Third Wave Anti-racism

[Ana the Ist]

Wow....you'd think that being against systemic racism would be an easy question to answer.

 

[PeachyKeane]

I would expect it to significantly affect the perceptions of the validity of societal institutions in the minds of some people.

I'm not quite following that. Do you have an example of such a societal institution that people perceive to be invalid?

I mean it in the same way you mean it....laws and policies applying privileges, advantages, opportunities, even wealth because of the race of a person. The exact same thing you mean when you speak about "systemic racism".

Are you against it or not?

Again, I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

Suppose I was a Congressman, and I introduced a bill that would reimburse, retroactively, anyone who had been subjected to forced labor without pay, due to unjust laws enacted by the United States Government. They should receive, retroactively, lost wages, adjusted for inflation, plus 2.3% interest, to be paid to the laborer or the descendants thereof.

Is this the kind of thing you're referring to?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not quite following that. Do you have an example of such a societal institution that people perceive to be invalid?

Well for example the education system. If one looks at it as invalid (because of past grievances) then one perhaps won't get the benefits of that system.

Again, I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

Suppose I was a Congressman, and I introduced a bill that would reimburse, retroactively, anyone who had been subjected to forced labor without pay due to unjust laws. They should receive a fair wage, adjusted for inflation, plus 2.3% interest, to be paid to the laborer or the descendants thereof.

If you're talking about the laborer....that's simply justice. An attempt to recognize that a wrong was done and an attempt to right that wrong. As for that person's descendants....well they aren't just a descendant of a person "wronged" are they? The wrong wasn't done to them, was it?

Imagine if my father had a business that was robbed of a significant amount of money. It causes extreme hardship and changes the course of our lives. My father can no longer afford to send me to college and my mother dies for lack of funds for a life saving surgery.

If we somehow learned who stole the money....of course my father can seek justice from him. If my father dies and sometime later I find out who stole the money....I would even consider it possible that I could seek justice.

If the robber dies though....can I seek justice from his children? No. That's just committing another injustice. His children did nothing wrong even if they benefited from the money stolen.

Is this the kind of thing you're referring to?

Absolutely not....for some reason your example completely left out race. We're talking about systemic racism.

So an example would be if I had a business that said "we're going to consider all the applicants of race x for the job openings first" or if we had two equal applicants of different races, I give the job to one over the other based upon race. If I were to, for example, give legal breaks, tax breaks, benefits, etc. to people based upon race.

To a lesser extent, but perhaps far worse as far as the damage it does, would be for institutions to teach racist attitudes. Imagine if schools taught children to devalue the achievements of a certain race, or teach children to view another race as "less than" in some way? Imagine if they taught that certain races should be believed more than others regarding certain topics? Imagine if they taught that one race should be scorned and ashamed of their race while others should be celebrated and praised?

I find it very difficult to believe that you don't understand what systemic racism is.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Well for example the education system. If one looks at it as invalid (because of past grievances) then one perhaps won't get the benefits of that system.

I'm not getting past 'invalid'. How is a school system invalid?

If you're talking about the laborer....that's simply justice. An attempt to recognize that a wrong was done and an attempt to right that wrong. As for that person's descendants....well they aren't just a descendant of a person "wronged" are they? The wrong wasn't done to them, was it?

Imagine if my father had a business that was robbed of a significant amount of money. It causes extreme hardship and changes the course of our lives. My father can no longer afford to send me to college and my mother dies for lack of funds for a life saving surgery.

If we somehow learned who stole the money....of course my father can seek justice from him. If my father dies and sometime later I find out who stole the money....I would even consider it possible that I could seek justice.

If the robber dies though....can I seek justice from his children? No. That's just committing another injustice. His children did nothing wrong even if they benefited from the money stolen.

I'm sorry, I didn't want a response to the bill, I was just offering it up as an example.

Absolutely not....for some reason your example completely left out race. We're talking about systemic racism.

You're saying for the system to be racist, it must explicitly mention race?

In my bill above, is it fair to say that it doesn't value certain races over others?

So an example would be if I had a business that said "we're going to consider all the applicants of race x for the job openings first" or if we had two equal applicants of different races, I give the job to one over the other based upon race. If I were to, for example, give legal breaks, tax breaks, benefits, etc. to people based upon race.

