All things Racist...USA edition (4 Viewers)

[Farb]

I was looking for a place to put this so we could discuss but didn't really find a place that worked so I created this thread so we can all place articles, experiences, videos and examples of racism in the USA.

This is one that happened this week. The lady even called and filed a complaint on the officer. This officer also chose to wear the body cam (apparently, LA doesn't require this yet). This exchange wasn't necessarily racist IMO until she started with the "mexican racist...you will never be white, like you want" garbage. That is when it turned racist IMO

All the murderer and other insults, I think are just a by product of CRT and ACAB rhetoric that is very common on the radical left and sadly is being brought to mainstream in this country.

Another point that I think is worth mentioning is she is a teacher and the sense of entitlement she feels is mind blowing.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-teacher-berates-latino-la-221235341.html

 

[Paul]

Accurately pointing out that something is racist, and why it's racist, is very much an argument, and one you seem to think you can simply ignore. Unfortunately, as I've said before, this is a forum and that can only work for you. Everyone else sees it.

Whereas ignoring an argument, repeating yourself in spite of everything you're saying having been thoroughly addressed one way or another, and misframing actual arguments as 'yelling racism', that's not an argument.


Yeah, you're not doing that either. The subject I'm addressing, as started in the Colin Powell thread, is your misrepresentations of Cuba and Henry Louis Gates Jr's work on the subject of being black in Cuba, in pursuit of your fantasy of a race-blind nationalist utopia. And this was a repeat occurrence, after your previous similar misrepresentations of France and Japan.

Hey, Robf. I admitted there is racism in Cuba despite the massive communist programs of equality and Cubanidad. I will be happy to accept I underestimated the success of the Cuban revolution withy regards to equality and the eradication of racism. Why do you keep harping back to this theme. I am happy to accept your point.

The secondary subject I'm addressing, as continued in the Colin Powell thread, was your asserting that unequal outcomes between groups, specifically, racial groups, are because 'humans exist in a spectrum of competence and talent', which, as repeatedly addressed above and repeatedly ignored, is racist. This was also a repeat performance from you.

Unequal outcomes are do to multifactorial reasons. I made that very clearly! If I implied different outcomes were solely due to talent or lack of talent I apologize. However, the question remains the same and you are as usual trying to weasel out. At the individual level (forget the groups) humans exhibit variable degrees of talent. You disagree with this. Why is that? You think it is racist! Why do you think it is racist? Just saying it is racist with no explanation is not helpful.

You continue to use sophistry. I get it, but IMO it is poor form.

I suggest you try once more to explain why you think it is racist to say humans exist in an spectrum of talent.

 

[MT15]

Rob’s points aren’t sophistry. Quite the contrary in fact.

I appreciate you clarifying that there are factors other than genetics when looking at the difference between the achievement levels of two groups of people. I wish you had said this more clearly, but we take what we can get, right? In fact, to be more correct, genetics or skin pigmentation (which you seem to use interchangeably) has NOTHING to do with achievement, at least when we are only looking at groups.

The problem I have with your assertions about race and identity is that you have a somewhat circular argument. Let me try to work out what I mean.

Paul: Racism does exist, BUT talking about racism seems to make it worse.

Me: this flies in the face of all of the years of ignoring the problem since the Emancipation Proclamation. We have tried largely ignoring the problem, it didn’t go away.

Paul: If black people would only refuse to acknowledge racism, it would go away.

Me: once again, we have largely avoided talking about racism for most of the years since the Civil War. It was only during the Civil Rights movement, when we as a society were forced to talk about it by civil unrest, that significant progress was made. And this tactic has the added cruelty of blaming people for speaking up when racism affects them or their families.

Paul: We are better than when blacks were made to drink out of separate water fountains, so we should be happy and not talk about the racism that still exists.

Me: Progress has been made, and we should reflect on that and celebrate it, but that doesn’t mean the work is done. There is much more to do before POC, as a group, have the same opportunities that other Americans enjoy.

Arguing that a problem should be ignored is not a good way to work on a problem, in general. I have tried to be fair in representing your arguments, feel free to let me know if I have not done so. I haven’t even included your more radical ideas, as I am trying to generalize your ideas in the best possible light.

 

[RobF]

Hey, Robf. I admitted there is racism in Cuba despite the massive communist programs of equality and Cubanidad. I will be happy to accept I underestimated the success of the Cuban revolution withy regards to equality and the eradication of racism. Why do you keep harping back to this theme. I am happy to accept your point.

Remember when you did this earlier, and I pointed out that you'd undermined and contradicted that by simultaneously claiming that the approach you described as Cuba 'getting it right' made "racism go away", and that you'd said you were, "in fact, giving you a solution to end raciosm"? And then you pretended you hadn't said that and it was a straw man? And then when I quoted you saying it, instead of acknowledging that you had said it, and that it wasn't a straw man, and taking the opportunity to correct yourself and acknowledge that, yes, race-blind nationalism doesn't make 'racism go away' and isn't a 'solution to end racism', you instead ignored it, and tried to claim that accurately quoting you and holding you accountable for it was 'silly microscopic analysis of words'?

Unequal outcomes are do to multifactorial reasons. I made that very clearly! If I implied different outcomes were solely due to talent or lack of talent I apologize.

Oh yeah, you did! You said it was both talent and unequal opportunities. And I pointed out that, by saying it was both, that means that "you think that, if given equal opportunities, there would still be unequal outcomes and this would be due to 'humans existing on a spectrum of talent', which is implicitly stating that you think one racial group's distribution across that spectrum is more towards one end than the other. Which is, literally, racist."

