Race-neutral policies and principles that support racism

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I have become interested in thinking about this topic last few months. I have done no reading, borrowed it from nowhere, and only expressed the notion once to my wife. I know others have a firmer grasp of such ideas and thought or read independently.

The idea of race neutral policies supporting racism started for me when I saw our town has a policy to favor hiring employees who grew up in the town. The town's logic is that candidates who were raised in town were more familiar with workings of the job. But if you look at recent history of the town...very limited overt racism, but redlining, and younger whites inheriting older whites' property, there's a skew.

[Let me add as an aside, I've been against quotas. Instead, I've always thought it is incumbent on businesses of means and public entities to deliberately seek out qualified candidates in non-insider demographics to add to the pool of possible candidates. ]

Back to op...

Besides hiring, what other systems can inadvertently continue legacy racism? Are all systems of favoring insiders or legacies like this, skewed?

What about a completely different kind of seeming race-neutral principle such as police silence? Doesn't that also support racism in the same way?

 

[repoman]

Where do Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Jewish Americans fall on this?

How does the current socially acceptable ethnic nepotism of all groups except non Jewish whites fit into this?

One aspect is that new immigrants generally are go getters with some exceptions of chain migration. They come with little debt at least unlike a lot of long time Americans.

What about the hollowing out of the flyover states and the opioid crises and these people being seen as the undeserving poor if they are white. Like they couldn't hack life as white in a white supremacist country so it is better if they would just O.D.

 

[ruby sparks]

Where do Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Jewish Americans fall on this?

How does the current socially acceptable ethnic nepotism of all groups except non Jewish whites fit into this?

One aspect is that new immigrants generally are go getters with some exceptions of chain migration. They come with little debt at least unlike a lot of long time Americans.

What about the hollowing out of the flyover states and the opioid crises and these people being seen as the undeserving poor if they are white. Like they couldn't hack life as white in a white supremacist country so it is better if they would just O.D.

Valid questions, but......why not (instead of going straight to 'two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right-anyway', whataboutist, non-OP counter-examples) just agree, or at least just initially agree, even briefly, that the particular something being brought up is/was a problem and is/was not right? That's the part I don't get.

My view is that all self-identified subgroups of human apes do this sort of thing, let's call it ingroup preferential behaviour, all over the world and throughout history, be it overt or covert, individual or systemic, fully intentional or just a byproduct of the status quo that has been arrived at via history. When it is done by the dominant or majority group in a society, be it for economic reasons, or ethnic, gender, religious or cultural reasons, it tends to happen more, or is more easily gotten away with or not noticed or addressed, and tends to have stronger adverse effects on other subgroups.

As regards the USA specifically, the situation for African Americans, as a subgroup, is somewhat unique (emphasis on somewhat) because of slavery and all that has happened since and to at least some extent is still happening. So, the race issues for African Americans do, I think, need to be separately considered in that light. They are neither the only subgroup to be disadvantaged nor the only subgroup that exercises ingroup preferential behaviours themselves. They might be (I think are) the worst affected subgroup in the USA however (with the possible exception of Native Americans), which may partly explain why they get more attention on that basis. Why begrudge them this? It's not as if other unfairnesses can't be brought up also. Anyone here could, for example, start a thread on the plight of poor whites, and I for one would join in supportively. Your response here is the equivalent of you starting such a thread, and me coming straight in and saying 'what about the blacks' and nothing else.

In fact, I might say that the race-neutral response of not treating the issues for African Americans separately, or of indicating by omission that you want to talk about something else instead or as well, is itself an example of how blind approaches sweep some valid issues under the carpet.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Where do Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Jewish Americans fall on this?

How does the current socially acceptable ethnic nepotism of all groups except non Jewish whites fit into this?

One aspect is that new immigrants generally are go getters with some exceptions of chain migration. They come with little debt at least unlike a lot of long time Americans.

What about the hollowing out of the flyover states and the opioid crises and these people being seen as the undeserving poor if they are white. Like they couldn't hack life as white in a white supremacist country so it is better if they would just O.D.

No doubt. Your final statement in no small part got us Trump.

 

[ruby sparks]

Overly-simplistic analogy coming up......



Imagine a particular example of the above game, involving reds versus yellows, where, for whatever reason, the two legs at one end are slightly shorter than at the other end. When someone puts the ball in fairly, that's a neutral action, but, because the playing surface is slightly sloped in one direction, the players of one colour (or in this analogy the people operating their levers) have to work slightly harder to overcome that disadvantage in the game (system), and to carry on playing, and accept the resulting scores without acknowledging that, or worse, to deliberately ignore it, is one of the inherent downsides of colour-blind approaches.

