7 Habits of Highly Affected Racialists

[Davka]

Agreed. However, the fact that most Blacks and a significant number of Hispanics are currently experiencing substandard grade-school education, it is difficult to determine applicant's actual abilities by using a single testing protocol. That's why weighting by race is done, in order to attempt to correct for this problem. Frankly, I believe that weighting by SES would accomplish much the same thing, and would defuse the racialists' objections to Affirmative Action.

I understand your reasoning, but the claim that weighting by race provides a more accurate gauge of a group's abilities is not borne out by the evidence.

Providing preferential admissions for blacks and Hispanics actually causes the academic performance of that group of students to drop well below that of Asian and white students.

Source:
http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/548/UM_UGRAD_final.pdf

If you were to provide preference to applicants based on SES, then you would get the same result, except that the drop in college performance would be among the low-SES students instead of among the black and Hispanic students.

Providing slightly easier entry into university does not correct for the problem of a substandard school education. Lack of money, living in a gang-infested neighbourhood, and attending a poorly-funded, overcrowded school are (some of) the problems that need to be addressed by the state and federal governments in order to ensure that more students graduate from high school with the ability to get a college degree.

This is a problem that can be easily addressed by the colleges. One example is the University of Hawaii, which I attended - they simply assume that freshman students did not learn the basics of Math, English composition, or Geography (iirc) in High School, and require intro-level (pre-collegiate, really) classes in all three. Students can challenge these courses (which I did), but most don't - either because they represent easy credits or (more likely) because they really did not learn shit in H.S.

Or we could just fix the high schools in poor neighborhoods...

 

[bigfield]

I understand your reasoning, but the claim that weighting by race provides a more accurate gauge of a group's abilities is not borne out by the evidence.

Providing preferential admissions for blacks and Hispanics actually causes the academic performance of that group of students to drop well below that of Asian and white students.

Source:
http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/548/UM_UGRAD_final.pdf

If you were to provide preference to applicants based on SES, then you would get the same result, except that the drop in college performance would be among the low-SES students instead of among the black and Hispanic students.

Providing slightly easier entry into university does not correct for the problem of a substandard school education. Lack of money, living in a gang-infested neighbourhood, and attending a poorly-funded, overcrowded school are (some of) the problems that need to be addressed by the state and federal governments in order to ensure that more students graduate from high school with the ability to get a college degree.

This is a problem that can be easily addressed by the colleges. One example is the University of Hawaii, which I attended - they simply assume that freshman students did not learn the basics of Math, English composition, or Geography (iirc) in High School, and require intro-level (pre-collegiate, really) classes in all three. Students can challenge these courses (which I did), but most don't - either because they represent easy credits or (more likely) because they really did not learn shit in H.S.

I highly doubt that a single year of introductory courses can compensate for a substandard school education, nor can it even come close to providing a lift in average college student performance to compensate for the drop caused by preferential admissions.

Or we could just fix the high schools in poor neighborhoods...

You have to fix several things, not just to improve outcomes for students but to improve outcomes for entire neighbourhoods of people.

 

[Davka]

This is a problem that can be easily addressed by the colleges. One example is the University of Hawaii, which I attended - they simply assume that freshman students did not learn the basics of Math, English composition, or Geography (iirc) in High School, and require intro-level (pre-collegiate, really) classes in all three. Students can challenge these courses (which I did), but most don't - either because they represent easy credits or (more likely) because they really did not learn shit in H.S.

I highly doubt that a single year of introductory courses can compensate for a substandard school education, nor can it even come close to providing a lift in average college student performance to compensate for the drop caused by preferential admissions.

Or we could just fix the high schools in poor neighborhoods...

You have to fix several things, not just to improve outcomes for students but to improve outcomes for entire neighbourhoods of people.

Yep.

Which means caring about poor people. Poor people who look and act and talk different from us. Poor people who work two jobs at minimum wage because they're "lazy." Poor people who are raised by a single mom because their dad was hauled off to prison on trumped-up charges. Poor people who were raised in a neighborhood where the only "successful" role models they had were drug dealers and pimps and thieves. Poor people who join gangs just to survive.

We would need to care enough as a society to put the time, sweat, and money into a generation-long effort to eradicate poverty in America.

i don't see it happening. The rich fucks have convinced the useful idiots to blame the poor for their poverty. And government programs, we are told, only make things worse by making these people "dependent."

