Poll: Does being white better suit someone to be neutral on matters of race?

[AthenaAwakened]

Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal said today on NBC’s Meet the Press round table that President Obama “carries his own background into race and he’s not seen as a neutral observer.”

Yes, if only President Obama were white, he’d have no background or race to bring into race discussions.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06...neutral-observer-race-carries-background.html

“This is the great irony of the first African American president, in some ways he finds it harder to talk about race because he carries his own background into it, he’s not seen necessarily as a neutral observer,” Seib racesplained. “He’s not having much effect and I think you see the frustration when he talks about these things on either front, on the racial front or on the guns front. You can tell that bothers him.”

 

[Bronzeage]

Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal said today on NBC’s Meet the Press round table that President Obama “carries his own background into race and he’s not seen as a neutral observer.”

Yes, if only President Obama were white, he’d have no background or race to bring into race discussions.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06...neutral-observer-race-carries-background.html

“This is the great irony of the first African American president, in some ways he finds it harder to talk about race because he carries his own background into it, he’s not seen necessarily as a neutral observer,” Seib racesplained. “He’s not having much effect and I think you see the frustration when he talks about these things on either front, on the racial front or on the guns front. You can tell that bothers him.”

As a middle aged man, born and raised in the south, I can testify that being white is not enough. When I get into discussions of race, a lot of people make assume I carry my own background into the discussion and I'm not seen as a neutral observer.

I don't think I want a neutral observer President. How would that work through out history? Does FDR go on the radio and say, "December 7th, 1941, a day the Japanese made a very good point."

 

[Keith&Co.]

I tried to get the training to be an Equal Employment Opportunity Instructor while I was in the Navy.
My request chit was disapproved.
No one believed that a white guy could be an EEO Instructor, half of them couldn't understand why I would even want to be. Apparently you have to have been victimized by race, gender, nationality or whatever in order to be opposed to the practices involved.

So I started referring to myself as a minority: White guys opposed to racism in the workplace. I was literally counseled as not being very damned funny.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Minorities have the advantage of greater self awareness in racial matters. IMO, white people, many of whom are uncomfortable with racial matters, are less likely to be objective wrt race.

But what do you expect from the WSJ?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Only the 1% are equipped to answer such a questions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dude, whites were the masters of racism in the US. Who is better judged to know what is and isn't racism?

 

[dystopian]

I actually do think there's something to the argument... but only in certain rare circumstances, and it isn't really about being white so much as having the kind of privilege most common to white people. If you don't experience racism first hand, and you don't grow up in an environment where you're encouraged, passively and/or actively to discriminate against others, then you may have the avantage of having a fresh unbiased perspective on racism when you do encounter it. Due to the nature of privilege as it exists in our world, it certainly seems the case that the people most likely to fit into this category of people will be white...

...of course, it'll be only a small minority of white people who actually meet these conditions; and as soon as they start learning about racism/getting involved in the debate, their natural neutral experience/lack of bias on the issue will start vanishing as they get influenced one way or the other. So in order to stay neutral they have to stay ignorant... and if you're ignorant of the issues, then you can't actually provide any useful insight them.

So really, not a very good argument.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I actually do think there's something to the argument... but only in certain rare circumstances, and it isn't really about being white so much as having the kind of privilege most common to white people. If you don't experience racism first hand, and you don't grow up in an environment where you're encouraged, passively and/or actively to discriminate against others, then you may have the avantage of having a fresh unbiased perspective on racism when you do encounter it. Due to the nature of privilege as it exists in our world, it certainly seems the case that the people most likely to fit into this category of people will be white...

...of course, it'll be only a small minority of white people who actually meet these conditions; and as soon as they start learning about racism/getting involved in the debate, their natural neutral experience/lack of bias on the issue will start vanishing as they get influenced one way or the other. So in order to stay neutral they have to stay ignorant... and if you're ignorant of the issues, then you can't actually provide any useful insight them.

So really, not a very good argument.

"If you don't experience racism first hand, and you don't grow up in an environment where you're encouraged, passively and/or actively to discriminate against others,"

Who would this person be? Where could you live and not experience racism?