And then you ignored that and just repeated again that it was multifactorial, but couldn't resist also asserting that 'A different outcome among a set of individuals with the exact same of circumstances is likely due to difference in talent', and I pointed out that racial groups aren't in the "exact same set of circumstances", and that "Without showing that the groups inherently 'differ in talent', the hypothesis that they would have different outcomes due to differing in talent is a baseless assertion. And, when applied to racial groups, it's literally a racist one."

And then you just ignored that entirely too? Classic Paul.

However, the question remains the same and you are as usual trying to weasel out. At the individual level (forget the groups) humans exhibit variable degrees of talent. You disagree with this. Why is that? You think it is racist! Why do you think it is racist? Just saying it is racist with no explanation is not helpful.

You continue to use sophistry. I get it, but IMO it is poor form.

I suggest you try once more to explain why you think it is racist to say humans exist in an spectrum of talent.

Oh man, that takes me back. Remember when you brought up this particular straw man the first time? And I pointed out that all you were doing was crudely separating the actual point that had been made to you, which was "claiming that the unequal outcomes that exist between racial groups are because 'humans exist in a spectrum of talent' is racist," into two absurd straw men, one, "there are no unequal outcomes between groups," and the one you're repeating again, that "humans all individually have equal levels of talent", and attacking those while ignoring the actual point that had been made?

And then you just ignored that, presumably because you couldn't respond to it, and you found yourself instead just helplessly repeating the straw man again, even though it had literally just been shown to be an particularly absurd straw man? And then you just... kept on repeating it, and now you can't stop nonsensically repeating it over and over and over again while you slowly shrink and transform into a corn cob?

Good times! Hard to believe it was only yesterday.

 

[Paul]

Remember when you did this earlier, and I pointed out that you'd undermined and contradicted that by simultaneously claiming that the approach you described as Cuba 'getting it right' made "racism go away", and that you'd said you were, "in fact, giving you a solution to end raciosm"? And then you pretended you hadn't said that and it was a straw man? And then when I quoted you saying it, instead of acknowledging that you had said it, and that it wasn't a straw man, and taking the opportunity to correct yourself and acknowledge that, yes, race-blind nationalism doesn't make 'racism go away' and isn't a 'solution to end racism', you instead ignored it, and tried to claim that accurately quoting you and holding you accountable for it was 'silly microscopic analysis of words'?

Robf: If everyone in the planet treated others as individuals there would be no racism. I stand by that statement; on a theoretical basis it would work. The problem is that in reality people tend to judge others according to the stereotype of the group. Why do you keep going back to this? Is it to disguise your sophistry in other areas?

Oh yeah, you did! You said it was both talent and unequal opportunities.
And I pointed out that, by saying it was both, that means that "you think that, if given equal opportunities, there would still be unequal outcomes and this would be due to 'humans existing on a spectrum of talent', which is implicitly stating that you think one racial group's distribution across that spectrum is more towards one end than the other. Which is, literally, racist."

Robf, you are a very clever man and I am glad you are not afraid to have a discussion. The implicit conclusion is made by you. I will state my points once again:

Humans (in all groups) exist in a spectrum of talent and competence. In other words, there is no equality, not two humans are alike. The only exception is identical twins. Please state why you do not think this is true without using the R word.

Unequal achievement between groups is observable, however it is NOT DUE to the spectrum of talent and competence. Unequal achievement is due to multiple (too numerous to count) positive and negative circumstances that have nothing to do with innate talent. I believe this is not up for debate. But, who knows, maybe you think it is racist.

And then you ignored that and just repeated again that it was multifactorial, but couldn't resist also asserting that 'A different outcome among a set of individuals with the exact same of circumstances is likely due to difference in talent', and I pointed out that racial groups aren't in the "exact same set of circumstances", and that "Without showing that the groups inherently 'differ in talent', the hypothesis that they would have different outcomes due to differing in talent is a baseless assertion. And, when applied to racial groups, it's literally a racist one."

OK, I can see why you would think it is racist. The problem is that it would be impossible to find two distinct groups with exactly the same circumstances and opportunities. On a practical level the comparison will never happen because the groups will never have the exact same circumstances. However, on a mathematical basis the statement is correct.

You still have not been able to find fault with this statement:

IT IS BEST TO TREAT AND JUDGE PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT AS MEMBERS OF A GROUP.

Try again!

 

[RobF]

Robf: If everyone in the planet treated others as individuals there would be no racism. I stand by that statement; on a theoretical basis it would work. The problem is that in reality people tend to judge others according to the stereotype of the group. Why do you keep going back to this? Is it to disguise your sophistry in other areas?

Your premise that race-blind nationalism is "doing it right" is the starting point of this entire discussion. That's why.

And as I already said, "If everyone in the planet treated others as individuals there would be no racism" is essentially a tautology. It's like saying, "If people didn't kill each other, there would be no murders." It's a statement that's necessarily true because it's at heart just repetitive, but it's also completely useless in terms of how you get there.

Robf, you are a very clever man and I am glad you are not afraid to have a discussion. The implicit conclusion is made by you. I will state my points once again:

Humans (in all groups) exist in a spectrum of talent and competence. In other words, there is no equality, not two humans are alike. The only exception is identical twins. Please state why you do not think this is true without using the R word.

You really are stuck on repeating this straw man over and over again, aren't you?

Do you genuinely not understand that, if someone makes the assertion "X is due to Y," and someone else responds, "claiming that X is due to Y is wrong," it's a fallacy for the first person to then claim the response was "Both X and Y are individually false"? And if they then repeatedly demand, "Why do you think Y is false? Why?" over and over again, that's very, very, silly?

Unequal achievement between groups is observable, however it is NOT DUE to the spectrum of talent and competence. Unequal achievement is due to multiple (too numerous to count) positive and negative circumstances that have nothing to do with innate talent. I believe this is not up for debate. But, who knows, maybe you think it is racist.

