"On White Privilege"

[Ana the Ist]

Just that part of it. As I said, I'm not interested in assigning blame or focusing on causes. I'm more interested in discussing where we go from here.

Well then perhaps a good starting point for us would be to describe "here". What, in your words, is the problem? How did you come to the conclusion that it's a problem? No need to include causes in your reply.

Yup. The problem didn't "magically disappear," as you said. Someone recognized that there may be some prejudices involved, unconscious though they may be, reexamined the situation and took steps to try and avoid old preconceptions.

He didn't dwell on why those preconceptions existed, he just readjusted his point of view and moved forward.

It's that simplification that I think is naive. I don't believe that our employer won't "dwell on why those preconceptions existed". He'll either rationalize them if he does have them...or dismiss them if he believes he doesn't.

Many things can't be seen, that doesn't mean they're imaginary.

It doesn't mean they're real either.

Since we're having fun with analogies here, if there's a dead cow in the middle of the road, how important is it to find out how it got there? You either clear it out of the way, or go around it.

When faced with the problems of institutional racial bias, sometimes you just have to accept that it's there, and find a way to clear the path, or find a way around it.

The reason this analogy is bad is the same reason your house fire analogy is bad. Institutional racial bias isn't a fire or dead cow...it's a matter of perspective. Not only the perspective of those who are being accused of bias, but of those perceiving the bias. It's not a hard fact....it's a shaky possibility.

You may not think finding causes or sources of the problem are important...but what would get you to reconsider that? What if we instituted the most radical changes that you could imagine? What if we gave all non-whites two trials? What if we made sure all police were non-whites? What if we used cloaks and voice camouflage to ensure no judge or jury ever knew the race of a defendant?

What if we took the most extreme steps imaginable and things didn't change at all? What if they stayed the same? Would you keep looking for new ways to give minorities a better chance? Or would you consider that the reason things are the way they are doesn't have anything to do with the problem you imagined it was...and maybe it's actually a different problem altogether?

Which is why I don't try to assign blame, that way we can just recognized that there's a problem, and try to find a way around the preconceptions.

Go back to my example of the guy hiring John or Malik. Did he dwell on why he had a preconception about one name over the other? Is it necessary for him to figure out why the preconception exists for him to give the matter further thought, and not make the same assumptions he might have made before he gave it more thought?

I'm not saying we can't examine the causes of these issues, but that we shouldn't let the fact that we haven't solved the question prevent us from finding new paths going forward.

Is it necessary? No. Is it realistic? Absolutely. I've actually asked coworkers (you can imagine in my line of work that this has been a common topic of discussion amongst us for the past 1.5 years or so) if he thought white privilege exists...most said no. Then I posed the following question to them...

If you were an employer, and you had to hire 1 person, and two applicants...1 white, 1 black...both applied and were equal in realistically every respect....who would you choose?

Nearly every coworker had the same response....they'd choose the applicant of their race (I changed the races of the applicants to reflect who i was speaking with). When I asked them why...the common response was that is who they felt they could most easily relate to (which is something I can't really argue with). There were a couple who picked the person of the other race...and the reason why was so that they wouldn't appear racist.

I don't think people will just naturally agree with someone else's assessment of how they think without reflecting on the reasons why themselves. It's an idea that sounds ridiculous to me.

I never said there can be no exceptions, that it was an absolute. No goalposts have been shifted, my point remains. What I said about casting in TV is still the norm. Exceptions to the norm are rare, and rarer still the further back you go. That exceptions exist doesn't invalidate the point, but the fact that exceptions are rare, and notable for being exceptions, proves the norm exists in the first place.

So when you asked me to "think of any t.v. show where the lead isn't played by someone caucasian..." what did you mean?

How about most. Practically all.

You mean not "any t.v. show where the lead isn't played by a caucasian"?

I disagree. Popular culture has always been a reflection of the culture it comes from. That's true now, it was true in the 1950s, it was true in France back in 1650.

If popular culture "has always been a reflection of the culture it comes from"....why would we need to change ours? Is ours another one of these exceptions that you seem to forget about?

Yep. But that doesn't change that Idris Elba would make a fantastic James Bond, and Hayley Atwell would be amazing as The Doctor.

There are many reasons to consider either of them for those respective roles, both are very talented, very gifted actors. But there's only one reason to not consider either one: it's not the way we've done things before.

That's not really true...is it? Certainly, the reason of "someone else gave a better audition" would be a valid reason wouldn't it?

Again...this highlights why you should look at causes. If Elba doesn't get the role...you wouldn't just jump to the conclusion that the casting director is racist, or white privilege, or whatever you want to believe....would you? Don't you think it would be important to find out if someone else gave a better audition?

Many good and positive things have come from defying tradition. Never even trying to do things differently leads to stale ideas.

