Race

@EmperorNero,

Wow, where to start... where to start...

EmperorNero wrote:

There is no such thing as race when looking at it scientifically. As for example the genetic difference between people within each race is larger than the difference between races.

Scientifically; yes that's likely correct. Too bad that isn't relevant when discussing the race issue. If humans behavior were proportionate to scientific/genetic correlations, we wouldn't have this problem.

EmperorNero wrote:

My main question is if this is a bunch of empty PC talk by university types, or really the case.

PC Talk eh? Shall we diminish the contributions made by those trying to alleviate human bigotry by reducing their work to "PC Talk"? Does such 'talk' disgust you? Does it feel as if someone wants something-for-nothing or undeserved attention? I hope I've mistaken your tone because it's implications are not very compassionate or enlightened at all.

EmperorNero wrote:

But I also want to offer an explanation why this race-thinking keeps on existing...

Because its a sad-but-true legacy of humanity's behavior. From the earliest times to present day, in a thousand forms across every continent, there's a tendency towards "us and them"; to insult, demean, degrade and exclude those who don't feel "like us". If you don't see it then either you're badly uninformed or biased towards believing it doesn't exist.

EmperorNero wrote:

It seems to me that political arguments about race are just too powerful to be given up. It is a political tool that is impossible to argue against, as we tend to give in to arguments supposedly made on behalf of victim-groups, to not be branded as hateful.
This means that wanting this or that political benefit or change, if it can be phrased in a way that makes seem like helping a victim-group, you'll get it.

Politicians will use any and all means - no matter how sutble or obscure - to 'get it'; as will crusaders, special interest groups, lawyers or debaters. These, no matter how unsportsmanlike or irrelevant, are some of the tools people use to sway and convince other people. But that's not to say all utterances on such topics are such the ploy. Unless, of course, you know the speaker's innermost motivations.

EmperorNero wrote:

The sad thing is that this keeps up the illusion of race, instead of just thinking about groups of people with certain attributes.

I don't think you can draw a causal relationship between 'race talk' and 'keeping up the illusion' of race. Yes there's likely a correlation (any attention we give to 'X' - where 'X' shouldn't be relevant - will inflate it's significance) but that's not the same as a cause. I would agree that treating racial differences as insignificant differences among people is a worthy goal; but those railing against it, calling it out and campaigning against it aren't the ones who should be reprimanded.

EmperorNero wrote:

The diversity soft-heads don't care if they actually do any good. They just want to feel fluffy about helping those who are downtrodden from the legacy of racism.

What I find peculiar in this statement is that the very individuals you're name-calling here ('soft heads') are generally the ones who are fighting for the point you are (that race shouldn't be treated as anything more than a collection of non-impugning physical differences). Also, I'm curious how it is you know their motivations? You're saying, 'they just want to feel fluffy' (which is by no means certain). How did you come by this information?

EmperorNero wrote:

For example with affirmative action and other special treatment. This branding and labeling into groups in the name of tolerance - go figure - is the bigger problem than actual racists.

And exactly how does the math work on this one? I'm very curious to hear - specifically - how the few years affirmative actions has been around is a 'bigger problem' than the millenia of racial violence and discrimination. Would you please enlighten us?

EmperorNero wrote:

A constantly available excuse from personal responsibility is the real reason that blacks are disproportionately in poverty...

To say that any group of people (associated by race) as seeking excuses 'from personal responsibility' is a steriotypical, bigoted statement. I very much hope this was a mistake because this type of steriotyping isn't allowed. And I do wish I'd read this entire post before responding (my bad); had I gotten to the bottom I'd have seen it's likely motivation. Nonetheless, I honestly hope some of this sinks in.

*sigh* we've a long, long way to go

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;59992 wrote:

A constantly available excuse from personal responsibility is the real reason that blacks are disproportionately in poverty, not racism or it's legacy.

