"On White Privilege"

[Ana the Ist]

No, but there might be other ways to ensure a level of fairness. Make promotion decisions transparent, with reasons for the decision for a particular candidate being documented (in terms of education, experience, personality etc), rather than simply being a personal decision.

For example. If we think about it I'm sure we can manage to be a bit creative about this sort of thing.

Why should "society" get to decide who a private business should hire? Why should they get to choose the criteria? Is that fair to the business owner.?

There's other problems with your suggestion...but let's just start with this one.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are some things you can't change; how smart someone is is one of them. But what access they have to education, to make the most of whatever smarts they have, is not.

Since, as I understand it, America's education system is grossly inequitable, sounds to me like you've got a hell of a long way to go before you can say well, we've done everything we can, the rest is up to you.

Well funding for schools is largely based upon local taxes. You can't squeeze blood from a stone...so places that are dominated by low income housing or public housing aren't likely to have very good schools.

Personally, I'm all for a national education system...but many many many people aren't. They think everything is better with less government involvement and would never vote for any such thing.

Frankly though, education is one of those problems that everyone wants fixed...but no one wants to do the fixing. It's kind of a long story to a non-American.

 

[nightflight]

No, but there might be other ways to ensure a level of fairness. Make promotion decisions transparent, with reasons for the decision for a particular candidate being documented (in terms of education, experience, personality etc), rather than simply being a personal decision.

For example. If we think about it I'm sure we can manage to be a bit creative about this sort of thing.

Agents of the government will be creative as well, you can count on that.

 

[Paidiske]

Why should "society" get to decide who a private business should hire? Why should they get to choose the criteria? Is that fair to the business owner.?

There's other problems with your suggestion...but let's just start with this one.

Because businesses operate within society and should be its servants, not its masters? We recognise this when we put in place things like a minimum wage. Why should businesses have carte blanche to be oppressive?

But we could start with any public service first, if that's your biggest objection.

 

[whatbogsends]

And this is where I disagree with a previous poster, and would say that causes do matter. Say we take your example and say that black applicants have a lower average GPA; why is that? Unless we assume they're just stupider on average (please tell me no one assumes that?), there must be a problem earlier in the process. Do these people need more support as students? What form should that support take, to allow them to achieve to their potential?

Padiske, while i certainly don't assume blacks are stupider, i do, absolutely believe there are differences between demographic groups.

While some might suggest that i am sexist to insist that, as a group, men are bigger (height and weight) and stronger (chest strength, bench press) than women, statistics will show you that this is 100% true. Does this mean there can't be a woman bigger and stronger than any man? Absolutely not. But it one would expect, the average man to be bigger than the average woman.

Similarly, i believe it is obvious that there are differences in racial groups. I can't say whether these differences are genetic, cultural, or derived from something else, but when people deny that *any* differences exist, how are we possibly able to quantify, assess, and address the problem of "white privilege"?

I posed these question in post 500 of this thread, and not one person who insists that all poor black outcomes are derived from "white privilege" or racial bias has tried to answer it. I'll lay out the problem and the question which drives to the heart of that problem below:

Perceived problem: Whites, and specifically white men, are over represented in positions of power and prestige.

Argument by white privilege advocates: The over representation of white people in positions of power and prestige is a reflection on inherent advantage given to white people by white people. If no "white privilege" existed, then blacks would occupy a number of positions of power and prestige as their proportion in the general population.

Question: Is it not possible that there are, in fact, other racial factors (differences) that come into play?

Additional questions, the answers to which helps provide an answer to the much more general question, above: In both the NFL and NBA blacks are very much over represented relative to their proportion in the general population, and whites are very much under represented relative to their proportion in the general population. Are these disproportions a results of some sort of "pro-black" racism, or is it not possible, that there are other racial factors (differences) that come into play? If the measure of of a level playing field is the equality of results (as opposed to ...shudder...genetic differences), shouldn't we then expect these arenas to also have populations proportionate to the general population?

Maybe, but why should "life" include disadvantage for being a woman or being black? Why can't we work to make it more fair? To just shrug and refuse to so much as care about injustice seems pretty pathetic, honestly.

To assume any and all disparity in outcomes is a result of racial or sexist bias is problematic. There are differences between the sexes. There are differences between races and cultures. This doesn't mean one race or sex is "better" than another, but they are different.

