Racism

[Peuri]

Its one and the same problem. America lacks lack comprehensive, universal public services due to racism making it impossible to implement them.

You won't get them until white america stops getting mad at the "wrong" people benefitting from them.

I would be very interested in reading how it is demonstrated that the lack of a European style welfare state in America is due to racism first and foremost.

 

[brennan]

"Even playing fields" is your words.

Yes, three of them. But they were placed in the context of about twenty of yours, hence a strawman.

I'm merely asking why you ignored the previously established facts when you pretended such a thing exists.

I merely pointed out that an even playing field is not discriminatory. Do you disagree that an even playing field is not discriminatory?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So, basically "even playing field" does not exist now, while people are arguing whether it would be sufficient to end discrimination.
At least start with it.

"At least start with it" is pretty much the point. How to establish it is the obvious question.

 

[Yeekim]

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.

So what would you do about it? After all, what you describe is a problem not with the letter of the law, but its application.

 

[Senethro]

You're ducking out because we both know that you wouldn't do very well in such a conversation

I don't think there has ever been non-violent racism, so I don't get why all the racists are surprised when their "polite" talk about racism isn't welcomed. You're pretty much openly discussing conspiracy to violence.

I merely pointed out that an even playing field is not discriminatory. Do you disagree that an even playing field is not discriminatory?

An even playing field is not discriminatory, but I doubt you'll agree on what an even playing field is.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, three of them. But they were placed in the context of about twenty of yours, hence a strawman.

I merely pointed out that an even playing field is not discriminatory. Do you disagree that an even playing field is not discriminatory?

Not at all. I merely asked what it had to do with the discussion at hand. You seemed to be suggesting that while affirmative action produced more equitable results than inaction there was some mysterious "something better." I asked what that might be and you wandered off into this "even playing fields" business.

Yes, an even playing field is in fact the goal. Affirmative action is one way to move towards that goal. Inaction might also move towards that goal, certainly won't as effectively, and might not at all.

Once more, you did suggest several posts back that you had a better alternative. Let's hear it.

 

[Hehehe]

I don't think there has ever been non-violent racism, so I don't get why all the racists are surprised when their "polite" talk about racism isn't welcomed. You're pretty much openly discussing conspiracy to violence.

Well, that's a strawman if I've ever seen one. Differences between people have been recognized throughout most of history, whenever there has been contact between different groups of people.

 

[Peuri]

I merely pointed out that an even playing field is not discriminatory. Do you disagree that an even playing field is not discriminatory?

Well, the counter-argument obviously is that the playing field is not even due to all sorts of cultural reasons, hence you need equality of outcome, and the inequality of outcomes is proof of the inherent racism of the system.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So what would you do about it? After all, what you descrie is a problem not with the letter of the law, but its application.

If problems of application are possible, then there is a problem in the letter of the law. Laws need to be crafted such that application has no alternative to fairness.

 

[Hehehe]

Well, the counter-argument obviously is that the playing field is not even due to all sorts of cultural reasons, hence you need equality of outcome, and the inequality of outcomes is proof of the inherent racism of the system.

But even if there were "structural inequalities" or whatever in the system, wouldn't these eventually disappear if we implement equality of opportunities?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, the counter-argument obviously is that the playing field is not even due to all sorts of cultural reasons, hence you need equality of outcome, and the inequality of outcomes is proof of the inherent racism of the system.

Consider historical, rather than cultural.

 

[Peuri]

Not at all. I merely asked what it had to do with the discussion at hand. You seemed to be suggesting that while affirmative action produced more equitable results than inaction there was some mysterious "something better." I asked what that might be and you wandered off into this "even playing fields" business.

Yes, an even playing field is in fact the goal. Affirmative action is one way to move towards that goal. Inaction might also move towards that goal, certainly won't as effectively, and might not at all.

Once more, you did suggest several posts back that you had a better alternative. Let's hear it.

Putting emphesis on the entry to university seems a bit weird point to intervene. Surely more educated parents may rise more socially efficient children, but wouldn't a more reasonable point of intervention be on the family, community and primary school level?