To a lesser extent, but perhaps far worse as far as the damage it does, would be for institutions to teach racist attitudes. Imagine if schools taught children to devalue the achievements of a certain race, or teach children to view another race as "less than" in some way? Imagine if they taught that certain races should be believed more than others regarding certain topics? Imagine if they taught that one race should be scorned and ashamed of their race while others should be celebrated and praised?

I find it very difficult to believe that you don't understand what systemic racism is.

I just think you have a narrow view of it. Would it be permissible if instead they were to say that to get that job, or to be accepted to that college, you must have grown up in neighborhood x, or attended highschool y?

By the same token, what do we learn from police presence in some neighborhoods over others?

I would say it's wrong to explicitly write laws that discriminate. But laws don't have to explicitly mention race to favor one race over others.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not getting past 'invalid'. How is a school system invalid?

Let's say that they believe it racist....or perhaps the benefits unable to be acquired by them.

I'm sorry, I didn't want a response to the bill, I was just offering it up as an example.

Then it's not an example.

You're saying for the system to be racist, it must explicitly mention race?

For a system to be racist? Yes. How else could it be racist?

In my bill above, is it fair to say that it doesn't value certain races over others?

Sure.

I just think you have a narrow view of it. Would it be permissible if instead they were to say that to get that job, or to be accepted to that college, you must have grown up in neighborhood x, or attended highschool y?

I'm not going to say that's necessarily fair...but as long as it doesn't discriminate against anyone who grew up in neighborhood x or attended school y then I couldn't call it systemic racism.

By the same token, what do we learn from police presence in some neighborhoods over others?

If we look at areas that are largely homogeneous (that is, they are communities of basically only one race) my guess is that we're likely to see more police activity in some areas compared to others. That's because a cop is more effective in areas known for crime...and crime isn't something evenly distributed.

I would say it's wrong to explicitly write laws that discriminate. But laws don't have to explicitly mention race to favor one race over others.

I'm going to assume you think that policies which discriminate are wrong as well? What about the last example of schools teaching racism?

 

[PeachyKeane]

Let's say that they believe it racist....or perhaps the benefits unable to be acquired by them.

What about the opportunity isn't available?

Suppose a city before the Civil Rights era passed a law that said that people of certain races were nit allowed to purchase property except in designated zones furthest from where jobs were plentiful. Suppose during the same time and for decades later, while not officially a law, the banks had a policy not to offer mortgages to people of a certain race. Economically, how would that affect those neighborhoods, and those who live there.

For a system to be racist? Yes. How else could it be racist?

Can a person be racist if they don't say things that are racist? Could the intent be racist even if the wording is not explicitly so?

Sure.

Does it sort of stack the deck, so to speak, for some races over others?

I'm not going to say that's necessarily fair...but as long as it doesn't discriminate against anyone who grew up in neighborhood x or attended school y then I couldn't call it systemic racism.

You don't think saying we won't hire anyone, or accept college applications from people from neighborhood x or highschool y would be discriminatory against people from neighborhood x or highschool y?

If we look at areas that are largely homogeneous (that is, they are communities of basically only one race) my guess is that we're likely to see more police activity in some areas compared to others. That's because a cop is more effective in areas known for crime...and crime isn't something evenly distributed.

If that's the case, would it be wrong to assume that the race of people who live in these homogenous neighborhoods that need to be patroled by police, are more violent? More likely to commit crime? Less intelligent? Maybe lazy?

Would it be considered a privilege not to be associated with that?

I'm going to assume you think that policies which discriminate are wrong as well? What about the last example of schools teaching racism?

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Most laws tend to discriminate somewhat.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What about the opportunity isn't available?

Suppose you thought the police were racist against you....you might not call them even when you should ,or cooperate with them when you should .

Same thing.

Suppose a city before the Civil Rights era passed a law that said that people of certain races were nit allowed to purchase property except in designated zones furthest from where jobs were plentiful. Suppose during the same time and for decades later, while not officially a law, the banks had a policy not to offer mortgages to people of a certain race. Economically, how would that affect those neighborhoods, and those who live there.