 

[repoman]

Nick Fuentes often says it clearly

https://twitter.com/PatriotZoomer/status/1283818249097019392

 

[Derec]

The idea of race neutral policies supporting racism started for me when I saw our town has a policy to favor hiring employees who grew up in the town. The town's logic is that candidates who were raised in town were more familiar with workings of the job. But if you look at recent history of the town...very limited overt racism, but redlining, and younger whites inheriting older whites' property, there's a skew.

How is that supporting racism though?
And let me ask you about the reverse. Let's say a town with higher black population than the surrounding areas gives preference to those who grew up in the town. Would that be supporting racism in your mind or would you support it because it gives an advantage to the "right" race?

And speaking of race in cities and towns, there is this perverse idea in the US that if a city is predominately white, then nevertheless there should be many senior city positions given to non-white people, but if a city is majority black, even slightly, it's somehow ok or even laudable for all major positions to be filled by black people. Why is that kind of practice ok?

 

[Trausti]

Similar to the old religion, adherents of the new religion find the Devil acting everywhere to misguide them from the faith.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Similar to the old religion, adherents of the new religion find the Devil acting everywhere to misguide them from the faith.

Fuck off.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The idea of race neutral policies supporting racism started for me when I saw our town has a policy to favor hiring employees who grew up in the town. The town's logic is that candidates who were raised in town were more familiar with workings of the job. But if you look at recent history of the town...very limited overt racism, but redlining, and younger whites inheriting older whites' property, there's a skew.

How is that supporting racism though?
And let me ask you about the reverse. Let's say a town with higher black population than the surrounding areas gives preference to those who grew up in the town. Would that be supporting racism in your mind or would you support it because it gives an advantage to the "right" race?

And speaking of race in cities and towns, there is this perverse idea in the US that if a city is predominately white, then nevertheless there should be many senior city positions given to non-white people, but if a city is majority black, even slightly, it's somehow ok or even laudable for all major positions to be filled by black people. Why is that kind of practice ok?

You've asked one valid question and then tried to change the subject to things which may not be true, are not quite the same, and are not the topic.

Here is the valid question: "How is that supporting racism though?"

I explained what I wrote. I don't understand why you are having problems. Maybe someone else can explain it as well. Perhaps if you read ruby sparks this will help. Don't know.

 

[laughing dog]

The idea of race neutral policies supporting racism started for me when I saw our town has a policy to favor hiring employees who grew up in the town. The town's logic is that candidates who were raised in town were more familiar with workings of the job. But if you look at recent history of the town...very limited overt racism, but redlining, and younger whites inheriting older whites' property, there's a skew.

How is that supporting racism though?
And let me ask you about the reverse. Let's say a town with higher black population than the surrounding areas gives preference to those who grew up in the town. Would that be supporting racism in your mind or would you support it because it gives an advantage to the "right" race?

A hypothetical "whataboutism".

And speaking of race in cities and towns, there is this perverse idea in the US that if a city is predominately white, then nevertheless there should be many senior city positions given to non-white people, but if a city is majority black, even slightly, it's somehow ok or even laudable for all major positions to be filled by black people. Why is that kind of practice ok?

Straw man.

Why do you feel the need to derail the OP?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While this is supposedly race-neutral it's going on a characteristic not clearly related to the job and therefore should be regarded with skepticism.

Note that this can go both ways--the top 10% of graduating class admission standards are an attempt to discriminate in favor of blacks.

 

[laughing dog]

While this is supposedly race-neutral it's going on a characteristic not clearly related to the job and therefore should be regarded with skepticism.

Note that this can go both ways--the top 10% of graduating class admission standards are an attempt to discriminate in favor of blacks.

You need to carefully explain that reasoning and be explicit about your assumptions.

For example, in Wisconsin, the top 10% in each high school graduating class are automatically deemed qualified to be admitted to UW Madison. Outside of Milwaukee, high schools are overwhelming white.

 

[Jarhyn]

Overly-simplistic analogy coming up......

View attachment 28572

Imagine a particular example of the above game, involving reds versus yellows, where, for whatever reason, the two legs at one end are slightly shorter than at the other end. When someone puts the ball in fairly, that's a neutral action, but, because the playing surface is slightly sloped in one direction, the players of one colour (or in this analogy the people operating their levers) have to work slightly harder to overcome that disadvantage in the game (system), and to carry on playing, and accept the resulting scores without acknowledging that, or worse, to deliberately ignore it, is one of the inherent downsides of colour-blind approaches.

This is why I think that color-blind approaches should be applied when it is the raw ability that matters (such as in orchestra, where the player plays behind a screen for evaluations), and for final selection always. If there is affirmative action, it can happen at the first screening, the one where a majority of the resumes and applications end up in the circular file, often through some manner of random or not-performance-correlated action. The answer here is to make part of that correlation balance the exposed applicants towards non-insider demographics, if possible. Then in the second pass, the evaluation stage, be blind. Just, do what it would take to ensure "a good enough employee/student", and then pick randomly from the pool.

