While my position has changed, I was advocating income-only AA because I thought races were too hard to systemically define with regards to AA.
A point which I believe you conceded was the case when you admitted it would be next to impossible to really define "black" in all ways relevant to AA.
I think you just prefer to assume people advocating income-only AA are afraid or prejudiced against black people. While that may be true in many cases, it's still a blanket assertion.
I think most people don't bother thinking about it.
They hear someone suggest income only AA, while also insisting that it won't have any negative impact on black people, and they take that person at his word. Because at face value, it sounds right.
But the process of coming up with an idea is very different from hearing an idea.
If someone said to me, "Hey, let's come up with a program to help out poor people," my response wouldn't be, "Cool! Does this mean that we no longer have to help out minorities?" The thought would never even occur to me.
OTOH, suppose someone says to me, "Hey, let's replace this program that helps out minorities with a program that helps out poor people, which will basically do the same thing."
In both cases, the other person is suggesting that you help out the needy. The difference is in framing. In the first example, the person is merely presenting the idea as an option. In the second example, the person is presenting the idea as a choice. The second example forces you to decide on one or the other, so in your own mind, these two things become mutually exclusive.
Why does he frame things in this way? I have to assume that it's a conscious decision.
Basically, it's a subtle manipulation.
It's sort of like how Arnold Schwarzenegger says in his acceptance speech, he said, "When the people win, politics as usual loses." He does that even though it's the people who elect those politicians in the first place. Why does he do this? Simple. Because he wants to frame the situation in such a way so that it seems like "the people" (democratic voters) and "politics as usual" (democratic legislatures) are at odds with each other. Since he knows that these people are already on his side (as they voted voted for him), he has to convince them to turn against the democratic legislature who they elected. He does this by presenting this as a choice: It's you vs. them.
That's what the income only suggestion does. It's presented as a choice: Either it's poor people or colored people. Everyone who supports helping out minorities would also support helping out the poor. But not everyone who supports the poor would support helping out minorities. Hence, "helping out the poor" casts a larger net. They then frame the discussion so it has to be one or the other. "You support race based AA? I guess you must really hate poor people, then."
We could easily save a lot of time by saying, "Look, just about everyone agrees that supporting AA for poor people is great. So why don't we accept that as a given. The next question is, should we still support AA for minorities on top of that, who aren't necessarily poor but who still face social disadvantages based on race?" Opponents of AA will never frame the discussion in this way, even though it establishes the most common ground. They have to make it one or the other. Because it's not so much about supporting the poor, as it is about taking AA away from minorities.
So, for example, what does it say about white rationality and white collective sanity, that in 1963--at a time when in retrospect all would agree racism was rampant in the United States, and before the passage of modern civil rights legislation--nearly two-thirds of whites, when polled, said they believed blacks were treated the same as whites in their communities--almost the same number as say this now, some forty-plus years later? What does it suggest about the extent of white folks' disconnection from the real world, that in 1962, eighty-five percent of whites said black children had just as good a chance as white children to get a good education in their communities (12)? Or that in May, 1968, seventy percent of whites said that blacks were treated the same as whites in their communities, while only seventeen percent said blacks were treated "not very well" and only 3.5 percent said blacks were treated badly? (13)?
What does it say about white folks' historic commitment to equal opportunity--and which Taranto would have us believe has only been rendered inoperative because of affirmative action--that in 1963, three-fourths of white Americans told Newsweek, "The Negro is moving too fast" in his demands for equality (14)? Or that in October 1964, nearly two-thirds of whites said that the Civil Rights Act should be enforced gradually, with an emphasis on persuading employers not to discriminate, as opposed to forcing compliance with equal opportunity requirements (15)?
What does it say about whites' tenuous grip on mental health that in mid-August 1969, forty-four percent of whites told a Newsweek/Gallup National Opinion Survey that blacks had a better chance than they did to get a good paying job--two times as many as said they would have a worse chance? Or that forty-two percent said blacks had a better chance for a good education than whites, while only seventeen percent said they would have a worse opportunity for a good education, and eighty percent saying blacks would have an equal or better chance? In that same survey, seventy percent said blacks could have improved conditions in the "slums" if they had wanted to, and were more than twice as likely to blame blacks themselves, as opposed to discrimination, for high unemployment in the black community (16).
In other words, even when racism was, by virtually all accounts (looking backward in time), institutionalized, white folks were convinced there was no real problem. Indeed, even forty years ago, whites were more likely to think that blacks had better opportunities, than to believe the opposite (and obviously accurate) thing: namely, that whites were advantaged in every realm of American life.
Truthfully, this tendency for whites to deny the extent of racism and racial injustice likely extends back far before the 1960s. Although public opinion polls in previous decades rarely if ever asked questions about the extent of racial bias or discrimination, anecdotal surveys of white opinion suggest that at no time have whites in the U.S. ever thought blacks or other people of color were getting a bad shake. White Southerners were all but convinced that their black slaves, for example, had it good, and had no reason to complain about their living conditions or lack of freedoms. After emancipation, but during the introduction of Jim Crow laws and strict Black Codes that limited where African Americans could live and work, white newspapers would regularly editorialize about the "warm relations" between whites and blacks, even as thousands of blacks were being lynched by their white compatriots.
This is why we should all be skeptical when AA-opponents insist that AA is no longer needed, or that it gives minorities an unfair advantage.
People who push the income-only consideration do so because they know that it will hurt black people. That's the point. To deny black people of their current opportunities, and create more opportunities for white. If the goal was, "Let's help out black people as much as we do already, but let's help out poor white people as well," then that's what they would do.
Now, a lot of the people proposing income only AA might be well meaning. But I think that they're parroting an idea that sounds good on principle, even though the original source of this idea might have an ulterior motive.
you are imputing bad faith on the part of anyone who holds a different view from yours. don't do that.
some people push the income-only consideration because any of:
1) it's more politically saleable and more likely to be retained through various political climates
2) it more directly addresses what they see as the root problem
3) they see it as more fair and less like "racial discrimination, only the other way this time"
4) they think it will engender less of a social backlash
5) they think it might alleviate some of the assumptions of "black folks only got this job because of AA and is therefore probably unqualified"
there are reasonable arguments for opposing AA that have nothing to do with "racism" or "hurting black people." Gene Robinson's new book somewhat endorses economic class-based systems.
Again, why not sell income considerations as a separate issue entirely? Why invite additional controversy to an idea that wouldn't be controversial on it's own? It would be like trying to make the health care bill easier to sell by also including a stance on abortion. I don't see the logic in that.
Schrodinger on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
2008 wasn't the first time the red team defined the blue team's guy as elitist and out of touch. "Uppity" was used by Limbaugh and maybe one or two other dumbshits and it was greated with appropriately with considerable amount of "WTF, dude! Not cool!"
