|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Racism: Let's Talk.
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
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! :-)
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
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"!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Dafyd -
Well, I'm relieved that you now agree that 'race' is amoral, contrary to what you said earlier.
Thanks for clearing that up.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Because it is not implying any inherent characteristics based on race.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
Perhaps, 'obstructed from reaching their potential' would have been a better way of putting that.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
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 ]
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
