Physical Revue says "Whiteboards are Racist"

[CharonY]

58 minutes ago, TheVat said:

In the US the problem is past laws, or past differentials in enforcement, which do generational damage.  Families are blocked from building wealth and educational status, which sets in motion a chain of effects such that later generations can't send kids to college, or muster seed money for a business or whatever.   Others have hinted at the value of reading the whole thread.  I join them.

A couple of things that I am going to address later, but this here is quite important to highlight.

 

Plus it created zones that are racially segregated with lack of all kinds of services especially in predominantly black areas. These include good schools, groceries, administrative services, medical access and so on. These has huge knock-on effects on a lot of aspects, ranging from health to financial success. Due to the past regulations, they do not have the funds to simply move away, too.

Similar effects are seen in indigenous communities (though quite a few are slowly building their way out). There are also rules and regulations that are not laws, but which can impact individual success if they are not addressed by law.

A long standing example are dress codes, which basically have banned natural hair of black people. Without laws counteracting this type of frequent discrimination, black folks would need to spend a lot of time, effort and the use of rather unhealthy chemicals or basically be clean shaven to be able to work in what is deemed a professional setting.

There a lot of these things around and pointing them out and trying to address them invariably upsets folks as it goes against the status quo. What is annoying is that these types of band-aids are disproportionately criticized if there are, in any way imperfect. Yet, for some reasons keeping the rules that are known to be harmful (to some) on the books is somehow acceptable?

 

One should also state that in principle these issues are not unique to the US. They have manifested in different ways in different countries and are perhaps not as much created by law (or as blatant as the Jim Crow laws). And again, being racist is not the same as having a system that discriminates in whatever form by race.

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Jez said:

you might want Gov to do to fix things

Exactly. We want the government to fix things. We can ask them, cajole them, implore them to fix things. But the government itself must agree to fix things and then take the appropriate steps.

They took the first step, which was to change overtly racist laws that targeted blacks.

There are still steps to take in order to change laws and systems that are not overtly racist, yet still result in similar unfair outcomes for blacks.

Additionally the government should take a look at the harm they've caused and decide what they are going to do about it. This unsurprisingly is what generates the most controversy because 1. it is going to cost us (a lot of) money, and 2. because the compensation benefits a lot black people.

In this country racism has been baked in for hundreds of years to the point that people often don't even recognize it. If people heard that the government wrongly took the business belonging to an individual white woman, there would be significant support to have the government make reparations (compensations given for an abuse or injury). But if people hear the government financially harmed a bunch of black people, rather than jump to the support of those black people, people tend to look for reasons the government should NOT make reparations ("I was not personally responsible. It happened a long time ago. It is racist to help people based on race. It is not fair to non-black people. We fixed the cause of the problem, why should we also have to give compensation for the harm we did?" etc.)

Reparations should not be viewed as "Write a check to all black people." It should be viewed as a review of what harm was done, to whom, and what should we do about it. Since we had laws that kept black people out of college, we made an attempt to get more black people in college. (This is seen as racist to some.) There have been suggestions that since blacks were not allowed to buy homes, we can now let them buy a house at the cost they would have paid at the time they were turned down (with the party responsible for the harm, the government, paying the difference). There are a thousand ways to try to make up for the harm caused. We just need to take a little responsibility for what we've done wrong. Same as we teach our kids to do.

 

[Jez]

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

In the US the problem is past laws, or past differentials in enforcement, which do generational damage.  Families are blocked from building wealth and educational status, which sets in motion a chain of effects such that later generations can't send kids to college, or muster seed money for a business or whatever.   Others have hinted at the value of reading the whole thread.  I join them.

Thanks, I have read it, but I am permitted to disagree with the conclusions, I presume?

I disagree with this one too. If the laws were working correctly, the means to seek remedy would be to bring in to court questions about the legality of past 'differentials' and to establish what, if any, effect those have had.

Lots of people have been blocked from building wealth and educational status that go unnoticed and no-one cares much, for example the white slaves of early America. OK, so they were called 'indentured workers' but they were slaves in any modern interpretation.

As I said before, these 'past differentials' affect societies as a whole. It's called 'history'. It is an unrealistic dream to believe if society was fair then everyone would right now have and own the same wealth and property. Mathematically, any intercourse of financial transactions will lead to a 1/x distribution of wealth. We use, and do use, taxation to attempt to level that.