Sometimes i think we're going to have to see poverty on the scale of India or Central America before we care enough to do anything about it - and then the solution will probably be to build bigger walls.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you or are you not taking the position that "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." has no bearing whatsoever on what you ripped bleeding from it's context?

Because if you are pretending that the placement of this quote directly prior to the one which you tore in half and isolated as if it was a standalone quote makes no difference whatsoever to the meaning of the entire quote, you are a motherfucking lying douchebag, and I would gladly rip your goddamned head off and shove it down your neck if you were standing in front of me playing these kinds of games. Because those are the kinds of games that are played by sociopathic racist cunts that the world would be far better off without.

The parents and grandparents thing is classic #3. It's like the problem of racism disappeared sometime between Martin Luther King and the election of Obama.

Racism no doubt had something to do with causing the current situation. That doesn't mean that the current situation is being perpetuated by racism, though. Removing the original cause of a problem often does not cure the problem--how effective would a doctor be prescribing a seat belt as treatment for a broken arm? Showing that the broken arm came from not wearing one's belt in an accident does nothing to fix the broken arm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're still not getting it. You asked a wife-beater question, I called you on it.

No, I didn't. I asked no leading question. I asked an open-ended question, one with a pretty obvious answer that you're afraid to touch.

Your question assumed that racism is a big problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Providing slightly easier entry into university does not correct for the problem of a substandard school education. Lack of money, living in a gang-infested neighbourhood, and attending a poorly-funded, overcrowded school are (some of) the problems that need to be addressed by the state and federal governments in order to ensure that more students graduate from high school with the ability to get a college degree.

And by far the biggest problem is that the schools reflect the average of the quality of the students in them. Until the parents care the problem won't be solved.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No, I didn't. I asked no leading question. I asked an open-ended question, one with a pretty obvious answer that you're afraid to touch.

Your question assumed that racism is a big problem.

here is the question as YOU quoted it.

Yes, let's all ignore the racial component of poverty and laugh it off. Those silly black people, why don't they just get a good education and a decent job?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Where is the assumption of size of the problem?

 

[Davka]

No, I didn't. I asked no leading question. I asked an open-ended question, one with a pretty obvious answer that you're afraid to touch.

Your question assumed that racism is a big problem.

My question is one that is asked on FOX news and on right-wing radio shows all the time. It's a question that has a pretty obvious answer, but you don't like the answer. So you pretend it's a leading question. It's not.

So I ask again: Why don't poor black people just get a good education and a decent job? What is stopping them, and why?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your question assumed that racism is a big problem.

here is the question as YOU quoted it.

Yes, let's all ignore the racial component of poverty and laugh it off. Those silly black people, why don't they just get a good education and a decent job?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Where is the assumption of size of the problem?

The implicit assumption is that it's racial. That's not what the stats show--race is merely a proxy. You get a far better prediction of who will be in poverty by looking at the parents.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

here is the question as YOU quoted it.

Yes, let's all ignore the racial component of poverty and laugh it off. Those silly black people, why don't they just get a good education and a decent job?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Where is the assumption of size of the problem?

The implicit assumption is that it's racial. That's not what the stats show--race is merely a proxy. You get a far better prediction of who will be in poverty by looking at the parents.

Answer the question. Where is the assumption of size of the problem?

 

[laughing dog]

Your question assumed that racism is a big problem.

My question is one that is asked on FOX news and on right-wing radio shows all the time. It's a question that has a pretty obvious answer, but you don't like the answer. So you pretend it's a leading question. It's not.

So I ask again: Why don't poor black people just get a good education and a decent job? What is stopping them, and why?

Obviously, it is their SES.

 

[George S]

My question is one that is asked on FOX news and on right-wing radio shows all the time. It's a question that has a pretty obvious answer, but you don't like the answer. So you pretend it's a leading question. It's not.

So I ask again: Why don't poor black people just get a good education and a decent job? What is stopping them, and why?

Obviously, it is their SES.

There are causes for endemic low SES. Among these are the fact that the SES of children closely follows that of their parents. How did that, in turn, arise? In the case of descendants of former slaves it has included deliberate actions by a bigoted majority to "keep them in their place."

Today I see that some of the descendants of former slaves have left that "place." (Obama, Neil DG Tyson, rich NBA stars, for example.) Many have not.

There has been a correllation between education level and socio-economic level. At one time only 8th grade education was common and having a high school diploma an earned rarity. Poor folks had to get work upon leaving 8th grade. Rich folks (high school was not free) could afford to send their children to high school. Wouldn't it be great, it was thought, if those who had been kept down had a high school diploma. They, too, could be rich. Over time the high school diploma became as common as an 8th grade education had been. The latest idea is that a free Junior College degree would correct the problem. (Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is one definition of insanity.)