Sure...what exactly are you asking me? I explained that I understand this....my Irish ancestors were chased out of communities and denied all but the least desirable jobs. There's no doubt it had a significant impact on the community. Who knows how many billions of dollars might be in the hands of the Irish descendants today had it not happened? That's where the racist cultural stereotypes of drunken violent irishmen came from.

Can a person be racist if they don't say things that are racist? Could the intent be racist even if the wording is not explicitly so?

Sure, but how would you know?

Does it sort of stack the deck, so to speak, for some races over others?

No. You made no mention of race in your example.

You don't think saying we won't hire anyone, or accept college applications from people from neighborhood x or highschool y would be discriminatory against people from neighborhood x or highschool y?

You flipped around what you said. You originally asked if it was discrimination to only accept people from those places....now you're asking if it would be discrimination to not accept people from only those places .

If that's the case,

If? Take Taiwan for example....it's a small island that's 95% Han Chinese. Do you think the police magically concentrate efforts evenly across the an almost completely homogeneous population? Or do you think it's more likely they focus on crime ridden areas?

would it be wrong to assume that the race of people who live in these homogenous neighborhoods that need to be patroled by police, are more violent? More likely to commit crime? Less intelligent? Maybe lazy?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Look up the word homogeneous. If we have a town that's 100% white, and the police concentrate their efforts on one particular section of town....it's probably because there's more crime there, right? If there was less crime there....we might need to look into the situation.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Most laws tend to discriminate somewhat.

How???

 

[PeachyKeane]

Suppose you thought the police were racist against you....you might not call them even when you should ,or cooperate with them when you should .

Same thing.

Yes, I agree. But, do you believe law enforcement treats people of all races the same way?

Sure...what exactly are you asking me? I explained that I understand this....my Irish ancestors were chased out of communities and denied all but the least desirable jobs. There's no doubt it had a significant impact on the community. Who knows how many billions of dollars might be in the hands of the Irish descendants today had it not happened? That's where the racist cultural stereotypes of drunken violent irishmen came from.

So why would this same sort of discrimination not have an effect on other communities?

Sure, but how would you know?

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

No. You made no mention of race in your example.

My bill wouldn't have a much greater affect on some races over others?

You flipped around what you said. You originally asked if it was discrimination to only accept people from those places....now you're asking if it would be discrimination to not accept people from only those places .

My apologies. Would it be descriminatory against people from neighborhood a and highschool b?

If? Take Taiwan for example....it's a small island that's 95% Han Chinese. Do you think the police magically concentrate efforts evenly across the an almost completely homogeneous population? Or do you think it's more likely they focus on crime ridden areas?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Look up the word homogeneous. If we have a town that's 100% white, and the police concentrate their efforts on one particular section of town....it's probably because there's more crime there, right? If there was less crime there....we might need to look into the situation.

I wouldn't describe America as homogeneous.

If you were to look into that crime situation, and correlate it with race, and economic health, what do you imagine you'd find?

How???

Would you say, for instance, tax laws are discriminatory in any way?

 

[RDKirk]

.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, I agree. But, do you believe law enforcement treats people of all races the same way?

Of course not....they're human...as such they're subject to the same biases as everyone else.

So why would this same sort of discrimination not have an effect on other communities?

Who says it doesn't?

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

So you can magically tell by the way someone acts if it's racially motivated?

My bill wouldn't have a much greater affect on some races over others?

I don't see it having an impact on anyone since there's very little forced servitude these days.

My apologies. Would it be descriminatory against people from neighborhood a and highschool b?

I honestly don't know what you're asking here...

Do you think it's wrong for a successful law firm to only hire people with ivy league degrees? How about a large tech firm that doesn't hire from online colleges?

I wouldn't describe America as homogeneous.

Good....then hopefully you haven't missed the point. In reference to your earlier statement about being able to tell if someone was racist by their actions, you can't. The police are always going to police some places more than others.

Would you say, for instance, tax laws are discriminatory in any way?

I wouldn't know enough about tax laws to answer that. How about welfare systems? Would they be racist if one race used them more than others?

 

[PeachyKeane]

Of course not....they're human...as such they're subject to the same biases as everyone else.

But obvioulsy police have the same rocky relationship with white citizens as black and hispanic citizens?

Who says it doesn't?

Oh.

