Why are antiracists so... racist?

[Lexicus]

Not sure how that article is supposed to support your point. It talks about policies that were basically targeted at white people, just not explicitly so. If you say: "Every home owner gets free cash!", then of course that policy will favor white people, and rich people, because those are the people who own the houses.

That does not in any way discredit the idea that if you have a colorblind policy that for example mandates that schools in poor areas get extra funding will help equalize the playing field, even if it's not targeted at black people, but at poor people as a whole. It's all about actually targeting those policies so that the people who need the help the most, get the help.

Actually, that is precisely what it does. The entire point is that in the US (and elsewhere too) policies that are colorblind are policies that are "basically targeted at white people, just not explicitly so."

 

[Ryika]

Actually, that is precisely what it does. The entire point is that in the US (and elsewhere too) policies that are colorblind are policies that are "basically targeted at white people, just not explicitly so."

Yeah, so then you're not doing it right. That's not a problem with the idea itself.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, so then you're not doing it right. That's not a problem with the idea itself.

This rather reminds me of Trotskyists insisting the problem wasn't Leninism but Stalin. "Where people fall short of the ideal, the problem isn't the ideal, it's the people" is just not a very useful point to make even where true.

 

[Ryika]

It rather reminds me of when Ash wrapped his body around Pikachu to keep him safe from the bird pokemon that were attacking them. It's not rain that defeats birds, it's the electricity that you blast into the air.

 

[Akka]

Maybe I just still don't get it. Maybe I'm a slow thinker who needs more concrete things to work with. Maybe these rephrasing or restating of previous questions will prove useful?

I don't doubt you're pretty slow, but the real problem is, as usual, simply one of bad faith, which is boring me more and more as it shows just how pointless any attempt at discussion is.

Who in the past has advanced racial equality through colourblindness?

Romans seem to have been pretty effective at it. France managed to have such a lower amount of racism compared to USA that the Harlem's Hellfighters were actually assigned to French command because of it. Even with the recent rise of racism (due to a lot of immigration from a very different culture and a number of religious attacks), most of Western Europe don't see the level of inter-racial violence the USA have.

How would a BLM supporter put forward their view via colourblindness? What would their goals be?

Focusing on police violence in general. The problems to fix with coulourblindness are the same than without. It's poverty, it's oppression, it's lack of access to education. Colourblindness is just a more universal, more efficient, more principled way to look at it, focusing on the problem itself instead of racializing it - and by racializing it, managing to make it racist itself (only focusing on the problems of a race, hence treating it differently than another race) and losing support for it (some might think "well, not my problem", others might be put off by the racialization or the double-standard, and true racists not giving a crap to begin with).

If a state was colourblind and did not collect statistics on the ethnicities of their citizens, then how would they know if a reasonable degree of equality was being achieved?

You can't, just like you also can't get measure about anti-gay discrimination.

 

[Lexicus]

Focusing on police violence in general. The problems to fix with coulourblindness are the same than without. It's poverty, it's oppression, it's lack of access to education. Colourblindness is just a more universal, more efficient, more principled way to look at it, focusing on the problem itself instead of racializing it - and by racializing it, managing to make it racist itself (only focusing on the problems of a race, hence treating it differently than another race) and losing support for it (some might think "well, not my problem", others might be put off by the racialization or the double-standard, and true racists not giving a crap to begin with).

So again, we have plenty of empirical evidence (some of which was discussed in the link you ignored) that colorblind policy is ineffective at addressing racial disparities. So I'm not sure how you can argue that colorblindness is "more efficient", at least not if the problem you want to solve is racial disparity in society (not that you've given any particular indication this is something that you care about or are even aware of).

 

[inthesomeday]

The United States-- and every American state-- is founded on racist labor dynamics in a way no European country could ever be realistically compared to. This is why a colorblind policy NOW is completely ineffective. It's too late for that. Racism took root and now has its tendrils in the entire basis of how labor and class work in America. Even though race is indeed a social construct it is a powerful one and to destroy race itself first one must destroy racism.

Akka, are you from the US?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So again, we have plenty of empirical evidence (some of which was discussed in the link you ignored) that colorblind policy is ineffective at addressing racial disparities. So I'm not sure how you can argue that colorblindness is "more efficient", at least not if the problem you want to solve is racial disparity in society (not that you've given any particular indication this is something that you care about or are even aware of).

The alternative is suggesting to solve racism by using more racism. That's petty divisive and will not serve any long-term good.

If you actually enforce standards where the same situations are treated the same way every time by law, you would not get disparity between populations (if you get disparity, you're not enforcing the standards and the problem is not the standards).

 

[Lexicus]

The alternative is suggesting to solve racism by using more racism. That's petty divisive and will not serve any long-term good.

Long-term good? This wouldn't be one of those entreaties "to wait for a 'more convenient season.'" that Martin Luther King Jr denounced in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail would it?

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot take seriously anyone who refers to race-based affirmative action as "solve racism by using more racism." It is not racism to address racial disparities in society head-on.

If you actually enforce standards where the same situations are treated the same way every time by law, you would not get disparity between populations (if you get disparity, you're not enforcing the standards and the problem is not the standards).

Once again, "when people fall short of the ideal, the problem is people, not the ideal" is completely useless sentiment.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot take seriously anyone who refers to race-based affirmative action as "solve racism by using more racism." It is not racism to address racial disparities in society head-on.

On the contrary, disparate treatment on the basis of race being judged differently solely based on current power structure is racism outright. If you want to do anything other than switch who's in power, you have to actually create and enforce set policy towards the equality you're claiming to want.