Calling a black man uppity is pretty different than when you call Kerry that. Of course they paint Dems as elitist, that's their thing, but there was a massive racial bent in their mockery of Obama.
my recollection is that they worked really hard to try to avoid the appearance of racially-based attacks.
eating arugula and dijon mustard isn't really a traditional stereotype of african amercians
Irond Will on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
People who push the income-only consideration do so because they know that it will hurt black people. That's the point. To deny black people of their current opportunities, and create more opportunities for white. If the goal was, "Let's help out black people as much as we do already, but let's help out poor white people as well," then that's what they would do.
Now, a lot of the people proposing income only AA might be well meaning. But I think that they're parroting an idea that sounds good on principle, even though the original source of this idea might have an ulterior motive.
you are imputing bad faith on the part of anyone who holds a different view from yours. don't do that.
some people push the income-only consideration because any of:
1) it's more politically saleable and more likely to be retained through various political climates
2) it more directly addresses what they see as the root problem
3) they see it as more fair and less like "racial discrimination, only the other way this time"
4) they think it will engender less of a social backlash
5) they think it might alleviate some of the assumptions of "black folks only got this job because of AA and is therefore probably unqualified"
there are reasonable arguments for opposing AA that have nothing to do with "racism" or "hurting black people." Gene Robinson's new book somewhat endorses economic class-based systems.
Again, why not sell income considerations as a separate issue entirely? Why invite additional controversy to an idea that wouldn't be controversial on it's own? It would be like trying to make the health care bill easier to sell by also including a stance on abortion. I don't see the logic in that.
well, because it specifically addresses the issue of "black people are poor" and essentially robs that justification from the quiver of AA.
basically, in the face of a race-neutral leveling mechanism, the question becomes "is there enough social (not institutional) racism to justify affirmative action?"
and i think it's kind of hard to demonstrate definitively that there is.
Irond Will on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
So, for example, what does it say about white rationality and white collective sanity, that in 1963--at a time when in retrospect all would agree racism was rampant in the United States, and before the passage of modern civil rights legislation--nearly two-thirds of whites, when polled, said they believed blacks were treated the same as whites in their communities--almost the same number as say this now, some forty-plus years later? What does it suggest about the extent of white folks' disconnection from the real world, that in 1962, eighty-five percent of whites said black children had just as good a chance as white children to get a good education in their communities (12)? Or that in May, 1968, seventy percent of whites said that blacks were treated the same as whites in their communities, while only seventeen percent said blacks were treated "not very well" and only 3.5 percent said blacks were treated badly? (13)?
What does it say about white folks' historic commitment to equal opportunity--and which Taranto would have us believe has only been rendered inoperative because of affirmative action--that in 1963, three-fourths of white Americans told Newsweek, "The Negro is moving too fast" in his demands for equality (14)? Or that in October 1964, nearly two-thirds of whites said that the Civil Rights Act should be enforced gradually, with an emphasis on persuading employers not to discriminate, as opposed to forcing compliance with equal opportunity requirements (15)?
What does it say about whites' tenuous grip on mental health that in mid-August 1969, forty-four percent of whites told a Newsweek/Gallup National Opinion Survey that blacks had a better chance than they did to get a good paying job--two times as many as said they would have a worse chance? Or that forty-two percent said blacks had a better chance for a good education than whites, while only seventeen percent said they would have a worse opportunity for a good education, and eighty percent saying blacks would have an equal or better chance? In that same survey, seventy percent said blacks could have improved conditions in the "slums" if they had wanted to, and were more than twice as likely to blame blacks themselves, as opposed to discrimination, for high unemployment in the black community (16).
In other words, even when racism was, by virtually all accounts (looking backward in time), institutionalized, white folks were convinced there was no real problem. Indeed, even forty years ago, whites were more likely to think that blacks had better opportunities, than to believe the opposite (and obviously accurate) thing: namely, that whites were advantaged in every realm of American life.
Truthfully, this tendency for whites to deny the extent of racism and racial injustice likely extends back far before the 1960s. Although public opinion polls in previous decades rarely if ever asked questions about the extent of racial bias or discrimination, anecdotal surveys of white opinion suggest that at no time have whites in the U.S. ever thought blacks or other people of color were getting a bad shake. White Southerners were all but convinced that their black slaves, for example, had it good, and had no reason to complain about their living conditions or lack of freedoms. After emancipation, but during the introduction of Jim Crow laws and strict Black Codes that limited where African Americans could live and work, white newspapers would regularly editorialize about the "warm relations" between whites and blacks, even as thousands of blacks were being lynched by their white compatriots.
This is why we should all be skeptical when AA-opponents insist that AA is no longer needed, or that it gives minorities an unfair advantage.
this doesn't really mean anything
for one thing, i don't think that anyone is asserting that social racism is completely dead
and for another thing, treating something like this with authority precludes the possibility that social racism has diminished to the point where is it not onerous enough to merit government action beyond prohibiting certain types of discriminaton
black youth arrested for drug possession for the first time are incarcerated at a rate that is forty-eight times greater than the rate for white youth, even when all other factors surrounding the crime are identical (4)?
How many have heard that persons with "white sounding names," according to a massive national study, are fifty percent more likely to be called back for a job interview than those with "black sounding" names, even when all other credentials are the same (5)?
How many know that white men with a criminal record are slightly more likely to be called back for a job interview than black men without one, even when the men are equally qualified, and present themselves to potential employers in an identical fashion (6)?
How many have heard that according to the Justice Department, Black and Latino males are three times more likely than white males to have their vehicles stopped and searched by police, even though white males are over four times more likely to have illegal contraband in our cars on the occasions when we are searched (7)?
How many are aware that black and Latino students are about half as likely as whites to be placed in advanced or honors classes in school, and twice as likely to be placed in remedial classes? Or that even when test scores and prior performance would justify higher placement, students of color are far less likely to be placed in honors classes (8)? Or that students of color are 2-3 times more likely than whites to be suspended or expelled from school, even though rates of serious school rule infractions do not differ to any significant degree between racial groups (9)?
(4) "Young White Offenders get lighter treatment," 2000. The Tennessean. April 26: 8A.
(6) Pager, Devah. 2003. "The Mark of a Criminal Record." American Journal of Sociology. Volume 108: 5, March: 937-75.
(7) Matthew R. Durose, Erica L. Schmitt and Patrick A. Langan, Contacts Between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, (Bureau of Justice Statistics), April 2005.
(8) Gordon, Rebecca. 1998. Education and Race. Oakland: Applied Research Center: 48-9; Fischer, Claude S. et al., 1996. Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press: 163; Steinhorn, Leonard and Barabara Diggs-Brown, 1999. By the Color of Our Skin: The Illusion of Integration and the Reality of Race. NY: Dutton: 95-6.
(9) Skiba, Russell J. et al., The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment. Indiana Education Policy Center, Policy Research Report SRS1, June 2000; U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System: Youth 2003, Online Comprehensive Results, 2004.
Judging from the dates of those studies, it doesn't seem like social racism has diminished nearly as much as people would like to think.
2008 wasn't the first time the red team defined the blue team's guy as elitist and out of touch. "Uppity" was used by Limbaugh and maybe one or two other dumbshits and it was greated with appropriately with considerable amount of "WTF, dude! Not cool!"