I don't see how this relates to the topic...but I agree.

You do realize you have no experience of me, or my abilities, right? All you have are assumptions, nothing more.

Think about that.

Well based upon your previous posts...your misunderstanding of how the police do their jobs tells me you've never worked in a law enforcement position. My experience with people who actually do work in the fight against terrorism tells me that even if you were a cop....you'd be woefully unprepared to combat terrorism.

See how I reached that conclusion? It didn't take any preconceived notions...I just had to be observant.

That it involves more than just race. Race is, after all, a social construct. Skin color isn't a significant difference in biological terms, we're all the same biological race.

That's rather vague. In what way is it deeper other than the notion it doesn't involve race?

It isn't a cop's job to determine if the evidence supports a guilty verdict or not.

No...but they need evidence of the crime to arrest someone. They can't just haul in whomever they feel like it. That's a false arrest and can get rather expensive for police departments.

Their job is to arrest those they feel are guilty...so their views on who is or isn't a criminal are very much relevant.

No...see above.

If cops generally operate under a prejudice that leads them to believe those of a certain race are more likely to be guilty than those of another race, that preconception can lead to more people of that race being arrested.

What if they don't operate under any prejudice and just go where the evidence leads them? If that's what they do...and one race ends up being arrested more than others...what do you suppose the problem is?

And if your'e not arrested, then you can't be tried, let alone convicted. So, under these conditions, you can see how prejudice can lead to skewed results.

Sure...under those conditions. We haven't actually showed those conditions exist though. I have seen studies that show blacks do tend to perceive that is the way police operate...but no studies that show that is actually how they operate.

Yeah. Another reason why seeking causes isn't very productive. Sometimes, the causes are unclear, or come from a variety of different things.

I think it's important to get to the causes if you want to find real solutions...not just slap a flesh-colored band aid on it. Take my work for example...why do you suppose they promote minorities and women faster than white males? Especially into positions of visibility...

It can if it means suspicion falls on black men more than it does on white men: then more black men will be arrested, and less white men will even be considered for arrest....regardless of who actually did the crime.

This is almost baffling to me. Maybe it's just because I've worked with the police and other law enforcement agencies that I can't understand what you're thinking here.

Could you give me an example where you think this statement would be applicable? Preferably one that would be relatively common so as to explain the extremely high rate of black crime...but I'm interested in any example you can think of.

Neither do I. Who ever said such a thing?

You said something about poverty and race complicating crime when we were talking about the example of a black man committing a rape. Again, I had no idea what you meant...so again, let's have an example.

A black man commits a rape. How would poverty and race complicate this issue?

First, I didn't dismiss your example, I discussed it with you. And second, white privilege can be a factor without it being the cause of the problem itself. In fact, the issues of race in this country are so large and so pervasive I doubt we can define the causes to anything more than a confluence of many differing causes, with no one single cause being greater than any other.

Which is also why I think we need to look past the question of what caused the problem of racial bias in the US and try to find a way to get past it going forward.

-- A2SG, after all, we don't need to know why we do something to not do it any more....

Let's go back to your example of a house fire. I see it and wonder, "what caused that?"
You look at it and say, "it doesn't matter...let's put it out!"
Everyone follows your advice, we put it out and go on with our lives...

The very next day, the house next to the house that burnt down is now on fire. Again, we listen to you...don't worry about the causes...and put out the fire. Same thing happens the next day, and the next, and the next ...until someone figures out the bright idea of looking into what's causing these fires.

Similarly, in the 50s, blacks were being locked up at a very high rate. Civil rights leaders were pushing for changes. Slowly but surely, equality under the law is the norm...but blacks are still being locked up at a higher rate. Politicians look at this and say, "it's racism...we need to get out ahead of this". So they pass laws that give more advantages to suspected criminals...the idea being it will be harder to illegally lock up blacks. Crime rates spike, convictions drop, unsolved crimes increase....and a lot of new police are hired. Blacks get increased access into the "system"...more black police, mayors, etc. Blacks still have a higher rate of crimes...what's to blame now? It's gotta be police, judges, juries....they're racist! Anti-discrimination laws get passed, civil rights are transformed from "it's wrong to oppress me for being black" to "it's wrong to treat me differently at all because I'm black"....racial profiling and anti-prejudice training are instituted in police departments all across the U.S. Yet, still black crime rates are much higher than whites and other minorities....

So in six decades we've gone from a situation where blacks were definitely being oppressed and the justice system was undoubtedly racist....to one where we've instituted massive changes in the justice system (just about every part of it) to give minorities a fair chance. What's changed? Not much when it comes to black crime rates.