 

[ronburgundy]

Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal said today on NBC’s Meet the Press round table that President Obama “carries his own background into race and he’s not seen as a neutral observer.”

Yes, if only President Obama were white, he’d have no background or race to bring into race discussions.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06...neutral-observer-race-carries-background.html

“This is the great irony of the first African American president, in some ways he finds it harder to talk about race because he carries his own background into it, he’s not seen necessarily as a neutral observer,” Seib racesplained. “He’s not having much effect and I think you see the frustration when he talks about these things on either front, on the racial front or on the guns front. You can tell that bothers him.”

I don't know Seib and his connection to Murdoch's WSJ makes me doubt his intentions. However, nothing in the quote is agregious, and there is an interpretation of it that is reasonable, as follows:

The comment is not about actual neutrality but perceived neutrality. Blacks have been and widely view themselves to be the targets of racism, and disadvantaged by it to it to an extreme disproportionate degree. Thus, their perspective on the race issue would be more directly determined by their own personal race and related experiences. Everyone, blacks, whites, and others, expect most blacks (and thus Obama) to have a more shared view about racism. In contrast, there is no shared experience or shared assumption among whites about how racism has led their whiteness to give them advantage or disadvantage. The perception among among whites varies across the full possible spectrum with no clear "typical" position. Also, their perspective is much less likely to be determined by their own personal experiences since many have few experiences to go on. The racial category they "belong" to has no direct correlation to their view on the issue. They are as likely to reach the same conclusion as blacks as they are the opposite conclusion or anything in between. That leads to the perception that their own race does not as systematically shape their particular view, even if a sub-set of whites (e.g., supremicist) do use their own race and their identification with it to bias themselves toward their view on racism.
Also, if a white president speaks out about race in a ways that goes against their "own group", and self-interests and personal advantages, then it would be reasonably viewed as being less likely that their view was clouded by such self-centered biases. It doesn't guarantee a rational view free of any bias (such as a general ideology that determines their view on particular issues), just a view less directly shaped by the sub-set of biases tied to favoring one's own racial group.

 

[dystopian]

"If you don't experience racism first hand, and you don't grow up in an environment where you're encouraged, passively and/or actively to discriminate against others,"

Who would this person be? Where could you live and not experience racism?

Like I said, the number of people who meet these conditions would be a small minority at best. Though certainly it's plausible with insulated communities; especially the children thereof (at least until they start actually paying attention to the world through tv and the internet)

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06...neutral-observer-race-carries-background.html

“This is the great irony of the first African American president, in some ways he finds it harder to talk about race because he carries his own background into it, he’s not seen necessarily as a neutral observer,” Seib racesplained. “He’s not having much effect and I think you see the frustration when he talks about these things on either front, on the racial front or on the guns front. You can tell that bothers him.”

I don't know Seib and his connection to Murdoch's WSJ makes me doubt his intentions. However, nothing in the quote is agregious, and there is an interpretation of it that is reasonable, as follows:

The comment is not about actual neutrality but perceived neutrality. Blacks have been and widely view themselves to be the targets of racism, and disadvantaged by it to it to an extreme disproportionate degree. Thus, their perspective on the race issue would be more directly determined by their own personal race and related experiences. Everyone, blacks, whites, and others, expect most blacks (and thus Obama) to have a more shared view about racism. In contrast, there is no shared experience or shared assumption among whites about how racism has led their whiteness to give them advantage or disadvantage. The perception among among whites varies across the full possible spectrum with no clear "typical" position. Also, their perspective is much less likely to be determined by their own personal experiences since many have few experiences to go on. The racial category they "belong" to has no direct correlation to their view on the issue. They are as likely to reach the same conclusion as blacks as they are the opposite conclusion or anything in between. That leads to the perception that their own race does not as systematically shape their particular view, even if a sub-set of whites (e.g., supremicist) do use their own race and their identification with it to bias themselves toward their view on racism.
Also, if a white president speaks out about race in a ways that goes against their "own group", and self-interests and personal advantages, then it would be reasonably viewed as being less likely that their view was clouded by such self-centered biases. It doesn't guarantee a rational view free of any bias (such as a general ideology that determines their view on particular issues), just a view less directly shaped by the sub-set of biases tied to favoring one's own racial group.

