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

[AthenaAwakened]

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).

When you speak of racial experiences, do you include both negative and positive experiences?

 

[Bronzeage]

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?

I can't lay an egg, but I can tell you if one is going to taste good before it hits the frying pan.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

Racism as a social construct is different from racism as a phenotype and should be carefully argued as such. It should not be ignored because it isn't based on phenotype nor is it any the less important to do so as you imply. Whether the demarcation is 'scientisy' or 'politicisy' if it a vain and useless demarcation unless understood in context.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Racism as a social construct is different from racism as a phenotype and should be carefully argued as such. It should not be ignored because it isn't based on phenotype nor is it any the less important to do so as you imply. Whether the demarcation is 'scientisy' or 'politicisy' if it a vain and useless demarcation unless understood in context.

Ignoring the distinction in general (which I never suggested), versus it not being relevant to a particular issue and its points of disagreement (which I did suggest) are also completely different things and that distinction is important and shows why nothing you posted has any relevance to what I actually said. Way too many otherwise interesting threads related to racism have gotten derailed by people arguing about whether racial categories are social constructs but not valid biological categories. Like many other threads, that issue (while generally important) has no relevance to what is otherwise an issue of reasonable discussion and disagreement regarding whether those that we assign to these categories (no matter there validity in biology) differ in probability of forming a general view on the nature and realities of racism and efficacious solutions that is not clouded and distorted by emotionally charged bias. One's position on the issue of race as a biological distinction does not favor any position on this question at the heart of the OP and the responses to it.

 

[ronburgundy]

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).

When you speak of racial experiences, do you include both negative and positive experiences?

Sure, it could include both, but are you talking about experiencing both personally negative and positive effects of racism, or of racism (negative) and other race-related experiences that are not racism (positive)?

Keep in mind the large number or whites that simply have few experiences of any type directly interacting with blacks. Being in the numerical majority and supermajority in many regions, they simply won't have many opportunities to see racial interactions first hand. No matter the neighborhood they might live in, nearly all blacks in the US are surrounded in the larger area by non-blacks and constantly deal with them. This alone produces a massive difference in the amount of personal inter-racial encounters that blacks and whites have. Put it another way, every 1-on-1 black-white interaction means one black and one white person experienced it. Seems even on the surface. But whites outnumber blacks 6:1 nationally, and 20:1 in many regions. That means that each individual black person experiences 6-20 times more personal 1-1 interactions with a white person than whites experience interactions with blacks. Most of what I said in prior posts is rooted in that simple fact, which does not favor any ideological view, it just is true.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Nobody can be truly neutral about anything, let alone race. There may be an illusion (or maybe a reality) that whites tend to be more neutral about race because it is a shameful taboo to uphold and defend the white identity. It is a little awkward and embarrassing to identify as white. Nothing can be openly attributed to the white identity except negative values. The organizations that uphold the white identity and defend the white race are social pariahs, even if they don't take their own race to be innately superior. Minority races, in contrast, have no shame in identifying, upholding and defending their own respective races, no shame is expected, and the us-vs-them mentality tends to come along with it.

 

[ApostateAbe]

To answer, "Yes," then, would be misleading. I would answer, "Yes, but only in the context of the late 20th and early 21st-century USA."

 

[untermensche]

These are the kinds of matters that can only be looked at on the individual level.

There is no "race objectivity" gene.

But the most an individual can say about race is that obviously there are no "superior" or "inferior" races. All races have geniuses and fools.

There are just humans of different races and in the US how you experience life has a lot to do with your race.

 

[Valjean]

Is this thread assuming "white" is the majority race? Parochialism from the git-go?

Aren't issues best assessed by disinterested parties, those with no dog in the race? Aggrieved minorities may well have pre-existing feelings or opinions on racial issues, but so might threatened majorities. Ideally I'd say the question should be put to one to whom the thought of race rarely occurs, a secure majority member maybe.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Is this thread assuming "white" is the majority race? Parochialism from the git-go?

Aren't issues best assessed by disinterested parties, those with no dog in the race?

So Dr. King should have taken a back seat in the Montgomery Boycott because he was too close to it? Cancer patients should not participate in their own care because they, what, won't give the cancer a fighting chance?

Aggrieved minorities may well have pre-existing feelings or opinions on racial issues, but so might threatened majorities. Ideally I'd say the question should be put to one to whom the thought of race rarely occurs, a secure majority member maybe.

And this white person would be whom? How is one both knowledgeable enough about racial matter AND removed from the influences, good or bad, of racial matters?

I am getting a general feeling that racial matters are always about negatives. They aren't. If a racial situation is benefiting a group, would not that group also have its own biases? Its own stake to protect?