If only there were a test to determine which of every class, rich and poor alike, could benefit from further education level. Dumb rich children living off their parent's wealth would be excluded. Smart people who couldn't afford (because of their parents) higher education would be given scholarships.

How to break the poverty cycle? If it were simple it would already have been done.

There is a sign at US Parks: "Do not feed the animals, they may become dependent on those handouts and not be able to survive in the wild."

The solution is not welfare payments because that continues the cycle. It is not AA because that presumes that all of those helped by AA would have been qualified if qualification were the ability to profit from further education. Selective AA by going into the lower SES areas and identifying and encouraging those who are lower SES for any reason (including the cycle of poverty that began in slavery) is what I suggest.

Regrettably there exist bigots who believe that they (due to high SES) are superior to their low SES cousins. I have in-laws who think that way. They are immune to logic.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

My question is one that is asked on FOX news and on right-wing radio shows all the time. It's a question that has a pretty obvious answer, but you don't like the answer. So you pretend it's a leading question. It's not.

So I ask again: Why don't poor black people just get a good education and a decent job? What is stopping them, and why?

Obviously, it is their SES.

Obviously yes, which makes one wonder why the question specified "Black" with low SES when it is applicable to everybody with low SES. This plus the identity of the person asking and the thread they are asking it in, makes it understandable why Loren would see it the way he did.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I was wondering that myself--but Google says it's not plagiarized.

1. Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology. Although the study of racism and racial bigotry has been part of the social sciences for decades, Highly Affected Racialists either studiously ignore the accepted terminology, or pretend not to understand it. An example of this is the word “racism” itself, which is defined as power plus racial bigotry. Highly Affected racialists either ignore this definition or call it “ludicrous,” in spite of the fact that, once understood, the concept is self-evident.¹ This allows for the strengthening of another habit:

We aren't trying to redefine it, rather we are recognizing that power is an individual thing. Even someone of generally low power can be the person in power in a given interaction and thus has the potential to engage in racism.

Loren, this is really a very clear statement from you. thanks. The whole structure of the argument seems somehow overly foucaultian to me but I do have to say that institutional racism and dominant power structures would seem to overshadow or overwhelm the individual cases. The boundaries of such conceptual categories when applied to geographic space are clearly not clear. Does institutional racism against whites begin at the borders of the congo? All you have to do is increase the altitude to make it go away again and become the hegemony of the west. Somehow, it does seem important to have in the mix a language of force, of violence, whether reflexive as a result of a defensive position or reflexive as a result of a dominant position, situations always place aggression and force into unique contexts. The difference between category and line items, average and individual. Anyway, just musing there. I was sort of surprised to see a commensurable comment from you into the language of privilege and power.

2. Accuse Minorities of Racism. This is a classic “tu quoque” argument, known on playgrounds across the nation as “well, you do it too!,” sometimes known as the :he hit me back first!” defense. This ignores the fact that racism cannot be practiced by powerless minorities against powerful minorities.¹

And minorities are somehow immune to being racist???

Simple example: Multiple times my wife has encountered objections from other Chinese people for marrying outside her race. (And the really strange one: She was ok with it until she found out it was a marriage for love, not a green card marriage.) I have relatives over in China that I have never met and probably never will because of this. (Because a relative on the chain between us and them feels they would lose face if they knew I'm not Chinese.)

There have been lawsuits because black managers were firing any whites under them and replacing them with blacks. Is that not the sort of thing that AA was supposed to put a stop to??

3. Racism Denial. Highly Affected Racialists assert often, loudly, and confidently that racism is no longer a problem, and therefore cannot be at the root of any social ills in America. Whenever anything newsworthy occurs which appears to be steeped in racism, characterize it as an isolated incident. Individual racists may be admitted to exist, but the institution of racism must be assumed to have vanished completely at some vague, indeterminate time between the assassination of MLK Jr. and the election of President Obama.

This is a circular argument--you're assuming you're right and thus consider it proof that your opponents are racists.

4. Appeal to (pseudo)Science. The attempt to “prove” scientifically and/or logically that minority races are inherently inferior goes back as far as racism itself. Despite the fact that every single scientific justification for racism has been debunked numerous times, Highly Affected Racialists continue to return to this well, press-ganging genetics, statistics, and anthropology (among others) into the service of their bankrupt worldview.