I'm sorry, but this is flagrantly ignorant of both history and reality. How is mass ghettoization, crappy overcrowded schools, political disenfranchisement, and grossly inadequate infrastructure funding not a predisposing factor? And what on earth do you know about denial of personal responsibility among impoverished black people? I've spent my entire career taking care of predominantly poor black and hispanic patients, and you know what -- they have hard lives and they work hard to make ends meet without any of the opportunities that I had growing up... and I've never heard an "excuse".

And as for the "race doesn't exist" crap...

Yes, you are correct that at a genetic level the variability within racial groups exceeds the vairability between races. But that is completely irrelevant, considering that 1) this says nothing about functional genetic differences, 2) we share >99% of our DNA with every other human on earth yet it is reasonable to discern differences between people, 3) racial groups are social constructs that DO exist because of non-genetic features, and 4) racism is not rational so trying to scientifically undermine it is not going to solve this problem that has existed since antiquity.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

I agree. But I do believe that affirmative action has the opposite effect of it's intention. And that's not even taking into account that if it were working, it were wrong.

It may well seed bitterness and lost opportunity - true. The difference between affirmative action and racism as it is traditionally understood is that one is a proportional system of discrimination for the purposes of inclusivity, and the other is disproportionate, sometimes total, discrimination for the purposes of exclusivity.

Quote:

Let 'em be racists. It's not their action but our reaction that causes the problem.

As an admittedly extreme example, I don't think my reaction to a racially motivated assault is "the problem" - the assault is. Neither do I think my reaction to racially motivated refusal to educate, employ or promote is "the problem". It is a problem proposed to counter a nastier problem.

I want to plant my flag firmly in the camp of those that oppose racial exclusivity, abuse and assault. I think the easiest and clearest way to do this is to support inclusivity. Affirmative action is the only policy that visibly demonstrates inclusivity, even though it is a discriminatory measure.

Quote:

Sorry. You'll have to explain that term in this context.

Mani was a Persian prophet who preached a version of Zoroastrianism - thought by many to be history's first monotheism. In Mani's view a god filled the world with goodness and a devil filled it with badness, and a person can either dedicate their life to fighting for good or evil. The term manichean therefore is used to describe a worldview that seems to be ignoring shades of grey in favour of right and wrong, black and white.

Quote:

Well yeah, so if both cause problems. The one we can't really change (in the short-term), but we can choose to discontinue the other. Shouldn't we stop producing problems?

Not if you feel that the reason the current problem exists is to stem the other.

As an analogy:

A river often bursts its banks and floods a nearby village, spreading disease and destroying property.

A dam is built, which stops the flooding.

The dam is expensive to repair, and the villagers occasionally have to undergo hardship to maintain it.

Some villagers, especially those who never experienced the floods, argue that the dam should be knocked down. They may even claim that a change in climate would not produce the same sorts of flood experienced in the past. Are they right to tear the dam down?

I wouldn't say they are until they provide a clear picture of the situation. To adapt a point you raised earlier yourself - the cure is not worse than the disease, but prevention is better than the cure.

Quote:

I'm saying that the - now I don't have a term for them... the diversity crowd - is better at it than actual racists. (I don't see any racists btw.)

This is not manichean - which I think is a good thing. I do see racists. I don't think they are that hard to find if you go looking for them. I do not have first hand experience of the US. Various reactions to events such as the election of a mixed-race president have me pretty convinced there are racists in the US despite the apparent gestalt move towards greater acceptance. The relish with which certain media pundits assumed he agreed with racist anti-white comments made by his pastor despite frequent assurances to the contrary, or that he was educated in an Indonesian Madrass (as if it would matter if it were even true) despite the fact that the school head was on record explaining that the school was a secular institution, the fuss made over the fact his middle name is Hussein, or that a story that a black Obama supporter mutilated a white McCain voter was treated as credible despite its clear fabrication, and so on.

Mind you - this is as much an issue with news pundity as it is race - but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I think hardcore racists, such as those who made death threats in the wake of Obama's presidency, are very marginalised, but as I sought to explain with the dam analogy - I suspect this is largely because of preventative measures.

