What if racism is an evolutionary response?

[OldWiseGuy]

And that is racist.

How so? To be successful in Rome, do as the Romans.,

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How so?

Because instead of accepting them as they are as their own group, they have to become a version of your group to get you to accept them. Denying them the chance to become their own culture, because African-American culture is really it's own culture from an anthropological standpoint, is racist.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because instead of accepting them as they are as their own group, they have to become a version of your group to get you to accept them. Denying them the chance to become their own culture, because African-American culture is really it's own culture from an anthropological standpoint, is racist.

But their culture holds them back from success here. We already treat them with 'benign neglect' because of this. But their economic failure has become problematic for us. The 'way they are' hasn't worked well for them.

If we accept them the way they are nothing changes. What do you think the solution is?

 

[Zaymer]

Because instead of accepting them as they are as their own group, they have to become a version of your group to get you to accept them. Denying them the chance to become their own culture, because African-American culture is really it's own culture from an anthropological standpoint, is racist.

The arguments could be reversed however, why do/must African-Americans reject the wider American culture around them? Why must that wider American culture and/or people be forced to change to suit the whims of others, is that not a coercive and racist thing to do?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But their culture holds them back from success here. We already treat them with 'benign neglect' because of this. But their economic failure has become problematic for us. The 'way they are' hasn't worked well for them.

What do you think the solution is?

Except that they aren't being held back by their culture. Throughout the history of the US, the United States government has taken active steps to keep black Americans down with regards to laws, culture and money. This is a historical fact.
They aren't being failed by their culture, they're being failed by the culture you claim to be the one they should emulate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The arguments could be reversed however, why do/must African-Americans reject the wider American culture around them? Why must that wider American culture and/or people be forced to change to suit the whims of others, is that not a coercive and racist thing to do?

Because the wider American culture has been on that has been led by a government that has effectively kept the African-American population of the States under heel by force, many times lethal.
Yes, it is racist in forcing any culture to chance to suit the whims of another, but maybe the better option for both ideas is the very simple of idea of "you leave me alone, I leave you alone."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The arguments could be reversed however, why do/must African-Americans reject the wider American culture around them? Why must that wider American culture and/or people be forced to change to suit the whims of others, is that not a coercive and racist thing to do?

The tail wants to wag the dog.

 

[pitabread]

It is the logical extreme, there is no competition if the competition does not exist (because you've eliminated it).
Sun Tzu agrees with you, that it is better to subvert and overcome your enemy without fighting whatsoever (this is where politics and propaganda, business deals, etc play their roles), but the goal of control/power remains the same.

The outcome isn't necessarily a control/power issue though. Cooperation doesn't necessitate control or power over another.

I also think you might be reading too much into Sun Tzu philosophy and assuming that domination is still the end goal. Mutually beneficial relationships don't require domination of one side over the other.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because the wider American culture has been on that has been led by a government that has effectively kept the African-American population of the States under heel by force, many times lethal.
Yes, it is racist in forcing any culture to chance to suit the whims of another, but maybe the better option for both ideas is the very simple of idea of "you leave me alone, I leave you alone."

I think it's more accurate to say that the black community has thrown itself upon the 'white' rock and become broken.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think it's more accurate to say that the black community has thrown itself upon the 'white' rock and become broken.

And that is very racist.

 

[Speedwell]

The arguments could be reversed however, why do/must African-Americans reject the wider American culture around them? Why must that wider American culture and/or people be forced to change to suit the whims of others, is that not a coercive and racist thing to do?

Cultures change as they interact all the time. There is not anything remarkable about it, nor is there anything inherently superior about the "wider American culture" as you imagine it, that it not be subject to change--as it has been subject to change throughout our history.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Except that is different since an organization like Apple, like Nestle, is formed on the basis of generating capital, money, not furthering the lifespan of humans. Apple and Nestle and BP Oil are companies that were created to make money. That is not something found in nature.

The generation of capital has been a most successful method of furthering the lifespan of humans.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The generation of capital has been a most successful method of furthering the lifespan of humans.

Except when it's used to fund death squads to suppress labour unions in Columbia (Nestle), used to help fund slave labour (Apple), nor screwing over the local environment because of an oil spill they caused (BP oil).
Capital helps people and so does the generation of capital, but the current model of corporations generating capital for their own profits and nothing else helps no-one except the owners of the corporations.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It is taking the ideas of evolutionary competition and survival of the fittest applied to humanity (humans are biological organisms, correct?) to their logical conclusions/extremes. Cooperation may be possible, but the question then is: for how long?

