RACISM SOLVED on IIDB! "This whole business about whether someone had ancestors who were a slave or slaveholder is just ridiculous. It means nothing."

[Loren Pechtel]

It isn't a hate crime to refuse admittance of a potential student because their scores are lower than other applicants. I'd imagine that if only test scores and grades were used to admit students in the 1970s and 1980s, we'd see a much different ethnic distribution of students in US Colleges today. The whole point of Affirmative Action is to admit the thumb was on the scale 20 years ago and that thumb impacts applicants filing for admission today. It isn't about discriminate treatment of race, disregarding any care for qualifications.

To the best of my knowledge, affirmative action has led to no disparate professional outcomes in the fields it has been used.

Research showing a social issue isn't an issue doesn't get done much. And when it is done it's usually by outsiders. This is a case where the absence of data should not be used as a suggestion there is no data.

Furthermore, we have what we saw in California. Remove AA and more blacks got degrees because they were more likely to graduate if they weren't in over their head.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For example, if a bank is found to engage in unfair practices, any individual involved in perpetuating racist practices within the corporation would face immediate legal consequences. If it's determined that these issues are systemic and driven by leadership, we would then hold each individual up the chain accountable, potentially leading to arrests at all levels. Fuck em.

The problem here is that it's not as easy as it seems to identify "unfair practices" that cause racist practices. For example, in the old days, banks preferred to only provide mortgages to people buying new homes or homes that were less than 30 years old. The thinking here is that homes older than 30 years didn't have as long as a useful life and thus, would have greater rates of default. Makes sense? Wouldn't you agree? Some banks stopped lending entirely in older neighborhoods (this was known as redlining). Today we understand that these older neighborhoods have larger groupings of blacks than what we find in the newer neighborhoods. Thus, this practice was an example of unintentional bias. But it was still bias that hurt families. However, I would not hold those banks at fault. Once the problem was identified, laws were passed that outlawed redlinning. I would hold bankers today responsible who deliberately violate the law. Would you agree with this?

Yup. It's a market where the price is pretty much fixed by competition. Getting an advantage on your competitor is from doing a better job of selecting customers. And exactly how they do that will be considered business secrets.

An older house means more headaches and more chance of something seriously wrong. I don't know what it cost to fix but I know my parent's house turned out to have some serious hidden issues. I wouldn't blame a bank one bit for requiring a lower loan to value on such houses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That’s not the case. We can evaluate a company's practices by conducting a thorough analysis of their records. By comparing how customers in similar circumstances were treated, we can determine if discriminatory practices occurred. Older homes aren't exclusively owned by Black individuals, so this bias could affect various demographics. If a pattern shows that both White and Black homeowners of 30-year-old properties were treated equally, then there's no issue. However, if a discrepancy is found, those responsible should face the consequences without exception.

It was considered redlining locally when banks were "discriminating" against blacks. Strangely, though, only on low-down mortgages in "black" areas (or was it areas with no expected appreciation???) The simplest option is that they don't want to write loans that will be underwater a few years down the road. Anything else you have explain why they discriminated only in that situation.

And what about what's been brought up in the medical school split? There's widespread discrimination against white males. Prosecute everyone involved???

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's when bankers and realtors team up, informally, to keep the black people in the black part of town. Realtors wouldn't show homes to people if they were not the right race for the area and banks wouldn't give mortgages to people if they didn't match the neighborhood.
It was profoundly racist. But since it was private parties collaborating informally it was hard to root out. And people do tend to prefer living where the neighbors are similar to them.
It's gotten way better in the last 50 years or so. But people still prefer having neighbors who look and behave like them.
Tom

When they wouldn't show such houses it's definitely wrong.

But you are right that people tend to like to live near people like them. Realtors know this and will tend to show houses in neighborhoods like the people because they know that's more likely to get a sale. It's not a racial decision for them, it's a how-likely-is-the-customer-to-buy decision.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I found this very interesting

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror’s army​

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror's army

Norman descendants are still doing very fine in today's Britain.

www.zmescience.com

It suggests that the effects of privilege have long lasting, permanent effects that can last hundreds of years. If this is true, the claims of black people that they are still damaged by the effects of slavery should be taken very seriously.

But what's the land value?? It's like out here in the west there's a lot of government land but most of it is pretty much useless.

There is very little low value land in the UK. There are 67 million people in an area the size of Michigan.

It is NOTHING like "out here in the west". At all.