Other than the KKK types I see very little of this--they keyword here is "inherently". This is related to your problem with #3--you assume you're right and any differences are the result of racism. Your position leaves no room for non-inherent differences--namely, culture.

5. Hyperfocus on Minutiae. Whenever a newsworthy race-related atrocity hits the media, Highly Affected Racialists spring into action to deflect the conversation away from the dangerous ground of societal wrongs, and onto the irrelevant “facts of the case.” This allows them to ignore the way that these incidents fit into the larger context of institutionalized racism, thus avoiding any potential learning opportunities. Instead of talking about how White America interacts with the Darker Nation, Highly Affected racialists can argue for hours, even days, about whether the policeman in question has a history of racism; whether the dead or injured black male was acting in a threatening manner; whether the DNA in the lab fits the witness reports, and on and on.

Most of those "race-related atrocities" don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[laughing dog]

Obviously, it is their SES.

Obviously yes, which makes one wonder why the question specified "Black" with low SES when it is applicable to everybody with low SES. This plus the identity of the person asking and the thread they are asking it in, makes it understandable why Loren would see it the way he did.

You need to upgrade your sarcasm meter.

 

[arkirk]

arkirk, I surmised you to be a pacifist. Now you are joining Davka in ripping off heads and bashing in teeth because someone sees things differently. Your insults and threats of violence only serve to exacerbate the problem.

Please reread the post. I clearly stated that that's where I parted company with Davka. While I understand Davka's list of traits and share his concern about their consequences, I clearly stated I was not into ripping heads off etc...... I do not have knowledge of having ever threatened anybody on this forum.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Today I see that some of the descendants of former slaves have left that "place." (Obama, Neil DG Tyson, rich NBA stars, for example.) Many have not.

Lets look more closely at those sports stars. You say they left--but in reality the majority have not actually left. It's the issue I keep bringing up--poverty is a mental state, not a lack of money. Give someone millions for professional sports and the fact that they engage in poverty-thinking is masked. When the job ends the majority end up not much better off than they started because they never changed their mental attitudes.

If only there were a test to determine which of every class, rich and poor alike, could benefit from further education level. Dumb rich children living off their parent's wealth would be excluded. Smart people who couldn't afford (because of their parents) higher education would be given scholarships.

That's basically the idea of things like the SAT--identify those that will benefit. Those who score well enough get financial aid in college.

How to break the poverty cycle? If it were simple it would already have been done.

There is a sign at US Parks: "Do not feed the animals, they may become dependent on those handouts and not be able to survive in the wild."

The solution is not welfare payments because that continues the cycle. It is not AA because that presumes that all of those helped by AA would have been qualified if qualification were the ability to profit from further education.

Agreed so far.

Selective AA by going into the lower SES areas and identifying and encouraging those who are lower SES for any reason (including the cycle of poverty that began in slavery) is what I suggest.

Regrettably there exist bigots who believe that they (due to high SES) are superior to their low SES cousins. I have in-laws who think that way. They are immune to logic.

But here you're badly off track.

When you put people above their level they fare poorly. California's abolishing AA increased the number of blacks getting degrees. Far from being a help, AA is actually part of the problem at this point.

Furthermore, it's way too late. The damage was done long before. Even at the point of high school putting a student in a better school doesn't help them. What limited data we have even says that grade school is too late.

The problem is parenting. I don't know the answer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was wondering that myself--but Google says it's not plagiarized.



We aren't trying to redefine it, rather we are recognizing that power is an individual thing. Even someone of generally low power can be the person in power in a given interaction and thus has the potential to engage in racism.

Loren, this is really a very clear statement from you. thanks. The whole structure of the argument seems somehow overly foucaultian to me but I do have to say that institutional racism and dominant power structures would seem to overshadow or overwhelm the individual cases. The boundaries of such conceptual categories when applied to geographic space are clearly not clear. Does institutional racism against whites begin at the borders of the congo? All you have to do is increase the altitude to make it go away again and become the hegemony of the west. Somehow, it does seem important to have in the mix a language of force, of violence, whether reflexive as a result of a defensive position or reflexive as a result of a dominant position, situations always place aggression and force into unique contexts. The difference between category and line items, average and individual. Anyway, just musing there. I was sort of surprised to see a commensurable comment from you into the language of privilege and power.

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.

 

[Rhea]

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?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

sometimes there's just not any point in responding.