• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Anything But Racism Argument.

There was no embrace of a Negro identity, because that would have weakened the argument for our humanity. "Negroness" or "blackness" would have collaborated with the racist lie that we were different and, thus, would have been true Uncle Tomism. To the contrary, there was an embrace of the individual and assimilation.

My little experience of myself as an individual confirmed the message of the civil-rights movement itself, in which a favorite picket sign read, simply, "I am a man." The idea of the individual resonated with Negro freedom--a freedom not for the group but for the individuals who made up the group. And assimilation was not a self-hating mimicry of things white but a mastery by Negro individuals of the modern and cosmopolitan world, a mastery that showed us to be natural members of that world. So my experience of myself as an individual made me one with the group.

...

Two great, immutable forces have driven America's attitudes, customs, and public policies around race. The first has been white racism, and the second has been white guilt. The civil-rights movement was the dividing line between the two. Certainly there was some guilt before this movement, and no doubt some racism remains after it. But the great achievement of the civil-rights movement was that its relentless moral witness finally defeated the legitimacy of racism as propriety--a principle of social organization, manners, and customs that defines decency itself. An idea controls culture when it achieves the invisibility of propriety. And it must be remembered that racism was a propriety, a form of decency. When, as a boy, I was prohibited from entering the fine Christian home of the occasional white playmate, it was to save the household an indecency. Today, thanks to the civil-rights movement, white guilt is propriety--an utterly invisible code that defines decency in our culture with thousands of little protocols we no longer even think about. We have been living in an age of white guilt for four decades now.

What is white guilt? It is not a personal sense of remorse over past wrongs. White guilt is literally a vacuum of moral authority in matters of race, equality, and opportunity that comes from the association of mere white skin with America's historical racism. It is the stigmatization of whites and, more importantly, American institutions with the sin of racism. Under this stigma white individuals and American institutions must perpetually prove a negative--that they are not racist--to gain enough authority to function in matters of race, equality, and opportunity. If they fail to prove the negative, they will be seen as racists. Political correctness, diversity policies, and multiculturalism are forms of deference that give whites and institutions a way to prove the negative and win reprieve from the racist stigma.

Institutions especially must be proactive in all this. They must engineer a demonstrable racial innocence to garner enough authority for simple legitimacy in the American democracy. No university today, private or public, could admit students by academic merit alone if that meant no black or brown faces on campus. Such a university would be seen as racist and shunned accordingly. White guilt has made social engineering for black and brown representation a condition of legitimacy.

People often deny white guilt by pointing to its irrationality--"I never owned a slave," "My family got here eighty years after slavery was over." But of course almost nothing having to do with race is rational. That whites are now stigmatized by their race is not poetic justice; it is simply another echo of racism's power to contaminate by mere association.

The other common denial of white guilt has to do with motive: "I don't support affirmative action because I'm guilty; I support it because I want to do what's fair." But the first test of sincere support is a demand that the policy be studied for effectiveness. Affirmative action went almost completely unexamined for thirty years and has only recently been briefly studied in a highly politicized manner now that it is under threat. The fact is that affirmative action has been a very effective racial policy in garnering moral authority and legitimacy for institutions, and it is now institutions--not individual whites or blacks--that are fighting to keep it alive.

The real difference between my parents and myself was that they protested in an age of white racism and I protested in an age of white guilt. They were punished; I was rewarded. By my time, moral authority around race had become a great and consuming labor for America. Everything from social programs to the law, from the color of TV sitcom characters to the content of school curricula, from college admissions to profiling for terrorists--every aspect of our culture--now must show itself redeemed of the old national sin. Today you cannot credibly run for president without an iconography of white guilt: the backdrop of black children, the Spanish-language phrases, the word "compassion" to separate conservatism from its association with racism.

http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/156.html

Crazy Eddie would benefit by reading the entire article, or at least my extract. White people do not suffer "from insecurity about their past", they suffer from being denied moral authority on all matters of race, and the knowledge they are stigmatized due to the color of their skin being the same of those who participated in historic racism. And they know they must prove the negative, or risk being thought of as indecent or immoral. Some crave to prove their innocence, supporting every diversity bromide and race based program that comes to their attention. Others feel compelled to declare their innocence.