I join you in hoping for a day when such measures are no longer needed, but I disagree that it's arrival can be counted on. When things like the stuff I mention above stop happening I will be willing to consider affirmative action an unnecessary measure - one that may require reimplementation if demographic uptakes swing to disproportionate degrees.

Quote:

Also I don't see how individual racism and special benefits to (other) individual blacks are mutually exclusive.

Same point as my first - discrimination that encourages inclusivity is very different from that which encourages exclusivity. Where quotas wildly differ from proportional representation they clearly need to be realigned, and a certain amount of response to demand is also necessary (hence the Californian admissions system changes you tackle elsewhere).

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;60034 wrote:

Sounds pretty ludicrous to me - what with women having more genetic material than men. How is it so that two people of the same sex have more genetic differences than two people of opposite sex?

Women only have more genetic material by virtue of having two X chromosomes as opposed to one in men; X chromosomes are larger than Y chromosomes, but many (but not all) Y chromosome genes also exist on the X chromosome anyway. So all in all, the sequence variation between men and women is no different than that within genders. A brother and sister will have far more in common than an Aboriginal woman will with an Icelandic woman, or a Khoisan man with a Yagua man. While there are the obvious hormonal / genetic / anatomic things that define men as men and women as women, there are ALSO quite genetic / physiologic things specific to certain racial groups, though not enough to be important at a social level.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Women only have more genetic material by virtue of having two X chromosomes as opposed to one in men; X chromosomes are larger than Y chromosomes, but many (but not all) Y chromosome genes also exist on the X chromosome anyway. So all in all, the sequence variation between men and women is no different than that within genders. A brother and sister will have far more in common than an Aboriginal woman will with an Icelandic woman, or a Khoisan man with a Yagua man.

Sure, and had Drizzt made the same qualifications I wouldn't have raised an objection. He didn't, he said "the genetic difference between people of the same sex is larger then the difference between people of the opposite sex" and left it at that, which is hugely misleading. If he had factored in the issue of different populations or familial relations I wouldn't have questioned him - but he didn't. The fact that women have more genetic material than men seemed to me the most obvious objection to the statement that men are more likely to be genetically similar to women than men.

@EmperorNero,

In my opinion, affirmative action is the same evil as race quotas and sex quotas. It's discriminatory and it goes against the equal opportunity thing.

@EmperorNero,

And your opinion of the many counter-arguments or explanations in this thread?

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Sure, and had Drizzt made the same qualifications I wouldn't have raised an objection. He didn't, he said "the genetic difference between people of the same sex is larger then the difference between people of the opposite sex" and left it at that, which is hugely misleading. If he had factored in the issue of different populations or familial relations I wouldn't have questioned him - but he didn't. The fact that women have more genetic material than men seemed to me the most obvious objection to the statement that men are more likely to be genetically similar to women than men.

Sorry about that :bigsmile: I just read it somewhere together with that article.

Dave Allen wrote:

And your opinion of the many counter-arguments or explanations in this thread?

Like that it's a lesser evil?

@EmperorNero,

It's fair to say, Dave, that males and females can be genetically defined quite easily. It is almost certainly possible to do the same with racial groups, though genetics will reveal more about one's ancestry than about whether one fits into a traditional racial classification.

As you no doubt agree, though, the real social issue is how we find strength in our differences rather than lines of division. I've got no problem with black people feeling some sense of solidarity by virtue of a mix of shared history and extrinsic differentiation, but I do have a problem with people outside that group treating them according to a stereotype.

@Aedes,

Dave Allen;60502 wrote:

And your opinion of the many counter-arguments or explanations in this thread?

Drizzt Do'Urden;60504 wrote:

Like that it's a lesser evil?

It's not a lesser evil, it's an additional evil.

*

I'm going to respond to all posts, that address me, but give me some time.
And you might have overlooked my post because it is the last on page 2.

@Drizzt DoUrden,

Drizzt Do'Urden wrote:

Like that it's a lesser evil?

Yes, I think at least five contributors to this thread have gone into some detail on ths issue. To use myself an an example:

It may well seed bitterness and lost opportunity - true. The difference between affirmative action and racism as it is traditionally understood is that one is a proportional system of discrimination for the purposes of inclusivity, and the other is disproportionate, sometimes total, discrimination for the purposes of exclusivity.