If you believe it's nothing to do with innate talent and that's not up for debate, you're going to be really mad at this guy who's been posting in your name for the last day or two repeatedly asserting it is and trying to debate it. Like here:

It is both Robf. Talent and unequal opportunities.

But regardless of that, I agree. With the Paul saying that it has nothing to do with innate talent that is, not that other one.

OK, I can see why you would think it is racist. The problem is that it would be impossible to find two distinct groups with exactly the same circumstances and opportunities. On a practical level the comparison will never happen because the groups will never have the exact same circumstances. However, on a mathematical basis the statement is correct.

That's not a problem, for two reasons: first, we can look directly at the groups to see if they do have differing levels of innate talent that would account for the differences (spoiler: in this context, they don't), and second, we can also attempt to control comparisons to compare outcomes between groups in similar circumstances. The second is quite hard, because when we're talking about racial groups, some of the adverse circumstances such as prejudice and discrimination are so widespread as to be universal, but they do vary in extent, and we can see correlations between discrimination and outcomes, i.e. indicating that outcomes become more similar as discrimination reduces.

However, even if we couldn't do either of those, it'd remain the case that simply claiming without evidence that there would remain differences in outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent would be racist, and I'm glad you can see that.

You still have not been able to find fault with this statement:

IT IS BEST TO TREAT AND JUDGE PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT AS MEMBERS OF A GROUP.

Try again!

As I've said before - repeatedly - I'm finding fault with the premise of race-blind nationalism and the assertion that unequal outcomes between racial groups are due to 'talent', Paul.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with a trite quote that wouldn't be out of place on a particularly cheesy motivational poster.

 

[Paul]

Your premise that race-blind nationalism is "doing it right" is the starting point of this entire discussion. That's why.

And as I already said, "If everyone in the planet treated others as individuals there would be no racism" is essentially a tautology. It's like saying, "If people didn't kill each other, there would be no murders." It's a statement that's necessarily true because it's at heart just repetitive, but it's also completely useless in terms of how you get there.

OK, Robf: Let's look at your own words. "If people didn't kill each other, there would be no murders." Obviously it is naive to expect people will stop killing each other. However, at a metaphysical level the statement is correct. On a practical level murder goes down when people are less violent to each other.

That any number or variable divided by zero equals infinite is true at a metaphysical level and not in practical terms. The discussion because a game of sophistry your favorite sport.

That's not a problem, for two reasons: first, we can look directly at the groups to see if they do have differing levels of innate talent that would account for the differences (spoiler: in this context, they don't), and second, we can also attempt to control comparisons to compare outcomes between groups in similar circumstances. The second is quite hard, because when we're talking about racial groups, some of the adverse circumstances such as prejudice and discrimination are so widespread as to be universal, but they do vary in extent, and we can see correlations between discrimination and outcomes, i.e. indicating that outcomes become more similar as discrimination reduces.

Sure, outcomes improve as discrimination goes down. However, it is naive to assume the difference in group outcome is solely due to one variable (racism). The difference is multifactorial. The point regarding innate is that it is easily observable. I can see why the concept of innate talent or variable talent from one human to another is a threat for those that seek equality as the ultimate goal. Seeking equality as the ultimate goal may never work. Assuming everybody is university material causes more harm than good. Many benefit much more from vocational training. This is not a radical concept Robf.

However, even if we couldn't do either of those, it'd remain the case that simply claiming without evidence that there would remain differences in outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent would be racist, and I'm glad you can see that.

Sure, everybody would say it is racist because we must conform. Secondly achieving equal circumstances between groups is not possible. However, achieving equal circumstances among individuals is much easier. For example siblings raised in exactly the same circumstances achieve differently. Why is that?

As I've said before - repeatedly - I'm finding fault with the premise of race-blind nationalism and the assertion that unequal outcomes between racial groups are due to 'talent', Paul.

I have refuted that assertion at nauseam Robf. As I said above quite often siblings raised in exactly the same circumstances achieve differently. This may be due to different levels of talent, but then again the siblings may have different personalities. Therefore, the statement is only valid at a metaphysical level.

Do you believe all humans are equal? Yes or no? Why?

I'm not trying to pick a fight with a trite quote that wouldn't be out of place on a particularly cheesy motivational poster.

I do not mind condescending words if the poster is making an attempt to have an argument. I also do not mind changing my mind if a good argument is made.

 

[RobF]

OK, Robf: Let's look at your own words. "If people didn't kill each other, there would be no murders." Obviously it is naive to expect people will stop killing each other. However, at a metaphysical level the statement is correct. On a practical level murder goes down when people are less violent to each other.

That any number or variable divided by zero equals infinite is true at a metaphysical level and not in practical terms. The discussion because a game of sophistry your favorite sport.

You appear to have entirely missed the point.

The former part - "People shouldn't kill each other" - is broadly just a restatement of the second part - "People shouldn't murder each other", much as "People shouldn't treat each other as members of groups but as individuals" is broadly a restatement of "People shouldn't be racist." So each statement is necessarily true, because the two parts are essentially the same thing, but that means both parts are just a restatement of the same goal. The question of how you achieve that goal isn't answered at all. "Get people to treat each other as individuals more," is not any more helpful than, "Get people to be less racist."

And so-called race-blind nationalism does nothing to achieve this, since just pretending that perceptions of race and associated prejudice and discrimination don't exist does nothing to actually remove them... but it does hinder the impact of that discrimination being measured.

