.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Those are a couple of really good posts, Liopleurodon.

Although I get the sentiment, EE, the reality is that there is a problem. Just as there is with gender. Take away the 'obvious' sexism that exists in a minority, and you've still got problems of unequal wages and reduced opportunity. Unconscious racism and sexism is still a problem.

I think the point about the word 'privilege' is well made. The problem with it is that it implies some bonus, some extra intangible opportunity that white straight men have.

A better way of putting it, however, is that everybody faces barriers, but some people face barriers that others won't ever have to. So it's not that as a white straight bloke that I don't ever face any barriers; or that I have some kind of head-start on non-whites. Just that I don't have to face certain barriers that people who aren't in those majorities have to face. It's not so much that I'm privileged, but that they're unfairly inhibited.

(lots of crossposts)

[ 20. August 2013, 15:28: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

As it happens, I don't really believe in the concept of 'race' anyway, except as an extremely crude description.

In this context it is kind of irrelevant what you believe in. 'race' is used descriptively as a social construct and it is on this level that discrimination occurs.

Biology is a red herring (and argona is right, but for the wrong reasons).

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
'Race' doesn't exist biologically. The genetic differences between, say, white Europeans, Africans, South and East Asians are insignificant compared to the variations which exist among members of each of those populations. The trouble is that such variations that there are, of pigmentation, hair and facial features, adaptations mostly to local climate, are highly visible and just what those who want to discriminate can latch on to.
You sound a bit as though you're arguing against a point that nobody has actually made on this thread.

Not arguing anything, just spelling out the science. Jeez, you guys can be so confrontational!

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

As it happens, I don't really believe in the concept of 'race' anyway, except as an extremely crude description.
In this context it is kind of irrelevant what you believe in. 'race' is used descriptively as a social construct and it is on this level that discrimination occurs.

Biology is a red herring (and argona is right, but for the wrong reasons).

Explain? Puzzled here

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon
In fact, we need to do this even if it makes some white men uncomfortable.

Which "white men"? Got any names of individuals?

Or is this just another cruel generalisation, that tries to smear other members of this category by association?

Why keep singling out "white men"? Racial conflict and oppression exists throughout the world among different ethnic groups - black on black, white on white etc. To reduce the entire subject to a problem with "white men" is simply absurd.

No, I am not trying to sweep the issue under the carpet, but trying to get people to see that there is a basic psychology to racism, which is that of stereotyping, categorising and depersonalising people, and no 'race' has any monopoly on this tendency. To keep going on about "white men" is simply a manifestation of this attitude.

What if I kept going on about "black women" this, "black women" that... blah blah blah... quite rightly I would be pulled up on it. What's the fucking difference?! (Sorry to swear, but as a 'white' man I'm getting sick of feeling accused - by implication - of something of which I am not guilty). [Mad]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If one has power, I do think this makes one more culpable for its misuse.
The problem, of course, is that the majority of White Western Men don't have power either. Yet they are being held to be more culpable simply because they happen to fall into the same ethnic group as most of the people who do have power.

Power is a tricky thing, isn't it yeah?
It is not linear, most power to least, for one. For another, an individual may lack power as an individual, but hold some as a member of a group. Think voting, think targeted advertising. So, SWWM* as a group hold more culpability. Though individuals within that group only do so in accordance with their actions.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Slavery was always of dubious economic value, and it has been argued that Britain got rid of it as much because of its inefficiency, as because of the abolitionists' efforts.

Likewise the slave-owning American South was far more backward than the North.

This is incorrect. Not only did slavery in America bring vast wealth to the economy of the South, it fed the looms of the industrialised North. America's economy might have not been solely due to slavery, but it was far from insignificant.
The sugarcane industry was driven by slaves and Europe gains much wealth from sugar. To state slavery was of dubious economic value is incorrect.

*In the West. In China it would be straight, mandarin-speaking Han Chinese, etc.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by argona:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

Biology is a red herring (and argona is right, but for the wrong reasons).
Explain? Puzzled here

Genetic variation is going to be geographically structured because most human populations were semi-isolated historically. So it's not true that 'race is meaningless'

So the fact that there is greater genetic variation amongst Africans (at the individual level) doesn't particularly tell us anything about the differences between humans on continent A and humans on continent B (a population level comparison).

So there will be some sets of genes which are far more likely to occur amongst Africans then Europeans, and vice versa, including those for certain forms of pigmentation. Of course there will be some overlap because human populations have never been discrete entities.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

Do chill, EE. Not junior hosting, just stating a view that this isn't what the OP was looking for.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

No one is saying you are guilty of anything, EE. They're saying that when you (and I) walk into stores people don't generally assume we're going to steal anything. I remember one woman who always did assume my friend and I (as teens) were going to steal something. The way she followed us around was so frustrating that we promptly took our money to other stores. Because I'm white it was easy to find other stores that wouldn't treat me like a criminal even though I was a teen and probably statistically far more likely to steal something than a grown African-American, particularly from the sections of the store we were in!
I too had a bunch of things that weren't privileges growing up. Some still apply. Most don't. It doesn't mean I'm a racist that I don't get stopped by the police for hovering on the corner where some people by drugs (and others of us wait for busses.) It does mean that I have privilege. I don't feel guilty for not being harassed by the police, but I'm aware how much it would piss me off to be stopped because of the color of my skin or to followed around regularly when I shopped. I don't believe in perfection, but I think I'm less racist than most. I'm still part of a system of institutional racism.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Why keep singling out "white men"? Racial conflict and oppression exists throughout the world among different ethnic groups - black on black, white on white etc. To reduce the entire subject to a problem with "white men" is simply absurd.

Why keep singling out white men? Because for some reason whenever a conversation starts up about racism or sexism (which in objective terms - see the life outcomes mentioned above - have the greatest impact upon particular groups who aren't white men) somehow as the conversation goes on, we always seem to end up talking about white men's feelings. Conversation about black men in the US being more likely to go to jail than college? This is going to wind up talking about white men's feelings. Conversation about the pay gap between men and women? This is going to end up in a conversation about white men's feelings. Discussion of the 80s pop song "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"? This is going to end up in a discussion about how white men ALSO want to have fun. I don't even know why it happens but any conversation about a group of people that doesn't include white men ends up discussing white men. It's practically an internet law. I would be quite happy to stop talking about the feelings of white men and get back to discussing what we can do about racism now.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

EE,

This is a problem. How do we address issues if people such as yourself become uncomfortable?
Do I throw blame at every white person? Absolutely not.

We are all responsible for the evil we do as individuals.
We share responsibilities of the groups to which we belong.
For example, I am not poor. It is therefore my responsibility to help those less fortunate than I.*
I have two basic levels of responsibility; personal and as one a member of a voting block.

It is at the secondary, group level that most of us fail our responsibility to our fellow humans.

*In my personal ethos.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

To put that point from a slightly different angle - I was the main carer for our children, gave up paid work to look after them for years. Was part of the local 'stay at home' network, took them to playgroups, had their friends round to play. So, it's the most natural thing in the world for me to watch children playing. Except that I don't, because as a man it's sure enough that someone would think the worse of me. A huge shame, but there it is. Though not as intimidating as being treated as a suspect because of skin colour.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The next stop is not to be over-the-top defensive and say that any criticism of racism in the West is tantamount to calling white people evil.

That would be helped if those who criticise racism didn't do so in a way that implicates every single white person in its existence.

quote:
If we can get that far, then there are many policies in education, employment and hiring standards, and social issues (housing, policing) that would come next.

Are you interested in responding to the issues I raised about Oxbridge admissions or CV discrimination?

Yes, those things are bad. But I can't do anything about them. None of them are in any way under my control, with the exception of the two times I have been the junior member of an interview panel at work.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
You can listen to the experience of these people and try to improve things for them

How?

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by argona:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

Biology is a red herring (and argona is right, but for the wrong reasons).
Explain? Puzzled here
Genetic variation is going to be geographically structured because most human populations were semi-isolated historically. So it's not true that 'race is meaningless'

So the fact that there is greater genetic variation amongst Africans (at the individual level) doesn't particularly tell us anything about the differences between humans on continent A and humans on continent B (a population level comparison).

So there will be some sets of genes which are far more likely to occur amongst Africans then Europeans, and vice versa, including those for certain forms of pigmentation. Of course there will be some overlap because human populations have never been discrete entities.

My point was that genetic differences between races are biologically insignificant. Apparently, much smaller than genetic differences between finches of the same species in adjacent Swiss valleys. As you say, race is nothing more than a social construct - built upon insignificant, but highly visible differences. And please, don't anyone say that nobody's argued otherwise! I know! :-)

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The next stop is not to be over-the-top defensive and say that any criticism of racism in the West is tantamount to calling white people evil.
That would be helped if those who criticise racism didn't do so in a way that implicates every single white person in its existence.

True, without a doubt, but remember most of us who care about the issue can no more stop others from being shrill than you can stop other white men from unfair hiring practices.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
My point was that genetic differences between races are biologically insignificant.

'Biologically insignificant' is not the same as 'doesn't exist'. I think this train of thought was originally started by Richard Lewotin - and baldly stated is quite inaccurate. I can see where he was going with this, because historically 'race' has been used as a proxy for a lot of other things in a way that was quite nasty. In parts of the American right this continues to be the case (see the career of Charles Murray).

quote:

As you say, race is nothing more than a social construct

Race as it is under consideration in this thread (and mostly in wider society) is a social construct, that doesn't mean that that's all there is to it.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
My point was that genetic differences between races are biologically insignificant.
'Biologically insignificant' is not the same as 'doesn't exist'. I think this train of thought was originally started by Richard Lewotin - and baldly stated is quite inaccurate. I can see where he was going with this, because historically 'race' has been used as a proxy for a lot of other things in a way that was quite nasty. In parts of the American right this continues to be the case (see the career of Charles Murray).

quote:

As you say, race is nothing more than a social construct
Race as it is under consideration in this thread (and mostly in wider society) is a social construct, that doesn't mean that that's all there is to it.

So what else is there to it?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
Are you interested in responding to the issues I raised about Oxbridge admissions or CV discrimination?

I can't speak for Oxbridge, but I have just checked with my younger son, who is at London University studying mathematics. We have just looked through a facebook page relating to his year that includes about two thirds of all students in the year. I would say that between 5 and 10% are definitely what one would call 'black', although there are many races represented. In fact, my son claimed that, if anything, white students are demographically underrepresented.

Black people make up between 3-4% of the UK population, so demographically they are well represented in that college of London University (Kings College).

I know this is only a crude snapshot, but there seems to be no sign at all of the kind of racism allegedly perpetrated by "white men"!

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
Are you interested in responding to the issues I raised about Oxbridge admissions or CV discrimination?
I can't speak for Oxbridge, but I have just checked with my younger son, who is at London University studying mathematics. We have just looked through a facebook page relating to his year that includes about two thirds of all students in the year. I would say that between 5 and 10% are definitely what one would call 'black', although there are many races represented. In fact, my son claimed that, if anything, white students are demographically underrepresented.

Black people make up between 3-4% of the UK population, so demographically they are well represented in that college of London University (Kings College).

I know this is only a crude snapshot, but there seems to be no sign at all of the kind of racism allegedly perpetrated by "white men"!

In fairness, black and other ethnic minority students do tend to apply disproportionately to universities in cities which have a large black or other ethnic minority population, and London most of all. There's some interesting analysis of that here.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
Are you interested in responding to the issues I raised about Oxbridge admissions or CV discrimination?
I can't speak for Oxbridge, but I have just checked with my younger son, who is at London University studying mathematics. We have just looked through a facebook page relating to his year that includes about two thirds of all students in the year. I would say that between 5 and 10% are definitely what one would call 'black', although there are many races represented. In fact, my son claimed that, if anything, white students are demographically underrepresented.

Black people make up between 3-4% of the UK population, so demographically they are well represented in that college of London University (Kings College).

KCL has a good reputation among minority students as a diverse university, and is a popular choice for those students who have the grades to get in. Much more so than Bristol or Durham or Exeter, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if KCL has a very high percentage of minority applicants, explaining the makeup of their student body.

The shame of it is that despite the demographics of your son's class, the DWP study suggests that his minority classmates will struggle applying to jobs if they have ethnic names, despite having the same education as your own son.

The government should encourage blind hiring for resume screening - that is, without the applicants names.

In the US, the University of California stopped considering race as a factor in its admissions. The result was that the acceptance rate for white students dropped and the acceptance rate for Asian student rose considerably. So clearly there was some bias that was benefitting white students and disadvantaging Asian students - wouldn't you say? Would you be comfortable calling such a phenomenon institutional racism?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Power means the ability to control what happens around you. Being able to walk down a street without being stopped by the police isn't an exercise of power, because it's not within your control - it's entirely up to the police officer in question.

If that's your definition then nobody has the power to control what happens around them - anybody can be prevented from doing anything if sufficiently many other people decide to stop them.
If we go with a relative definition, then being able to walk down the street unmolested gives one an advantage over anybody who cannot.
The fact that it's not your fault is irrelevant.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by argona:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

Biology is a red herring (and argona is right, but for the wrong reasons).
Explain? Puzzled here
Genetic variation is going to be geographically structured because most human populations were semi-isolated historically. So it's not true that 'race is meaningless'

So the fact that there is greater genetic variation amongst Africans (at the individual level) doesn't particularly tell us anything about the differences between humans on continent A and humans on continent B (a population level comparison).

So there will be some sets of genes which are far more likely to occur amongst Africans then Europeans, and vice versa, including those for certain forms of pigmentation. Of course there will be some overlap because human populations have never been discrete entities.

It is applying value to those differences that is questionable. Most often it is surface physical differences that are used to infer attributes.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Please could you explain how the mere fact of possessing lighter skin pigment confers "moral responsibility" on a person, which is greater than the moral responsibility of the person with darker skin pigment.

What has the mere fact of possessing lighter skin pigment got to do with anything?

If you're bothered that people are being mean to you because of light skin pigment go and get a tan.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

If you're bothered that people are being mean to you because of light skin pigment go and get a tan.

This is the same statement as the one that encourages dark-skinned people to purchase skin lightening creams, no?

I assume we'd all agree that dark-complexioned people wrecking their skin with harsh chemicals to look paler, because pale has a higher status, is a bad thing.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

In the US, the University of California stopped considering race as a factor in its admissions. The result was that the acceptance rate for white students dropped and the acceptance rate for Asian student rose considerably. So clearly there was some bias that was benefitting white students and disadvantaging Asian students - wouldn't you say? Would you be comfortable calling such a phenomenon institutional racism?

What was the old system - race quotas? It's not a surprising result - anyone who has ever been inside a US school is aware that the honor roll and the AP classes are overweight with children of Indian and Chinese origin, just like high school dropouts are disproportionately black. So if you switched from a system of racial quotas determined by population demographics to a race-blind system, you'd expect the number of Indian and Chinese students admitted to go up, white students do go down a bit, and black students to go down more.

If the original system was a race quota based on the demographic distribution of the applicants, rather than the wider population, you don't count the excess black dropouts, and the black and white populations probably look pretty similar.

What did happen to the admissions rate for black kids when this change was made?

(And I would say that any system with racial quotas was, by construction, institutional racism.)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

(And I would say that any system with racial quotas was, by construction, institutional racism.)

Not exactly. It is an attempt to rectify the wrongs. As in my footrace example above, merely lifting restrictions does not accomplish this.
One can argue the efficacy, but the intention was far from racist.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

If you're bothered that people are being mean to you because of light skin pigment go and get a tan.
This is the same statement as the one that encourages dark-skinned people to purchase skin lightening creams, no?

I assume we'd all agree that dark-complexioned people wrecking their skin with harsh chemicals to look paler, because pale has a higher status, is a bad thing.

What? How can "the mere fact", to quote EE, of pale skin have higher status? If it has higher status, it ceases to be a mere fact.

To be more blunt, irony does not mean a bit like iron.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

If you're bothered that people are being mean to you because of light skin pigment go and get a tan.
This is the same statement as the one that encourages dark-skinned people to purchase skin lightening creams, no?

I assume we'd all agree that dark-complexioned people wrecking their skin with harsh chemicals to look paler, because pale has a higher status, is a bad thing.

What? How can "the mere fact", to quote EE, of pale skin have higher status? If it has higher status, it ceases to be a mere fact.

To be more blunt, irony does not mean a bit like iron.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Dafyd -

Well, I'm relieved that you now agree that 'race' is amoral, contrary to what you said earlier.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

(And I would say that any system with racial quotas was, by construction, institutional racism.)
Not exactly. It is an attempt to rectify the wrongs. As in my footrace example above, merely lifting restrictions does not accomplish this.
One can argue the efficacy, but the intention was far from racist.

I'm sure a lot of people's intentions are far from racist but they could actually end up being racist. Positive discrimination IS racist. It discriminates in favour of particular racial groups. How can that not be racist?

[ 20. August 2013, 20:06: Message edited by: Sleepwalker ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Because it is not implying any inherent characteristics based on race.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What? How can "the mere fact", to quote EE, of pale skin have higher status? If it has higher status, it ceases to be a mere fact.

To be more blunt, irony does not mean a bit like iron.

Don't be obtuse. There is a real question here. Various posters have talked about the greater responsibility that "people in power" have, and how it's worse to be racist to a black person than a white person.

If I follow this logic, it tells me that if I, a white man, was racially prejudiced against black people, that would be morally worse than if I was prejudiced against Indians, which would be worse than being prejudiced against Italians. I'll agree that the cumulative effect of racism is much worse for black people, and I'll agree that because of these effects, the effect of my individual act of racism would be worse against a black person than an Indian or Italian, but we are being asked to conclude from that that my being prejudiced against black people would be a greater moral failing than my being prejudiced against Indians. And I don't accept this last step - I think the moral failing is exactly the same.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

(And I would say that any system with racial quotas was, by construction, institutional racism.)
Not exactly. It is an attempt to rectify the wrongs. As in my footrace example above, merely lifting restrictions does not accomplish this.
One can argue the efficacy, but the intention was far from racist.

I accept the value of racial quotas, gender quotas in employment and academic acceptance. But they are still blunt instruments, yes, better than leaving things to bigoted 'chance', but still blunt instruments that leave some out of the loop.

This is a suggestion, take it as you will folks, but give it a throw. Suppose, when someone applies for a job, or a course, or whatever, you look at their history. Their qualifications, their experience. Then you look at where they are now, what they're doing, achieving. And you look for a mismatch, and award points. Any discrimination, be it on basis of race, gender, gender-identity, personality or in any other way simply not fitting the mould, is going to show up there. Award those points when it comes to selection. Is that so difficult, or radical?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
Suppose, when someone applies for a job, or a course, or whatever, you look at their history. Their qualifications, their experience. Then you look at where they are now, what they're doing, achieving. And you look for a mismatch, and award points. Any discrimination, be it on basis of race, gender, gender-identity, personality or in any other way simply not fitting the mould, is going to show up there. Award those points when it comes to selection. Is that so difficult, or radical?

I'm not sure I understand. Are you claiming that any person with good qualifications but a poor job history is clearly the victim of discrimination, and so deserves extra "points", whereas someone with poor qualifications who has had a successful career is obviously the beneficiary of some kind of nepotism, because his bad qualifications say that he can't be that good?

Because I don't think that actually works...

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

No, of course not. This is where JUDGEMENT comes in. I'm simply talking about the influences, the conclusions drawn from background. These are so often what decides the issue when all else is equal, more often than not in my experience.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

Put it this way. Staff selection, student selection, is a mangled, imprecise thing. Personal history too. It's a matter of what criteria you apply to the mess that you find when you try to do what's right with it all.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

And, I'd say, however much instututions try to tie down and objectify their procedures, those managing the process typically have to wrestle with these more subjective issues.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

All I'm arguing for, is simply unbiased procedures to identify people who are, for whatever reason, not achieving their potential. It shouldn't be rocket science.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

Perhaps, 'obstructed from reaching their potential' would have been a better way of putting that.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, I'm relieved that you now agree that 'race' is amoral, contrary to what you said earlier.

You know I said nothing of the sort.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If I follow this logic, it tells me that if I, a white man, was racially prejudiced against black people, that would be morally worse than if I was prejudiced against Indians, which would be worse than being prejudiced against Italians. I'll agree that the cumulative effect of racism is much worse for black people, and I'll agree that because of these effects, the effect of my individual act of racism would be worse against a black person than an Indian or Italian, but we are being asked to conclude from that that my being prejudiced against black people would be a greater moral failing than my being prejudiced against Indians. And I don't accept this last step - I think the moral failing is exactly the same.

I do think the moral failing is greater depending upon who is being hurt. Morality is not about the purity of our souls; it's about our actions and it matters because our actions affect other people.

The moral failing of someone who fails to check the brakes on their scooter is less than the moral failing of the person who fails to check the brakes on their juggernaut. The moral failing of someone who speeds down an empty road in the Scottish highlands is less than the moral failing of someone who speeds down a street past a school.

Look at it like this: someone who is prejudiced against black people not only shares the moral failing of being prejudice with the person who is prejudiced against Italians; they also have the additional moral failing of being wilfully blind to the additional harm that they're causing by each act of prejudice.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, I'm relieved that you now agree that 'race' is amoral, contrary to what you said earlier.
You know I said nothing of the sort.

Obviously I must have been hallucinating earlier...

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd
For every other ethical position, there is no such thing as a purely amoral factor. Anything might be morally relevant, since anything might become a good or an evil to some person.
Suppose I have a lot of food and my neighbour has none. That is presumably amoral; one needs no moral sense to recognise that. But it immediately imposes on me a moral responsibility to share my food. Likewise, race, class, status, whether you're riding a bike or a car, these all impose moral responsibilities upon the agent who possess those advantages. Because morality is not solely about moral factors; morality is about the whole of life. There are no amoral factors.

So you stated the following:

1. "...there is no such thing as a purely amoral factor"

2. "Likewise, race, class, status, whether you're riding a bike or a car, these all impose moral responsibilities upon the agent who possess those advantages." (emphasis mine)

3. "There are no amoral factors."

This was in response to my comment, as follows:

quote:
Anyone who doesn't agree with this view holds a 'moral' position, which is truly terrifying. It means that the idea of guilt has been radically wrenched away from personal responsibility, and assigned according to a person's amoral status, such as race (the white person is inherently more racist than the black), gender (all men are presumed to be abusers and parentally less competent than women), authority (he has political power, therefore he must obviously be corrupt) and so on.

I was clearly explaining that guilt should not be assigned on the basis of factors which are clearly amoral, such as race.

So clearly you did say that race was NOT an amoral factor. Therefore, in your thinking, the colour of one's skin has some kind of moral implication. If it does not, then it is amoral, as I have stated (unless we agree that skin colour has nothing to do with race, and if so, then I'm at a loss to know what all this talk about 'white' and 'black' is about!).

[ 20. August 2013, 21:30: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So clearly you did say that race was NOT an amoral factor. Therefore, in your thinking, the colour of one's skin has some kind of moral implication. If it does not, then it is amoral, as I have stated (unless we agree that skin colour has nothing to do with race, and if so, then I'm at a loss to know what all this talk about 'white' and 'black' is about!).

I assume you are Caucasian. Put your hand on a piece of white paper. Observe the difference in colour. You are not white; you are a sort of orangy pink. Likewise, few people who are 'black' racially are the same colour as e.g. crows or coal. Some people who are black have skin very little darker than you or I. So clearly there is a lot more to race than skin colour.

In your question to me you used the words:

quote:
the mere fact of possessing lighter skin pigment

.
Your italics around 'mere'. Obviously you thought the word 'mere' important. Yet the word 'mere' does not appear in your summary of the argument so far. Perhaps your summary of the argument is therefore inaccurate?

Race is certainly not a mere fact. It is a cultural construct. To be of a certain race is to have inherited the effects of that cultural construct on one's ancestors. And all things being equal, in most of the richer parts of the world today, if your ancestors were northern European those effects benefitted your ancestors and caused serious harm to the ancestors of other people. And that does have some moral implications.

To pretend that we are dropped into the world as fully rational self-generated adults, with no other moral responsibilities than those we freely chose, is one of the fundamental mistakes of modern neoliberal materialist individualism.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

The moral failing of someone who fails to check the brakes on their scooter is less than the moral failing of the person who fails to check the brakes on their juggernaut.

But the moral failing of someone who doesn't check the brakes on their juggernaut is the same whether the brakes happen to work one last time, or whether the brakes fail and they crash into a wall, or whether the brakes fail and they cause a 20-car pileup on the motorway. And the moral failing of the relief driver who is told "get this back to the depot by morning" is less than that of the regular driver who hands it over saying "everything is fine".

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
All I'm arguing for, is simply unbiased procedures to identify people who are, for whatever reason, not achieving their potential. It shouldn't be rocket science.

Except that doesn't a person who is the victim of some kind of discrimination look the same as a person who tests well, but doesn't perform up to that level day-to-day?

There are plenty of reasons that people perform above or below their "potential" and only a few of those are due to discrimination.

You can only tell the difference if you're really familiar with the person, and if the person is the victim of discrimination and you're that familiar with him or her, you're probably part of the problem.

You can tell, statistically, that discrimination is likely to be going on by looking at a large sample of people, but identifying discrimination in an individual case in the way that you suggest is, I think, hard.

[ 21. August 2013, 01:21: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

The moral failing of someone who fails to check the brakes on their scooter is less than the moral failing of the person who fails to check the brakes on their juggernaut.
But the moral failing of someone who doesn't check the brakes on their juggernaut is the same whether the brakes happen to work one last time, or whether the brakes fail and they crash into a wall, or whether the brakes fail and they cause a 20-car pileup on the motorway.

No, no it is not. A scooter rider knows they are unlikely to hurt anyone besides themselves. The driver of a Hummer, a bus or a lorry knows they could possible kill many people.
If I fail to tie my shoelace and walk in public with the knowledge I could trip and fall into another this is a bit thoughtless. If I drive a double decker full of tourists, knowing the brake lines leak badly, this is a bit worse morally.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

The moral failing of someone who fails to check the brakes on their scooter is less than the moral failing of the person who fails to check the brakes on their juggernaut.
But the moral failing of someone who doesn't check the brakes on their juggernaut is the same whether the brakes happen to work one last time, or whether the brakes fail and they crash into a wall, or whether the brakes fail and they cause a 20-car pileup on the motorway. And the moral failing of the relief driver who is told "get this back to the depot by morning" is less than that of the regular driver who hands it over saying "everything is fine".

Even that has been argued. (See Moral Luck on wikipedia.) But that's an aside. I think the difference between the lorry driver who kills someone and the lorry driver who walks away with no real harm done isn't comparable to the difference between someone who is prejudiced against Italians and someone who is prejudiced against blacks. The difference between the two lorry drivers is more akin to that between two people who tell black applicants that the job is taken, but where that causes one applicant temporary inconvenience and the other serious harm.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If we go with a relative definition, then being able to walk down the street unmolested gives one an advantage over anybody who cannot.
The fact that it's not your fault is irrelevant.

It's relevant if you start implying that I'm a worse person because of it, or say that I should do something about it.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd
Race is certainly not a mere fact. It is a cultural construct. To be of a certain race is to have inherited the effects of that cultural construct on one's ancestors. And all things being equal, in most of the richer parts of the world today, if your ancestors were northern European those effects benefitted your ancestors and caused serious harm to the ancestors of other people. And that does have some moral implications.

To pretend that we are dropped into the world as fully rational self-generated adults, with no other moral responsibilities than those we freely chose, is one of the fundamental mistakes of modern neoliberal materialist individualism.

We all have moral responsibilities. But I do not have any moral responsibilities simply (note the word!) on the basis that I am what is generally referred to as 'white', because my racial background is amoral. I do not have to pay some kind of moral debt for the 'privilege' of being 'white'. My 'whiteness' does not confer on me some kind of guilt vis-a-vis those who are not 'white'. If I happen to be in a situation where my race is somehow morally relevant - for example, if I were living in an apartheid situation - then I agree that I would have to make a moral choice to lay down my unjust privilege in order to benefit the disadvantaged 'blacks'. For instance, suppose I were living in one of the southern states of the USA during the period of segregation, and I decided to give my seat on a bus to a pregnant black woman, thus possibly risking the wrath of fellow white passengers, then I would agree that my race has moral implications. But it has no moral implications in and of itself divorced from any such context. Therefore we cannot make sweeping generalisations.

This is why I brought up the example of the motorist and the cyclist. No one in their right mind would dispute that the motorist has to take very great care on the road and look out for cyclists, who are obviously vulnerable. Therefore the motorist has a moral responsibility. But the cyclist also has a very great moral responsibility. But what I deeply object to is the idea that there is an assumption of guilt on the party which is more powerful in a potentially or actually injurious interaction. A weak, poor or vulnerable person could suffer loss and injury through his own deliberate fault, and to assume that he must be the innocent victim of more powerful agents, who are judged to be inherently guilty by virtue of their position of superiority, is immoral.