Taxation and redistribution are already the means by which society seeks to 'generally' address past wrongs. Giving money away on the basis of skin colour might mean you end up giving it to the descendants of slave-owning free black people, which would be ironic. 

To address 'specific' wrongs of the past, it has to be done through the court system and by public inquiry and critical investigation.

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

Reparations should not be viewed as "Write a check to all black people." It should be viewed as a review of what harm was done, to whom, and what should we do about it

 

 

100% agree. My point is that it seems it's he US legal system that is preventing that review from going ahead, as it can only go ahead in court if the outcome is to be trusted (as far as it is possible to trust it) not to be partisan and political.

In UK we also have public inquiries which are chaired by independent people within a scope of an investigative brief.

[Intoscience]

12 hours ago, zapatos said:

As far as I know people are not seeking retribution. They are seeking justice.

In what form against who? What would be considered satisfactory justice? 

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Jez said:

Thanks, I have read it, but I am permitted to disagree with the conclusions, I presume?

I disagree with this one too. If the laws were working correctly, the means to seek remedy would be to bring in to court questions about the legality of past 'differentials' and to establish what, if any, effect those have had.

Justice is seldom served when the prosecution has too much to lose...

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

In what form against who? What would be considered satisfactory justice? 

That depends on which side of the cutlery you are...

If your bias is weighted by your desire to protect you and yours, then justice is just a cloud of need's and want's; our culture is what balances 'our' desire, for good and bad (it's a yin-yang thang). 😉 

6 hours ago, Jez said:

In UK we also have public inquiries which are chaired by independent people within a scope of an investigative brief.

Guess who gets to set the parameters of the brief? Jeez 🙄

[MigL]

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

And again, being racist is not the same as having a system that discriminates in whatever form by race.

On the contrary; that is exactly what it is.

You had one group of people discriminate against another group, 250 years ago, for the economic 'betterment' of their Southern society ( free/cheap labor ) and we call it racism.
We now have another group who wants to 'better' society by discriminating according to race again. and at the detriment of other groups in the case of Affirmative Action, because only so many positions are available.
It is always one groupdeciding the fate/outcome of other groups.
I'm of the opinion that should stop.

You want to re-compensate people according to past injustices; that may be workable, but not according to race.
What would you do about injustices suffered by Chinese people, who were the cheap/disposable labor that helped build railways in the 1800s ?
What would you do about the Irish and Italian immigrants who came in the late 1800s, were treated little better than slaves, had to become policemen or priests to feed themselves, or turn to a life of crime ?
Do you think all these other groups of immigrants  who came to America in the last couple of hundred years don't deserve re-compensation for the injustices they suffered ?

 

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, Jez said:

My point is that it seems it's he US legal system that is preventing that review from going ahead, as it can only go ahead in court if the outcome is to be trusted (as far as it is possible to trust it) not to be partisan and political.

That is not the case here. The US legal system is not a remedy due to sovereign immunity. It is like asking the courts to rule on which ballerina is the most graceful; it is simply not in their purview. The government must voluntarily take responsibility for its actions or it will not happen. There is no mechanism to compel them to do so.

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

In what form against who? What would be considered satisfactory justice? 

1. Against the government, which was the organization that harmed them.

2. I'm sure every harmed person has their own opinion of what would satisfy them, but since all were generally harmed financially (as well as other ways) financial restitution comes up frequently. Affirmative Action was an attempt to grant blacks more opportunities to attend college since that was another way the government restricted minorities. People have set up goals for granting minority contracts since minorities were unfairly excluded in the past. The list goes on and on.

Generally speaking the idea is to get people to the place they would have been if the government had not interfered.

Edited June 7, 2023 by zapatos

[TheVat]

8 hours ago, Jez said:

As I said before, these 'past differentials' affect societies as a whole. It's called 'history'. It is an unrealistic dream to believe if society was fair then everyone would right now have and own the same wealth and property. Mathematically, any intercourse of financial transactions will lead to a 1/x distribution of wealth. We use, and do use, taxation to attempt to level that

Not my position at all. Of course wealth and property cannot be absolutely equalized.  Fixing the cycle of poverty is more about giving equal opportunity to those may want to build wealth.  Hence my lean towards having reparations be focused on educational funding.

  In the US, taxation has a dismal track record so far in rectifying blockages on opportunity -  corporate control over state and federal lawmakers keeps our taxation system more like "welfare for the rich."  

