7 Habits of Highly Affected Racialists

[Loren Pechtel]

I find the evidence of current institutional racism, apart from the legally permitted/encouraged forms, to be very shaky indeed.

What we have now are individual racists that discriminate on occasion. Such racists come in all flavors, thus anyone can be a victim. If anything the white male is the biggest target these days (not that I think it's a big issue other than the legal forms) because we have focused on stamping out white male on other discrimination and pretty much ignored the reverse.

Seriously?

Seriously. AA is massive, legalized discrimination against white males. That dwarfs all other discrimination in this country.

 

[maxparrish]

I define racism on an individual level - a moral belief that some races (or ethnic groups) are, because of their genes, morally superior and/or inferior to other races. Unwarranted, unfair, and unreasonable actions taken to harm other individuals based on those beliefs are racist actions.

I do not define racism in one of the broader quasi-Marxist sociological context, one as a phenomenon that exists without conscious belief in either an individual or institution. Racism is in the hearts of individuals, it is not a “structural” or “institutional” flaw of "the system".

<snip ... good stuff, can return to it, but above seems to be the heart of your argument.>

Is that sufficient for discussion, or do you have objections?

I don't have objections to your definition of an individual's racism. I know, hard to believe. And I don't have any problem with the idea that there are very few people left who believe in the racism that you defined. What I can't do is accept that there is no social or institutional context to racism. Where do you think that racism comes from? How does one become a racist? Is it an inbred human condition, one that comes from the genes? This is a rhetorical question. Hopefully.

And if individuals can somehow become racists without learning it from society, what is there preventing individual racists from influencing society? Say by electing other racists to office where the elected to office racists would consciously or unconsciously write their racism into society's laws? Say, as a wild example, to separate children by race in education. (This actually happened). If there is no social or institutional racism, and people grouped together in races don't exhibit natural, inbred characteristics, why are there so many more poor minorities?

Any finally, if what you say is true, what use is the very concept embodied in the word "race?"

Organizations (institutions, corporations, non-profits, schools, churches, clubs, etc.) cannot be 'racist' apart from the convictions of its members, owners, workers and managers. In an organization composed of run entirely by automation one would not accuse the physical assets of being racist, would one? So yes there is a social-organizational context, learned and shared behavior and mores, but they are rooted in the actual motivations and conduct of people of the organization.

Racism is primarily a social and institutional phenomenon. A person has to be taught to be a racist.

Our main problem today with racism isn't with the handful of overt racists, it is with the legacy of 400 years of legal, institutional racism. This always was and continues to be today a tremendous waste of human potential.

Of course it is possible that some institutional practice is an unconscious legacy, created by and only useful for racist purposes of a prior era, but I see no evidence that it is significant. The only 'racial' consciousness and motivations in institutions I have noted is in the pervasive belief that managers and workers must be consciously aware of who should be promoted, protected, or placated because of race (and gender) and the suffocating atmosphere of being 'on guard' in such environments (attended with fears of legal action).

So many minorities are poor because their parents and grandparents were forced into poverty by this legal, institutional racism. And it is very hard to work oneself out of poverty. Not impossible but very hard to do.

We would be better off as a nation if it were easier to and more of the talented poor could do it. Likewise it would be better for our nation if more of the untalented children of our wealthy would be forced out into the lower income and wealth brackets commensurate with their modest abilities where they could cause less damage, think George W. Bush.

I've heard that racial shibboleth for nearly 50 years, and it is even less grounded in reality (and in my own observations) now than it was then. Racism did create another barrier to economic advancement for historical black community, but it has nothing to do with current poverty among minorities or whites. The poverty rate form 1900 to 1920 was 40 percent, increasing above 60 percent in the great depression - a condition everyone shared. After WWII there was dramatic economic growth and the creation of a broad middle class, a growth that took tens of millions out of poverty (including many blacks) till it reached a low of around 15 percent in the mid 1960s. Today's "grand parent" in the black community (as young as 30) grew up in an era of unprecedented opportunity and since the 1950s no one has "forced" people into poverty because of their race.

If 50 years later the middle age and current generation are still carping about the "forced" poverty of their great (or great-great) grand parents then they ought to talk to folks like my mother (or grand-parents) - before food stamps and housing subsidies. Anyone who grew up in the great depression, and was a parent in the sixties can tell you that the 60s generation had far more opportunity and parental wealth than any prior generation (by a long-shot).

Our problem is with poverty, not racism. There is no reason that we have to tolerate poverty and the problems associated with it, crime, drug addiction, etc. We are the wealthiest nation on earth. Other nations with lower per capita income and resources have effectively eliminated poverty.