It's this kind of assumption which has devastated much of the developing world, for example. We assume that we, the allegedly powerful West (which is actually full of millions of not very powerful people!), should just fulfil our supposed moral obligation to remit large amounts of money to the "poor, oppressed and utterly innnocent third world", because, after all, "they are just the oppressed victims of colonialism", and the result has been that some of these "poor, oppressed victims" are having a cruel laugh at the expense of their own downtrodden people. In other words, we are financing oppression, because we refuse to stop patronising the peoples of the developing world and we love selfishly to appease our own conscience by putting ourselves in the role of the eternal oppressor. There are unscrupulous people who love to play the "I am one of the oppressed" card. I remember some years ago, when I was selling books into Nigeria, that I was accused of racism, because I wanted my relatively wealthy (more wealthy than me!) Nigerian customer to pay his bill after very many reminders. Because he was black and I was white, I was apparently obliged to just let him off, otherwise I was oppressing him (never mind the fact that he was frequently swanning off to the USA instead of using the funds to fulfil his moral financial obligations). In fact, I was actually the victim of racism in this situation, as anyone with any moral sense can clearly see!

Racism is simply discrimination on the basis of race. There is no form of racial discrimination which is inherently more racist than another. Black on white racism is as evil as white on black racism. I think of the words of Martin Luther King:

quote:
Let us be dissatisfied until from every city hall, justice will roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. Let us be dissatisfied until that day when the lion and the lamb shall lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid. Let us be dissatisfied. And men will recognize that out of one blood God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout "White Power!" — when nobody will shout "Black Power!" — but everybody will talk about God's power and human power.

In other words, it's not about the power of any race, or any "positive discrimination" or mean spirited assigning of guilt onto one race over another, but it's about justice for all people, with no reference to race. It's obvious that MLK wasn't simply interested in the advancement of black people, but rather he was passionate about the advancement of ALL people.

I would frankly rather listen to the words of someone like him, who had and has credibility on this issue of racism (having given his life in conflict with it), than with the theorising of some of the contributors on this thread!

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon
In fact, we need to do this even if it makes some white men uncomfortable.
Which "white men"? Got any names of individuals?

Or is this just another cruel generalisation, that tries to smear other members of this category by association?

Why keep singling out "white men"?

I can see EE's point here.

You're right, Liopleurodon, we do need to do this (have a frank and honest talk about the issues), but I don't think that doing so is only going to make certain white men uncomfortable.

For example, I've encountered a black woman who thinks that it's impossible for black people to be racist. I've encountered plenty of racist Asians. A frank and open dialogue is going to make a whole range of people with unhelpful attitudes feel uncomfortable, and challenge some of their views. It's not just going to challenge a few white men.

There is the danger that by singling out white men as the problem, we ignore other issues. There is also the danger of guilt by association. The most damaging people group to society in history is white males (cf Stupid White men by Michael Moore), but of course that doesn't make every single white male stupid or evil, or that non-white females can't be stupid or evil.

I'm not saying that you think that, but it's easy for people to just form a new type of prejudice towards white males that is as unhelpful as any other kind of prejudice.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If I happen to be in a situation where my race is somehow morally relevant - for example, if I were living in an apartheid situation - then I agree that I would have to make a moral choice to lay down my unjust privilege in order to benefit the disadvantaged 'blacks'. For instance, suppose I were living in one of the southern states of the USA during the period of segregation, and I decided to give my seat on a bus to a pregnant black woman, thus possibly risking the wrath of fellow white passengers, then I would agree that my race has moral implications. But it has no moral implications in and of itself divorced from any such context.

But there IS a context. It's not a binary question of either there's an obvious context (segregation / apartheid) or there's no context at all.

Even without segregation or apartheid, you and I still have a leg-up on people that aren't white or male. This isn't to do with a visible societal construct, but pervasive attitudes, unconscious prejudice, historical residue from previous more obvious segregation and so on.

I mean, we probably don't want to complain too loud, eh? Just because of our skin colour and gender, we get paid disproportionately more (did you hear the news about men getting on average double the bonuses over women yesterday?), and don't face many of the barriers that black and asian people have to. Cool, huh?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

I would frankly rather listen to the words of someone like him, who had and has credibility on this issue of racism (having given his life in conflict with it), than with the theorising of some of the contributors on this thread!

What about the various FACTUAL studies mentioned in this thread that compare the outcomes for people who are in every other way identical other than race?

Or is your basic point that talking about racism is bad form?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

In the US, the University of California stopped considering race as a factor in its admissions. The result was that the acceptance rate for white students dropped and the acceptance rate for Asian student rose considerably. So clearly there was some bias that was benefitting white students and disadvantaging Asian students - wouldn't you say? Would you be comfortable calling such a phenomenon institutional racism?
What was the old system - race quotas? It's not a surprising result - anyone who has ever been inside a US school is aware that the honor roll and the AP classes are overweight with children of Indian and Chinese origin, just like high school dropouts are disproportionately black. So if you switched from a system of racial quotas determined by population demographics to a race-blind system, you'd expect the number of Indian and Chinese students admitted to go up, white students do go down a bit, and black students to go down more.

If the original system was a race quota based on the demographic distribution of the applicants, rather than the wider population, you don't count the excess black dropouts, and the black and white populations probably look pretty similar.

What did happen to the admissions rate for black kids when this change was made?

(And I would say that any system with racial quotas was, by construction, institutional racism.)

The point of the exercise, as driven largely by white and conservative groups in California, was to stop affirmative action that generally helped black and Latino students from underperforming schools.

What happened in fact is that white, black, and Latino enrollment fell while Asian enrollment increased, for the reasons you mention. Which is not what the initiative's supporters wanted. And surprise, they started introducing new rules that would have the effect of hurting Asians, being neutral to blacks/Latinos, and benefitting whites.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30393117/ns/us_news-life/t/asian-americans-blast-uc-admissions-policy/

I'm not against affirmative action, although I prefer an admissions system that does weigh racial/ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds for the purposes of diversity. Students get a more well-rounded education if their peers are not homogenous.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs
I mean, we probably don't want to complain too loud, eh? Just because of our skin colour and gender, we get paid disproportionately more (did you hear the news about men getting on average double the bonuses over women yesterday?), and don't face many of the barriers that black and asian people have to. Cool, huh?

As someone doing a very low paid job at the moment, I find it hard to feel particularly guilty about my race and gender (and yes, in my field of work, even my gender works against me, pay-wise).

As for the word 'bonus': now that's a concept I've vaguely heard about somewhere!

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
Or is your basic point that talking about racism is bad form?

It would be useful if you actually bothered to read what I write, instead of just jumping to conclusions. Nowhere have I said that we should not talk about racism. In fact, I have defined racism in the very post you quoted from. But, hey, don't let evidence get in the way of your opinion, mate.

I would be very happy to talk about what racism actually is. But what racism is NOT is the kind of perverse justification for discriminating against a particular race, which is evident in the posts of certain people on this thread.

Any form of discrimination on the basis of race is racism. Therefore positive discrimination, quotas, affirmative action etc, in which some people are deliberately excluded from opportunities, not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of their race, is racism. Those who advocate these policies are therefore racists.

Sorry, but I call a spade a spade. If you don't like it, tough.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

[Big Grin]

I had my first EVER bonus this year.

You're right, you shouldn't feel guilty, it's not about that. And of course the whole point of statistics is that you can't take one random sample and make any judgement on it. But overall, there is a trend, and that trend is down to the context that we're in, and we're all part of it.

And that trend says that there's inequality. And that's not right.

The huge question is what we can do about it. We're white and male, but it doesn't sound as if either of us are white, male AND powerful (the lethal combination). So, is our response to just do nothing, or are there at least some small ways that we can even the balance?

(edit: grammar)

[ 21. August 2013, 10:21: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
Or is your basic point that talking about racism is bad form?
It would be useful if you actually bothered to read what I write, instead of just jumping to conclusions. Nowhere have I said that we should not talk about racism. In fact, I have defined racism in the very post you quoted from. But, hey, don't let evidence get in the way of your opinion, mate.

I would be very happy to talk about what racism actually is. But what racism is NOT is the kind of perverse justification for discriminating against a particular race, which is evident in the posts of certain people on this thread.

Any form of discrimination on the basis of race is racism. Therefore positive discrimination, quotas, affirmative action etc, in which some people are deliberately excluded from opportunities, not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of their race, is racism. Those who advocate these policies are therefore racists.

Sorry, but I call a spade a spade. If you don't like it, tough.

If you came across at all like you actually think there is discrimination against minorities, that such discrimination exists on a wide scale, and that it has economic and social effects on minority groups, then the rest of your point would be well taken.

Instead, you seem mostly to be upset that there's some implication that you personally, being a white man, are responsible for the racism that minorities experience. Which of course no one here has said or even suggested.

If this conversation makes you so upset, imagine how a black person feels every time we see a banana thrown at a black footballer, or when a black MP in Italy is called an orang-utan by her fellow politicians, or when a newspaper prints a comic of Barack Obama as a monkey.

You come across as though you think accusations of racism are a bigger problem than actual racism. Obviously for you it is, but for society in general, that's not a very convincing position.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

A thought provoking article about Oxford admissions. Of course, because this appeared in the Daily Mail, it will be automatically dismissed as crap (and I agree that the DM is often full of crap), but the black author of the article makes a series of serious points that should be countered with evidence and not by a politically driven media ad hominem. Clearly there is another side to the debate, which should be addressed.

His conclusion:

quote:
The real racists are often those hand-wringing liberals who pander to stereotypes — and judge people by the colour of the skin rather than their characters or their minds.

The problem isn't Oxford, and the university should not be used as an instrument of social engineering to satisfy political whims.

Quite.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
A thought provoking article about Oxford admissions. Of course, because this appeared in the Daily Mail, it will be automatically dismissed as crap (and I agree that the DM is often full of crap), but the black author of the article makes a series of serious points that should be countered with evidence and not by a politically driven media ad hominem. Clearly there is another side to the debate, which should be addressed.

His conclusion:

quote:
The real racists are often those hand-wringing liberals who pander to stereotypes — and judge people by the colour of the skin rather than their characters or their minds.

The problem isn't Oxford, and the university should not be used as an instrument of social engineering to satisfy political whims.
Quite.

The problem is Oxford - Harvard, Princeton et. al. have race-based admissions, which while not hurting their academic reputation in the slightest have produced Barack and Michelle Obama. If it's good enough for the best US universities, which are also generally the best in the world, why not for Oxford?

On the rest of the article, I wholeheartedly agree that education is the problem. They should bring back grammar schools so that poor and minorities have a chance to compete with the privately educated.

I hate the "the real racists are" type of nonsense but I suppose to get published in the DM that's required.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
The problem is Oxford - Harvard, Princeton et. al. have race-based admissions, which while not hurting their academic reputation in the slightest have produced Barack and Michelle Obama.

Race-based admissions may not hurt the academic reputation of a university, but that system will certainly hurt the prospects of those students who are not "of the correct race" (and therefore of the despised race), who have been more eligible within the application system than others who are handed the opportunity to jump the queue.

You may not like the exposure of "the real racists", but any act of discrimination based on race is racist. A race-based admissions system is therefore racist, because a person's race has no bearing on the functioning of their intellect, thus it is irrrelevant as far as tertiary education is concerned.

How would I feel if I had applied to Oxford and been told: "Look, you've made the grade and there is a place for you in the faculty, but unfortunately we are having to give it to someone else further down the queue, because the pigment in your skin is too light. Sorry." What would I think of such people?

Answer: Fucking Nazis.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
The problem is Oxford - Harvard, Princeton et. al. have race-based admissions, which while not hurting their academic reputation in the slightest have produced Barack and Michelle Obama.
Race-based admissions may not hurt the academic reputation of a university, but that system will certainly hurt the prospects of those students who are not "of the correct race" (and therefore of the despised race), who have been more eligible within the application system than others who are handed the opportunity to jump the queue.

You may not like the exposure of "the real racists", but any act of discrimination based on race is racist. A race-based admissions system is therefore racist, because a person's race has no bearing on the functioning of their intellect, thus it is irrrelevant as far as tertiary education is concerned.

How would I feel if I had applied to Oxford and been told: "Look, you've made the grade and there is a place for you in the faculty, but unfortunately we are having to give it to someone else further down the queue, because the pigment in your skin is too light. Sorry." What would I think of such people?

Answer: Fucking Nazis.

Weighed on balance with the overwhelming advantage being white has in the labor market, I think net-net the minority getting the spot at Oxford is mostly levelling the playing field.

The only way to answer that would be to follow the outcomes of black students accepted to top universities and white students rejected, and see if the white students ended up disadvantaged as a result of having to attend some other very-good-but-not-the-best university instead. Do you have any evidence that white students who miss out on a place at Harvard end up worse off in the long run? Otherwise it's just supposition on your part.

And if you think you are living under Nazi Germany, there are some elderly people in Golders Green who'd love to have a word with you about that.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
And if you think you are living under Nazi Germany, there are some elderly people in Golders Green who'd love to have a word with you about that.

A rather strange comment from someone who is actually advocating a policy based on racial discrimination!

It's not the degree of racial oppression which makes someone a Nazi, but the fact of it.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
And if you think you are living under Nazi Germany, there are some elderly people in Golders Green who'd love to have a word with you about that.
A rather strange comment from someone who is actually advocating a policy based on racial discrimination!

It's not the degree of racial oppression which makes someone a Nazi, but the fact of it.

As you've gone full Godwin I'm going to retreat now. No point having any more discussions. Everyone who disagrees with you is a racist or a Nazi.

See ya later.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
Everyone who disagrees with you is a racist or a Nazi.

And that bit of illogicality just about sums up your contribution.

Why don't you have the guts to face up to the fact that you are advocating an overtly racist policy, in the guise of combating racism?

So much easier to run away, when the going gets tough...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Weighed on balance with the overwhelming advantage being white has in the labor market, I think net-net the minority getting the spot at Oxford is mostly levelling the playing field.

That is utter bollocks. The solution to non-whites being disadvantaged in the job market is to reform the job market, not to disadvantage whites in education.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Weighed on balance with the overwhelming advantage being white has in the labor market, I think net-net the minority getting the spot at Oxford is mostly levelling the playing field.

But is the goal that the statistics look right, or that each individual gets the opportunities they deserve?

You could easily have a system where the statistics appear to show overall equal opportunities, with the correct proportions of race, gender etc.

However, within that system, so long as for every black person that's wrongly discriminated against, a white person is also wrongly discriminated against, you wouldn't know the difference - the numbers just have to match. The statistics say that everything is equal, we've got proportionate numbers of different people groups. However, there's arguably even more discrimination going on than before. The specific individual black people who weren't getting opportunities before still aren't getting opportunities, and the same goes for the white individuals due to the 'positive' discrimination.

Your point about individuals ending up at the 'next best' university is well-made, but I can't see how positive discrimination is anything but a temporary plaster while we attempt to tackle the real root causes. And as a plaster, I'm not sure it's very effective anyhow.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: The solution to non-whites being disadvantaged in the job market is to reform the job market, not to disadvantage whites in education.

I agree with you that this would be the best solution. However, this is mostly a long term process.

For the shorter term —even though I too have some objections to it— I support actions of positive discrimination, as long as it's clear that these are temporary measures.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I agree with you that this would be the best solution. However, this is mostly a long term process.

Of course it is. You can't just "magic" someone into having a good education - you have to actually educate them.

quote:
For the shorter term —even though I too have some objections to it— I support actions of positive discrimination, as long as it's clear that these are temporary measures.

I cannot agree, mostly for the reasons goperryrevs stated. Positive Discrimination doesn't erase the wrong that was done to anyone else, it merely creates another wrong in order to balance it out.

If you have two kids, and one of them breaks one of the other's toys, what do you do? Do you try to get them to play together nicely with the toys they have left or do you let the second child break one of the first child's toys so that they're even again? Positive Discrimination is equivalent to the latter approach.

[got the poster's name wrong - darn identical avatars!]

[ 21. August 2013, 12:09: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Weighed on balance with the overwhelming advantage being white has in the labor market, I think net-net the minority getting the spot at Oxford is mostly levelling the playing field.
That is utter bollocks. The solution to non-whites being disadvantaged in the job market is to reform the job market, not to disadvantage whites in education.

Which is why I've already said in a previous post that the government should encourage (if not outright enforce)"blind" CV screening for graduate positions.

The point made to me was that it's racist to accept a black student with top grades over a white one for purposes of affirmative action, and that is what I responded to.

It's a fallacy that university admissions are solely based on academic achievement - and for Oxbridge where there are interviews it is clear that any bias from the interviewer, against minorities or state-educated students, is going to be reflected in the final selection. If as the stats show that there is a bias against minorities and state-school students, then it's right for the university to address this with policies that balance that bias.

In the long-term you ideally have admissions tutors who are not only ethnically and socioeconomically diverse themselves but who are trained not to discriminate against someone with an urban London accent or whose extracurricular activities consist of raising their younger siblings while mom works instead of Duke of Edinburgh. In the short-term, you change admissions policy.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Are white people genuinely having their education ruined because black people are getting places at university? Is there any serious research that confirms this?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Positive Discrimination doesn't erase the wrong that was done to anyone else, it merely creates another wrong in order to balance it out.

Like I said, it isn't perfect. For the short term, the only alternative seems to be to leave things as they are, and that is worse to me.

quote:
Marvin the Martian: If you have two kids, and one of them breaks one of the other's toys, what do you do? Do you try to get them to play together nicely with the toys they have left or do you let the second child break one of the first child's toys so that they're even again? Positive Discrimination is equivalent to the latter approach.

It's more like two sublings who have a number of toys together, but one of them never lets the other play with the nice tractor, and the parents end up giving the tractor to this child for a while.

(PS Is it even possible to have a discussion of racism/sexism/... on the Ship without the main focus of the discussion rapidly becoming "whites/men/... are being discriminated too!"?)

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc
It's more like two sublings who have a number of toys together, but one of them never lets the other play with the nice tractor, and the parents end up giving the tractor to this child for a while.

No it's not.

It's like a kindergarten in which a white boy doesn't let a black boy play with the nice tractor. So the teacher gives the tractor to the black boy to prevent not only the white boy from playing with it, but also the white boy's little brother, who had nothing to do with the problem in the first place!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Which is why I've already said in a previous post that the government should encourage (if not outright enforce)"blind" CV screening for graduate positions.

I see no inherent problem with removing names from job applications, other than the obvious one of being able to confirm that what the person is claiming to have done is actually true!

quote:
The point made to me was that it's racist to accept a black student with top grades over a white one for purposes of affirmative action, and that is what I responded to.

If there is only one place available for two students with identical qualifications, meaning one of them has to be rejected, then are you arguing that the decision should be made based purely on race?

quote:
It's a fallacy that university admissions are solely based on academic achievement

Of course they're not. Especially now, when A Levels have been dumbed down to the point where there are more applicants with the top grades than there are places on the most popular courses. If you can only accept 50 new students but you have 80 applicants with predicted grades of A*A*A*, then you have to use some other mechanism to choose which of them get the places.

quote:
and for Oxbridge where there are interviews it is clear that any bias from the interviewer, against minorities or state-educated students, is going to be reflected in the final selection.

Oxbridge aren't the only ones who use interviews - they're a staple of the selection process at every university that has more good applicants than places available. I had to go through an interview to get into Leeds.

quote:
If as the stats show that there is a bias against minorities and state-school students, then it's right for the university to address this with policies that balance that bias.

Stats are such blunt instruments. Is the disparity they reveal due to minority applicants being turned away despite having the same predicted grades as those accepted? Is it because minority applicants have lower predicted grades? Is it because minority applicants are choosing to go elsewhere in the first place? Each of those is a different issue with a different solution, and blindly fixing one of them won't change a thing if it isn't actually the one causing the disparity.

quote:
In the long-term you ideally have admissions tutors who are not only ethnically and socioeconomically diverse themselves but who are trained not to discriminate against someone with an urban London accent or whose extracurricular activities consist of raising their younger siblings while mom works instead of Duke of Edinburgh. In the short-term, you change admissions policy.

That won't change a single damn thing if said applicant who has to raise their siblings while mom works doesn't have good enough grades, or doesn't apply in the first place.

[ 21. August 2013, 12:29: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(PS Is it even possible to have a discussion of racism/sexism/... on the Ship without the main focus of the discussion rapidly becoming "whites/men/... are being discriminated too!"?)

It usually depends on how long it takes for someone to suggest that the answer to discrimination against non-whites is to discriminate against whites as well. Or "positive discrimination" as it's usually called.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
That won't change a single damn thing if said applicant who has to raise their siblings while mom works doesn't have good enough grades, or doesn't apply in the first place.

The data showed that black applicants to Oxford for some course had half the acceptance rate as white students with the same grades.

If you get AAA and raise your siblings and attend a poor inner city comp where half your classmates don't have English as a first language, are you telling me that's not a greater achievement than getting AAA by a student who did not have any financial hardship and attended a better school?

Of course not all people in the former category are minorities, although disproportionately they tend to be. I would strongly support any admissions policy that takes background into account - which would benefit poor children of all races while also having the effect of increasing minority acceptance rates.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The data showed that black applicants to Oxford for some course had half the acceptance rate as white students with the same grades.

Do you have a link to this data?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: It usually depends on how long it takes for someone to suggest that the answer to discrimination against non-whites is to discriminate against whites as well. Or "positive discrimination" as it's usually called.

On this thread, the 12th post was "How do we address racism towards 'whites'?" As far as I can tell, no-one had mentioned positive discrimination yet.

It's not that I think that discrimination against whites or domestic violence against men shouldn't be mentioned at all. I do feel though that the way it happens on the Ship is rather disproportional. There are a lot of other aspects of discrimination that are interesting to discuss as well.

[ 21. August 2013, 12:46: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If we go with a relative definition, then being able to walk down the street unmolested gives one an advantage over anybody who cannot.
The fact that it's not your fault is irrelevant.
It's relevant if you start implying that I'm a worse person because of it, or say that I should do something about it.

That you're a not a worse person because of it. That you don't have to do something about it is more arguable.

Illustrating the moral principle: you're by a swimming pool and you see a small child fall in. With you is a man in a wheelchair, who because of his disability can't swim. It's no fault of yours that the child fell in. It's no fault of yours that the man in a wheelchair can't swim. But nevertheless you're the one who should do something about it.

What any given individual should do about racism in our society is of course much harder to discern than what an individual standing by when a child falls into the water is. But that doesn't mean that there isn't some responsibility when something comes up. Even if it's only to listen sympathetically when people complain about racism.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The data showed that black applicants to Oxford for some course had half the acceptance rate as white students with the same grades.
Do you have a link to this data?

Oxford Admissions Stats

quote:
More than half of white students achieving three A*s at A level and applying to Oxford in 2010 and 2011 were awarded a place, compared to one in three Chinese or Asian students, and less than one in four black applicants. These ethnic disparities were higher than those between all applicants regardless of grade.

[ 21. August 2013, 12:50: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If you get AAA and raise your siblings and attend a poor inner city comp where half your classmates don't have English as a first language, are you telling me that's not a greater achievement than getting AAA by a student who did not have any financial hardship and attended a better school?

Of course not all people in the former category are minorities, although disproportionately they tend to be. I would strongly support any admissions policy that takes background into account - which would benefit poor children of all races while also having the effect of increasing minority acceptance rates.

Me too. Stuff like that and blind applications (why not remove gender from applications as well as name where appropriate?) seem like longer-term sustainable solutions though, not positive-discrimination.

With that suggestion, you're not making an arbitrary decision based on race. You're making a judgement that says "for this candidate to get to the same level as this other candidate, despite their economic and social barriers is a huge achievement". You're essentially choosing the candidate that has impressed you most.

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

Surely you can see why people get frustrated that everything always comes back to how things affect white men or white people though? And then why some people might feel this confirms that the world is set up to advantage those with white skin. It's like your opinions count more than everyone elses' opinions so if anyone dares to suggest that maybe things need to change to be fairer to other people, some white men/people feel the need to shout everyone else down.

I know this is not your intention or I'm sure EE's either, but that's how it comes across when these threads become all about white rights, and men's rights, rather than positive things that can be done to improve equality. The conversation just gets derailed and may as well not have been started in the first place.

In Australia sometimes disadvantaged students are able to attend university under schemes designed to help people out of poverty. It is recognised that kids in disadvantaged areas, attending schools where lots of their peers don't want to learn and are disruptive in class, may not get the grades that reflect their true abilities. Do you disagree with this? Maybe it means a few less places for kids from more advantaged backgrounds who got better scores.

We also have affirmative action for Aboriginal students, particularly those from remote communities. The only white people I have ever heard complain about this are the same ones who would never consider university for themselves in the first place and who are usually anti-intellectual. They just like to claim that somehow they are hard done by when policies are put in place to reduce the education gap between Aboriginal people and other Australians.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

I would be very happy to talk about what racism actually is. But what racism is NOT is the kind of perverse justification for discriminating against a particular race, which is evident in the posts of certain people on this thread.

There have been several contributors in this thread who have pointed to studies showing the effects of societal racism on a large scale, you have chosen not to engage with them.

It appears that what someone may not have said anyway offends you more than the fact that racism exists.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

If we take a closer look at the Oxford admissions data we see that a huge number of students didn't bother to answer the ethnicity question - about a third, in fact, in the category of "not known / information refused" (11,436 out of 34,484 students who applied).

I would have thought that this would seriously skew the data. Therefore I take these racism claims with a huge pinch of salt.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Mili, is that aimed at me? If so, have you even read all my posts? I know that EE and I have the same avatar, but please don't conflate us.

The scheme in Australia sounds great to me in theory, by the way.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd
Race is certainly not a mere fact. It is a cultural construct. To be of a certain race is to have inherited the effects of that cultural construct on one's ancestors.
We all have moral responsibilities. But I do not have any moral responsibilities simply (note the word!) on the basis that I am what is generally referred to as 'white', because my racial background is amoral. I do not have to pay some kind of moral debt for the 'privilege' of being 'white'. My 'whiteness' does not confer on me some kind of guilt vis-a-vis those who are not 'white'. If I happen to be in a situation where my race is somehow morally relevant - for example, if I were living in an apartheid situation - then I agree that I would have to make a moral choice to lay down my unjust privilege in order to benefit the disadvantaged 'blacks'.

This is all beside the point. We are living in a situation in which race is morally relevant. If only because of the effects that judgements about race had in the past.
Divorced from any context race wouldn't be morally relevant; it wouldn't even exist. But we aren't divorced from any context.

quote:
This is why I brought up the example of the motorist and the cyclist. No one in their right mind would dispute that the motorist has to take very great care on the road and look out for cyclists, who are obviously vulnerable. Therefore the motorist has a moral responsibility. But the cyclist also has a very great moral responsibility.

I am irresistibly reminded of Cordelia from Buffy the Vampire Slayer:

quote:
Shylock should get over himself. People who think their problems are so huge craze me. Like this time I sort of ran over this girl on her bike. It was the most traumatizing event of my life, and she's trying to make it about her leg! Like my pain meant nothing.

quote:
It's this kind of assumption which has devastated much of the developing world, for example.

Obviously the fact that we marched armies over much of the developing world and they didn't march any armies over us had nothing to do with it.
That aid can be patronising and mismanaged and misdirected doesn't mean there is no moral obligation. Failure to discharge an obligation responsibly does not mean that no obligation existed in the first place.

quote:
There is no form of racial discrimination which is inherently more racist than another. Black on white racism is as evil as white on black racism.

And yet the number of people seriously disadvantaged by black on white racism is nowhere near that disadvantaged by white on black racism.

quote:
In other words, it's not about the power of any race, or any "positive discrimination" or mean spirited assigning of guilt onto one race over another, but it's about justice for all people, with no reference to race.

Martin Luther King was having a dream. It would be nice to get there. We aren't there yet.

At the moment, all things being equal, most black people are at a disadvantage due to past injustices, and some ongoing present injustices. Ignoring that isn't justice - it's crying pax as when you cease to be on top of the fight.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
There have been several contributors in this thread who have pointed to studies showing the effects of societal racism on a large scale, you have chosen not to engage with them.

Why are you saying this to me?

Where have I denied that racism exists in the UK? In fact, I affirm that racism exists. It exists in the policies of positive action and discrimination, as well as in the more 'traditional' form.

The answer to racism is not racism, but NON-racism. Using racism to combat racism is ridiculous, but it is what people like seekingsister are effectively advocating (depriving deserving people of opportunities simply on the basis of their race, in order to provide advantages to others purely on the basis of their raace). Do you think it is wrong to speak out against the practice of using a particular evil to combat that very same evil?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Oxford Admissions Stats

quote:
More than half of white students achieving three A*s at A level and applying to Oxford in 2010 and 2011 were awarded a place, compared to one in three Chinese or Asian students, and less than one in four black applicants. These ethnic disparities were higher than those between all applicants regardless of grade.

I haven't actually dug into the data itself, but from the article two things occur to me that may go some way towards explaining the disparity:

They're using the actual grades achieved, but university admissions are based on predicted grades, which are not provided in the dataset. Are schools predicting lower grades for applicants from ethnic minorities?
Applicants from ethnic minorities appear to be far more likely to apply to popular, oversubscribed courses which naturally have a lower success rate. This would inevitably lead to their success rate being lower, even if there was no discrimination at work.

However, they say that there are statistically significant discrepancies in Medicine and Economics & Management. If I have time I'll have a look at the dataset for these subjects.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
In Australia sometimes disadvantaged students are able to attend university under schemes designed to help people out of poverty. It is recognised that kids in disadvantaged areas, attending schools where lots of their peers don't want to learn and are disruptive in class, may not get the grades that reflect their true abilities. Do you disagree with this? Maybe it means a few less places for kids from more advantaged backgrounds who got better scores.