You seriously don't think that maybe...just maybe...it's time to look at the other side of the equation? Is there anything about the black community which perhaps is resistant to any attempts to improve their outcomes in the justice system?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure.

Were you under the impression that white privilege meant no white person faces any disadvantages, ever? The concept of white privilege is society-wide, it doesn't mean every single white male has it great, all day every day.

-- A2SG, heck, just the other day, I stubbed my toe....

No lol of course not. No...my point is that we all face disadvantages, some small, some great, and it's up to us to overcome them...not blame everyone else (literally everyone else if you're blaming society).

 

[rturner76]

So when people like yourself and the OP who think everyone should acknowledge white privilege so we can fix it....if everyone just ignores you....we aren't dismissing your viewpoint, we're just not commenting on it??

Just jumping in here since the OP was mentioned.....I think it's better to not say anything than get onthe bandwagon of denying it or claiming the ridiculous "black privilege"

 

[Chesterton]

Just jumping in here since the OP was mentioned.....I think it's better to not say anything than get onthe bandwagon of denying it or claiming the ridiculous "black privilege"

Black privilege ridiculous huh? You know I have to pay a 10% federal tax to get a tan at a salon, don't you? Yeah, a tax on being white. Or at least on being pasty white...

 

[rambot]

I sometimes think that this "white privilege" debate plays itself out almost exactly like climate change/denial discussions. You can quote all the experts you want, some people simply won't buy the idea/concept.

 

[nightflight]

I sometimes think that this "white privilege" debate plays itself out almost exactly like climate change/denial discussions. You can quote all the experts you want, some people simply won't buy the idea/concept.

There has to be a logical fallacy for this kind of post; can't think of it right now.

 

[A2SG]

Well then perhaps a good starting point for us would be to describe "here". What, in your words, is the problem? How did you come to the conclusion that it's a problem? No need to include causes in your reply.





It's that simplification that I think is naive. I don't believe that our employer won't "dwell on why those preconceptions existed". He'll either rationalize them if he does have them...or dismiss them if he believes he doesn't.





It doesn't mean they're real either.





The reason this analogy is bad is the same reason your house fire analogy is bad. Institutional racial bias isn't a fire or dead cow...it's a matter of perspective. Not only the perspective of those who are being accused of bias, but of those perceiving the bias. It's not a hard fact....it's a shaky possibility.

You may not think finding causes or sources of the problem are important...but what would get you to reconsider that? What if we instituted the most radical changes that you could imagine? What if we gave all non-whites two trials? What if we made sure all police were non-whites? What if we used cloaks and voice camouflage to ensure no judge or jury ever knew the race of a defendant?

What if we took the most extreme steps imaginable and things didn't change at all? What if they stayed the same? Would you keep looking for new ways to give minorities a better chance? Or would you consider that the reason things are the way they are doesn't have anything to do with the problem you imagined it was...and maybe it's actually a different problem altogether?





Is it necessary? No. Is it realistic? Absolutely. I've actually asked coworkers (you can imagine in my line of work that this has been a common topic of discussion amongst us for the past 1.5 years or so) if he thought white privilege exists...most said no. Then I posed the following question to them...

If you were an employer, and you had to hire 1 person, and two applicants...1 white, 1 black...both applied and were equal in realistically every respect....who would you choose?

Nearly every coworker had the same response....they'd choose the applicant of their race (I changed the races of the applicants to reflect who i was speaking with). When I asked them why...the common response was that is who they felt they could most easily relate to (which is something I can't really argue with). There were a couple who picked the person of the other race...and the reason why was so that they wouldn't appear racist.

I don't think people will just naturally agree with someone else's assessment of how they think without reflecting on the reasons why themselves. It's an idea that sounds ridiculous to me.





So when you asked me to "think of any t.v. show where the lead isn't played by someone caucasian..." what did you mean?



You mean not "any t.v. show where the lead isn't played by a caucasian"?





If popular culture "has always been a reflection of the culture it comes from"....why would we need to change ours? Is ours another one of these exceptions that you seem to forget about?





That's not really true...is it? Certainly, the reason of "someone else gave a better audition" would be a valid reason wouldn't it?

Again...this highlights why you should look at causes. If Elba doesn't get the role...you wouldn't just jump to the conclusion that the casting director is racist, or white privilege, or whatever you want to believe....would you? Don't you think it would be important to find out if someone else gave a better audition?



I don't see how this relates to the topic...but I agree.





Well based upon your previous posts...your misunderstanding of how the police do their jobs tells me you've never worked in a law enforcement position. My experience with people who actually do work in the fight against terrorism tells me that even if you were a cop....you'd be woefully unprepared to combat terrorism.

See how I reached that conclusion? It didn't take any preconceived notions...I just had to be observant.





That's rather vague. In what way is it deeper other than the notion it doesn't involve race?





