Prejudists and their representatives
I'm not a racist, but...

 Prejudists and their representatives •unenlightened puppet dictator Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Aug 10, 2007 Location: Wales Total Topics: 86 Total Posts: 9931 ♂ #1 - Quote - Permalink 4 of 6 people found this post helpful Posted Jun 11, 2012 - 5:21 PM: Subject: Prejudists and their representatives mclark wrote:Let's say a policymaker cuts benefits to the poor so that they can keep taxes low for the rich. Is the policymaker a classist, a racist, or both?Does intent matter? Or only outcome? Or both?NeubergCrowley wrote:I think outcome does matter and thus policy can end up being racist whereas the motivations were not. Racist policy outcomes can result from naive, poorly analyzed ideological convictions that are not themselves racist. Whether one is significantly better than the other from an ethical point of view is a good question, but conflating the two only results in unending digressions that are unproductive and beside the point.Hanover wrote:The word "racist" has been obliterated here to the point of irrelevance. It seems to mean most anything the poster wants it to mean, as if word meaning no longer is determined by general usage, but it's now something that can be defined by any individual for some political purpose. The word has really become nothing more than a political battlecry that you scream as your run full force into your opponent. The critical question ALWAYS will be: is the behavior immoral. If it's not immoral, then it does not matter if you call it racist or not and vice versa. If you cut benefits to the poor because you lack societal resources to maintain that benefit, and someone decides to call that decision racist (even though it had nothing to do with race), then fine, it's racist under this concocted definition, but it remains a morally justified decision. Such are the consequences of fully created definitions for political purposes: "moral racism."Hanover wrote:... I am not racist unless I mean to be. It's not a conflation of terms. It's an element of the term. If you remove the mens rea element, then you are left with moral racists, which strikes me a contradiction of terms.GregS wrote:Politically when a system is under pressure and society needs not only to pull-in its collective belt (such as in war time --WWII USA), there needs to be a great deal of attention on fair-play, and those benefiting most of the outcome, need to be making the larger contribution (not always done in WWII). This is not being done rather the reverse, and in doing the reverse the social hegemony is stretched and all the evils that were papered over emerge -- anyone in politics should know this intuitively, but a lot of complete dead-heads have come progressively to dominant the political system. I am not one that sees racism (aside from particular social darwinist ideologies) as separate from communal frictions, in fact I view that as the major source of prejudice and resource for oppression. However, I have not spent my life being identified with a communal grouping on the basis of my looks nor have I lived through those pointed and continuous rebuffs and put-downs that others have suffered -- so I differ only at the theoretical level, so it is racist if it has that effect.Taken from here.Hanover seems to be in two minds here. On the one hand the behaviour is moral or immoral, and on the other hand it is the state of mind. But I think the tradition of justice is subtle enough to encompass the two. There is the notion of negligence or recklessness to cover the gap. My instinct is to hold legislators to the highest standard, and demand that they should not neglect the racial impact of their policies, just as folks who drive are expected not to get drunk. If a drunk driver kills someone, we do not call them a murderer, but we do not let them off either, and so if a drunk legislator...There is a level of racial ignorance, even amongst we 'men in the street', that is culpable, even if it is not what I earlier in that thread wanted to speak of as 'racist'. What was forgiveable ignorance 50 years ago is no longer acceptable. but still, I think to be unforgivably ignorant, is not quite to be a racist, though a racist when challenged may well pretend to ignorance. But this is what I would like to be heading towards in this thread:GregS wrote:...I have not spent my life being identified with a communal grouping on the basis of my looks nor have I lived through those pointed and continuous rebuffs and put-downs that others have suffered -- so I differ only at the theoretical level, so it is racist if it has that effect.Because this is why it matters that a policy disproportionately affects a racial group.There is nothing much special about dark skin, any more than there is about having large feet. If my feet are large, and the local shop does not stock my size, I do not accuse them of foot-sizeism, I curse and make other arrangements. It is 'being identified' and suffering 'pointed and continuous rebuffs and put-downs' that eventually and cumulatively add up to an imposition that seriously curtails my citizenship, my humanity, my peace of mind.Thus cutting benefits to the poor is racially neutral, on its own and in itself. But it is not on its own and in itself, but in a society that is pervaded at every level by prejudice born out of a long history and realised from moment to moment every day in the small and large issues that black people face. You walk into a shop