 

[Jayjay]

To answer, "Yes," then, would be misleading. I would answer, "Yes, but only in the context of the late 20th and early 21st-century USA."

Because everyone knows ethics was finally worked out in summer, 2013.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

I don't know that the OP's question is a very good one.

First, your experiences inform you, not your melanin.
Second, one can look at a situation neutrally, or from any side of the equation if they take the time to learn. From that, they'll come to some conclusion. It'll probably be pretty well balanced with a slight favoritism toward one position.

So really, the only possible answer is that anyone who gives enough of a damn about any given issue, and who can be honest about it, can be neutral/objective/whatever word you think fits.

 

[Toni]

I don't know that the OP's question is a very good one.

First, your experiences inform you, not your melanin.
Second, one can look at a situation neutrally, or from any side of the equation if they take the time to learn. From that, they'll come to some conclusion. It'll probably be pretty well balanced with a slight favoritism toward one position.

So really, the only possible answer is that anyone who gives enough of a damn about any given issue, and who can be honest about it, can be neutral/objective/whatever word you think fits.

But melanin certainly does determine and create circumstances you experience.

 

[Unbeatable]

My guess would be that all else being equal, having the level of privilege which in this country is held disproportionately by whites makes it easier for a person to be neutral on matters of race. At the same time, though, it also makes it easier for them to be wildly misinformed. The bottom line is that since there's not as much pressure on them to pay attention to the matter at all, they have the luxury of more options in how they approach it. That's just my guess. I've never met a person who actually is neutral on matters of race.

And when you're talking about a specific individual, like a president, it's irrational to draw a conclusion about their capacity for neutrality based on a single variable when you have access to lots of evidence about that individual which you could use to draw a more reliable conclusion. But Gerald Seib is apparently a journalist, which means he's in the business of weaving the complexities of the world into easily digestible narratives, practically the opposite of what Sarah Jones apparently thinks he should have done (i.e. educate the public about the folly of irrational thinking).

This whole topic is really a bunch of political bullshit. Adopting a neutral perspective is a learnable skill, because identifying and questioning one's own biases is a learnable skill, as is doing the research necessary to acquire the relevant facts. Any question of a person's "suitedness" to neutrality is at best a question of how much learning/unlearning they may need to do, the answer to which will vary for the same person from one day to the next.

 

[ApostateAbe]

To answer, "Yes," then, would be misleading. I would answer, "Yes, but only in the context of the late 20th and early 21st-century USA."

Because everyone knows ethics was finally worked out in summer, 2013.

No, but because it is a shameful taboo to uphold and defend the white identity. It is a little awkward and embarrassing to identify as white. Nothing can be openly attributed to the white identity except negative values. The organizations that uphold the white identity and defend the white race are social pariahs, even if they don't take their own race to be innately superior. Minority races, in contrast, have no shame in identifying, upholding and defending their own respective races, no shame is expected, and the us-vs-them mentality tends to come along with it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Because everyone knows ethics was finally worked out in summer, 2013.

No, but because it is a shameful taboo to uphold and defend the white identity. It is a little awkward and embarrassing to identify as white. Nothing can be openly attributed to the white identity except negative values. The organizations that uphold the white identity and defend the white race are social pariahs, even if they don't take their own race to be innately superior. Minority races, in contrast, have no shame in identifying, upholding and defending their own respective races, no shame is expected, and the us-vs-them mentality tends to come along with it.

"... it is a shameful taboo to uphold and defend the socially acceptable. It is a little awkward and embarrassing to identify as socially acceptable. Nothing can be openly attributed to the socially acceptable except negative values."

white is the social norm in America, it is the standard, it is whatever is generally accepted as proper. There is a taboo against normalcy?

 

[laughing dog]

I think the answer to the OP question is a no. One's race is part of one's experience and identity (whether or not one acknowledges or realizes it).

 

[ApostateAbe]

No, but because it is a shameful taboo to uphold and defend the white identity. It is a little awkward and embarrassing to identify as white. Nothing can be openly attributed to the white identity except negative values. The organizations that uphold the white identity and defend the white race are social pariahs, even if they don't take their own race to be innately superior. Minority races, in contrast, have no shame in identifying, upholding and defending their own respective races, no shame is expected, and the us-vs-them mentality tends to come along with it.

"... it is a shameful taboo to uphold and defend the socially acceptable. It is a little awkward and embarrassing to identify as socially acceptable. Nothing can be openly attributed to the socially acceptable except negative values."

white is the social norm in America, it is the standard, it is whatever is generally accepted as proper. There is a taboo against normalcy?