Calling a black man uppity is pretty different than when you call Kerry that. Of course they paint Dems as elitist, that's their thing, but there was a massive racial bent in their mockery of Obama.
my recollection is that they worked really hard to try to avoid the appearance of racially-based attacks.
eating arugula and dijon mustard isn't really a traditional stereotype of african amercians
Being uppity in general isn't a traditional stereotype of black people. That's the point.
The underlying resentment isn't that the black dude is acting black, it's that the black dude doesn't seem to know his proper place in society.
We could easily save a lot of time by saying, "Look, just about everyone agrees that supporting AA for poor people is great. So why don't we accept that as a given. The next question is, should we still support AA for minorities on top of that, who aren't necessarily poor but who still face social disadvantages based on race?" Opponents of AA will never frame the discussion in this way, even though it establishes the most common ground. They have to make it one or the other. Because it's not so much about supporting the poor, as it is about taking AA away from minorities.
for one thing, i don't think that anyone is asserting that social racism is completely dead
noone asserted that you (or anyone) asserted that social racism is completely dead
but by arguing against racial AA you are asserting (as you do below) that social racism is dead enough that government intervention to stop it would do more harm than good. I strenuously disagree.
and for another thing, treating something like this with authority precludes the possibility that social racism has diminished to the point where is it not onerous enough to merit government action beyond prohibiting certain types of discriminaton
To be blunt: it hasn't. not sure how many of these we've already discussed but from an old post of mine from somewhere else here's a short list:
If that list, combined with Tim Wise's sources doesn't convince you that modern day "social" racism is both pervasive and pernicious I don't know what else I can say. What level of disadvantage--if any--would be high enough to warrant government intervention? Or is all government intervention necessarily suboptimal when we're talking about the private sphere?
To be fair, perhaps more rigorous and creative enforcement of current anti-discrimination practices would be enough to stamp all this out. Perhaps racial AA really isn't needed (at least for this purpose--there are other --and in my opinion-- weaker arguments to be made for racial AA that I haven't espoused in this thread). But in that case I would like to see far more legal solutions than I'm getting from opponents of racial AA. Because to me at least, the current, contemporary amount of social racism (to say nothing of the effects of historical racism) constitutes a significant barrier to black success and necessitates a finger on the scale to counter it.
Hell, it was seen as a victory when the cocaine sentencing disparity was reduced from 100 to 1 to something like 12 to 1 earlier this year. There's still codified racism in the legal system.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Don't see how my idea was bad. Getting rid of welfare to those who don't need it is now see as bad? The state of schools is bad? Have the government support new schools. Life is a tightrope. Why should anyone support those that have fallen off and can't be bothered to climb back up? I don't also see the harm in having the government giving sex education classes and telling about the dangers, informing young girls about teen babies. If they decide to do it, they why should that state pay? They made a choice, live up to the choice.
If education is a priority have then go to government schools and be given a chance. If they fail they have no one else to blame then.
Sustainable and livable jobs are not a bad thing. If they are kicked out for a drrug habit whats the point of supporting them since they decided to screw society in the first place.
Life is tough and through government help, a majority of people that really want to try will get through. The state should not support those who have given up. Equality is given through education, at least I think it is. Giving new schools and helping them succeed instead of a free pass to push out babies and do drugs is not the way.
Your entire post is based on an underlying ideology that is borderline sociopathic if you aren't a 19th-century robber baron trying to get rich off the backs of peasants. The welfare state has put you where you are today, even if you never received a welfare payment in your life. It also rests on a whole set of incorrect underlying assumptions. It would take me about 2 hours to put together cites and a full analysis. I'll do this, but I don't have time until Tuesday. So i'll edit or post again then.
Actually, he insisted that even though he was raised in GA, he had absolutely no idea that there was a racial connotation to the phrase. The media never followed up on it or challenged him on it afterward. Even though he was running for election that year, so you would think that someone would bring it up for that reason alone.
So a Southern boy can call Obama uppity, insist that he had absolutely no clue that it was racist, and get away with it scot free.
This may not be the thread for this, but I've lived in GA almost my whole life, and never knew the word was racially sensitive until that issue came about. There is a clothing store called "Uppity's" right on the corner here, which markets itself rather tongue-in-cheek as a boutique specializing in the style of wealthy elites. It doesn't have anything to do with race.
I've since learned of the "uppity n*" phrase, where the word uppity is still being used pretty much for what it means (a southern slang word for pretending to be more than you are), but obviously in a way that puts down blacks. No doubt, though, you're walking on thin ice if you call a black person "uppity" even if you weren't aware of specific racial history with that word. If you're saying someone is pretending to be more than they are, you better be clear about what you do and don't mean by that.
Anyway, my main issue with AA in general theory is this: two wrongs don't make a right. Trying to counter-balance ill effects with an opposing but indirect social policy would seem to solidify the ill effects in the first place. In other words, if you say, "blacks get discriminating against, so we need to balance the scales with programs that counteract (rather than address) discrimination"... then you are establishing discrimination as a constant and setting policy around. That will only serve to, you know, establish discrimination.
The logic would seem to say, "never you worry, racist white man, we help blacks in other ways to balance you out, so that you and your children and your grandchildren don't ever have to be bothered to learn to stop being racist."
In practicality I see this from time to time in Corporate America, where individuals who wouldn't seem to have any background or inclinations that would evoke racist attitudes, nevertheless develop a distrust and disdain for hiring or working with minorities because of the additional risk it entails. It sometimes can be easier to fake a legitimate reason to avoid hiring or working with minorities than it can be to hire and work with them and avoid the risks of discrimination accusations. Despite the fact that most people aren't going to try to exploit anti-discrimination or AA provisions.
Yar on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
I agree that it's going to be hard to figure out exactly when racism has abated enough to do away with programs such as AA. However, I don't think we are anywhere near that stage yet.
my recollection is that they worked really hard to try to avoid the appearance of racially-based attacks.
eating arugula and dijon mustard isn't really a traditional stereotype of african amercians
Indeed they did. Avoiding the appearance of race-based attacks != avoiding race-based attacks. It's gauche to actually bust out with the N-word, clever politicians use code words and dogwhistles.
Of course the standard GOP playbook is to pretend that the Democrats are all chardonnay-sipping elitists. But you get some extra mileage out of that stereotype when it's a black guy thinking he's better'n you because he's all edumacated and stuff.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
This may not be the thread for this, but I've lived in GA almost my whole life, and never knew the word was racially sensitive until that issue came about. There is a clothing store called "Uppity's" right on the corner here, which markets itself rather tongue-in-cheek as a boutique specializing in the style of wealthy elites. It doesn't have anything to do with race.
I've since learned of the "uppity n*" phrase, where the word uppity is still being used pretty much for what it means (a southern slang word for pretending to be more than you are), but obviously in a way that puts down blacks. No doubt, though, you're walking on thin ice if you call a black person "uppity" even if you weren't aware of specific racial history with that word. If you're saying someone is pretending to be more than they are, you better be clear about what you do and don't mean by that.