And blacks feel compelled to push for angry group identity, if only to harvest the fruits of white guilt. So much for 'the content of our character and not the color of our skin' idealism of MLK.
 
I would like to know how it is that people think treating people in a racist manner will in any way cure already existing racism. If you are against colour-blind policies, you are for racism. Don't kid yourself.

How do you figure that lighting more fires will put out fires?
 
White people do not suffer "from insecurity about their past", they suffer from being denied moral authority on all matters of race, and the knowledge they are stigmatized due to the color of their skin being the same of those who participated in historic racism. And they know they must prove the negative, or risk being thought of as indecent or immoral.

I don't feel stigmatised. Or guilty. I have some lack of moral authority on some issues in that I'm not a member of an oppressed racial group, but that's a pretty minor point. I support diversity initiatives, including some forms of affirmative action, because the resulting diversity of backgrounds benefits everyone, whether it be in a school, workplace, government, etc.

I appreciate that many conservative thinkers, who have a cluster of beliefs that centre around individual agency and tend to downplay environmental factors and influences, have a problem with programs that promote one individual over another based on their background. And because they do not understand the thinking behind this practice, try and cast it in terms of people's emotion overriding their judgement, because that's a motive they can understand, and it means they don't have to understand the opposition's reasoning, or examine their own.

Max, you've put a lot of effort into trying to represent your opinions in a straightforward way, and you deserve kudos for that. But people are never going to accept a narrative that presupposes that they are irrational, putting emotion above judgement, purely on the grounds that they disagree with you. There are people who have put at least as much thought into this issue as you have, and disagree with your position on grounds that they believe are reasonable.
 
The logic of preferential race treatment based on slavery and Jim crow reminds me of zionists who seek to justify oppression of palestinians based on Hitler's holocaust of Jews.
 
Last edited:
I would like to know how it is that people think treating people in a racist manner will in any way cure already existing racism. If you are against colour-blind policies, you are for racism. Don't kid yourself.

How do you figure that lighting more fires will put out fires?

Sometimes firefighters *DO* light fires to put out fires.

It's only used when fighting a major fire that can't be fought any other way, though. (It's almost always a technique for fighting wildfires which are too big and too inaccessible for conventional techniques.)

It's never used when lesser approaches will do the job, though.

While I don't like quotas (or anything that resembles them) it was probably the best answer in the 60s. Once the back of discrimination was broken it should have been quickly abandoned, though. Instead we keep ratcheting things up.
 
White people do not suffer "from insecurity about their past", they suffer from being denied moral authority on all matters of race, and the knowledge they are stigmatized due to the color of their skin being the same of those who participated in historic racism. And they know they must prove the negative, or risk being thought of as indecent or immoral.

I don't feel stigmatised. Or guilty. I have some lack of moral authority on some issues in that I'm not a member of an oppressed racial group, but that's a pretty minor point. I support diversity initiatives, including some forms of affirmative action, because the resulting diversity of backgrounds benefits everyone, whether it be in a school, workplace, government, etc.

I appreciate that many conservative thinkers, who have a cluster of beliefs that centre around individual agency and tend to downplay environmental factors and influences, have a problem with programs that promote one individual over another based on their background. And because they do not understand the thinking behind this practice, try and cast it in terms of people's emotion overriding their judgement, because that's a motive they can understand, and it means they don't have to understand the opposition's reasoning, or examine their own.

Max, you've put a lot of effort into trying to represent your opinions in a straightforward way, and you deserve kudos for that. But people are never going to accept a narrative that presupposes that they are irrational, putting emotion above judgement, purely on the grounds that they disagree with you. There are people who have put at least as much thought into this issue as you have, and disagree with your position on grounds that they believe are reasonable.

