The Anything But Racism Argument.

[Emily Lake]

A problem with colorblindness as a solution for racism, and there are more than one, is that the proponents of colorblindness don't used it as a goal to work toward, but a practice in the present and a lens through which to view the recent past.

Yes, that's exactly the problem. It's a fine goal, and one day I'd love to see it in place. But you can't just unilaterally implement it and expect the structural disparities to resolve themselves.

It's actually not a bad approach for people's behavioral views. I think it's a fine way to go about raising kids - to not see color in how they interact with people. But you can't layer that same approach over the system and expect the system to adapt. The system doesn't grow and evolve, it needs change from outside. And if everyone is busy ignoring disparities in an effort to be colorblind, then the system won't change ever.


I'd love to have an actually color-blind society some day. I'd also love to see "sex-blindness" in place some day... although I have some reservations about whether biology will ever let that materialize 100%. I'm not sure that it's possible for males of the species to ever not see boobies. Or for females of the species to ever not see shoulders for that matter...

 

[AthenaAwakened]

A problem with colorblindness as a solution for racism, and there are more than one, is that the proponents of colorblindness don't used it as a goal to work toward, but a practice in the present and a lens through which to view the recent past.

Yes, that's exactly the problem. It's a fine goal, and one day I'd love to see it in place. But you can't just unilaterally implement it and expect the structural disparities to resolve themselves.

It's actually not a bad approach for people's behavioral views. I think it's a fine way to go about raising kids - to not see color in how they interact with people. But you can't layer that same approach over the system and expect the system to adapt. The system doesn't grow and evolve, it needs change from outside. And if everyone is busy ignoring disparities in an effort to be colorblind, then the system won't change ever.


I'd love to have an actually color-blind society some day. I'd also love to see "sex-blindness" in place some day... although I have some reservations about whether biology will ever let that materialize 100%. I'm not sure that it's possible for males of the species to ever not see boobies. Or for females of the species to ever not see shoulders for that matter...

I'm a chest and calves woman, myself

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Trimming for concision. If you feel I've trimmed something of import, please let me know.


Here's the thing:

Almost all of the accusatory language in that statement has been supplied by you. The following terms:
- unfair
- bad
- wrong
- shameful
- have no right to
- tantamount to theft

Are NOT found in the statement you quoted. They are the product of your emotional response to that statement as the implications of it sink in. The result is that instead of arguing with what the statement says -- that you have an advantage you inherited through your family's exploitation -- you begin arguing with how the statement makes you feel: like a bad, wrong, shameful cheater.

Actually, it's not reflective of how I personally feel, Crazy Eddie.

Not you SPECIFICALLY, no. I'm speaking generally. Or trying to. Not sure if succeeding.

In English, to say that someone gained something by exploitation is synonymous with saying that they gained unfairly, that it was bad and wrong and shameful, that they have no right to what they gained, and that it is tantamount to theft. Do you disagree with what the term "exploit" conveys?

Not in the least. I think that's reading an awful lot into that one word, adding assumptions to the meaning of the sentence that then becomes much more important than the point the sentence is trying to make.

True story: a few years ago one of the IT guys wrote a memo to our boss asking for clarification, saying that a portion of his budget was being diverted by another supervisor, supposedly for the purchasing of additional office supplies for the legal department. He wrote, as I recall, "I do not know that it is appropriate for supervisors of one department to unilaterally appropriate funds from another department without any written authorization." The point of the memo was the IT supervisor was gently trying to draw attention to the legal supervisor's embezzling money from the company; this point apparently went right over the head of our boss, who replied with a very angry, scolding email in which he admonished the IT supervisor over the use of the word "appropriate" and told him to look it up in the dictionary and "refrain from using such inflammatory irresponsible language in official communications."

Three guesses as to what happened to that boss when the legal supervisor was finally caught stealing.

It is, however, couched in divisive and accusatory terms. The phrasing is "you versus me" phrasing - YOU have an advantage, YOUR family exploited MY family. It is by the nature of the terms themselves divisive. This cannot be argued. It is not inclusive language.