and you are being disproportionately watched; you walk down the street and the police are disproportionately inclined to stop you; you come before the court and the judge will disproportionately sentence you; and so on in every place, in every interaction, in every moment of every day.Now the shopkeeper who is just a little more wary of a black customer is not a racist, but he is a straw on the camel-load of racial oppression. And in case you think I'm exaggerating, look at this. •BitterCrank PF Addict Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Mar 01, 2008 Location: Minneapolis Total Topics: 162 Total Posts: 6822 ♂ #2 - Quote - Permalink Posted Jun 11, 2012 - 9:34 PM: If Congress reduces benefits to the poor, a group composed of persons representing all racial and ethnic groups, how can it be said that the benefit reduction was targeted by race?In the United States, the largest number of poor people are white -- more than half of all poor people. The largest percentage of a population group living in poverty is blacks and hispanics. of 223,553,265 white persons, 22,000,000 live in povertyof 38,929,319 black persons, 10,500,000 live in povertyof 14,674,252 asian persons, 1,760,000 live in povertyof 26,735,713 hispanic persons, 6,900,000 live in povertyWhat poor people have in common is not race, but class. Most poor people, by most definitions, belong in the working class. They either are working, and are still poor, or they would like to be working. Some poor people belong to a class of permanently dependent people, who are very diverse, including well educated professional and technical workers who have become disabled, as well as those who through various causes are incapable of, or are unlikely to be found, working. (This group is not part of the "culture of poverty" discussed below.) The group if poor people that doesn't desire work are those who have adapted to poverty and dependence -- the so-called "culture of poverty." Three successive generations of poverty is needed to "admit" a family into the "poverty culture" where upward mobility is no longer perceived as a possibility and aspirations have become limited to very short-horizon pleasures. Persons in the culture of poverty represent all races, and make up a significant portion of benefit consumers. One question to ask is, "Why can't "politically correct" and good-willed persons perceive white poverty?" (Also, why can't white people perceive black affluence?) On Jun 11, 2012 - 10:06 PM, unenlightened responded: What's your point BC? •Wosret PF Addict Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Mar 29, 2007 Location: New Brunswick Total Topics: 69 Total Posts: 7887 #3 - Quote - Permalink Posted Jun 11, 2012 - 11:31 PM: Don't have a whole lot to add, but I watched that video, and you didn't think that the white kid being roughly the same size, if not bigger than most of people that went by him had nothing to do with it? The black kid was much smaller, and the old guy walked over, and took his tools, showing not being physically intimidated at all, and treating him like a child. No one, not even the women snapping pictures of him were worried that he could hurt them without a weapon. It does matter a lot that they are not even remotely the same size. It wasn't as if people didn't stop and ask the white kid if it was his bike. He just kind of laughed off that it wasn't, and a few people gave some discouragement, but no one was willing to pick a fight with him over it. With the other kid, there would be no fight, he was tiny. They can much more easily frighten, intimidate, or stop him. Edited by Wosret on Jun 12, 2012 - 6:33 AM •Unexpiritualized Wild. Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jul 28, 2010 Location: Earth. Total Topics: 59 Total Posts: 1122 ♂ #4 - Quote - Permalink Posted Jun 12, 2012 - 1:02 AM: @ Wosret, I have seen a similar experiment with people who wanted to buy a house. Same results; white people could buy a house much more easy than coloured people. Nationalism, racism, different religions, different political ideologies. It's all an excuse to behave like a brute. But people like to make it fancy and say humans are civilized and decent, moral, etc... Those people are a bunch of hypocrites. Christians could eat Muslims alive, Muslims could eat Christians alive. Blacks hate whites, whites hate blacks. Communists hate capitalists and vice versa. The USA hates Iran, Iran hates the USA. Israel hates Palestina, Palestina hates Israel, etc etc“We veneer civilization by doing unkind things in a kind way”George Bernard Shaw •Kelvin ==== Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jul 06, 2011 Total Topics: 84 Total Posts: 1912 #5 - Quote - Permalink Posted Jun 12, 2012 - 3:30 AM: unenlightened wrote: My instinct is to hold legislators to the highest standard, and demand that they should not neglect the racial impact of their policies, Funny.. that issue has come up recently in several American states including mine. Spanish speakers were having to pay (~$80/hr) for interpreters when they went to court. A federal directive based on the Civil Rights Act requires state governments to provide free interpreters. My own state government is strapped for cash at the moment and a spokesman explained that they will comply with the law, but it's not clear that funds will be available to keep the courtrooms open in the way they have been in the past. Simple practical truth.. prosperity in a society allows more egalitarianism. Prosperity means children have