There is scientific backing to the observation that there are, indeed, racial differences. Here are a couple of links to articles which reference scientific studies revolving around race:

http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/humanities/claims-genetic-race-differences-rise-again

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because businesses operate within society and should be its servants, not its masters? We recognise this when we put in place things like a minimum wage. Why should businesses have carte blanche to be oppressive?

But we could start with any public service first, if that's your biggest objection.

The purpose of a business is to provide a service or product....how it does this should be it's decision. While obviously we cannot have a business poisoning people, or setting them on fire....and we have collectively bargained for things like a minimum wage and 8 hour work day....that doesn't mean we get to take the business from whomever built it and say "now you're a public servant!"

So yes....telling a business who they can or can't hire does bother me a bit. It's not my biggest objection though.

My biggest concern would be "who decides the criteria for employment?" Does work experience count more than education? Does communication skills count as much as attitude? What about subjective factors like likability? Ambition?

Who's the wizard who decides these things? Because their choices will determine a lot for the future of a society.

 

[Paidiske]

Perceived problem: Whites, and specifically white men, are over represented in positions of power and prestige.

Argument by white privilege advocates: The over representation of white people in positions of power and prestige is a reflection on inherent advantage given to white people by white people. If no "white privilege" existed, then blacks would occupy a number of positions of power and prestige as their proportion in the general population.

Question: Is it not possible that there are, in fact, other racial factors (differences) that come into play?

Additional questions, the answers to which helps provide an answer to the much more general question, above: In both the NFL and NBA blacks are very much over represented relative to their proportion in the general population, and whites are very much under represented relative to their proportion in the general population. Are these disproportions a results of some sort of "pro-black" racism, or is it not possible, that there are other racial factors (differences) that come into play? If the measure of of a level playing field is the equality of results (as opposed to ...shudder...genetic differences), shouldn't we then expect these arenas to also have populations proportionate to the general population?

Here's the problem I have with the way you've structured this. You've taken one area - sport - in which different physical traits lead to different outcomes. (Fine). And then you've argued that because we have different outcomes in a field like that, that that is then normal and appropriate in areas which are not about physical traits. Do we really think that there are genetic or racial differences in people's ability in fields like medicine, law, and so on?

Because I don't (nor do I see anything in the articles you linked to support that claim; quite the opposite). I think the reason those fields are more dominated by whites has to do with the concentration of wealth and decision-making power in the hands of whites, who don't adapt systems and processes to allow those with less resources to access them at the same rate.

 

[ScottA]

Sorry, I don't believe our society is structured either by God or the devil, but mostly by flawed human decisions. And we can improve on it.

We can see that is true, because we have done so before! We have banned slavery, given women the vote, etc etc. Why should we think we have reached the point at which we can no longer improve our social structures?

But of course...and so I suspect that you will not see the similarity of that way of thinking, to him...

"who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.' 2 Thessalonians 2:4

 

[Paidiske]

But of course...and so I suspect that you will not see the similarity of that way of thinking, to him...

"who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.' 2 Thessalonians 2:4

No, I don't. I see it as much more in keeping with this: "Thus says the Lord of Hosts: Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another; do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the alien or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another." (Zechariah 7:9-10).

The prophetic tradition again and again offers us examples of the peoples being called to create more just societies; even Nineveh repented at Jonah's message! And yet we who claim to be Christian absolve ourselves of the need to respond to the same call.

 

[ScottA]

No, I don't. I see it as much more in keeping with this: "Thus says the Lord of Hosts: Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another; do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the alien or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another." (Zechariah 7:9-10).

The prophetic tradition again and again offers us examples of the peoples being called to create more just societies; even Nineveh repented at Jonah's message! And yet we who claim to be Christian absolve ourselves of the need to respond to the same call.

I am not speaking of your desire to show kindness and mercy, etc. and do agree with you on that. But we are not talking about responding to God's message (as it was with Nineveh), and let's not forget that you just claimed that you did not "believe our society is structured either by God (or the devil)" anyway. No - obviously you are hearing rather from "society" and seem to think that God has no control or design in the matter - so "society" should step in.

Well, for the record, it is NOT God's plan to make "society" "more just", as you say, but to make His strength perfect in weakness.

So, do your good works, as will I - but seeking "society" first will accomplish nothing. Nor is it our good service to take up judging part of society, for the sake of the other part. Love your neighbor, and let God be Judge.