Do you believe these perceptions to be correct?

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't know Seib and his connection to Murdoch's WSJ makes me doubt his intentions. However, nothing in the quote is agregious, and there is an interpretation of it that is reasonable, as follows:

The comment is not about actual neutrality but perceived neutrality. Blacks have been and widely view themselves to be the targets of racism, and disadvantaged by it to it to an extreme disproportionate degree. Thus, their perspective on the race issue would be more directly determined by their own personal race and related experiences. Everyone, blacks, whites, and others, expect most blacks (and thus Obama) to have a more shared view about racism. In contrast, there is no shared experience or shared assumption among whites about how racism has led their whiteness to give them advantage or disadvantage. The perception among among whites varies across the full possible spectrum with no clear "typical" position. Also, their perspective is much less likely to be determined by their own personal experiences since many have few experiences to go on. The racial category they "belong" to has no direct correlation to their view on the issue. They are as likely to reach the same conclusion as blacks as they are the opposite conclusion or anything in between. That leads to the perception that their own race does not as systematically shape their particular view, even if a sub-set of whites (e.g., supremicist) do use their own race and their identification with it to bias themselves toward their view on racism.
Also, if a white president speaks out about race in a ways that goes against their "own group", and self-interests and personal advantages, then it would be reasonably viewed as being less likely that their view was clouded by such self-centered biases. It doesn't guarantee a rational view free of any bias (such as a general ideology that determines their view on particular issues), just a view less directly shaped by the sub-set of biases tied to favoring one's own racial group.

Do you believe these perceptions to be correct?

Let's be clear that the perception is all that actually matters to what the quote was talking about, which is the issue of a leader having impact on the people that most need to be impacted.

That said, the question of whether blacks are less likely to be objectively unbiased by personal emotion on this issue is an interesting one (even if of little practical import).
I think that few people's views on racism are not distorted and clouded by bias and emotion. I have no strong view on who is more likely to be so biased. However, I can think of a reasonable argument for why that small group of people that are unbiased about it are disproportionately white, and it mostly comes down to both the probability of racist experiences combined with the simple difference in being a large majority or minority of the population.

Anyone can just inherit their views on racism from parents or other authorities. But some people's views are also shaped by knowledge and experiences they acquire. If we assume that the vast majority of blacks frequently have personal experience what appears to be racism against themselves or loved ones, then all relevant psychological theory predicts their views on racism more generally will be largely determined by these more personal and emotional experiences.
Then assume that white's experiences with racism tend to be less personal and less direct and more variable in terms of who is the source and who is the target. This would make many if not most white people's views less strongly determined by direct emotion-laden experiences of racism, and those that are would be more variable in terms of the nature of those experiences, resulting in more disparate views about racism within that group (which empirically is the case).

A counter to this is that some whites has so little experience that they lack factual knowledge about the specific details of such events. So then it is a question of whether lack of detailed first-hand knowledge is easier to overcome in order to reach an informed and unclouded view, than it is to overcome the distorting impact of personal and emotional relevant of the events. As a social scientists who puts more stock into the methods of non-participant systematic observation than anecdotes of those emotionally involved in the events under study, I'd place money on the few intellectually valid and scientifically supported perspectives on racism coming more likely from white Americans than black Americans (context matters, because obviously it isn't race that has any direct impact on these views).

 

[+or-1]

There's one race, the human race. All other divisions are a social construct.

 

[Toni]

If 'neutral' is the superior position then obviously whites are better suited for that position.

 

[ronburgundy]

There's one race, the human race. All other divisions are a social construct.

So, are you saying there is no such thing as racism and thus the whole OP is moot, or is this comment of zero relevance to anything this thread is about?


I suspect the latter.

 

[ronburgundy]

If 'neutral' is the superior position then obviously whites are better suited for that position.

And this is why honest rational discussions of race can rarely be had by Obama or anyone else, because they are almost always derailed by strawmen rhetoric of no relevance to what anyone is saying or implying, or where the actual points of reasonable disagreement are.

