Blogging Against Racism Week

[sarahmichigan]

I've seen it noted in a few places that this is "Blogging Against Racism Week."

Of course, I think Racism is Bad. And I can come up with a fistful of personal anecdotes as well as statistics to counter anyone who says that racism is a thing of the past and isn't a problem today.

But there are so many issues where I just don't know what to think. Here are some issues I'm conflicted or confused about:

-Racism and humor. What's the difference between a joke about racism and a racist joke? Who's allowed to make jokes that are racially charged? Should white people lose their jobs over making racist jokes?

-Racism and "The N Word". For the most part, only white people who are rednecks (yes, I know this is a racially charged word as well- I come from redneck stock and think I'm allowed to use it) or blatantly racist use this term with any regularity these days. Should Blacks stop using it as well? Should there be MORE use of it to diffuse the charge of the word, kind of like diffusing other epithets like "bitch" or "slut" or "dyke"?

-How to talk about race. How do we start a dialogue about racism and race without ending up in accusations, shutting people down, and making people feel like they can't talk about it at all?

Maybe some of the blog posts I'll read this week will shed some light on one or more of those issues. I'm not sure if I'll post more about the topic or not; it seems like there are plenty Guilty White Liberals posting about race already.

Comments

Re: Tiresome

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

S'ok. I affirm that the opinions expressed above are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of the management.

I think in the case of racism, we succeeded in creating a lot of the changes that were needed but then we went overboard and can't seem to find our way back to the equilibrium because the conversation itself has become so skewed that actual debate isn't possible.

I think racist employers could very well be shooting themselves in the foot and that the capital markets are all the enforcement we need on that issue. The problem is, the capital markets are just as vicious when we force an employer to take employees he doesn't want and will not use.

How does it show good things about a person if the the only reason they have accomplished anything is their race? Instead of allowing for free competition, we have created separate and unequal access to opportunity and want to pretend that this is something other than racist. It isn't. Assigning privileges to someone based solely on the color of their skin is racist, regardless of what race the beneficiary is. It makes no difference if this runs contrary to historical trends, it is still the same unfair set up with one person benefiting at the detriment of another.

People have a inalienable right to be stupid, ignorant and self-defeating. Forcing them to do otherwise violate their civil rights just as much as they would violate other people's.

I think the best think we can do at this point is remove the race bias as best we can and allow free competition. That way, there is no argument that the best person succeeded and did so because of their ability.

Re: Tiresome

[purple-marf.livejournal.com]

I agree with your point about it needing to be a conversation rather than a lecture, but there's a difference between debate and argumentativeness. Aside from the fact that a government cannot by looking the other way condone racist hiring/firing policies - the idealogical value of your points hold up a lot better in the free market (freedom to be an idiot and hurt your own business) than they do, say, for universities.

Student A is black and came from a high school with textbooks from 1970. He got a 3.2 GPA and is competing for a scholarship (federal funds, mind you) with Student B. Being white, Student B grew up in a school district with a much higher level of tax funding, enjoyed new classrooms, small class sizes, new books, etc. Student B had a GPA of 3.3

Who do you think worked harder for that GPA? There are a lot of generalizations here, but seriously - do you think that tax funding has nothing to do with scholastic performance? What we're talking about with this scholarship is making up at a federal level for what the student did NOT receive at a local level.

Let's just be blunt about it. IN GENERAL, the black kid is going to grow up in a more crowded, less well-funded school because his parents don't have high paying jobs. His parents live in a less-well-to-do school district because - many generations ago - their ancestors were slaves and had no money. It takes a lot of time to build up family wealth. White kids IN GENERAL start from an advantage and don't STATISTICALLY need the grant/scholarship money as much.

Individual exceptions? Sure. But federal policy has nothing to do with individual cases and everything to do with trends. Reversing negative ones. Promoting positive ones. Making the country better, not for you individually, but for you generally.

That's what EO programs mean to me. And I don't think we're anywhere NEAR being ready to drop them because "everything's just fine now".

Re: Tiresome

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

I think making fine adjustment to a wristwatch with a meat axe is poor policy but that is the only implement government intervention has.

As far as GPA goes, it isn't really relevant anymore. I used to work in admissions in 2 different universities and I had more than a few applications come in with 3.9 GPAs that were filled out at sub-literate level. Clearly, this kid will get in and just as clearly, will get destroyed by the standards of the school. As such, I don't think GPA are a means of comparison.

As far as the rest of it goes, its the same problem I had mentioned before. Skewing the field to favor one group does a disservice to all the people who wind up playing.

It occurs to me that if I keep writing on this, I am simply going to get myself in more trouble.