Implying that inclusive/divisive are binary positions and that the statement can only be one or the other. I don't believe that's actually true, and I again maintain that the emotional reaction to the discussion is, in the minds of many, a lot more relevant than the points being raised. I don't personally believe you can come to a rational conclusion if non-rational arguments -- e.g. the emotional reaction to word choices -- are deliberately introduced as if they are relevant.

The other thing to keep in mind is that if the end goal is colorblindness, then one should avoid making assumptions about the character or agenda of the people we're speaking to. Which is to say: for the sake of coherence of argument, the best thing for all people involved in the discussion is to pretend they are no actually part of EITHER group and analyze it from the perspective of a third party that wasn't involved at all. And having said that: would you be very surprised or not surprised at all to learn that I am a white man?

Because the only way you're willing to rationally discuss the subject is if the entire world goes out of its way to avoid mentioning the IDENTITY of the people who implemented that system in the first place.

Not at all. I rather think I'm being quite rational.

I think it very much depends on what your objective is. If your objective is to correct a system which is endemically discriminatory, and provide for an equitable system going forward, then you need active participation from as many people as possible.

Enlisting participation in the implementation of a new system is apples and oranges from DISCUSSING that system in the first place. In the former situation, you need people to do things a certain way whether they understand the reason for them or not. In the latter situation, you're engaging in analysis of the facts and history from an investigator's point of view. One goal requires a measure of objectivity and detachment, the other does not.

 

[Emily Lake]

Enlisting participation in the implementation of a new system is apples and oranges from DISCUSSING that system in the first place. In the former situation, you need people to do things a certain way whether they understand the reason for them or not. In the latter situation, you're engaging in analysis of the facts and history from an investigator's point of view. One goal requires a measure of objectivity and detachment, the other does not.

Eddie, have you ever had to implement disruptive change in an organization? A lot of what I'm talking about are methods for change management that provide for higher levels of buy-in, and less resistance to change. It allows for necessary changes to structure and process to occur with a minimum of emotionally-driven roadblocks and opposition. It's a pretty well established methodology. In short, I'm not talking out of my ass here.

If you want meaningful change to occur, it is important that you have as many people as possible supporting that change and bought in to it, and as few people as possible opposing it. People react to change emotionally, because humans are emotional animals. In cases like this, where the institutional structure grants an advantage to one class over another, the very fact that the privilege exists has extremely high potential to cause feelings of resentment on one side and defensiveness on the other - unless it's approached in a very inclusive and motivational way. That doesn't mean that you ignore the fact that the discrepancy exists - I certainly haven't done so in any of my posts, have I? It just means that you approach it from the position of We and Us and Together, not from the position of I/You. You emphasize the collaborative approach, and you play down the division. You look to the future solutions as the goal, and keep focused on fixing the problem in a way that benefits everyone.

It's part of understanding language, and the impact of language on humans. It's part of understanding how humans react, and how best to get groups of people to work together toward a common goal.

I assume that we have the same goal: to find an equitable and just solution, to build a system and an institution that does not allow racial or sexual discrepancies to occur as an endemic part of that system?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's part of understanding language, and the impact of language on humans. It's part of understanding how humans react, and how best to get groups of people to work together toward a common goal.

Exactly! I'm glad you see how this is important and how being careless with language (releasing officer's name while trying to incriminate the dead victim) and appearance (sending out the police with dogs when protests first started) would be extremely counterproductive to achieving an equitable goal.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It just means that you approach it from the position of We and Us and Together, not from the position of I/You. You emphasize the collaborative approach, and you play down the division. You look to the future solutions as the goal, and keep focused on fixing the problem in a way that benefits everyone.

Well said. That is the ideal way to go about it, but self interest, defensiveness, resentment, and especially tribalism get in the way. The more you can put things inclusive, the better results you will get. Stress similarities and what we can all relate to. Everybody can relate to prejudice in one form or another. It shouldn't be too hard to get people to relate and support you. It will be though if you make it antagonistic and exclusive to your subgroup. Think "racial harmony" instead of "black pride", and if you are seeking racial fairness, don't go slamming women or homosexuals in your next breath.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's part of understanding language, and the impact of language on humans. It's part of understanding how humans react, and how best to get groups of people to work together toward a common goal.