But the disproportionate number of minorities trapped in poverty isn't the only lingering effect of legalized racism that we suffer from today. In order to increase income inequity, a decision that we made in the 1980's, the goal to eliminate poverty had to be abandoned as well, of course, as the goal to help the poor minorities recover from the legacy of the legal racism.

We have a residue of poor people for many reasons, not the least of which is that half the poor are imported from the third world as POOR. Poverty is not a problem, it is a condition created by having an underclass whose lack of talents, intelligence, and some cultural traits preclude advancement.

 

[arkirk]

I don't have objections to your definition of an individual's racism. I know, hard to believe. And I don't have any problem with the idea that there are very few people left who believe in the racism that you defined. What I can't do is accept that there is no social or institutional context to racism. Where do you think that racism comes from? How does one become a racist? Is it an inbred human condition, one that comes from the genes? This is a rhetorical question. Hopefully.

And if individuals can somehow become racists without learning it from society, what is there preventing individual racists from influencing society? Say by electing other racists to office where the elected to office racists would consciously or unconsciously write their racism into society's laws? Say, as a wild example, to separate children by race in education. (This actually happened). If there is no social or institutional racism, and people grouped together in races don't exhibit natural, inbred characteristics, why are there so many more poor minorities?

Any finally, if what you say is true, what use is the very concept embodied in the word "race?"

Organizations (institutions, corporations, non-profits, schools, churches, clubs, etc.) cannot be 'racist' apart from the convictions of its members, owners, workers and managers. In an organization composed of run entirely by automation one would not accuse the physical assets of being racist, would one? So yes there is a social-organizational context, learned and shared behavior and mores, but they are rooted in the actual motivations and conduct of people of the organization.

Racism is primarily a social and institutional phenomenon. A person has to be taught to be a racist.

Our main problem today with racism isn't with the handful of overt racists, it is with the legacy of 400 years of legal, institutional racism. This always was and continues to be today a tremendous waste of human potential.

Of course it is possible that some institutional practice is an unconscious legacy, created by and only useful for racist purposes of a prior era, but I see no evidence that it is significant. The only 'racial' consciousness and motivations in institutions I have noted is in the pervasive belief that managers and workers must be consciously aware of who should be promoted, protected, or placated because of race (and gender) and the suffocating atmosphere of being 'on guard' in such environments (attended with fears of legal action).

So many minorities are poor because their parents and grandparents were forced into poverty by this legal, institutional racism. And it is very hard to work oneself out of poverty. Not impossible but very hard to do.

We would be better off as a nation if it were easier to and more of the talented poor could do it. Likewise it would be better for our nation if more of the untalented children of our wealthy would be forced out into the lower income and wealth brackets commensurate with their modest abilities where they could cause less damage, think George W. Bush.

I've heard that racial shibboleth for nearly 50 years, and it is even less grounded in reality (and in my own observations) now than it was then. Racism did create another barrier to economic advancement for historical black community, but it has nothing to do with current poverty among minorities or whites. The poverty rate form 1900 to 1920 was 40 percent, increasing above 60 percent in the great depression - a condition everyone shared. After WWII there was dramatic economic growth and the creation of a broad middle class, a growth that took tens of millions out of poverty (including many blacks) till it reached a low of around 15 percent in the mid 1960s. Today's "grand parent" in the black community (as young as 30) grew up in an era of unprecedented opportunity and since the 1950s no one has "forced" people into poverty because of their race.

If 50 years later the middle age and current generation are still carping about the "forced" poverty of their great (or great-great) grand parents then they ought to talk to folks like my mother (or grand-parents) - before food stamps and housing subsidies. Anyone who grew up in the great depression, and was a parent in the sixties can tell you that the 60s generation had far more opportunity and parental wealth than any prior generation (by a long-shot).

Our problem is with poverty, not racism. There is no reason that we have to tolerate poverty and the problems associated with it, crime, drug addiction, etc. We are the wealthiest nation on earth. Other nations with lower per capita income and resources have effectively eliminated poverty.

But the disproportionate number of minorities trapped in poverty isn't the only lingering effect of legalized racism that we suffer from today. In order to increase income inequity, a decision that we made in the 1980's, the goal to eliminate poverty had to be abandoned as well, of course, as the goal to help the poor minorities recover from the legacy of the legal racism.

We have a residue of poor people for many reasons, not the least of which is that half the poor are imported from the third world as POOR. Poverty is not a problem, it is a condition created by having an underclass whose lack of talents, intelligence, and some cultural traits preclude advancement.