Being white is normal. Defending the white identity is taboo. If it seems like a contradiction, then resolving it and understanding it may be key to understanding the white experience in America.

 

[Bronzeage]

Because everyone knows ethics was finally worked out in summer, 2013.

No, but because it is a shameful taboo to uphold and defend the white identity. It is a little awkward and embarrassing to identify as white. Nothing can be openly attributed to the white identity except negative values. The organizations that uphold the white identity and defend the white race are social pariahs, even if they don't take their own race to be innately superior. Minority races, in contrast, have no shame in identifying, upholding and defending their own respective races, no shame is expected, and the us-vs-them mentality tends to come along with it.

When did this taboo come about? Nobody told me about it. I want to see someone try to shame me.

I identify as white, just by stepping outside my door in the morning. People see me and say, "There goes a white guy. I bet he has a productive job." It's a racial stereotype, but what are you going do?

Just last night, on a social media site, I upheld and defended the white identity while discussing the accomplishments of several white Presidents. You have to concede, when it comes to Presidents, white guys have set the standard against which Presidents of all other races are measured. This led to a discussion on the Civil War, which was a mostly white army fighting a really white army. This was part of White History Year, which is basically every year since sometime around Alexander the Great, another prominent white guy. Did you know that the Romans were white?
The ancient Greeks, too. That gets glossed over in the history books, but all that philosophy and conquering the world was done by white guys. Martin Luther? White guy. Martin Luther King? A black guy so great, they had to name him after a white guy.

One of the main problems of being a white guy is we are inundated with all the stories of great things white guys have done. A white guy invented the Polio vaccine, a white guy went to the moon, on and on and on. It's tough to live up to the white guy standard. Insecurity creeps in and one starts to see other races having a good time, wearing weird clothes, listening to loud music, excelling at sports, etc. It gets tough.

Being white is a burden and they even have a name for it. The standards are so fucking high. A white guy invented the telegraph. How are you going to beat that?

 

[Horatio Parker]

No, but because it is a shameful taboo to uphold and defend the white identity. It is a little awkward and embarrassing to identify as white. Nothing can be openly attributed to the white identity except negative values. The organizations that uphold the white identity and defend the white race are social pariahs, even if they don't take their own race to be innately superior. Minority races, in contrast, have no shame in identifying, upholding and defending their own respective races, no shame is expected, and the us-vs-them mentality tends to come along with it.

When did this taboo come about? Nobody told me about it. I want to see someone try to shame me.

I identify as white, just by stepping outside my door in the morning. People see me and say, "There goes a white guy. I bet he has a productive job." It's a racial stereotype, but what are you going do?

Just last night, on a social media site, I upheld and defended the white identity while discussing the accomplishments of several white Presidents. You have to concede, when it comes to Presidents, white guys have set the standard against which Presidents of all other races are measured. This led to a discussion on the Civil War, which was a mostly white army fighting a really white army. This was part of White History Year, which is basically every year since sometime around Alexander the Great, another prominent white guy. Did you know that the Romans were white?
The ancient Greeks, too. That gets glossed over in the history books, but all that philosophy and conquering the world was done by white guys. Martin Luther? White guy. Martin Luther King? A black guy so great, they had to name him after a white guy.

One of the main problems of being a white guy is we are inundated with all the stories of great things white guys have done. A white guy invented the Polio vaccine, a white guy went to the moon, on and on and on. It's tough to live up to the white guy standard. Insecurity creeps in and one starts to see other races having a good time, wearing weird clothes, listening to loud music, excelling at sports, etc. It gets tough.

Being white is a burden and they even have a name for it. The standards are so fucking high. A white guy invented the telegraph. How are you going to beat that?

I couldn't agree with you more in your main points. I don't see any problem in being white and enjoying the history and traditions that are pride worthy while simultaneously acknowledging the more sordid, regrettable parts:

Disease or oldness or sword-hate
Beats out the breath from doom-gripped body.
And for this, every earl whatever, for those speaking after —
Laud of the living, boasteth some last word,
That he will work ere he pass onward,
Frame on the fair earth 'gainst foes his malice,
Daring ado, ...
So that all men shall honour him after
And his laud beyond them remain 'mid the English,
Aye, for ever, a lasting life's-blast,
Delight mid the doughty.

But in the case of the Greeks, there has been a consistent tendency in the academy to claim Greek civilization for Europe. But this is speculation. No one knows the race of the ancient Egyptians, and know one knows the race of ancient Greece. The likelihood is that Greek civilization owed more to Egypt and the Near East than is commonly acknowledged.