No...but they need evidence of the crime to arrest someone. They can't just haul in whomever they feel like it. That's a false arrest and can get rather expensive for police departments.



No...see above.




What if they don't operate under any prejudice and just go where the evidence leads them? If that's what they do...and one race ends up being arrested more than others...what do you suppose the problem is?




Sure...under those conditions. We haven't actually showed those conditions exist though. I have seen studies that show blacks do tend to perceive that is the way police operate...but no studies that show that is actually how they operate.





I think it's important to get to the causes if you want to find real solutions...not just slap a flesh-colored band aid on it. Take my work for example...why do you suppose they promote minorities and women faster than white males? Especially into positions of visibility...





This is almost baffling to me. Maybe it's just because I've worked with the police and other law enforcement agencies that I can't understand what you're thinking here.

Could you give me an example where you think this statement would be applicable? Preferably one that would be relatively common so as to explain the extremely high rate of black crime...but I'm interested in any example you can think of.





You said something about poverty and race complicating crime when we were talking about the example of a black man committing a rape. Again, I had no idea what you meant...so again, let's have an example.

A black man commits a rape. How would poverty and race complicate this issue?





Let's go back to your example of a house fire. I see it and wonder, "what caused that?"
You look at it and say, "it doesn't matter...let's put it out!"
Everyone follows your advice, we put it out and go on with our lives...

The very next day, the house next to the house that burnt down is now on fire. Again, we listen to you...don't worry about the causes...and put out the fire. Same thing happens the next day, and the next, and the next ...until someone figures out the bright idea of looking into what's causing these fires.

Similarly, in the 50s, blacks were being locked up at a very high rate. Civil rights leaders were pushing for changes. Slowly but surely, equality under the law is the norm...but blacks are still being locked up at a higher rate. Politicians look at this and say, "it's racism...we need to get out ahead of this". So they pass laws that give more advantages to suspected criminals...the idea being it will be harder to illegally lock up blacks. Crime rates spike, convictions drop, unsolved crimes increase....and a lot of new police are hired. Blacks get increased access into the "system"...more black police, mayors, etc. Blacks still have a higher rate of crimes...what's to blame now? It's gotta be police, judges, juries....they're racist! Anti-discrimination laws get passed, civil rights are transformed from "it's wrong to oppress me for being black" to "it's wrong to treat me differently at all because I'm black"....racial profiling and anti-prejudice training are instituted in police departments all across the U.S. Yet, still black crime rates are much higher than whites and other minorities....

So in six decades we've gone from a situation where blacks were definitely being oppressed and the justice system was undoubtedly racist....to one where we've instituted massive changes in the justice system (just about every part of it) to give minorities a fair chance. What's changed? Not much when it comes to black crime rates.

You seriously don't think that maybe...just maybe...it's time to look at the other side of the equation? Is there anything about the black community which perhaps is resistant to any attempts to improve their outcomes in the justice system?

I'll respond to this later. Twice now, I've concocted long, detailed, cogent replies that disappeared into the ether before I could save them.

-- A2SG, anyone want to buy a slightly used keyboard.....

 

[A2SG]

No lol of course not. No...my point is that we all face disadvantages, some small, some great, and it's up to us to overcome them...not blame everyone else (literally everyone else if you're blaming society).

Which is why I go out of my way to not assign blame.

-- A2SG, sometimes I have to go way far out of my way.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

I sometimes think that this "white privilege" debate plays itself out almost exactly like climate change/denial discussions. You can quote all the experts you want, some people simply won't buy the idea/concept.

One of those things involves science. I'll let you figure out which one.

 

[A2SG]

Well then perhaps a good starting point for us would be to describe "here". What, in your words, is the problem?

Racial bias and inequality.

How did you come to the conclusion that it's a problem?

Observation.

No need to include causes in your reply.

Okay.

It's that simplification that I think is naive. I don't believe that our employer won't "dwell on why those preconceptions existed". He'll either rationalize them if he does have them...or dismiss them if he believes he doesn't.

Which is why focusing on the causes, and assigning blame, is counterproductive.

It doesn't mean they're real either.

And it doesn't mean they aren't.

Wheee, this is fun! Want to go 'round again?

The reason this analogy is bad is the same reason your house fire analogy is bad. Institutional racial bias isn't a fire or dead cow...it's a matter of perspective. Not only the perspective of those who are being accused of bias, but of those perceiving the bias. It's not a hard fact....it's a shaky possibility.

Abstract concepts like often hard to pin down.

You may not think finding causes or sources of the problem are important...but what would get you to reconsider that? What if we instituted the most radical changes that you could imagine? What if we gave all non-whites two trials? What if we made sure all police were non-whites? What if we used cloaks and voice camouflage to ensure no judge or jury ever knew the race of a defendant?