The cheapest land in the UK (in the Scottish Highlands) sells for around £4,500/acre (~US$5,700).

$5700/acre is an extremely good price in the US.

Point taken about population density in the UK.

Doesn't change the fact that rural land doesn't tend to turn much of a profit.

 

[Toni]

I found this very interesting

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror’s army​

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror's army

Norman descendants are still doing very fine in today's Britain.

www.zmescience.com

It suggests that the effects of privilege have long lasting, permanent effects that can last hundreds of years. If this is true, the claims of black people that they are still damaged by the effects of slavery should be taken very seriously.

But what's the land value?? It's like out here in the west there's a lot of government land but most of it is pretty much useless.

There is very little low value land in the UK. There are 67 million people in an area the size of Michigan.

It is NOTHING like "out here in the west". At all.

The cheapest land in the UK (in the Scottish Highlands) sells for around £4,500/acre (~US$5,700).

$5700/acre is an extremely good price in the US.

Point taken about population density in the UK.

Doesn't change the fact that rural land doesn't tend to turn much of a profit.

Omg Loren. For people who value living in a rural setting, not to mention the people who earn their living and feed your face off of rural land, what you think of the profit margins means nothing. They are happy you don’t think it’s valuable because that means they can continue to lead a life they value.

 

[bilby]

I found this very interesting

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror’s army​

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror's army

Norman descendants are still doing very fine in today's Britain.

www.zmescience.com

It suggests that the effects of privilege have long lasting, permanent effects that can last hundreds of years. If this is true, the claims of black people that they are still damaged by the effects of slavery should be taken very seriously.

But what's the land value?? It's like out here in the west there's a lot of government land but most of it is pretty much useless.

There is very little low value land in the UK. There are 67 million people in an area the size of Michigan.

It is NOTHING like "out here in the west". At all.

The cheapest land in the UK (in the Scottish Highlands) sells for around £4,500/acre (~US$5,700).

$5700/acre is an extremely good price in the US.

Point taken about population density in the UK.

Doesn't change the fact that rural land doesn't tend to turn much of a profit.

Yeah, it really does, in places with high population densities. Which is what we are talking about.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I found this very interesting

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror’s army​

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror's army

Norman descendants are still doing very fine in today's Britain.

www.zmescience.com

It suggests that the effects of privilege have long lasting, permanent effects that can last hundreds of years. If this is true, the claims of black people that they are still damaged by the effects of slavery should be taken very seriously.

But what's the land value?? It's like out here in the west there's a lot of government land but most of it is pretty much useless.

There is very little low value land in the UK. There are 67 million people in an area the size of Michigan.

It is NOTHING like "out here in the west". At all.

The cheapest land in the UK (in the Scottish Highlands) sells for around £4,500/acre (~US$5,700).

$5700/acre is an extremely good price in the US.

Point taken about population density in the UK.

Doesn't change the fact that rural land doesn't tend to turn much of a profit.

Yeah, it really does, in places with high population densities. Which is what we are talking about.

It can. But again, my point is that it's overrated. If you own lots of land, doesn't mean that your rich. If you own buildings or houses in places with high population densities: doesn't mean that you are rich. I don't know enough about farm land to comment much here. But farming is a tough business. Farmers have no control of their margins. Owning commercial buildings during good times (and even some average times) is great. But during downturns (2008 - 11 for example) are brutal. If you have a 10 million dollar building that generates $10,000 in rent because your vacancy is high - you're bankrupt.

 

[bilby]

I found this very interesting

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror’s army​

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror's army

Norman descendants are still doing very fine in today's Britain.

www.zmescience.com

It suggests that the effects of privilege have long lasting, permanent effects that can last hundreds of years. If this is true, the claims of black people that they are still damaged by the effects of slavery should be taken very seriously.

But what's the land value?? It's like out here in the west there's a lot of government land but most of it is pretty much useless.

There is very little low value land in the UK. There are 67 million people in an area the size of Michigan.

It is NOTHING like "out here in the west". At all.

The cheapest land in the UK (in the Scottish Highlands) sells for around £4,500/acre (~US$5,700).

$5700/acre is an extremely good price in the US.

Point taken about population density in the UK.

Doesn't change the fact that rural land doesn't tend to turn much of a profit.

Yeah, it really does, in places with high population densities. Which is what we are talking about.