Even if you can't do it perfectly, do it better.

Once again, "when people fall short of the ideal, the problem is people, not the ideal" is completely useless sentiment.

The implication of quoted statement is that a non-racist society is an impossible ideal, and thus racism of your favored variety/population is preferable to other racism because reasons.

I'd rather actually enforce policy that minimizes racism if eliminating it is theoretically impossible. There's no reason to expect adding more intentionally will reduce it on the whole.

 

[inthesomeday]

Racism comes from institutions friends just get rid of the institutions

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Racism comes from institutions friends just get rid of the institutions

Racism comes from a lot of things, but the implication of actual colorblind policy is that it can and must constrain what institutions/individuals can get away with doing based on race, otherwise it's not being enforced.

 

[Akka]

The United States-- and every American state-- is founded on racist labor dynamics in a way no European country could ever be realistically compared to. This is why a colorblind policy NOW is completely ineffective. It's too late for that. Racism took root and now has its tendrils in the entire basis of how labor and class work in America. Even though race is indeed a social construct it is a powerful one and to destroy race itself first one must destroy racism.

I'd say it's the opposite, it's because the US never actually tried to be colourblind that racism has taken such deep roots.
You're all following this idea that focusing on race and using racist measures will somehow make people less racist, which is a conceptual absurdity.

Uncoincidentally, all the supporter of this idea seems to work on this ridiculously redefined word of "racism". Which might explain part of the cognitive dissonance of being anti-racist using racist means, and also the apparent unability to understand that putting race at the forefront won't make people less racist. Might be the connection - being so used to an alternate reality that you end up losing sight of the fact that redefining a word doesn't actually change the original concept, and as such the actual psychological mechanism that makes people racist won't be altered just because you try to manipulate the meaning of the word.

Akka, are you from the US?

No, I'm French.

 

[Lexicus]

On the contrary, disparate treatment on the basis of race being judged differently solely based on current power structure is racism outright.

Facile nonsense. Logical "gotcha" from someone totally uninterested in solving the actual problem.

The implication of quoted statement is that a non-racist society is an impossible ideal, and thus racism of your favored variety/population is preferable to other racism because reasons.

No, because I reject your premise that 'colorblind policy' and 'non-racist society' are identical.

Racism comes from a lot of things, but the implication of actual colorblind policy is that it can and must constrain what institutions/individuals can get away with doing based on race, otherwise it's not being enforced.

It is impossible to enforce while still maintaining precepts of liberalism in the legal system.

 

[inthesomeday]

I'd say it's the opposite, it's because the US never actually tried to be colourblind that racism has taken such deep roots.

That's what I just said yo

You're all following this idea that focusing on race and using racist measures will somehow make people less racist, which is a conceptual absurdity.

How do you suggest to make people less racist if not by focusing on race? If theres a problem based in something you gotta talk about that thing to fix the problem.

Uncoincidentally, all the supporter of this idea seems to work on this ridiculously redefined word of "racism".

Oh yeah I forgot about this problem you have.

Which might explain part of the cognitive dissonance of being anti-racist using racist means,

Hm... In this sentence you use both definitions of racist, the first time as "anti-racist" to mean somebody who fights institutional racism and the second time as "racist means" which... I'm not sure what you mean here? White supremacy is a fact, fighting it is literally anti-racist.

and also the apparent unability to understand that putting race at the forefront won't make people less racist.

This just in: liberal thinks ignoring something makes it go away

Might be the connection - being so used to an alternate reality that you end up losing sight of the fact that redefining a word doesn't actually change the original concept, and as such the actual psychological mechanism that makes people racist won't be altered just because you try to manipulate the meaning of the word.

The psychological mechanism is not biological, if that's what you're suggesting. Racism doesn't just occur naturally based on some innate feature of human psychology. It is very specifically a developed justification for economic oppression, even if we pretend your definition has any practical usage.

No, I'm French.

Maybe the translation of racism is what's getting you all confused. Linguistic or cultural. In the States we have historical and distinct economic classes delineated along race. Basically the entire society is pretty thoroughly influenced by perceptions of race.

 

[Akka]

How do you suggest to make people less racist if not by focusing on race?

All your reasoning problems on this subject seems to stem from this.
I guess you'll need to understand the concept of racism first (actual racism, not your made-up echo chamber redefinition), and then it'll be pretty obvious.

 

[Senethro]

I don't think the greatest successes of feminism and LGBT activism came from ignoring that these groups exist. Whereas the colourblind method doesn't have many successes behind it.

Edit: actually something i was wondering earlier was is this a french assimilationist vs. anglo- multiculturalism going on?

 

[inthesomeday]

Actually now that Akka has sort of come out with support for color blindness the rest of his positions in this thread are making more sense. Its such an archaic idea on this topic that it makes sense with the old obsolete colloquial usage of the word racism.

 

[Akka]

Actually now that Akka has sort of come out with support for color blindness the rest of his positions in this thread are making more sense. Its such an archaic idea on this topic that it makes sense with the old obsolete colloquial usage of the word racism.

What's still impressive is that :
1) You only managed to get my point now while it's always been the one I've spelled out explicitely.
2) You still have this delusion that racism has a new meaning, even after been shown it's only been invented by the echo chamber of your SJW microcosm, with 95 % of the rest of humanity and the "official" definition of the word, using the actual true one.

Well, considering the time it took to notice 1), I guess you're some few years from noticing 2). See you in a decade I suppose ?

 

[Senethro]

You want to be willfully blind to race to the extent that you couldn't tell if racial equality has been achieved. You're hardly a strong critical thinker yourself.

You seem to be more in it for the polemics.