There was no lack of charity. Merely pointed out where the misinterpretation was and given that another member said the same thing you should reasonably assume that the grounds for the misinterpretation aren’t unfounded.

If you wish to explain whether you think calling someone racist is or isn’t racist in and of itself it may shed further light on the situation?

For the sake of honesty and clarity I am expecting a problem with how we are, and you are, to interpret ‘perpetuating worldview of racism’ within this framework. I think it is not as easy a task at it first seems. I’m pursuing clarity of language not a means to snare someone in some pointless one-up-manship.

If my aim isn’t clear already, it is to moderate between conflicting perspectives in the hope of broadening the discussion so reason wins through over personal motive.

I wasn’t insinuating that you’re racist. I was just following through your reasons and tried to wed them to the phrase ‘perpetuating racism’ in like of how you define the term in a manner that seems far too rigid from my perspective as it doesn’t hold up either in your own reply (as I highlighted) or in differing contexts.

Give me some respect here. I quoted the relevant posts so simply clarify the phrase rather than look to be offended by my genuine interpretation. For the record I haven’t seen anything in this thread to suggest you’re racist - far from it. I have seen a strange rigidity in how you articulate your thoughts in a manner that is frankly quite naive given the topic and medium you’re using. Just because it’s a philosophy forum it doesn’t mean people are going to be on their best behavior and/or use rational discourse. It’s rarely the case especially with a politicised topic.

Anyway, you get the idea I believe. Maybe you’re persisting not out of naivety, but out of hope. I’m willing to hold yo the later, but it doesn’t hurt to say how things appear at a glance.

The disputation is the point of it for me. The best insights are found in the sparks from the clash of ideas. Your moderation is well-intended but unwanted, for me at least. Rather, let’s talk about what we believe and what we stand for. I want to have my ideas scrutinized and I hope to be forgiven for defending them.

I was merely articulating what I believe racism is and why I believe it. I wasn’t calling anyone a racist. But I never said nor implied nor believe calling someone a racist is racist, so perhaps you are confusing me with someone else here.

I’m still asking what you meant by the phrasing you used. What was you’re intended meaning by saying :

They are both racist because they both subscribe to the racist worldview. My contention is one cannot hate Asians unless he believes such a distinct group exists. — NOS4A2

My emphasis being in the bold.

I never called you racist. Neither do I hate latinos, I was just working with a hypothetical which seemed to reveal a telling disjoint in your use of terminology.

I guess I’m wondering how you can construe that to mean me believing that calling someone a racist is racist.

As for “subscribe to the racist worldview”, I mean they believe the species can be divided into discrete biological units called “races”.

I thought you may have meant the ‘worldview’ in terms of adhering to and perpetuating the use of the term by accusation and practice.

Anyway, you agree that you wasn’t sure if you could call someone racist who hates latinos but doesn’t believe in differences of race in scientific terms. It is there that the clarity your and other people’s perspectives is confused.

In terms of ‘colour-blindness’ I’ve those opposing you guilty of the same kind of misconception and being adamant that their concept is irrefutable.

On the surface it appears everyone here actually agrees yet not everyone agrees with the use or application of the terminology in play.

I don’t think arguments put forward by HH hold up - regarding some kind of blanket ban of the term and/or phasing it out. I think it is a necessary thorn in the side of civil society to remind us of our imperfections and take note.

just teach your kids that there are no races, to not use words like white, black, brown etc and eventually racism will end, after generations adopt this as our reality

it will take a while (just as some people still believe the world is still flat), but the day will come

I myself no longer label people using these archaic and inaccurate categories and it's definitely a shift in thinking that means at least I am no longer prone to bias based on race, I can't prefer something that isn't there in my conceptual world

join the race transcenders (a concept coined by Carlos Hoyt) and be part of the solution instead of the problem

Even if you grant that everything's been colourblind since then, it isn't doing a damn thing to address poverty rates. Which is strange; why are there persistent racial disparities in poverty in the US if colourblindness assures equality of opportunity? This is granting the polices are colourblind, of course (in this world of Harry's where there's no extant politics of prejudice). — fdrake

I've already pointed to the disparity between people that are raised in a two parent home with a more cohesive family and those that aren't. Are you so unwilling to accept that there might be other causes to the problems you are pointing out. Is every problem the result of racism?