For example, if the USA decided to take that approach, it might stop collecting statistics on race and ethnicity as relates to crime victims, or police stops. And then when people said, "There's a still a problem with hate crimes, and people being disproportionately stopped by the police because of their race," some people - and I would suggest this may include people like you - would go, "There's no evidence of that, it's all anecdotal." Which could be the case, because the approach involves deliberately turning a blind eye to the evidence.

Which is why, as I've previously said, bigots are quite keen on it.

Sure, outcomes improve as discrimination goes down. However, it is naive to assume the difference in group outcome is solely due to one variable (racism). The difference is multifactorial. The point regarding innate is that it is easily observable. I can see why the concept of innate talent or variable talent from one human to another is a threat for those that seek equality as the ultimate goal. Seeking equality as the ultimate goal may never work. Assuming everybody is university material causes more harm than good. Many benefit much more from vocational training. This is not a radical concept Robf.

Paul. You finally got there:

Unequal achievement between groups is observable, however it is NOT DUE to the spectrum of talent and competence. Unequal achievement is due to multiple (too numerous to count) positive and negative circumstances that have nothing to do with innate talent.

You can stop attacking that same "You said individuals are all the same!" straw man now (and I do note you completely ignored the part where I explained, yet again, why it's a straw man).

I'm assuming here, by the way, that you were saying that individuals may vary in being university material. If you were implying that some racial groups inherently have fewer people who are university material than other racial groups, well, that'd be racist again, you'd have contradicted yourself, and you'd have to take it up with this other Paul guy who says unequal achievement in groups is nothing to do with innate talent.

Sure, everybody would say it is racist because we must conform.

No, everyone would say it's racist because assuming one racial group is inferior to another is literally racist.

Secondly achieving equal circumstances between groups is not possible. However, achieving equal circumstances among individuals is much easier. For example siblings raised in exactly the same circumstances achieve differently. Why is that?

I have refuted that assertion at nauseam Robf. As I said above quite often siblings raised in exactly the same circumstances achieve differently. This may be due to different levels of talent, but then again the siblings may have different personalities. Therefore, the statement is only valid at a metaphysical level.

Do you believe all humans are equal? Yes or no? Why?

I'm glad I'm not playing a drinking game where I take a sip every time you attack that straw man. I'd be dead.

I do not mind condescending words if the poster is making an attempt to have an argument. I also do not mind changing my mind if a good argument is made.

Going by this thread in which you've contradicted yourself multiple times, sometimes in the same post, you seem to change your mind more often than a baby changes nappies.

 

[Paul]

You appear to have entirely missed the point.

The former part - "People shouldn't kill each other" - is broadly just a restatement of the second part - "People shouldn't murder each other", much as "People shouldn't treat each other as members of groups but as individuals" is broadly a restatement of "People shouldn't be racist." So each statement is necessarily true, because the two parts are essentially the same thing, but that means both parts are just a restatement of the same goal. The question of how you achieve that goal isn't answered at all. "Get people to treat each other as individuals more," is not any more helpful than, "Get people to be less racist."

OK, that was very good Robf. I have no issues with that. So here is the question: What works best to reduce racism:? Asking people not to be racist or asking people to treat each other as individuals (to ignore the group stereotype). Some may say these two are more or less the same, but there is a difference.

And so-called race-blind nationalism does nothing to achieve this, since just pretending that perceptions of race and associated prejudice and discrimination don't exist does nothing to actually remove them... but it does hinder the impact of that discrimination being measured.

Many favor the classification and categorization of people by phenotype to measure racism. The problem is that categorizing people by phenotype is the very essence of racism. Please explain how you get around that. Once people are classified by color, division naturally follows. We are seeing that division right now.

For example, if the USA decided to take that approach, it might stop collecting statistics on race and ethnicity as relates to crime victims, or police stops. And then when people said, "There's a still a problem with hate crimes, and people being disproportionately stopped by the police because of their race," some people - and I would suggest this may include people like you - would go, "There's no evidence of that, it's all anecdotal." Which could be the case, because the approach involves deliberately turning a blind eye to the evidence.

There must be a way to collect the data without emulating the racial classification doctrine of Apartheid South Africa.

Thomas Chatterton Williams has written a book about this issue:

Chatterton is a light skin black man that has moved to France. He has seen both sides. The aside thqat cvlassifies people by race and the aside that treats people as people regardless of color.

Here are reviews by some readers:

"Thomas is light colored and has experienced very little overt racism in his life. Now he lives in France where the burden of American slavery washes away ineluctable. Still, he carries the history of his progenitors proudly and lives with a visceral regret that his even lighter skinned, blue eyed children will not carry the troubled burdens of their "other" past. He sits on the horns of multiple dilemmas. He knows that "race" is a phony racist construction of past racists, but it has created his identity, and his children will never "know" him if they cannot share his experience of racists' views. Yet, he cannot burden them with these invidious views. In the end he rejects his racist views of himself: he will no longer see himself as " black" but his cultural ethnic values will remain closely bound to his heart, and he will share them with his child."

"In a lyrical and compelling book, Williams uses his personal experience to competently argue for a reappraisal of identity politics and a move toward a more perfect world where the search for common humanity is paramount."

Which is why, as I've previously said, bigots are quite keen on it.

I guess MLK was a bigot.

I'm assuming here, by the way, that you were saying that individuals may vary in being university material. If you were implying that some racial groups inherently have fewer people who are university material than other racial groups, well, that'd be racist again, you'd have contradicted yourself, and you'd have to take it up with this other Paul guy who says unequal achievement in groups is nothing to do with innate talent.

Not all people are university material regardless of skin color.

No, everyone would say it's racist because assuming one racial group is inferior to another is literally racist.