 

[whatbogsends]

Here's the problem I have with the way you've structured this. You've taken one area - sport - in which different physical traits lead to different outcomes. (Fine). And then you've argued that because we have different outcomes in a field like that, that that is then normal and appropriate in areas which are not about physical traits. Do we really think that there are genetic or racial differences in people's ability in fields like medicine, law, and so on?

Because I don't (nor do I see anything in the articles you linked to support that claim; quite the opposite). I think the reason those fields are more dominated by whites has to do with the concentration of wealth and decision-making power in the hands of whites, who don't adapt systems and processes to allow those with less resources to access them at the same rate.

So you think it's reasonable that people of different races have different predominant physical traits, but it's unreasonable that people of different races have different mental traits. Quite frankly, i think that is absurd on its face. The brain is a organ, just like any other organ in the human body. It is just as much a physical trait as any other muscle or organ.

Just as it's absolutely undisputed that male and female brains differ:

"Females and males maintain unique brain characteristics throughout life. Male brains, for instance, are about 10% larger than female brains. But bigger doesn't necessarily mean smarter.

Disparities in how certain brain substances are distributed may be more revealing. Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains. That's not all. "The frontal area of the cortex and the temporal area of the cortex are more precisely organized in women, and are bigger in volume," Geary tells WebMD. This difference in form may explain a lasting functional advantage that females seem to have over males: dominant language skills."

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ?page=2

Studies have also shown differences in cognitive ability between races:

"THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY
...
Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute. A meta-analytic review by Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001) showed it also holds for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT; N 2.4 million) and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE; N 2.3 million), as well as for tests for job applicants in corporate settings (N 0.5 million) and in the military (N 0.4 million). Because test scores are the best predictor of economic success in Western society (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), these group differences have important societal outcomes (R. A. Gordon, 1997; Gottfredson, 1997). The question that still remains is whether the cause of group differences in average IQ is purely social, economic, and cultural or whether genetic factors are also involved. Following publication of The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association (APA) established an 11-person Task Force (Neisser et al., 1996) to evaluate the book’s conclusions. Based on their review of twin and other kinship studies, the Task Force for the most part agreed with Jensen’s (1969) Harvard Educational Review article and The Bell Curve, that within the White population the heritability of IQ is “around .75” (p. 85). As to the cause of the mean Black–White group difference, however, the Task Force concluded: “There is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation” (p. 97)."

The study summarizes:

"A prevailing worldview throughout history has been that economic, cultural, and other environmental forces are the preeminent causes of group and individual behavior. Modern social science has typically taken this perspective and promoted the idea that all babies are born more or less equally endowed in intelligence and learning ability. It followed therefore that inequalities were the result of social, economic, and political forces. This worldview generated many strategies for intervention in the home, the workplace, the mass media, the criminal justice system, and even the entire social–economic system. Some have been effective and are almost universally accepted, whereas others have failed and produced only shattered expectations, resentment, and interethnic hostility. The major policy implication of the research reviewed here is that adopting an 284 RUSHTON AND JENSEN evolutionary–genetic outlook does not undermine our dedication to democratic ideals. As E. O. Wilson (1978) aptly noted: “We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm freedom and dignity” (p. 52). He went on to quote the sociologist Bressler (1968): “An ideology that tacitly appeals to biological equality as a condition for human emancipation corrupts the idea of freedom. Moreover, it encourages decent men to tremble at the prospect of ‘inconvenient’ findings that may emerge in future scientific research” (E. O. Wilson, 1978, p. 52). Denial of any genetic component in human variation, including between groups, is not only poor science, it is likely to be injurious both to unique individuals and to the complex structure of societies."

https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

Did you read the article i cited in the previous post? One part of that article talks about different IQ averages for different demographic groups.

"Explaining Ashkenazi IQ
A second instance of very recent human evolution may well be in evidence in European Jews, particularly the Ashkenazim of northern and central Europe. In proportion to their population, Jews have made outsize contributions to Western civilization. A simple metric is that of Nobel prizes: Though Jews constitute only 0.2% of the world’s population, they won 14% of Nobel prizes in the first half of the 20th century, 29% in the second and so far 32% in the present century. There is something here that requires explanation. If Jewish success were purely cultural, such as hectoring mothers or a zeal for education, others should have been able to do as well by copying such cultural practices. It’s therefore reasonable to ask if genetic pressures in Jews’ special history may have enhanced their cognitive skills.
...
As Jews adapted to a cognitively demanding niche, their abilities increased to the point that the average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is, at 110 to 115, the highest of any known ethnic group. The population geneticists Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran have calculated that, assuming a high heritability of intelligence, Ashkenazi IQ could have risen by 15 points in just 500 years. Ashkenazi Jews first appear in Europe around 900 AD, and Jewish cognitive skills may have been increasing well before then.