While I run to buy coffee (a must) I will leave you with this, from Shelby Steele (see above):

What is white guilt? It is not a personal sense of remorse over past wrongs. White guilt is literally a vacuum of moral authority in matters of race, equality, and opportunity that comes from the association of mere white skin with America's historical racism. It is the stigmatization of whites and, more importantly, American institutions with the sin of racism. Under this stigma white individuals and American institutions must perpetually prove a negative--that they are not racist--to gain enough authority to function in matters of race, equality, and opportunity. If they fail to prove the negative, they will be seen as racists. Political correctness, diversity policies, and multiculturalism are forms of deference that give whites and institutions a way to prove the negative and win reprieve from the racist stigma....

The other common denial of white guilt has to do with motive: "I don't support affirmative action because I'm guilty; I support it because I want to do what's fair." But the first test of sincere support is a demand that the policy be studied for effectiveness. Affirmative action went almost completely unexamined for thirty years and has only recently been briefly studied in a highly politicized manner now that it is under threat. The fact is that affirmative action has been a very effective racial policy in garnering moral authority and legitimacy for institutions, and it is now institutions--not individual whites or blacks--that are fighting to keep it alive.​

White people do not suffer "from insecurity about their past", they suffer from being denied moral authority on all matters of race, and the knowledge they are stigmatized due to the color of their skin being the same of those who participated in historic racism. And they know they must prove the negative, or risk being thought of as indecent or immoral.

I don't feel stigmatised. Or guilty. I have some lack of moral authority on some issues in that I'm not a member of an oppressed racial group, but that's a pretty minor point. I support diversity initiatives, including some forms of affirmative action, because the resulting diversity of backgrounds benefits everyone, whether it be in a school, workplace, government, etc.

Whether or not you feel stigmatized or guilty, Steele's point was not that white people walk around feeling stigmatized EXCEPT when they are in a conflict involving race, especially so when that conflict is directly with black Americans. The non-violent and reasonable demeanor of the civil rights movement gave way to angry black confrontation in colleges, institutions, and even some workplaces because shamed whites, stigmatized whites, felt that even if the victim group demands were rude, crazy, insulting, or incoherent it did not matter - black Americans knew they could act out (Steele):

Anger is acted out by the oppressed only when real weakness is perceived in the oppressor. So anger is never automatic or even inevitable for the oppressed; it is chosen when weakness in the oppressor means it will be effective in winning freedom or justice or spoils of some kind. Anger in the oppressed is a response to perceived opportunity, not to injustice. And expressions of anger escalate not with more injustice but with less injustice.
(Steele in his book on the subject).

Hence, we got implicit quotas in promotions, less than credible grants of tenure, and the never ending demands for special programs and considerations. Moral manipulation and the fear of being considered racist is the game.

I appreciate that many conservative thinkers, who have a cluster of beliefs that centre around individual agency and tend to downplay environmental factors and influences, have a problem with programs that promote one individual over another based on their background. And because they do not understand the thinking behind this practice, try and cast it in terms of people's emotion overriding their judgement, because that's a motive they can understand, and it means they don't have to understand the opposition's reasoning, or examine their own.

Most likely you have never sat down and really read what conservatively/libertarian inclined thinkers say about poverty, environment, choice, and government effects. I have no doubt that the simple-minded disgruntlement of some working class truck driver of "Why don't they get a job and work their ass off like me" is lacking in sophistication (or nuance) BUT it hardly represents the serious minded folks of the right. Conservo-libertarians such as Charles Murray (a one-time liberal idealist in the peace corp) or Marvin Olasky go far beyond the other unsophisticated notion that "Hey throw more tax money at the problem, they are victims".