more stable homes, the government can help them get higher education, and opportunity will be waiting for them when they graduate. In austere times (many Americans are starting to accept that we're in a depression), society stratifies. There's a limit to our ability to legislate out of it. unenlightened wrote: Now the shopkeeper who is just a little more wary of a black customer is not a racist, but he is a straw on the camel-load of racial oppression. And in case you think I'm exaggerating, look at this. Where I live, blacks and whites are relatively integrated. I live in a multi-racial neighborhood and I'm part of a multi-racial workplace. Hispanics are now the largest minority here. I don't know much about what it's like in Europe. The film you showed seems to point to racism. But a more thorough psych experiment would have put a black man in a business suit, or a black woman in a dress and heels at the bike and observe the results. It's quite likely that some of the people in the park were racist. Many of the people I encounter in life may be sexist. What a person thinks isn't my concern, though. People can think whatever they like. Their actions are what concern me. I can bring down the Civil Liberties Union on an action... not an attitude. BTW... the film actually shows a marked change that's taken place. 100 years ago, if the event had taken place in the American southeast, a mob execution would have been likely for the black dude. In the mid-20th century a black man was sentenced to death for stealing$1.95 from a white woman. That was coming from a case of psychosis similar to fascism in 1930's Germany. That's the other benefit of prosperity... it nurtures sanity. •Wosret PF Addict Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Mar 29, 2007 Location: New Brunswick Total Topics: 69 Total Posts: 7887 #6 - Quote - Permalink Posted Jun 12, 2012 - 6:49 AM: Unexpiritualized wrote:@ Wosret, I have seen a similar experiment with people who wanted to buy a house. Same results; white people could buy a house much more easy than coloured people. Nationalism, racism, different religions, different political ideologies. It's all an excuse to behave like a brute. But people like to make it fancy and say humans are civilized and decent, moral, etc... Those people are a bunch of hypocrites. Christians could eat Muslims alive, Muslims could eat Christians alive. Blacks hate whites, whites hate blacks. Communists hate capitalists and vice versa. The USA hates Iran, Iran hates the USA. Israel hates Palestina, Palestina hates Israel, etc etc“We veneer civilization by doing unkind things in a kind way”George Bernard ShawI do not deny the constant racism, discrimination, and cruel stereotypes black people have to suffer, especially in America, but I just thought that the video was a poor demonstration. I've seen plenty of racism, and it is death by a thousand bites. Forces an us vs them mentality, and revitalizes the segregation that divides us with each bite. •BitterCrank PF Addict Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Mar 01, 2008 Location: Minneapolis Total Topics: 162 Total Posts: 6822 ♂ #7 - Quote - Permalink Posted Jun 12, 2012 - 7:18 AM: On 06/12/12 - 1:06 AM, unenlightened responded: What's your point BC?The point I was making was that congressional or legislative benefit reductions are not racist because they disadvantage all poor people of all races. They are classist -- disadvantaging anyone who is poor and receiving benefits, without respect to race.Racism exists -- no doubt about it -- but the quotes in the OP suggested that, or I interpreted them to indicate, that changes in economic support programs (reductions) were racist. It is that idea I was countering.Racism is the first resort to explain the behavior of businesses displaying suspicion toward young black males. Whether that is racism, or not, depends on the milieu in question. Street crime (shoplifting, petty theft, vandalism, etc.) is the profession of youth, and generally poor youth living in deteriorated neighborhoods, are more likely than youth in a stable, prosperous neighborhood to commit these kinds of crimes. The presence of gangs aggravates the problem, because gangs tend to be racially identified. A convenience store located in a distressed neighborhood is likely to be targeted by local youth as a place to hang out, demonstrate to peers one's capacity to steal and get away with it, and so forth. These stores stand out in poor neighborhoods because (frequently) the supply of retail businesses is scant. Youth in a prosperous neighborhood neighborhood are likely to have more money, more social opportunities, less likely to belong to gangs, and as a consequence, less likely to engage in petty thievery. Whether the caution of the proprietor stems from racism or prudence, is hard to say. At any rate, poor youth in poor neighborhoods of whatever race tend to be somewhat similar. Where racism is clearly evident is in prosperous settings where any minority individual -- of any age -- is assumed to be a thief and is subject to much more surveillance than a white (majority) individual. Because the level of minority surveillance is higher, a higher number of minority thieves are apprehended. White individuals (who are just as likely to steal) are not surveilled as intensely and are apprehended at a lower rate. That's racism in action, not classism. (A number of cases of 'racial profiling in high-end retail stores were taken to court and successfully prosecuted as discrimination. On