Or in other words, is a system which dictates that Maya Angelou (to pick a totally non-random example) gets no education beyond high school whereas George W. Bush (to pick an equally non-random example) is guaranteed a legacy spot at Yale because his ancestors benefited from a discriminatory system the best possible allocation of educational resources?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Positive Discrimination doesn't erase the wrong that was done to anyone else, it merely creates another wrong in order to balance it out.

If you have two kids, and one of them breaks one of the other's toys, what do you do? Do you try to get them to play together nicely with the toys they have left or do you let the second child break one of the first child's toys so that they're even again? Positive Discrimination is equivalent to the latter approach.

The aim of positive discrimination is like buying a new toy to replace the one that was broken. Now if that money was going to be spent on both children equally, the first child has lost out. Presumably you think that's unjust unless you buy a new toy for the first child as well?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Applicants from ethnic minorities appear to be far more likely to apply to popular, oversubscribed courses which naturally have a lower success rate. This would inevitably lead to their success rate being lower, even if there was no discrimination at work.

That might lead to their overall success rate being lower - it does not account for discrepancies within that individual field though.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
In Australia sometimes disadvantaged students are able to attend university under schemes designed to help people out of poverty. It is recognised that kids in disadvantaged areas, attending schools where lots of their peers don't want to learn and are disruptive in class, may not get the grades that reflect their true abilities.

A quick note on this, it's not even just down to disruption in class (or even outside class). There are a whole range of barriers; quality of teaching, and even factors such as diet. Poorer kids turning up to school on an empty stomach is a real issue, and is bound to affect their performance. Often a school lunch is a child's only source of a properly cooked meal (and the standard of that meal can vary anyhow).

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Mili, is that aimed at me? If so, have you even read all my posts? I know that EE and I have the same avatar, but please don't conflate us.

The scheme in Australia sounds great to me in theory, by the way.

No, sorry. I was talking to Marvin but cross posted with a few others. Just making it clear that I know Marvin and EE aren't intentionally derailing the thread or trying to maintain the status quo when it comes to 'racial' advantage.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Ah, cool. No worries.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That might lead to their overall success rate being lower - it does not account for discrepancies within that individual field though.

As I adknowledged with my last paragraph.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Or in other words, is a system which dictates that Maya Angelou (to pick a totally non-random example) gets no education beyond high school whereas George W. Bush (to pick an equally non-random example) is guaranteed a legacy spot at Yale because his ancestors benefited from a discriminatory system the best possible allocation of educational resources?

Of course not. The only fair system is one in which all applicants to universities are treated equally based on their academic achievements (both actual and predicted), and in cases where academic achievement is identical on other factors that are directly related to how well they are likely to perform in their studies. Who (and how rich) your parents are or what colour your skin is shouldn't matter in the least.

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
In Australia sometimes disadvantaged students are able to attend university under schemes designed to help people out of poverty. It is recognised that kids in disadvantaged areas, attending schools where lots of their peers don't want to learn and are disruptive in class, may not get the grades that reflect their true abilities.
A quick note on this, it's not even just down to disruption in class (or even outside class). There are a whole range of barriers; quality of teaching, and even factors such as diet. Poorer kids turning up to school on an empty stomach is a real issue, and is bound to affect their performance. Often a school lunch is a child's only source of a properly cooked meal (and the standard of that meal can vary anyhow).

(tangent) Yes, I taught a boy in my first year of teaching who rarely brought lunch to school and told me he ate McDonalds most nights. The school didn't have a breakfast program, so he possibly didn't get breakfast either. In Victoria (and I think the rest of Australia) we don't have a subsidised or free lunch program so I would bring lunch for him. However I got blasted by the bully of an acting principal and told that if I kept providing lunch his mother wouldn't bother. I kept secretly providing his lunch because Mum was never going to and he otherwise had to resort to stealing food out of the other children's bags.

I don't know what happened to him in later years. Older children and teenagers tend to hide the fact they don't have lunch as they are ashamed about it.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
A quick note on this, it's not even just down to disruption in class (or even outside class). There are a whole range of barriers; quality of teaching, and even factors such as diet. Poorer kids turning up to school on an empty stomach is a real issue, and is bound to affect their performance. Often a school lunch is a child's only source of a properly cooked meal (and the standard of that meal can vary anyhow).

Another massive issue with this is expectation on the part of teachers, parents and peers. Going to a school where the teachers are looking out for star pupils they can direct to Oxbridge makes a world of difference. Having parents who see their kids as the kind of people who go to a top university makes a lot of difference. Being the kind of seventeen year old whose life glides nicely onto an application form and fills an admissions tutor with the warm glow of familiarity makes a difference. Now obviously there are lots of reasons why people might not see themselves or others as the kind of people who go to Oxford, and race is only one factor here (before I get jumped on by a load of people talking about poor white kids from council estates - I KNOW). The point is that this is a self perpetuating cycle. The kinds of people who get in then become the kinds of parents who expect their kids to get in, or even the tutors who feel that warm glow of familiarity when they see a teenage applicant who seems just like they were at that age. When you've got far more promising applicants than places, things like gut feelings start to take over.

What affirmative action is supposed to do - and when it works well it does do this - is just make that little jump over those gut feelings and comfy familiar feelings. It's not supposed to lead to "I'll give this black applicant a place over this more qualified white one" and I very much doubt that that's something that happens anyway. It's supposed to speak to a situation where you have far more excellent applicants than you can possibly offer places to. You've run out of really good reasons to reject any of them and have gone on to rejecting any who made a single typo, then those who used a font you didn't like. At that point it is so very easy to (even completely unconsciously) go for the ones who remind you of yourself, or to throw out the ones with names that are a bit tricky to spell. Affirmative action is supposed to give you that little push that you might go out on a limb and choose someone different from yourself and help to break the self perpetuating cycle of the same people getting the same goodies they've always got from one generation to the next.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Or in other words, is a system which dictates that Maya Angelou (to pick a totally non-random example) gets no education beyond high school whereas George W. Bush (to pick an equally non-random example) is guaranteed a legacy spot at Yale because his ancestors benefited from a discriminatory system the best possible allocation of educational resources?
Of course not. The only fair system is one in which all applicants to universities are treated equally based on their academic achievements (both actual and predicted), and in cases where academic achievement is identical on other factors that are directly related to how well they are likely to perform in their studies. Who (and how rich) your parents are or what colour your skin is shouldn't matter in the least.

And how would you suspect Maya Angelou's grades from George Washington High School would stack up against George W. Bush's transcripts from the Phillips Academy? And would you say that these were an adequate measure of these two individual's relative intellects?

On a related subject doesn't "who (and how rich) your parents are" affect your ability to get into someplace like Phillips, which in turn looks more impressive to places like Yale? I'm not sure why you consider it reasonable to overlook all the advantages accrued through generations of benefiting from a discriminatory system while simultaneous crying "foul" over any measure taken to correct for past injustice.

Or, to borrow from Martin Luther King, Jr., why is it unreasonable to say "a society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro."

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And how would you suspect Maya Angelou's grades from George Washington High School would stack up against George W. Bush's transcripts from the Phillips Academy? And would you say that these were an adequate measure of these two individual's relative intellects?

Poorly, and no I wouldn't. The solution to that problem is to improve George Washington High School to the point where its students achieve the same grades as those from Phillips Academy.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd
This is all beside the point. We are living in a situation in which race is morally relevant. If only because of the effects that judgements about race had in the past.

Divorced from any context race wouldn't be morally relevant; it wouldn't even exist. But we aren't divorced from any context.

But there are amoral contexts in which race exists. For example, two men knock on my door - one is white and the other is black - and they both offer to clean my windows and for the same price (and let's say that I know that both of them have good reputations in the neighbourhood). I take their numbers, and tell them I will ring the successful 'applicant'. If I decide to choose the white man, am I being racist, because I am depriving the black man of work? If I choose the black man, am I not being an inverted racist, because I am afraid of choosing the white man for fear of being accused of being racist? I hope in that situation that I wouldn't care less about race, and just choose one of them based on my first impression of them. But then, I could start obsessing about whether my 'first impression' is subtly influenced by race and choose the black man, to assure myself that I am being fair. But then I would feel angry that I was being prejudiced against the white man, and depriving him of work.

Frankly, I would probably just toss a coin. But your position seems to be that, being white, and therefore living under a curse of ancestral guilt, I should "do the decent thing" and hire the black man (and the white man can just sod off), in order to fulfil my moral responsibility as one of those nefarious "white men".

The truth is that, unless you can show me how the colour of one's skin has a direct bearing on the efficient cleaning of glass, race is totally irrelevant in this context. It's totally amoral.

quote:
I am irresistibly reminded of Cordelia from Buffy the Vampire Slayer:

How cute. So a cyclist who races through a red light right into a major intersection (which I have personally witnessed) and collides with a car, whose driver (it can be proven irrefutably with reference to the laws of physics) could not stop - while obeying the Highway Code - is not guilty, but the driver is. If you seriously think that, then I am not surprised that you feel the need to resort to Buffy the Vampire Slayer to answer my points, rather than bother to exert yourself intellectually.

quote:
Obviously the fact that we marched armies over much of the developing world and they didn't march any armies over us had nothing to do with it.

Funny how you talk about context and then expect us to respond to situations based on a context that has long expired. Oh, I know what you'll say... the past has a direct bearing on the present. Not necessarily. If we have sent billions of dollars in aid and poverty has increased in large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, then you cannot blame the past, but something seriously amiss in the institutions of post-independence Africa. After decades of independence and largesse, the historical charge against the British Empire wears very thin indeed.

quote:
And yet the number of people seriously disadvantaged by black on white racism is nowhere near that disadvantaged by white on black racism.

So what? I was always taught that two wrongs don't make a right.

quote:
Martin Luther King was having a dream.

A dream that he gave his life seeking to apply to real life. In other words, he was talking about what should be the case in the present and not just the future.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And how would you suspect Maya Angelou's grades from George Washington High School would stack up against George W. Bush's transcripts from the Phillips Academy? And would you say that these were an adequate measure of these two individual's relative intellects?
Poorly, and no I wouldn't. The solution to that problem is to improve George Washington High School to the point where its students achieve the same grades as those from Phillips Academy.

Well, part of the advantage of private schools like Phillips is that they don't have to meet the same requirements as public schools. I'm not sure that's something that can be fixed just by willing it be so. I'm also not sure that the generations-long transfer of wealth and resources from black Americans to white Americans can be fixed just by improving schools, outside the context of larger society.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, part of the advantage of private schools like Phillips is that they don't have to meet the same requirements as public schools.

Are they not the same exams? All schools over here enter their students into the same A Levels, regardless of their annual fee (or lack thereof).

quote:
I'm not sure that's something that can be fixed just by willing it be so. I'm also not sure that the generations-long transfer of wealth and resources from black Americans to white Americans can be fixed just by improving schools, outside the context of larger society.

I'm not sure that such a generations-long transfer can be fixed overnight by any means - the fixing will be a generations-long process as well, and we're only in the first few generations. I'm suggesting that it should start with improved educational opportunities for disadvantaged kids so that they will be able to compete on a (more) level playing field with their peers.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Are they not the same exams? All schools over here enter their students into the same A Levels, regardless of their annual fee (or lack thereof).

In the US a college application includes:

- high school transcript: grades earned in all classes taken in high school. Each subject for each year has its own grade. There is no national curriculum, and on a state level only public schools have to follow that curriculum. Private schools are exempt.

- SAT/ACT: these are standardized, mostly multiple choice exams. Basically to show that you can read, write, and do math to a basic standard

- Advanced Placement (AP): these are considered equivalent to A-Levels - for example this is what UK universities tend to require of American applicants. They are a national exam in a range of subjects that show a higher-level of study than the basic high school requirements.

If you go to a poor school, it is unlikely that your school will even offer AP level classes. Whereas at private schools they are training students for the APs from the first day of high school.

When I was in college I knew one person whose high school did not offer calculus. In my school we had 3 levels of calculus including AP courses, and for advanced students they had an arrangement with a local university so students could study with their first years. So you can see how dramatic the differences can be.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, part of the advantage of private schools like Phillips is that they don't have to meet the same requirements as public schools.
Are they not the same exams? All schools over here enter their students into the same A Levels, regardless of their annual fee (or lack thereof).

As with everything else about the United States, educational standards are a patchwork quilt of rules set mostly at the state level, which may or may not be the same for private and public schools depending on jurisdiction. Standardized college entrance exams exist (primarily the SAT and the ACT) but these are administered by private entities, not the government, and are seen by most colleges as something considered alongside high school class grades, not instead of high school grades. As is the case with buying private education for your children, the rich (and middle class) can afford to send their kids to SAT or ACT preparatory classes, essentially 'buying' their kids better marks through better preparation unavailable to their less well-off age-peers.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
I'm not sure that's something that can be fixed just by willing it be so. I'm also not sure that the generations-long transfer of wealth and resources from black Americans to white Americans can be fixed just by improving schools, outside the context of larger society.
I'm not sure that such a generations-long transfer can be fixed overnight by any means - the fixing will be a generations-long process as well, and we're only in the first few generations. I'm suggesting that it should start with improved educational opportunities for disadvantaged kids so that they will be able to compete on a (more) level playing field with their peers.

Except your position seems to be premised on the idea that a complete and sufficient solution to a lengthy period of discrimination is simply stopping that discrimination and leave the effects it caused unaddressed.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except your position seems to be premised on the idea that a complete and sufficient solution to a lengthy period of discrimination is simply stopping that discrimination and leave the effects it caused unaddressed.

I'm advocating a move towards a society where race is not a factor in educational outcomes or employment opportunities, which will in turn lead to greater equality in terms of wealth and aspiration. Other than obvious stuff nobody here is arguing in favour of, like people assuming all black people are criminals, which other effects did you have in mind?

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Felon disenfranchisement (i.e. not allowing convicted felons ever to vote) is de facto racist.

By "de facto racist" you mean that the measure affects black people more than white people ?

Statistically, rather than through any inherent characteristic of black people ?

By the same argument, punishing crime at all might statistically have a larger impact on black people, and therefore be "de facto racist"

Or conversely, since black people are disproportionately victims of crime, then not punishing crime is also "de facto racist".

Have we reached reductio ad absurdam yet ?

If you have something worthwhile to say, it will still be worth saying if you explain what you mean without using the word "racism". If we keep that word for the real slanders and assaults and bigotry that black people suffer in majority-white countries (and vice versa insofar as that happens too) then these referents deserve all the negative emotional overtones that that word carries. Using the word more widely is crying wolf, a dishonest use of language to try to transfer those emotional overtones to acts and decisions and points of view that don't deserve them.

Which is not denying anything about the things that happen; it's a plea for honest communication.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

My example of the footrace is an example of why merely wiping the slate is not sufficient to truly balance the scales.*
One of the bits of reasoning behind hiring programmes is not merely to benefit the applicant, but to create examples in communities to those who see no benefit in fully participating in the system.
Tiger Woods is an example.** His success brought interest in golf to people who would have never considered the game before.

Marvin and EE,
How would you set the counter to true zero?

*Apologies for putting you through the analogy blender.

** The pre-randy-bastard-Tiger.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

In answer to something Marvin said - this story showing huge improvements in inner city schools suggests that the balance has shifted and the education system is meeting the needs of ethnic minorities far better than it was. That's partly because the inner cities tend to have higher proportions of black and ethnic minority (BME) - the following report from April 2013 quotes 40% for London.

However this report suggests that the Metropolitan Police is still institutionally racist, judged by the numbers of BME police officers employed (10% compared to the 40% in the capital, compared to 14.1% nationally) and statistics such as the proportion of those stopped and searched from ethnic minorities.

[ 21. August 2013, 18:30: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

Oh yes, the Met. I used to meet friends in a pub near a police station, frequented by off-duty officers. I had to stop going. Couldn't keep my mouth shut about their racism, but then what might happen to me? That was a while ago. Is it different now?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm advocating a move towards a society where race is not a factor in educational outcomes or employment opportunities, which will in turn lead to greater equality in terms of wealth and aspiration. Other than obvious stuff nobody here is arguing in favour of, like people assuming all black people are criminals, which other effects did you have in mind?

More complicatedly than that, you're advocating "mov[ing] towards a society where race is not a factor in educational outcomes or employment opportunities" but only if such a society can be accomplished by colorblind means. If addressing the effects of past racism (e.g. money which could have sent black kids to college went instead to line slumlord's pockets in an era of housing discrimination) requires addressing those affected by past racism (who will, not coincidentally, be identifiable by race), then you're in favor of the status quo.

An example from Ta-Nehisi Coates:

quote:
Here is one way to think about this: You are black. You have gotten your college degree and a decent job. But your younger brother isn't doing so well in school and needs some tutoring. And you're worried about your grandmother because her neighborhood isn't safe. And your homeboy, whom you were raised with, just finished a bid for intent to distribute. And your homegirl had a kid when she was 15, but the father is out.

You have made it out of a poor community, but your network is rooted there and shows all the markers of exposure to poverty. Because of a history of American racism, your exposure will be higher than white people of your same income level. Perhaps you would like to build another network. That network, because of a history of racism, will likely be with other black people -- black people who, like you, are part of a network that, on average, shows greater exposure to poverty. Meanwhile, white people are building other networks that are significantly less compromised by exposure to poverty.

This is how segregation compromises the power of black community. It takes a societal ill -- say a lack of insurance -- and then concentrates it one community. Members of the whole community, uninsured and not, feel the effects of this to varying degrees, and a problem that is truly American somehow becomes "black."

The whole thing is worth a read.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Felon disenfranchisement (i.e. not allowing convicted felons ever to vote) is de facto racist.
By "de facto racist" you mean that the measure affects black people more than white people?

I'd guess her point was that by intention and application certain rules which are prima facie race neutral (e.g. voter literacy tests, poll taxes*, disparate sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine) can nonetheless be racially discriminatory in a de facto sense. In fact, most of the really egregious racial discrimination in the U.S. during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century had to be facially race-neutral to satisfy the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As far as the voting franchise for those convicted of certain felonies goes, I'd be hesitant to assume a system predicated on wide-spanning prosecutorial discretion at one end and politically-motivated franchise reinstatement boards at the other is entire free of racial bias.

--------------------
*In the American sense a poll tax is a fee that must be paid in order to vote, not a fixed-amount-per-person tax in the British sense.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Marvin and EE,

How would you set the counter to true zero?

I suppose I could conceivably accept some form of positive discrimination if the victim of that discrimination - i.e. the white person deserving of the job who missed out purely on the basis of his or her race - received significant financial compensation from the government. In other words, if it was a properly thought through scheme with the participation of the one being forced to make the sacrifice, then it might have some moral justification.

But, of course, the state is not willing to put its money where its mouth is, nor is the PC liberal intelligentsia willing to make this sacrifice. It's always "someone else" who has to be the guinea pig for their social experiments. Very convenient as per usual.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But, of course, the state is not willing to put its money where its mouth is, nor is the PC liberal intelligentsia willing to make this sacrifice. It's always "someone else" who has to be the guinea pig for their social experiments. Very convenient as per usual.

So if the PC liberal intelligentsia won't be discriminated against by positive discrimination, that must mean that the PC liberal intelligentsia is not white. Where are all these black people who comprise the liberal intelligentsia?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: I suppose I could conceivably accept some form of positive discrimination if the victim of that discrimination - i.e. the white person deserving of the job who missed out purely on the basis of his or her race - received significant financial compensation from the government.

I'm not sure if it is always easy to locate the 'victims'. For example, in Brazil there is a law that says that each University should accept a minimal quota of black students. It's a highly polemical law and I don't entirely agree with it either, but who would be the victims here that would be entitled to such a compensation?

quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical:
But, of course, the state is not willing to put its money where its mouth is, nor is the PC liberal intelligentsia willing to make this sacrifice. It's always "someone else" who has to be the guinea pig for their social experiments. Very convenient as per usual.

Uhm, you are the one who suggests paying money here. If anyone is suggesting a 'social experiment' here, it is you.

I also think that if we should pay compensation to the white 'victims' of positive discrimination, we should also pay compensation to all black people who've been the victim of negative discrimination now and in the past. That's only fair.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Right, EE. So what you are saying is all the minorities who have been disadvantaged all these years should be compensated? First in, first helped, yes?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Right, EE. So what you are saying is all the minorities who have been disadvantaged all these years should be compensated? First in, first helped, yes?

If the government enacts legislation which requires institutions to pursue policies which are flagrantly discriminatory, then the law is producing victims. If the argument goes that this victimisation of innocent people is justified "for the greater good", then it is not unreasonable for such victims to be compensated. After all, if a new railway or runway is to be built "for the greater good", then those whose houses are demolished are compensated, are they not?

Or perhaps you think that the government should enact laws which are deliberately abusive to innocent people? Do please clarify that point.

As for the wrongs of the past, well, how far back should we go? I'm still waiting for the French to compensate me for the evils of the Norman Conquest. Common sense tells us that we can't change the past, but we can certainly do something about the future. And we don't say, "Oh well, we abused Smith fifty years ago, therefore we are within our rights to abuse Jones next week."

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If the government enacts legislation which requires institutions to pursue policies which are flagrantly discriminatory, then the law is producing victims.

<snip>

As for the wrongs of the past, well, how far back should we go? I'm still waiting for the French to compensate me for the evils of the Norman Conquest. Common sense tells us that we can't change the past, . . .

But wouldn't any new government policy, once enacted, also be taking place "in the past"? How far back does something have to exist to qualify as "the past"? In a technical sense the past starts a fraction of a second ago.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
But wouldn't any new government policy, once enacted, also be taking place "in the past"? How far back does something have to exist to qualify as "the past"? In a technical sense the past starts a fraction of a second ago.

But such laws would be current in application, whereas any discriminatory laws of the past have been repealed.

By the way... if you want to argue technicalities, then perhaps you wouldn't mind defining 'race'. After all, someone with a certain level of tan could be called 'black' and therefore eligible for special treatment (is a certain Mr Obama 'black'?). 'Race' is a vague term, just like the use of the word 'past'.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

Okay EE, what you say has a certain surface rationality. If we were in a world where competent white people were unemployed because less competent non-whites were leapfrogged over them under some positive discrimination regime, you might have a point, though I'd want to argue about the assumptions behind that description.

But that's not the real world. I don't know where you are. Maybe I should, and have not been paying enough attention. Maybe you live in a diverse city, doing work that brings you face on to these issues. I did, all my working life. That's why I couldn't keep going to that pub I mentioned earlier, listening to the crap coming from perhaps the very people who were messing with the good, decent kids I was teaching every day.

So be it. Just please, get yourself on the ground here. Talk about real life.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
But wouldn't any new government policy, once enacted, also be taking place "in the past"? How far back does something have to exist to qualify as "the past"? In a technical sense the past starts a fraction of a second ago.
But such laws would be current in application, whereas any discriminatory laws of the past have been repealed.

Right, but by the time you complain about it it's already happened and is in "the past". For example, when you're denied a legacy spot at the same college your father and grandfather attended, that happens in the present, but by the time you say "that's not fair!" it's already in the past. Once again, is there any boundary to "the past" that you have in mind? Something more complex than "discriminatory policies whose indirect effects might benefit me"?

Now I'll agree that the particularly distant past may be difficult to work out, but most of the acts and policies we're discussing have taken place in living memory. It takes a lot of chutzpah to consign something to the irrelevant past that people still living remember.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Croesos -

But the policy to compensate victims would be in place before the legalised acts of discrimination occur, as with compulsory demolition of people's homes for the purpose of developing transport infrastructure.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd
This is all beside the point. We are living in a situation in which race is morally relevant. If only because of the effects that judgements about race had in the past.

Divorced from any context race wouldn't be morally relevant; it wouldn't even exist. But we aren't divorced from any context.
Frankly, I would probably just toss a coin. But your position seems to be that, being white, and therefore living under a curse of ancestral guilt, I should "do the decent thing" and hire the black man (and the white man can just sod off), in order to fulfil my moral responsibility as one of those nefarious "white men".

People have been talking about responsibility not guilt. Why are you making this about guilt?

quote:
The truth is that, unless you can show me how the colour of one's skin has a direct bearing on the efficient cleaning of glass, race is totally irrelevant in this context. It's totally amoral.

Given that the black man has probably had more hassle in his day to day life, it's probable that if he has an equal reputation to the white man he may be that little bit better at cleaning windows in order to do it as well.
Is everyone else in the neighbourhood really race blind? Is it possible that the window cleaner who belongs to the minority race in the neighbourhood is getting less work in the neighbourhood? Probably other people are being subconsciously influenced to give work to people like them. But possibly the black person has an additional handicap in that some people subconsciously (or consciously) assume that a black window cleaner is less to be trusted than a white?
This is all no doubt overanalysing the situation, and perhaps the fair thing for practical purposes is indeed to toss a coin. But that doesn't mean that race is irrelevant.

quote:

quote:
I am irresistibly reminded of Cordelia from Buffy the Vampire Slayer:
How cute. So a cyclist who races through a red light right into a major intersection (which I have personally witnessed) and collides with a car, whose driver (it can be proven irrefutably with reference to the laws of physics) could not stop - while obeying the Highway Code - is not guilty, but the driver is. If you seriously think that, then I am not surprised that you feel the need to resort to Buffy the Vampire Slayer to answer my points, rather than bother to exert yourself intellectually.

I knew somebody who as a cyclist had a man in a car pull out in front of her when she couldn't possibly stop. She suffered brain damage that left her incapable of pursuing a normal forty hour week career. Now the probabilities are that the guy in the car you saw didn't suffer anything of the sort. The careless cyclist you saw suffered whatever punishment they deserved already. The careless car driver has not.

quote:

quote:
Obviously the fact that we marched armies over much of the developing world and they didn't march any armies over us had nothing to do with it.
Funny how you talk about context and then expect us to respond to situations based on a context that has long expired. Oh, I know what you'll say... the past has a direct bearing on the present. Not necessarily.

The British Empire was a going institution within living memory. Exactly how long does it take for a context to cease to be relevant?

quote:
If we have sent billions of dollars in aid and poverty has increased in large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, then you cannot blame the past, but something seriously amiss in the institutions of post-independence Africa. After decades of independence and largesse, the historical charge against the British Empire wears very thin indeed.

And who exactly set up the institutions?
One of the things that's wrong with the institutions is the interference of Western governments.

quote:

quote:
And yet the number of people seriously disadvantaged by black on white racism is nowhere near that disadvantaged by white on black racism.
So what? I was always taught that two wrongs don't make a right.

Redress of injustice is not a wrong.
There's an Anthony Trollope novel in which a young man discovers that his inheritance belongs to him only because his mother forged his father's will in his favour. Trollope is under absolutely no doubt that the young man's moral duty is to restore the farm to the rightful owner.

But that's quaint outdated Victorian morality for you. With the benefit of your modern up-to-date morality, we now realise that the young man needn't have troubled himself. He wasn't personally at fault; the context of his father's will had long since expired; the French haven't reimbursed him for the Norman Conquest; common sense says we can't change the past but we can change the future. Trollope's PC liberal principles are so blunt.

quote:

quote:
Martin Luther King was having a dream.
A dream that he gave his life seeking to apply to real life. In other words, he was talking about what should be the case in the present and not just the future.

Oh well, that's fine then. Nobody's disadvantaged by racist attitudes anymore. We can all sit round the fire and sing kum-ba-yah.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

You might need to go back to the Norman conquest to find disadvantage, but how far do you think minorities need go back? Oh, right, that would be today.
You illustrate the problem. It has been fine to disadvantage others for centuries, but as soon as your group is asked to share, everything is suddenly unfair. Everything must be resolved and balanced immediately.
I am not asking for anyone to be disadvantaged, I am asking for solutions to the problems existing.
I am asking for equitable solutions, not your" if we're not allowed advantage, we must be compensated."

The first step is that we minimise the yours ,mine and theirs. That we do not consider ourselves desperate.
Another step is to balance education.
Ending all racial and ethnic considerations for opportunities is a wonderful goal. But the chasm between that and what exists will take more stepping stones than those two.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

Exactly. For heaven's sake, where does all this fear come from? At the very prospect of treating people as they deserve? Baffling.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by argona
So be it. Just please, get yourself on the ground here. Talk about real life.

I remember back in the 1980's trying to get a job with lefty Camden Council, and made the mistake of being honest and believing in a rare thing called 'fairness'. The key question in the interview (in fact, all I remember of the short interview was this question, so it may have been the only question) concerned what I thought about the council's policies with regard to ethnic minorities. Naive fool that I was, I thought I could appeal to the idea of 'equality'.

Hence I didn't get the job.

Yeah. Real life. Real prejudices. Tell me about it...

quote:
For heaven's sake, where does all this fear come from? At the very prospect of treating people as they deserve?

I would love for people to be treated as they deserve. Bring it on...

It's racism that I cannot stomach. Especially racism dressed up in the clothes of hypocrisy.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Naive fool that I was, I thought I could appeal to the idea of 'equality'.

Hence I didn't get the job.

Hence? You got feedback? A commitment to 'equality' was why they didn't hire you?

quote:
It's racism that I cannot stomach. Especially racism dressed up in the clothes of hypocrisy.

If you're calling me a hypocrite, take it to Hell.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

argona -

What, you think positive discrimination is about equality? Well I never...

