Racism

[Estebonrober]

Ok so a topic that comes up constantly. Its used as attack from the left, and as a victim card on the right.

In my own family I have a racist right winger. I have a right winger whose belief in certain policies guarantee racist outcomes. One basically believes certain minorities aren't capable the other believes the scales should not be tipped in anyone's favor, even though he acknowledges the way that plays out ends up being racist (housing or prosecution rates for example). Both of these would be called racist by the left but I think there is a difference even though I don't agree with either one.

I personally think our current administration comes a lot closer to the actual racist then any administration in living memory for me( the first Bush).

I'm sure some of our friends here fall into the latter category. Here's the thing though, if your policies play out racist, shouldn't you be open to changing those? Should you be surprised when those who suffer under those systems (BLM for example) call you racists for perpetuating systems that persecute them?

Thoughts? Anyone else know what I'm trying to zero in on?

I think I'll add that I really believe the racist outcomes that banks and the judicial systems realize are the worst parts of the American experiment at the moment and if we really want to honor the ideas of "all men are created equal and have inalienable rights" we should work on these sectors of our society.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I just want to say before this goes predictably off the rails that for the first time in a long time I had someone openly say "when the founding fathers said all men are created equal, they really only meant white men" today, so I'm in a bit of a mood with the right wingers at the moment.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I just want to say before this goes predictably off the rails that for the first time in a long time I had someone openly say "when the founding fathers said all men are created equal, they really only meant white men" today, so I'm in a bit of a mood with the right wingers at the moment.

Er, no. The FF were likely a pragmatic statetsman who saw the need for the country to be lead by some ideals and bit of idealism though.

 

[Berzerker]

race does not exist, therefore neither does racism

 

[Peuri]

If someone advocates for a law that is the same for everyone, and advocates for such a law to be applied to everyone in equal measure, but because of socioeconomic reasons tied to "races" that law ends up producing unequal outcomes, then I wouldn't call such a person racist. But I've been called a racist before for thinking in these lines, so what do I know.

Edit: I guess I am operating under an old definition of racism where racism is 1. the belief that races exist 2. the belief that such races differ in quality 3. the belief that the races form a hierarchy and 4. the belief that society should organise around the racial hierarchy 5. acting upon such beliefs.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Ok so a topic that comes up constantly. Its used as attack from the left, and as a victim card on the right.

I have seen how the deranged left uses racist card to supress and divide and infact introduce even more racism through their superficialy anti-racist policies. I still have to see how the right uses racism as a victim card...

Moderator Action: People using political hemispheres as insults will be infracted at as great length as necessary. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

race does not exist, therefore neither does racism

It amazes me how quick and satisfied some are to call large segments of society racists instead of simply admiting that prejudices of various kinds among all people are a universal problem. Rich do not trust poor but itsnt so much of an issue becouse you cant use it to gain more power apparently.

 

[Peuri]

It amazes me how quick and satisfied some are to call large segments of society racists instead of simply admiting that prejudices of various kinds among all people are a universal problem. Rich do not trust poor but itsnt so much of an issue becouse you cant use it to gain more power apparently.

If there is to be societal healing, there needs to be some binding lies and cross-cutting rituals that unite the rich and the poor, and the native and the immigrant. The nation was an efficient binding lie for most of the 20th century. But that seems to be haram today. There needs to be something of the sort for the 21st century to unite the tribes that are forming in our countries, and create trust between peoples again.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If there is to be societal healing, there needs to be some binding lies and cross-cutting rituals that unite the rich and the poor, and the native and the immigrant. The nation was an efficient binding lie for most of the 20th century. But that seems to be haram today. There needs to be something of the sort for the 21st century to unite the tribes that are forming in our countries, and create trust between peoples again.

Interesting but thats exactly why nationalism is still a thing. Not for those who want to divide and conquer/control obviously but for most of a nation-states nationalism is practical and effective form of idealism.

 

[HoloDoc]

As a person born with a foot disorder, I am firmly against all racing. That's what we're talking about, right?