The emergence of high cognitive ability among the Ashkenazim, if genetically based, is of interest both in itself and as an instance of natural selection shaping a population within the very recent past."

http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

It's certainly an unpopular subject in today's politically correct world, but the facts are the facts. This isn't about race X being better than race Y, but it does speak to the relevant discussion in that, unequal outcomes are not necessarily the results of a social bias.

That being said, if you actually read my original post where i posed the question i referenced, i have said, that i do believe a "white privilege" exists. There certainly were and are systemic biases in favor of white men. That being said, not all unequal outcomes are the result of that bias, and the question is immensely more complex than the white privilege protagonists portray.

 

[Paidiske]

and let's not forget that you just claimed that you did not "believe our society is structured either by God (or the devil)" anyway. No - obviously you are hearing rather from "society" and seem to think that God has no control or design in the matter - so "society" should step in.

Well, for the record, it is NOT God's plan to make "society" "more just", as you say, but to make His strength perfect in weakness.

I think God lets us have free will. We don't live in a theocracy and our society is not structured as God would structure it. Nor is it structured as the devil would structure it, since it has redeeming features. It's an expression of our humanity, in which fallenness and grace both reside.

I also think God calls us to influence our society in keeping with His character (which is just, and merciful, and so forth). If you don't think so then we probably don't have a basis for building any sort of shared agenda.

So you think it's reasonable that people of different races have different predominant physical traits, but it's unreasonable that people of different races have different mental traits. Quite frankly, i think that is absurd on its face.

I'm amazed that anyone would so frankly own such obvious classic racism. As above, if that's really what you believe, I don't think this conversation has anywhere to go.

 

[SummerMadness]

I'm amazed that anyone would so frankly own such obvious classic racism. As above, if that's really what you believe, I don't think this conversation has anywhere to go.

People still think race is a scientific thing, so I'm never surprised when I hear such racist ignorance.

 

[whatbogsends]

I think God lets us have free will. We don't live in a theocracy and our society is not structured as God would structure it. Nor is it structured as the devil would structure it, since it has redeeming features. It's an expression of our humanity, in which fallenness and grace both reside.

I also think God calls us to influence our society in keeping with His character (which is just, and merciful, and so forth). If you don't think so then we probably don't have a basis for building any sort of shared agenda.

I'm amazed that anyone would so frankly own such obvious classic racism. As above, if that's really what you believe, I don't think this conversation has anywhere to go.

So, instead of addressing the scientific studies, we label it "racism" and shut down discussion.

 

[ScottA]

I think God lets us have free will. We don't live in a theocracy and our society is not structured as God would structure it. Nor is it structured as the devil would structure it, since it has redeeming features. It's an expression of our humanity, in which fallenness and grace both reside.

I also think God calls us to influence our society in keeping with His character (which is just, and merciful, and so forth). If you don't think so then we probably don't have a basis for building any sort of shared agenda.

There you go again, thinking you know God's business better than Him.

 

[SummerMadness]

So, instead of addressing the scientific studies, we label it "racism" and shut down discussion.

Race is not scientific, that's where you're wrong.

 

[nightflight]

Race is not scientific, that's where you're wrong.

There are no differences between population groups?

 

[Paidiske]

So, instead of addressing the scientific studies, we label it "racism" and shut down discussion.

The scientific studies establish no basis on which to believe that we should accept inequitable treatment of people based on race.

There you go again, thinking you know God's business better than Him.

Better than Him? Can you demonstrate, from a sound exposition of Scripture, where I am incorrect about

- human society as a construct in which both good and bad are expressed, with the potential to improve
- God calling Christians to work for the good of their society?

 

[nightflight]

The scientific studies establish no basis on which to believe that we should accept inequitable treatment of people based on race.

Who said that?

 

[Paidiske]

Who said that?

Isn't that what whatbogsends was trying to argue? Races are different, so that makes the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of one race perfectly fine, because obviously they're genetically geared to it. Can't argue with genetics, can we?

Man, it hurt my brain just to type that.