8 hours ago, Jez said:

To address 'specific' wrongs of the past, it has to be done through the court system and by public inquiry and critical investigation.

You are unfamiliar with US courts, then.  Those most mired in the cycle of poverty are those least able to bring an action in a court here.  Copious free time and money are required, though there might be some small percentage who were able to get assistance from some charitable legal funding organization.  And waiting times for a docket would be measured in years - not much help to a sixteen year old who has to drop out of school because his single mom got sick and can't work and he has to work and look after the family.

Finally, I'm not sure where others here stand on this, but I would include "means testing" as part of any sort of reparative payment., to ensure that funds went towards families still struggling to grab a rung of the ladder, not to those who have already climbed it.  I would also skip the racial category and make eligible anyone from a group that was disenfranchised.   This would include Hispanics and indigenous tribal people.  (I live in an area with a lot of indigenous poverty, the Lakota tribe, and all the social ills that go with that, so am aware of what happens to multiple generations when you deprive them of land and liberty and stuff them on a "rez")

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, Jez said:

Lots of people have been blocked from building wealth and educational status that go unnoticed and no-one cares much, for example the white slaves of early America. OK, so they were called 'indentured workers' but they were slaves in any modern interpretation.

I'm going to point out that we aren't talking about lots of individuals, we're talking about groups of people who were discriminated against NOT as individuals, but because of negative stereotypes made about the group. If you want reparations for indentured workers, there are ways to determine how those groups were mistreated. And we should figure that out pretty quickly too, considering the US uses indentured servitude through prison labor to this very day. Big companies like McDonald's and Whole Foods and IBM use prisoners that are paid less than a dollar an hour, so we've already got some good metrics to use if we want reparation for indentured servitude.

 

9 hours ago, Jez said:

As I said before, these 'past differentials' affect societies as a whole. It's called 'history'. It is an unrealistic dream to believe if society was fair then everyone would right now have and own the same wealth and property.

Please leave obvious Strawman arguments out of this discussion. Did anyone make this claim?

Quote

Mathematically, any intercourse of financial transactions will lead to a 1/x distribution of wealth. We use, and do use, taxation to attempt to level that.

Taxation currently favors the uber-wealthy by an inordinate degree. Without some kind of graduated tax that stops wealth accumulation at a reasonable level, we get billionaires sitting on their fortunes instead of investing them. Right now, because of the taxation you value so highly, these rich folks can hoard cash and buy out anyone with less money who's in distress. They're gobbling up people's lives just to have a bit more wealth.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

On the contrary; that is exactly what it is.

You had one group of people discriminate against another group, 250 years ago, for the economic 'betterment' of their Southern society ( free/cheap labor ) and we call it racism.
We now have another group who wants to 'better' society by discriminating according to race again. and at the detriment of other groups in the case of Affirmative Action, because only so many positions are available.
It is always one groupdeciding the fate/outcome of other groups.
I'm of the opinion that should stop.

This is really a sticking point for you, this perspective that attempting to correct racism is automatically racist no matter how it's approached. You want it to stop, but not if you determine that the method of stopping violates your weird discrimination maths. So far, you've admitted that black people were treated unfairly by certain practices, and you want those practices to cease, but you don't want any black people to be compensated for the effects of these practices, have I got that right? Because you'd be giving compensation to a group that deserves it, but not giving it to anyone who isn't in that group, so that's discrimination? 

I just don't get it. You seem to have a sense of justice, but it gets overridden by this perspective about solving discrimination being discrimination itself.

[MigL]

59 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So far, you've admitted that black people were treated unfairly by certain practices, and you want those practices to cease, but you don't want any black people to be compensated for the effects of these practices, have I got that right?

No, you don't have it right.
People can be compensated for past injustices.
Targeting a 'race' for compensation is racist.

IOW, some black people may not need compensation, and some people of other groups ( a lot of immigrants in the past 250 years ) may require it.

Did you not actually read my posts ?

[Jez]

50 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm going to point out that we aren't talking about lots of individuals, we're talking about groups of people who were discriminated against NOT as individuals, but because of negative stereotypes made about the group.

Sorry, I don't think this is clear thinking.