Edit:
What is the difference between the historical and the cultural? The argument against contemporary portrayals of black face, for example, is a cultural argument that is inherently tied to the perceived connection of all black face acts to it's historical roots.

 

[red_elk]

"At least start with it" is pretty much the point. How to establish it is the obvious question.

From my experience in Canada I got the impression that the playing field is quite even there. But I'm not black, so may be other people can comment on this.
You can certainly learn from them in reducing income inequality, though.

 

[Yeekim]

Its one and the same problem. America lacks lack comprehensive, universal public services due to racism making it impossible to implement them.
You won't get them until white america stops getting mad at the "wrong" people benefitting from them.

I would be very interested in reading how it is demonstrated that the lack of a European style welfare state in America is due to racism first and foremost.

Well, you can't exactly demonstrate something like this is general, but it feels like common sense to me.
People are reluctant to embrace policies that emphasize solidarity when they do not feel sufficient solidarity towards their fellow citizens.

If problems of application are possible, then there is a problem in the letter of the law. Laws need to be crafted such that application has no alternative to fairness.

I am afraid you have not given this much thought...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Putting emphesis on the entry to university seems a bit weird point to intervene. Surely more educated parents may rise more socially efficient children, but wouldn't a more reasonable point of intervention be on the family, community and primary school level?

The most effective point of intervention would likely be all levels. That's why affirmative action, which is generally regarded as intervention at the university admissions level, came simultaneously with education reforms at lower levels, the Fair Housing Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and some other massive interventions aimed at leveling the playing field.

 

[Senethro]

Well, you can't exactly demonstrate something like this is general, but it feels like common sense to me.
People are reluctant to embrace policies that emphasize solidarity when they do not feel sufficient solidarity towards their fellow citizens.

I've hit upon this highly cited paper -
https://www.nber.org/papers/w8524.pdf

and am currently looking through the citations for discussions, rebuttals etc

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=14087286868025879467&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

My first thought is that the usual folks will point to "racial heterogeneity" and the other usual folks will point to "racial animosity".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

From my experience in Canada I got the impression that the playing field is quite even there. But I'm not black, so may be other people can comment on this.
You can certainly learn from them in reducing income inequality, though.

Canada isn't burdened with anywhere near as much history of tipping the field, so evening the field there would have been substantially easier. I suspect they've also been working on it longer.

 

[brennan]

Not at all. I merely asked what it had to do with the discussion at hand.

Er, no. You accused me, with your usual tact, of 'ignoring established facts'.

Yes, an even playing field is in fact the goal. Affirmative action is one way to move towards that goal. Inaction might also move towards that goal, certainly won't as effectively, and might not at all.

Not sure why you're mentioning inaction. I don't remember suggesting inaction anywhere.

Once more, you did suggest several posts back that you had a better alternative. Let's hear it.

I'm surprised you can't think of any. Wait: you can!

education reforms at lower levels, the Fair Housing Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and some other massive interventions aimed at leveling the playing field

.
Are these discriminatory? I don't think they are.

Removing structural inequalities has been one of the primary goals of democratic socialists for about a century. It isn't discriminatory and has produced spectacular results - i'm thinking of the post-war consensus period in particular.

 

[Peuri]

Well, you can't exactly demonstrate something like this is general, but it feels like common sense to me.
People are reluctant to embrace policies that emphasize solidarity when they do not feel sufficient solidarity towards their fellow citizens.

I am afraid you have not given this much thought...

Exactly, so why throw around such sweeping claims? They only help to obfuscate the picture. Sure racism can play a part in it, but the reason can just as likely be Americans' (somewhat misplaced) belief in the workings of free market capitalism.

 

[Akka]

I would be very interested in reading how it is demonstrated that the lack of a European style welfare state in America is due to racism first and foremost.

It's funny, because the reasoning that it can't happen in the USA due to racism implies that there is no racism in Europe (as it DID happen there), but then it's our resident Americans who are constantly lecturing Europeans on racism.

I'd say it's funny to see their contradiction, but it's been so repetitive that the fun has has been gone for years by now.