As an admittedly extreme example, I don't think my reaction to a racially motivated assault is "the problem" - the assault is. Neither do I think my reaction to racially motivated refusal to educate, employ or promote is "the problem". It is a problem proposed to counter a nastier problem.

I want to plant my flag firmly in the camp of those that oppose racial exclusivity, abuse and assault. I think the easiest and clearest way to do this is to support inclusivity. Affirmative action is the only policy that visibly demonstrates inclusivity, even though it is a discriminatory measure.

Aedes wrote:

It's fair to say, Dave, that males and females can be genetically defined quite easily. It is almost certainly possible to do the same with racial groups, though genetics will reveal more about one's ancestry than about whether one fits into a traditional racial classification.

Sure.

Quote:

As you no doubt agree, though, the real social issue is how we find strength in our differences rather than lines of division. I've got no problem with black people feeling some sense of solidarity by virtue of a mix of shared history and extrinsic differentiation, but I do have a problem with people outside that group treating them according to a stereotype.

To me, the tempting part of Nero's rhetoric - once you isolate the pejoratives and ignore the lingering suspicion that his true agenda is to remove what little props the disadvantaged have in favour of his own 'kind' - is that eroding notions of difference might make more of an impact than finding strength in them. As such colourblindness is an appealing notion to me. However, I don't want to ignore science and/or sociology in order to do this.

I have a personal belief that it is not healthy to find pride in something over which you have no control, nor made any effort. "White pride" or "proud to be British" type statements leave me a bit cold. Those who utter them seem to me to grasping at some sense of value or achievement that they didn't earn and that is quite irrelevant in comparison to what makes them individually interesting.

If I am to be fair then, I would say that I also find shared history and extrinsic differentiation in other cultures or races largely irrelevent and unearned too.

I think this is a little sad - because culture provides us with variety. I think this may come down to the values of inclusivity and exclusivity again. I percieve there to be something more inclusive about a Brazilian carnival than a typical celebration of white pride. In fact I find it impossible to think of a celebration of white pride that isn't overtly exclusive.

Now if there are advocates of white pride who do want to celebrate their values without being intimidating or racist it seems a shame that their forum for doing so is so tarred with association with racists.

So forums for finding solidarity via shared history need not be exclusive - but I wouldn't go so far as to say I have no problems with them - it really depends on the mindset of the participants.

It seems to me that the necessary step societies who wish to demonstrate inclusivity have to take is to allow displays of pride by minorities whilst curbing the majority from doing the same. That's the dilemma to my eyes - I support a system that slightly biases against people "like" me, in order to prove to people "unlike" me that I have nothing against them. I want a day to come when people like me don't have to do so anymore. What criteria must we achieve as a society before we can relax our guard?

@Drizzt DoUrden,

Drizzt Do'Urden wrote:

In my opinion, affirmative action is the same evil as race quotas and sex quotas. It's discriminatory and it goes against the equal opportunity thing.

You're right; AA is an 'evil' since it's effectiveness lies in countering an existing prejudice with an overt, systemized other. I've personally felt the sting of AA and have thought long and hard about it.

It's one of those issues - one of those 'systems' - that is controversial at best and horrific at worst. It's like a gun you hope you'll never need, hidden near your bed; because if you do, someone's going to get a good 50-caliber chunk of flesh blown away. Another way to put it is an Imperfect Solution to an Imperfect Problem.

So yea, I could make as many arguments for as against. And after having been on both sides of the issue (the 'benefactor' as well as the 'loser', both in management and 'the trenches') and much consideration, I fear it is both necessary and prudent in at times. We have to be very careful with this one. It's potential for damage is damned near as high as its potential for good - one of those weapons you wouldn't trust but in the most wise and temperate hands.

Thanks

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

It's not a lesser evil, it's an additional evil.

Perhaps it is, technically, though the presence of the additional evil has a reverse catalysing effect on the original evil, resulting in a net decrease of evil.