Straw man

 

[samiam5211]

OK, that was very good Robf. I have no issues with that. So here is the question: What works best to reduce racism:? Asking people not to be racist or asking people to treat each other as individuals (to ignore the group stereotype). Some may say these two are more or less the same, but there is a difference.

Many favor the classification and categorization of people by phenotype to measure racism. The problem is that categorizing people by phenotype is the very essence of racism. Please explain how you get around that. Once people are classified by color, division naturally follows. We are seeing that division right now.

There must be a way to collect the data without emulating the racial classification doctrine of Apartheid South Africa.

Thomas Chatterton Williams has written a book about this issue:

Chatterton is a light skin black man that has moved to France. He has seen both sides. The aside thqat cvlassifies people by race and the aside that treats people as people regardless of color.

Here are reviews by some readers:

"Thomas is light colored and has experienced very little overt racism in his life. Now he lives in France where the burden of American slavery washes away ineluctable. Still, he carries the history of his progenitors proudly and lives with a visceral regret that his even lighter skinned, blue eyed children will not carry the troubled burdens of their "other" past. He sits on the horns of multiple dilemmas. He knows that "race" is a phony racist construction of past racists, but it has created his identity, and his children will never "know" him if they cannot share his experience of racists' views. Yet, he cannot burden them with these invidious views. In the end he rejects his racist views of himself: he will no longer see himself as " black" but his cultural ethnic values will remain closely bound to his heart, and he will share them with his child."

"In a lyrical and compelling book, Williams uses his personal experience to competently argue for a reappraisal of identity politics and a move toward a more perfect world where the search for common humanity is paramount."



I guess MLK was a bigot.

Not all people are university material regardless of skin color.

Straw man

Since you like Black Men who moved to France, you should check out James Baldwin. He liked it in France as well, so maybe you will find his writings enlightening.

 

[RobF]

OK, that was very good Robf. I have no issues with that. So here is the question: What works best to reduce racism:? Asking people not to be racist or asking people to treat each other as individuals (to ignore the group stereotype). Some may say these two are more or less the same, but there is a difference.

"What works best to reduce racism," is the question, and we could discuss the benefits of a lot of things like, education, recognition, tolerance, acceptance, and also a whole bunch of other things that you just described as words written by... let me see... oh yes, "super WOKE TYPES" in another thread. So to be honest, I'm not sure a discussion on that subject with you would go terribly well.

But the focus in this particular discussion is on something that does not work, and that's 'race-blind' nationalism.

Many favor the classification and categorization of people by phenotype to measure racism. The problem is that categorizing people by phenotype is the very essence of racism. Please explain how you get around that. Once people are classified by color, division naturally follows. We are seeing that division right now.

As I've already said - and I'm getting very tired of saying that - that premise is inherently false. Recognition of race as it exists as a social and cultural definition is not the same as defining race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. And, again, as repeatedly said, recognition of cultural or social difference does not necessitate rejection and discrimination.

Remember? I explicitly asked you about that before:

One of the points you just responded to was that "People can perceive someone to be a member of a group without believing said membership indicates inferiority or superiority, and without treating them with adverse prejudice." Since you appear to think that even acknowledging someone's membership of a group is 'ultimate racism', are you claiming you can't?​

It's one of the many things you ignored and didn't respond to, so perhaps you don't remember.

There must be a way to collect the data without emulating the racial classification doctrine of Apartheid South Africa.

Thomas Chatterton Williams has written a book about this issue:

Chatterton is a light skin black man that has moved to France. He has seen both sides. The aside thqat cvlassifies people by race and the aside that treats people as people regardless of color.

Here are reviews by some readers:

"Thomas is light colored and has experienced very little overt racism in his life. Now he lives in France where the burden of American slavery washes away ineluctable. Still, he carries the history of his progenitors proudly and lives with a visceral regret that his even lighter skinned, blue eyed children will not carry the troubled burdens of their "other" past. He sits on the horns of multiple dilemmas. He knows that "race" is a phony racist construction of past racists, but it has created his identity, and his children will never "know" him if they cannot share his experience of racists' views. Yet, he cannot burden them with these invidious views. In the end he rejects his racist views of himself: he will no longer see himself as " black" but his cultural ethnic values will remain closely bound to his heart, and he will share them with his child."

"In a lyrical and compelling book, Williams uses his personal experience to competently argue for a reappraisal of identity politics and a move toward a more perfect world where the search for common humanity is paramount."

If you want to discuss his work more broadly or more in-depth, I would suggest starting a separate topic about it. There's a lot of interesting interviews you could start with, like this one from last year: https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-an...-williams-on-race-identity-and-cancel-culture

But while Williams thinks we can't "solve the problem of racism if we don’t keep our eye on actually abolishing and getting rid of the categories that come out of the collision of Africa and Europe in the slave trade and the New World", he also thinks that "We don’t live in a society anywhere near getting rid of those categories."

So as far as this particular discussion goes, does he advocate for race-blind nationalism as a solution in and of itself?

I guess MLK was a bigot.

Why am I not at all surprised that you're in the category of people who misrepresent MLK? He did not advocate for color-blindness, let alone race-blind nationalism. He said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Not be judged by. He didn't say he had a dream of a world where everyone would pretend they didn't see different skin colours. This goes back to the point of it being possible to perceive difference without prejudice.

Don't take my word for it though:

Not all people are university material regardless of skin color.

So... you were not implying that some racial groups inherently have fewer people who are university material than other racial groups? Just to be absolutely clear.

Straw man

No, it isn't. Good grief. The statement was "No, everyone would say it's racist because assuming one racial group is inferior to another is literally racist.", this was in response to you claiming that "everybody would say it is racist because we must conform," which was in turn in response to "it'd remain the case that simply claiming without evidence that there would remain differences in outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent would be racist". To claim without evidence is to assume, to assert that one racial group would suffer worse outcomes in equal circumstances before they're inherently lacking in talent is to claim they're inferior, so the statement very clearly follows on from the previous point of discussion and is hence very obviously not a straw man.