There you go again with your same tired old unhelpful argument, categorizing people into handy little niches...like stupid, talentless, and culturally tainted...no suggestion or will to change conditions for these people. No attempt on your part to understand the baselessness of your argument and no attempt to understand how you came to make those assessments. Stupidity, talent, culture are all things that are beyond your small capacity to measure. They also are totally intangible...hence you are not in danger of a fact checker calling you to task for your statements. You are not the authority that gets to make these determinations and in fact there is no authority that can make them and be sure they mean anything.

We need to be trying lessen differences between people so we can relate better. Name calling such as you have indulged in here is completely without any social benefit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Organizations (institutions, corporations, non-profits, schools, churches, clubs, etc.) cannot be 'racist' apart from the convictions of its members, owners, workers and managers. In an organization composed of run entirely by automation one would not accuse the physical assets of being racist, would one? So yes there is a social-organizational context, learned and shared behavior and mores, but they are rooted in the actual motivations and conduct of people of the organization.

I think this is the fundamental difference--we see a collection of individuals, they see a group.

Of course it is possible that some institutional practice is an unconscious legacy, created by and only useful for racist purposes of a prior era, but I see no evidence that it is significant. The only 'racial' consciousness and motivations in institutions I have noted is in the pervasive belief that managers and workers must be consciously aware of who should be promoted, protected, or placated because of race (and gender) and the suffocating atmosphere of being 'on guard' in such environments (attended with fears of legal action).

Yeah, I don't see it, either, other than the legal stuff. It has to exist, though, there still is a racial discrepancy and it can't possibly be due to anything else. (That is, if the anti-discrimination folks are right--never mind the number of hoops they have to jump through to justify their position--in defiance of Occam's razor.)

I've heard that racial shibboleth for nearly 50 years, and it is even less grounded in reality (and in my own observations) now than it was then. Racism did create another barrier to economic advancement for historical black community, but it has nothing to do with current poverty among minorities or whites. The poverty rate form 1900 to 1920 was 40 percent, increasing above 60 percent in the great depression - a condition everyone shared. After WWII there was dramatic economic growth and the creation of a broad middle class, a growth that took tens of millions out of poverty (including many blacks) till it reached a low of around 15 percent in the mid 1960s. Today's "grand parent" in the black community (as young as 30) grew up in an era of unprecedented opportunity and since the 1950s no one has "forced" people into poverty because of their race.

And what about us whites that had ancestors in poverty in the Great Depression? We certainly didn't benefit from what came before.

We have a residue of poor people for many reasons, not the least of which is that half the poor are imported from the third world as POOR. Poverty is not a problem, it is a condition created by having an underclass whose lack of talents, intelligence, and some cultural traits preclude advancement.

But here you're so far off base you aren't even in the ballpark.

Immigrants generally do not end up in poverty (other than being held back by being illegals.) Poverty is fundamentally a state of mind--looking only to the present, not to the future. Combine that with a lack of skills that mean they don't have a pile of money in reserve and their life becomes a voyage from one calamity to another.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Seriously?

Seriously. AA is massive, legalized discrimination against white males. That dwarfs all other discrimination in this country.

Which is why no white males hold positions of power anywhere in American Society

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Seriously. AA is massive, legalized discrimination against white males. That dwarfs all other discrimination in this country.

Which is why no white males hold positions of power anywhere in American Society

Because some white males with in privilege and power, you imply there can be no discrimination (even though it is explicit and excused by law) against other, not wealthy, white males because of their white maleness? This is your logic?

That reads just like the people who say racism must be over because Obama became president.

 

[laughing dog]

Seriously. AA is massive, legalized discrimination against white males. That dwarfs all other discrimination in this country.

Which is why no white males hold positions of power anywhere in American Society

It's so weird. The notion that AA "discrimination against white males" dwarfs all other discrimination in this country is truly bizarre.

It seem to me that some people live in a completely different reality than the rest of humanity.

 

[laughing dog]

Which is why no white males hold positions of power anywhere in American Society

Because some white males with in privilege and power, you imply there can be no discrimination (even though it is explicit and excused by law) against other, not wealthy, white males because of their white maleness? This is your logic?

Another pique induced missed point. If there was massive discrimination against white men that dwarfs all other discrimination in the USA, white men would not still hold most of the power in the USA.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Because some white males with in privilege and power, you imply there can be no discrimination (even though it is explicit and excused by law) against other, not wealthy, white males because of their white maleness? This is your logic?

Another pique induced missed point. If there was massive discrimination against white men that dwarfs all other discrimination in the USA, white men would not still hold most of the power in the USA.

Not necessarily, no. You seem to have misread Loren. What you say above would only be true if racism is rampant. Loren clearly doesn't believe that it is. He has said as much.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Because some white males with in privilege and power, you imply there can be no discrimination (even though it is explicit and excused by law) against other, not wealthy, white males because of their white maleness? This is your logic?