As for hypocrisy: it was a general comment about the racism inherent in the policy of positive discrimination. It was not directed at you personally, and therefore I apologise for giving the impression that it was.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Equal opportunities does not meaning people equally - as many seem to think - but putting such measures into place as to allow equal access for everyone. Ignoring race because it's hard to give clear examples, but considering a lawyer who uses a wheelchair. Treating him equally could mean insisting he uses the stairs like everyone else, equal opportunities means ensuring such adaptations as ramps and lifts to enable him to reach his office.

Now not that long ago, insisting on accessible offices was seen as being difficult. And that wheelchair using lawyer is going to struggle to find employment too as disability is similarly discriminated against.

We're now recognising society disadvantages others, including through racism, and are trying to provide equivalent support to level the playing field for all. That does not mean others are necessarily disadvantaged. Wheelchair access also helps the young lawyer who breaks his leg skiing.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But the policy to compensate victims would be in place before the legalised acts of discrimination occur, as with compulsory demolition of people's homes for the purpose of developing transport infrastructure.

I find the sense of entitlement here rather telling. EE equates a change in administrative standards to be the equivalent of exercising eminent domain over private property. That's sort of like saying that your legacy berth in college is something you're owed and you should be compensated if standards are changed. This paints the status quo as some kind of natural birthright rather than a created thing. The only thing missing is a tale of martyrdom explaining how the real victims are white guys suffering at the hands of the "real racists", who are conniving leftists and shiftless minorities.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I remember back in the 1980's trying to get a job with lefty Camden Council, and made the mistake of being honest and believing in a rare thing called 'fairness'. The key question in the interview (in fact, all I remember of the short interview was this question, so it may have been the only question) concerned what I thought about the council's policies with regard to ethnic minorities. Naive fool that I was, I thought I could appeal to the idea of 'equality'.

Hence I didn't get the job.

Yeah. Real life. Real prejudices. Tell me about it...

Thanks EE! You provide full service.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

If only righting the wrongs of slavery were as easy as returning something that was stolen by your grandmother. Unfortunately, it's far more complicated. Just look at the efforts to integrate schools. At first it seemed like a simple idea; if black children had the same quality schools as white children they would fare just as well. It didn't happen that way. Even in cases where the white children were just as poor and just as likely to come to school hungry, the white children still made better grades and were more likely to graduate. Easing college admission standards and filling quotas didn't work as well as expected. Only 42% of black college students graduate compared to 62% of whites. One speculated reason is that by accepting these students with lower qualifications they were being set up for failure. They found themselves at colleges like Harvard, competing for grades against white students who had been the cream of the crop at superior high schools. Things get more complicated all the time. Of the recent graduating class at Harvard only one third of the "black" students were African Americans with four black grandparents indicating they were descendant of slaves. The other two thirds were African or West Indies immigrants. Recently, applicants who once called themselves black are now checking, "mixed race," making it harder to fill quotas. As interracial marriage continues to climb it will be harder and harder to find people who seem to qualify for whatever restitution is on offer.

The situation with Native Americans and casino shares is just a sad example of good intentions that may not be working as well as first hoped.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed...
Equal opportunities does not meaning people equally - as many seem to think - but putting such measures into place as to allow equal access for everyone.

Exactly. "Allowing equal access for everyone" precludes race as a criterion.

I personally think that the casting of lots is a brilliant way of separating people who are equally qualified for a job. No one can dispute the fairness of it, because it doesn't rely on any opinion or impression of any interviewer or assessor. It's about relying on luck or God (depending on one's world view). The use of sortition would cut out all the tortuous crap about positive discrimination. It's a pity we don't make more use of such a method. It puts an end to all the arguments and scurrilous claims.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Casting lots? Are you serious? Given that higher paying jobs are rarely entry level, at best all you give is equal chance at low paying jobs.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
EE equates a change in administrative standards to be the equivalent of exercising eminent domain over private property. That's sort of like saying that your legacy berth in college is something you're owed and you should be compensated if standards are changed.

Classic Croesos! [Killing me]

Well done!

I love your 'logic'. It's immensely amusing.

I'm almost tempted to leave it there and let you work out why I think your comment is a ludicrous straw man.

But let me put you out of your misery... nowhere did I even remotely suggest that I was defending the spurious rights of students to take up what you term "legacy berths". I was talking about genuinely deserving students and potential employees, who are being cast aside purely on the basis of the pigment in their skin, the shape of their nose and so on.

Do carry on. There's a good chap...

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Casting lots? Are you serious?

Fascinating reaction!

You ask me if I am serious about the idea of casting lots, but what could be more bizarre than choosing someone based on their skin pigment, nose shape, hair type etc?

Two people apply for a job. Whom should we employ?

1. We'll cast lots.

2. We'll decide on the basis of skin pigment.

Which is more absurd?

I think I know the answer to that one.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

EE, I am at a loss how to read you. I do believe you're not some atavistic white supremacist wanting to hang on to historic advantage - honest! And I know that redressing past wrongs is not as straightforward as many believe. Twilight made some good points just now. But for Heaven's sake... we do have to try. The negativity and fearfulness of your approach, effectively - it seems to me - derailing LilBuddha's intention in starting this thread, just bewilders me. Dropping pejorative terms into your posts - ok I accept your gracious apology for 'hypocrisy', but what does 'scurrilous' achieve? If we are all talking about how to make a multiracial and multi-ethnic community work to everyone's benefit, could you make some positive - dare I say optimistic - suggestions?

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

And no, I don't buy the lottery idea. Chance is never going to be just. Ask the next beggar you pass on the street. It could be any of us, one day.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Did you read the whole post you are addressing, EE?
Say you wish to be a solicitor and you approach a top legal firm. Oh, and you are black. You march to the firm having just finished your training contract and apply for the job. All qualified applicants will be chosen by lot. But wait, top firms have as a qualification only to hire experienced lawyers. So, you march down to a lower tier firm to apply and obtain this experience. Only to find this tier firm only accepts applications from candidates who have gone to the top law schools. And you did not as where you lived was too poor.
But, yeah, casting lots is still equal, innit.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I personally think that the casting of lots is a brilliant way of separating people who are equally qualified for a job. No one can dispute the fairness of it, because it doesn't rely on any opinion or impression of any interviewer or assessor.

The main problem with this suggestion is that there are very few situations where candidates are equally qualified, and determining that equality will inevitably involve the "opinion or impression of an[] interviewer or assessor". In other words, the problem it's supposed to solve is negated by its premise.

Which kind of gets to the nub of your argument, which seems to be premised on the idea that every evaluation can be made according to an unambiguous, non-controversial standard. This is rarely the case.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But let me put you out of your misery... nowhere did I even remotely suggest that I was defending the spurious rights of students to take up what you term "legacy berths". I was talking about genuinely deserving students and potential employees, who are being cast aside purely on the basis of the pigment in their skin, the shape of their nose and so on.

Your original position was that changing the standard by which applicants are judged deprives them of their 'right' to be judged under the old standard. You even likened this right to the ownership of private property; essentially being judged under the former standard was something people were owed and any action to deprive them of this required compensation. The analogy to private property was your choice.

At any rate, revising your position to say essentially 'this only applies to standards I approve of' is just special pleading. If someone can be said to "own" the right to be judged by a standard not open to revision, why doesn't the same logic apply to legacies? Why don't they count as "victims" of a rule change if legacy admissions are done away with?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

I'm going to give you an example of structural discrimination, though not based on race. I have a friend who is an excellent piano player. I've hired him to rehearse repertoire before auditions, and we've done several concerts and master classes together.

However, every time I actually go to an audition, I have to use a different pianist. Why? Why wouldn't I want to audition with the pianist I have been practicing with?

Well, because my friend uses a wheelchair, and one has to go up a flight of stairs to get to the audition location, and there is no elevator or ramp. So he is barred from that location, just because of who he is and how he gets around.

Now, I'm sure that when the building was built, no one said, "Let's make sure there's lots of stairs so people who use mobility aids can't get in." But the end result is the same.

That is how structural racism works. Nobody has to make a decision to discriminate. They just make decisions that appear to be neutral but happen to exclude some people, people that, well how many people use wheelchairs anyway? And how many would want to come here? And they can always go some place else if they have to, right?

That's how discrimination can happen even in the absence of any deliberate intent by any individual to discriminate.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

Story in the Guardian this morning - if you're black and caught with drugs, you're more likely to be charged than a white person caught on the same offense.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/ethnic-minorities-likely-charged-drug-possession

quote:
Black people are not just significantly more likely to be searched by police for drugs than their white peers, but face almost double the chance of being charged if any are found, according to a study of racial disparities in the way drug laws are enforced.

The study showed, for instance, disparities for cocaine possession in London, with 78% of black people charged, compared with 44% of white people. Black people were also almost twice as likely to be charged for possession of cannabis in the capital.

quote:
In London, which has the most thorough data for such policing and accounts for half of all the stop-and-search incidents in England and Wales, 12.4% of white people found possessing cannabis in 2009/10 were charged, with almost 75% given a warning.

For black people found with cannabis, 21.5% were charged and 65% warned.

There were also stark differences with the way courts deal with drug possession, with black people being jailed for the offence at six times the rate of white people.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My example of the footrace is an example of why merely wiping the slate is not sufficient to truly balance the scales.*

Yes, but you're only focusing on the very first race that gets run after the shackles are removed. Whereas I'm focusing on the fact that those people are now free to train every bit as hard as the other runners, and to begin competing in - and winning - races once that training takes effect.

quote:
One of the bits of reasoning behind hiring programmes is not merely to benefit the applicant, but to create examples in communities to those who see no benefit in fully participating in the system.

For sure. But that can be achieved simply by selecting the best people for the job regardless of race - unless you're suggesting that no members of certain races can possibly succeed in a fair system* without external assistance. I don't believe that, especially in an age where the President of the USA is a black man.

*= which is not to say that the current system is fair - there's still a lot of work to be done on that front.

quote:
Tiger Woods is an example.** His success brought interest in golf to people who would have never considered the game before.

Yes, but he did it by being good at the game. Not by being given a twenty-shot handicap over the other players on the course.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Tiger Woods is an example.** His success brought interest in golf to people who would have never considered the game before.
Yes, but he did it by being good at the game. Not by being given a twenty-shot handicap over the other players on the course.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Yes, but he did it by being good at the game. Not by being given a twenty-shot handicap over the other players on the course.

You know Augusta Golf Club didn't accept black members until 1990, right?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna
I'm going to give you an example of structural discrimination, though not based on race. I have a friend who is an excellent piano player. I've hired him to rehearse repertoire before auditions, and we've done several concerts and master classes together.

However, every time I actually go to an audition, I have to use a different pianist. Why? Why wouldn't I want to audition with the pianist I have been practicing with?

Well, because my friend uses a wheelchair, and one has to go up a flight of stairs to get to the audition location, and there is no elevator or ramp. So he is barred from that location, just because of who he is and how he gets around.

Now, I'm sure that when the building was built, no one said, "Let's make sure there's lots of stairs so people who use mobility aids can't get in." But the end result is the same.

That is how structural racism works.

You're making a point about structural racism, so why give an example about an entirely different issue, namely, disability? Why not give an example based on race?

Suppose your friend was not disabled, and yet you were required to do the audition with a pianist who was. This was based on the fact that for many years the audition building could not provide access to disabled people, but ten years ago it provided access. So both disabled and able-bodied people have been able to access the location easily for many years. But despite this equality of access (in other words, the problem has been solved) there was a moral requirement to give the audition jobs to disabled pianists in order to right an historical wrong. No other reason.

Now that would be a far better analogy. And, of course, it's a ludicrous state of affairs.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
You know Augusta Golf Club didn't accept black members until 1990, right?

So presumably they now have to exclude white members as an act of penance, right?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Yes, but he did it by being good at the game. Not by being given a twenty-shot handicap over the other players on the course.
You know Augusta Golf Club didn't accept black members until 1990, right?

Yes, which was wrong and I'm very glad it's no longer the case. I'm not sure what relevance you think that observation has to the point I'm making though.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Yes, but he did it by being good at the game. Not by being given a twenty-shot handicap over the other players on the course.
You know Augusta Golf Club didn't accept black members until 1990, right?
Yes, which was wrong and I'm very glad it's no longer the case. I'm not sure what relevance you think that observation has to the point I'm making though.

That his ability would have been irrelevant if he was trying to get into professional golf in the 1980s. And that it was the white players in the 1990s who had a 20 shot handicap by having excluded other groups from even getting into the sport.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
That his ability would have been irrelevant if he was trying to get into professional golf in the 1980s. And that it was the white players in the 1990s who had a 20 shot handicap by having excluded other groups from even getting into the sport.

So?

What exactly are you advocating we do about it now in 2013?

Change the rules of golf, so that there are different rules for black players, in order to right the historical wrong, and redress the balance?

Yes, there were terrible injustices in the past. The answer in the present is not to create yet more injustice (by promoting racism in the other direction), but to pursue policies of justice. If only Martin Luther King was still around to put people right on this one!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
That his ability would have been irrelevant if he was trying to get into professional golf in the 1980s. And that it was the white players in the 1990s who had a 20 shot handicap by having excluded other groups from even getting into the sport.

Indeed. And that injustice has now been put right. So where's the problem?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Just look at the efforts to integrate schools. At first it seemed like a simple idea; if black children had the same quality schools as white children they would fare just as well. It didn't happen that way.

My grandson attends a public school in Washington, D.C., where all the schools are charter schools. The same amount of money is allocated for each child. Parents apply for the school they think will be best for their child. If there are more applications than places, a lottery is held.

My grandson got a place in a school which is bilingual Mandarin-English. He will learn in both languages. I cannot imagine a better education for him.

He got into this school because his parents had the know-how to research the various schools. There are many poor parents, mostly black, who do not have the savvy to figure out what would be best for their child. For many of them, life is such a day-to-day struggle that they don't have the energy even if they had the know-how.

I don't see what can be done about this kind of inequality.

Moo

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yes, there were terrible injustices in the past. The answer in the present is not to create yet more injustice (by promoting racism in the other direction), but to pursue policies of justice. If only Martin Luther King was still around to put people right on this one!

Yes, if only the man who advocated for America's first affirmative action program because "a society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" he'd totally agree that any kind of correction to past racism is totally wrong!

Just out of curiosity, do you have any familiarity with the writings and speeches of Dr. King beyond a single out-of-context quote from the "I Have A Dream" speech?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My example of the footrace is an example of why merely wiping the slate is not sufficient to truly balance the scales.*
Yes, but you're only focusing on the very first race that gets run after the shackles are removed. Whereas I'm focusing on the fact that those people are now free to train every bit as hard as the other runners, and to begin competing in - and winning - races once that training takes effect.

But this is not accurate. Did you read my solicitor example? This happens, this still happens.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
One of the bits of reasoning behind hiring programmes is not merely to benefit the applicant, but to create examples in communities to those who see no benefit in fully participating in the system.
For sure. But that can be achieved simply by selecting the best people for the job regardless of race - unless you're suggesting that no members of certain races can possibly succeed in a fair system* without external assistance. I don't believe that, especially in an age where the President of the USA is a black man.

*= which is not to say that the current system is fair - there's still a lot of work to be done on that front.

Oh, yes, the "Those suggesting help is needed are the true racists" argument. In a fair system, their should be no imbalance. We do not have fair systems, as you acknowledge in your statement following the asterisks.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Just out of curiosity, do you have any familiarity with the writings and speeches of Dr. King beyond a single out-of-context quote from the "I Have A Dream" speech?

Yes I do (far more than you realise, as a matter of fact, given that he was one of the major influences on my becoming a Christian in my late teens.)

And the quote was not out of context. But then I don't suppose that someone who doesn't understand the difference between "judging someone by the colour of their skin", on the one hand, and by "the content of their character", on the other, will accept that. It takes a particularly acrobatic mind to claim that that saying (as well as the one I quoted earlier) is out of context and that it really does mean "judge someone by the colour of their skin", which is what positive discrimination is all about.

Perhaps you have never read all the stuff that King wrote about forgiveness? Perhaps you think that what he meant by 'forgiveness' was "mouth nice words to white people while stabbing them in the back"? Or his words about non-violence? Ever grasped the significance of any of that?

Obviously not.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." (Croesos' interpretation: unless it involves the injustice of revenge against white people)

"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend." (Croesos' interpretation: white people excluded, of course)

"I want to be the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law." (Croesos' interpretation: but even brothers can bully each other. It's OK. It's called sibling rivalry.)

"It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it." (Croesos' interpretation: 'sacrifice' for it? Yeah, sacrifice the white man's rights for it!)

I could go on. All taken out of context, of course!! [Snigger]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

EE,
Care to address the quote in Croesos' last post? The one Where Dr. King advocates affirmative action programmes?
Conservatives love to pretend they understand Dr. King better than we wet lefties, but they get it wrong. Here is an article on Dr. King about this phenomenon.
Please read the entire thing rather than quote mine.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Oh, and I forgot my favourite MLK quote:

quote:
Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.

Positive discrimination is one of those "half-baked solutions" (what he would call "conscientious stupidity"). The stupidity of trying to rectify injustice with injustice, racism with racism, goes against absolutely everything MLK stood for. It's a short-term slipshod pseudo-solution, which can only stir up the bitterness of racial prejudice in the hearts and minds of the very people to whom MLK was trying to reach out.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps you have never read all the stuff that King wrote about forgiveness? Perhaps you think that what he meant by 'forgiveness' was "mouth nice words to white people while stabbing them in the back"? Or his words about non-violence? Ever grasped the significance of any of that?

Obviously not.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." (Croesos' interpretation: unless it involves the injustice of revenge against white people)

Not my interpretation, but the only one available to you, given King's support of what would become known as "affirmative action". Since you seem to regard such programs as "revenge against white people" or some kind of dolchstoß, King's endorsement of such programs would seem to put him beyond the pale in your reckoning.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Oh, and I forgot my favourite MLK quote:

quote:
Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.
Positive discrimination is one of those "half-baked solutions" (what he would call "conscientious stupidity"). The stupidity of trying to rectify injustice with injustice, racism with racism, goes against absolutely everything MLK stood for. It's a short-term slipshod pseudo-solution, which can only stir up the bitterness of racial prejudice in the hearts and minds of the very people to whom MLK was trying to reach out.

And yet he endorsed that stupid, slipshod, pseudo-solution. That's something you keep ignoring in your attempts to turn Dr. King into your sockpuppet.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
That his ability would have been irrelevant if he was trying to get into professional golf in the 1980s. And that it was the white players in the 1990s who had a 20 shot handicap by having excluded other groups from even getting into the sport.
Indeed. And that injustice has now been put right. So where's the problem?

I'm just pointing out that his success was only possible because the PGA forced clubs to stop being racist, and it wasn't very long ago at all.

And let's not forget Sergio Garcia was cracking fried chicken jokes about Tiger Woods last year. Which was a repeat of a comment made by Fuzzy Zoeller in 1997.

Just because a rule changes doesn't mean attitudes do.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
And let's not forget Sergio Garcia was cracking fried chicken jokes about Tiger Woods last year. Which was a repeat of a comment made by Fuzzy Zoeller in 1997.

Just because a rule changes doesn't mean attitudes do.

And Sergio Garcia speaks for all 'white' golfers, does he?

And he also apologised. But I don't suppose something called 'forgiveness' will ever be forthcoming, will it? No. He'll never be allowed to forget his "unforgivable sin", will he, if the PC lynch mob have anything to do with it!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And Sergio Garcia speaks for all 'white' golfers, does he?

And he also apologised. But I don't suppose something called 'forgiveness' will ever be forthcoming, will it? No. He'll never be allowed to forget his "unforgivable sin", will he, if the PC lynch mob have anything to do with it!

You know, if you regard "forgiveness" as something you're owed and start resenting those you've wronged for not providing when it's demanded I'm not sure you really understand what "forgiveness" is.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
You know, if you regard "forgiveness" as something you're owed and start resenting those you've wronged for not providing when it's demanded I'm not sure you really understand what "forgiveness" is.

Well I never. To think that I am being preached to about forgiveness by someone who accused me of misquoting Martin Luther King!!!! (I mean it's not as though he advocated something as stoopid as forgiveness, is it?)

But, OK, suppose you're right. Let's not forgive him. Let's lynch him instead. I mean, that really really is the answer to the problem of racism!! [Killing me]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Indeed. And that injustice has now been put right. So where's the problem?

If Andrew knocks Betty over the head, takes her purse, and runs off, I'm not sure that it's enough for the injustice to have been put right that Andrew has now stopped knocking Betty over the head.

It rather depends on the policy of admission to the golf club. Can any number of people join, or is there a fixed number? If there's a fixed number, then it would certainly seem fair that those people who weren't allowed to join earlier can go to the head of the queue. And if they're no longer interested but their children are, then their children have at least some claim to be moved up the queue a bit.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Response to EE
I find your words difficult to engage as they are often serious non-sequiturs of the posts to which they are represented as reacting to. A map is needed merely navigate back.
Here is an attempt.
No one suggested forgiveness was inappropriate. Just that it is not automatic. Apologies are easy, thinking about what you say prior to speaking appears to be a bit more difficult.

[ 22. August 2013, 19:21: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
And yet he endorsed that stupid, slipshod, pseudo-solution. That's something you keep ignoring in your attempts to turn Dr. King into your sockpuppet.

Yeah, you are obviously right: Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated racism as the path to black emancipation. A bloke on the internet called 'Croesos' says so, so it's self-evidently true.

I bow to your superior reading of history, dear sir. If you carry on like this you may get a cushy job in the Ministry of Truth.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
He'll never be allowed to forget his "unforgivable sin", will he, if the PC lynch mob have anything to do with it!

Gosh, the PC Lynch Mob! Awful people, wanting us to speak of others with the same consideration we expect ourselves.

Hang on... Nooo!! Call the police!!! They're throwing a rope over a lamp post, right outside!!!!!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
You know, if you regard "forgiveness" as something you're owed and start resenting those you've wronged for not providing when it's demanded I'm not sure you really understand what "forgiveness" is.
Well I never. To think that I am being preached to about forgiveness by someone who accused me of misquoting Martin Luther King!!!! (I mean it's not as though he advocated something as stoopid as forgiveness, is it?)

But, OK, suppose you're right. Let's not forgive him. Let's lynch him instead.

Umm, you did say you were familiar with Dr. King, right?

Seriously, if your takeaway from Dr. King's teachings is that forgiveness is something the oppressed owes the oppressor I think you've missed a lot of points. I'm also somewhat appalled that you seem to think "lynching" means "not being prompt enough with demanded forgiveness".

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
I'm also somewhat appalled that you seem to think "lynching" means "not being prompt enough with demanded forgiveness".

Yeah, I obviously mean literal physical lynching!* As for 'promptness', Sergio Garcia made his comment a few months ago and has since apologised - also many weeks ago. He made a mistake. He recognised it. So why did seekingsister feel the need to fish around in the sewer and drag it up?

By the way... as for 'affirmative action', you may like to note the following:

quote:
Affirmative action in the United States began as a tool to address the persistent discrimination against African Americans in the 1960s. This specific term was first used to describe US government policy in 1961. Directed to all government contracting agencies, President John F. Kennedy's Executive Order 10925 mandated "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, WITHOUT regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

Emphasis mine.

(Admittedly from the non-too-reliable Wikipedia, so if it's wrong, do let them know)

* I'm being sarcastic, in case you didn't get it! Never quite sure with some readers.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yeah, I obviously mean literal physical lynching!

If you meant it as a light-hearted metaphor, a search on 'Strange Fruit' would be educative.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
I'm also somewhat appalled that you seem to think "lynching" means "not being prompt enough with demanded forgiveness".
Yeah, I obviously mean literal physical lynching!*

* I'm being sarcastic, in case you didn't get it! Never quite sure with some readers.

Sarcasm or not, your chosen metaphor seems like a singularly bad choice in this context.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
By the way... as for 'affirmative action', you may like to note the following:

quote:
Affirmative action in the United States began as a tool to address the persistent discrimination against African Americans in the 1960s. This specific term was first used to describe US government policy in 1961. Directed to all government contracting agencies, President John F. Kennedy's Executive Order 10925 mandated "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, WITHOUT regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
Emphasis mine.

(Admittedly from the non-too-reliable Wikipedia, so if it's wrong, do let them know)

How considerate! An unlinked quotation out of Wikipedia concerning JFK's ideas on affirmative action in place of actually addressing the article I cited dealing with Dr. King's position on the subject. Why do you think an executive order from John Kennedy tells us more about Martin Luther King, Jr.'s position on affirmative action than any statement made by the man himself?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
How considerate! An unlinked quotation out of Wikipedia concerning JFK's ideas on affirmative action in place of actually addressing the article I cited dealing with Dr. King's position on the subject. Why do you think an executive order from John Kennedy tells us more about Martin Luther King, Jr.'s position on affirmative action than any statement made by the man himself?

How disgustingly evil of me to neglect to provide the link. I won't bother apologising for this nefarious act, because I don't expect to be forgiven. The offended party can continue to remain offended (that is, after all, the way of the perpetually outraged, is it not?).

As for affirmative action, thanks for that article, which confirms my position as follows:

quote:
In King's teachings, affirmative action approaches were not "reverse discrimination" or "racial preference." King promoted affirmative action not as preference for race over race (or gender over gender), but as a preference for inclusion, for equal opportunity, for real democracy. Nor was King's integration punitive: For him, integration benefited all Americans, male and female, white and non-white alike.

I am most grateful that you have graciously conceded to my point of view. Thank you.

[ 22. August 2013, 20:33: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am most grateful that you have graciously conceded to my point of view. Thank you.

You must have missed this bit:

quote:
The exploitation of King's name, the distortion of his teachings for political gain, is an ugly development. The term "affirmative action" did not come into currency until after King's death "but it was King himself, as chair of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who initiated the first successful national affirmative action campaign: "Operation Breadbasket."

In Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities, King staffers gathered data on the hiring patterns of corporations doing business in black communities, and called on companies to rectify disparities. "At present, SCLC has Operation Breadbasket functioning in some 12 cities, and the results have been remarkable," King wrote (quoted in Testament of Hope, James Washington, ed.), boasting of "800 new and upgraded jobs [and] several covenants with major industries."

King was well aware of the arguments used against affirmative action policies. As far back as 1964, he was writing in Why We Can't Wait: "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."

This seems to be an endorsement of the exact idea that made you "recoil in horror" (to borrow from Dr. King) last page: examining employer's hiring patterns and applying pressure to achieve a more representative racial mix. In fact, that last quote seems to be tailor made about your sentiments.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

I will concede that in very extreme circumstances, limited to the immediate aftermath of the overthrow of officially sanctioned conditions of apartheid and segregation, that the remedy may involve a very short period of emergency measures - backed up with extra government funding - to proactively provide work and educational opportunities to those who have been disadvantaged. But these places would be offered in addition to those already existing, due to a government funding commitment, thus avoiding the hypocrisy of reverse racism, which is socially self-defeating (as King clearly recognised, hence his unchanging message of not meeting hate with hate).

This is a far cry from the situation in the UK in 2013 and (although I know less about this) presumably the current situation in much, if not all, of the USA. So to use a particular scenario advocated by King in a crisis situation to argue for a long-term, ongoing and universally applicable methodology is simply dishonest, especially considering the full weight of his clearly articulated teaching.

[ 22. August 2013, 21:13: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Sergio Garcia made his comment a few months ago and has since apologised - also many weeks ago. He made a mistake. He recognised it. So why did seekingsister feel the need to fish around in the sewer and drag it up?

Possibly because of the attitude betokened by such a comment. An attitude that is actually fairly common in Southern Europe and which Garcia gave voice to.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

I can't keep up with the pace of the back-and-forth on this thread.

But it seems to be an argument between those who think racism is mistreating someone on the grounds of their race, who want to see all individuals treated fairly, and those who want to see equality of outcomes between different racial groups, and think racism is anything that gets in the way of that.

The pro-equality side seem to be saying that if the treat-people-as-people side get their way, and a culture of colourblindness prevails, that will not be enough to lead to equal outcomes. Is that something we all agree on ?

Can we be clearer about the mechanisms ? Is it just that the poor (of any colour or culture) tend to stay poor ? Expectations ? Social connections ?

Are some of these concerns really about social mobility - the scope for children to do better in life than their parents, avoiding the determinism of origins ? Is that something both sides can support ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The offended party can continue to remain offended (that is, after all, the way of the perpetually outraged, is it not?).

In this thread you have been complaining about the hypocrisy of the people who didn't hire you in the eighties because you disagreed with their policy. That was what? over twenty years ago. Is that or is that not perpetual outrage?

You've also by your own admission been pertually complaining about a cyclist whom you once saw hit by a car, through what you judge to be the cyclist's fault. Is that or is that not perpetual outrage?

You're pretty keen on other people forgiving people like you. Maybe you could start by setting an example and forgiving all the people who believe in affirmative action?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

Can we be clearer about the mechanisms ? Is it just that the poor (of any colour or culture) tend to stay poor ? Expectations ? Social connections ?