Seriously? I know what the word "uppity" means, and I grew up in Seattle. We all learn about during black history month as children. You telling me that you didn't know what it means would be like me saying that I've never heard of Starbucks.
Anyway, my main issue with AA in general theory is this: two wrongs don't make a right. Trying to counter-balance ill effects with an opposing but indirect social policy would seem to solidify the ill effects in the first place. In other words, if you say, "blacks get discriminating against, so we need to balance the scales with programs that counteract (rather than address) discrimination"... then you are establishing discrimination as a constant and setting policy around. That will only serve to, you know, establish discrimination.
The logic would seem to say, "never you worry, racist white man, we help blacks in other ways to balance you out, so that you and your children and your grandchildren don't ever have to be bothered to learn to stop being racist."
Huh?
That's like saying seatbelts are wrong, because then people never learn to drive safely.
In practicality I see this from time to time in Corporate America, where individuals who wouldn't seem to have any background or inclinations that would evoke racist attitudes, nevertheless develop a distrust and disdain for hiring or working with minorities because of the additional risk it entails. It sometimes can be easier to fake a legitimate reason to avoid hiring or working with minorities than it can be to hire and work with them and avoid the risks of discrimination accusations. Despite the fact that most people aren't going to try to exploit anti-discrimination or AA provisions.
So... People who wouldn't act racist in the absence of black people are now acting racist in the presence of black people. Obviously, it's impossible that they were racist all along, but you were just unaware of it.
Today I don’t have to think about those who hear “terrorist” when I speak my faith.
Today I don’t have to think about men who don’t believe no means no.
Today I don’t have to think about how the world is made for people who move differently than I do.
Today I don’t have to think about whether I’m married, depending on what state I’m in.
Today I don’t have to think about how I’m going to hail a cab past midnight.
Today I don’t have to think about whether store security is tailing me.
Today I don’t have to think about the look on the face of the person about to sit next to me on a plane.
Today I don’t have to think about eyes going to my chest first.
Today I don’t have to think about what people might think if they knew the medicines I took.
Today I don’t have to think about getting kicked out of a mall when I kiss my beloved hello.
Today I don’t have to think about if it’s safe to hold my beloved’s hand.
Today I don’t have to think about whether I’m being pulled over for anything other than speeding.
Today I don’t have to think about being classified as one of “those people.”
Today I don’t have to think about making less than someone else for the same job at the same place.
Today I don’t have to think about the people who stare, or the people who pretend I don’t exist.
Today I don’t have to think about managing pain that never goes away.
Today I don’t have to think about whether a stranger’s opinion of me would change if I showed them a picture of who I love.
Today I don’t have to think about the chance a store salesmen will ignore me to help someone else.
Today I don’t have to think about the people who’d consider torching my house of prayer a patriotic act.
Today I don’t have to think about a pharmacist telling me his conscience keeps him from filling my prescription.
Today I don’t have to think about being asked if I’m bleeding when I’m just having a bad day.
Today I don’t have to think about whether the one drug that lets me live my life will be taken off the market.
Today I don’t have to think about the odds of getting jumped at the bar I like to go to.
Today I don’t have to think about “vote fraud” theater showing up at my poll station.
Today I don’t have to think about turning on the news to see people planning to burn my holy book.
Today I don’t have to think about others demanding I apologize for hateful people who have nothing to do with me.
Today I don’t have to think about my child being seen as a detriment to my career.
Today I don’t have to think about the irony of people thinking I’m lucky because I can park close to the door.
Today I don’t have to think about memories of being bullied in high school.
Today I don’t have to think about being told to relax, it was just a joke.
Today I don’t have to think about whether someone thinks I’m in this country illegally.
Today I don’t have to think about those who believe that freedom of religion ends with mine.
Today I don’t have to think about how a half-starved 23-year-old being a cultural ideal affects my life.
Today I don’t have to think about how much my life is circumscribed by my body.
Today I don’t have to think about people wanting me cured of loving who I love.
Today I don’t have to think about those who view me an unfit parent because of who I love.
Today I don’t have to think about being told my kind don’t assimilate.
Today I don’t have to think about people blind to the intolerance of their belief lecturing me about my own.
Today I don’t have to think about my body as a political football.
Today I don’t have to think about how much my own needs wear on those I love.
Today I don’t have to think about explaining to others “what happened to me.”
Today I don’t have to think about politicians saying bigoted things about me to win votes.
Today I don’t have to think about those worried that one day people like me will be the majority.
Today I don’t have to think about someone using the name of my religion as a slur.
Today I don’t have to think about so many of the words for me controlling my own life being negatives.
Today I don’t have to think about still not being equal.
Today I don’t have to think about what it takes to keep going.
Today I don’t have to think about how much I still have to hide.
Today I don’t have to think about how much prejudice keeps hold.
Today I don’t have to think about how I’m meant to be grateful that people tolerate my kind.
Today I don’t have to think about all the things I don’t have to think about.
But today I will.
In practicality I see this from time to time in Corporate America, where individuals who wouldn't seem to have any background or inclinations that would evoke racist attitudes, nevertheless develop a distrust and disdain for hiring or working with minorities because of the additional risk it entails. It sometimes can be easier to fake a legitimate reason to avoid hiring or working with minorities than it can be to hire and work with them and avoid the risks of discrimination accusations. Despite the fact that most people aren't going to try to exploit anti-discrimination or AA provisions.
So... People who wouldn't act racist in the absence of black people are now acting racist in the presence of black people. Obviously, it's impossible that they were racist all along, but you were just unaware of it.
I'm going to defend Yar here, but don't take it as an endorsement of the rest of his post.
There are some occasions in which a minority of people of color play the race card in a completely cynical and self-serving way. For example, I lived in low-income housing, and a number of the less savory families were people of color. They often protested "Racism!" when accused of dealing drugs (which they did) or vandalism (which I think they did, but I don't know for sure).
Because anybody with even a remote awareness of white privilege examines accusations of racism with additional scrutiny, people (even non-racists) can be a hesitant to punish minorities for fear of legal repercussions should they play the race card from the bottom of the deck. I think the people in Yar's example extend this to simply not hiring them at all.
My personal opinion is that this is such a small problem in the face of overwhelmingly positive social justice that I can't help looking askance at anybody who complains about it.
I'm going to defend Yar here, but don't take it as an endorsement of the rest of his post.
There are some occasions in which a minority of people of color play the race card in a completely cynical and self-serving way. For example, I lived in low-income housing, and a number of the less savory families were people of color. They often protested "Racism!" when accused of dealing drugs (which they did) or vandalism (which I think they did, but I don't know for sure).
There are a lot of stupid black people who unfairly throw around accusations of racism.
Then again, there are a lot of stupid white people who do the same thing. For instance, Glenn Beck insisting that Barack Obama is a racist who wants to destroy white culture.
Because anybody with even a remote awareness of white privilege examines accusations of racism with additional scrutiny, people (even non-racists) can be a hesitant to punish minorities for fear of legal repercussions should they play the race card from the bottom of the deck. I think the people in Yar's example extend this to simply not hiring them at all.