Please excuse me if I misunderstand but it appears that you want to seek a remedy for the discrimination of a 'group' that was unfairly stereotyped and not treated as individuals (with you so far) and to fix this you want to discriminate a 'group' by unfairly stereotyping them as the cause of the discrimination and not treating them as individuals (who may or may not have been the cause)?

Have I got the jist of your point, or way off again, sorry if I am?

I mean, I agree that there is restitutions to be offered to all people who have suffered social ills, 'particularly' including specific events of tragic racism. Why is the 'answer' incomplete by saying 'yep, and it is coming out of taxes already, and is already helping people in the lower social echelons'?

You guys keep saying your legal system does not work in a way that can offer specific remedies. Yes, I understand that is not how it works in the USA. That's the problem!

You seem to want politicians to invent one-off solutions to one-off events, rather than laying the framework so that any likewise events now AND in the future can be dealt with the same way.

 

 

 

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, Jez said:

You seem to want politicians to invent one-off solutions to one-off events, rather than laying the framework so that any likewise events now AND in the future can be dealt with the same way.

 

I don't know where you picked that up. Just because we want a solution for unjust laws targeting race, that doesn't mean we object to making the framework flexible. Why would we?

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

No, you don't have it right.
People can be compensated for past injustices.
Targeting a 'race' for compensation is racist.

IOW, some black people may not need compensation, and some people of other groups ( a lot of immigrants in the past 250 years ) may require it.

Did you not actually read my posts ?

I apologize but I got the same sense of your stance as Phi for All.

So you do support reparations to blacks who were impacted by racist laws? If so then our only area of dispute may be how to do so.

[Jez]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't know where you picked that up. Just because we want a solution for unjust laws targeting race, that doesn't mean we object to making the framework flexible. Why would we?

OK, good! And my proposition, my proposed resolution to deal with the discrimination, is to focus on that request first.

If a Genie appeared and he granted you one wish you could make Gov do, would it be to fix some given injustice of the past, or to establish a process by which all injustices might be dealt with?

So, if you are going to ask for something of Gov to do to fix these racial injustices of the past, then why not that, to establish the framework of judicial review?

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

On the contrary; that is exactly what it is.

You had one group of people discriminate against another group, 250 years ago, for the economic 'betterment' of their Southern society ( free/cheap labor ) and we call it racism.
We now have another group who wants to 'better' society by discriminating according to race again. and at the detriment of other groups in the case of Affirmative Action, because only so many positions are available.
It is always one groupdeciding the fate/outcome of other groups.
I'm of the opinion that should stop.

You want to re-compensate people according to past injustices; that may be workable, but not according to race.
What would you do about injustices suffered by Chinese people, who were the cheap/disposable labor that helped build railways in the 1800s ?
What would you do about the Irish and Italian immigrants who came in the late 1800s, were treated little better than slaves, had to become policemen or priests to feed themselves, or turn to a life of crime ?
Do you think all these other groups of immigrants  who came to America in the last couple of hundred years don't deserve re-compensation for the injustices they suffered ?

 

The issue I am seeing is the overly broad use of terms. Discrimination can range from not liking certain folks to, as in this example, outright slavery. The effects on people are not the same. It is also not only about past issues, but rather about what is happening right now. The focus on the past really again implies that somehow  things were fixed, but if you look at a wide range of outcomes (socially, economically, health-wise) we see in many countries still a heavily racialized differential outcome. Meaning that there is something going on that still sorts people according to race, even if as a society folks have decided to not do that anymore. These mechanisms (or systems) are often invisible as they do not necessary name groups specifically.

Now reparations are a different matter, as here we talk about direct compensation of governmental injustices. And I am not sure why this is so controversial as they are being done already. These are specific and directed, such as compensation of the German government for victims of the holocaust, Canada has paid descendants of Chinese workers who were charged head taxes (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chinese-head-tax-in-canada). The US and Canadian Chinese exclusion act won't pay out any redress, mostly because while not lawful, there were not specific victims. 

Potential reparations for slavery could vary, depending on context. In the UK, slave owners were paid reparations to compensate for their loss of slaves during abolition. For the reverse, there are still discussions about the case, but there is apparently resistance in even investigating these in detail. One economic argument is that workforce and money was forcefully extracted from individuals under a governmental system. As such descendants of slaves might be owed compensation. But this is a rather specific issue.

And then you start conflating the issues again (governmental acts). Italian and Irish immigrants were (to my knowledge) not target of specific laws and regulations but were victims of individual (or societal) bigotry. These would not fall under the reparation issue as such. 