the other hand, a huge shoplifting ring operating in high-end stores and busted a few years ago was all white.) Racism and classism are not the only factors at work in the way people behave. For example, there is a rather broad trend across racial and income groups for males to withdraw early from educational endeavors and to pursue jobs. In some communities high achievement in education is seen by racial minorities as "white" and by white youth (particularly males) as irrelevant. This isn't necessarily about race or classism. It's cultural. Males from affluent white families are not rejecting education because it was the scene of racial humiliation. (I'm not quite sure just what is going on there.) Even in schools which are offering quality and suitable programs for black children (economically disadvantaged or not) this "cultural meme" seems to be at work: working hard in school is a white activity, beneath the dignity of black youth. I believe (don't have evidence) that what is hijacking educational performance in otherwise good schools is an unidentified cause. Something is leading males, in particularly, away from educational achievement. The flavor of this rejection varies from community to community, but I think the cause is common to all. At the same time, females are pursuing educational performance at much higher levels than previously was the case. This is fairly easy to understand: good performance leads to long-term success and better outcomes in life. But why is this principle being lost on young men? Some observers think that education is increasingly designed to serve female students who (generally) perform better in "sit still and listen" situations. Employers may be finding that female employees present fewer challenges in the work place. Don't know, just guessing. But whatever it is, racism and classism do not seem to be the leading factors in the gender trends. Edited by BitterCrank on Jun 12, 2012 - 7:27 AM •Kelvin ==== Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jul 06, 2011 Total Topics: 84 Total Posts: 1912 #8 - Quote - Permalink 1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted Jun 12, 2012 - 8:29 AM: BitterCrank wrote: Some observers think that education is increasingly designed to serve female students who (generally) perform better in "sit still and listen" situations. Employers may be finding that female employees present fewer challenges in the work place. Don't know, just guessing. But whatever it is, racism and classism do not seem to be the leading factors in the gender trends. Young women don't have as much of a need to put themselves in life-threatening situations. Who is it showing up at the emergency department with gunshot to the face? Not usually women. Some percentage of the women seeking higher education are single mothers. Nobody is making it easy for them and often they aren't following any role model. •unenlightened puppet dictator Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Aug 10, 2007 Location: Wales Total Topics: 86 Total Posts: 9931 ♂ #9 - Quote - Permalink 1 of 4 people found this post helpful Posted Jun 12, 2012 - 9:12 AM: Let's talk about something else.Let's talk about class, and economics, and size and gender.The neat thing about the video is that everyone showed race bias, even the black women, and nobody admitted it. This thread is the same. However blatant it is overall, each individual act and each individual post can reasonably deny that there is any prejudice at work. Add them up, though, and you have a bunch of white philosophers in denial. •Kelvin ==== Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jul 06, 2011 Total Topics: 84 Total Posts: 1912 #10 - Quote - Permalink Posted Jun 12, 2012 - 11:01 AM: unenlightened wrote:Let's talk about something else. Let's talk about class, and economics, and size and gender. The neat thing about the video is that everyone showed race bias, even the black women, and nobody admitted it. This thread is the same. However blatant it is overall, each individual act and each individual post can reasonably deny that there is any prejudice at work. Add them up, though, and you have a bunch of white philosophers in denial. You're making me wonder what experience you have with racism. As opposed to what you've seen on TV, what do you see in your neighborhood? In your society? In yourself? On Jun 12, 2012 - 2:47 PM, unenlightened responded: Mrs un is mixed Afro-Caribbean and Welsh. I am very English.

Recent Internal Replies
On Jun 19, 2012 - 6:08 PM, SittinWSocratesTiff replied internally to unenlightened's When I was 4, and th....
On Jun 18, 2012 - 7:22 AM, busycuttingcrap replied internally to rums's Quite smelly indee....
On Jun 18, 2012 - 6:33 AM, Wosret replied internally to unenlightened's This is my daughte....
On Jun 18, 2012 - 5:54 AM, Kelvin replied internally to unenlightened's This is my daughte....
On Jun 18, 2012 - 5:46 AM, unenlightened replied internally to Sapientia's What racial identity....
On Jun 18, 2012 - 5:35 AM, unenlightened replied internally to Sapientia's What racial identity....
On Jun 18, 2012 - 12:50 AM, unenlightened replied internally to MeowMix's What an absolut....
On Jun 17, 2012 - 2:17 PM, Kelvin replied internally to Kelvin's True. What doe....
On Jun 17, 2012 - 1:22 PM, busycuttingcrap replied internally to unenlightened's The prejudice pr....
On Jun 17, 2012 - 1:21 PM, Wosret replied internally to unenlightened's The prejudice pr....

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.