Finally, MY view is not within the mainstream of right or left. I was raised with the ideology of 'the government can fix it' naivete of the sixites; I too applauded the newspaper headlines of the "war on poverty"; and it the wreckage of urban renewal and model cities I also saw how pointless it was. 50 years and 16 Trillion dollars later the poverty rate has hardly changed, and is the same as it was when I graduated high school in 1969. A half century is enough. I am sick of endless bromides, year after year, decade after decade ONLY to discover that things like Headstart or Affirmative Action either did nothing or harmed they were supposed to help.

My view is: a) there will always be an underclass, get used to it. b) the underclass is mostly made up of people that will never create more than they consume because in a modern economy they don't have the ability to do much more than simple physical labor. c) decide how much charity you want to provide and move on. Otherwise let them alone and make their own way.

Max, you've put a lot of effort into trying to represent your opinions in a straightforward way, and you deserve kudos for that. But people are never going to accept a narrative that presupposes that they are irrational, putting emotion above judgement, purely on the grounds that they disagree with you. There are people who have put at least as much thought into this issue as you have, and disagree with your position on grounds that they believe are reasonable.
And I will never going to get them to accept a narrative based on reason if they continue to rely on "feelings" as a source of knowledge. You do have a point though, to persuade people who rely on feelings one needs to devise "counter feelings" they can sympathize with...that said, the deeply ingrained resentment of the producer makes that almost impossible.

The mantra "leave me the fuck alone" does not persuade the meddlers to leave us alone.
 
Last edited:
Max, you've put a lot of effort into trying to represent your opinions in a straightforward way, and you deserve kudos for that. But people are never going to accept a narrative that presupposes that they are irrational, putting emotion above judgement, purely on the grounds that they disagree with you. There are people who have put at least as much thought into this issue as you have, and disagree with your position on grounds that they believe are reasonable.

While I run to buy coffee (a must) I will leave you with this, from Shelby Steele (see above):

What is white guilt? It is not a personal sense of remorse over past wrongs. White guilt is literally a vacuum of moral authority in matters of race, equality, and opportunity that comes from the association of mere white skin with America's historical racism. It is the stigmatization of whites and, more importantly, American institutions with the sin of racism. Under this stigma white individuals and American institutions must perpetually prove a negative--that they are not racist--to gain enough authority to function in matters of race, equality, and opportunity. If they fail to prove the negative, they will be seen as racists. Political correctness, diversity policies, and multiculturalism are forms of deference that give whites and institutions a way to prove the negative and win reprieve from the racist stigma....

Again, not my experience. As a white, rich, male, I speak on matters of racial equality and get listened to. I don't generally have to prove anything.

The other common denial of white guilt has to do with motive: "I don't support affirmative action because I'm guilty; I support it because I want to do what's fair." But the first test of sincere support is a demand that the policy be studied for effectiveness.

Well, as a behavioural scientist, I'm pretty sure it is effective.

And I'm not an institution, last I checked, nor am I acting on behalf of one, and nor are the other people I know who are also active in this area.

It's a plausible-sounding narrative, I guess, but I don't see it has much to do with reality.
 
Ms. Lake has always been reflective and mindful of competing arguments, so much so I think your attempt to discredit her by making her feelings "the problem" is a cruel and needless ploy.
The truth is often cruel max, but it is NEVER needless.

By the way, I am not unfamiliar with your watered down "re-education" techniques, having had a similar but far more intense exposure in a UC Berkeley education department course on multi-multiculturalism
I have no idea what you're talking about, but you appear to be getting carried away into your own private assumptions about who you think I am and what you think is going on here. I think you should step back and rethink those assumptions before we continue.

When you claim that "they shouldn't have to psychoanalyze you", really mean you'd LOVE to make her the subject and psychologically analyze her
No, what I really means is I'd love to discuss the issues themselves based on their merits and a dispassionate analysis of history without having to sugar coat every other sentence to avoid offending someone's sensibilities. I would afford Emily the exact same courtesy, which is why I originally wrote in bold: You are at least as sensitive about your past as black people are about their futures.

