A thread about race, racial relations, racism, institutional racism, and what should we do about it? (1 Viewer)

[Ranethe]

I think he's basically right.  A huge chunk of Trump's identity is being "not Obama" no matter what that means in terms of policy. And "not Obama" means something racially specific to his base. 

Yeah, and Trump's campaign was a thinly veiled (essentially not veiled at all) "white power" campaign.

 

[timschochet]

I think he's basically right.  A huge chunk of Trump's identity is being "not Obama" no matter what that means in terms of policy. And "not Obama" means something racially specific to his base. 

Right. But his larger conclusion- that white Americans are in some ways more threatened by black leaders than they are by black gangsters- I have trouble with that. I don't want to believe it, because the implications are terrible IMO. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim what do you mean by "What should we do about it"?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The first question that I want to raise is whether or not this is a subject we can be discussing with any amount of legitimacy at all. My understanding is that the vast majority of us here are comfortable, upper middle class white guys (this would describe me adequately as well.) 

Terribly wrong. I agree with Coates on one thing he proves but which he claims he disproves, which is that Trump is a white identity populist, ie a nationalist and passively a white nationalist. In light of that you should drop this #### in the river.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

To your larger point: I would argue that both the black civil rights movement and the gay Rights movement in this country would have been impossible without identity politics,

Wrong, look at Homer Plessy, his cause was based on the negation of race, not the reaffirmation of it.

 

[rockaction]

Tim what do you mean by "What should we do about it"?

That's not the original title. It was, quite literally, "What Is To Be Done?"

 

[rockaction]

Wrong, look at Homer Plessy, his cause was based on the negation of race, not the reaffirmation of it.

That was my point throughout the thread.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's not the original title. It was, quite literally, "What Is To Be Done?"

Really. Tim......?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Only the most extreme forces of identity politics seek division

These extreme forces are inevitable.

 

[timschochet]

Wrong, look at Homer Plessy, his cause was based on the negation of race, not the reaffirmation of it.

But you're dismissing a very important part of civil rights history. Black pride, much like gay pride, was not about negation. I really think you and rockaction are missing the boat here. 

 

[rockaction]

Really. Tim......?

A thread about race, racial relations, racism...and what is to be done? 

Yes. That's why I had a ####fit. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But you're dismissing a very important part of civil rights history. Black pride, much like gay pride, was not about negation. I really think you and rockaction are missing the boat here. 

I'm actually citing the beginning, root and core of civil rights history.

 

[rockaction]

But you're dismissing a very important part of civil rights history. Black pride, much like gay pride, was not about negation. I really think you and rockaction are missing the boat here. 

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't identify and have pride; identity politics are different. Anything that seeks to divide and claim a non-understanding because of culture or race or anything is begging for disastrous consequences.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I Am Spartacus.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim civil rights history did not begin in 1955.

 

[timschochet]

Really. Tim......?

Et tu, Brute? 

I didn't even notice. My question is: if we acknowledge that institutional racism exists (and some people don't) the question then is what do we do about it? 

I don't ask this question lightly. It's actually an implicit criticism of the NFL protesters, and BLM- they have succeeded in getting the nation to be aware of their issue, but they don't offer any solutions. I'm looking for solutions. 

 

[timschochet]

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't identify and have pride; identity politics are different. Anything that seeks to divide and claim a non-understanding because of culture or race or anything is begging for disastrous consequences.  

I reject the assumption that identity politics are by definition divisive. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Et tu, Brute? 

I didn't even notice. My question is: if we acknowledge that institutional racism exists (and some people don't) the question then is what do we do about it? 

I don't ask this question lightly. It's actually an implicit criticism of the NFL protesters, and BLM- they have succeeded in getting the nation to be aware of their issue, but they don't offer any solutions. I'm looking for solutions. 

Eh I think Rock has a point here. Good faith is precluded by advanced knowledge. You weren't asking for a solution you were pointing to one, it was a rhetorical question. 