There is definitely a difference between "I hate black people," and "I back policies that inadvertently affect one ethnic group more than others." The big issue is that many people often use the second as an excuse when they actually believe the first; look at voter suppression laws in the US, for instance, or my own country's policy on "asylum seekers," where they actively sent Tamils back to Sri Lanka to be tortured and murdered, but are trying to make excuses to let white Sotuh Africans come here en masse.

I believe policies favouring one ethnic group over another, such as Affirmative Action in the US, or ABSTUDY here in Australia, are explicitly racist policies. With that said, they are both an attempt to remedy the effects of explicit racism against these groups in the past. Do we say; "these policies are racist, get rid of them," or do we say; "these policies are racist, but necessary, keep them." I can see arguments for both, and I wouldn't class a person who says the former, and means it, as racist. But such a person should be open to changing those opinions if the evidence is against them.

 

[Hehehe]

Thoughts? Anyone else know what I'm trying to zero in on?

I think what you're trying to say is, there are basically 3 different positions:
1. Inequality of opportunities: we should actively discriminate against certain people (this view is extremely rare these days)
2. Equality of opportunities: we should guarantee everyone equal opportunities for success, even if that won't lead to equal outcomes
3. Equality of outcomes: we should counteract any systematic biases and disadvantages in such a way that it will lead to equal outcomes (positive discrimination, or, in your opinion, the only "non-racist" policy)

Of course, race is the elephant in the room. I guess it's worth recapping how we got here. History is written by the winners, and following the defeat of Nazis, the Nazis were utterly demonized (and rightly so, WW2 and the Holocaust were both horrible tragedies). This led to racial thinking becoming a taboo. This is also why racist, fascist and Nazi are some of the worst insults that you can call someone (they all come from the third reich). This is why in the post-WW2 period egalitarianism came to be the dominant way of thinking. Surely, every group of people has to be equal in their abilities, because look at what the Nazis did.

Of course, egalitarianism has one obvious problem: if everyone is equal, how come some people are clearly doing better than others? The poverty of third world countries was pinned on colonialism (a baseless narrative) whereas under-performance of minorities in the US was pinned on systematic racism. After all, since everybody is equal, equal opportunities will automatically lead to equal outcomes. So now that equal outcomes hasn't happened, clearly that just means that there aren't equal opportunities. So clearly there has to be some kind of insidious systematic racism. We know it's there, because the unequal outcomes prove it is there. Even though we can't seem to be able to point to individual instances of this "systematic racism", we just know that it has to be there*.

Of course, personally, I believe that 1st world Western countries already have equal opportunities. And I believe that the reason why that hasn't led to equal outcomes is because of IQ differences. In fact, it's pretty remarkable how equal the United States seems when you normalize for IQ (I'd love to have similar studies done in Finland, but it's a taboo subject). In the US, black people seem to be doing almost exactly as well as similarly low IQ white people. Meanwhile, Asians, with their slightly higher IQ seem to be doing slightly better, and Jews with an IQ of 115 are doing very well. Of course, I realize that the IQ stuff is taboo, and that because of that, no-one here will even consider it, no matter how much evidence there is (and there is a lot of it). But nonetheless I think it's remarkable how well it explains reality. As Aristotle once said, it is the mark of an educated mind, to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. Imagine a world where there would, indeed, be innate IQ differences among groups of people. How would that world be different from this one? It wouldn't, and it isn't.

Moderator Action: Ok, we've been through this before... Discussions of IQ and race are frowned upon here as they are just a disguise for scientific racism and people object to it. Infracted for inappropriate content. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

*I realize that when I say something like this, a bunch of people have their fingers itching to teach me about unequal schooling opportunities, redlining, drug convictions etc. etc. But those are all false narratives. They do not stand up to scrutiny (we can go over them all)

I think I'll add that I really believe the racist outcomes that banks and the judicial systems realize are the worst parts of the American experiment at the moment and if we really want to honor the ideas of "all men are created equal and have inalienable rights" we should work on these sectors of our society.