It can. But again, my point is that it's overrated. If you own lots of land, doesn't mean that your rich. If you own buildings or houses in places with high population densities: doesn't mean that you are rich. I don't know enough about farm land to comment much here. But farming is a tough business. Farmers have no control of their margins. Owning commercial buildings during good times (and even some average times) is great. But during downturns (2008 - 11 for example) are brutal. If you have a 10 million dollar building that generates $10,000 in rent because your vacancy is high - you're bankrupt.

If you own a ten million dollar asset, you may or may not be bankrupt, but you are certainly not poor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Doesn't change the fact that rural land doesn't tend to turn much of a profit.

Omg Loren. For people who value living in a rural setting, not to mention the people who earn their living and feed your face off of rural land, what you think of the profit margins means nothing. They are happy you don’t think it’s valuable because that means they can continue to lead a life they value.

If you have a farm or a ranch the profit is your income.

 

[Bomb#20]

For anyone who might have missed this in English or Language Arts class in high school, the main subject of the original post is the opinion that ancestry related to slavery—whether as a slave or a slaveholder—is insignificant and should be treated as little more than a trivial detail, perhaps worth mentioning in casual conversation but not deserving of much importance.

The main subject of the OP is Ms. Rael's opinion that

"Finally, this whole business about whether someone had ancestors who were a slave or slaveholder is just ridiculous. It means nothing, other than a mildly curious footnote in someone's ancestry that might make for interesting cocktail party conversation. But that's it."​

is equivalent to "RACISM SOLVED on IIDB!", because reasons -- reasons perhaps having to do with what she missed in English or Language Arts class in high school, or perhaps having to do with parasitic memes she swallowed hook, line and sinker. Thebeave did not imply racism was solved. Thebeave did not even imply ancestry related to slavery—whether as a slave or a slaveholder—is insignificant. You appear to have committed a Hasty Generalization fallacy and imputed the results to him. The "someone" part of his statement that you deleted in your attempt at paraphrase matters. He was talking about its meaninglessness on an individual basis.

He was right. It has no importance on an individual basis. Harris has slaveowner ancestors. So what? Everyone has slaveowner ancestors. Harris has slave ancestors. So what? Everyone has slave ancestors. People have been enslaving one another for millennia and there's no more chance of finding someone to breed with who has no slaves or slaveowners in his or her ancestry than someone who isn't descended from a thief. Heck, half the people in the world are probably descended just from one or another of the slave-girls Genghis Khan owned and impregnated. So what? Most people were slaves in a lot of Western Europe in the Middle Ages and more recently than that in Eastern Europe. Enslaving Slavs was so common our languages named the institution after them. So what? Who cares if some Russian-American's ancestors weren't freed until 1861?

But that says nothing one way or the other about collective ancestry related to slavery. The fact that two hundred years ago most of the ancestors of most American black people were slaves, and most of the ancestors of most American white people were free, is important for all sorts of reasons having nothing to do with cocktail conversation. The circumstance that some Hawaiian guy happens to be descended from a slaveowner through his white mother and from a lot of free Kenyans through his black father is insignificant. The circumstance that his choice of parents left him looking like millions of American black people most of whose ancestors were slaves two hundred years ago even though his own ancestors weren't, and consequently he got treated as though most of his ancestors were slaves back then, is very significant indeed and has had major effects on American society. And thebeave did not claim otherwise. Collective ancestry is not the same thing as individual ancestry.

 

[Elixir]

rural land doesn't tend to turn much of a profit.

I dunno … solar Companies keep telling me I could get “up to 30k$/yr” if I let them “use part” of my “useless” land.

 

[Toni]

Doesn't change the fact that rural land doesn't tend to turn much of a profit.

Omg Loren. For people who value living in a rural setting, not to mention the people who earn their living and feed your face off of rural land, what you think of the profit margins means nothing. They are happy you don’t think it’s valuable because that means they can continue to lead a life they value.

If you have a farm or a ranch the profit is your income.

I am aware of how farmers earn a living. My parents were the first generation off the farm. My grandparents and uncle farmed.

 

[Gospel]

For anyone who might have missed this in English or Language Arts class in high school, the main subject of the original post is the opinion that ancestry related to slavery—whether as a slave or a slaveholder—is insignificant and should be treated as little more than a trivial detail, perhaps worth mentioning in casual conversation but not deserving of much importance.