In the Wise piece I pointed earlier, the vast majority of white people in the 1960's were moving too fast, and received unfair advantages that white people did not.
It appears that very little has changed.
If white employers are scared of accusations of racism, then the best defense is having your facts together and hiring people with thicker skins. The people you brought up are drug dealers and vandals. I'm pretty sure that those aren't the people who the employee would ever consider hiring in the first place, regardless of skin color.
If white employers are scared of accusations of racism, then the best defense is having your facts together and hiring people with thicker skins. The people you brought up are drug dealers and vandals. I'm pretty sure that those aren't the people who the employee would ever consider hiring in the first place, regardless of skin color.
I think you may have misunderstood me. In my example, those people aren't the ones which would be hired by Yar's corporate overlords. I used it as an analogous example in which people might be denied entry (into a job or low income housing), because the gatekeepers (landlord, employer) fear race based legal troubles.
In this way, I think what Yar is saying is true: that policies designed to protect minorities can cause those of privilege to deny them even further opportunities. It may not even be motivated by race; rather, it is motivated by a fear of litigation.
Of course, the evidence does not bear out Yar's hypothesis of AA harming people of color more than it helps, but I believe the effect he describes is a real one, statistically significant or not.
I don't know, I think that the whole idea of "I've seen a lot of black people who are drama queens, so I assume that all other black people will be the same way" still seems to be pretty race based.
In this way, I think what Yar is saying is true: that policies designed to protect minorities can cause those of privilege to deny them even further opportunities. It may not even be motivated by race; rather, it is motivated by a fear of litigation.
Of course, the evidence does not bear out Yar's hypothesis of AA harming people of color more than it helps, but I believe the effect he describes is a real one, statistically significant or not.
If it is statistically insignificant, then it is irrelevant to the debate about AA.
The idea that AA "causes" racists to deny minorities opportunities is nonsense. They just change the excuses.
Are there people who play the race card? Sure. People who know they're not being racist don't go into a tizzy about it.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
So I'm watching Maddow, and she brings up an interesting point about the Southern Strategy.
Apparently, part of the Southern Strategy was to avoid fighting enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Because the stronger the Voting Rights Act was, the more blacks were voting. But the black people voting would be more than offset by the "negrophobe whites" who were scared shitless at the sight of black people voting.
So you know that argument, "AA is wrong, because it upsets white people and creates racial tension?"
Well, in the case of the VRA, not only was the same thing true, but the republicans were actively using it to their advantage.
That's like saying seatbelts are wrong, because then people never learn to drive safely.
That's a failed analogy. Seat belts are not designed to counter-balance unsafe driving. They do not operate based on the assumption of unsafe driving. They just help protect you regardless. There's nothing wrong with seat belts even if everyone is a perfectly safe driver.
A better analogy might be if I decided that since there are so many unsafe drivers out there, we should counter-balance this by re-allocating more health care resources for people injured in car accidents and away from other injuries and diseases. Sure, better health care for car accidents would seem to target the injustice caused by bad drivers... but it also seems like it would not promote safe driving at all (might even give some people reason against safe driving), it seems like it targets one particular fashionable injustice when other injustices exist across the board, and if people ever did become safer drivers then you'd just be left doing something silly that you shouldn't be doing, so the entire logic and value of what you are doing relies on keeping drivers unsafe. And, of course, it presumes that all those people with other health problems are already unfairly advantaged because they weren't injured by an unsafe driver and are probably unsafe drivers themselves.
Its not a matter of making things fair or not, its about breaking the cycle of poverty that arises from racism or social stigma.
Which leaves us with only two possibilities - either AA doesn't work, or AA works and therefore needs to be continually phased out. If it achieves its goal of breaking the cycle, then each generation would be better off and the need for AA lessened. If it doesn't achieve its goal, then it isn't achieving its goal and should be re-thought.
This is why we should all be skeptical when AA-opponents insist that AA is no longer needed, or that it gives minorities an unfair advantage.
Analyzing the need for AA in any way that purports to make a case that AA is actually working requires one to claim that circumstances are getting better for minorities, and that the need for AA is not as strong anymore, and minorities may be getting an unfair advantage from it. This is politically and socially risky and can get you labeled as a racist. This makes the issue basically a non-starter. The de facto stance is that racism exists, period, and any argument to the contrary, or even that things have improved, is itself proof that racism still exists. Therefore, AA is a permanent fixture and there is little incentive to ever analyze it to see if it is working (because unlike other things, "it working" necessarily means it ought to be phased down) or analyze how it might be improved if it isn't working (because again, showing "improvement" requires one to take the unpopular stance that racism is declined, that AA might now be over-correcting, and also only hastens the day AA becomes obsolete).
The idea behind AA could still be of value, but it would seem that the only way a program like AA can be trusted is if it is under constant attack, and that it continually either demonstrate success and thus be scaled back, or else recognize failure and thus be changed or eventually abandoned as poor strategy. That's a tall order, but so is claiming that you're going to steer advantages towards certain racial groups in the interest of morality and/or combating racism.
The very existence of AA as a static institution is a thereby necessarily a failure of AA, by virtue of its own foundation. If we aren't attacking it and eliminating it at all times, we are therefore acknowledging that it isn't working. If we aren't redesigning and improving it when it's not working, we are therefore acknowledging that it can't work.
That's a failed analogy. Seat belts are not designed to counter-balance unsafe driving. They do not operate based on the assumption of unsafe driving. They just help protect you regardless. There's nothing wrong with seat belts even if everyone is a perfectly safe driver.
If everyone was a perfectly safe driver, we likely wouldn't have seat belts. That's what the word "perfect" entails.
It's not like seat belts were created at the same time as the car, and people just threw them in just because. The car industry fought tooth and nail against getting seat belts installed, and the only reason that seat belts won out is because there was so much evidence showing that drivers and car designs were really dangerous.
A better analogy might be if I decided that since there are so many unsafe drivers out there, we should counter-balance this by re-allocating more health care resources for people injured in car accidents and away from other injuries and diseases. Sure, better health care for car accidents would seem to target the injustice caused by bad drivers... but it also seems like it would not promote safe driving at all (might even give some people reason against safe driving), it seems like it targets one particular fashionable injustice when other injustices exist across the board, and if people ever did become safer drivers then you'd just be left doing something silly that you shouldn't be doing, so the entire logic and value of what you are doing relies on keeping drivers unsafe. And, of course, it presumes that all those people with other health problems are already unfairly advantaged because they weren't injured by an unsafe driver and are probably unsafe drivers themselves.
So no emergency health care for car accident victims. Because otherwise, they won't learn to avoid getting hit by drunks.
Its not a matter of making things fair or not, its about breaking the cycle of poverty that arises from racism or social stigma.
Which leaves us with only two possibilities - either AA doesn't work, or AA works and therefore needs to be continually phased out.[ If it achieves its goal of breaking the cycle, then each generation would be better off and the need for AA lessened. If it doesn't achieve its goal, then it isn't achieving its goal and should be re-thought.