You have got to learn what a straw man actually is.

 

[Paul]

Since you like Black Men who moved to France, you should check out James Baldwin. He liked it in France as well, so maybe you will find his writings enlightening.

Baldwin comes from a totally different era when racism was out of control and hence his writing reflect that. Chatterton Williams comes from an era where racism has lessened.

 

[SFIDC3]

I for one, applaud RobF for taking the time (and considerable effort) for humiliating, destroying and apparently angering Paul enough for him to respond in bold (like that is going to somehow make his very twisted arguments untwist....similar to shouting, in person)....

Well done sir!!!!!!

 

[Paul]

"What works best to reduce racism," is the question, and we could discuss the benefits of a lot of things like, education, recognition, tolerance, acceptance, and also a whole bunch of other things that you just described as words written by... let me see... oh yes, "super WOKE TYPES" in another thread. So to be honest, I'm not sure a discussion on that subject with you would go terribly well.

But the focus in this particular discussion is on something that does not work, and that's 'race-blind' nationalism.

I never used the term race-blind nationalism. You are putting words in my mouth. Despite the long list of condescending remarks I admire your tenacity in terms of staying in the discussion. In terms of condescending remarks I can say I am happy to school you, but I won't/

As I've already said - and I'm getting very tired of saying that - that premise is inherently false. Recognition of race as it exists as a social and cultural definition is not the same as defining race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. And, again, as repeatedly said, recognition of cultural or social difference does not necessitate rejection and discrimination.

That is a true statement. However, you make that conclusion because i said say "treat people as individuals and ignore the group stereotype." Note how the latter statement has ZERO to do with racial group. It simply means treat everyone as a person.

Remember? I explicitly asked you about that before:

One of the points you just responded to was that "People can perceive someone to be a member of a group without believing said membership indicates inferiority or superiority, and without treating them with adverse prejudice." Since you appear to think that even acknowledging someone's membership of a group is 'ultimate racism', are you claiming you can't?​

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. I said: "Classifying or categorizing people according to phenotype or skin color was by definition racist because the person has to be judged according to his physical traits to be classified into a group.

I work in a business where we are required to collect racial group information. We have a special form with all the large number of categories designed by the US government. A large number of people write "none of your business" and many others say "Why is this necessary?". Many people do not want to be catalogued because once they are put in a pigeonhole assumptions are made according to skin color. If you cannot see this is racist then you are part of a religious movement,

It's one of the many things you ignored and didn't respond to, so perhaps you don't remember.


If you want to discuss his work more broadly or more in-depth, I would suggest starting a separate topic about it. There's a lot of interesting interviews you could start with, like this one from last year: https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-an...-williams-on-race-identity-and-cancel-culture

But while Williams thinks we can't "solve the problem of racism if we don’t keep our eye on actually abolishing and getting rid of the categories that come out of the collision of Africa and Europe in the slave trade and the New World", he also thinks that "We don’t live in a society anywhere near getting rid of those categories."

So as far as this particular discussion goes, does he advocate for race-blind nationalism as a solution in and of itself?

I have not read the book. But, I tend to agree with his philosophy. I grew up in Latin America and my children were born in America. I can relate to how he wants to raise his children. When my kids were growing up I made sure they did not acquire victimhood traits. They all have great self esteem and integrated into America in a flawless manner.Last thing I wanted to do was to inject an "us versus them" mindset.

Why am I not at all surprised that you're in the category of people who misrepresent MLK? He did not advocate for color-blindness, let alone race-blind nationalism. He said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Not be judged by. He didn't say he had a dream of a world where everyone would pretend they didn't see different skin colours. This goes back to the point of it being possible to perceive difference without prejudice.

Funny, how you correctly judge MLK words and you misjudge a similar statement made my me. NO worries, it is all sophistry and I do not blame you.

Don't take my word for it though:

So... you were not implying that some racial groups inherently have fewer people who are university material than other racial groups? Just to be absolutely clear.

Yes, as usual you read between the lines and come up with the worse case scenario.

No, it isn't. Good grief. The statement was "No, everyone would say it's racist because assuming one racial group is inferior to another is literally racist.", this was in response to you claiming that "everybody would say it is racist because we must conform," which was in turn in response to "it'd remain the case that simply claiming without evidence that there would remain differences in outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent would be racist". To claim without evidence is to assume, to assert that one racial group would suffer worse outcomes in equal circumstances before they're inherently lacking in talent is to claim they're inferior, so the statement very clearly follows on from the previous point of discussion and is hence very obviously not a straw man.

This is tiring. As I said, there will never be two groups with identical circumstances. Comparison will always be meaningless. We also know siblings from the same home achieve differently even though one could say they had similar circumstances. But, who knows maybe the first child is treated differently than the last child. The issue is: DIFFERENT OUTCOMES IS THE NORM among humans in all groups and i suspect we will never be able to change that.


DIFFERENT TOPIC
You say you are from the UK----------I have a question. I just read that British white young men are now less educated than Brits that are not white. Is that correct? How was that achieved? Could America copy that model?

 

[zztop]

I just read that British white young men are now less educated than Brits that are not white.

source?

 

[Paul]

Rob’s points aren’t sophistry. Quite the contrary in fact.

I appreciate you clarifying that there are factors other than genetics when looking at the difference between the achievement levels of two groups of people. I wish you had said this more clearly, but we take what we can get, right? In fact, to be more correct, genetics or skin pigmentation (which you seem to use interchangeably) has NOTHING to do with achievement, at least when we are only looking at groups.