Another pique induced missed point. If there was massive discrimination against white men that dwarfs all other discrimination in the USA, white men would not still hold most of the power in the USA.

And it will missed every time. You can't understand race in the US without understanding or at least acknowledging the history of race in the USA. But once you do that, arguments like "Seriously. AA is massive, legalized discrimination against white males. That dwarfs all other discrimination in this country" ring hollow. lack foundation, and sound silly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seriously. AA is massive, legalized discrimination against white males. That dwarfs all other discrimination in this country.

Which is why no white males hold positions of power anywhere in American Society

Once again your argument fundamentally amounts to correlation means causation.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Which is why no white males hold positions of power anywhere in American Society

Once again your argument fundamentally amounts to correlation means causation.

Wrong Again.

But don't go changing.

You are the perfect reverse barometer.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Which is why no white males hold positions of power anywhere in American Society

Once again your argument fundamentally amounts to correlation means causation.

I see it more as a group error. We've see it again and again here. When you look at "white men" as one entity, it becomes impossible to comprehend that there could be any discrimination against that, even when it is explicit and legalized, since it is "white men" that rules the highest levels of power. Same as how if you look at "black people" as one entity, a whole lot of bad conclusions are inevitably drawn about some individuals.

It is only when you distinguish people as individuals that you can see a little deeper.

That being said, I don't agree with you that white men are the most discriminated against today, and I think racism still runs heavily in other directions. But I do agree with you at raising a brow at the state actually legalizing the discrimination against white men, as if that is somehow acceptable and not the discrimination that it obviously and explicitly is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again your argument fundamentally amounts to correlation means causation.

Wrong Again.

But don't go changing.

You are the perfect reverse barometer.

You just used the disparity as evidence of current discrimination despite the fact that there are other obvious possible causes.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again your argument fundamentally amounts to correlation means causation.

I see it more as a group error. We've see it again and again here. When you look at "white men" as one entity, it becomes impossible to comprehend that there could be any discrimination against that, even when it is explicit and legalized, since it is "white men" that rules the highest levels of power. Same as how if you look at "black people" as one entity, a whole lot of bad conclusions are inevitably drawn about some individuals.

It is only when you distinguish people as individuals that you can see a little deeper.

That being said, I don't agree with you that white men are the most discriminated against today, and I think racism still runs heavily in other directions. But I do agree with you at raising a brow at the state actually legalizing the discrimination against white men, as if that is somehow acceptable and not the discrimination that it obviously and explicitly is.

While I agree group error is a big part of their lack of understanding of the situation it doesn't explain her mistake of using correlation proof of causation. There are obvious historical reasons for a difference to exist, you can't just discount them and use the current situation as evidence of discrimination.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Once again your argument fundamentally amounts to correlation means causation.

I see it more as a group error. We've see it again and again here. When you look at "white men" as one entity, it becomes impossible to comprehend that there could be any discrimination against that, even when it is explicit and legalized, since it is "white men" that rules the highest levels of power. Same as how if you look at "black people" as one entity, a whole lot of bad conclusions are inevitably drawn about some individuals.

It is only when you distinguish people as individuals that you can see a little deeper.

That being said, I don't agree with you that white men are the most discriminated against today, and I think racism still runs heavily in other directions. But I do agree with you at raising a brow at the state actually legalizing the discrimination against white men, as if that is somehow acceptable and not the discrimination that it obviously and explicitly is.

It is not impossible to see discrimination against white men. it is however rare. So rare as to not rise the white male group to the level of discrimination of other groups.

Such occurrences are tragic and should be addressed and redressed as soon and completely as possible. But you don't get to compare inconveniences to individuals in the dominate group to the historic and current life limiting and life threatening effects of discrimination against subordinate groups. They don't compare. And if you have a problem with measures that currently inacted to mitigate established and proven discrimination, come up with a better plan. Be specific.

IOW

PISS, SHIT, OR GET OFF THE POT!!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is not impossible to see discrimination against white men. it is however rare. So rare as to not rise the white male group to the level of discrimination of other groups.

Well, there is some significant progress right there. I never though i would see you admit this. I actually agree with you. White people don't face as much racism as black people do, especially in your country. White people don't face as much racism as pretty much any other race does either. Nor do white men face as much discrimination as many other groups do. But that doesn't make it right to legalize, endorse, and encourage discrimination against white men.

PISS, SHIT, OR GET OFF THE POT!!

<snip>

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

<snip>

 

[dismal]

<snip>

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

<snip>

 

[dismal]

<snip>.