But perhaps more importantly,  they were not systematically (mechanistically) denied power, as evidenced by their rise in influence and subsequent control of important roles and positions and power in society. If we look at the very same outcomes they do not fare differently than white folks at this point. So the system is not sorting them out anymore, as opposed to others. This is in fact a good example why calling every discrimination equal is just not helpful. 

The point is that we need to identify the invisible parts and dismantle them in order to put everyone on the same start line, as you are in favour of. The issue is that the machine is complex and for some, historic events have been the main factor that their starting line is still drawn way back. The proposal is then to put them forward (as a band aid) so that despite all other existing issues, they at least start closer to the same line as others. 

 

[Jez]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

So far, you've admitted that black people were treated unfairly by certain practices, and you want those practices to cease, but you don't want any black people to be compensated for the effects of these practices, have I got that right? Because you'd be giving compensation to a group that deserves it, but not giving it to anyone who isn't in that group, so that's discrimination? 

I just don't get it. You seem to have a sense of justice, but it gets overridden by this perspective about solving discrimination being discrimination itself.

I don't think I would have said that, no. What I have said is that 'some' black people were treated unfairly.

How were the free black people treated unfairly when they owned slaves? As I understand it, the census of 1830 lists 3,775 free blacks who owned a total of 12,760 slaves. Is that in dispute? I don't think compensation is due to 'all' black people, no.

I think society as a whole should seek to support those black AND white people (I don't like those colour terms, but I'm running with it) that have fallen into the categories of social misfortune discussed here, because there were maligned white groups too, and that might well be rooted in their ancestors' history as white slaves.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Jez

[zapatos]

44 minutes ago, Jez said:

So, if you are going to ask for something of Gov to do to fix these racial injustices of the past, then why not that, to establish the framework of judicial review?

If I could have it done with a Genie then that might be a good solution. From a practical standpoint I'm unsure that is a reasonable or timely solution.

I am not in a position to describe exactly what a solution would look like, but I do feel I understand enough of the problem to know that the problem should be acknowledged and addressed in a just manner. That also feels to me to be the correct next step; simply deciding to admit culpability and establish steps to make amends.

39 minutes ago, Jez said:

How were the free black people treated unfairly when they owned slaves?

Quote

In 1832, James Kent wrote that "in most of the United States, there is a distinction in respect to political privileges, between free white persons and free colored persons of African blood; and in no part of the country do the latter, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites, in the exercise of civil and political rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States)#:~:text=The legislature also created a,homestead%2C or attend public schools.

This is one sample. A full acounting covers entire books and courses of study. Slavery was but one piece of our system wide racist actions.

I think you do not have a good understanding of the extent to which racial discrimination has permeated the United States. It is or has been everywhere. Laws, attitudes, financial, educational, whether or not you can be in a town when the sun goes down, whether or not your home or entire neighborhood can be demolished (WITH the consent of the government), how dangerous chemical plants are located next to your home, pay scales, job opportunities, access to health care, level of health care even when you get it, etc. etc. etc.

To this very day, in black families there comes a time when the parents must give "The Talk" to their children. And it has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with staying alive when dealing with the police during your normal day of going to work, school, or the park. It makes me sick to my stomach. 

We have been building a racist society for over 400 years. It is baked in everywhere. I don't think you can find one single black person in this country who has not been impacted either directly or indirectly by either the Federal or State governments.

Edited June 7, 2023 by zapatos

[Phi for All]

59 minutes ago, MigL said:

No, you don't have it right.
People can be compensated for past injustices.
Targeting a 'race' for compensation is racist.

This seems like semantics. The people targeted by unjust federal housing regulations mentioned earlier were black, denied loans for housing in certain areas because they were black. If we want to talk about reparations for those unjust federal practices, what other metric would you use to compensate them other than by the race that was used to discriminate against them? They'd already have to provide documentation that their loans (or their parent's loans) were denied, and the rest is already in evidence. 

59 minutes ago, MigL said:

IOW, some black people may not need compensation, and some people of other groups ( a lot of immigrants in the past 250 years ) may require it.

You seem to be arguing against a man of straw here, since any reparations paid by the federal government would require hoops to jump through and evidence of eligibility. It's like you're assuming the government is going to throw cash at people who can show dark enough skin.