The problem I have with your assertions about race and identity is that you have a somewhat circular argument. Let me try to work out what I mean.

Paul: Racism does exist, BUT talking about racism seems to make it worse.

Me: this flies in the face of all of the years of ignoring the problem since the Emancipation Proclamation. We have tried largely ignoring the problem, it didn’t go away.

Paul: If black people would only refuse to acknowledge racism, it would go away.

Me: once again, we have largely avoided talking about racism for most of the years since the Civil War. It was only during the Civil Rights movement, when we as a society were forced to talk about it by civil unrest, that significant progress was made. And this tactic has the added cruelty of blaming people for speaking up when racism affects them or their families.

Paul: We are better than when blacks were made to drink out of separate water fountains, so we should be happy and not talk about the racism that still exists.

Me: Progress has been made, and we should reflect on that and celebrate it, but that doesn’t mean the work is done. There is much more to do before POC, as a group, have the same opportunities that other Americans enjoy.

Arguing that a problem should be ignored is not a good way to work on a problem, in general. I have tried to be fair in representing your arguments, feel free to let me know if I have not done so. I haven’t even included your more radical ideas, as I am trying to generalize your ideas in the best possible light.

Thank you for the psychiatric analysis. Talking about the problem is not rhe same as beating people over the head with the problem. The former has worked., then latter is creating division and tribalism. However, it is your religion so carry on.

 

[Paul]

source?

Just a fifth of poor white boys attain good GCSEs

Fewer than one in five finish compulsory schooling with a decent set of GCSE grades including the crucial subjects of English and maths.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Working-class white British boys falling behind everyone else at school

White working-class boys are doing significantly worse at school than almost all other groups of pupils. A mere 15 per cent finish compulsory education having mastered the three Rs, official statistics show

www.dailymail.co.uk

Too 'UNFASHIONABLE' To Help? Poor White Children Fall Behind In UK Schools And May Suffer Biggest Covid-19 Hit, Experts Warn MPs - Labour Heartlands

There have always been concerns about children from poor and marginalised communities underperforming at school. While conventional wisdom held that ethnic

labourheartlands.com

‘Poor white boys’ are falling behind in education, says expert

POOR white boys are the worst achievers in the schools system – but are less likely to be unemployed than black and Asian youngsters, a study has found.

www.express.co.uk

Oops, I thought this meant improvement in other immigrant groups. Apparently, it is a decrement in the achievement of this group.
SO carry on. No need to copy this model.

 

[RobF]

I never used the term race-blind nationalism. You are putting words in my mouth.

I'd say that's sophistry, but it's not clever.

So firstly, I've been referring to race-blind nationalism since the first response to you in the Colin Powell thread. If you were going to say, "Can I just shock you? I'm against race-blind nationalism. Despite what I just said earlier," that would have been the time.

Secondly, you (wrongly) said that "in Cuba everybody is Cuban and people are not classified by skin colour," and that they "got it right". This is race-blind nationalism.

Saying you "never used the term," is like saying you're for giving money to descendants of victims of slavery, and then when someone says, "Oh, so you're for reparations," replying, "I never said reparations!"

Don't do that. As I've pointed out before, it really doesn't work, especially in a forum setting where everyone can see exactly what you've said.

Despite the long list of condescending remarks I admire your tenacity in terms of staying in the discussion. In terms of condescending remarks I can say I am happy to school you, but I won't/

I've seen your condescending remarks. They're not very good.

That is a true statement. However, you make that conclusion because i said say "treat people as individuals and ignore the group stereotype." Note how the latter statement has ZERO to do with racial group. It simply means treat everyone as a person.

This was in the context of this: "so-called race-blind nationalism does nothing to achieve this, since just pretending that perceptions of race and associated prejudice and discrimination don't exist does nothing to actually remove them... but it does hinder the impact of that discrimination being measured."

Your response was to argue that recognising perceptions of race is "the very essence of racism". That is why I made the conclusion, and I pointed out that you can recognise such perceptions without prejudice and discrimination, and your reply was the above.

So I would ask you to expand on that. Because, in the context as shown above, either you're arguing there is a necessity to actively turn a blind eye to perceptions of racial groups and how they're treated, in which case your statement has quite a lot to do with racial groups, or you've changed your mind and you're now acknowledging that you can recognise perceptions of race without applying prejudicial stereotypes.

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. I said: "Classifying or categorizing people according to phenotype or skin color was by definition racist because the person has to be judged according to his physical traits to be classified into a group.

I asked whether you were claiming that you can't "perceive someone to be a member of a group without believing said membership indicates inferiority or superiority, and without treating them with adverse prejudice", in response to what I said was you appearing to think that even acknowledging someone's membership of a racial group is 'ultimate racism'.

It was a question, not putting words in your mouth. You can say, "Actually, no, I don't think that, and no, I'm not claiming that," if you like.

I work in a business where we are required to collect racial group information. We have a special form with all the large number of categories designed by the US government. A large number of people write "none of your business" and many others say "Why is this necessary?". Many people do not want to be catalogued because once they are put in a pigeonhole assumptions are made according to skin color. If you cannot see this is racist then you are part of a religious movement,

If you can't see that people not ticking boxes not only won't prevent assumptions being made about them, but will also prevent being able to determine whether adverse assumptions were made about them, then you're part of a willfully blind religious movement.

I have not read the book. But, I tend to agree with his philosophy. I grew up in Latin America and my children were born in America. I can relate to how he wants to raise his children. When my kids were growing up I made sure they did not acquire victimhood traits. They all have great self esteem and integrated into America in a flawless manner.Last thing I wanted to do was to inject an "us versus them" mindset.