There are a set of mechanisms that are basically to do with familiarity - middle-class white men dominate the set of employers, university admissions tutors and the like. If those men are more likely to recognize merit in those from a similar background (because it will look familiar to them, whereas merit might not present in quite the same way in someone with a different background), then they will tend to prefer, with no hint of maliciousness or bigotry, other white men.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Boy, does this pertain.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Of course, the white cashier now needs to be compensated for the violation of her right to suspect the black cashier.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I will concede that in very extreme circumstances, limited to the immediate aftermath of the overthrow of officially sanctioned conditions of apartheid and segregation, that the remedy may involve a very short period of emergency measures - backed up with extra government funding - to proactively provide work and educational opportunities to those who have been disadvantaged.

"Very extreme"? "Immediate aftermath"? "Very short period of emergency measures"?

It is fascinating how conservatives have such a high regard for History and Its Lasting Impact... until it comes to something they don't like, when suddenly, like pouting teenage girls, history is all like so five minutes ago and doesn't matter.

Let me provide a solid example of structural racism affecting subsequent generations: the residential school system.

Children were taken from their parents to live in dormitories, often run by religious. They were forbidden to speak their own language. Instead of growing up in a family environment, they were collectively warehoused. Canada is a very big country, and these children were from remote communities; they returned home once a year for a visit. They were gulags for children.

How is a child supposed to learn about building healthy family relationships - observing parent interaction, for example - living under the guardianship of celibate* religious? How will a child learn domestic life of keeping house, when growing up in an institution? How could a child learn the discipline of providing for oneself while never seeing it modelled in diverse ways in a community?

Still these children grew up, arrived at working age, had children, and had their own living quarters... all without having the experience of seeing these modelled in healthy ways in a community.

What impact do you think this had on the parenting abilities of these children, and the children born to them?

When should they be expected to magically "just get over it" and suddenly conform to lives they have never experienced?

*Celibate: not always. Many children were sexually abused in this system.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:

It is fascinating how conservatives have such a high regard for History and Its Lasting Impact... until it comes to something they don't like, when suddenly, like pouting teenage girls, history is all like so five minutes ago and doesn't matter.

"pouting teenage girls"!

Golly!

If, on the basis of my years of history teaching, I had to suggest a gender difference in this area, it would be that teenage boys are far more dismissive of history than are teenage girls.

But then again, the boys seldom pouted....

Where is the cut-off point as regards past injustices?

Am I still entitled to feel aggrieved at the treatment of my Welsh forebears by the English under kings such as Edward I and Henry IV?

My great grand-father who arrived in Australia in 1869 was a poor Welsh coal-miner from the valleys.

If it hadn't been for those bloody English who subjugated and dispossessed his ancestors, he might have been a comfortably-off land-owner instead.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Where is the cut-off point as regards past injustices?

When the injustices are truly in the past.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
And let's not forget Sergio Garcia was cracking fried chicken jokes about Tiger Woods last year. Which was a repeat of a comment made by Fuzzy Zoeller in 1997.

Just because a rule changes doesn't mean attitudes do.
And Sergio Garcia speaks for all 'white' golfers, does he?

And he also apologised. But I don't suppose something called 'forgiveness' will ever be forthcoming, will it? No. He'll never be allowed to forget his "unforgivable sin", will he, if the PC lynch mob have anything to do with it!

You have a terrible habit of putting words onto people's mouths. Respond to actual comments, not imaginary ones. I didn't say he represents all of anyone.

An apology isn't some kind of playground "take back." I'm sure he's learned a lesson. The point is that he felt OK making racist jokes to a golf crowd in 2012. That's a sad state of affairs. Of all of the genuine things to make fun of Tiger Woods for (I mean come on!) why would race be the one?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But it seems to be an argument between those who think racism is mistreating someone on the grounds of their race, who want to see all individuals treated fairly, and those who want to see equality of outcomes between different racial groups, and think racism is anything that gets in the way of that.

That is a very astute summation of the thread so far. It is important to note that neither sides is in favour of racism.

That mirrors, in many ways, the perennial arguments between capitalism and socialism. Especially in the "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome" sense.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
You have a terrible habit of putting words onto people's mouths. Respond to actual comments, not imaginary ones. I didn't say he represents all of anyone.

Only because I am trying to understand the point you are making in the context of this thread. OK, so Sergio Garcia is a racist. So what? There are racist people in this world, black, white and other. What's new?

If it's some comment about white people being guilty by association with Sergio Garcia, then I could cite the case of the black Ugandan journalist who wrote an article about the 'disgusting bazungu*' (or words to that effect), which I had the misfortune to read when I was there some years ago. A vitriolic and sinister piece of racist polemic in a national newspaper, which would never see the light of day in our press. Because of that ONE individual black racist, should I therefore make some big point about the need to educate black people about the importance of not being racist to whites? As a matter of fact, most Ugandans I have met are not racist, just like most white people are not racists.

Anyway... here's a great article about the evil of stereotyping people on the basis of race - especially whites. Do read it, and then you might possibly begin to understand some of my concerns.

* white people in the Luganda language.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I will concede that in very extreme circumstances, limited to the immediate aftermath of the overthrow of officially sanctioned conditions of apartheid and segregation, that the remedy may involve a very short period of emergency measures - backed up with extra government funding - to proactively provide work and educational opportunities to those who have been disadvantaged.
It is fascinating how conservatives have such a high regard for History and Its Lasting Impact...

So I am being called a 'conservative'? (Wow. I'm a 'conservative'! I never knew that!!)

Thanks for stereotyping and depersonalising me. The same methodology that lies at the heart of racism.

(By the way, if you are so concerned about the moral education of children, then I assume you will be concerned to teach them that you cannot answer the problem of racism with racism?)

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But it seems to be an argument between those who think racism is mistreating someone on the grounds of their race, who want to see all individuals treated fairly, and those who want to see equality of outcomes between different racial groups, and think racism is anything that gets in the way of that.
That is a very astute summation of the thread so far. It is important to note that neither sides is in favour of racism.

That mirrors, in many ways, the perennial arguments between capitalism and socialism. Especially in the "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome" sense.

The problem with this is that when we are used to a society that has inherent racism it's very difficult to point to an end of that discrimination.

Most people now would say that discrimination against disability is wrong. That it was scandalous when Tanni Grey-Thompson was awarded Sports Personality of the Year the venue was not accessible (and having seen backstage in studios I'm really not surprised). But that sort of inaccessibility has been part of the design of most buildings and it continues to discriminate.

Those of us who are saying anything that promulgates racism should be identified and removed are pointing to how ingrained that racism is within societies, similar to the lack of access for the disabled.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

That mirrors, in many ways, the perennial arguments between capitalism and socialism. Especially in the "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome" sense.

Not at all, it's more like the comparison between Whigs and (classic) Liberals. Equality of opportunity rather than perpetuation of privilege.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Thanks for stereotyping and depersonalising me. The same methodology that lies at the heart of racism.

Presumably any identification of someone as part of a group does this? Like your characterisation of your opponents as 'hand wringing liberals who are the real racists'.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Those of us who are saying anything that promulgates racism should be identified and removed are pointing to how ingrained that racism is within societies, similar to the lack of access for the disabled.

To continue the disability analogy: putting in a ramp or lift doesn't prevent access for anyone else, it merely allows everyone to have access to the building. This is a good thing.

The bad thing would be to only allow disabled people into the building in order to make up for the fact that they weren't able to get in before. That's bad because it isn't removing the barriers, it's just applying them to a different set of people.

That's where I'm coming from, anyway.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Oh, yes, we kept arguing for access to schools because teenagers break legs - it does benefit everyone.

I don't think we're there for racism yet - I'm not sure that positive action helps because it builds resentment, but I'm sure that we're still creating structures like buildings and not realising.

My daughter found she was stopped and searched regularly as a student - because she has olive skin and dark hair (see that's Turkish or Islamic). It taught me how endemic and continuing racism continues in that police force.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
To continue the disability analogy: putting in a ramp or lift doesn't prevent access for anyone else, it merely allows everyone to have access to the building. This is a good thing.

It's worth noting though that by definition the people using the building are able-bodied. So if the building is paying the cost is initially going to fall upon the able-bodied.
So, yes, excluding the able-bodied is wrong. But the fact is that the able-bodied are going to pay to get the disabled up to their level.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's worth noting though that by definition the people using the building are able-bodied. So if the building is paying the cost is initially going to fall upon the able-bodied.
So, yes, excluding the able-bodied is wrong. But the fact is that the able-bodied are going to pay to get the disabled up to their level.

We're pushing the analogy a fair bit now, but if that's the case then should the able-bodied pay for it through having to pay an entrance fee (which doesn't apply to the disabled), or through higher prices that apply to everyone who enters? In both cases, of course, the price will be met by the able-bodied (because until the ramp is in place the disabled can't get in), but the former is pretty clearly the fairer way to do it.

So what's the "racism" analogue to that choice? In my view it would be like the difference between evaluating job applicants based on their abilities rather than their race and evaluating job applicants based on their race, but with a different race excluded. Both will result in more non-whites getting the jobs (and therefore fewer whites getting them), but the former is pretty clearly the fairer way to do it.

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
To continue the disability analogy: putting in a ramp or lift doesn't prevent access for anyone else, it merely allows everyone to have access to the building. This is a good thing.
It's worth noting though that by definition the people using the building are able-bodied. So if the building is paying the cost is initially going to fall upon the able-bodied.
So, yes, excluding the able-bodied is wrong. But the fact is that the able-bodied are going to pay to get the disabled up to their level.

Yes, when applied to discrimination against people with mobility disabilities, taking these actions does impose a cost (on society as a whole but inevitably paid mainly by the more able majority) but it doesn't impose a penalty specifically on the able bodied. Doing that wouldn't combat discrimination, it would merely redistribute it.

The equivalent in relation to discrimination on racial grounds would be to use resources (inevitably paid for mainly by the majority) for instance to

- investigate structural or institutionalised biases and introduce procedures to overcome them (such as blind recruitment practices if that works)

- draw public attention to the (mainly unconscious) racist biases that most of us are subject to whether we like it or not and to try to shape public opinion to be alive to those sorts of bias and to make them socially unacceptable

- divert resources disproportionately towards providing mentoring, advice and assistance to groups who suffer from the effects of ingrained prejudice against minorities

but not to impose some racially-motivated prejudice on the majority. Doing that wouldn't combat discrimination, it would merely redistribute it.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Thanks for stereotyping and depersonalising me. The same methodology that lies at the heart of racism.
Presumably any identification of someone as part of a group does this? Like your characterisation of your opponents as 'hand wringing liberals who are the real racists'.

Where have I called anyone on this site my 'opponent' (or similar language) and also "a hand wringing liberal"?

There's a world of difference between making general statements to describe certain viewpoints, and pointing the finger at particular individuals with whom one is having a discussion.

I assume you can see the distinction?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

EE's link above expresses the very problems I was trying to explain in my first post on this thread. Not that I was really learning to become racist in the sense of judging people by their color but that I was losing my natural color-blindness out of fear of seeming to be racist. The very fact that some people read that post and concluded that I was the Imperial Wizard of WV's KKK just proves my point.

Quoting from the Psychology Today article about the chair experiment:

quote:
The researchers conducted a study in which they had white participants arrange three chairs so that they could have a conversation with two black partners about a racially sensitive topic-- here, racial profiling. The findings showed that the more that participants were worried about confirming the white racist stereotype, the greater distance they put between themselves and their partners when arranging the chairs. Thus their anxiety about seeming prejudiced caused them to distance themselves from a person of a different race. Other research suggests that concerns about appearing prejudiced take up so much mental energy among whites that their social skills become impaired during intergroup interactions.

This perfectly describes my sons feelings when he said he was becoming fearful of waiting on black customers. Not that they will steal or be dangerous in any physical way but that they will leave him stuttering and shaken from fear of saying something that will be misunderstood.

Pottage's point about raising consciousness about racism may help the situation but it may actually aggravate it.

I agree with the way Russ has divided the sides here. I'm one of the ones who would like to give everyone equal opportunity and let the results even things out over time and so I tend to think the method of raising awareness in whites by endlessly listing past atrocities may actually be having a negative effect by creating a wider sense of difference and "other."

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed...
...a society that has inherent racism...

Which society are we talking about here?

'Inherent' implies that the very definition of society (as it pertains to the country in question) includes some form of racial discrimination. In other words, the constitution of that country on which its fundamental institutions are built, advocates or actively permits discrimination on the basis of race. If you are talking about the UK, then I would be intrigued to know which laws and constitutional principles encourage or enjoin racism.

Of course, a society that is not inherently racist may still suffer from this scourge. But in this case the racism - although serious - is incidental not inherent.

I can't think of any UK constitutional provision which excludes any race from participating in society.

A society whose institutions are not inherently racist, but in which racist incidents take place, does not need to be restructured, but rather the law needs to be more effectively enforced.

Also, I can't really understand the point of the continual reference to disability to describe racism. Disability has a direct bearing on various activities, which the environment could help or hinder. Race, of course, does not. In fact, I find it rather telling that a number of contributors have had to resort to analogies about disability in order to make a point about race. Why not simply use a direct example of racial discrimination, instead of relying on a poor analogy?

[ 23. August 2013, 13:21: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So what's the "racism" analogue to that choice? In my view it would be like the difference between evaluating job applicants based on their abilities rather than their race and evaluating job applicants based on their race, but with a different race excluded. Both will result in more non-whites getting the jobs (and therefore fewer whites getting them), but the former is pretty clearly the fairer way to do it.

So to use a real-life example already mentioned, your estimation is that Operation Breadbasket was clearly an unfair (or at least less fair) approach to racist hiring, promotion, and other business practices? It's a fairly straightforward example of direct pressure being applied to companies with racist business practices to take proactive steps to hire and promote black employees and to do more business with black-owned suppliers and banks. Details from contemporary news articles can be found here and here. I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that simply removing barriers and letting the free market solve everything (in forty or eighty years or so*), especially given that so many past promises of removing barriers have proven hollow. (See pretty much all of American labor history from 1877 to the mid-1960s.)

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
'Inherent' implies that the very definition of society (as it pertains to the country in question) includes some form of racial discrimination. In other words, the constitution of that country on which its fundamental institutions are built, advocates or actively permits discrimination on the basis of race. If you are talking about the UK, then I would be intrigued to know which laws and constitutional principles encourage or enjoin racism.

An interesting standard to adopt, particularly for a country that notoriously lacks a formal constitution. Applying it more widely, this would mean that the Segregation-Era American South was not inherently racist, since it nominally existed under the Fourteenth Amendment. Or we could accept that society is more than just a collection laws

--------------------
*The workforce hired today will spend about four decades before retiring, thus the estimate that racial parity would be achieved in one or two career-spans.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So to use a real-life example already mentioned, your estimation is that Operation Breadbasket was clearly an unfair (or at least less fair) approach to racist hiring, promotion, and other business practices? It's a fairly straightforward example of direct pressure being applied to companies with racist business practices to take proactive steps to hire and promote black employees and to do more business with black-owned suppliers and banks.

I'm no expert on the era, but from your link it seems to me that they were putting pressure on businesses to level the playing field. Or to put it another way, to do what I'm advocating and hire the best person for the job regardless of race. Putting pressure on businesses to do that (hell, even forcing them to do that) isn't against anything I've said.

I would happily join a boycott that called for a business to stop refusing to hire black people. I would not join a boycott calling for a business to only hire black people, or to hire people based on a pre-determined racial quota system. I do not want the best person for any given job to be denied it based only on the colour of their skin, regardless of what that colour happens to be.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So to use a real-life example already mentioned, your estimation is that Operation Breadbasket was clearly an unfair (or at least less fair) approach to racist hiring, promotion, and other business practices? It's a fairly straightforward example of direct pressure being applied to companies with racist business practices to take proactive steps to hire and promote black employees and to do more business with black-owned suppliers and banks.
I'm no expert on the era, but from your link it seems to me that they were putting pressure on businesses to level the playing field. Or to put it another way, to do what I'm advocating and hire the best person for the job regardless of race. Putting pressure on businesses to do that (hell, even forcing them to do that) isn't against anything I've said.

I would happily join a boycott that called for a business to stop refusing to hire black people. I would not join a boycott calling for a business to only hire black people, or to hire people based on a pre-determined racial quota system. I do not want the best person for any given job to be denied it based only on the colour of their skin, regardless of what that colour happens to be.

sigh This still does not address their not being equal opportunity to arrive at the interview table.
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
*The workforce hired today will spend about four decades before retiring, thus the estimate that racial parity would be achieved in one or two career-spans.

Then the UK and America are now equal! Right? Given the age of anti-discrimination acts.....

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So to use a real-life example already mentioned, your estimation is that Operation Breadbasket was clearly an unfair (or at least less fair) approach to racist hiring, promotion, and other business practices? It's a fairly straightforward example of direct pressure being applied to companies with racist business practices to take proactive steps to hire and promote black employees and to do more business with black-owned suppliers and banks.
I'm no expert on the era, but from your link it seems to me that they were putting pressure on businesses to level the playing field. Or to put it another way, to do what I'm advocating and hire the best person for the job regardless of race. Putting pressure on businesses to do that (hell, even forcing them to do that) isn't against anything I've said.

"Best" is a pretty nebulous term, especially when applied to relatively low-skilled jobs (e.g. milk truck driver). At any rate, Operation Breadbasket involved picketing employers to, among other things, hire more black workers.

quote:
After three days of picketing stores that carry Country's Delight products, an arrangement was reached to hire 44 Negroes. The driver Jackson hailed was one of them.

I'm not sure your proposed method of microscopically examining every decision to see if one particular driver not hired is "better" (by whatever criteria) than the person hired in his place and taking action on a case-by-case basis would be more effective (or even practically possible) in an era of widespread discrimination than noting that the demographic skew in not highly specialized professions was a problem and approaching it with a direct demand to simply hire more black workers.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
sigh This still does not address their not being equal opportunity to arrive at the interview table.

That would be where the improved educational opportunities I've also been advocating on this thread come in.

quote:
Then the UK and America are now equal! Right? Given the age of anti-discrimination acts.....

Passing a law and ensuring it's implemented are, sadly, two different things. There's much more work to be done on the latter. Much more.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure your proposed method of microscopically examining every decision to see if one particular driver not hired is "better" (by whatever criteria) than the person hired in his place and taking action on a case-by-case basis would be more effective (or even practically possible) in an era of widespread discrimination than noting that the demographic skew in not highly specialized professions was a problem and approaching it with a direct demand to simply hire more black workers.

I don't know, maybe you're right. But fighting against people being employed based purely on their skin colour by advocating that people should be employed based purely on their skin colour just doesn't feel right to me.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Anyway... here's a great article about the evil of stereotyping people on the basis of race - especially whites. Do read it, and then you might possibly begin to understand some of my concerns.

This is my favourite part of the article:

quote:
Other research suggests that concerns about appearing prejudiced take up so much mental energy among whites that their social skills become impaired during intergroup interactions.

First I would note that this is not my experience. Or if this is the mental process occurring, more white people* I've encountered are cognitively impaired than statistics would indicate as their words do not indicate they've expended any energy in this regard.
Second, I would note that the discomfort white people feel has significantly less practical impact than the reverse.
* more, not most.
Let me translate the quoted statement: "You do not like being treated poorly, having fewer opportunities and being made unwelcome in your own country? Well, we do not like hearing about that."

White people are not inherently racist. Racism is as likely in any group as another. So?
Status quo, and any other form of inertia do not need active application to be the dominant state. They do require energy to change.

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Pottage's point about raising consciousness about racism may help the situation but it may actually aggravate it.

I suppose what I was thinking about was the way that social pressure has worked on drink driving (at least as I perceive it here in the UK). When I was young (late 1960s say), whilst it was illegal to drive when drunk and - as today - you could lose your licence for doing it, the practice had no strong social stigma and plenty of people did it. Not so much these days. For many people now it would be unthinkable to drive after having anything more than a nominal amount of alcohol. It isn't really the strengthening of the legal sanctions that has made that change but the significant shift in society's attitude.

Obviously we do need to enforce laws against overt discrimination, but the bigger problem by far is unconscious bias. No amount of legislation will deal satisfactorily with prejudice that people don't even realise they have until (for instance) someone analyses their workforce. In this respect, whilst I know racism is the topic, it is not hugely different from other forms of biased prejudice on the basis of sexuality, gender, disability or age for example.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

EtymologicalEvangelical: Way to miss the point. But not at all surprising that you would choose to ignore the substance of my post and shift focus. However Kaplan Corday did get what you chose to overlook:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Where is the cut-off point as regards past injustices?

That is the key for discussion here. That is why I highlighted your words: "very extreme, immediate aftermath, very short period."

In the example I have provided, it is unreasonable to think that the damage done by residential schools will be solved by a quick cash payout, and ten minutes later, all those social impacts will vanish. Some residential school survivors of abuse have received compensation; but it does not seem to me reasonable to expect that quick individual cash grants will make all those social impacts I mentioned magically go away.

The substance of the point is about time frames and what is reasonable/optimal in terms of mitigating past social damage.

I am not sure I can make that any clearer for you. My apologies.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Other research suggests that concerns about appearing prejudiced take up so much mental energy among whites that their social skills become impaired during intergroup interactions.
Let me translate the quoted statement: "You do not like being treated poorly, having fewer opportunities and being made unwelcome in your own country? Well, we do not like hearing about that."

The research clearly states that white person's anxiety is not caused by "hearing about" black people being treated poorly or having fewer opportunities, but rather the anxiety is based on fear of appearing prejudiced.

The white person's ability to address the problems you mentioned are impaired by this fear. Less attention is going to solving the problems and more to trying to convince everyone in earshot that they are not prejudiced.

We can see that on this thread. "Racism: Lets talk," very quickly became "Racist: Not me!"

The white person who is placing the chairs far apart is afraid that you are going to sit down and start stating things like, "African Americans were not admitted to Augusta's Golf Club until 1990!" and he will have no idea what to say or do about that. Of course he's too nervous to think. It's not that whites don't want to hear about the problem it's that they know they can't turn back the clock, they don't control much outside of their own vote and their own behavior and they can't say, "So? What do you want me to do about it?" without appearing prejudiced or cavalier about the whole thing.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Or we could accept that society is more than just a collection laws

Just as saying "racism" when one means "racial inequality" invites people to disagree because the argument doesn't quite make sense, so saying "institutional " or "structural" when one means "cultural" is similarly unhelpful.

If, for example, the Metropolitan police have - in aggregate and on balance - an exaggerated notion of levels of criminality among the black population, it's far less to do with their organisational structures, terms of reference, etc, and far more to do with the "canteen culture".

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
An interesting standard to adopt, particularly for a country that notoriously lacks a formal constitution.

The UK most certainly does have a constitution.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Twilight,

I hear what you are saying. This is one reason I started this thread. there are no chairs to arrange, no eyes to avoid.

It is unfortunate the conversation is often uncomfortable,frustrating and not always equitably applied.Not certain how to change this.

As to responsibility beyond voting, here is my thought. I am directly responsible, beyond my vote, for no ones poverty. Does this imply I can have no further effect?

Russ,
with police I think a better term is institutional racism. This can be nearly as strong as if it were organised and less easily exorcised.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
An interesting standard to adopt, particularly for a country that notoriously lacks a formal constitution.
The UK most certainly does have a constitution.

You did read the link you posted? Croesos is correct.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
sigh This still does not address their not being equal opportunity to arrive at the interview table.
That would be where the improved educational opportunities I've also been advocating on this thread come in.

I agree that improved educational opportunities are urgently needed. There is, however, a problem with improving educational opportunities which I mentioned in the last paragraphs of this post.

Moo

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

quote:
originally posted by lilBuhdda
quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha:
sigh This still does not address their not being equal opportunity to arrive at the interview table.

That would be where the improved educational opportunities I've also been advocating on this thread come in.

This is the recognized disparity between the races. It comes down to what each side sees as fairness and the two sides cannot fairly resolve that. It is a case of moral values that have been bred over centuries. Only time and evolution will bring about a change.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Not quite sure I understand what you mean by breeding moral values and how evolution will change anything regarding this issue.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'il Buddha
with police I think a better term is institutional racism. This can be nearly as strong as if it were organised and less easily exorcised.

I agree that it can be harder to change bottom-up elements of culture that have no official existence.

But it is the culture of the organisation, rather than the institution as such, which should be changed.

On a different aspect of the topic, I was reminded yesterday of Dumbo and the magic feather. The magic feather is a lie but the self-belief that comes with it isn't.

The idea that an elephant can fly is of course ridiculous, and I wouldn't want to press the analogy too hard. But there's a truth there - that sometimes in order to achieve your full potential (for which flying is a metaphor) you have to believe that you can.

So to the extent that ethnic minorities face an issue of low expectations (both low self-expectation and low expectations of their ability and potential from the indigenous majority) perhaps they need a magic feather - they need to have the idea that the bad old days of racism are over and new opportunities exist. Even if that's not quite as true as we would like it to be, it's a more helpful way to think than living in a culture where they're regarded as perpetual victims per-destined for failure by the way things are, whether you call it "structural racism" or some more accurate term.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

No "magic feather" is needed. Just a real expectation that the opportunities will be the same. That treatment will be the same. It is the real lack which affects expectations, not anything as simple as your analogy.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Even if that's not quite as true as we would like it to be, it's a more helpful way to think than living in a culture where they're regarded as perpetual victims per-destined for failure by the way things are, whether you call it "structural racism" or some more accurate term.

So essentially the cure for "structural racism" [*] is positive affirmations. [Roll Eyes]

[*] the only reason for vague references to a 'more accurate term' is surely because you can't think of one.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuhdda
Not quite sure I understand what you mean by breeding moral values and how evolution will change anything regarding this issue.

As I have previously posted I believe that racism is an evolutionary survival defense that originated with our tribal (even primate) ancestors. It is the idea that person who don't look like us are potentially a threat to us.

It evolved into moral codes of which fairness is one. So we have that opposite views that to discriminate for one side/race is unfair to the other. There has been some progress in ameliorating the danger aspect but fairness is still at the tribal level.

I think that continued pressure from those seeking a "fair" solution will eventually evolve a population where racism will be extinct.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
An interesting standard to adopt, particularly for a country that notoriously lacks a formal constitution.
The UK most certainly does have a constitution.
You did read the link you posted? Croesos is correct.

So the UK does not have a 'formal' constitution, even though it has a constitution? Interesting. (I think he meant to say 'written').

By the way... Croesos' comment was completely irrelevant to the point about racism I originally made. So even if he were technically correct about the status of the UK constitution (by assuming that 'formal' must only mean 'written in a single document'), it makes not a shred of difference with regard to the topic under discussion.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

By the way... Croesos' comment was completely irrelevant to the point about racism I originally made. So even if he were technically correct about the status of the UK constitution (by assuming that 'formal' must only mean 'written in a single document'), it makes not a shred of difference with regard to the topic under discussion.

That is an argument for a different thread, I think.
His entire comment was regarding the inaccuracy of your post about the meaning of inherent. And you failed to address the salient points of that comment.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

IconiumBound,

I would disagree that racism in an evolutionary trait. I would say rather that it is our desire to belong which is our evolutionary advantage. Our gregarious nature, seeks to define said belonging and the flip side of that coin is defining differences. Physiological differences are an easy method of categorisation. It is cultural change which reduces racism.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

lilBuddha we are not really far apart about the roots of racism. You cite an "evolutionary advantage" and refer to "our gregarious nature. I see the evolutionary advantage to be a grouping in tribes for mutual advantage in procuring food and defense against aggressor tribes(or being the aggressor). I don't see a gregarious nature originating in a tribal situation where it is every man for himself and women are merely sexual assets and caretakers.

Rather than gregarious somewhere the sub-humans must have found some practical reason to want to share (food, work etc.) which then brought in sibling and other rivalries that would raise the question of fairness. Why is he getting more than me? Thus, a moral question is formed to be extended from within the tribe to other tribes that could be considered friendly.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No "magic feather" is needed. Just a real expectation that the opportunities will be the same. That treatment will be the same. It is the real lack which affects expectations, not anything as simple as your analogy.

What's needed is the sense that "flying" - achieving one's potential - is a real possibility. Something worth going for, even if it does require a lot of hard work and a little luck along the way. Whatever the individual's dream is, whether it's becoming an airline pilot or a TV presenter.

Having precisely the same chance as any other individual is not a requirement; just a reasonable chance.

And the point is that - to the extent that low expectations is an issue - the perception of that chance is a necessary precondition for the realisation of the chance. Individuals from an ethnic minority have to perceive that they can be pilots, doctors, lawyers, film stars, whatever before they succeed, before the statistics show that they are making it. The change in the culture has to precede the data that validates that change.

Another thing - Life should not be thought of as a zero-sum game. If nobody gets anywhere except by taking things away from others, then all decent people should kill themselves now to benefit mankind by their absence... OK, maybe that's a little over the top. But the people who only ever talk about sharing out finite resources are missing something.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Individuals from an ethnic minority have to perceive that they can be pilots, doctors, lawyers, film stars, whatever before they succeed, before the statistics show that they are making it. ...

If you look around the world, you will see people of every race and ethnicity engaged in every conceivable profession. Let me assure you that members of ethnic minorities have the same dreams and aspirations as anyone else. It's really quite insulting to suggest that minorities are disadvantaged only by their lack of imagination and role models, and it's downright silly to think that someone named Russ on the internet would know more about the challenges they face than they do.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

The anonymity of the 'net seems to unleash the racism on all sides. Visit any site critical of Obama and you'll find language straight out of the 50's and 60's. There was a news article today about an employee of the Dept. of Homeland Security that runs a blatantly racist, anti-white website called War on the Horizon. Disgusting posts from both blacks and from whites who've read the news today and decide to get their own insults in. Racism hasn't disappeared by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that it's pretty much suppressed on a face to face basis, but downright vicious with anonymity is far worse to me.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Let me assure you that members of ethnic minorities have the same dreams and aspirations as anyone else.