59 minutes ago, MigL said:

Did you not actually read my posts ?

Reading them all led me to respond exactly the way I did.

49 minutes ago, Jez said:

I don't think I would have said that, no. What I have said is that 'some' black people were treated unfairly.

Well, my question was directed at MigL, whom I quoted before responding, but I don't understand what your objection is here. You basically removed "... by certain practices" from what I said. I'm unsure why you "don't think I would have said that", but I may be misreading what you wrote.

49 minutes ago, Jez said:

How were the free black people treated unfairly when they owned slaves? As I understand it, the census of 1830 lists 3,775 free blacks who owned a total of 12,760 slaves. Is that in dispute? I don't think compensation is due to 'all' black people, no.

How many examples would you like? I'd like to start with historical incidents where black prosperity was actively stifled by white people who'd demanded and achieved segregated towns and cities. Some whites were so jealous of black prosperity that they trumped up ways to get the government to help them destroy black communities. I'd rather show that research than go down the whataboutism rabbit hole regarding "There were black people who owned slaves!!!"

49 minutes ago, Jez said:

I think society as a whole should seek to support those black AND white people (I don't like those colour terms, but I'm running with it) that have fallen into the categories of social misfortune discussed here, because there were maligned white groups too, and that might well be rooted in their ancestors' history as white slaves.

Well, Jesus Christ, you can sure support those white people who've fallen into social misfortune with programs of their own that make sense, but we aren't talking about those people in this thread. Just because there have been other maligned groups doesn't mean you don't do what you can for the one that's hurting the most in a particular incident.

Do me a favor and picture yourself a foster father. You have four wonderful girls, and one is Asian, another Latinx, the third black, and the fourth white. One day your little black daughter comes to you and says, "Dad, I had a really hard day today. The kids at school were making fun of the color of my skin, they made slave jokes, and they said lots of other horrible things. I just need to know, Dad. Do you love me?"

What do you say to her? I really, really hope you don't say, "Honey, I love ALL my daughters".

[Jez]

58 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 

Do me a favor and picture yourself a foster father. You have four wonderful girls, and one is Asian, another Latinx, the third black, and the fourth white. One day your little black daughter comes to you and says, "Dad, I had a really hard day today. The kids at school were making fun of the color of my skin, they made slave jokes, and they said lots of other horrible things. I just need to know, Dad. Do you love me?"

What do you say to her? I really, really hope you don't say, "Honey, I love ALL my daughters".

Is that a serious, non rhetorical question?

Well, my son has been bullied at school and when I found out I called the Police immediately.

The school contacted us the next day and said we really didn't have to do that they'd liked to have handled it. Well they didn't because they already had the chance to get that right, and I didn't feel like giving them another to make the same mistake, whatever that was.

He didn't need to ask me that question.

If I was asked I'd say 'of course I do, and I'd do anything for you, would you like me to try to fix that, because what you experienced/were told was wrong and needs to be fixed?'

I worry that we might actually be agreeing and not realising it. I have nothing at all critical to say about your position, other than the implied meaning that 'whites' will somehow selectively pay for the past and present sufferances of blacks. As long as you are not saying that then I am not sure there is actually a dispute. 

I think there should be some form of restitution but it would come from general taxation and it would be means-assessed. I can't see by what possible logic such a scheme could be argued and implemented otherwise.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I think you do not have a good understanding of the extent to which racial discrimination has permeated the United States.

I might argue that I have a better view, precisely because I am a neutral outside observer and not overly influenced by a lifetime of social influences that I can't tease apart from logical thought.

In regards 'seeing' the racism, oh, yes, oh boy. I have met Americans who are 'not even racist' such was their level of contempt for black people. You have a very deep racial problem, but the only way you are going to move on as a nation is to try to get things as straight as possible, as soon as possible, so you can move on to ignoring skin colour.

Just talking about it is a form of discrimination. That's why I keep banging on about ensuring there is a 'neutral' legal path through the courts, for all injustices. The longer people keep making out that there are 'black injustices' ad 'white injustices' then the longer racism will flourish.

If you boil that down to 'injustices' and fix those, racism will become extinct.

It's like white boards and black boards. Just call them writing boards. Injustices for blacks, injustices for whites, injustices for women, injustices for men, injustices for Christians, injustices for Muslims .. they are injustices. What are the benefits versus risks of teasing them apart? Little benefit and lots of risk in perpetuating divisions. The risks outweigh the benefits.

