And Back to Racial Discrimination

[RDKirk]

America is racially diverse.

So America either diversifies opportunity for full participation in all aspects of the society ... or America allows significant portions of the society to be non-diversified, ... which will breed its own problems.

America just made the commitment to work on eliminating exclusionist policies in its society some 60 years ago. And, yes, some progress has been made. For example, we have had one president, out of 45, that was not a white male. Anybody who thinks that a society which practiced blatant discrimination based on race and gender for 500 years, ... has completely turned that corner in 60 years is fooling themselves ... or has no sense of the lessons of history.

White men still occupy the vast majority of the seats of power and influence in the country.

If everyone in the country started out on an equal basis, as our nation's ideals declare should be the case, ... then white men would have some justification to reason that, somehow, they are entitled to their obvious advantage in this society. But, of course, everybody knows that for 500 years, the society itself carved out that entitlement for them, regardless of their worthiness to occupy that advantage.

One of the saddest things to see is advantaged persons ... whining that they are afraid of losing their advantage ... and compete in society on an equal basis with their fellow citizens ...

What is necessary now is both the perception and reality of fair procedure, not equal outcome (as is called "equity" in current parlance).

Yes, there are people calling for "equal outcome," but if you look carefully, that call originates and is perpetuated by white women.

Here is a phenomenon I see in the Air Force. Back in the late 60s and early 70s, blacks in the Air Force were angry and rioting because of the perception and reality that promotions and assignments were structurally racist (that is, the structure permitted personal racism to operate and flourish). The Air Force--in the ham-fisted way the military can do things--changed the structure to permit personal racism to operate. The new system immediately dismissed the perception of unfair procedure and very quickly changed the reality. At no point did the Air Force ever achieve equal outcome (aka these days, "equity"). But blacks were happy with fair procedure.

Women began entering "non-traditional" fields in the latter 70s in large numbers. My own field, intelligence," had been a non-traditional field for women, not because women couldn't do it, but simply by its proximity to the combat operators. We worked on the flightline, and horrors, we can't have a woman on the flightlline. But by 1979, I had noted that my intelligence wing had ramped up from 5% shiny new woman 2nd lieutenants to 25% woman 2nd lieutenants. I wondered then what the percentage of women colonels there would be by 1999.

Something changed in the culture by then, though. Or it was something different for women than it had been for blacks. This is how it was manifested: All of a sudden there was a push for all-women crews in those non-traditional fields. There had never been a big deal made about "the first all-black B52 crew" or "the first all-black missile crew" or "the first all-black maintenance crew." There had never been a push or a celebration of the replacement of white men with black men.

This "replacement theory" is a different thing seen in the current wave of the feminist movement that was not part of the black civil rights movement and not even part of any black separatist movement. But it's apparent in the Air Force (which is the only military service in which such a thing wouldn't be laughable) and it's apparent in the civilian community, particularly in academia and media. This is not about fair procedure at all, but about replacement.

Look carefully at who is actually stirring the pot.

 

[RDKirk]

The first thing to do is to question the preconceived notions we have about other people.

It's been quoted, "We don't know people, we know stories about people."

 

[rturner76]

I had sort of assumed that liberal-minded people had got beyond that. I am more interested in practical measures to ameliorate discriminatory practices (conscious or not, deliberate or incidental) towards minorities and under-represented groups, in employment, selection for promotion and so on.

I guess I should have said "as a liberal, I try to challenge MY preconceived notions."

 

[Whyayeman]

I do too, rturner! My mother brought me up with certain attitudes. In her defence her own upbringing was as a child of the Empire on which the sun never sank (and it was true in her day - and mine). We Brits have quite a burden of preconceived notions!

However flawed, quota systems advanced on the status quo. We have never had anything quite like that, possibly because there were relatively few slaves actually brought into Georgian Britain. What we have is a public awareness of discriminatory practices in our commercial and cultural institutions.

We have begun to deal with the legacy of slavery as an engine of wealth and development - and this is bringing latent racism to the surface in august institutions like Oxford University and our beloved National Trust.

In a couple of hours our national football team will 'take the knee' before the kick-off against Albania in a World Cup game. There will be some boos, no doubt, on the terraces of Wembley Stadium.

 

[Bradskii]

American and British societies are not as egalitarian as many liberal-minded people want them to be. It is not hard to see the problems and pitfalls resulting from positive discrimination towards minorities and under-represented groups, in employment, selection for promotion and so on. It is not hard to see the motivation either. It is also easy to spot the resentments such policies can stir up.

What should liberal men and women of good will do? Doing nothing seems supine - and illiberal.

Maybe someone could formulate a theory about race that incorporates all you've mentioned. It's critical I think. Any idea what we could call it?

 

[RDKirk]

Maybe someone could formulate a theory about race that incorporates all you've mentioned. It's critical I think. Any idea what we could call it?