 

[timschochet]

Tim civil rights history did not begin in 1955.

No but it became effective around that year for the first time. Identity politics are a big reason for this: blacks mobilized and used their economic power as a group to effect change. This would have been impossible without indentifying themselves as black people first and foremost. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I reject the assumption that identity politics are by definition divisive. 

What's unifying about it?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No but it became effective around that year for the first time. Identity politics are a big reason for this: blacks mobilized and used their economic power as a group to effect change. This would have been impossible without indentifying themselves as black people first and foremost. 

That's ironic since segregation required identifying black people as black first and foremost to begin with. That was Plessy's point. 

 

[rockaction]

Pluralism, then? Again, like in the early twentieth century? Where does that get us? Look, we're just spitballing here, but I don't see the benefit of it. I see more harangues, more resentment, more isolation of whites instead of assimilation on both sides.  

"I want to walk with Plato" - W.E.B. DuBois 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This would have been impossible without indentifying themselves as black people first and foremost. 

How should they do this legally, presuming you require a legal solution? Or do you require an extra-legal one?

 

[timschochet]

What's unifying about it?

To me? Everything. But I almost always deeply sympathize with all identity movements. I like to see folks get justice for a change. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

To me? Everything. But I almost always deeply sympathize with all identity movements. I like to see folks get justice for a change. 

I greatly enjoy it culturally. Legally it causes problems, especially as it requires definition of a class to begin with. Racial definitions are ugly. Let's hear one.

 

[timschochet]

Pluralism, then? Again, like in the early twentieth century? Where does that get us? Look, we're just spitballing here, but I don't see the benefit of it. I see more harangues, more resentment, more isolation of whites instead of assimilation on both sides.  

"I want to walk with Plato" - W.E.B. DuBois 

I'm a huge believer in pluralism. 

And you don't see the benefit but I would point to the last 100 years of progress. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim should any other racial class be identified? Which? How? Proceed.

 

[timschochet]

I greatly enjoy it culturally. Legally it causes problems, especially as it requires definition of a class to begin with. Racial definitions are ugly. Let's hear one.

I don't understand your point. How does it legally cause problems? Do you believe in protected classes of people? 

 

[timschochet]

Tim should any other racial class be identified? Which? How? Proceed.

Not really. I don't see how, beyond laws against discrimination, that's necessary. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't understand your point. How does it legally cause problems? Do you believe in protected classes of people? 

I'll show you then. Ok let's protect a class. Let's say it's Greeks in Turkey. How would we go about legally defining Greeks in Turkey? Is a mother of Greek origin enough? Should they appear Greek? Who determines this, a state agency? Shoot.

 

[timschochet]

Slippery slope arguments always bore me anyhow; I find them irrelevant. Give me a specific situation and I'll tell you if it's a just outcome. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not really. I don't see how, beyond laws against discrimination, that's necessary. 

Laws against discrimination are simple. If someone thinks a person is black and acts against them they're discriminating based on what they think is race. - That's not the same as the state classifying people by race and then taking measures to resolve their inequities. - Two different things.

 

[rockaction]

I'm a huge believer in pluralism. 

And you don't see the benefit but I would point to the last 100 years of progress. 

I know you are. I'm a huge believer in individualism, which might explain our differences here. I believe every individual is an individual, every group multi-faceted and unable to speak for itself. 

That's what it comes down to in the end sometimes.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Slippery slope arguments always bore me anyhow; I find them irrelevant. Give me a specific situation and I'll tell you if it's a just outcome. 

A man who looks white gets on a rail car reserved for whites in a state where for someone non-white that's illegal. Has a crime been committed?

 

[timschochet]

I'll show you then. Ok let's protect a class. Let's say it's Greeks in Turkey. How would we go about legally defining Greeks in Turkey? Is a mother of Greek origin enough? Should they appear Greek? Who determines this, a state agency? Shoot.