All men are created equal? What do you think that means? All (white) men are created equal under the law? Or that all men are created equally handsome, equally tall and equally intelligent?

 

[Estebonrober]

I think what you're trying to say is, there are basically 3 different positions:
1. Inequality of opportunities: we should actively discriminate against certain people (this view is extremely rare these days)
2. Equality of opportunities: we should guarantee everyone equal opportunities for success, even if that won't lead to equal outcomes
3. Equality of outcomes: we should counteract any systematic biases and disadvantages in such a way that it will lead to equal outcomes (positive discrimination, or, in your opinion, the only "non-racist" policy)

Of course, race is the elephant in the room. I guess it's worth recapping how we got here. History is written by the winners, and following the defeat of Nazis, the Nazis were utterly demonized (and rightly so, WW2 and the Holocaust were both horrible tragedies). This led to racial thinking becoming a taboo. This is also why racist, fascist and Nazi are some of the worst insults that you can call someone (they all come from the third reich). This is why in the post-WW2 period egalitarianism came to be the dominant way of thinking. Surely, every group of people has to be equal in their abilities, because look at what the Nazis did.

Of course, egalitarianism has one obvious problem: if everyone is equal, how come some people are clearly doing better than others? The poverty of third world countries was pinned on colonialism (a baseless narrative) whereas under-performance of minorities in the US was pinned on systematic racism. After all, since everybody is equal, equal opportunities will automatically lead to equal outcomes. So now that equal outcomes hasn't happened, clearly that just means that there aren't equal opportunities. So clearly there has to be some kind of insidious systematic racism. We know it's there, because the unequal outcomes prove it is there. Even though we can't seem to be able to point to individual instances of this "systematic racism", we just know that it has to be there*.

Of course, personally, I believe that 1st world Western countries already have equal opportunities. And I believe that the reason why that hasn't led to equal outcomes is because of IQ differences. In fact, it's pretty remarkable how equal the United States seems when you normalize for IQ (I'd love to have similar studies done in Finland, but it's a taboo subject). In the US, black people seem to be doing almost exactly as well as similarly low IQ white people. Meanwhile, Asians, with their slightly higher IQ seem to be doing slightly better, and Jews with an IQ of 115 are doing very well. Of course, I realize that the IQ stuff is taboo, and that because of that, no-one here will even consider it, no matter how much evidence there is (and there is a lot of it). But nonetheless I think it's remarkable how well it explains reality. As Aristotle once said, it is the mark of an educated mind, to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. Imagine a world where there would, indeed, be innate IQ differences among groups of people. How would that world be different from this one? It wouldn't, and it isn't.

*I realize that when I say something like this, a bunch of people have their fingers itching to teach me about unequal schooling opportunities, redlining, drug convictions etc. etc. But those are all false narratives. They do not stand up to scrutiny (we can go over them all)


All men are created equal? What do you think that means? All (white) men are created equal under the law? Or that all men are created equally handsome, equally tall and equally intelligent?

I can obliviously point to the systematic racist outcomes in the American system.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...-still-segregated-even-after-fair-housing-act

https://www.sentencingproject.org/p...racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/

If you think unequal school opportunities and redlining are false narratives then you've deceived yourself. If you choose to read some on the topics you would understand otherwise.

If you mean IQ in the sense of disparity in schooling opportunities then your idea might have merit? Of course considering your disclaimer at the end it seems you are just prejudicial.

 

[Arwon]

Of course, personally, I believe that 1st world Western countries already have equal opportunities. And I believe that the reason why that hasn't led to equal outcomes is because of IQ differences.

Bloody hell

 

[Estebonrober]

I have seen how the deranged left uses racist card to supress and divide and infact introduce even more racism through their superficialy anti-racist policies. I still have to see how the right uses racism as a victim card...

You literally just used it as a victim card.

 

[Arwon]

Man things are getting bad

There was a good few decades there when people didn't get the calipers out to start measuring brainpans in polite company.