What if we took the most extreme steps imaginable and things didn't change at all? What if they stayed the same? Would you keep looking for new ways to give minorities a better chance? Or would you consider that the reason things are the way they are doesn't have anything to do with the problem you imagined it was...and maybe it's actually a different problem altogether?

Like what? What problems do you see, and what about their causes do you think would lead to different solutions?

Is it necessary? No. Is it realistic? Absolutely. I've actually asked coworkers (you can imagine in my line of work that this has been a common topic of discussion amongst us for the past 1.5 years or so) if he thought white privilege exists...most said no. Then I posed the following question to them...

If you were an employer, and you had to hire 1 person, and two applicants...1 white, 1 black...both applied and were equal in realistically every respect....who would you choose?

Nearly every coworker had the same response....they'd choose the applicant of their race (I changed the races of the applicants to reflect who i was speaking with). When I asked them why...the common response was that is who they felt they could most easily relate to (which is something I can't really argue with). There were a couple who picked the person of the other race...and the reason why was so that they wouldn't appear racist.

I don't think people will just naturally agree with someone else's assessment of how they think without reflecting on the reasons why themselves. It's an idea that sounds ridiculous to me.

Which is why we need to stop trying to assign blame, and just realize that we need to rethink certain ideas, reexamine certain presumptions about race and bias, and try to see things differently going forward.

So when you asked me to "think of any t.v. show where the lead isn't played by someone caucasian..." what did you mean?
You mean not "any t.v. show where the lead isn't played by a caucasian"?

I meant to show the preponderance of caucusian faces, and the scarcity of others, especially in lead roles. I didn't say there were no exceptions whatsoever (nor did I intend to imply that), but the fact that so few exceptions exist kind of makes my point pretty well.

Look at it this way: a hispanic kid watching TV in the 1950s had one role model that looked like him: Ricky Ricardo. A caucasian kid watching TV at the same time had many: Jim Anderson, Ward Cleaver, Ozzie Nelson...and that's just TV dads! Add to the mix all the other characters played by caucusians, kids, friends, wacky neighbors, and the scarcity of regular characters played by those of different races, well, it's hard not to see the disparity.

For white kids, there are a huge number of characters on TV who look like them, covering a wide spectrum of character types, personalities and jobs.

For hispanic kids, there was Ricky Ricardo.

That's white privilege.

Have things changed? Yeah. Some. Back in the 1950s, the network brass strongly objected to Lucille Ball's husband being played by a Cuban man, regardless of him being her real life husband. She had to fight for him to get the part, even going so far as to take their act on the road and see how audiences would actually react to seeing them together on stage.

Today, Shonda Rimes is able to cast a black woman as the lead character in her TV show, and have the show be about something more than simply her race.

But for the advances made in this area, the vast majority of faces on TV these days are still caucasian. Progress has been made, but that doesn't mean there's still further we can go.

If popular culture "has always been a reflection of the culture it comes from"....why would we need to change ours? Is ours another one of these exceptions that you seem to forget about?

Popular culture is always changing. We reflect it, and it reflects us.

That's not really true...is it? Certainly, the reason of "someone else gave a better audition" would be a valid reason wouldn't it?

Of course...but come on! It's Idris Elba! Who could be better?

Again...this highlights why you should look at causes. If Elba doesn't get the role...you wouldn't just jump to the conclusion that the casting director is racist, or white privilege, or whatever you want to believe....would you? Don't you think it would be important to find out if someone else gave a better audition?

If Idris Elba is given serious consideration for the role, even if he doesn't get it, that's be progress. Not as much progress as him getting the part, of course, but some.

But....seriously....can't you just picture him as Bond? That'd be awesome!

I don't see how this relates to the topic...but I agree.

You don't see how defying tradition is relevant to the issue of trying to see things differently as regards race?

Well based upon your previous posts...your misunderstanding of how the police do their jobs tells me you've never worked in a law enforcement position. My experience with people who actually do work in the fight against terrorism tells me that even if you were a cop....you'd be woefully unprepared to combat terrorism.

See how I reached that conclusion? It didn't take any preconceived notions...I just had to be observant.

And yet, you can't observe me. I'm on the other side of a computer screen. All you know about me is what I've chosen to tell you.

So you're relying on your own assumptions. And nothing more.

That's rather vague. In what way is it deeper other than the notion it doesn't involve race?

Because race is a cultural concept, not a biological difference. As such, we bring into the concept things like stereotypes, cultural differences, and class distinctions. Race is only part of a larger picture...but since skin color is one of the more obvious differences between individuals, it often becomes the focus point.

No...but they need evidence of the crime to arrest someone. They can't just haul in whomever they feel like it. That's a false arrest and can get rather expensive for police departments.