It's unnecessary. You pass a law in Turkey that says that nobody can discriminate against people based on their race or ethnicity. That includes Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, etc. we don't need specific definitions of race. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's unnecessary. You pass a law in Turkey that says that nobody can discriminate against people based on their race or ethnicity. That includes Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, etc. we don't need specific definitions of race. 

How do you know someone claiming to be Greek has been mistreated then?

 

[timschochet]

 That's not the same as the state classifying people by race and then taking measures to resolve their inequities.

I have not proposed doing this. I'm not sure, as a general rule, that I am in favor of this idea either generally or specifically. I never have been in the past. 

I suspect, however, based on chapter titles, that Ta-Nehisi Coates is going to try to convince me to change my mind on this later on in his book. So for now I will withhold judgment. I'll let you know. 

 

[timschochet]

How do you know someone claiming to be Greek has been mistreated then?

Case by case; examine the facts. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I have not proposed doing this. I'm not sure, as a general rule, that I am in favor of this idea either generally or specifically. I never have been in the past. 

I suspect, however, based on chapter titles, that Ta-Nehisi Coates is going to try to convince me to change my mind on this later on in his book. So for now I will withhold judgment. I'll let you know. 

Ok in that case 'nothing can be done', not really, aside from punishing overt discrimination, improving people's humanism, decency and concept of democracy.

 

[timschochet]

A man who looks white gets on a rail car reserved for whites in a state wherevthats illegal. Has a crime been committed?

Yes, by the rail car. The man's "crime" is minor or not at all. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Case by case; examine the facts. 

You can do this without determining if someone is really Greek? Good luck.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yes, by the rail car. The man's "crime" is minor or not at all. 

How so? The man appears white.

 

[timschochet]

Ok in that case 'nothing can be done', not really, aside from punishing overt discrimination, improving people's humanism, decency and concept of democracy.

Well first off the items that you mention are not insignificant- none of them are. 

But second I'm not convinced that it's so either-or. I want to think about this some more. 

 

[timschochet]

You can do this without determining if someone is really Greek? Good luck.

They're all Greek to me. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They're all Greek to me. 

Ok funny but you're at a dead end here. You're in a tight box if you can't define the class.

 

[timschochet]

How so? The man appears white.

Look, if a bus starts demanding that whites ride in the front, blacks in the back, we don't arrest the passengers; we arrest the bus driver and management. It's a silly theoretical. 

 

[timschochet]

Ok funny but you're at a dead end here. You're in a tight box if you can't define the class.

I don't need to define the class. As a real estate broker I cpuld lose my license if I refuse to show property to anybody based on their race or ethnicity. Do you think I have a list of how many ethnicities there are and how to define them all? Of course not. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Look, if a bus starts demanding that whites ride in the front, blacks in the back, we don't arrest the passengers; we arrest the bus driver and management. It's a silly theoretical. 

It actually happened, that's my point. Today it's a theoretical, but once it was real. The bus line can't do that because racial discrimination is outright unconstitutional. However once you start making race by definition a means of assigning rights and benefits you are back in the irrational position of the bus line. Saying there can be no discrimination obviates that problem. Saying you will use racial identification recreates it.

 

[timschochet]

It actually happened, that's my point. Today it's a theoretical, but once it was real. The bus line can't do that because racial discrimination is outright unconstitutional. However once you start making race by definition a means of assigning rights and benefits you are back in the irrational position of the bus line. Saying there can be no discrimination obviates that problem. Saying you will use racial identification recreates it.

I gotta go to bed. I'll think about this, but I don't think that in practice it's been as problematic as you're claiming.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't need to define the class. As a real estate broker I cpuld lose my license if I refuse to show property to anybody based on their race or ethnicity. Do you think I have a list of how many ethnicities there are and how to define them all? Of course not. 

That's correct. However if you take the step of saying you will 'fix' racial inequities by balancing them, say by ensuring all blacks receive the same property values as whites, i.e. Doing Something About It, then that's exactly where you would be. - Or you could simply do 'nothing' about it aside from the clear line of preventing discrimination.... which is where we are now.