Exactly! I'm glad you see how this is important and how being careless with language (releasing officer's name while trying to incriminate the dead victim) and appearance (sending out the police with dogs when protests first started) would be extremely counterproductive to achieving an equitable goal.

Jimmy, you keep trying to drag me by force into a discussion of the events in Ferguson. Are you under the mistaken impression that you and I have somehow sparred on this topic? Your passive-aggressive tone does little to make me inclined to discuss much of anything with you.

If there is something that you wish to discuss, then by all means, say it clearly and forthrightly, and preferably in a thread already devoted to that topic. If you very desperately want me specifically to take part in a discussion of the events in Ferguson, then please ask me to join the other thread. But please stop insinuating and hinting in this fashion. I find it offensive and rather snide. I think that there is no call for it, and that I've said nothing that deserves this behavior from you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Exactly! I'm glad you see how this is important and how being careless with language (releasing officer's name while trying to incriminate the dead victim) and appearance (sending out the police with dogs when protests first started) would be extremely counterproductive to achieving an equitable goal.

Jimmy, you keep trying to drag me by force into a discussion of the events in Ferguson. Are you under the mistaken impression that you and I have somehow sparred on this topic? Your passive-aggressive tone does little to make me inclined to discuss much of anything with you.

You are saying communication is key, yet, when raising the issue of actual communication you get somewhat defensive.

Some people seem to think that words are enough. Ferguson is an example where actions speak louder than words. They show how people actually feel. All this talk about a common goal, yet when push comes to shove, there is more complaining about minorities allegedly complaining. It gets tiresome. Very tiresome. On the internet and right-wing media, all this talk about the lazy minorities demanding their entitlements.

You think all that language and communication doesn't have a bad influence on the race issues in the US? You don't think that 90% of blacks voting for a single party isn't an indication that one of the sides is having problems communicating (or perhaps communicating too effectively)? In other words, when some people start talking about how we need better communication, it is much like a Despot allowing for international observers to go to certain military sites. It is a ruse and is just wasting time. In other words, you are full of it. And I'm tired of some white people complaining about how awful it is to blamed for everything, The 21st Century White Man's Burden.

 

[Emily Lake]

Jimmy, you keep trying to drag me by force into a discussion of the events in Ferguson. Are you under the mistaken impression that you and I have somehow sparred on this topic? Your passive-aggressive tone does little to make me inclined to discuss much of anything with you.

You are saying communication is key, yet, when raising the issue of actual communication you get somewhat defensive.

Some people seem to think that words are enough. Ferguson is an example where actions speak louder than words. They show how people actually feel. All this talk about a common goal, yet when push comes to shove, there is more complaining about minorities allegedly complaining. It gets tiresome. Very tiresome. On the internet and right-wing media, all this talk about the lazy minorities demanding their entitlements.

You think all that language and communication doesn't have a bad influence on the race issues in the US? You don't think that 90% of blacks voting for a single party isn't an indication that one of the sides is having problems communicating (or perhaps communicating too effectively)? In other words, when some people start talking about how we need better communication, it is much like a Despot allowing for international observers to go to certain military sites. It is a ruse and is just wasting time. In other words, you are full of it. And I'm tired of some white people complaining about how awful it is to blamed for everything, The 21st Century White Man's Burden.

1) I haven't said we need "better communication". I've said that how a topic is approached, and the words that are chosen have a large impact on how the listener reacts and can influence the outcome of sensitive topics.

2) I have in no fashion whatsoever said that language and communication cannot have a bad influence on race issues in the US. In fact, I think I've been fairly clear that language and communication can have a disastrous effect on race issues. If you had understood what I was saying I think this would have been clear.

3) I have not in any way whatsoever implied that words are enough.

4) You seem to have me confused with someone else.

Jimmy, will you please explain to me why you are attacking me? Exactly what do you believe I've said or done that justifies your behavior toward me?