Do you suppose that conversation isn't going to trample on some hot-button issues for blacks? Do you suppose that the future of the black community is something black people are so afraid to discuss that they nearly always overreact to the slightest suggestion that they might be doing something wrong?
Do you think that this is the kind of forum where pandering to emotionalism is and private insecurities is probably not a productive use of text?
 
Crazy Eddie said:
"So, you started with an inherent advantage over everyone else that your family obtained by exploiting my family..."

If that was what people actually said and it was true, I really wouldn't have so much of a problem with it. But I have never once heard that.

No, it is always broader than that. It is never "your family" and "my family". It is always "your people" and "my people", usually referring to race, often "white" and "black". This is then applied to "whites" including people who have no such family history, are poor and disadvantaged, and even those who are recent immigrants and have no family history in your country at all. It is used to justify preferential treatment for everybody in the "black" (or other identified) category, including those who are already quite privileged and those who are recent immigrants and have no past family history in your country at all.

If we can start looking at individuals and their family histories, that would be a great leap forward... towards looking at individuals themselves.
But that's where the sensitivity comes in: white people who do not want to be associated with jim crow white supremacists get defensive and shut down the entire debate lest they actually be accused of doing something wrong. That makes it impossible to even discuss to what extent and in what context white privilege even exists, let alone how to deal with the consequences of it.

The reason race is a factor in the discussion is because race has been a factor in the historical outcomes we are seeing now. You can break it down further by family and individual and geographical region, which gives you a more accurate picture of how it all went down, but not if you omit the starting data points in the first place.
 
It's actually VERY relevant, which is explained in detail beginning with the very next sentence. I think you need to go back and re-read that post in its entirety BEFORE you start looking for rebuttal hooks.

How all this related to the OP is that, we must recognize that racism exists (something that the OP has yet to show anyone denies), and that the effects of racism continue to this day and will continue for generations, impacting group-level differences and creating more obstacles for the average black person than the average white person. However, it is fallacy to go from this to concluding than any bad outcome for a black person or any and every disparity between a sample of whites and blacks on any given variable is evidence of racism, especially racism by any of the more immediate actors in the situation rather than residual effects of historical racism.
That's kinda my point: largely due to historical hiring/firing trends, the black community had been the last to benefit from economic growth and the first to suffer from economic stagnation. The government programs that created room for upward mobility were accessible to only a few, those whose descendents now make up the black middle class today. Extrapolating from that, if those opportunities had been more widely available THEN, the problems of income and opportunity inequality wouldn't be so extreme TODAY.

On the one hand, the solution probably follows a similar pattern and would require some coordinated uplift of the working class to a standard of full and profitable employment. On the other hand, that stands as a cautionary tale IN GENERAL of what happens when you let entire communities go into economic freefall in times of hardship (Exhibit A: Detroit).

The RACIAL dimension of this is the extent to which "last hired/first fired" is still true of black people, and also the fact that black communities are more economically isolated than almost any other group in America.
 
Trimming for concision. If you feel I've trimmed something of import, please let me know.

The defensiveness occurs, in my opinion, because the topic is introduced in an accusatory manner. YOU have an UNFAIR advantage because YOUR people EXPLOITED MY people. The message being given is that YOU specifically did something BAD AND WRONG AND SHAMEFUL and that you have something that you shouldn't have and have no right to - that your having it is tantamount to theft because it is ill-gotten.
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. I'd like to be clear on that point, and not make this personal. It's reflective of how language works, and what is implied by word choice, what is inferred by the average person based on the connotation of the words chosen. In this case, what I'm keying off of to give my (admittedly subjective) translation are the terms that I bolded and turned red in the original.

Your sentence conveys to the listener that they personally (by use of the terms you, your family) have done something wrong (by use of the term exploited).

In our language, and in common usage, exploited implies that the one gains unfairly from another, specifically by abuse or neglect, by discrimination and intentional mistreatment, by taking advantage of another person. All of those are very negative actions. To tell someone that they have exploited someone is offensive. If I told you that you were exploiting someone, chances are you would find that offensive, and would leap to defend yourself - most humans would do so, especially if they believed themselves to be innocent of that charge.