So, to all practical intents and purposes, it is a lesser evil.

---------- Post added at 10:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 AM ----------

Khethil wrote:

You're right; AA is an 'evil' since it's effectiveness lies in countering an existing prejudice with an overt, systemized other. I've personally felt the sting of AA and have thought long and hard about it.

Me too, I'm currently unemployed in Belfast where at least 50% of employees taken on for many roles have to be from a Roman Catholic background, and I'm lapsed Anglican.

Life's better than it was during the Troubles though - thanks in part to such legislation. Can't say I like it, I just prefer it.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Yes, I think at least five contributors to this thread have gone into some detail on ths issue. To use myself an an example:

It may well seed bitterness and lost opportunity - true. The difference between affirmative action and racism as it is traditionally understood is that one is a proportional system of discrimination for the purposes of inclusivity, and the other is disproportionate, sometimes total, discrimination for the purposes of exclusivity.

As an admittedly extreme example, I don't think my reaction to a racially motivated assault is "the problem" - the assault is. Neither do I think my reaction to racially motivated refusal to educate, employ or promote is "the problem". It is a problem proposed to counter a nastier problem.

I want to plant my flag firmly in the camp of those that oppose racial exclusivity, abuse and assault. I think the easiest and clearest way to do this is to support inclusivity. Affirmative action is the only policy that visibly demonstrates inclusivity, even though it is a discriminatory measure.

I'd say that a more important difference is that racism is a personal belief and AA is a nation wide policy. Anyway, when we are talking about evil isn't there a saying that you can't stop evil with evil Smile

@Drizzt DoUrden,

Drizzt Do'Urden wrote:

I'd say that a more important difference is that racism is a personal belief and AA is a nation wide policy.

Propensity to murder or rape might come down to personal beliefs, and laws to prevent them are policies. This does not mean they are unwise. The laws are there to put a barrier on the tendancy to act on those unpleasant personal beliefs. Is your argument that we should forgo policies?

Quote:

Anyway, when we are talking about evil isn't there a saying that you can't stop evil with evil

That something is a saying hardly makes it is a good argument.

"The lesser of two evils" is itself an adage.

"Fight fire with fire" is a well-known saying.

So what?

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Propensity to murder or rape might come down to personal beliefs, and laws to prevent them are policies. This does not mean they are unwise. The laws are there to put a barrier on the tendancy to act on those unpleasant personal beliefs. Is your argument that we should forgo policies?

But there already is a law against discrimination. (on the basis of race, sex etc.)
AA can't help against racism because AA IS racist. Smile

Quote:

That something is a saying hardly makes it is a good argument.

"The lesser of two evils" is itself an adage.

"Fight fire with fire" is a well-known saying.

So what?

I didn't mean it as an argument.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;60515 wrote:

Perhaps it is, technically, though the presence of the additional evil has a reverse catalysing effect on the original evil,

My whole point was that it doesn't.
What reverse catalyzing effect on the original evil?
Giving one guy something does not reverse another guy being discriminated against because they are of the same skin color.

@EmperorNero,

On many occasions i think the sins of the father should be burdened by the sons.It will certainly make a few realise that history has its burden for those who did not suffer from it.
The swing of the pendulum has to swing its extremes before balance and harmony can be achieved.
The black communities legacy demands whites suffer , its good for the soul and helps make recompense.As long as it aint me.

@Drizzt DoUrden,

Drizzt Do'Urden wrote:

But there already is a law against discrimination. (on the basis of race, sex etc.)
AA can't help against racism because AA IS racist.

As I stated earlier that there is a clear distinction in my mind between discrimination designed for the purposes of inclusion - which I think is of benefit to society - and one that discriminates for the purposes of exclusion - which I think marginalises minorities.

If you aren't in favour of outright marginalisation of minorities what alternative solution to the problem of discrimination in favour of majorities in the workplace and/or academic world would you suggest get used instead?

@Dave Allen,

Its not fair its not supposed to be..Its recompense for past errors and the acceptance that the majority are not always right.Might is not right.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know