What's necessary for most people of honest intention is a transparent and easily perceivable fair procedure.

And then, to reject systems based on anything other than what a fair procedure would produce. A fair procedure need not produce an equal outcome (the current meaning of "equity" being espoused by current academics).

However, the fair procedure concept has to occur all the way down the line, such as a fair procedure for distributing school budgets in the city.

 

[Ana the Ist]

All of that is rubbish from the third paragraph.

It's a guess based on the way things are going.

I'm not sure exactly what you objected to.

What do you think the consequences of these sort of hiring practices becoming widespread are?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What's necessary for most people of honest intention is a transparent and easily perceivable fair procedure.

As in giving everyone the same chance? Treating them the same??

And then, to reject systems based on anything other than what a fair procedure would produce. A fair procedure need not produce an equal outcome (the current meaning of "equity" being espoused by current academics).

What's the indicator for a fair procedure?

However, the fair procedure concept has to occur all the way down the line, such as a fair procedure for distributing school budgets in the city.

Since you chose that example....can you describe a fair procedure in it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

America is racially diverse.

So America either diversifies opportunity for full participation in all aspects of the society ... or America allows significant portions of the society to be non-diversified, ... which will breed its own problems.

I'm not sure what you mean by "diversifies opportunities"?

We all have the same rights, the same ability to pursue our opportunities as we want. Some people have more advantages than others, but that's going to happen regardless of anything we do.

America just made the commitment to work on eliminating exclusionist policies in its society some 60 years ago. And, yes, some progress has been made. For example, we have had one president, out of 45, that was not a white male. Anybody who thinks that a society which practiced blatant discrimination based on race and gender for 500 years, ... has completely turned that corner in 60 years is fooling themselves ... or has no sense of the lessons of history.

Agreed.

White men still occupy the vast majority of the seats of power and influence in the country.

Sure, if we're talking political power.

If everyone in the country started out on an equal basis, as our nation's ideals declare should be the case, ... then white men would have some justification to reason that, somehow, they are entitled to their obvious advantage in this society. But, of course, everybody knows that for 500 years, the society itself carved out that entitlement for them, regardless of their worthiness to occupy that advantage.

What advantage do you think the average white man has?

One of the saddest things to see is advantaged persons ... whining that they are afraid of losing their advantage ... and compete in society on an equal basis with their fellow citizens ...

Well here's the thing...you're making an assumption to justify an action.

Let's try to think really hard about this "advantage" you think white men have.

What kind of evidence would disprove it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

American and British societies are not as egalitarian as many liberal-minded people want them to be.

Sure.

It is not hard to see the problems and pitfalls resulting from positive discrimination towards minorities and under-represented groups, in employment, selection for promotion and so on. It is not hard to see the motivation either. It is also easy to spot the resentments such policies can stir up.

Sure.

What should liberal men and women of good will do? Doing nothing seems supine - and illiberal.

Well that depends, right?

You look at what your values are.

I don't support racial discrimination....ever. I think that's a bad idea that never works out.

I don't support condemned or compelled speech. I think it's a pretty awful idea.

What you value depends upon how you can approach a problem.

The weird thing is, I don't know what the left values. I can't tell. Even if I were to ask, I don't think they know. It's ideology...they do as they are told now. They simply obey.

That's not an encouraging thing.

 

[A_Thinker]

What advantage do you think the average white man has?

I live in Indiana.

Indiana has 92 counties.

Of those 92 counties, there are maybe a dozen where a black man could go to pursue a successful life.

All 92 of those counties are available to the average white guy to move to and lead a successful life ...

 

[Ana the Ist]

What is necessary now is both the perception and reality of fair procedure, not equal outcome (as is called "equity" in current parlance).

Yes, there are people calling for "equal outcome," but if you look carefully, that call originates and is perpetuated by white women.

Here is a phenomenon I see in the Air Force. Back in the late 60s and early 70s, blacks in the Air Force were angry and rioting because of the perception and reality that promotions and assignments were structurally racist (that is, the structure permitted personal racism to operate and flourish). The Air Force--in the ham-fisted way the military can do things--changed the structure to permit personal racism to operate. The new system immediately dismissed the perception of unfair procedure and very quickly changed the reality. At no point did the Air Force ever achieve equal outcome (aka these days, "equity"). But blacks were happy with fair procedure.

Women began entering "non-traditional" fields in the latter 70s in large numbers. My own field, intelligence," had been a non-traditional field for women, not because women couldn't do it, but simply by its proximity to the combat operators. We worked on the flightline, and horrors, we can't have a woman on the flightlline. But by 1979, I had noted that my intelligence wing had ramped up from 5% shiny new woman 2nd lieutenants to 25% woman 2nd lieutenants. I wondered then what the percentage of women colonels there would be by 1999.