Funny, how you correctly judge MLK words and you misjudge a similar statement made my me. NO worries, it is all sophistry and I do not blame you.

I'm glad you recognise that I correctly judge MLK words. As for yet more accusations of sophistry, is that another one of those words you don't understand? In modern usage, to be sophistry, it has to be not true. As anyone can see if they care to follow the thread, my responses to you are all responding truthfully to what you've said and the context you've said it in. No sophistry.

Yes, as usual you read between the lines and come up with the worse case scenario.

As before, this was in response to you talking about everybody not being university material, in the context of unequal outcomes between racial groups. Your response was ambiguous in the context of this thread where you've both asserted that unequal outcomes are due to talent and have also stated that they are nothing to do with innate talent, so I asked you to clarify whether you were talking about that in the context of individuals, or of racial groups, since you hadn't made it clear.

So again, this was in a response to a simple question, not an assertion of a worst case scenario. The obvious thing to do is say, "No, I was referring to individuals, and I don't think that some racial groups inherently have fewer people who are university material than other racial groups."

Again, misrepresenting what people have said on a forum is pointless. Everyone can see what was said.

This is tiring. As I said, there will never be two groups with identical circumstances. Comparison will always be meaningless. We also know siblings from the same home achieve differently even though one could say they had similar circumstances. But, who knows maybe the first child is treated differently than the last child. The issue is: DIFFERENT OUTCOMES IS THE NORM among humans in all groups and i suspect we will never be able to change that.

This was in response to my pointing out that observing that "everyone would say that <claiming without evidence that there would remain differences in outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent > is racist because assuming one racial group is inferior to another is literally racist." was not a straw man and was, in fact, the point being discussed.

So your reply above is either a non sequitur, since it does not actually follow on from or address that point, or you're trying to imply that there would be different outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent, without explicitly saying so.

Please note, this is not an assertion that you are trying to do that. You can simply confirm that you don't think there would be different outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent.

DIFFERENT TOPIC
You say you are from the UK----------I have a question. I just read that British white young men are now less educated than Brits that are not white. Is that correct? How was that achieved? Could America copy that model?

I see you've followed up on this already, but it's not a model to follow. It's complex (would need another thread) but some of the key factors are a long-term deficit of funding and a lot of poor areas being neglected, in a country that's over 80% white.

 

[Paul]

I'd say that's sophistry, but it's not clever.

So firstly, I've been referring to race-blind nationalism since the first response to you in the Colin Powell thread.

Nevertheless, that is your term and not mine.

Secondly, you (wrongly) said that "in Cuba everybody is Cuban and people are not classified by skin colour," and that they "got it right". This is race-blind nationalism.

I admit that Cubans can discern each other. However, the original plan by the socialist government was to call everybody Cuban and eliminate discrimination based on color. nevertheless, they acknowledged they had discrimination in a nation where there is heavy mixing of indigenous, black, and European groups. Nevertheless, racial animosity between groups is way less than in America or in nations that preach race ID politics.

This was in the context of this: "so-called race-blind nationalism does nothing to achieve this, since just pretending that perceptions of race and associated prejudice and discrimination don't exist does nothing to actually remove them... but it does hinder the impact of that discrimination being measured."

We already know where the problems are.

Your response was to argue that recognising perceptions of race is "the very essence of racism". That is why I made the conclusion, and I pointed out that you can recognise such perceptions without prejudice and discrimination, and your reply was the above.

The physical attributes of a person are recognized. However, the stereotype of the group is not recognized. The person is judge as an individual and not as a member of any group. A great pianist is a great pianist even if he comes from a tribe where 99% of the people cannot play a single note. The physical features are recognized, but the stereotype is ignored.

So I would ask you to expand on that. Because, in the context as shown above, either you're arguing there is a necessity to actively turn a blind eye to perceptions of racial groups and how they're treated, in which case your statement has quite a lot to do with racial groups, or you've changed your mind and you're now acknowledging that you can recognise perceptions of race without applying prejudicial stereotypes.

See above

As before, this was in response to you talking about everybody not being university material, in the context of unequal outcomes between racial groups. Your response was ambiguous in the context of this thread where you've both asserted that unequal outcomes are due to talent and have also stated that they are nothing to do with innate talent, so I asked you to clarify whether you were talking about that in the context of individuals, or of racial groups, since you hadn't made it clear.

So again, this was in a response to a simple question, not an assertion of a worst case scenario. The obvious thing to do is say, "No, I was referring to individuals, and I don't think that some racial groups inherently have fewer people who are university material than other racial groups."

Again, misrepresenting what people have said on a forum is pointless. Everyone can see what was said.


This was in response to my pointing out that observing that "everyone would say that <claiming without evidence that there would remain differences in outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent > is racist because assuming one racial group is inferior to another is literally racist." was not a straw man and was, in fact, the point being discussed.

So your reply above is either a non sequitur, since it does not actually follow on from or address that point, or you're trying to imply that there would be different outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent, without explicitly saying so.

Please note, this is not an assertion that you are trying to do that. You can simply confirm that you don't think there would be different outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent.

I am exhausted regarding this topic.

I see you've followed up on this already, but it's not a model to follow. It's complex (would need another thread) but some of the key factors are a long-term deficit of funding and a lot of poor areas being neglected, in a country that's over 80% white.

It also shows that being at the bottom of the socioeconomic and education spectrum is not always about racism. It has a lot to do with poverty, lack of education compounded by poor schools, dysfunctional homes, alcoholism, etc. I was not surprised to see that educationally Asians are OK. And that British blacks are ahead of these white poor kids. BTW, something like that is already happening in the USA. The majority students in American universities are women; poor white men are lagging behind.