People continue to get sick despite better doctors and better science.
Clearly, the solution is to end all medical training and all medical research.
The de facto stance is that racism exists, period, and any argument to the contrary is itself proof that racism still exists.
Or you could simply try backing up that argument with, you know... evidence. Statistical research and studies and all that.
The problem is when white people make blanket statements and assume that since they themselves haven't experienced racism personally, that somehow makes them an authority in saying that no one else does either.
Racism exists. Period. It exists to the extent where it's problematic within American society, and unless you're able to provide any evidence contrary to what's been cited in this thread, then it really isn't debatable.
Also, nobody's advocating AA as a static institution. It should be phased out eventually, but we're definitely not at that point yet. From a racial standpoint I'd say things have improved since 1965 when AA began, but of course it's impossible to say exactly how much of an impact AA had on that. It's really not something that can be simply measured though, and it can take decades as opposed to years to really make an effect. Regardless, I can still find studies that show that a. racism is still a problem and b. affirmative action is effective in its aims. Can you find any credible sources supporting the contrary?
Nah, not as far as I know. Usually when I feel like I see 'white guilt' in action, is when a white person gets real nervous that they've fucked up and I'm gonna go all BLACK RAGE on them. Or when they over-compensate for oppression they feel I must be suffering 24/7. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it makes me get my sad-on.
I was referring to more when people accuse Obama of being the Affirmative Action president who only got elected due to "white guilt."
Basically it's that white people are giving blacks stuff they don't deserve because people a long long long time ago treated them somewhat shabbily and it totally doesn't have any effect on us now and it's over and done with I swear. Essentially, in that context, it's the arguments against Affirmative Action taken to their extreme. Also, it's not just being used to attack white people. The idea is that blacks are exploiting the system and blah blah blah.
FroThulhu - when I hear the term, it's usually a white person telling another white person that they're wallowing in some kind of fear based effort to bend over backward so that brown and black people won't look at you all pissed off.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The problem is when white people make blanket statements and assume that since they themselves haven't experienced racism personally, that somehow makes them an authority in saying that no one else does either.
FroThulhu - when I hear the term, it's usually a white person telling another white person that they're wallowing in some kind of fear based effort to bend over backward so that brown and black people won't look at you all pissed off.
The problem is when white people make blanket statements and assume that since they themselves haven't experienced racism personally, that somehow makes them an authority in saying that no one else does either.
Stupid white people.
White people are responsible for all war in the world.
The problem is when white people make blanket statements and assume that since they themselves haven't experienced racism personally, that somehow makes them an authority in saying that no one else does either.
Stupid white people.
White people are responsible for all war in the world.
And codpieces. Those are totally their fault.
Anyway, more on topic, I've been trying to explain the idea of white privilege to my girlfriend. It is interesting to see how blind she is to how much her upbringing (white, Christian, upper-middle class) has contributed to her personal success. It's one thing to understand that such things happen intellectually (she's into WGST and knows about the theory) but to recognize its effects in your own life can be difficult to accept.
The problem is when white people make blanket statements and assume that since they themselves haven't experienced racism personally, that somehow makes them an authority in saying that no one else does either.
Stupid white people.
White people are responsible for all war in the world.
And codpieces. Those are totally their fault.
Anyway, more on topic, I've been trying to explain the idea of white privilege to my girlfriend. It is interesting to see how blind she is to how much her upbringing (white, Christian, upper-middle class) has contributed to her personal success. It's one thing to understand that such things happen intellectually (she's into WGST and knows about the theory) but to recognize its effects in your own life can be difficult to accept.
The problem is when white people make blanket statements and assume that since they themselves haven't experienced racism personally, that somehow makes them an authority in saying that no one else does either.
Stupid white people.
White people are responsible for all war in the world.
And codpieces. Those are totally their fault.
Anyway, more on topic, I've been trying to explain the idea of white privilege to my girlfriend. It is interesting to see how blind she is to how much her upbringing (white, Christian, upper-middle class) has contributed to her personal success. It's one thing to understand that such things happen intellectually (she's into WGST and knows about the theory) but to recognize its effects in your own life can be difficult to accept.
If everyone was a perfectly safe driver, we likely wouldn't have seat belts. That's what the word "perfect" entails.
To repeat what I just said: if everyone was a perfectly safe driver, seat belts still wouldn't be a bad thing. To finish the logic here for you: if racism didn't exist at all and everyone was perfectly fair in hiring and such, then AA would be a significantly immoral, bad, unfair thing. That is a peculiarity of the ethics of counter-balancing, like AA. It is a dressed-up version of the old adage, "two wrongs don't make a right." If the solution to racial advantages is more racial advantages, you've at least got a particular burden you must accept in how you intend to defend and implement this. Therefore, no, it isn't at all like seat belts.
Or you could simply try backing up that argument with, you know... evidence. Statistical research and studies and all that.
The problem is when white people make blanket statements and assume that since they themselves haven't experienced racism personally, that somehow makes them an authority in saying that no one else does either.
Similarly, this isn't much related to what I said, and isn't about an argument I'm even involved in. I guess it relates to what I'm saying in this way: the people who want to legislate racial advantages have the burden to continually demonstrate the level of need and only seek the appropriate level of action to meet that need. And if the program is working, then that level of need must decrease regularly, and thereby so too must the appropriate level of action decrease regularly.
White people are responsible for all war in the world.
Lol. Were you in the thread where I showed that Islam is a significant factor in 2/3 - 3/4 of all violent conflict in the world? Many Muslims are white, though, so there's that.
Posts
I think most people don't bother thinking about it.
They hear someone suggest income only AA, while also insisting that it won't have any negative impact on black people, and they take that person at his word. Because at face value, it sounds right.
But the process of coming up with an idea is very different from hearing an idea.
If someone said to me, "Hey, let's come up with a program to help out poor people," my response wouldn't be, "Cool! Does this mean that we no longer have to help out minorities?" The thought would never even occur to me.
OTOH, suppose someone says to me, "Hey, let's replace this program that helps out minorities with a program that helps out poor people, which will basically do the same thing."
In both cases, the other person is suggesting that you help out the needy. The difference is in framing. In the first example, the person is merely presenting the idea as an option. In the second example, the person is presenting the idea as a choice. The second example forces you to decide on one or the other, so in your own mind, these two things become mutually exclusive.
Why does he frame things in this way? I have to assume that it's a conscious decision.
Basically, it's a subtle manipulation.
It's sort of like how Arnold Schwarzenegger says in his acceptance speech, he said, "When the people win, politics as usual loses." He does that even though it's the people who elect those politicians in the first place. Why does he do this? Simple. Because he wants to frame the situation in such a way so that it seems like "the people" (democratic voters) and "politics as usual" (democratic legislatures) are at odds with each other. Since he knows that these people are already on his side (as they voted voted for him), he has to convince them to turn against the democratic legislature who they elected. He does this by presenting this as a choice: It's you vs. them.