The main subject of the OP is Ms. Rael's opinion that

"Finally, this whole business about whether someone had ancestors who were a slave or slaveholder is just ridiculous. It means nothing, other than a mildly curious footnote in someone's ancestry that might make for interesting cocktail party conversation. But that's it."​

is equivalent to "RACISM SOLVED on IIDB!", because reasons -- reasons perhaps having to do with what she missed in English or Language Arts class in high school, or perhaps having to do with parasitic memes she swallowed hook, line and sinker. Thebeave did not imply racism was solved. Thebeave did not even imply ancestry related to slavery—whether as a slave or a slaveholder—is insignificant. You appear to have committed a Hasty Generalization fallacy and imputed the results to him. The "someone" part of his statement that you deleted in your attempt at paraphrase matters. He was talking about its meaninglessness on an individual basis.

He was right. It has no importance on an individual basis. Harris has slaveowner ancestors. So what? Everyone has slaveowner ancestors. Harris has slave ancestors. So what? Everyone has slave ancestors. People have been enslaving one another for millennia and there's no more chance of finding someone to breed with who has no slaves or slaveowners in his or her ancestry than someone who isn't descended from a thief. Heck, half the people in the world are probably descended just from one or another of the slave-girls Genghis Khan owned and impregnated. So what? Most people were slaves in a lot of Western Europe in the Middle Ages and more recently than that in Eastern Europe. Enslaving Slavs was so common our languages named the institution after them. So what? Who cares if some Russian-American's ancestors weren't freed until 1861?

But that says nothing one way or the other about collective ancestry related to slavery. The fact that two hundred years ago most of the ancestors of most American black people were slaves, and most of the ancestors of most American white people were free, is important for all sorts of reasons having nothing to do with cocktail conversation. The circumstance that some Hawaiian guy happens to be descended from a slaveowner through his white mother and from a lot of free Kenyans through his black father is insignificant. The circumstance that his choice of parents left him looking like millions of American black people most of whose ancestors were slaves two hundred years ago even though his own ancestors weren't, and consequently he got treated as though most of his ancestors were slaves back then, is very significant indeed and has had major effects on American society. And thebeave did not claim otherwise. Collective ancestry is not the same thing as individual ancestry.

It might be worth retaking a course or two. One's personal opinion on a subject doesn't make it the subject itself. You of all people should know how that works. However, as I’ve mentioned before, I believe ancestry only holds cultural significance.

 

[Gospel]

It was considered redlining locally when banks were "discriminating" against blacks. Strangely, though, only on low-down mortgages in "black" areas (or was it areas with no expected appreciation???) The simplest option is that they don't want to write loans that will be underwater a few years down the road. Anything else you have explain why they discriminated only in that situation.

You overlooked the part where some white people in poor neighborhoods were still able to secure loans, buy homes, and move to new areas. Unfortunately, the same opportunities weren't available to black people. Furthermore, white people were simply collateral damage in the deliberate effort to drive down property values in predominantly black neighborhoods by restricting the necessary flow of capital for development. They created the situation then said oh look! It's risky to invest there.

 

[Gospel]

And what about what's been brought up in the medical school split? There's widespread discrimination against white males. Prosecute everyone involved???

That situation could have been prevented if racists had been prosecuted from the outset, instead of being coddled and appeased through measures like affirmative action, which, in my opinion, was a misguided approach. Inequality wouldn't be embedded in our policies, and anyone who values their freedom would think twice before engaging in racism, knowing the consequences wouldn't be worth it.

 

[Politesse]

I believe ancestry only holds cultural significance.

Really, now! Shall we outlaw inheritance, then?

 

[Gospel]

I believe ancestry only holds cultural significance.

Really, now! Shall we outlaw inheritance, then?

Absolutely not. Banning ancestry would mean banning traditions and customs, religious beliefs, food practices, and cultural expressions like music, dance, literature, and visual arts. That would be completely absurd. Like I said, to me ancestry is only relevant culturally. Not all white people are the same and not all black people are the same. However, ancestry is completely irrelevant in determining whether someone is qualified to be President of the United States. While it might matter in other countries, here the only requirements are that you must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.

In this thread, I'm arguing that while ancestry isn't important for becoming president, it isn't entirely without significance.


Edit: Oopps I misunderstood what you said.

NO inheritance shouldn't be banned either.

 

[Gospel]

In my opinion, inheritance should only be voided if the assets being passed down were found to have been obtained unlawfully by those leaving the inheritance. That should be obvious to any reasonable person.

 

[Politesse]

In my opinion, inheritance should only be voided if the assets being passed down were found to have been obtained unlawfully by those leaving the inheritance. That should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Such as by owning slaves? Oh wait, that would cancel out most inherited wealth....