 

[fromderinside]

There's one race, the human race. All other divisions are a social construct.

So, are you saying there is no such thing as racism and thus the whole OP is moot, or is this comment of zero relevance to anything this thread is about?


I suspect the latter.

Oh come on. Racism is a social construct defined by those who decided there were races and redefined by those who were defined as races. The point is that if one social group decides color is a demarking factor and they aren't of that demarked color, they will generate rules to keep that self identified condition in tact. Every body on the wrong side (color) of the stick will be deemed inferior then so treated.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, are you saying there is no such thing as racism and thus the whole OP is moot, or is this comment of zero relevance to anything this thread is about?


I suspect the latter.

Oh come on. Racism is a social construct defined by those who decided there were races and redefined by those who were defined as races. The point is that if one social group decides color is a demarking factor and they aren't of that demarked color, they will generate rules to keep that self identified condition in tact. Every body on the wrong side (color) of the stick will be deemed inferior then so treated.

IOW, just like I said, it is the latter, the the issue of race being a social construct has no relevance to the OP or various arguments for or against to central thesis of the quote. Everything I see in the thread (and definitely everything I posted) does not presume that race is more than a social construct.

 

[Toni]

If 'neutral' is the superior position then obviously whites are better suited for that position.

And this is why honest rational discussions of race can rarely be had by Obama or anyone else, because they are almost always derailed by strawmen rhetoric of no relevance to what anyone is saying or implying, or where the actual points of reasonable disagreement are.

Lololol

It is always good to have someone point out what is relevant, rhetoric and strawman as well as to interpret what everyone and anyone in a thread is saying.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Do you believe these perceptions to be correct?

Let's be clear that the perception is all that actually matters to what the quote was talking about, which is the issue of a leader having impact on the people that most need to be impacted.

That said, the question of whether blacks are less likely to be objectively unbiased by personal emotion on this issue is an interesting one (even if of little practical import).
I think that few people's views on racism are not distorted and clouded by bias and emotion. I have no strong view on who is more likely to be so biased. However, I can think of a reasonable argument for why that small group of people that are unbiased about it are disproportionately white, and it mostly comes down to both the probability of racist experiences combined with the simple difference in being a large majority or minority of the population.

Anyone can just inherit their views on racism from parents or other authorities. But some people's views are also shaped by knowledge and experiences they acquire. If we assume that the vast majority of blacks frequently have personal experience what appears to be racism against themselves or loved ones, then all relevant psychological theory predicts their views on racism more generally will be largely determined by these more personal and emotional experiences.
Then assume that white's experiences with racism tend to be less personal and less direct and more variable in terms of who is the source and who is the target. This would make many if not most white people's views less strongly determined by direct emotion-laden experiences of racism, and those that are would be more variable in terms of the nature of those experiences, resulting in more disparate views about racism within that group (which empirically is the case).

A counter to this is that some whites has so little experience that they lack factual knowledge about the specific details of such events. So then it is a question of whether lack of detailed first-hand knowledge is easier to overcome in order to reach an informed and unclouded view, than it is to overcome the distorting impact of personal and emotional relevant of the events. As a social scientists who puts more stock into the methods of non-participant systematic observation than anecdotes of those emotionally involved in the events under study, I'd place money on the few intellectually valid and scientifically supported perspectives on racism coming more likely from white Americans than black Americans (context matters, because obviously it isn't race that has any direct impact on these views).

The gunman was white and a white supremacist. Never mind for a moment what kind of race leader BO is, what white leader would do better? And anyway, exactly how does Obamas inappropriateness manifest itself? In specific terms, how has he been ineffective?

I don't see why the perceptions and psychology of whites, who, while perhaps maintaining a detached perspective towards racist events that don't concern them personally, have to question their own history, practices and institutions on the basis of the complaints of others, namely minorities. Why would not the emotions of power and privilege be any less distorting than the emotions of oppression?

I think this is an attempt to cloud the rather obvious fact that this shooting was a racial incident. Instead, let's talk about whether a black preside can be an effective race leader.

If anything, these fantasies of white objectivity give aid and comfort to the Dyllan Storms of the world than the reverse.