Survival of the fittest is not a philosophic argument, it is but a statement of fact. Biological organisms survive because they are most fit to survive within the prevailing environment. There is no absolute statement to be made about what will make a group survive as there are always changes to the environment in which biological organisms live. A trait that might be a boon to survival in one environmental condition might be a detriment in another one.

 

[Zaymer]

nor is there anything inherently superior about the "wider American culture" as you imagine it, that it not be subject to change--as it has been subject to change throughout our history.

I never mentioned any sort of "superiority" like you imagine I did, just what is. Cultures can and do change on their own without any seeming particular aim, this is true, but it is also true that there are forces at play today that seek purposefully to change cultures too.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And that is very racist.

I accept that you see it that way.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Except when it's used to fund death squads to suppress labour unions in Columbia (Nestle), used to help fund slave labour (Apple), nor screwing over the local environment because of an oil spill they caused (BP oil).
Capital helps people and so does the generation of capital, but the current model of corporations generating capital for their own profits and nothing else helps no-one except the owners of the corporations.

That is not really the case at all. When people tend to get this hyperbolic about something it is often because they have a personal or political axe to grind and have concentrated only on the negatives of something while totally ignoring or discounting the positives. I happen to enjoy a chocolate bar now and then. My wife has an iPhone along with many millions who find them very helpful and positive instruments for accomplishing a lot of tasks and without oil companies providing people with a ready supply of the stuff most likely the population of humans on the earth would be much smaller and their lifespans much shorter. There are many benefits going to many people from every corporation that exists. The fact that there are abuses by some corporations does not negate the benefits they also provide. I'm all for making sure that corporations are held to proper standards but it seems those in government are not for it at all. Rather they seek to profit from regulating them just enough to make those corporations enrich politicians as a means of protection. So you will see goals for emissions or safety regulations that do not really cause a large corporation any loss of profit but you won't see the abuses you catalogued dealt with at all except in as in the case of bp in which the corporation pays a government entity a large fine but nothing in place to assure that the abuse will never happen. After all if the abuse does not take place the government will not collect any fines.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Cultures change as they interact all the time. There is not anything remarkable about it, nor is there anything inherently superior about the "wider American culture" as you imagine it, that it not be subject to change--as it has been subject to change throughout our history.

The wider American culture is 'work ethic' based, which is a pretty good culture to have. Personally I have been profligate in many of my habits and behaviors, but the one constant that has underpinned my life that I have always had a job (often two).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is not really the case at all. When people tend to get this hyperbolic about something it is often because they have a personal or political axe to grind and have concentrated only on the negatives of something while totally ignoring or discounting the positives. I happen to enjoy a chocolate bar now and then. My wife has an iPhone along with many millions who find them very helpful and positive instruments for accomplishing a lot of tasks and without oil companies providing people with a ready supply of the stuff most likely the population of humans on the earth would be much smaller and their lifespans much shorter. There are many benefits going to many people from every corporation that exists. The fact that there are abuses by some corporations does not negate the benefits they also provide. I'm all for making sure that corporations are held to proper standards but it seems those in government are not for it at all. Rather they seek to profit from regulating them just enough to make those corporations enrich politicians as a means of protection. So you will see goals for emissions or safety regulations that do not really cause a large corporation any loss of profit but you won't see the abuses you catalogued dealt with at all except in as in the case of bp in which the corporation pays a government entity a large fine but nothing in place to assure that the abuse will never happen. After all if the abuse does not take place the government will not collect any fines.

The annoying thing is is that you hit the nail on the head a fair bit for my criticisms of big business.
I just do not trust corporate entities, especially those on the scale of the big American trusts that deserve to have the old Theodore Roosevelt treatment again.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is not really the case at all. When people tend to get this hyperbolic about something it is often because they have a personal or political axe to grind and have concentrated only on the negatives of something while totally ignoring or discounting the positives. I happen to enjoy a chocolate bar now and then. My wife has an iPhone along with many millions who find them very helpful and positive instruments for accomplishing a lot of tasks and without oil companies providing people with a ready supply of the stuff most likely the population of humans on the earth would be much smaller and their lifespans much shorter. There are many benefits going to many people from every corporation that exists. The fact that there are abuses by some corporations does not negate the benefits they also provide. I'm all for making sure that corporations are held to proper standards but it seems those in government are not for it at all. Rather they seek to profit from regulating them just enough to make those corporations enrich politicians as a means of protection. So you will see goals for emissions or safety regulations that do not really cause a large corporation any loss of profit but you won't see the abuses you catalogued dealt with at all except in as in the case of bp in which the corporation pays a government entity a large fine but nothing in place to assure that the abuse will never happen. After all if the abuse does not take place the government will not collect any fines.

I've often wondered if those touted $billions in fines are ever really collected, or are they legislated away in back room deals.