Make sure you have a pathway to remedy injustices, else you just perpetuate the discrimination if you single them out. Whiteboards, blackboards, it's only 'racist' because they are being discriminated apart for being different on the basis of colour. Madness.

I've said my bit and honestly I don't believe we are actually in disagreement as much as it might appear, I came here to talk science and accidentally blundered into a thread I probably shouldn't have, so I think best to leave it to you to deduce. If you think Americans have a more neutral view of American problems so can solve them better, maybe ponder that a bit. Just a thought for you.

[zapatos]

34 minutes ago, Jez said:

I might argue that I have a better view,

You didn't even realize that blacks were not granted immunity from discrimination in 1830 by owning slaves. You may have a different view than I have but your understanding (based on this and comments related to redlining and sovereign immunity) seems superficial. I'm not sure you are in a position to make informed recommendations.

[Jez]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

You didn't even realize that blacks were not granted immunity from discrimination in 1830 by owning slaves. You may have a different view than I have but your understanding (based on this and comments related to redlining and sovereign immunity) seems superficial. I'm not sure you are in a position to make informed recommendations.

I didn't 'not' realise it either. It's simply irrelevant to people's lives today.

If someone makes an issue of it, it is 'they', today, who are making an issue of it, and perpetuating the concept of the discrimination. Doing so is purely in 'their' imagination, nothing more.

I agree I am not in a position to make informed recommendations, but nor is anyone else. The place for such informed determinations is a court, with sides putting forward the case, free of bias and prejudice by being embedded in the (supposed) dispute, or at the very least the court has the duty to be unbiased.

I am Celtic in origin (I'm not Irish but a few generations back) and at some stage some Vikings came along and kicked us off into Ireland, and who knows that might be your heritage too as there are many Irish in the USA. I have absolutely zero case to argue that Danish people, today, should give me so much as the time of day because their ancestors beat up mine! That'd be insanity.

What WOULD make it a case for today, though (and this is, in essence your argument) is if some Dane came along, taunted me over being a Celtic slave and beat me up for it. But ... that is STILL nothing to do with what happened 1000 years ago, it is purely about something that has happened today, and what it is is something has gone wrong in this Dane's head. They are delusional.

If I then believe that, indeed, it is the spirit of Vikings that has truly lead him to this discrimination against me today, then am I not also engaging in that delusion?

People engaged in a mutual delusion that the events of 1830 affect their lives to the point that one feels they are a person from the 1830s and should therefore conduct the same discriminations, and the other also believes that it is because they truly are a character from 1830 why this person is acting in that manner, and 3rd parties observing these two people going at it also all agree it is because they are both people from the 1830s, all these people do not strike me as being best placed to judge the situation in an unbiased manner. I think we are talking mental help here, not financial help.

Science fiction has a way to take an angle on irrational social ills because it can invent new species and strange situations.

I seek to upset no-one so must back off here, I'd like to leave my comments with Star Trek's take on racism, and Spock's wonderful facial expressions at the end of this clip. I think Spock and I are thinking the same thing at that point.

 

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, Jez said:

I might argue that I have a better view, precisely because I am a neutral outside observer and not overly influenced by a lifetime of social influences that I can't tease apart from logical thought.

You might argue that.
But I don't think many would accept the validity of the argument.

 

[Jez]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You might argue that.
But I don't think many would accept the validity of the argument.

 

Accepted. It was just a discussion, I think there are always different points of view in politics, I just hope and wish everyone, everywhere, remains civil like this, gets fair treatment and recompense, and just talks rather than reacts. Easier said than done, I think.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Jez said:

I might argue that I have a better view, precisely because I am a neutral outside observer

In my experience, those who assert forcefully that they’re neutral tend to be anything but. 

We all have biases. Pretending otherwise makes you a liar or a fool. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Jez said:

I didn't 'not' realise it either. It's simply irrelevant to people's lives today.

 

Tell that to the black woman in Georgia today who is forced to stand in a long line to vote, and whose children can spend a year in jail if they bring her a glass of water to quench her thirst.

Today's laws evolved from yesterday's laws. You cannot fix a problem if you have no idea how deep the rot goes.

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You cannot fix a problem if you have no idea how deep the rot goes.

Or… if they see and acknowledge the rot, but just happen to like it that way so instead argue in bad faith.