I didn't intend to suggest otherwise. Are you reading into my words something that isn't there ?

I suggested that IF low expectations are an issue THEN certain things follow.

I'm quite happy to listen to your experience - if in your experience there is no problem of low expectations, then I'm pleased to hear it.

That's the way it's supposed to work around here - we all talk and we all listen and we decide for ourselves who's making sense.

We're also talking around the difference between colour-blind process and parity of outcome. Low expectations is one possible reason why one may not immediately lead to the other. You may have other ideas - do please elaborate.

And no-one's claiming as far as I know that any country has yet made it all the way to colour-blind process...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
The anonymity of the 'net seems to unleash the racism on all sides.

Unleash and magnify. It is difficult to certain true scope merely from internet babbling.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Individuals from an ethnic minority have to perceive that they can be pilots, doctors, lawyers, film stars, whatever before they succeed, before the statistics show that they are making it. ...
If you look around the world, you will see people of every race and ethnicity engaged in every conceivable profession. Let me assure you that members of ethnic minorities have the same dreams and aspirations as anyone else. It's really quite insulting to suggest that minorities are disadvantaged only by their lack of imagination and role models, and it's downright silly to think that someone named Russ on the internet would know more about the challenges they face than they do.

Soror Magna: It surprises me to disagree with you and agree with Russ on this. Have a look at this recent article about the opposite of having dreams and aspirations: killer ennui on a First Nations reserve. The author, a First Nations writer, was astonished by the utter lack of fucks given by anyone - kids, parents, community leaders - when he went to a northern reserve to lead a workshop for kids.

Now, one of the subtexts I read in that article was that he didn't seem to have consulted with anyone from the reserve when he planned the workshop, so maybe he deserved the apathetic reception he got. Even so, his rage and despair at the atmosphere of ennui - not just temporary boredom, but [his perceived] absence of dreams and goals among the people of the reserve - is notable.

I think it would have been perceived as racist if a white person wrote what he did <cough shiftless, lazy, cough cough> and yet the lack of dreams seemed to be part of a genuine problem on the reserve.

If I may extend the Dumbo metaphor for a moment: it's one thing to have a "feather", a symbol of a dream. But you need more than that. It is yet another to have a coach beside you, encouraging you every day. It is still another to be able to make an actual sustainable economic opportunity out of your dream (e.g. being the star of the circus). Without the latter two, even the value of a dream is just featherweight.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Have a look at this recent article about the opposite of having dreams and aspirations: killer ennui on a First Nations reserve.

I suspect that the lack of dreams and aspirations is a socioeconomic thing. If everyone you know still lives in the same reservation/housing estate/whatever that they grew up in and none of them have a decent job or anything resembling status in the outside world, it's much harder to imagine yourself as a doctor, lawyer, business owner or whatever than if those people were part of your social circle growing up.

It becomes a race thing as (because of past racism) the socioeconomic gutter is overweight with people with darker skin tones.

Very similar articles have been written about "sink" housing estates with largely white residents. The words "welfare trap" tend to get bandied about a lot in that context.

[ 26. August 2013, 03:09: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

While I think the Dumbo metaphor a bit off, the basic point of actual role-models/examples of what can be achieved helping to inspire has a grain of reality. This is a human trait, colour-independent. We humans are more followers than we often care to admit.
This is why I support affirmative action-type initiatives.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suspect that the lack of dreams and aspirations is a socioeconomic thing. If everyone you know still lives in the same reservation/housing estate/whatever that they grew up in and none of them have a decent job or anything resembling status in the outside world, it's much harder to imagine yourself as a doctor, lawyer, business owner or whatever than if those people were part of your social circle growing up.

On the other hand, maybe they've just got good memories.

quote:
If you studied American history prior to about 2000, even if you studied it at the college level, you were almost certainly taught something wrong, because the truth was one of America's last, best-kept secrets. And it has to do with lynching. You see, if you studied before then, one of the things you were told about lynching was that lynching was usually motivated by anger, by hatred, by exaggerated fear of "impurity," by anger over Reconstruction, by irrational over-reaction to minor black crimes. But then a historian made a lucky find, one that unlocked a whole field of study. A set of records, more or less accidentally compiled, gave us a longer and more comprehensive list of lynchings than we had. A very macabre set of records. It turns out that hundreds of lynchings between roughly 1860 and 1950, some of which we didn't even know had happened, had offered souvenir postcards for sale the next day. And among the very few people who knew that, any more, were a few collectors of those grisly souvenirs.

When one of those collections fell into the hands of a professional historian, it opened up a whole large statistical universe of lynching incidents, each of which came with a location, one or more names, dozens or hundreds of faces that can be identified, and importantly, a date. That made it possible to research not just a few lynchings, but hundreds of them, and to compile statistics on what had happened before and after them. And the terrible, but fascinating, bit of secret history turned out to be the immediate aftermath of over half of those lynchings. Over half of those lynchings turned out to involve black men who owned their own successful farms and/or businesses. And the day after the lynchings, those farms and businesses were sold to white neighbors, in closed auctions, for pennies on the dollar, and the surviving real heirs were run out of town. And in a terrifyingly large number of those cases, historians were able to show one or more of the following facts. The buyer was the person who made the initial accusation against the victim. And the buyer was a relative of one or more of the following: the mayor, the chief of police, the local minister and/or the municipal judge.

I want you to get this through your head, and never forget it. Lynching was not a hate crime. Lynching was an economic crime. In cities all over America, the best kept secret of 80 years' worth of white politicians was that if they wanted to steal a black man's property, they could arrange to have that man murdered, take his property for little or nothing, give it to whoever they wanted to have it, and know with 100% certainty that no police officer would arrest them, no prosecutor would indict, no jury would convict, no judge would sentence.

You've heard me go on and on about the American Dream: the discovery, by 1630s Puritans, that irregardless of any spiritual benefit, if you got as much education as you could afford, stayed out of trouble, worked hard, spent as little as possible on pleasures, and invested that money in three and only three things (a home, a business, and education for your kids) that it would make each generation of your family an entire social class wealthier than the generation before. That you could even have things go wrong, along the way, and if you at least tried to follow that formula, you could be very nearly 100% confident that at the very least, you and your children would get to keep what you have. What I did not clearly enough footnote that with is: "Some exceptions may apply." 80 years worth of black men, in many but not all towns in America, learned that this offer was not extended to them. They learned that if they stayed in school, stayed out of trouble, worked hard, bought and improved a home, started and invested in their own business ... some white politician and his less-successful-than-you businessman friend would come along and steal it. And as likely as not, kill you if you weren't willing to let them have it for whatever pittance they offered you, although the thefts continued long after the killings stop. And the courts and the cops still mostly don't care.

Ever since I learned that, I haven't marveled that so many black men have given up on the American Dream, choosing to instead gamble on insane long-shot professions like music or pro sports, or turning to crime. I've marveled that so many of them haven't.

I imagine a similar dynamic would apply on First Nation reserves.

I'd also venture to guess that many have learned that " . . . but it's not like that anymore!" is something that's always said, even when it is still "like that".

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

I don't think that anyone would dispute that ambition and drive are necessary for success. But suggesting that they are sufficient is dangerous. Because then this leads the suggestions that:
a) racism will go away if we pretend it isn't there, and
b) if people don't break out of their bad situation it's solely because they lack drive and ambition. What a bunch of losers. I guess we were right about them.

The fact is that many people have tried to break out of what was expected of someone of their race/gender/background/whatever and hit a brick wall put in their way by others. Often by others who were significantly less talented and didn't want the competition. Sure, you can believe with all your heart that a black woman has what it takes to become a Hollywood movie star. Why not? But how many highly-paid white Hollywood movie actresses do you know of, and how many black ones? How many *dark-skinned* highly paid, black Hollywood actresses can you think of? Sure, nobody has a "right" to be a Hollywood starlet, and obviously only a tiny percentage of those who want it will get there. But there's something going on here which has nothing to do with the lack of talent, drive, or ambition of young black actresses, and it's incredibly insulting to suggest otherwise.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

For the vast majority of acting roles, skin colour is irrelevant. Yet black people rarely are considered for roles unless said roles are specifically written for them. Sometime not even then.
As I mentioned in the feminism thread, the part of the drill instructor in An Officer and a Gentleman was going to be rewritten to be more "black" after Louis Gosset Jr. accepted the role. He said no, leave it as is. Won an Oscar anyway.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Crœsos: Awesome post. Thank you.

Asset seizure under the guise of social panic was also a feature of the witch hunts in Europe. An isolated woman with desirable property could be accused, tried, executed, and suddenly the desirable property became available.

With First Nations people, especially in Western Canada, their most valuable asset - the lands on which they lived, travelled, and hunted - were seized by treaty, and the prior inhabitants forced to live in small villages on worthless shitty swampland or in remote forests. No lynchings were necessary to achieve this - well, except the hanging of the leader Louis Riel. That was pretty effective at stamping out dissent.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Racism is prejudice based upon the notion that characteristics are inherent in one's "Race"...

.. I am hoping to increase understanding.

Seems to me that somehow the thread hasn't lived up to these worthy aspirations. I see racism as having several aspects:

- there's philosophical racism, the belief or doctrine that some races are inherently (genetically?) superior or inferior to others. I don't think there's any sizable body of people who believe this any more, but in previous centuries it was widely believed. If this were the taproot of racism, the plant should be pretty much withered away by now.

- there's what for want of a better term I'd call the "people like us" factor - that humans feel more comfortable amongst others who they perceive to be like themselves. Interviews are known to be poor at selecting high-performers, but they're good at selecting people we're comfortable with, which is why we keep on using them as a recruitment tool. There are lots of situations where one of things that an employer wants most from a new employee is that they'll fit in and become one of the team; that may be more important than small differences in level of competence. Not easy to see exactly where legitimate self-interest ends and unfair discrimination begins.

- and there's prejudice. Pre-judging based on limited information is something we all do. In a situation where all you know about people is their race, and you know that statistically people of one race are more likely to have a certain characteristic than people of another race, then it is a relevant factor. If in a strange building you need someone tall to help you with something, going into the office with a Scandinavian name on the door rather than the office with a Chinese name on the door may be a rational search strategy.

But if the roots of racism are prejudice and "people like us", and the flowering of racism is bigotry and hate, and the fruits are an ethnic minority underclass, where do we prune this sucker ?

Where is the boundary where the reasonable slips into the reprehensible ?

More understanding of the process is what's needed here, rather than more discussion of the merits or otherwise of various policy options.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But if the roots of racism are prejudice and "people like us", and the flowering of racism is bigotry and hate, and the fruits are an ethnic minority underclass, where do we prune this sucker ?

Where is the boundary where the reasonable slips into the reprehensible ?

More understanding of the process is what's needed here, rather than more discussion of the merits or otherwise of various policy options.

Best wishes,

Russ

It is in how we define, "people like us". Much of my childhood was spent in an environment where colour and gender were not a factor. Not forbidden subjects, rather not subjects
at all. We were black and white and brown and none of this mattered. We chose our mates through common interest, as is normal with children.
I do not think we humans will ever erase the "people like us" mentality completely. We simply need to broaden what that means.
And policies help. A policy is a rule and every society/group has rules. It is the design of these rules which defines a society. What I suggest is a redesign of those rules at every level.
Without pressure or impetus of some sort, people tend towards stagnation.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is in how we define, "people like us". Much of my childhood was spent in an environment where colour and gender were not a factor. Not forbidden subjects, rather not subjects
at all. We were black and white and brown and none of this mattered. We chose our mates through common interest, as is normal with children.
I do not think we humans will ever erase the "people like us" mentality completely. We simply need to broaden what that means.
And policies help. A policy is a rule and every society/group has rules. It is the design of these rules which defines a society. What I suggest is a redesign of those rules at every level.
Without pressure or impetus of some sort, people tend towards stagnation.

I suggest that the process and the problem may often be caused more by culture than by hue, ie by the norms of life passed down and grown over the millennia. Where people from any particular culture settle in numbers into a place where the people are of another culture, the differences stand out and 'people like us' become those who are understood and with whom one is comfortable. Appearance may be more an identifier than a cause of prejudice.

When children grow up together the cultures may begin to blend so that they become 'us'.

We're on our way toward being a global village, I hope, but change is never easy and is always painful.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... I see racism as having several aspects:
- there's philosophical racism, the belief or doctrine that some races are inherently (genetically?) superior or inferior to others.
...
there's what for want of a better term I'd call the "people like us" factor - that humans feel more comfortable amongst others who they perceive to be like themselves.

...and there's prejudice. Pre-judging based on limited information is something we all do. ...

Not asking Russ specifically, but in general to those who do not believe in the existence of structural racism: which category does this school's dress code fall into?

Girl, 7, switches schools after her dreadlocks are banned

From the dress code:

quote:
... hairstyles such as dreadlocks, afros and other faddish styles are unacceptable.” ...

If the answer is the "people like us" category, then that's just saying the black kids aren't allowed to be too black.

Or will someone concede that this is an example of a policy that has was thought to be adequate for everyone, with no intent to discriminate against anyone. Take it into the real world and it is deeply insulting to black pupils and is therefore racist.

Calling afros "faddish" ... well, there just aren't enough [Mad]

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

I think that's the same sort of racism as telling black kids not to wear hoodies or caps or to speak street slang as it will affect their opportunities to enter university (or at least the more snobbish ones)as outlined in the article further up the thread. That article was written by a black man so maybe there's some class prejudice there too.

Dreadlocks, afros, hoodies and street slang = gang culture and disrespect to teachers and authority in some peoples eyes, rather than just neutral cultural fashion choices the rest of us see them as.

(Though practically everyone I know wears hoodies at least casually sometimes, at least those below the age of 40)

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

For those who doubted my claims that even in mainstream website one finds racism and that it's not moderated out, here's an article on CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/09/business/earth-

jesse aldere 4 hours ago: hmmmmmm, seems like blacks and dark skins are really in fact ruining our happiness after all!

BooBoo65 an hour ago: Hate to bring up the elephant in the room here, but happiest are the whitest countries in the world and most unhappy .... well.....But no.... heredity can't ever get mentioned! Go back to your dream world folks.

[ 09. September 2013, 10:51: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

The CNN link led me to "Page not found"

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/09/business/earth-institute-world-happiness-rankings/?hpt=hp_c3

Here it is!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
For those who doubted my claims that even in mainstream website one finds racism and that it's not moderated out, here's an article on CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/09/business/earth-

jesse aldere 4 hours ago: hmmmmmm, seems like blacks and dark skins are really in fact ruining our happiness after all!

BooBoo65 an hour ago: Hate to bring up the elephant in the room here, but happiest are the whitest countries in the world and most unhappy .... well.....But no.... heredity can't ever get mentioned! Go back to your dream world folks.

Never, never read the comments. The only way to manage those is to not have them. The 'net gives voice to trolls, misanthropes and fools like no other medium.
There was a meme "The Internet is for porn" the true, enduring statement is the Internet is for idiots.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
I think that's the same sort of racism as telling black kids not to wear hoodies or caps or to speak street slang as it will affect their opportunities to enter university (or at least the more snobbish ones)as outlined in the article further up the thread.

Wear a hoodie and/or a cap by all means, whatever your ethnic origin, but don't show up for an interview in them - wear a suit. Speak whatever form of slang or dialect you prefer amongst your friends, but when you come for that interview, or write that essay, you need to communicate your arguments in standard English.

Code-switch.

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

People can't necessarily change their accent though. I would agree that formal written grammar is necessary, but speaking with a particular accent should not be.

Also kids should be taught the appropriate attire for university and job interviews, but the quality and price of their clothes shouldn't be a factor, however often is.

[ 10. September 2013, 05:58: Message edited by: Mili ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

LC,
This is true for any slang, dialect, etc., but oft seems most heavily addressed to those with more melanin.

Mii, good point.

[ 10. September 2013, 05:59: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

Also should you not wear an afro to an interview? I have wavy to curly blond hair and still feel like I have to straighten it to be 'professional' as it can get a bit unruly in certain weather. Imagine how much harder it is for people with African type hair living in western cultures. Yet really do people with straight hair do a better job than people with curly, 'unruly' hair? Our culture at this time says yes.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Wear a hoodie and/or a cap by all means, whatever your ethnic origin, but don't show up for an interview in them - wear a suit.

That's exactly the kind of age-appropriate thing every seven year old girl should be concerned about.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
to those who do not believe in the existence of structural racism: which category does this school's dress code fall into?
...
Or will someone concede that this is an example of a policy that has was thought to be adequate for everyone, with no intent to discriminate against anyone. Take it into the real world and it is deeply insulting to black pupils and is therefore racist.

When I was at school, boys" hair had to be short (but not skinhead short). Going to school with a Bob Marley hairdo was definitely out, but so were lots of other innovations in the hair department. The policy applied equally to all boys. Banning dreadlocks is not necessarily of itself racist; there may be a clear non-race-related intention applied in a colourblind way.

Judging from the short extract of dress code in the article, that may not be the case here. If the entirety of the hair regulations is about how unseemly African-style hair is and how it has to be made as non-African as possible, while the white kids wear their hair how they like, then that is racism. It's setting out to penalise racial attributes; one law for the pale and one for the dark. it's wrong; the school should apologise & change the policy (and if they're reluctant to do so then a threat of withdrawal of State funding would be in order).

So there's innocence and there's guilt.

What you're suggesting, Soror Magna, seems like a type of in-between category.

There may be such a category, but I'd want to see it defined well enough that it's not just a way of labelling as racist (with all the overtones of wrongness that that word rightly carries) things which aren't really racist.

I believe that the word racism has a real meaning, describes an objectively real phenomenon which we would benefit by understanding, and therefore is not to be confused with subjective ideas like "whatever makes a black person feel insulted".

If I invent a category "structurally stupid" with which I label everything I don't like , while being careful to point out that this is something different from ordinary stupidity so I don't have to justify my usage by demonstrating that there's anything stupid at all about the things so labelled, then is this a dishonest use of language ?

It occurred to me that the ultimate dress code is in the tradition of the Army. Where the recruits are made to wear the same uniform, given the same dreadful haircut, to make the point that the Army doesn't care anything about your origin but will make you "one of us". It's almost the opposite of not wanting people from ethic minorities because they're different.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

School isn't the army. Dreads and afros are not length dependent and are not inherently faddish.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Banning dreadlocks is not necessarily of itself racist; there may be a clear non-race-related intention applied in a colourblind way.

Most little black girls around here wear their hair in some kind of braids, and if I was awarding marks for neatness, they'd score a bit higher, on average, than the little white girls.

The kind of hair typically possessed by those of black African origin is not at all the same as that possessed by white folks. Because it's not the same, you can't wear the same hairstyles.

It's certainly possible to have hideous-looking dreadlocks. The stereotypical 90s eco-warrior probably wore those, and I would be happy to ban that from school.

Tiana Parker, the girl in question, is pictured
in the article I have seen wearing her dreadlocked hair tied up neatly with a bow in it. She looks completely fine - there's absolutely nothing about her presentation that is inappropriate for school.

So yes, with what could be the perfectly laudable aim of insisting that school pupils have neat and presentable hair in a conventional style, by banning a large fraction of the styles that you can do with natural African hair, they have achieved structural racism.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

The kind of hair typically possessed by those of black African origin is not at all the same as that possessed by white folks. Because it's not the same, you can't wear the same hairstyles.

Someone who hasn't had experience with African hair has difficulty understanding this.

The styles we are told are "neat" and "acceptable" generally require chemicals for straightening, weaves (artificial or human hair sewn in or glued to the wearer's hear), or wigs. As someone with a tender scalp, getting braided extensions as a child meant nearly a weak of severe pain due to the tightness of the braids. I couldn't sleep for the first few days. And a chemical straightener damaged my hair very badly when I was 10 or 11.

It's ridiculous for little black girls to be forced into hairstyles that can cause pain and damage, and also have a significant cost, just to look "neat." What they mean is to have hair that looks like white hair.

This is an example of institutional racism - where we've internalized what "nice hair" looks like and that happens to be hair that most resembles European hair. So schools or companies make rules like this without realizing that it's an undue burden on black women in particular.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Also should you not wear an afro to an interview? I have wavy to curly blond hair and still feel like I have to straighten it to be 'professional' as it can get a bit unruly in certain weather. Imagine how much harder it is for people with African type hair living in western cultures. Yet really do people with straight hair do a better job than people with curly, 'unruly' hair? Our culture at this time says yes.

Its always hard to second-guess other people's prejudices, but my guess is that a black woman wanting to manipulate her appearance to do well at a job interview in London right now would probably do best with either short and natural hair or else something visibly "African" like braids or cornrows.

For a number of reasons. One is that it looks more middle-class and educated. I suspect that if you want to play up to the prejudices of bosses and bureaucrats you'd want to distance yourself from their idea of or fears of "the street" and gangs and drugs - and straightened hair, especially with elaborate styles, looks more street than markedly African hair.

For women that is, mens styles work out differently. Effectively all black men round here either shave their heads or else wear hair short and natural. Well, I can only think of three or four of my neighbours who don't. And only one who might have some straightening - not someone I know but someone I've seen on the bus now and again who dresses in a very retro 40s style with big coat and broadbrimmed hat and baggy trousers with flashy braces and a little pencil moustache.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by L'il Buddha
with police I think a better term is institutional racism. This can be nearly as strong as if it were organised and less easily exorcised.
I agree that it can be harder to change bottom-up elements of culture that have no official existence.

But it is the culture of the organisation, rather than the institution as such, which should be changed.

On a different aspect of the topic, I was reminded yesterday of Dumbo and the magic feather. The magic feather is a lie but the self-belief that comes with it isn't.

The idea that an elephant can fly is of course ridiculous, and I wouldn't want to press the analogy too hard. But there's a truth there - that sometimes in order to achieve your full potential (for which flying is a metaphor) you have to believe that you can.

So to the extent that ethnic minorities face an issue of low expectations (both low self-expectation and low expectations of their ability and potential from the indigenous majority) perhaps they need a magic feather - they need to have the idea that the bad old days of racism are over and new opportunities exist. Even if that's not quite as true as we would like it to be, it's a more helpful way to think than living in a culture where they're regarded as perpetual victims per-destined for failure by the way things are, whether you call it "structural racism" or some more accurate term.

Best wishes,

Russ

Your magic feather approach can be very dangerous. What needs to be done is identify and prevent police racism very carefully. In the mean time, Black mothers often take great care to teach their teen sons how to avoid getting shot by the police during a stop and frisk. I know, I know, this is ancient history and outrage hoarding since a court case last month has changed the police policy.

A clear view of the effects of institutional racism is better than pretending it never happened. For example;

quote:
More than 60% of the people in prison are now racial and ethnic minorities. For Black males in their thirties, 1 in every 10 is in prison or jail on any given day. These trends have been intensified by the disproportionate impact of the "war on drugs," in which two-thirds of all persons in prison for drug offenses are people of color

From The sentencing project

You can dig further should you care to about unequal justice by race. You don't have to dig far to find it.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
An interesting standard to adopt, particularly for a country that notoriously lacks a formal constitution.
The UK most certainly does have a constitution.
You did read the link you posted? Croesos is correct.
So the UK does not have a 'formal' constitution, even though it has a constitution? Interesting. (I think he meant to say 'written').

I think he meant to say 'formal' when he wrote 'formal'. I wonder how we can find out? Who should we ask?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

The kind of hair typically possessed by those of black African origin is not at all the same as that possessed by white folks. Because it's not the same, you can't wear the same hairstyles.
Someone who hasn't had experience with African hair has difficulty understanding this.

The styles we are told are "neat" and "acceptable" generally require chemicals for straightening, weaves (artificial or human hair sewn in or glued to the wearer's hear), or wigs. As someone with a tender scalp, getting braided extensions as a child meant nearly a weak of severe pain due to the tightness of the braids. I couldn't sleep for the first few days. And a chemical straightener damaged my hair very badly when I was 10 or 11.

It's ridiculous for little black girls to be forced into hairstyles that can cause pain and damage, and also have a significant cost, just to look "neat." What they mean is to have hair that looks like white hair.

This is an example of institutional racism - where we've internalized what "nice hair" looks like and that happens to be hair that most resembles European hair. So schools or companies make rules like this without realizing that it's an undue burden on black women in particular.

I can't speak to the pain and effort necessary to maintain "acceptable" hair for a black woman. But the cost speaks for itself;
what spending a half a trillion dollars on hair care and weaves says about us

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...
Effectively all black men round here either shave their heads or else wear hair short and natural. Well, I can only think of three or four of my neighbours who don't.

Around here many black and non-black middle age men wear their hair shaved or short.

cough... cough.... male pattern baldness ...

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

(In response to Ken's comment about job interviews) In London... possibly. But both Ken and I live/work in an area of London with a relatively high population of people of African descent. I think the pressure to look European is probably less here. (Of course, if you walk into the Boots in Lewisham, you will *still* find twenty different brands of makeup for white people, and then the Fashion Fair selection for everyone else.)

I'm trying to think of black female celebrities who are in the public eye regularly with "natural" hair and I actually can't think of anyone. (These women may well exist but I just can't think of them.) I think that probably says more about the cultural pressure for European-looking hair than anything else.

[ 13. September 2013, 09:05: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Unfortunately, strongly agreed about hair and what is expected. I live in a wonderfully diverse area, and work at a very good University, which means that though not everyone has the same color, they all have about the same class. And yeah where I work definitely much straightened hair. (Where I live, all types of hair.)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...
Effectively all black men round here either shave their heads or else wear hair short and natural. Well, I can only think of three or four of my neighbours who don't.
Around here many black and non-black middle age men wear their hair shaved or short.

cough... cough.... male pattern baldness ...

I think the kids who hang around on the front steps of some of the houses in our street with their bicycles and roll-ups are unlikely to be going bald yet!

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Unfortunately, strongly agreed about hair and what is expected. I live in a wonderfully diverse area, and work at a very good University, which means that though not everyone has the same color, they all have about the same class. And yeah where I work definitely much straightened hair. (Where I live, all types of hair.)

Yeah. I think we know what the reaction of the media / society / internet would be if Michelle Obama started putting her hair into cornrows.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I can't speak to the pain and effort necessary to maintain "acceptable" hair for a black woman. But the cost speaks for itself;
what spending a half a trillion dollars on hair care and weaves says about us

I'd also recommend Chris Rock's excellent documentary "Good Hair."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213585/

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
An interesting standard to adopt, particularly for a country that notoriously lacks a formal constitution.
The UK most certainly does have a constitution.
You did read the link you posted? Croesos is correct.
So the UK does not have a 'formal' constitution, even though it has a constitution? Interesting. (I think he meant to say 'written').

I think he meant to say 'formal' when he wrote 'formal'. I wonder how we can find out? Who should we ask?

I deliberately avoided using the term "written", since the constitution of the U.K. seems to be an ad hoc collection of some written sources combined with a good helping of customary law. And yes, in the constitutional sense "formal" usually means contained in either a single document or a series of documents (like the U.S. Constitution plus its subsequent amendments) that more or less say "this is a constitution".

quote:
"I know that astrology isn’t a science," said Gail. "Of course it isn’t. It's just an arbitrary set of rules like chess or tennis or, what's that strange thing you British play?"

"Er, cricket? Self-loathing?"

"Parliamentary democracy. The rules just kind of got there. They don't make any kind of sense except in terms of themselves. . . . "

- Mostly Harmless, Douglas Adams

At any rate EE seems to be using the question of constitutional construction to avoid discussing his contention that "inherent racism" only exists where it is formally included not just in the legal code but in the national constitution itself. The obvious counter-example, which I already pointed out, is the American south from 1865 to 1965, which although legally segregated had the Fourteenth Amendment's stipulation of racial equality.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

Judging from the short extract of dress code in the article, that may not be the case here. If the entirety of the hair regulations is about how unseemly African-style hair is and how it has to be made as non-African as possible, while the white kids wear their hair how they like, then that is racism. It's setting out to penalise racial attributes; one law for the pale and one for the dark. it's wrong; the school should apologise & change the policy (and if they're reluctant to do so then a threat of withdrawal of State funding would be in order).

So there's innocence and there's guilt.

What you're suggesting, Soror Magna, seems like a type of in-between category.

Here is the link to the school policy in question.
Note the only hairstyles specifically called out are black hairstyles. This is racist. If fauxhawks or some such non-race identified style were included, you might have a case. However since only black hairstyles were mentioned and since said hairstyles are far from faddish, this is racism.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

It's certainly possible to have hideous-looking dreadlocks. The stereotypical 90s eco-warrior probably wore those, and I would be happy to ban that from school.

Tiana Parker, the girl in question, is pictured
in the article I have seen wearing her dreadlocked hair tied up neatly with a bow in it. She looks completely fine - there's absolutely nothing about her presentation that is inappropriate for school.

So yes, with what could be the perfectly laudable aim of insisting that school pupils have neat and presentable hair in a conventional style, by banning a large fraction of the styles that you can do with natural African hair, they have achieved structural racism.