True. But who they think is guilty drives who they investigate. If they don't think someone is guilty -- for whatever reason -- they probably won't investigate them. Or if they do, it probably will be perfunctory.

No...see above.

Yes...see above.

Who said debate is hard?

What if they don't operate under any prejudice and just go where the evidence leads them? If that's what they do...and one race ends up being arrested more than others...what do you suppose the problem is?

Let's try it and find out, shall we?

Sure...under those conditions. We haven't actually showed those conditions exist though. I have seen studies that show blacks do tend to perceive that is the way police operate...but no studies that show that is actually how they operate.

How can a study measure someone's prejudices, especially those that may not be conscious?

I'd love to see those studies for myself. Got a link to them?

I think it's important to get to the causes if you want to find real solutions...not just slap a flesh-colored band aid on it. Take my work for example...why do you suppose they promote minorities and women faster than white males? Especially into positions of visibility...

PR largely, I'd guess.

This is almost baffling to me. Maybe it's just because I've worked with the police and other law enforcement agencies that I can't understand what you're thinking here.

Could you give me an example where you think this statement would be applicable? Preferably one that would be relatively common so as to explain the extremely high rate of black crime...but I'm interested in any example you can think of.

How about this: a rape occurs. The police suspect a rich white kid whose father is friends with the mayor, the governor, and the chief of police. Without iron clad and incontrovertible evidence (which rarely exists, if ever), they can't go forward, and the case remains unsolved.

Another rape occurs. The police suspect a black guy. He's brought in for questioning, and evidence is found, much of it circumstantial, but enough to take to trial. The guys' found guilty.

Now, according to the statistics here, 100% of convicted rapists are black.

Ta Da! Skewed results.

You said something about poverty and race complicating crime when we were talking about the example of a black man committing a rape. Again, I had no idea what you meant...so again, let's have an example.

A black man commits a rape. How would poverty and race complicate this issue?

If he's poor, he won't be able to afford an expensive lawyer, and will have to rely on a likely overworked public defender. If he's rich, he'll be able to afford a private lawyer. The poor guy is more likely to be convicted than the rich one.

Let's go back to your example of a house fire. I see it and wonder, "what caused that?"
You look at it and say, "it doesn't matter...let's put it out!"
Everyone follows your advice, we put it out and go on with our lives...

The very next day, the house next to the house that burnt down is now on fire. Again, we listen to you...don't worry about the causes...and put out the fire. Same thing happens the next day, and the next, and the next ...until someone figures out the bright idea of looking into what's causing these fires.

Here's the problem when you compare abstract concepts to physical realities: a fire has one cause. The issue of racial bias and inequality has many. And knowing why some people are prejudiced by race won't change their prejudices, or the effects of them.

Similarly, in the 50s, blacks were being locked up at a very high rate. Civil rights leaders were pushing for changes. Slowly but surely, equality under the law is the norm...but blacks are still being locked up at a higher rate. Politicians look at this and say, "it's racism...we need to get out ahead of this". So they pass laws that give more advantages to suspected criminals...the idea being it will be harder to illegally lock up blacks. Crime rates spike, convictions drop, unsolved crimes increase....and a lot of new police are hired. Blacks get increased access into the "system"...more black police, mayors, etc. Blacks still have a higher rate of crimes...what's to blame now? It's gotta be police, judges, juries....they're racist! Anti-discrimination laws get passed, civil rights are transformed from "it's wrong to oppress me for being black" to "it's wrong to treat me differently at all because I'm black"....racial profiling and anti-prejudice training are instituted in police departments all across the U.S. Yet, still black crime rates are much higher than whites and other minorities....

Maybe so...but they're not as high as they used to be. Progress has been made. But the fact that there is still more progress to be made doesn't negate how far we've come.

We may never get to some idyllic golden society where there is no inequality...but does that mean we still shouldn't strive toward one?

So in six decades we've gone from a situation where blacks were definitely being oppressed and the justice system was undoubtedly racist....to one where we've instituted massive changes in the justice system (just about every part of it) to give minorities a fair chance. What's changed? Not much when it comes to black crime rates.

Ever see To Kill A Mockingbird? Ask yourself how many judges today would let that case proceed exactly the same way today.

The very fact that there's a possibility the judge may be black proves that progress has been made.

Even if we've farther still to go.

You seriously don't think that maybe...just maybe...it's time to look at the other side of the equation? Is there anything about the black community which perhaps is resistant to any attempts to improve their outcomes in the justice system?

Maybe. Tell you what, let's try to do what we can to eliminate, or at least lessen, the role racial bias plays in creating inequality...and then we can see where we need to go from there.

-- A2SG, worth a shot, isn't it?

 

[A2SG]

One of those things involves science. I'll let you figure out which one.