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?

And because it's couched in divisive accusatory terms
If would be much easier to support that argument if it ACTUALLY WAS couched in divisive, accusatory terms.
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. The accusatory nature is inherent in the nature of the phrasing around "advantage over everyone else" and "exploiting my family". We've already gone through what is conveyed by the word exploit. The phrasing for "advantage over everyone else" similarly implies and unfair advantage, and unwarranted and undeserved advantage and the listener will nearly always infer that he is being accused of being unfair and bad and shameful. These are the emotions that are implied by the accusatory nature of that phrase.

This is in the nature of understanding not just the literal meaning of words, but also the sense with which people hear and interpret them, and the emotional loading that is carried with them. Language is far more nuanced and varied that Merriam-Webster can convey.

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. Shaming people into participating doesn't actually work very well. You need to inspire them, motivate them to be part of a solution.

If however, your objective to to get revenge or retribution, then please, carry on with your method.
 
You think the above was antagonistic?
In retrospect, I see that you had not yet begun to be antagonistic. I underestimated your capacity for unwarranted snark.
I'll take passive aggressive for $1000 Alex.

Oh... a daily double!!!

So this thread is alright for expressing why the poor trooden whites are suffering from the fatigue of alleged guilt over crimes against humanity hundreds of years ago, but we aren't allowed to address contemporary problems that may help explain why we see what we see today.

I don't understand why you are so antagonistic to my response.
If you've nothing of substance to add to the discussion, then there is very little reason for me to engage with you.
 
the anything but racism meme grows out of the colorblindness as a cure for racism belief. If we can just not see color, then there can be not racism.

Thank you for the reference, Athena.

As a child, I grew up in a mixed household, in a very racially diverse community. I was never "color blind", but race was never a consideration to me. As an adult, it took me a long time to understand why people thought that trying to be "color blind" could possibly be bad - to me it seemed like a good thing, it seemed like how it ought to be. It wasn't until I had participated in several discussions that I learned that what I thought was color-blindness wasn't what it actually was.

Willfully ignoring differences in treatment, and pretending that they don't exist, isn't helpful. Refusing to acknowledge systemic and institutional disparities doesn't address anything, and it won't magically change to an equitable system if just ignore it for long enough. Unfortunately, that's what being "color-blind" is all about... Just pretending it's not there, right in front of your face, and hoping that the elephant in the room won't step on you.

As a kid, I certainly noticed skin color. Just like I noticed hair color and eye color and shoe size. It was a natural variation. It didn't carry any particular meaning, however. I didn't grow up with any preconceived notions about "black people" or "asian people" or "hispanic people" - they're all part of my family, so as far as I was concerned, they're MY people! Some people like strawberry ice cream, some people like brussels sprouts, and some people have darker skin than I do.

I don't think every interaction should always be about race. People are more than the color of their skin. But it's also not something that should be ignored. Because until the system itself is addressed, then the system itself isn't seeing "MY people". And that saddens me.
 
That's kinda my point: largely due to historical hiring/firing trends, the black community had been the last to benefit from economic growth and the first to suffer from economic stagnation. The government programs that created room for upward mobility were accessible to only a few, those whose descendents now make up the black middle class today. Extrapolating from that, if those opportunities had been more widely available THEN, the problems of income and opportunity inequality wouldn't be so extreme TODAY.

What's happened is the black community has become divided. You have those that look to the future and go to school and do well. AA makes the job market easier but they would do fine without it. Then you have those that look only to the present, they don't do well.

You see the same pattern in other communities but without the bogeyman of discrimination to blame, it's more of a spectrum rather than a division.

The RACIAL dimension of this is the extent to which "last hired/first fired" is still true of black people, and also the fact that black communities are more economically isolated than almost any other group in America.

I do agree last hired/first fired is a problem. That's how unions work, though. Blame them, not racism.
 