My reaction to the photo was the same as yours - her hair looks fine to me. But that's an aesthetic judgment. And if you accept the idea of a dress code, what it means in practice is that it will be someone's job to decide what's allowed and what's not allowed, and that person's judgment won't always agree with yours.

But it may not be about what's neat and presentable at all. Maybe the issue they're trying to address is to do with little girls being put under peer pressure to copy the elaborate hairstyles favoured by their older siblings.

Lilbuddha is quite right to say that there is nothing inherently faddish about African styles; that doesn't mean that at some particular place and time there may not be a fashion for such styles among older girls, which rightly or wrongly the school wishes to discourage for reasons that have more to with conservatism and with protecting children from premature teenagerhood than with racist motives.

So if you're saying that it's possible to set up a racist process without racist intention, then I have to agree - there may be no limits to human incompetence.

That doesn't mean that racism is embedded in the structure of anything. And doesn't mean that it's OK to accuse of out-and-out racism people who are no more than culpably negligent or unskilled in the arts of good management. And doesn't mean that any outcome which someone from an ethnic minority doesn't like necessarily means that the process is racist.

Maybe no-one means to say or imply any of those things.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

On the other hand, if people can do an obviously racist thing--forbid all natural styles for African-Americans--and we can't even suspect their racists, I'm not sure what is racist besides the Klan.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

It's certainly possible to have hideous-looking dreadlocks. The stereotypical 90s eco-warrior probably wore those, and I would be happy to ban that from school.

Tiana Parker, the girl in question, is pictured
in the article I have seen wearing her dreadlocked hair tied up neatly with a bow in it. She looks completely fine - there's absolutely nothing about her presentation that is inappropriate for school.

So yes, with what could be the perfectly laudable aim of insisting that school pupils have neat and presentable hair in a conventional style, by banning a large fraction of the styles that you can do with natural African hair, they have achieved structural racism.
My reaction to the photo was the same as yours - her hair looks fine to me. But that's an aesthetic judgment. And if you accept the idea of a dress code, what it means in practice is that it will be someone's job to decide what's allowed and what's not allowed, and that person's judgment won't always agree with yours.

But it may not be about what's neat and presentable at all. Maybe the issue they're trying to address is to do with little girls being put under peer pressure to copy the elaborate hairstyles favoured by their older siblings.

Lilbuddha is quite right to say that there is nothing inherently faddish about African styles; that doesn't mean that at some particular place and time there may not be a fashion for such styles among older girls, which rightly or wrongly the school wishes to discourage for reasons that have more to with conservatism and with protecting children from premature teenagerhood than with racist motives.

So if you're saying that it's possible to set up a racist process without racist intention, then I have to agree - there may be no limits to human incompetence.

That doesn't mean that racism is embedded in the structure of anything. And doesn't mean that it's OK to accuse of out-and-out racism people who are no more than culpably negligent or unskilled in the arts of good management. And doesn't mean that any outcome which someone from an ethnic minority doesn't like necessarily means that the process is racist.

Maybe no-one means to say or imply any of those things.

Best wishes,

Russ

Yes indeed. And those separate bathrooms and waiting rooms for white and colored people weren't racist, just a simple way to distribute the load of people so they don't all use a few facilities because they are the best facilities and only due to mismanagement all labeled "white only".

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action" Racism in America may be different than where you live, but it's pervasive.

As the prior posters pointed out, the touching concern for the little black girls to prevent them from inappropriately wearing what are judged by the school to be teenage styles is not matched in the code by a set of restrictions to keep the little white girls from wearing inappropriate styles. Isn't that neglect of the little white girls racist?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
On the other hand, if people can do an obviously racist thing--forbid all natural styles for African-Americans--and we can't even suspect their racists, I'm not sure what is racist besides the Klan.

Indeed. It's almost like it's considered worse to point out racism than to engage in racism. You'll find people spinning out more fanciful and speculative hypotheticals than simply acknowledge a racist action. For example:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But it may not be about what's neat and presentable at all. Maybe the issue they're trying to address is to do with little girls being put under peer pressure to copy the elaborate hairstyles favoured by their older siblings.

Or maybe it's an assumption that anything resembling a natural hairstyle for African-Americans must be "thug" or "ghetto" (or whatever scared suburban whites are calling it these days), which has been euphemized as "faddish". That seems even more plausible than the suggestion that it's supposed to mean "elaborate", especially given that the two styles mentioned aren't particularly complex, especially compared with some of the options mentioned by seekingsister.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think we know what the reaction of the media / society / internet would be if Michelle Obama started putting her hair into cornrows.

Yeah, but it would be unbelievably awesome. Maybe after the midterm elections in 2014.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
On the other hand, if people can do an obviously racist thing--forbid all natural styles for African-Americans--and we can't even suspect their racists, I'm not sure what is racist besides the Klan.
Indeed. It's almost like it's considered worse to point out racism than to engage in racism.

Totally. Which is really frustrating, because how on earth can you discuss the effects of racism if you can't identify racist attitudes/ behavior?

And, of course, identifying attitudes/ behavior is not the same as establishing intent. I try very hard not to be racist, but I am sure at times I do not succeed. How on earth am I to learn how not to be racist if I don't occasionally have someone point out, "What you just did/ said was totally ignorant"? It has nothing to do with what kind of person I am.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...
Effectively all black men round here either shave their heads or else wear hair short and natural. Well, I can only think of three or four of my neighbours who don't.
Around here many black and non-black middle age men wear their hair shaved or short.

cough... cough.... male pattern baldness ...
I think the kids who hang around on the front steps of some of the houses in our street with their bicycles and roll-ups are unlikely to be going bald yet!

Perhaps the kids on your street have a nearby bald or shaven role model? [Big Grin]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
if people can do an obviously racist thing--forbid all natural styles for African-Americans--and we can't even suspect their racists

We can suspect. I do, and some others clearly do also. But suspicion isn't knowledge.

Soror Magna raised this case supposedly as an example of unintentional racism. It could be. But harbouring private suspicions is no crime.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

PS:
as a general question to all, would it make any difference to your reaction to this case if in a follow-up to the original story it turned out that the principal of the school, author & arbiter of the dress code, is black ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

Soror Magna raised this case supposedly as an example of unintentional racism. It could be. But harbouring private suspicions is no crime.

I'm pretty sure it's unintentional, but that doesn't make it not racist. A rule which bans a significant fraction of the reasonable, presentable styles that one can achieve with black hair, whilst not banning any style that can be achieved with white hair, is de facto racist.

Ignorance is something of an excuse, as long as you correct your error when you are educated.

quote:

as a general question to all, would it make any difference to your reaction to this case if in a follow-up to the original story it turned out that the principal of the school, author & arbiter of the dress code, is black ?

Yes - it would remove the defense of ignorance from the equation, because a black principal would be fully aware of the nature of black hair.

You said earlier:

quote:
And if you accept the idea of a dress code, what it means in practice is that it will be someone's job to decide what's allowed and what's not allowed, and that person's judgment won't always agree with yours.

The point is, I think, that this isn't someone's judgement of whether the little girl looks smart, but is a case of someone blankly applying a "no dreadlocks" policy because "that's our policy" (for which I have an entire hellish rant that might escape at some point). I will note that she'd have been made to fix her hair at the school Mrs. Cniht was a pupil at, because the bow in her hair wasn't in the school colours, but the
the dreadlocks wouldn't have been objectionable.

[ 14. September 2013, 22:00: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
PS:
as a general question to all, would it make any difference to your reaction to this case if in a follow-up to the original story it turned out that the principal of the school, author & arbiter of the dress code, is black ?

Best wishes,

Russ

People can be racist against others of their "own", as LC points out, it would make it intentionally racist.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

I'm not convinced that if the principal were black this would make it a case of intentional racism, at least not in a straightforward way. Couldn't it in that case be internalized racism and self-hatred? And/or an effort to get black children to conform to white-dominated standards of beauty because doing so seems necessary to being accepted and successful in the dominant culture?

Lots of black mothers have made their daughters straighten their hair. Was this intentionally racist?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

No, and whilst I disagree with that motive, I cannot feel negative towards them. As far as the current example, if the school policy were set by a black person, there is not the same excuse. Not in this day and time.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Lots of black mothers have made their daughters straighten their hair. Was this intentionally racist?

Making all children in a school straighten their hair is more pointed than making your own child though. I wouldn't say it's proof, but there are a lot of things I make my kids do that I wouldn't want enforced in a school. Some things I will encourage my children to do are because they are likely to help them prepare for college. Considering their parents, my children are very likely to want to go college, so I should help them get ready. That certainly doesn't mean all children should. Similarly, there are probably reasons to straighten one's hair to fit in--as mentioned (on this thread?) interviews can be a reason, that I wouldn't want to impose on everyone.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Lots of black mothers have made their daughters straighten their hair. Was this intentionally racist?

I think it's as you said, the mothers want their daughters to fit in, because that's what it takes to be successful in a racist society.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... So there's innocence and there's guilt.

What you're suggesting, Soror Magna, seems like a type of in-between category.

There may be such a category, but I'd want to see it defined well enough that it's not just a way of labelling as racist (with all the overtones of wrongness that that word rightly carries) things which aren't really racist.

I believe that the word racism has a real meaning, describes an objectively real phenomenon which we would benefit by understanding, and therefore is not to be confused with subjective ideas like "whatever makes a black person feel insulted" ...

Hmmm, a crack. Let's see if we can get some light in.

The "category" is, as has been stated repeatedly, is structural (or instutional) racism, which by its very name tells you isn't a matter of individual guilt or innocence. Regardless of whether you believe it or not, it is real. It seems like you think I'm talking about a unicorn, and you're saying there's no such thing, you've only ever seen horses, and I'm really talking about a zebra.

quote:
... But it may not be about what's neat and presentable at all. Maybe the issue they're trying to address is to do with little girls being put under peer pressure to copy the elaborate hairstyles favoured by their older siblings ... such styles among older girls, which rightly or wrongly the school wishes to discourage for reasons that have more to with conservatism and with protecting children from premature teenagerhood than with racist motives. ...

That, my friend, is such a convoluted argument that it just screams for internet hair relaxer.

quote:
... So if you're saying that it's possible to set up a racist process without racist intention, then I have to agree - there may be no limits to human incompetence.

That doesn't mean that racism is embedded in the structure of anything. And doesn't mean that it's OK to accuse of out-and-out racism people who are no more than culpably negligent or unskilled in the arts of good management. ...

OK, fine, call it "incompetence" if you like. I have no clue what "embedded" means to you, but I do believe that it is possible to reduce or eliminate structural and insitutional racism in our society. Russ, if you could broden your understanding of racism to include more than just individuals guilty of acting out of prejudice, you might actually discover that describing institutional racism DOES NOT accuse individuals specifically. That's the whole fucking point, right on the fucking label. Insitutional racism ISN'T individual acts of prejudice, and can and does exist in the absence of individual prejudice.

(Now, when institutional racism has been pointed out, and the denials and rationalizations pour out, one might think that there's a bit of individual prejudice, but again, that's not institutional racism.)

quote:
PS: as a general question to all, would it make any difference to your reaction to this case if in a follow-up to the original story it turned out that the principal of the school, author & arbiter of the dress code, is black ?...

No. In fact, it would support my argument by demonstrating that even people who aren't prejudiced can create a racist instutional structure. Now I'm going to go style my just-washed biracial hair so I'm not invading others' personal space.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
if you could broaden your understanding of racism to include more than just individuals guilty of acting out of prejudice, you might actually discover that describing institutional racism DOES NOT accuse individuals specifically. That's the whole fucking point, right on the fucking label. Institutional racism ISN'T individual acts of prejudice, and can and does exist in the absence of individual prejudice.

As you point out, that is why you call it "institutional" and because of the "institutional" nature of it, people protected from it unconsciously engage in it more than they think. Open question: hasn't anybody posting here ever done or said anything that later made them think,"Holy crap, I made some big assumptions about that situation that probably offended the hell out of X person!"

Now add to that (for some folk) acting out of ignorance without reflection.

Now add to that(for some folk) acting out of ignorance, but having been raised with various scripts that justify one's entitlement to say/ do whatever was said/ done.

At some point, feedback needs to come into the picture or the situation never ends.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Petition for flesh-coloured Band-Aids

The whole point of flesh-coloured [sic] Band-Aids is that they appear less conspicuous when applied to an injury ... on white people. On people of colour, flesh-coloured [sic] Band-Aids really stand out. So it's easier for a white person to stick on a Band-Aid and not worry about other people noticing the injury and making assumptions about it. On a person of colour, the Band-Aid is really obvious, and it's only natural for observers to wonder what happened.

I'm sure that to some people, bitching about the colour of Band-Aids may seem really trivial. However, if we go back to the ever-popular job interview scenario, which would be more likely to create a negative impression: a well-concealed injury or a really obvious injury? Even if it's only an unconscious, trivial, passing thought in the interviewer's mind - such as "Did she get in a bar fight?"* - it might still factor into the final decision as a "feeling" about the candidate.

Are Johnson and Johnson executives racist? Who knows? Is making and selling only one colour of flesh-coloured [sic] Band-Aids racist? Yes. Can it be fixed? Yes, easily. Lots of products (e.g. pantyhose, makeup) are produced in a range of skin tones.

=====
*I showed up to work one day with a puffy eye from a blocked tear duct, and that is exactly what my work-study student thought had happened, so yes, people do make amazing assumptions about the smallest things.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Lots of black mothers have made their daughters straighten their hair. Was this intentionally racist?

Am I missing something here? Because lots of white mothers make their daughters (and sons) straighten their hair as well. My wife spends freakin' ages fighting against her "natural" hair every morning, and she's white as snow. The idea that we should all have "neat" hair may be screwed up, but is it really racist?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Lots of black mothers have made their daughters straighten their hair. Was this intentionally racist?
Am I missing something here? Because lots of white mothers make their daughters (and sons) straighten their hair as well. My wife spends freakin' ages fighting against her "natural" hair every morning, and she's white as snow. The idea that we should all have "neat" hair may be screwed up, but is it really racist?

Depends upon the context. The hair comments were brought into this discussion regarding a school policy which references traditionally black hairstyles.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Am I missing something here? ... The idea that we should all have "neat" hair may be screwed up, but is it really racist?

It's about waaaay more than having "neat" hair:
Black Hair, Still Tangled in Politics
Gabby Douglas won two Olympic gold medals and was criticized both for having relaxed hair and for having hair that wasn't relaxed enough, for crying out loud.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah, I would encourage everyone to read that article carefully, and then Netflix "Good Hair", the Chris Rock documentary referenced in it.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
PS:
as a general question to all, would it make any difference to your reaction to this case if in a follow-up to the original story it turned out that the principal of the school, author & arbiter of the dress code, is black ?

Best wishes,

Russ

As it happens, we don't have to guess. The website of the Deborah Brown Community School has a page with photos of board members, administrators, and teachers, including founder and executive director Ms. Deborah Brown herself.

It's not clear to my untutored eye, though, how Tiana Parker's hairstyle is unacceptably different from those of the students depicted on the DBCS "Information", "About Us", "Vision", or "Goal" pages.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

We had a kid who was growing dreads in one of the schools I worked at, and from what I saw, the appeal is not their "faddishness" (? dreads have been around for years!) but the relative ease of maintaining the style once they have been trained from the roots. you just twirl them with your fingers to keep them going.

Note I said "relative."

So, that's what bugs me about this-- one of the few ways to make black hair manageable that doesn't involve heat or chemicals or hours n a salon, and people find a way to protest. Some folk better hope bald, shiny heads don't become an adverse political statement.

[ 16. September 2013, 01:40: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

Here's another one for the institutional racism books.

Guy crashes his car late at night, climbs out of wreck and walks to nearest home to seek help. Homeowner calls cops because a strange man is banging on her door at 2am. Cops arrive and shoot him.

Yes, he was black - did you guess?

The cop has been charged with manslaughter. I'm sure plenty more details will come out, but at first sniff, this looks like white people finding the big black guy scary (Mr. Ferrell was a college football player a couple of years ago, so was built like a football player) in a case where they probably wouldn't have reacted the same way to a big white guy.

In this case, there should be video available from the cop car, so there should be less speculation and more hard facts.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

Blatant racism is making a huge come back these days. The latest I have just been reading are the headlines of the backlash against the new Miss America - I'm not a fan of the pageant but that's a topic for another thread - because she is of Indian descent. Statements of her not being American though she is, that she's Muslim even though she's not and that shouldn't make a difference anyway, that Miss America needs to be white and is "Miss 7-11" not Miss America. It's not just anonymous morons making comments. Even Fox news commentator Todd Starnes had this quote: "The liberal Miss America judges won't say this - but Miss Kansas lost because she actually represented American values. #missamerica" It sickens me to see these attitudes.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Here's another one for the institutional racism books.

Guy crashes his car late at night, climbs out of wreck and walks to nearest home to seek help. Homeowner calls cops because a strange man is banging on her door at 2am. Cops arrive and shoot him.

Yes, he was black - did you guess?

The cop has been charged with manslaughter. I'm sure plenty more details will come out, but at first sniff, this looks like white people finding the big black guy scary (Mr. Ferrell was a college football player a couple of years ago, so was built like a football player) in a case where they probably wouldn't have reacted the same way to a big white guy.

In this case, there should be video available from the cop car, so there should be less speculation and more hard facts.

Was just coming here to post this. All the same, I predict the cop gets off somehow or at least avoids jail time. [Frown]

[ 17. September 2013, 11:33: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Are Johnson and Johnson executives racist?

When you talk about a racist person, do you mean

a) someone who feels less empathy for people of other races than for their own (which is probably most of us, at least some of the time) but tries to treat all people fairly regardless

b) someone who intentionally treats people differently according to their race ("after all, they're only wogs")

c) someone who accidentally puts in place a policy which treats people of some races less favourably than others in similar circumstance

d) someone who treats everyone alike but engages in activities of more interest to those of their own race or culture (selling sun tan lotion, making traditional clothing, writing biographies and never having written one of someone from an ethnic minority)

?

To my mind, a) and d) are innocent, c) has been culpably negligent of a racial injustice but isn't a racist person, and b) is a racist.

What's your version, and what does it take to be innocent in your scheme of things ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Are Johnson and Johnson executives racist?
When you talk about a racist person, do you mean ...

We don't know, we don't need to know, and it doesn't matter when we're talking about structural racism.

quote:
What's your version, and what does it take to be innocent in your scheme of things ?

Structural racism has nothing to do or say about individual innocence or guilt.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
Guy crashes his car late at night, climbs out of wreck and walks to nearest home to seek help. Homeowner calls cops because a strange man is banging on her door at 2am. Cops arrive and shoot him.

OK, our police screw up sometimes too. But they're not usually armed so your chances of surviving a screwup are higher.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Soror Magna:
[QB] [We don't know, we don't need to know, and it doesn't matter.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Are Johnson and Johnson executives racist?
When you talk about a racist person, do you mean ...
We don't know, we don't need to know, and it doesn't matter when we're talking about structural racism.

You don't know what you mean ? That's kind of what I thought.

You're not interested in establishing a clear and consistent meaning for the word racist ? That you just used without any qualifying adjective. You want to be free to decide what's racist and what's not and have everyone accept your say-so because the colour of your skin means that you have more experience of it ? A charge against which there is no defence ? A witch-hunt ?

Seems to me there's a deliberate abuse of language going on here.

You've come across abusive religion. It goes something like this:
1) Sin is something big and bad and scary. It's the worst thing in the world - the root of all evil.
2) it's a serious issue even when the matter is trivial - no sin is beneath notice.
3) you cannot escape it by your own effort - you are mired in it
4) you weren't made that way - every sin you commit is your fault, whatever your intention was
5) the only way out of your evilness is to put yourself completely in the power of the Church and be totally guided by Her (i.e. by me).

Its power depends on blurring the meaning of the word "sin" so that at one moment it means what you do, the next moment what you choose or intend to do, the next something obviously wrong, the next something the Church inveighs against, the next all the bad things that everyone in history has ever done, and so on. Any one of these propositions may be true for a suitable meaning of the word "sin". But together they amount to something twisted and dishonest.

In the same way, we have what you might call "abusive anti-racism".
1) Racism is something big and bad and scary. It's the worst thing in the world - aligning oneself with the worst crimes in human history
2) it's a serious issue even when the matter is trivial - no racism is beneath notice.
3) you cannot escape it by your own effort - you are not conscious of the racist assumptions embedded in your culture
4) you weren't made that way - every racist act you commit is your fault, whatever your intention was
5) the only way out of your evilness is to be totally guided by black people (i.e. by us the self-appointed spokespeople for them).

We can and should resist this sort of mindset that plays on human feelings of guilt (let's face it, none of us are perfect) to establish power over others. By striving for clear and honest communication.

So if you want to call people racist, nail your colours to the mast by saying what racism is, so that everyone can judge whether or not the word is rightly or wrongly applied in each individual instance.

You've repeatedly asserted that there is such a thing as "structural racism" without justifying the suggestion. What do you think racism is and of what exactly is it part of the structure ?

If you mean "unintended racism" then you could try saying so. But no, you want to be able to pin that label on someone without bothering to make the effort to think about what's going on in their head and how far this may or may nof be a wrong that should be put right.

Time to raise your game...

Russ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I think it might be time to raise the game represented by your arguments, Russ.

Unintentional racism. Ah yes, the "Ooops, sorry, didn't realise you brown buggers don't like being called darkies. Everyone did it when I were a kid, innit?" defense.
It is increasingly difficult to use this excuse. We do not live in isolation, we not only have many resources at our fingertips, we must actively seek to avoid information.
Perhaps there are a few things still that are more difficult to see.
Oh, and if there is something embedded in one's culture, that would be the definition of structural/institutional racism.

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

And pretending structural racism is doesn't exist because you don't like the definition or are afraid non-white people are somehow complaining about racism in order to control you is not going to make it go away.

Racism is not going to go away if people just stop talking about it. Talking about or identifying blatant or structural racism does not cause racism.
Nor is it a witch hunt. Noone is asking for people to be punished - they just want people and society to change.

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

Here's another example of structural racism at work

The Talk - Julie Chen's secret eye surgery

The hosts here like and are being supportive of Julie Chen, but at the same time might unintentionally pressure other Asian women to get plastic surgery or feel there eyes are inferior to European eyes.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I do not agree with the presenters of that show.
Though I think they are in a difficult position. I think being supportive is good. However, I think Julie Chen's situation is horrible. To need to physically alter oneself to conform is not a good thing.
Sarah Gilbert had the best response of the group, and Sharon Osborne the worst.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... You've repeatedly asserted that there is such a thing as "structural racism" without justifying the suggestion. ... Time to raise your game...

No, it's clearly time for me to FGTFY. Structural racism: about 4,360,000 results in 0.34 seconds. Enjoy.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh, and if there is something embedded in one's culture, that would be the definition of structural/institutional racism.

More of a definition than I'm going to get out of Soror Magna, anyway.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Here's another example of structural racism at work

The Talk - Julie Chen's secret eye surgery

The hosts here like and are being supportive of Julie Chen, but at the same time might unintentionally pressure other Asian women to get plastic surgery or feel there eyes are inferior to European eyes.

Yeah. The tone has shifted to "Why are we persecuting this poor, poor girl for just wanting to be pretty?" from "Why on earth did the girl in Picture One have to feel she wasn't pretty in the first place?" It's like challenging the industry's right to dictate aesthetic mores is sacrilege.

Gilbert's response was beautiful and graceful. She is a wise woman, and negotiated the nuances perfectly.

[ 20. September 2013, 19:22: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Finely parsing motives, as Russ advocates, doesn't seem like it would be all that helpful. It usually devolves into excuse-finding.

Take for example the Segregation-era Whites Only restaurant. We could do endless rounds of speculation on the exact motives involved. Does the waitress refusing to serve black customers really hate black people? Is she afraid of losing her job if she doesn't toe the line? Is she doing it because business will decline and her tips suffer if the restaurant isn't racially segregated? Is she just doing her job without reflecting on any of these questions?

As I said, the hypotheticals we could spin are nearly endless and, in the absence of telepathy, unanswerable. In a lot of cases it seems like a search for that magic answer that will allow racial discrimination that isn't racist. Of course, from the perspective of the black customer being told "We don't serve your kind here" the result is still the same, regardless of the motives involved.

The concentration on racism as an individual flaw rather than something that can exist at an institutional or societal level mirror the analysis of Carolyn Dupont's Mississippi Praying of the theology adopted to justify and endorse segregation. An excerpt from a blog review:

quote:
For the most part, in this way of thinking, systems emerge only as the product of individual actions. Sin resides in people, not in the configuration of the society around them. The notion that the world might work in exactly the opposite way — that social, political, and economic arrangements might exert profound evil on individuals, limiting their destinies and proscribing their choices — hardly enters in. Vision so trained can hardly register the wickedness that ensues from social systems that hurt, disfigure, and profoundly disadvantage some, while reserving for others the best preparation, the choicest opportunities, and the smoothest pathways.

Emphasis added.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

OK, so, here's an extensive and detailed glossary:

quote:
Individual Racism: The beliefs, attitudes, and actions of individuals that support or perpetuate racism. Individual racism can occur at both a conscious and unconscious level, and can be both active and passive. Examples include telling a racist joke, using a racial epithet, or believing in the inherent superiority of Whites.

quote:
Institutional Racism: Institutional racism refers specifically to the ways in which institutional policies and practices create different outcomes for different racial groups. The institutional policies may never mention any racial group, but their effect is to create advantages for whites and oppression and disadvantage for people from groups classified as non-white.

Examples:
Government policies that explicitly restricted the ability of people to get loans to buy or improve their homes in neighborhoods with high concentrations of African Americans (also known as "red-lining").
City sanitation department policies that concentrate trash transfer stations and other environmental hazards disproportionately in communities of color.

quote:
Internalized Racism: Internalized racism is the situation that occurs in a racist system when a racial group oppressed by racism supports the supremacy and dominance of the dominating group by maintaining or participating in the set of attitudes, behaviors, social structures and ideologies that undergird the dominating group's power. ...

quote:
Denial: Refusal to acknowledge the societal privileges (see the term "privilege") that are granted or denied based on an individual's ethnicity or other grouping. Those who are in a stage of denial tend to believe, "People are people. We are all alike regardless of the color of our skin." In this way, the existence of a hierarchical system or privileges based on ethnicity or race can be ignored.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Finely parsing motives, as Russ advocates, doesn't seem like it would be all that helpful. It usually devolves into excuse-finding.

If you come at this from the perspective of sociology, then your interest is probably in racial inequality and the factors that cause or perpetuate that. In which case, individual motives are largely irrelevant.

If you come at he subject of racism from a perspective of moral philosophy, then your interest is probably in whether and how far racist acts are sinful, and what a person has to do or not do to be innocent of such sins. In which case motivation - what a person intends to achieve by their act - is relevant, alongside considerations of foreseeable consequences.

It does not seem to me necessarily the case that everyone acting morally will achieve socio-economic equality between racial groups. I don't advocate "colourblindness" because it is an effective sociological strategy; I suggest it as the morally right way to relate to one's fellow human beings.

Conversely, there may be ways of achieving sociological aims that are morally questionable, and euphemisms like "affirmative action" seem designed to whitewash the suggestion that policy makers should "fight fire with fire" whilst publicly deploring fire...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

If you come at he subject of racism from a perspective of moral philosophy, then your interest is probably in whether and how far racist acts are sinful, and what a person has to do or not do to be innocent of such sins. In which case motivation - what a person intends to achieve by their act - is relevant, alongside considerations of foreseeable consequences.

First, morals do not have a direct link with "sin". Some of us do not use this concept, but would still use the concept of morals.
Second, Motivation is not the only important thing. If I drink to excess and drive, I may not intend to hurt anyone. That may well be the consequence. The point is that, as functioning adults, "I did not intend" is not an inherently valid excuse.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

Conversely, there may be ways of achieving sociological aims that are morally questionable, and euphemisms like "affirmative action" seem designed to whitewash the suggestion that policy makers should "fight fire with fire" whilst publicly deploring fire...

Best wishes,

Russ

Affirmative action and other such programmes are not meant to "fight fire with fire". Whether they work properly is a different discussion.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Finely parsing motives, as Russ advocates, doesn't seem like it would be all that helpful. It usually devolves into excuse-finding.

If you come at this from the perspective of sociology, then your interest is probably in racial inequality and the factors that cause or perpetuate that. In which case, individual motives are largely irrelevant.

If you come at he subject of racism from a perspective of moral philosophy, then your interest is probably in whether and how far racist acts are sinful, and what a person has to do or not do to be innocent of such sins. In which case motivation - what a person intends to achieve by their act - is relevant, alongside considerations of foreseeable consequences.

It does not seem to me necessarily the case that everyone acting morally will achieve socio-economic equality between racial groups. I don't advocate "colourblindness" because it is an effective sociological strategy; I suggest it as the morally right way to relate to one's fellow human beings.

Conversely, there may be ways of achieving sociological aims that are morally questionable, and euphemisms like "affirmative action" seem designed to whitewash the suggestion that policy makers should "fight fire with fire" whilst publicly deploring fire...