So...

We disagree. I don't believe anything is made fair by making it unequal in someone's favor. I think doing so robs people of the ability to accomplish and the dignity of competing as an equal.

Re: Tiresome

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Personally, I can deal with the libertarian argument against AA that "discrimination is discrimination, so don't do it." I can accept that perhaps AA is not the best instrument to deal with a real problem.

I don't agree with the position that there isn't a problem in need of fixing or that situations in the workplace and education aren't still skewed against most racial minorities, though.

Re: Tiresome

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

In that respect, we actually agree. AA is a bad idea.

I didn't say there isn't a problem. I think that problems that currently exist are better dealt with on a case by case basis rather than trying to legislate a belief system. Real problems still exist but I don't think the currently policies address it appropriately nor do I think that they really can address it appropriately.

Re: Tiresome

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

AA is a terrible idea.

It just seems less terrible (even if only marginally) than any of the alternatives.

Re: Tiresome

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

You know, I find myself unable to pursue this argument simply because the entire subject is taboo. That's a shame because it hurts everyone because no real answers are forthcoming.

Re: Tiresome

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Naah, that's not really true. You're just pursuing a line of argument that some people find highly objectionable. That's not the same thing as a subject being taboo.

Mind you, you do have a point, in that many people share your views, and are just more shy about saying so.

I personally think that your views are more hopelessly misguided than anything else. They seem predicated on a view of the world that utterly underestimates the trillions of dollars of damage done to black families in America by racism, and underestimates the current toll in human suffering exacted by racism each day.

It's a human failing, really; problems that don't pinch us personally, tend not to be real to us.

If I shared your view of the scope of the problem, I might share your view as to what constitutes an appropriate response. An icepack is an appropriate remedy for a bruise, but not multiple broken ribs and a pierced lung.

To me, with respect to this topic, America is coughing up blood and wheezing in the eyes of the world daily, but keeps muttering about band-aids and Tylenol. To react to this situation with horror, to wince as one dodges blood-flecked sputum, is normal. It does not constitute making a subject 'taboo'.

Just my viewpoint.

Re: Tiresome

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

A taboo is a subject that carries penalty simply for being questioned. I think it fits in this case.

I don't think you can change people by simply stating this is the way it will be and hoping. I think while the laws has some impact, it isn't the best way to address the situation simply because it does nothing to alleviate the problem. If a person is given a job, it is assumed they are competent. If someone is given a job for a reason that might be something other other than competence, they will be held to a higher standard of performance than someone who qualified on their own merit. This goes for minorities as well as nepotism. In trying to create equality, they simply created a new problem.

I don't think the answer is a reallocation of privilege. I think the answer is everyone faces the same standard and preforms according to their ability.

There is a longer conversation here but I am not really interested in pursuing it simply because I don't think it will accomplish anything.

Re: Tiresome

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

I do agree with some of what you are saying. Particularly, I don't think that legislation could ever be enough on its own.

But,
"I think the answer is everyone faces the same standard and [performs] according to their ability."

Given that studies have repeatedly shown that America still viciously discriminates against darker-skinned peoples; and given that people show no propensity to change that discrimination in the absence of strong social forces, including-but-not-limited-to-legislation, how do you recommend that change be brought about?

I was serious when I said that AA and similar measures were sucky but superior to the alternatives. If you don't like them, what do you propose?

I should note that, given my view of the problem, I don't accept "Leave it alone and hope it sorts itself out" as a viable solution practically or an acceptable one ethically.

I suspect that we are also working with different understandings of AA and its results. I've heard a common mythology that AA leads to priviliged, underskilled minority workers holding posts that they don't deserve, over ousted, capable white people- victims of 'reverse racism'. I've never seen this substantiated by fact.

All the fact I've seen on the matter suggests that "reverse racism" is like peeing into a hurricane. It may exist, but focussing on it constitutes a grave error given the context, and even trying to do it is dangerous in the attempt.

Re: Tiresome

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

Our experiences differ.

Re: Tiresome

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Clearly.

I would note also, though, that I am suspicious of personal experience. It's important, but it needs to be checked and validated against objective fact wherever possible.

I wouldn't want to assume, but I am curious as to what research supports the positions you have voiced thus far; and I remain curious as to what solutions you propose to the problem of American Racism, if indeed you have any solutions...

adrian

Re: Tiresome

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I also think you're running into liberal vs. libertarian assumptions about the role of government. I do have some libertarian ideals around free speech and a free press and so on, but I'm firmly in the liberal camp in believing that the government can do some good, in terms of social engineering and other issues.

Re: Tiresome

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

likely true.