Um, isn't sociology a science?

-- A2SG, just playin' devils advocate here.....

 

[rambot]

One of those things involves science. I'll let you figure out which one.

Fair enough. But just because some thing isn't a "science" doesn't mean the knowledge being produced in that field should be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Um, isn't sociology a science?

-- A2SG, just playin' devils advocate here.....

Not really...it's a "social science", and basically the softest of the soft sciences in my opinion. It may have experts...but they just make guesses. I don't even consider it as useful as psychology or economics.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Fair enough. But just because some thing isn't a "science" doesn't mean the knowledge being produced in that field should be dismissed out of hand.

You're right, but you should take that knowledge with a grain of salt if it contains more opinion than fact.

 

[A2SG]

Not really...it's a "social science", and basically the softest of the soft sciences in my opinion. It may have experts...but they just make guesses. I don't even consider it as useful as psychology or economics.

I see. It's a science, but one you, personally, don't think much of. Understood.

-- A2SG, moving on.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Understood.

-- A2SG, moving on.....

Clearly not...

While it does use empirical methods some of the time, it doesn't ever result in cause-effect observations like you might see in physics or biology...or even economics or psychology...

In other words, it's mostly guesswork. It's more of a school of study than a science.

If you disagree though, feel free to give me one hard provable fact about the way large groups of people interact.

 

[A2SG]

Clearly not...

While it does use empirical methods some of the time, it doesn't ever result in cause-effect observations like you might see in physics or biology...or even economics or psychology...

In other words, it's mostly guesswork. It's more of a school of study than a science.

If you disagree though, feel free to give me one hard provable fact about the way large groups of people interact.

Oh, I get the difference. As I said, I was just playing devil's advocate.

-- A2SG, just a blatant attempt to put a different kind of bias on display.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Racial bias and inequality.

Appropriately vague.

Observation.

Of what? Racial bias? How would you observe that? Why should I consider your observations over my own?

Which is why focusing on the causes, and assigning blame, is counterproductive.

I disagree. It's absolutely essential to understand the problem.

And it doesn't mean they aren't.

Wheee, this is fun! Want to go 'round again?

It's seems you've missed the point. With your possibility being no more likely than mine, we'll need to find a cause to understand how to proceed correctly.

Like what? What problems do you see, and what about their causes do you think would lead to different solutions?

Well, in the example of uncommon names having a less chance of being hired...I would say the easy solution would be to give your child more common names. Problem solved.

Which is why we need to stop trying to assign blame, and just realize that we need to rethink certain ideas, reexamine certain presumptions about race and bias, and try to see things differently going forward.

I don't see anything wrong with the presumptions in the example I gave. I don't think you can tell a black person it's wrong to relate more easily to black people or a white person to white people. It may be unfair...but it's not in any way wrong.

I meant to show the preponderance of caucusian faces, and the scarcity of others, especially in lead roles. I didn't say there were no exceptions whatsoever (nor did I intend to imply that), but the fact that so few exceptions exist kind of makes my point pretty well.

Look at it this way: a hispanic kid watching TV in the 1950s had one role model that looked like him: Ricky Ricardo. A caucasian kid watching TV at the same time had many: Jim Anderson, Ward Cleaver, Ozzie Nelson...and that's just TV dads! Add to the mix all the other characters played by caucusians, kids, friends, wacky neighbors, and the scarcity of regular characters played by those of different races, well, it's hard not to see the disparity.

For white kids, there are a huge number of characters on TV who look like them, covering a wide spectrum of character types, personalities and jobs.

For hispanic kids, there was Ricky Ricardo.

That's white privilege.

Have things changed? Yeah. Some. Back in the 1950s, the network brass strongly objected to Lucille Ball's husband being played by a Cuban man, regardless of him being her real life husband. She had to fight for him to get the part, even going so far as to take their act on the road and see how audiences would actually react to seeing them together on stage.

Today, Shonda Rimes is able to cast a black woman as the lead character in her TV show, and have the show be about something more than simply her race.

But for the advances made in this area, the vast majority of faces on TV these days are still caucasian. Progress has been made, but that doesn't mean there's still further we can go.

I think if your child is looking to t.v. for role models...you've got more problems than the color of the t.v. characters.

Popular culture is always changing. We reflect it, and it reflects us.

It would seem that conscious manipulation of it then is an attempt for us to reflect it. Something I'm not crazy about.

Of course...but come on! It's Idris Elba! Who could be better?

Just one example or a list of names?

If Idris Elba is given serious consideration for the role, even if he doesn't get it, that's be progress. Not as much progress as him getting the part, of course, but some.

But....seriously....can't you just picture him as Bond? That'd be awesome!



You don't see how defying tradition is relevant to the issue of trying to see things differently as regards race?