Willfully ignoring differences in treatment, and pretending that they don't exist, isn't helpful. Refusing to acknowledge systemic and institutional disparities doesn't address anything, and it won't magically change to an equitable system if just ignore it for long enough.

Yes. We should not ignore racism when it rears its head. We should not tolerate double standards or special treatment, and where racist discrimination is suspected it should be investigated.

Unfortunately, that's what being "color-blind" is all about... Just pretending it's not there, right in front of your face, and hoping that the elephant in the room won't step on you.

I don't think that has to be so. Being colour blind means to me that you don't give special or different treatment based on race. It is exactly how we should all operate.

The problem is that we don't. And to fix that some call for more of the same, but switch the targets around and believe this new discrimination will counterweigh the original.

Problem with that is that individuals are not interchangeable and identical parts making up the group averages.

And punishing A for something B did just because both are letters will make A pretty upset and maybe become racist against nonletters.

When you justify discrimination by presenting it as counterbalance to other discrimination, you justify that other discrimination.

Colour blindness should be the goal, and we should all be on guard for when it is violated. We will never get beyond racism so long as we keep pushing race.
 
Last edited:
Colour blindness should be the goal,

Don't agree.

Race is about more than just skin colour, it's also about social norms and backgrounds. If you have a job that involving working Hanukkah but not Easter, it's going to be more of a problem for a particular ethnic group. If you have a workplace that expects women to dress in a particular way, that's going to impact some groups more than others. Even something as simple as expecting people to 'keep their cool' when they're upset, or defer to authority in a particular way, will put more strain on some groups than on others.

Colour blindness sounds like a good idea, and is certainly better than simply putting all your judgement into skin colour, but a ultimately, if you want a level playing field, then you need to question whether your own social norms are the only way to get things done. Allowing diversity, in approach, in attitude, in background, is a better way of allowing everyone to play to their own strengths. Otherwise, no matter how 'colour blind' you are, you still end up rating people on how well they can imitate the norms of white males.
 
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.

Laissez-faire racism and other forms of covert, more institutionalized racism live and thrive beneath a veneer of colorblindness. And understand. Colorblindness proponents aren't just talking. About being blind to darker skin, but white skin as will, thus making not only critiques of the effects of covert forms of racism mute, but also critiques involving white privilege and white denial.
 
Race is about more than just skin colour, it's also about social norms and backgrounds. If you have a job that involving working Hanukkah but not Easter, it's going to be more of a problem for a particular ethnic group. If you have a workplace that expects women to dress in a particular way, that's going to impact some groups more than others. Even something as simple as expecting people to 'keep their cool' when they're upset, or defer to authority in a particular way, will put more strain on some groups than on others.

You are talking about culture, not race. Any "race" or "colour" can be raised in any culture. The only thing that would get in the way of that is racism.

Oo you say that there are racial differences in who is able to keep their cool? Even that were true, I don't see why special rules should apply. We don't do that within racial groups, the more irritable don't get more lenient laws, so why do it between them?

I also do totally disagree that people should get special or preferential treatment based on culture. If you want different rules, go find another country, or change the rules in the one you are in for everyone. If a rule exists that people are not allowed to cover their heads, and muslim women are upset about it, I would back them in challenging the law, and demanding a rational basis for it. Outside of high security areas, I don't think there is one. I think they should win. Then I would apply the result evenly to all. If she can wear a hajib, I should be allowed to wear a baseball cap if I want to.

Allowing diversity, in approach, in attitude, in background, is a better way of allowing everyone to play to their own strengths.

Then do that on an individual basis. If somebody has special needs, say a fellow in a wheel chair, and needs preferential parking, it makes sense for him because of his condition. It does not make sense to apply the same to others who share other characteristics with him.

Otherwise, no matter how 'colour blind' you are, you still end up rating people on how well they can imitate the norms of white males.

Change the norms to reflect the society, and be evenhanded in doing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom