Well, I think "descriptive talk" like yours tends to confuse bigots with racists. — 180 Proof

How so? I'm just asking for your framework for interpreting something as contributing or perpetuating to racism, in a descriptive manner.

Within philosophy, the desire to "own" terms is commonplace, I'm familiar with the intent and have frequently come across it over the years. I view moral terms as ambiguous, generally speaking, they're applied by different people with different ideologies according to what works best for them. I let others define their terms and explain how they work, that's my compromise.

This is why many such terms are redefined in a legal context so that we can clearly understand the logic that qualifies the term, at least that's the intention.

Terms like "exploitation" emphasise moral concepts such as unfairness and justice, which ultimately, makes them highly subjective. It's unfortunate that you refuse to see it that way. My opinion isn't based on my preference, it's based on reality, it's based on how people use the word and what the word means.

Language needs to be flexible to allow people to express themselves, it's inconvenient I know. You'll only be able to convince people who share the exact same ideology and perspective as you do, to use the word as you do. Insult everyone else if it makes you feel better about it, I suppose.

180 Proof
Well, I think "descriptive talk" like yours tends to confuse bigots with racists.
— 180 Proof

How so? I'm just asking for your framework for interpreting something as contributing or perpetuating to racism, in a descriptive manner. — Judaka

Reread my posts, I can't make my meaning any plainer. There ain't no "interpreting" on my part happening here.

What we have here is a failure to communicate, or worse, a failure to think clearly.

As I wrote previously - white people don't like, trust, or respect black people.
— T Clark

This is kind of the same level as a business saying "The problem is we're not making enough money". — Judaka

A business saying "we're not making enough money" is a perfectly reasonable statement (assuming they are going broke) and so is "white people don't like, trust, or respect black people". If they did those three things, we wouldn't have a race problem,

Also, I reject racial and ethnic histories, cultures and groups. I don't think white people are responsible for anything, and as I told you before, I would prefer to see black Americans taking responsibility for slavery as Americans. That would represent the kind of progress I think would be helpful. — Judaka

Whoa! What?

A business saying "we're not making enough money" is a perfectly reasonable statement (assuming they are going broke) and so is "white people don't like, trust, or respect black people". If they did those three things, we wouldn't have a race problem, — BC

That depends on how you understand the race problem. 180's outlining of the problem wouldn't be solved by just that. I'm not sure what to say, Clark's outlining doesn't make any sense, and I don't think I can be bothered to have a serious debate on it.

What?! — BC

Yeah, I know, sorry.

To be fair, the actual kind of progress that would be helpful would be the undoing of neoliberal capitalism, a total overhaul to the US ideology of car-centric urban planning, implementing free healthcare, legalising drugs, providing free housing to the homeless, an overhaul of how taxing generates revenue for the government and so on.

All I'm saying is that I reject the notion that a person's race entitles them to a specific history. The history of a nation should belong to the citizens of that nation. The "in-group" must be diminished by dismantling the barriers that prevent assimilation into it. Slavery was done on the basis of race, but it's also part of American history, and it was perpetrated by Americans. An American of any race should be allowed and feel comfortable with seeing it as part of their own history, as both oppressor and oppressed.

Similarly, a German who's not ethnically German should feel comfortable taking responsibility for WW2 as ethnic Germans do and probably should be encouraged to do so in the same way, since they're all Germans.

I reject the use of race as an interpretative lens, its meaning and importance should be diminished whenever possible, that is my view. Becoming colour-blind so to speak.

↪T Clark ↪Judaka What we have here is a failure to communicate, or worse, a failure to think clearly — BC

:100: :up:

Unarguable specimen of racist denialism:

Also, I reject racial and ethnic histories, cultures and groups. I don't think white people are responsible for anything, and as I told you before, I would prefer to see black Americans taking responsibility for slavery as Americans. That would represent the kind of progress I think would be helpful. — Judaka

:mask:

I'm comfortable with subjectivity, and I don't feel like it diminishes the value of what's being said. You are indeed, having to interpret the applicability of your terms, and the circumstances in which they can be used. That doesn't mean that you are wrong, or that if someone disagrees with you, we're now at some kind of impasse.

I think what you've written has been a rewording of the comprehensive definition of racism that I outlined in my OP. You've described outcomes, without mentioning the logic behind them.

For example, if we give a context like police brutality, there are distinct differences in outcomes when documenting by race. This is part of systemic racism and the comprehensive definition of racism. That's because that definition is a literal documentation of disparities in outcomes.

In terms of describing when a particular case of police brutality is part of this problem, well, nothing in the description of comprehensive racism tells us how we'd do that. Which is what I'm pointing out.

I want to hear the logics that someone could use to understand how you'd arrive at different conclusions in dealing with specific cases. Or tell me why I don't need to hear them.

For example, if we give a context like police brutality, there are distinct differences in outcomes when documenting by race. This is part of systemic racism and the comprehensive definition of racism. That's because that definition is a literal documentation of disparities in outcomes. — Judaka

I'm not a theorist, but when you live around racism, it's not hard to see it in action if you give it some thought - deliberate and persistent discrimination, intolerance of, and power over non-dominant groups who are often spoken of in negative ways and treated less respectfully, less fully as citizens. You can often see a deliberate structuring of society - use of law, rules and etiquette to set limits upon identity and autonomy of people who do not belong to the dominant race and class structure. But to some extent this is an interpreted process. You have to watch and understand. I think this is what can make racism so insidious.

What you say is so confused I can't make sense of what you are talking about. Apparently, sir, you have the luxury of 'living confused'; many don't.

It's not "hard"? How do you know whether you got it right or not? If you can't tell when you're right or wrong, how do you know how accurate you are? If you can't tell how accurate you are, how are you in a position to say whether it's easy or hard to do?

You can often see a deliberate structuring of society - use of law, rules and etiquette to set limits upon identity and autonomy of people who do not belong to the dominant race and class structure. But to some extent this is an interpreted process. — Tom Storm

That's true. I've talked about the importance of ending neoliberal capitalism, and I accept racism is part of this conversation. Since social policies would be disproportionately beneficial to minorities. We could examine resource allocation by location and spot inconsistencies, or we could look at how police practices differ in different jurisdictions and criticise differences in predominately white communities versus black.

Finding and correcting inconsistencies and coincidences that coincide with the pattern of racism is our best means of preventing it.

In terms of prejudice, the mistake in searching for inconsistencies is in using white people and minorities to do it. If you see one person being rude to another, with no pattern, and take the racial difference as proof of racism, that's asinine, is it not? It is easy to see it in action if you require almost no evidence for seeing it, it depends on how one responds to ambiguity.

Our discussions usually end up in the same place, no matter what we're discussing. I believe it's because of your view of language, and I generally have the same issue with those who view word meanings as having stringent, objective definitions. When you say "exploitation", I insist on understanding this as "That which I interpret as exploitation". If you've explained it to me before, then I know what that means, and if not, then it's unclear.

Why someone might call something exploitation is varied and often depends on what it's being contrasted against. If you call low pay exploitative, or child labour exploitative, those are two very different claims, because of the different contexts, and thus of the specific contrast. The logic being used, and the nature of each claim are different. If you then said a case of child labour was exploitative because of the low pay, that might be surprising considering the contrast of child vs adult that was made.

The less context and contrast there is, the less I understand the logics behind employed, and the more ambiguous you become. Qualifying that the exploitation is "systemic" only contrasts against non-systemic. It doesn't help me to understand what it is that you're referring to. I'm perfectly aware that you understand very well what you're referring to, but your language hasn't helped me to understand it.

Nobody else could either, the people who say they do are wrong, and if they tried to replicate your understanding, they'd fail or at least be inaccurate. You can't just make a word representative of your understanding in the definition and then use it and expect others to understand. Language is public, terms don't belong to you, they reflect a very general meaning, and that's unavoidable considering their purpose.

It's not "hard"? How do you know whether you got it right or not? If you can't tell when you're right or wrong, how do you know how accurate you are? If you can't tell how accurate you are, how are you in a position to say whether it's easy or hard to do? — Judaka

I think what this highlights is the more general problem of attribution. In life we have to make inferences. In some cases no inference is necessary. I hear the racist ideas and labels in simple conversation. I've watched taxi cabs refuse to pick up Aboriginal people. I've seen restaurants refuse to let Aboriginal people enter (but let white people enter shortly afterwards). None with a booking. I've seen police beat up Aboriginal people, but treat white people with politeness for the same 'misdemeanor' on the same evening (drinking on the street).

But I suspect we need to hear from people with lived experience to appreciate this more fully.

If you see one person being rude to another, with no pattern, and take the racial difference as proof of racism, that's asinine, is it not? — Judaka

I would not say this is ipso facto asinine - it could be that racism is the reason. It might be a hasty inference or a wrong one. It might be a right one. But as I said interpreting (making inferences about) the behaviors of other people is what we do. No one says it is always 100% correct.

explaining the problem in this most basic, inaccurate way, as a massive generalisation, that's pointless. — Judaka

I think the idea of racism leads to an inaccurate understanding of racial relationships in society. I that that view is also an over-generalization and is misleading.

Clark's outlining doesn't make any sense, and I don't think I can be bothered to have a serious debate on it. — Judaka

Perhaps it would be best if I don't respond to your posts in the future.

What we have here is a failure to communicate, or worse, a failure to think clearly. — BC

My position is simple and I think I've explained it clearly. Saying I have failed to think clearly is hard to respond to unless you provide justification for the claim. In the absence of that justification, I'll just say nunh unh.

All I'm saying is that I reject the notion that a person's race entitles them to a specific history. The history of a nation should belong to the citizens of that nation. — Judaka

This statement I can agree with. WE ARE Puritans in Massachusetts; slaves in Texas; Ojibwes and Germans in Minnesota; Chinese and Americans in the Gold Ruch; New Yorkers on the Upper West Side; anarchists in Portland, OR; Appalachian holy rollers--e pluribus unum. Our common history extends back before Columbus; it extends to both sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific; we come from pirates, indentured servants, slaves, blue bloods, bigots, peasants, rabbis, pietists, common laborers, riff raff. All of it.

Virtue and sin are rolled up together. As Rabbi Heschel put it, "Some are guilty; everyone is responsible."

I would not say this is ipso facto asinine - it could be that racism is the reason. — Tom Storm

If you see someone being mistreated, and you stepped in to stop it, and explained it was wrong to do that, without ever mentioning the racial difference, what is lost?

That being said, you've remarked upon inconsistencies in treatment by race, and especially where no alternative explanation would be reasonable, that is fit to be described as racism. I never claimed I'm without tools to call anything or anyone racist, I only asked others to explain the tools they used.

There's a difference between recognising and acknowledging the experience of an Aboriginal who faces discrimination and hardship as a result of racism and identifying racism. Their experience is not the definitive tool for identifying racism, as the why is all important. The only exceptions are misdeeds, acts that are justified by no explanation, generally because of the intentional causing of harm.

No one says it is always 100% correct. — Tom Storm

You are talking about the simplistic definition of racism, as interpersonal prejudice. A definition that 180 has rejected the validity of. The comprehensive definition of racism goes ignores intent and ideology, so there is no need to guess. Within this definition, there is no concept of inaccuracy, we're talking about oppression and social realities, not guessing at the why. My comments to 180 weren't about racism as an ideology, but as a societal reality, keep that in mind. This confusion is the exact reason I made this thread, the term "racism" so easily and consistently causes misunderstandings, quite a mess.

Perhaps it would be best if I don't respond to your posts in the future. — T Clark

My apologies for the unnecessary offence my language caused, I shouldn't have said that "I can't be bothered". I dislike it when people talk about "white people" and "black people" so generally, and it bothers me to hear it. I despise prejudicial thinking, especially along racial lines, just as you do. I believe we are largely of the same mind on this issue where it counts. I just consider it wrong to group people by race and talk about their passions, thoughts, and responsibilities. It's that exact thinking that I associate with racism. Isn't it the very soul of racism, to talk about someone's race like that? As something more than just their skin colour? That's how I see it.

Saying I have failed to think clearly — T Clark

Claiming the first option (not thinking clearly) wasn't necessary on your part. There was the second option of failing to communicate.

Did you fail to communicate? Not to me, you didn't. Apparently you failed to communicate with Judaka. The failure in your case was that Judaka did not receive what you sent. Not your fault.

You are talking about the simplistic definition of racism, as interpersonal prejudice. A definition that 180 has rejected the validity of. The comprehensive definition of racism goes ignores intent and ideology, so there is no need to guess. Within this definition, there is no concept of inaccuracy, we're talking about oppression and social realities, not guessing at the why. My comments to 180 weren't about racism as an ideology, but as a societal reality, keep that in mind. This confusion is the exact reason I made this thread, the term "racism" so easily and consistently causes misunderstandings, quite a mess. — Judaka

Ok - I guess I don't understand this nuance.

Not your fault. — BC

You are forgiven.

Yes. I would suggest that achieving social (or racial) justice will mean black's access to better education ----> better jobs ----> better housing ----> in better neighborhoods. Skip the "anti-racist training programs", skip black English, forget about micro aggressions, etc. etc. etc. DELIVER first rate education and training programs. Make sure there are no artificial barriers to equal access to good jobs; enforce equal access to housing in any neighborhood. In other words, make it possible for blacks to work and live as well as whites.