Suppose they recast the Cosby show with an all white family. Would that attempt to defy tradition be progress in your mind? Or is it only when white traditions are defied that it's progress?

And yet, you can't observe me. I'm on the other side of a computer screen. All you know about me is what I've chosen to tell you.

So you're relying on your own assumptions. And nothing more.

Am I wrong? Any law enforcement experience? Any resources at your disposal which can aid the fight against terrorism?

Because race is a cultural concept, not a biological difference. As such, we bring into the concept things like stereotypes, cultural differences, and class distinctions. Race is only part of a larger picture...but since skin color is one of the more obvious differences between individuals, it often becomes the focus point.

Doesn't really answer the question.

True. But who they think is guilty drives who they investigate. If they don't think someone is guilty -- for whatever reason -- they probably won't investigate them. Or if they do, it probably will be perfunctory.

So you think that a girl comes to the police and says a white guy named Matt raped her...the police think "no way! He's white!"

But when a girl says a black guy named Tayshaun raped her, they say, "let's get that (racial slur)!"

Is that about it?

Let's try it and find out, shall we?

How do you propose we do that?

How can a study measure someone's prejudices, especially those that may not be conscious?

Well you can ask them for starters...

I'd love to see those studies for myself. Got a link to them?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/28/blacks-whites-police/

There's lots more if you're interested.

PR largely, I'd guess.

That's interesting. What part of the public do you suppose they are trying to relate to with those particular promotional choices?

How do you suppose that this promotional strategy (hiring according to race and gender instead of say...ability) would impact any group that employs it?

How about this: a rape occurs. The police suspect a rich white kid whose father is friends with the mayor, the governor, and the chief of police. Without iron clad and incontrovertible evidence (which rarely exists, if ever), they can't go forward, and the case remains unsolved.

Another rape occurs. The police suspect a black guy. He's brought in for questioning, and evidence is found, much of it circumstantial, but enough to take to trial. The guys' found guilty.

That's an interesting idea...even a distinct possibility of skewed numbers if it weren't for the fact that there's actually more whites in poverty than blacks. So clearly this wouldn't be applicable except for very very few specific examples. There are millions more whites without powerful family connections than blacks.

If he's poor, he won't be able to afford an expensive lawyer, and will have to rely on a likely overworked public defender. If he's rich, he'll be able to afford a private lawyer. The poor guy is more likely to be convicted than the rich one.

Once again, see above. Last I checked, which was before writing this post...19 million whites under the poverty line and 7-8 million blacks. This wouldn't account for the numbers we see...

Hmmmm...must be something else...

Here's the problem when you compare abstract concepts to physical realities: a fire has one cause.

Fire has multiple causes.

The issue of racial bias and inequality has many. And knowing why some people are prejudiced by race won't change their prejudices, or the effects of them.

But making them aware of these biases will?

Just out of curiosity...suppose all of human history for blacks and whites were reversed. Blacks came from northern Europe, for example, and whites came from Africa.

Do you think any of our history would change for this one alteration? Would whites now be in the position of blacks and vice versa?

Maybe so...but they're not as high as they used to be. Progress has been made. But the fact that there is still more progress to be made doesn't negate how far we've come.

We may never get to some idyllic golden society where there is no inequality...but does that mean we still shouldn't strive toward one?

To answer that I'd have to know how you would strive for it and what the end result you seek is.

Ever see To Kill A Mockingbird? Ask yourself how many judges today would let that case proceed exactly the same way today.

The very fact that there's a possibility the judge may be black proves that progress has been made.

Haven't seen it since grade school...sorry.

Even if we've farther still to go.

Again...I'd have to know where it is you want us to go.

Maybe. Tell you what, let's try to do what we can to eliminate, or at least lessen, the role racial bias plays in creating inequality...and then we can see where we need to go from there.

-- A2SG, worth a shot, isn't it?

Well here's the thing. Let's say that the starting point for race relations in this nation was pretty bad. Whites had a terrible view of blacks...and likewise, blacks had an awful view of whites. That's a fair, if general description, isn't it?

Let's suppose that all the progress has really only happened in one direction...the white view of blacks. We've worked, created laws, created policies, etc etc...to change the white view of blacks.

Will we ever succeed in this golden utopia of equality without striving to change the black view of whites? Or can it succeed by only changing the views of whites towards blacks?

As a nation...I think we've made great strides in one direction, and very few in the other.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh, I get the difference. As I said, I was just playing devil's advocate.

-- A2SG, just a blatant attempt to put a different kind of bias on display.....

A bias towards fact and against speculation?

 

[A2SG]

A bias towards fact and against speculation?

Okay, put it that way if you like.

-- A2SG, your bias, you're allowed to define it however you like....