So you can magically tell by the way someone acts if it's racially motivated?

Sometimes it's pretty clear. Take for instance donning a white hood and setting crosses ablaze.

I don't see it having an impact on anyone since there's very little forced servitude these days.

The bill offers back-pay to descendants. With interest. It would impact quite a few people.

I honestly don't know what you're asking here...

If a college application is only accepted if you're from highschool x, is that not discriminatory if you attend highschool y?

Do you think it's wrong for a successful law firm to only hire people with ivy league degrees? How about a large tech firm that doesn't hire from online colleges?

Nope.

Good....then hopefully you haven't missed the point. In reference to your earlier statement about being able to tell if someone was racist by their actions, you can't. The police are always going to police some places more than others.

So, why do you suppose police spend more time in black and hispanic neighborhoods?

I wouldn't know enough about tax laws to answer that. How about welfare systems? Would they be racist if one race used them more than others?

I didn't say racist. I said discriminatory. However, yes, often they are fairly racist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But obvioulsy police have the same rocky relationship with white citizens as black and hispanic citizens?

At certain times or places....sure.

Sometimes it's pretty clear. Take for instance donning a white hood and setting crosses ablaze.

Lol ok....fair point. There's a tiny tiny number of people in racist hate groups this would apply to.

The bill offers back-pay to descendants. With interest. It would impact quite a few people.

I think I already answered this....I can't see the justice in punishing those who aren't guilty for the benefit of those who aren't victims.

If a college application is only accepted if you're from highschool x, is that not discriminatory if you attend highschool y?

I suppose that depends on whether we're talking about a state or private college.

Nope.

Well then what are we talking about? Clearly you believe it's ok to discriminate for some reasons.

So, why do you suppose police spend more time in black and hispanic neighborhoods?

Some black and hispanic neighborhoods. I'm sure we can look at the crime rates in those neighborhoods and find out.

I didn't say racist. I said discriminatory. However, yes, often they are fairly racist.

Well when we're talking about systemic racism....we're talking about systemic racial discrimination.

 

[Kentonio]

Wow....you'd think that being against systemic racism would be an easy question to answer.

Funny how it suddenly became so easy just around the time it started effecting white people.

 

[tall73]

Funny how it suddenly became so easy just around the time it started effecting white people.

Many white people were already opposed to discrimination, and fought to remove it, when it impacted others.

They wanted what should still be the goal--treat people the same under the law, regardless of race.

 

[Kentonio]

Many white people were already opposed to discrimination, and fought to remove it, when it impacted others.

They wanted what should still be the goal--treat people the same under the law, regardless of race.

No, many white people might have said they wanted equality, but very few actually fought for it. Like most things, plenty of people were happy to say they were on the moral side, just as long as it didn’t involve any cost or real effort to them. As we can now see very clearly when small temporary programs aimed at redressed past wrongs are now ‘the worst thing that has ever happened to the world, and whites are the real victims of racism!!’ etc etc, repeat literally ad nauseum.

 

[PeachyKeane]

At certain times or places....sure.

Like Dodge City in the 1860s?

Lol ok....fair point. There's a tiny tiny number of people in racist hate groups this would apply to.

Getting larger.

In the early 1980s, my rather destitute neighborhood (by which I mean urban redlines) found out that Sears would open a department store in the small, run-down, shopping area we sat next to. This meant jobs for our neighbors, increased traffic and money in our area, improved public transport, and low-cost local shopping we could walk to or bus to.

A local politician (I don't remember his name, only his moustache), who ran on a baldly racist platform of protecting the suburbs from 'dark' invaders, proposed a bill that changed the zoning of that area from commercial to industrial. It was controversial enough, and didn't pass, but it was close. The bill did not mention race, but it's intent was clear to us and to his supporters. Actions say a lot.

I think I already answered this....I can't see the justice in punishing those who aren't guilty for the benefit of those who aren't victims.

I'm not asking if you agree with it. I'm sure there are plenty of bills you don't agree with. I'm asking if this bill would give a financial advantage or punishment to any particular race?

6I suppose that depends on whether we're talking about a state or private college.

Either assuming both neighborhoods are in the same city.

Well then what are we talking about? Clearly you believe it's ok to discriminate for some reasons.