Will that automatically result in the disappearance of prejudice? No, not immediately, but prejudice will matter less. — BC

IF the material means can be significantly improved, and if working class financial security cam be achieved (a revolutionary goal, not something that is going to happen under the current regime) race hatred can be reduced--maybe eventually expunged (but don't hold your breath waiting), — BC

Great posts. :up:

It seems like there are two models on offer, one which aims to benefit racial groups and another which aims to benefit class groups. I think the latter is easier to enact because it is based on aid, not balance. Welfare legislation could address the lower class by granting aid based on income, and the goal here is simply to improve the conditions of the lower class. Racial legislation is much more unwieldy because it attempts to rebalance the entire existence of two or more races. It is more difficult because the selection process is more complicated than an income threshold, the reparations approach is unwieldy, the motivations are less universally accepted, and the goals are more complex and less determinate than simply improving material conditions. Given that the class approach will also have a great impact on the race problem and is less prone to "aggravate race hatred," I think it should be the primary focus. I'd say the race problem requires a solution that is more organic and grassroots, and less systematic and governmental (in the sense of the Federal government). Dispensing with subsidiarity when it comes to race issues is a danger.

Thank you.

(The poet) Carl Sandburg was working as a Chicago Sun Times reporter in 1919, the year of the Chicago Race Riot, set off by a black boy swimming into a white swimming area of Lake Michigan. He was stoned to death by white youths.

At the time 20% to 25% of the huge slaughterous industry in Chicago was black. The slaughter houses were unionized, and most blacks joined one of several unions. Unions provided a base and a rationale for working class solidarity. As one of the slaughterhouse managers pointed out, "Our workers have axes, cleavers, and knives in their hands all day." If there was conflict on the lines, it would have been instantly obvious. The only area of conflict was the reluctance of some workers to join the union.

The reported language that the NAACP, business owners, labor leaders, black workers, white workers, social workers, bureaucrats, etc. all reflected a very clear understanding of how racism worked, what its costs were, how detrimental it was to blacks, and what kind of solutions were needed. Decent housing (as opposed to deteriorating, low-quality slum dwellings); equal pay; good schools for black and white children together; adequate medical care, etc.

So, reading Sandburg's articles is deja vu.

The reported language that the NAACP, business owners, labor leaders, black workers, white workers, social workers, bureaucrats, etc. all reflected a very clear understanding of how racism worked, what its costs were, how detrimental it was to blacks, and what kind of solutions were needed. — BC

What's interesting to me is that addressing racism was not viewed as an end in itself, at least by the slaughterhouses. In that case addressing racism was a means to the end of a safe work environment and ultimately a productive business. It seems to me that in the past racism was never really viewed as an end in itself, and perhaps this was a good thing. Today we see the emergence of a new form, where "solving racism" is actually an end in itself, a goal which has become somewhat detached from the negative effects of racism. This is not the primary phenomenon, but it does exist and it seems to be growing. Two reasons that may help account for this are the extreme moralizing of the issue, and the new notion of "systemic racism."

So then maybe there is a sense in which the word 'racism' is understood differently in our day. Perhaps it has accrued connotations which identify it as a center-stage issue, the opposition of which is an end in itself, which is different from 1919 when it was viewed as one among many in an interrelated constellation of detrimental societal factors. The older approach shares some of the same merits as the "class approach" which I advocated in my last post.

(I assume you meant 1919 rather than 2019)

Insightful post.

Yes. I corrected the erroneous year. Thanks for pointing it out,

You are talking about the simplistic definition of racism, as interpersonal prejudice. — Judaka

To me, the essence of racism is personal. I imagine what it would be like to go out every day being bombarded by the dislike, suspicion, and contempt of people I meet and knowing it would be the same tomorrow and the day after. I don't know if I would survive that.

As for the political and economic aspects of racism, I've come to believe that @BC is right - that's primarily an issue of class. Please correct me if I misstated your position, BC.

Yes. I would suggest that achieving social (or racial) justice will mean black's access to better education ----> better jobs ----> better housing ----> in better neighborhoods. Skip the "anti-racist training programs", skip black English, forget about micro aggressions, etc. etc. etc. DELIVER first rate education and training programs. Make sure there are no artificial barriers to equal access to good jobs; enforce equal access to housing in any neighborhood. In other words, make it possible for blacks to work and live as well as whites. — BC

I don't want to totally disagree with this, but there is some devilry in the details.

How is this crucial access to be achieved in the face of micro-aggressions that always extend the benefit of the doubt in one direction and never in the other. How can a first rate education be delivered to blacks whose very title lies on the negative side of every cliche of virtue, quality, and moral worth, of the language in which that education is delivered. There is no need to blacken the name, and de-nigrate, when the whole language makes negation the identity. Chris Searle's The forsaken Lover goes into this in detail, in the context of education in the Caribbean. I don't have any answer to these problems, but I don't see either that to forget about them is going to help.