That's what the income only suggestion does. It's presented as a choice: Either it's poor people or colored people. Everyone who supports helping out minorities would also support helping out the poor. But not everyone who supports the poor would support helping out minorities. Hence, "helping out the poor" casts a larger net. They then frame the discussion so it has to be one or the other. "You support race based AA? I guess you must really hate poor people, then."
We could easily save a lot of time by saying, "Look, just about everyone agrees that supporting AA for poor people is great. So why don't we accept that as a given. The next question is, should we still support AA for minorities on top of that, who aren't necessarily poor but who still face social disadvantages based on race?" Opponents of AA will never frame the discussion in this way, even though it establishes the most common ground. They have to make it one or the other. Because it's not so much about supporting the poor, as it is about taking AA away from minorities.
This is why we should all be skeptical when AA-opponents insist that AA is no longer needed, or that it gives minorities an unfair advantage.
Again, why not sell income considerations as a separate issue entirely? Why invite additional controversy to an idea that wouldn't be controversial on it's own? It would be like trying to make the health care bill easier to sell by also including a stance on abortion. I don't see the logic in that.
my recollection is that they worked really hard to try to avoid the appearance of racially-based attacks.
eating arugula and dijon mustard isn't really a traditional stereotype of african amercians
well, because it specifically addresses the issue of "black people are poor" and essentially robs that justification from the quiver of AA.
basically, in the face of a race-neutral leveling mechanism, the question becomes "is there enough social (not institutional) racism to justify affirmative action?"
and i think it's kind of hard to demonstrate definitively that there is.
this doesn't really mean anything
for one thing, i don't think that anyone is asserting that social racism is completely dead
and for another thing, treating something like this with authority precludes the possibility that social racism has diminished to the point where is it not onerous enough to merit government action beyond prohibiting certain types of discriminaton
Judging from the dates of those studies, it doesn't seem like social racism has diminished nearly as much as people would like to think.
Being uppity in general isn't a traditional stereotype of black people. That's the point.
The underlying resentment isn't that the black dude is acting black, it's that the black dude doesn't seem to know his proper place in society.
ding ding ding. perfect :^:
noone asserted that you (or anyone) asserted that social racism is completely dead
but by arguing against racial AA you are asserting (as you do below) that social racism is dead enough that government intervention to stop it would do more harm than good. I strenuously disagree.
To be blunt: it hasn't. not sure how many of these we've already discussed but from an old post of mine from somewhere else here's a short list:
If that list, combined with Tim Wise's sources doesn't convince you that modern day "social" racism is both pervasive and pernicious I don't know what else I can say. What level of disadvantage--if any--would be high enough to warrant government intervention? Or is all government intervention necessarily suboptimal when we're talking about the private sphere?
To be fair, perhaps more rigorous and creative enforcement of current anti-discrimination practices would be enough to stamp all this out. Perhaps racial AA really isn't needed (at least for this purpose--there are other --and in my opinion-- weaker arguments to be made for racial AA that I haven't espoused in this thread). But in that case I would like to see far more legal solutions than I'm getting from opponents of racial AA. Because to me at least, the current, contemporary amount of social racism (to say nothing of the effects of historical racism) constitutes a significant barrier to black success and necessitates a finger on the scale to counter it.
Relating your comments to Affirmative Action in some way would also probably be a good idea.
Your entire post is based on an underlying ideology that is borderline sociopathic if you aren't a 19th-century robber baron trying to get rich off the backs of peasants. The welfare state has put you where you are today, even if you never received a welfare payment in your life. It also rests on a whole set of incorrect underlying assumptions. It would take me about 2 hours to put together cites and a full analysis. I'll do this, but I don't have time until Tuesday. So i'll edit or post again then.
I've since learned of the "uppity n*" phrase, where the word uppity is still being used pretty much for what it means (a southern slang word for pretending to be more than you are), but obviously in a way that puts down blacks. No doubt, though, you're walking on thin ice if you call a black person "uppity" even if you weren't aware of specific racial history with that word. If you're saying someone is pretending to be more than they are, you better be clear about what you do and don't mean by that.
Anyway, my main issue with AA in general theory is this: two wrongs don't make a right. Trying to counter-balance ill effects with an opposing but indirect social policy would seem to solidify the ill effects in the first place. In other words, if you say, "blacks get discriminating against, so we need to balance the scales with programs that counteract (rather than address) discrimination"... then you are establishing discrimination as a constant and setting policy around. That will only serve to, you know, establish discrimination.
The logic would seem to say, "never you worry, racist white man, we help blacks in other ways to balance you out, so that you and your children and your grandchildren don't ever have to be bothered to learn to stop being racist."
In practicality I see this from time to time in Corporate America, where individuals who wouldn't seem to have any background or inclinations that would evoke racist attitudes, nevertheless develop a distrust and disdain for hiring or working with minorities because of the additional risk it entails. It sometimes can be easier to fake a legitimate reason to avoid hiring or working with minorities than it can be to hire and work with them and avoid the risks of discrimination accusations. Despite the fact that most people aren't going to try to exploit anti-discrimination or AA provisions.
Indeed they did. Avoiding the appearance of race-based attacks != avoiding race-based attacks. It's gauche to actually bust out with the N-word, clever politicians use code words and dogwhistles.
Of course the standard GOP playbook is to pretend that the Democrats are all chardonnay-sipping elitists. But you get some extra mileage out of that stereotype when it's a black guy thinking he's better'n you because he's all edumacated and stuff.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Seriously? I know what the word "uppity" means, and I grew up in Seattle. We all learn about during black history month as children. You telling me that you didn't know what it means would be like me saying that I've never heard of Starbucks.
Huh?
That's like saying seatbelts are wrong, because then people never learn to drive safely.
So... People who wouldn't act racist in the absence of black people are now acting racist in the presence of black people. Obviously, it's impossible that they were racist all along, but you were just unaware of it.
I'm going to defend Yar here, but don't take it as an endorsement of the rest of his post.
There are some occasions in which a minority of people of color play the race card in a completely cynical and self-serving way. For example, I lived in low-income housing, and a number of the less savory families were people of color. They often protested "Racism!" when accused of dealing drugs (which they did) or vandalism (which I think they did, but I don't know for sure).
Because anybody with even a remote awareness of white privilege examines accusations of racism with additional scrutiny, people (even non-racists) can be a hesitant to punish minorities for fear of legal repercussions should they play the race card from the bottom of the deck. I think the people in Yar's example extend this to simply not hiring them at all.
My personal opinion is that this is such a small problem in the face of overwhelmingly positive social justice that I can't help looking askance at anybody who complains about it.
There are a lot of stupid black people who unfairly throw around accusations of racism.
Then again, there are a lot of stupid white people who do the same thing. For instance, Glenn Beck insisting that Barack Obama is a racist who wants to destroy white culture.
In the Wise piece I pointed earlier, the vast majority of white people in the 1960's were moving too fast, and received unfair advantages that white people did not.
It appears that very little has changed.