Best wishes,

Russ

quote:
Anatole France

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

There's an almost infinite number of ways that existing racism in American society gives an unfair advantage to certain groups. To pretend they don't exist and one is being impartial by making no allowances for those injustices is not what I call moral.
Here's one example, the Republican House is proposing a budget which maintains Agricultural Subsidies while cutting the money for Food Stamps. Historically these have been coupled as a political trade between urban and rural lawmakers. So this new proposed law is racially blind, except that almost all of the agriculture subsidy goes to rich white farmers, and much of the food stamps goes to poor minority families.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It's football finals season here. I'm watching a lot of football at the moment, 2 different codes.

In both codes I've seen quite a few instances of a penalty being given when it's fairly clear that the person giving away the penalty breached the rules accidentally. The ball and/or an opposing player ended up somewhere unexpected and they couldn't react fast enough to avoid infringing the rules.

It's still a penalty.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
First, morals do not have a direct link with "sin". Some of us do not use this concept, but would still use the concept of morals.

You can read "sin" as "moral crime" - apologies for not being clear - I write from the perspective that no-one needs revelation to know right from wrong.

quote:
Second, Motivation is not the only important thing. If I drink to excess and drive, I may not intend to hurt anyone. That may well be the consequence. The point is that, as functioning adults, "I did not intend" is not an inherently valid excuse.

Agreed - there is such a thing as culpable negligence, and I've suggested above that racist policies may come into this category.

But I'd add that the difference between a road collision that is purely accidental and one where one party is to blame is small compared with the difference between that and someone setting out to use their car to commit murder.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
And pretending structural racism is doesn't exist because you don't like the definition... ...is not going to make it go away.

You don't get it, do you ?

Let's take the example of "waste transfer stations" quoted by Soror Magna.

No-one is pretending this doesn't happen. I don't have personal experience of this, but am happy to accept the assurances of Shipmates that it does.

Is it an example of structural racism ? In plain English, that breaks down into two questions - is it racist and is it structural ? If race is a factor in the decision process as to where to locate these smelly facilities, then yes it is a racist policy. If the city officials are simply trying to provide a service at minimum cost and this means purchasing land in districts where land values are low, and that means the low-income districts where for historical reasons the black people are concentrated, then the policy is not racist (poor black people and poor white people are being treated equally in a colourblind way). If the policy could be changed easily without implications for the structure of the city government then the adjective "structural" may be misplaced.

The issues here are not who's for and against racism. The issues are about first use of language, and second about top-down approaches which read from society-wide social-group outcomes to individual morality versus bottom-up approaches which locate right and wrong in choices of the individual.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

In your earlier post you seemed to claim that people were changing the definition of racism in order to have a witch hunt and accuse people of racism. You also implied that non-white people could use this to control white people like the church uses definitions of sin to control people. That is what I had an issue with. Perhaps that is not what you meant, however.

I have never heard of waste transfer plants being smelly so did some quick research on local facilities (there's one a couple of suburbs from me and I've never smelt it). Your example is not accurate unless your waste transfer stations are different from the ones here. There is technology that can prevent odours affecting local residents. Businesses can be fined if they don't meet Environmental Protection Agency guidelines eg. Compost odour costly in Melbourne

So if authorities aren't ensuring standards are met and appropriate odour reducing technology is being used in poorer areas perhaps they are biased against the poor at least.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen quite a few instances of a penalty being given when it's fairly clear that the person giving away the penalty breached the rules accidentally. The ball and/or an opposing player ended up somewhere unexpected and they couldn't react fast enough to avoid infringing the rules.

It's still a penalty.

Absolutely.

And I'm sure that in your informed commentary on the game over a jar or two afterwards you'd distinguish this situation from a deliberate foul.

And you'd take a dim view of anyone who claimed that some action was a foul if committed by the white-shirt team against the black-shirt team, but not a foul the other way around. The rules are for everybody.

And if someone tried to redefine a foul to mean "anything that causes my team to lose the game" ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

And if someone tried to redefine a foul to mean "anything that causes my team to lose the game" ?

Best wishes,

Russ

The analogy breaks down here.
First, if the fouls are consistently called on one team than the other, there is a problem.
Second, thinking in "teams" is part of the problem.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Let's take the example of "waste transfer stations" quoted by Soror Magna.

No-one is pretending this doesn't happen. I don't have personal experience of this, but am happy to accept the assurances of Shipmates that it does.

Is it an example of structural racism ? In plain English, that breaks down into two questions - is it racist and is it structural ? If race is a factor in the decision process as to where to locate these smelly facilities, then yes it is a racist policy. If the city officials are simply trying to provide a service at minimum cost and this means purchasing land in districts where land values are low, and that means the low-income districts where for historical reasons the black people are concentrated, then the policy is not racist (poor black people and poor white people are being treated equally in a colourblind way).

Speaking of whitewashing, handwaving away a history of redlining, discriminatory lending practices, and violent enforcement of racial divisions with a bland phrase like "historical reasons" seems a bit disingenuous.

That's what I meant earlier by "excuse-finding", where someone like Russ can come along and say that even though a situation only exists because of racism (e.g. a neighborhood too poor to keep out detrimental commercial developments) that there's nothing racist about taking economic advantage of the situation, even if it helps perpetuate the effects of past racist policy.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Second, Motivation is not the only important thing. If I drink to excess and drive, I may not intend to hurt anyone. That may well be the consequence. The point is that, as functioning adults, "I did not intend" is not an inherently valid excuse.

To quote J.L.Austin on excuses, few excuses get us out of it completely: the average excuse, in a poor situation, gets us only out of the fire into the frying pan - but still, of course, any frying pan in a fire.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... In plain English ... The issues are about first use of language ...

First of all, it's not plain English, it's specialized English used in the social sciences, political discourse, etc. I've linked to a definition and millions of examples of usage. Other Shipmates appear to understand what is meant by structural racism. A personal definition by etymology is irrelevant to this conversation.

Second of all, this is the same argument that comes up in Dead Horses over and over. You know, if "homo" means homosexual, and "phobia" means "an irrational fear" then "homophobia" must mean "an irrational fear of homosexuals". This is usually followed by the assertion that since the writer / speaker is most certainly not afraid of homosexuals, s/he cannot possibly be homophobic.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen quite a few instances of a penalty being given when it's fairly clear that the person giving away the penalty breached the rules accidentally. The ball and/or an opposing player ended up somewhere unexpected and they couldn't react fast enough to avoid infringing the rules.

It's still a penalty.
Absolutely.

And I'm sure that in your informed commentary on the game over a jar or two afterwards you'd distinguish this situation from a deliberate foul.

That would depend very much on the nature and purpose of the discussion. Because for some purposes, motivations are important. For others, outcomes are.

Sure, it's possible to define racism purely in terms of motivations. But for the people who are consistently on the receiving end of poor outcomes, I can well understand that they're more interested in defining racism in terms of those outcomes, because really that's what they want to end.

The discussion about the Zimmerman case was certainly illustrative for me, because while I argued fairly forcefully that Zimmerman's acquittal was the correct result in the individual case, I found myself feeling completely differently about the overall trends in the legal system. At the very least there is evidence pointing to a racist trend in outcomes.

The problem for me was in picking one individual case as emblematic of that racist trend, because as the facts of the case developed it seemed less and less suitable as an emblem. The problem with the prosecution of an individual case being used as the focal point in a discussion about systemic problems is that sometimes black people DO get shot by non-black people without it being a crime (just as sometimes black people DO commit crimes). But that doesn't mean the systemic problems don't exist.

Systemic problems aren't particularly well solved by finger-pointing exercises of identifying who did something wrong. They're only solved when someone takes on the positive responsibility of doing extra things to ensure that things go right.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
First, if the fouls are consistently called on one team than the other, there is a problem.
Second, thinking in "teams" is part of the problem.

First - yes up to a point. There is no requirement for the ref to award the same number of fouls to each side. Or to try to compensate for the previous match. The justice we look for from referees is fairness of process now, not symmetry of outcome. But you're right that too great an asymmetry can suggest the possibility of bias.

Second - agreed.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
First - yes up to a point. There is no requirement for the ref to award the same number of fouls to each side. Or to try to compensate for the previous match.

Or the current match up until the play before last. After all, if there's fairness now, that retroactively makes everything that happened before fair and just. Or at least irrelevant. So remember, as long as the referee calls the current play fairly, the whole match is fair.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
First, if the fouls are consistently called on one team than the other, there is a problem.
Second, thinking in "teams" is part of the problem.
First - yes up to a point. There is no requirement for the ref to award the same number of fouls to each side. Or to try to compensate for the previous match. The justice we look for from referees is fairness of process now, not symmetry of outcome. But you're right that too great an asymmetry can suggest the possibility of bias.

Second - agreed.

Best wishes,

Russ

This is where a sports/penalty analogy breaks down, in my view. WHY aren't we looking for symmetry of outcome?

I raised the analogy to make a very specific point, and this wasn't it.

It seems to me that when it comes to races, looking for a 'winner' is what got us into this trouble in the first place.

I might also add that at least one sporting code I'm familiar with works hard to even up the playing field by giving the worst-performing teams the first picks from the new recruits. Rather than operating as European soccer competitions do and just letting the richest teams continue to get the best players over and over again. If you want to CONTINUE with a sports analogy, let's cast the net a little wider than an individual game on a particular weekend.

[ 23. September 2013, 22:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
First - yes up to a point. There is no requirement for the ref to award the same number of fouls to each side. Or to try to compensate for the previous match.
Or the current match up until the play before last. After all, if there's fairness now, that retroactively makes everything that happened before fair and just. Or at least irrelevant. So remember, as long as the referee calls the current play fairly, the whole match is fair.

Oh, no, no. The officials should base every decision on the whole history of the game, from the colonial era to the present, with special emphasis on the unethical play practiced by certain players in the colonial and immediate post-colonial eras. Only then can the officiating of the game truly both ensure a fair game today and redress the complaints from the championship game of 1804.

Does that sound ridiculous? It's meant to.

</sarcasm>

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

What is ridiculous is to pretend all offences are in the past and are no longer occurring. What is ridiculous is to pretend those past offences have not shaped today's game.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

I think the whole sports metaphor is crap from the outset. None of this is a game.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
for some purposes, motivations are important. For others, outcomes are.

Yes. And if we can communicate clearly and honestly and accurately with each other, we may be able to avoid crossed purposes.

It's right that there should be scientists who study social groups, who seek to understand the processes that cause some groups to prosper and others not. Of course people are interested in outcomes.

And scientists use specialised language to make clearer distinctions, to increase understanding. Either using words that have no apparent connection (nobody intends to suggest that a charmed quark is in any way charming in the conventional plain English meaning) as an obvious technical term. Or using words more precisely; "myth" and "legend" are synonyms in common usage, but someone studying folklore may use them with more specific meanings that are consistent with but more narrowly specialised than their common meanings.

Politics is about power, not truth. People who want to influence others use words with positive or negative emotional loading - for example those protesting against reductions in State spending use images of violent attack - budgets slashed, programmes axed, remember Thatcher's hatchet ? This is not language that increases understanding, this is language that aims to persuade by bypassing the rational mind and going straight for the emotions.

If you want to talk about persistent economic inequality between different racial groups, about how much is due to racism (in the plain English sense), how much is due to the inertia of capitalism (the tendency for the children of the poor to be poor), how much is due to cultural differences, etc, feel free. From sound research and greater understanding some sort of consensus may emerge.

quote:
[The problem for me was in picking one individual case as emblematic of that racist trend, because as the facts of the case developed it seemed less and less suitable as an emblem.

Individual people are always more than emblems of their race, more than members of some racial or ethnic group.

Someone asked a few pages ago why pointing out racism seemed to be treated as worse than racism. This doesn't apply to every case, but when it does, It's not worse than - it is racism. It's saying that the only relevant fact about this individual is his or her race, that who they are and how they think doesn't matter. The colours of the people involved are all you need to know. It's prejudice based on the colour of the skins (or curliness of hair). It's judging an action more harshly - getting more outraged about it - because of the race of one or both of the people involved.

So your recognition of the flawed humanity of Zimmerman and refusal to be content with the monochrome version of the story is very welcome.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
First, if the fouls are consistently called on one team than the other, there is a problem.
Second, thinking in "teams" is part of the problem.
First - yes up to a point. There is no requirement for the ref to award the same number of fouls to each side. Or to try to compensate for the previous match. The justice we look for from referees is fairness of process now, not symmetry of outcome. But you're right that too great an asymmetry can suggest the possibility of bias.

Second - agreed.

Best wishes,

Russ
This is where a sports/penalty analogy breaks down, in my view. WHY aren't we looking for symmetry of outcome?

I raised the analogy to make a very specific point, and this wasn't it.

It seems to me that when it comes to races, looking for a 'winner' is what got us into this trouble in the first place.

I might also add that at least one sporting code I'm familiar with works hard to even up the playing field by giving the worst-performing teams the first picks from the new recruits. Rather than operating as European soccer competitions do and just letting the richest teams continue to get the best players over and over again. If you want to CONTINUE with a sports analogy, let's cast the net a little wider than an individual game on a particular weekend.

This is awesome. it's like the fundamental problem of Western Civilization of the last 11 or 12 centuries, in a nutshell

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

If it's a game, what is the goal?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you want to talk about persistent economic inequality between different racial groups, about how much is due to racism (in the plain English sense), how much is due to the inertia of capitalism (the tendency for the children of the poor to be poor), . . .

Part of the problem is the way you keep pretending those things aren't related.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Someone asked a few pages ago why pointing out racism seemed to be treated as worse than racism. This doesn't apply to every case, but when it does, It's not worse than - it is racism. It's saying that the only relevant fact about this individual is his or her race, that who they are and how they think doesn't matter.

I'm pretty sure that it's exactly the opposite. "[H]ow [racists] think" is precisely what most people objecting to racism find so objectionable. No one is objecting that neo-nazis are white, they're objecting to the fact that neo-nazis are white supremacists.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What is ridiculous is to pretend all offences are in the past and are no longer occurring. What is ridiculous is to pretend those past offences have not shaped today's game.

I don't think anyone's pretending or indeed arguing either of those things.

But perhaps there's a pond difference here. In Europe, racism occurs in the context of issues around assimilation of immigrants and the difficulties faced by children of immigrants. In the US, the context is more about what comes after slavery and conquest. So it's no surprise if American Shipmates put more emphasis on the historical dimension.

Whereas I'd argue that if it makes sense at all to talk about the essential nature of racism, then that nature is what it is regardless of either of those contexts.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb] But perhaps there's a pond difference here. In Europe, racism occurs in the context of issues around assimilation of immigrants and the difficulties faced by children of immigrants. In the US, the context is more about what comes after slavery and conquest. So it's no surprise if American Shipmates put more emphasis on the historical dimension.

I agree. I've always found comparisons between the UK and the United States on this issue awkward at best and downright disingenuous at worst. The US has had these issues from her inception, while in the UK they're mainly 60 or 70 years old and self-inflicted in the way that they aren't in the US.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I do not think history quite bears this out, Anglican't.
The primary difference is when slavery ended in Britain, they left the slaves were they were, mostly in far off lands. In America, they were still there. Racism has been endemic to Britain from when first a Briton set foot in Africa. In the 20th century, immigration to Britain began to rise. When population became great enough, problems began growing. Closer to one hundred years than 60. Would I rather be in Britain or America? Up to the late 20th C., Britain. After, either one.
Comparisons? The experience isn't equal, no. But not as different as you seem to think.
Not sure what you mean by your self-inflicted comment.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

What I was trying to get at is that when the United States was created, it was a country in which people of different races lived. So, throughout her history, the country has had to come to work through whatever racial issues arise out of that. In a sense, the racial composition of the country was imposed on it from the outset.

By contrast, in the UK, the country has been much more racial homogeneous from her inception and so hasn't had to deal with these kind of racial issues. Where they have arisen, it's because racial minority groups have been brought in to the country very recently as a deliberate act of government policy (or through deliberate inaction). The question of social attitudes towards the Irish is possibly an exception to this.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

First, there is only one race. All else is culture and perception.
So, to that perception, The history of the isles is rife with invasion and immigration. Many of those groups considered to be different "races" by themselves and each other. One difference is that many of them were the same basic shade of pink and tended to blend over time. Certainly, one may point to 1707 and say this is the beginning of the UK. But the components of this union were long a travel destination. Vikings, Saxons, Normans, all taken in by the Sunny Britain travel posters.
The vast majority of immigrants to America, prior to the mid 20th C., were decidedly pale. Kinda like the UK.
There were Black people in large numbers. yes. And Indians had not been as thoroughly eradicated as some had hoped. But until the American Civil War, blacks did not have the same status or treatment as immigrants.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
First, there is only one race. All else is culture and perception.

I know little about what learned folk consider 'race' to be and what it isn't, so I'll have to read around this subject. I see there's a very lengthy Wikipedia article on the subject, which might well be capable of being summarised in twelve words. I really don't know.

quote:
The history of the isles is rife with invasion and immigration. Many of those groups considered to be different "races" by themselves and each other. One difference is that many of them were the same basic shade of pink and tended to blend over time.

Isn't 'tended to blend' a massive understatement? Surely there was, by say the mid-1940s, a degree of homogeneity (whether you consider it to be racial, cultural or whatever else) that post-War immigration to Britain changed? People in this country don't regard themselves as being 'Viking' or 'Norman' but some do regard themselves as being 'Pakistani' or 'Jamaican'. To my mind this is a new (or new-ish) phenomenon in the UK, which is quite different from the experience in the United States.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
By contrast, in the UK, the country has been much more racial homogeneous from her inception and so hasn't had to deal with these kind of racial issues.

What about the Raj? No racial issues there?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
By contrast, in the UK, the country has been much more racial homogeneous from her inception and so hasn't had to deal with these kind of racial issues.
What about the Raj? No racial issues there?

India wasn't part of the UK.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Yes, I'm well aware of that. But I find it very hard to believe that Britain sallied forth and conquered big chunks of the world already peopled by non-white folks without having racial issues at that time that are still having effects today.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Anglican't:
I think the immigration patterns are more similar than you seems to think. I still think your "self-imposed" a bit odd.

[ 29. September 2013, 20:44: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. But I find it very hard to believe that Britain sallied forth and conquered big chunks of the world already peopled by non-white folks without having racial issues at that time that are still having effects today.

It is generally considered that racism is one of the factors which allows people to treat others so poorly. "Bloody savages, we are doing them a favour!"

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. But I find it very hard to believe that Britain sallied forth and conquered big chunks of the world already peopled by non-white folks without having racial issues at that time that are still having effects today.

But whatever those issues might be, they're surely not the same as race relations within the United Kingdom?

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Anglican't:
I think the immigration patterns are more similar than you seems to think. I still think your "self-imposed" a bit odd.

Well black people, for example, were inhabitants of the United States throughout that country's history. They were there from the start. Non-white immigration to Britain was a choice: we could have allowed it or could have not allowed it. That's surely quite different?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. But I find it very hard to believe that Britain sallied forth and conquered big chunks of the world already peopled by non-white folks without having racial issues at that time that are still having effects today.
But whatever those issues might be, they're surely not the same as race relations within the United Kingdom?

You said "racial issues," which is a broader category than "race relations within the UK." Perhaps you're talking about something much more narrowly defined than what I'm referring to.

But even if you are, Wikipedia tells me that the East India Co. started bringing Indians to the UK beginning in the 17th century, resulting in there being 40,000 Indians in Britain by the mid-19th century and 70,000 South Asians by the early 20th century. By the mid-18th century there were about 15,000 Africans and African-descended people in the UK. And there are the Roma.

But no issues?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You said "racial issues," which is a broader category than "race relations within the UK." Perhaps you're talking about something much more narrowly defined than what I'm referring to.

Yes, I think so. I've haven't been following all eleven pages of this discussion, but I jumped in at the point where Russ made a comment about issues arising out of immigration. My comments have been focussed on that. Does that make sense?

quote:
But even if you are, Wikipedia tells me that the East India Co. started bringing Indians to the UK beginning in the 17th century, resulting in there being 40,000 Indians in Britain by the mid-19th century and 70,000 South Asians by the early 20th century. By the mid-18th century there were about 15,000 Africans and African-descended people in the UK. And there are the Roma.

But no issues?

Sure, I'm not denying that there have never been some non-white people in this country before the wave of post-War immigration. But these numbers, I suggest, are relatively small beer and probably didn't have a great affect on any kind of policy (to the extent that there was any kind of social policy in the 1800s). This contrasts with post-War immigration which is a much more recent, visible phenomenon which has had a much bigger impact on the country.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. But I find it very hard to believe that Britain sallied forth and conquered big chunks of the world already peopled by non-white folks without having racial issues at that time that are still having effects today.

With regard to race relations, it is interesting to compare the difference in the treatment of India and Africa.

Whilst clearly the Englishman was viewed as superior, Indians were viewed as children to be educated, and we see the results of that in the modern Indian civil service, which is basically the system introduced in the Empire.

Africans, by contrast, were largely viewed as savages incapable of higher order functions.

At least, that's my impression of the history - I am no expert.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Sure, I'm not denying that there have never been some non-white people in this country before the wave of post-War immigration. But these numbers, I suggest, are relatively small beer and probably didn't have a great affect on any kind of policy (to the extent that there was any kind of social policy in the 1800s). This contrasts with post-War immigration which is a much more recent, visible phenomenon which has had a much bigger impact on the country.

Well, "white" is a moving target, and the determination of race mostly by skin color is a relatively recent development (late eighteenth to early nineteenth century). For example, the Irish have already been mentioned as getting outsider status largely on the grounds of ethnic descent, and there are other groups with similar history.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, "white" is a moving target

And in some quarters still is, judging from the Zimmerman case.

[ 30. September 2013, 14:23: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, "white" is a moving target
And in some quarters still is, judging from the Zimmerman case.

How so? Killing a black man without legal consequence has always been an equal opportunity activity in the U.S., not a "Whites Only" thing.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Zimmerman was described as 'White Hispanic', which does not appear to be a widely-used term to describe Latinos / Hispanics (so far as I can tell).

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Zimmerman was described as 'White Hispanic', which does not appear to be a widely-used term to describe Latinos / Hispanics (so far as I can tell).

The clue's in the name - his father is white European origin and his mother is Latina. My understanding is that he identifies as white.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Zimmerman was described as 'White Hispanic', which does not appear to be a widely-used term to describe Latinos / Hispanics (so far as I can tell).
The clue's in the name - his father is white European origin and his mother is Latina.

So he's as white as, say, President Obama then, who is routinely described as 'black'? There does seem to be perception out there that his 'whiteness' was emphasised (over-emphasised?) by the use of this term.

quote:
My understanding is that he identifies as white.

He identified himself as Hispanic on his voter registration form, if that's any guide.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Zimmerman was described as 'White Hispanic', which does not appear to be a widely-used term to describe Latinos / Hispanics (so far as I can tell).

The U.S. Census Bureau doesn't recognize "Hispanic" as a stand-alone racial classification, but rather as an ethnicity which can be combined with other classifications. For example, an dark-skinned African-descended Cuban is just as Hispanic as a pale-skinned European-descended person from the same island. "White Hispanic" doesn't seem to be particularly notable when "non-Hispanic White" is a frequently encountered Census and polling classification. CNN's phrasing may have been inelegant, but it was hardly new or unique.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
[QB] So he's as white as, say, President Obama then, who is routinely described as 'black'? There does seem to be perception out there that his 'whiteness' was emphasised (over-emphasised?) by the use of this term.

I don't agree with Obama being referred to solely as black, actually, because my (imaginary) kids will be half-white and I wouldn't want them to ignore half of their ancestry.

Didn't know about the Census but the police report after Zimmerman listed him as white, and he was known to the police so it seems odd they wouldn't put him down as Hispanic if that's how he views himself. Normally police descriptions are - um - descriptive normally - black, white, Hispanic - so that the person can be identified by the public if need be. Odd that they'd put white down as he appears Latino.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Hispanic or Latino simply indicates a person, or at least one of their ancestors, came from a Latin American country.* The makeup of every Latin American country varies from pale white (All European ancestry) to deep black (All Sub-Saharan African Ancestry).
As far as the police describing a person as Hispanic, this seems to mean simply they are brown, not of African descent or Asian and they do not look Indian to the police.
President Obama is a white as he is black. Unfortunately, people see what the wish. Instead of attempting to classify others, we should accept them as people. Colour should be a descriptor, not a defining characteristic.

* Perhaps a good modifier might be "and identifies with the culture."

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I don't agree with Obama being referred to solely as black, actually, because my (imaginary) kids will be half-white and I wouldn't want them to ignore half of their ancestry.

I have dark hair. My wife is blonde. We don't describe our children as "half-blond(e)" or "half-brunette" - but, of course, hair colour doesn't really carry any cultural implications.

The President is "black" in so far as he will be treated as a black man by a racist society. The facts that half his genetics are "white" or that he was largely raised by his white mother and white grandmother don't change that - he looks black.

We have a language issue because we use "black" both to mean a particular phenotype and also to describe the culture shared by the majority of those of African descent living in Europe / the US.

I have a colleague who has recently moved here from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He is certainly black, and will be identified as black by any racists he meets and so on, but he's not African-American, and doesn't have the same cultural background.

(Plus, of course, America is a place where people delight in telling you that they are 3/8 Irish, or 17/64 Cherokee or something.)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

(Plus, of course, America is a place where people delight in telling you that they are 3/8 Irish, or 17/64 Cherokee or something.)

ISTM, being a small part Indian* is acceptable. It is having the temerity to be a large portion that is unacceptable. IIFC Irish, in America, are accepted as real people these days.

* Saw a shirt in Arizona that read, "I'm part White, but I can't prove it." I admit I laughed quite a bit.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

(Plus, of course, America is a place where people delight in telling you that they are 3/8 Irish, or 17/64 Cherokee or something.)
ISTM, being a small part Indian* is acceptable. It is having the temerity to be a large portion that is unacceptable. IIFC Irish, in America, are accepted as real people these days.

* Saw a shirt in Arizona that read, "I'm part White, but I can't prove it." I admit I laughed quite a bit.

Being a Cherokee can be quite lucrative.

article about it

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The President is "black" in so far as he will be treated as a black man by a racist society. The facts that half his genetics are "white" or that he was largely raised by his white mother and white grandmother don't change that - he looks black.

President Obama is not unusual in this regard. A lot of African-Americans have a significant amount of European ancestry. Most Americans just prefer not to think about this too closely since it involves some particularly ugly historical facts. For instance, Sally Hemmings, who is most noted historically for being the lover/slave of Thomas Jefferson, was also almost certainly the half-sister of his wife. The children/slaves he fathered with her were considered "black" under the one-drop rule despite having more European ancestry than African.

In short, President Obama is unusual only because his mixed-race ancestry is both recent and acknowledged.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have a colleague who has recently moved here from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He is certainly black, and will be identified as black by any racists he meets and so on, but he's not African-American, and doesn't have the same cultural background.

I knew an African-American who went to work as a missionary in Senegal. Naively she thought that she would be welcomed with open arms by the local folk. In fact they were more wary of her than of the white missionaries: they simply couldn't get their heads round the idea of a "black American" (this was 25 years ago, things might be different now).

Things weren't helped by the fact that she was culturally insensitive - this should have been pointed out during her training. I'm afraid to say that she didn't last long.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

The President is "black" in so far as he will be treated as a black man by a racist society.

Electing an ethnic minority president isn't the act of a racist society.
Electing an ethnic minority president and then making a big thing of it seems to me the act of a society in transition from a racist past to a non-racist future.
And in such a society there are typically a minority of racists - those who won't vote for Obama just because he's seen as black, and their mirror image, those who will vote for Obama just because he's seen as black - and a majority who will notice that he's black and not think it that important. And perhaps a minority of the truly colourblind who won't even notice because they take it for granted that people come in different hues.

(Using "racist" in the plain English sense of someone who treats some people less favourably than others on the grounds of their race. This usage is consistent with the idea that individuals or institutions can accidentally or deliberately have a racist policy - a policy that treats some less favourably on the grounds of their race.)

The main point of your post was that perhaps "race" isn't quite as cut-and-dried as some might think. So replacing "race" with "perceived race" might be more accurate.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

The President is "black" in so far as he will be treated as a black man by a racist society.

Electing an ethnic minority president isn't the act of a racist society.
Electing an ethnic minority president and then making a big thing of it seems to me the act of a society in transition from a racist past to a non-racist future.

Racism is not an on or of thing. There is a lot of room between "Kill 'em all" and "We are one".
ISTM, Obama got elected because the Republicans cocked it up, the economy was in toilet and this is a recipe for change. Any change. This is how politics work.
Now, Obama's election certainly shows progress in America, but it does not indicate the road nears the end.
In fact, from what I have observed, racism, ant-immigration, etc. have all experienced a spike as economic woes continue. This is the narrative in America, the UK and Europe.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Electing an ethnic minority president isn't the act of a racist society.

The reports of the death of racism are premature.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

In fact, from what I have observed, racism, ant-immigration, etc. have all experienced a spike as economic woes continue. This is the narrative in America, the UK and Europe.

Indeed.

Not sure how much of this is due to people under financial pressure being less generous, less willing to share the advantages of western society with those from poorer parts..

And how much is scapegoating - the psychological desire to blame someone Other for economic woes, rather than addressing the cause in one's own voting behaviour and the political priorities one communicates to others.

As for how far along the road various societies have travelled - that's a glass half full vs glass half empty argument.

Best wishes,

Russ

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0