 

[MaryKB]

Oh dear, some messages here are very distressing, I'm sad to see people still deny racism is real (I find the same thing with sexism denial too), and even seeing things like talking about IQs is really just absolutely disgusting. I can understand how when you're used to your privilege it can really be hard to understand how other people struggle in ways you don't understand, but you also do have enough resources where you can learn about things, and you can listen to people without dismissing what they're saying or telling them their wrong (that's your privilege in action again). You have policies like affirmative action and such not to give minorities and women advantages, but to help close unfair gaps, because added obstacles are totally real.

Like imagine you're a black child in school, and you have a friend who's white. Imagine both of you act pretty much the same and you have similar histories at school, but you two do something silly and cause trouble. You know you're much more likely to be punished severely and suspended than your white friend is? And then going further, if you're black and you commit a crime, you're much more likely to receive your maximum sentence and go to prison longer than a white person who did the same thing as you and has a criminal history identical to yours, and that's racism. You don't get the benefit of the doubt white people do, and you're less likely to hear back from your resumes even when you have equivalent work experience and education, just to name a few things. But over and over again I'm saddened seeing people just keep denying these things, and there are so many more, if you listen to African American communities (and same goes for women) and really listen and try to understand, you can see what life is like in someone else's place and your understanding of our world will improve, and then maybe you might agree something needs to be done.

I've seen this comic before, and I feel it works for both racism and sexism, and you can see so many people (particularly white men) sounding just like this person you see here.

 

[Akka]

If someone advocates for a law that is the same for everyone, and advocates for such a law to be applied to everyone in equal measure, but because of socioeconomic reasons tied to "races" that law ends up producing unequal outcomes, then I wouldn't call such a person racist. But I've been called a racist before for thinking in these lines, so what do I know.

Pretty much. And pretty much the same experience too.

 

[Lexicus]

[nazi stuff]

@HoloDoc, I was surprised you "liked" his Malthusian post in the Yemen War thread, I hope you now realize that post was a Trojan Horse to start talking about the...uh...main ideas in his post in this thread, right?

If you think unequal school opportunities and redlining are false narratives then you've deceived yourself. If you choose to read some on the topics you would understand otherwise.

It is a waste of time debating with him, is a scientific racist committed to the idea of legit biological distinction between the races.

 

[Cutlass]

I just want to say before this goes predictably off the rails that for the first time in a long time I had someone openly say "when the founding fathers said all men are created equal, they really only meant white men" today, so I'm in a bit of a mood with the right wingers at the moment.

Well, it is true that the Founders only meant white men. Now those people who claim to be Constitutional originalists or strict constructionists, that is what they mean and what they want: A country where all white men are created equal, and all else get, at best, second class citizenship.

But the Founders were in some ways a really strange lot:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

This doesn't say white men or black men or indians or women or Jews or any other minorities. Or, for that matter, Catholics.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Neither does this.

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Or this.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Even this doesn't.

But that doesn't mean it wasn't understood that they were only thinking of the white men.

I think the way to look at it is to understand that the US has a Founding Mythos which the American people generally, and the American leadership specifically, have never been willing to live up to. Our founding documents are not a description of what the Founding Fathers built, but rather an ideal the successors of the Founders need to work towards. This is fundamentally what the Founder worshipers get wrong. We need to build to our ideals, not assume that they were perfect then.

All of the movement in the Progressive/liberal direction has been movement towards making America's founding mythos a reality. Conservatism is all about failing to live up to who we think we are.

 

[red_elk]

Of course, personally, I believe that 1st world Western countries already have equal opportunities. And I believe that the reason why that hasn't led to equal outcomes is because of IQ differences. In fact, it's pretty remarkable how equal the United States seems when you normalize for IQ (I'd love to have similar studies done in Finland, but it's a taboo subject). In the US, black people seem to be doing almost exactly as well as similarly low IQ white people.

IQ also depends on opportunities. In USA you need crapload of money to get university education, so it's no wonder that whites on average have more opportunities to climb up the social ladder.
Unless you believe that low IQ is some inherent feature of black people, which would be a completely different argument.