 

[J842P]

A hypothetical "whataboutism".

And speaking of race in cities and towns, there is this perverse idea in the US that if a city is predominately white, then nevertheless there should be many senior city positions given to non-white people, but if a city is majority black, even slightly, it's somehow ok or even laudable for all major positions to be filled by black people. Why is that kind of practice ok?

Straw man.

Why do you feel the need to derail the OP?

It isn't whataboutism. It's trying to get to the fundamental principle by using a hypothetical. I think it is quite reasonable to disagree that what Don is calling racism is simply not racism at all.

 

[Derec]

A hypothetical "whataboutism".

Not whataboutism, but strong suspicion of hypocrisy.

Straw man.
Why do you feel the need to derail the OP?

It's neither. It's directly related to the question about hiring for city positions.

 

[Derec]

You need to carefully explain that reasoning and be explicit about your assumptions.

For example, in Wisconsin, the top 10% in each high school graduating class are automatically deemed qualified to be admitted to UW Madison. Outside of Milwaukee, high schools are overwhelming white.

The idea is that predominately black schools tend to be, on average, poorly performing compared to predominately white schools. Taking top 10% of schools and pretending they are equally qualified is nonsense when the students are performing very differently between different schools.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A hypothetical "whataboutism".

And speaking of race in cities and towns, there is this perverse idea in the US that if a city is predominately white, then nevertheless there should be many senior city positions given to non-white people, but if a city is majority black, even slightly, it's somehow ok or even laudable for all major positions to be filled by black people. Why is that kind of practice ok?

Straw man.

Why do you feel the need to derail the OP?

It isn't whataboutism. It's trying to get to the fundamental principle by using a hypothetical. I think it is quite reasonable to disagree that what Don is calling racism is simply not racism at all.

I was writing about neutral policies that unintentionally support racism. I didn't call it racism. Please explain yourself. Don't run from the conversation, just explain what you're talking about.

 

[J842P]

It isn't whataboutism. It's trying to get to the fundamental principle by using a hypothetical. I think it is quite reasonable to disagree that what Don is calling racism is simply not racism at all.

I was writing about neutral policies that unintentionally support racism. I didn't call it racism. Please explain yourself. Don't run from the conversation, just explain what you're talking about.

I'm not running from the conversation at all. I am saying I wouldn't say such policies support racism. I deny that such a policy supports racism merely because it leads to outcomes that don't result in whatever racial proportions you seem to think would be appropriate. Indeed, in the particular example you are giving, it seems that it wouldn't even work against local proportional representation, only global.


I think this sort of thinking is unsound, lazy, and indeed, patronizing and dehumanizing to minorities. Seriously, it's amazing that people can't understand how this is insulting. If for some reason that isn't related to discrimination or prejudice, the proportion of my town employees of my race is underrepresented then that isn't some inherent problem. And I cannot see how it would rationally be said to continue or support racism. It's just fundamentally a category error.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It isn't whataboutism. It's trying to get to the fundamental principle by using a hypothetical. I think it is quite reasonable to disagree that what Don is calling racism is simply not racism at all.

I was writing about neutral policies that unintentionally support racism. I didn't call it racism. Please explain yourself. Don't run from the conversation, just explain what you're talking about.

I'm not running from the conversation at all. I am saying I wouldn't say such policies support racism. I deny that such a policy supports racism merely because it leads to outcomes that don't result in whatever racial proportions you seem to think would be appropriate. Indeed, in the particular example you are giving, it seems that it wouldn't even work against local proportional representation, only global.


I think this sort of thinking is unsound, lazy, and indeed, patronizing and dehumanizing to minorities. Seriously, it's amazing that people can't understand how this is insulting. If for some reason that isn't related to discrimination or prejudice, the proportion of my town employees of my race is underrepresented then that isn't some inherent problem. And I cannot see how it would rationally be said to continue or support racism. It's just fundamentally a category error.

I live in a town like most suburbs with few minorities, a history of racist policies due to redlining etc, and current racism by a few. Race neutral policies like keeping out outsiders/preferring insiders are supported by racists in order to keep the status quo race structure, i.e. don't grow minority population. The vast majority of persons in town are not overt racists and merely want fair practices and a significant number are okay with employees being lifelong residents. Example: teachers and school administrators; the policy is to prefer teachers and administrators having lived in town and attended the school system. The vast majority of such persons are white. As outside minorities move into town, their urban minority backgrounds are understood less well. Many are from NYC areas. There is definitely a group of minority persons saying this policy is bad and they are not understood well. They have actively spoken out. They are not insulted. That is a false claim.

Likewise, your claim about local representation is false. Not only is it false in my town, it's false in many, many others where redlining or segregation was a thing, went away, and now minority subpopulation is growing.