Someone graduating from Harvard at least shows a bit of merit and competence. That's hard to do. You have to earn your way into the school, and work hard to graduate.

If we say we do not want people from neighborhood x, what are we measuring that by?

Some black and hispanic neighborhoods. I'm sure we can look at the crime rates in those neighborhoods and find out.

If we look at those black and hispanic neighborhoods' crime rate what do you expect to find?

By the way, do you know what they call black and hispanic neighborhoods with average or below average crime rates?

Well when we're talking about systemic racism....we're talking about systemic racial discrimination.

I was talking about generalized discrimination.

 

[tall73]

No, many white people might have said they wanted equality, but very few actually fought for it. Like most things, plenty of people were happy to say they were on the moral side, just as long as it didn’t involve any cost or real effort to them. As we can now see very clearly when small temporary programs aimed at redressed past wrongs are now ‘the worst thing that has ever happened to the world, and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] whites are the real victims of racism!!’ etc etc, repeat literally ad nauseum.

So you don't think many white people actually fought, voted for those they thought would resist it, tried to persuade others against racism? Yeah, I don't agree.

And yes, I do object to programs that discriminate in hiring or enrollment on the basis of race, no matter what race. If you want to help those struggling financially, why not do it on the basis of need, not race? There are people of all races experiencing hardship.And there are people of all races not experiencing hardship. Helping those in need shouldn't look like discrimination in hiring or enrollment in any case.

 

[PeachyKeane]

No, many white people might have said they wanted equality, but very few actually fought for it. Like most things, plenty of people were happy to say they were on the moral side, just as long as it didn’t involve any cost or real effort to them. As we can now see very clearly when small temporary programs aimed at redressed past wrongs are now ‘the worst thing that has ever happened to the world, and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] whites are the real victims of racism!!’ etc etc, repeat literally ad nauseum.

Nah, I agree with the tall guy on this one. There are some very bad, very racist, white people out there, that's true. There are also very kind, compassionate ones who have done a lot, or even a little to combat racism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Funny how it suddenly became so easy just around the time it started effecting white people.

Oh good....someone finally admitting to it.

I know it's hard for a lot of people to believe, especially if they believe one can't be racist against whites, or believe in white privilege, white fragility, whitesplaining, or any of the other racist concepts coming from a certain political segment these days.

I'm glad you can see it though.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Like Dodge City in the 1860s?

I'm not familiar enough with that place and time to answer.

Getting larger.

Well the KKK is actually getting smaller....estimated at 5k-8k members. I suppose if include all the other groups including black supremacists, you might approach 20 times those numbers but we'd still be talking about less than 1% of 1% of the population.....

So a tiny number of people.

I'm not asking if you agree with it. I'm sure there are plenty of bills you don't agree with. I'm asking if this bill would give a financial advantage or punishment to any particular race?

That depends on how broadly we're defining forced labor. There are people in prison now who could be considered as forced labor.

If you meant chattel slavery....I still don't know how you intend to distribute funds. Does one need only one slave ancestor? What if one has a slave ancestor and a slave owner ancestor?

Without knowing these things I can't really answer.

Either assuming both neighborhoods are in the same city.

Sure...it's a type of discrimination.

Someone graduating from Harvard at least shows a bit of merit and competence. That's hard to do. You have to earn your way into the school, and work hard to graduate.

That doesn't mean that everyone does it without privilege...what if you're genetically smarter? More inclined towards ambition? What if you were lucky enough to have parents who instilled you with discipline or a harder work ethic?

These are all privileges and it goes back to my early point about what exactly makes a privilege unfair.

If we say we do not want people from neighborhood x, what are we measuring that by?

Geographic location.

If we look at those black and hispanic neighborhoods' crime rate what do you expect to find?

If they have a higher police presence? I would imagine both a higher crime rate and rate of unsolved crimes...generally speaking.

By the way, do you know what they call black and hispanic neighborhoods with average or below average crime rates?

No? Neighborhoods?

I was talking about generalized discrimination.

That's the thing though....you understand that a job may discriminate against the less intelligent, or less skilled, or less hard working, or less attractive, or less sociable, or any number of biases that we may value.

Isn't the reason why we think it's wrong to discriminate against or for a certain race because we don't believe it's worthy of value?