Something changed in the culture by then, though. Or it was something different for women than it had been for blacks. This is how it was manifested: All of a sudden there was a push for all-women crews in those non-traditional fields. There had never been a big deal made about "the first all-black B52 crew" or "the first all-black missile crew" or "the first all-black maintenance crew." There had never been a push or a celebration of the replacement of white men with black men.

This "replacement theory" is a different thing seen in the current wave of the feminist movement that was not part of the black civil rights movement and not even part of any black separatist movement. But it's apparent in the Air Force (which is the only military service in which such a thing wouldn't be laughable) and it's apparent in the civilian community, particularly in academia and media. This is not about fair procedure at all, but about replacement.

Look carefully at who is actually stirring the pot.

Who do you think is stirring the pot?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I live in Indiana.

Indiana has 92 counties.

Of those 92 counties, there are maybe a dozen where a black man could go to pursue a successful life.

Why? I'm from Ohio originally. I've been to Indiana. What is going on in all those counties?

 

[A_Thinker]

Why? I'm from Ohio originally. I've been to Indiana. What is going on in all those counties?

They're not particularly welcoming to blacks.

Indiana was one of the prime locations for the KKK. That legacy still continues.

At my brother's workplace, recruitment flyers for the KKK are regularly distributed ...

Fishers residents awaken to Ku Klux Klan fliers on their lawns | KKK fliers strewn across neighborhoods in Beech Grove

 

[Ana the Ist]

I do too, rturner! My mother brought me up with certain attitudes. In her defence her own upbringing was as a child of the Empire on which the sun never sank (and it was true in her day - and mine). We Brits have quite a burden of preconceived notions!

However flawed, quota systems advanced on the status quo. We have never had anything quite like that, possibly because there were relatively few slaves actually brought into Georgian Britain. What we have is a public awareness of discriminatory practices in our commercial and cultural institutions.

We have begun to deal with the legacy of slavery as an engine of wealth and development - and this is bringing latent racism to the surface in august institutions like Oxford University and our beloved National Trust.

In a couple of hours our national football team will 'take the knee' before the kick-off against Albania in a World Cup game. There will be some boos, no doubt, on the terraces of Wembley Stadium.

Didn't your government come out with a report showing that young white men are getting the worst outcomes, generally?

Like the last year or two.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They're not particularly welcoming to blacks.

Really?

Indiana was one of the prime locations for the KKK. That legacy still continues.

At my brother's workplace, recruitment flyers for the KKK are regularly distributed ...

I always wondered where the KKK went.

 

[RDKirk]

They're not particularly welcoming to blacks.

Indiana was one of the prime locations for the KKK. That legacy still continues.

At my brother's workplace, recruitment flyers for the KKK are regularly distributed ...

Fishers residents awaken to Ku Klux Klan fliers on their lawns | KKK fliers strewn across neighborhoods in Beech Grove

Southern Ohio, southern Illinois, southern Indiana.

An interesting difference between Illinois and Texas: I'm a black gun owner. I've been shooting since my teen years in Oklahoma, getting serious enough about it in the 80s that I was handloading my own ammunition.

When I was in Illinois, entering a gun store or going to a gun range was a distinct "what are you doing here?" unpleasant and unwelcoming experience from the white gun-owning establishment.

In Texas, greatly OTOH, "You like guns? Well, we do too! Howdy, partner!"

 

[RDKirk]

Who do you think is stirring the pot?

Mostly radical white feminists--the most numerous with most of the most influential positions in academia, whose teachings over the past 50 years have bled into other radical fringes. They're goal is to upturn the "white male patriarchy," and they seek "intersection" and feign "alliance" with every group that isn't part of the white male patriarchy.

Of course, there are other white women who oppose that, which is why a slim majority of white women voted for Trump.

 

[bekkilyn]

Mostly radical white feminists--the most numerous with most of the most influential positions in academia, whose teachings over the past 50 years have bled into other radical fringes. They're goal is to upturn the "white male patriarchy," and they seek "intersection" and feign "alliance" with every group that isn't part of the white male patriarchy.

Of course, there are other white women who oppose that, which is why a slim majority of white women voted for Trump.

I'd suggest that these are probably liberal white feminists, considering that libfems have put in a large amount of effort getting radfems cancelled just like everyone else who disagrees in any way with any aspect of liberal politics. Doesn't mean that you would necessarily agree with radfems, but that they really don't have a whole lot of major influence these days compared to libfems.

 

[RDKirk]

I'd suggest that these are probably liberal white feminists, considering that libfems have put in a large amount of effort getting radfems cancelled just like everyone else who disagrees in any way with any aspect of liberal politics. Doesn't mean that you would necessarily agree with radfems, but that they really don't have a whole lot of major influence these days compared to libfems.

What is the difference?