If white employers are scared of accusations of racism, then the best defense is having your facts together and hiring people with thicker skins. The people you brought up are drug dealers and vandals. I'm pretty sure that those aren't the people who the employee would ever consider hiring in the first place, regardless of skin color.
I think you may have misunderstood me. In my example, those people aren't the ones which would be hired by Yar's corporate overlords. I used it as an analogous example in which people might be denied entry (into a job or low income housing), because the gatekeepers (landlord, employer) fear race based legal troubles.
In this way, I think what Yar is saying is true: that policies designed to protect minorities can cause those of privilege to deny them even further opportunities. It may not even be motivated by race; rather, it is motivated by a fear of litigation.
Of course, the evidence does not bear out Yar's hypothesis of AA harming people of color more than it helps, but I believe the effect he describes is a real one, statistically significant or not.
If it is statistically insignificant, then it is irrelevant to the debate about AA.
The idea that AA "causes" racists to deny minorities opportunities is nonsense. They just change the excuses.
Are there people who play the race card? Sure. People who know they're not being racist don't go into a tizzy about it.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Apparently, part of the Southern Strategy was to avoid fighting enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Because the stronger the Voting Rights Act was, the more blacks were voting. But the black people voting would be more than offset by the "negrophobe whites" who were scared shitless at the sight of black people voting.
So you know that argument, "AA is wrong, because it upsets white people and creates racial tension?"
Well, in the case of the VRA, not only was the same thing true, but the republicans were actively using it to their advantage.
Still doesn't make the VRA wrong, however.
And neither does it invalidate AA.
A better analogy might be if I decided that since there are so many unsafe drivers out there, we should counter-balance this by re-allocating more health care resources for people injured in car accidents and away from other injuries and diseases. Sure, better health care for car accidents would seem to target the injustice caused by bad drivers... but it also seems like it would not promote safe driving at all (might even give some people reason against safe driving), it seems like it targets one particular fashionable injustice when other injustices exist across the board, and if people ever did become safer drivers then you'd just be left doing something silly that you shouldn't be doing, so the entire logic and value of what you are doing relies on keeping drivers unsafe. And, of course, it presumes that all those people with other health problems are already unfairly advantaged because they weren't injured by an unsafe driver and are probably unsafe drivers themselves.
More directly, look at it this way:
Which leaves us with only two possibilities - either AA doesn't work, or AA works and therefore needs to be continually phased out. If it achieves its goal of breaking the cycle, then each generation would be better off and the need for AA lessened. If it doesn't achieve its goal, then it isn't achieving its goal and should be re-thought.
But then the problem is worsened by this:
Analyzing the need for AA in any way that purports to make a case that AA is actually working requires one to claim that circumstances are getting better for minorities, and that the need for AA is not as strong anymore, and minorities may be getting an unfair advantage from it. This is politically and socially risky and can get you labeled as a racist. This makes the issue basically a non-starter. The de facto stance is that racism exists, period, and any argument to the contrary, or even that things have improved, is itself proof that racism still exists. Therefore, AA is a permanent fixture and there is little incentive to ever analyze it to see if it is working (because unlike other things, "it working" necessarily means it ought to be phased down) or analyze how it might be improved if it isn't working (because again, showing "improvement" requires one to take the unpopular stance that racism is declined, that AA might now be over-correcting, and also only hastens the day AA becomes obsolete).
The idea behind AA could still be of value, but it would seem that the only way a program like AA can be trusted is if it is under constant attack, and that it continually either demonstrate success and thus be scaled back, or else recognize failure and thus be changed or eventually abandoned as poor strategy. That's a tall order, but so is claiming that you're going to steer advantages towards certain racial groups in the interest of morality and/or combating racism.
The very existence of AA as a static institution is a thereby necessarily a failure of AA, by virtue of its own foundation. If we aren't attacking it and eliminating it at all times, we are therefore acknowledging that it isn't working. If we aren't redesigning and improving it when it's not working, we are therefore acknowledging that it can't work.
If everyone was a perfectly safe driver, we likely wouldn't have seat belts. That's what the word "perfect" entails.
It's not like seat belts were created at the same time as the car, and people just threw them in just because. The car industry fought tooth and nail against getting seat belts installed, and the only reason that seat belts won out is because there was so much evidence showing that drivers and car designs were really dangerous.
So no emergency health care for car accident victims. Because otherwise, they won't learn to avoid getting hit by drunks.
People continue to get sick despite better doctors and better science.
Clearly, the solution is to end all medical training and all medical research.
Or you could simply try backing up that argument with, you know... evidence. Statistical research and studies and all that.
The problem is when white people make blanket statements and assume that since they themselves haven't experienced racism personally, that somehow makes them an authority in saying that no one else does either.
Also, nobody's advocating AA as a static institution. It should be phased out eventually, but we're definitely not at that point yet. From a racial standpoint I'd say things have improved since 1965 when AA began, but of course it's impossible to say exactly how much of an impact AA had on that. It's really not something that can be simply measured though, and it can take decades as opposed to years to really make an effect. Regardless, I can still find studies that show that a. racism is still a problem and b. affirmative action is effective in its aims. Can you find any credible sources supporting the contrary?
I see the phrase "white guilt" a lot, usually by one group of white people using it to attack another group of white people.
Is "white guilt" the new "n-word lover"?
I was referring to more when people accuse Obama of being the Affirmative Action president who only got elected due to "white guilt."
Basically it's that white people are giving blacks stuff they don't deserve because people a long long long time ago treated them somewhat shabbily and it totally doesn't have any effect on us now and it's over and done with I swear. Essentially, in that context, it's the arguments against Affirmative Action taken to their extreme. Also, it's not just being used to attack white people. The idea is that blacks are exploiting the system and blah blah blah.
No.
It isn't new.
FroThulhu - when I hear the term, it's usually a white person telling another white person that they're wallowing in some kind of fear based effort to bend over backward so that brown and black people won't look at you all pissed off.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Stupid white people.
This too
White people are responsible for all war in the world.
And codpieces. Those are totally their fault.
Anyway, more on topic, I've been trying to explain the idea of white privilege to my girlfriend. It is interesting to see how blind she is to how much her upbringing (white, Christian, upper-middle class) has contributed to her personal success. It's one thing to understand that such things happen intellectually (she's into WGST and knows about the theory) but to recognize its effects in your own life can be difficult to accept.
WGST?
Sorry, Women and Gender Studies.
This is just panicked floundering, so I'll assume I've made a point.
Similarly, this isn't much related to what I said, and isn't about an argument I'm even involved in. I guess it relates to what I'm saying in this way: the people who want to legislate racial advantages have the burden to continually demonstrate the level of need and only seek the appropriate level of action to meet that need. And if the program is working, then that level of need must decrease regularly, and thereby so too must the appropriate level of action decrease regularly.
Lol. Were you in the thread where I showed that Islam is a significant factor in 2/3 - 3/4 of all violent conflict in the world? Many Muslims are white, though, so there's that.
Findings significant to .05, although low cell counts in don't know and refused makes those somewhat questionable.