The point I was making is that, even if we became color blind over night racial segregation would continue. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but I already moved past your point and I am now asking what we do about it that doesn't entail doing what created this problem in the first place. Are there no other options to consider, or is the only option to be a hypocrite?

Let’s take the claim we focused on above:

Systemic racism still exists in the United States.

The reason given (and we’ll stick to one for simplicities sake) was:

Racial minority groups in the US, such as Blacks and Hispanics, are imprisoned at higher rates than Whites.

The evidence provided showing that the above is true was taken from here:

https://www.issuelab.org/resources/695/695.pdf

That’s all fine; however, the link between the reason and the claim may be questioned. It may be accepted that there is irrefutable evidence that Blacks and Hispanics are imprisoned at higher rates than Whites, but consistently denied that this represents systemic racism.

A warrant can provide the link needed to overcome this objection (and show that the reason is warranted ).

For example:

When it comes to sentencing, Black and Hispanic convicts are treated more harshly for similar crimes than their White counterparts.

If this general principle can be established then the higher rates of imprisonment are contextualized as an instance of the racially discriminatory practice outlined. — Baden

You also have to think about what this implies and whether what it implies is reasonable. This implies that all police, prosecuting and defending attorneys, judges, and witnesses are racist. I think that is a very weak limb to stand on.

Why aren't we talking about the percentages of black children being raised in single-parent homes and how that plays a role in these statistics. How do we know that the stats for the convicts being treated more harshly is because they were repeat offenders? When you get caught in a never-ending cycle because of the circumstances you were born into, then we can see these kinds of statistics and it has nothing to do with systematic racism.

What do you think changing our drug laws would do to those statistics rather than accusing others of being racist with no proof?

That’s right “latino” is not considered a race. It’s an ethnicity, meaning It applies to anyone of any race so long as he is Latino. So the man would be expressing some form of ethnic hatred rather than racism. I don’t see what’s unclear about it.

If using race as the reason to provide government benefits is what got us here, then why is the solution that they are suggesting that we keep doing it, but in reverse? — Harry Hindu

I don’t really know what those sentences mean if I’m being completely honest. If you could rephrase (possibly add more detail) from “If ...” onward I may be able to respond better. — I like sushi

Right, so maybe we should take a step back and remember what the title of this thread is:
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?

Without saying anything about the existence, or non-existence, of "systematic racism" today for the moment,...

There was systematic racism by way of providing government benefits to one race over another in the past.

The effects of the systematic racism of the past has carried over into subsequent generations.

What is the solution for handling the effects that don't resort to back-peddling on racial color-blindness?

If providing government benefits to one race over another is why we are in this position, and it is morally wrong to do so, then why go back to doing it, but in reverse (reverse discrimination)?

Are there are other solutions that don't make us back-peddle on racial color-blindness that we can (or should) consider? It doesn't seem like the other side is open to considering anything except that all whites are racist and we need to give them some of their own medicine.

That’s right “latino” is not considered a race. It’s an ethnicity, meaning It applies to anyone of any race so long as he is Latino — NOS4A2

Don't think that racism / ethnicity have any true logic to themselves. It's all horse manure that in the end simply justifies xenophobia and is fitted to the present situation whatever it is.

Stop looking just at the racism in the US. The history of European racism and the true race ideology divided the "white" people as happily and eagerly as Americans are dividing their own citizens into races. Serbs, Poles, Russians, Belarusians, Czechs, Slovaks, and Ukrainians, all were there with the Jews subhumans. And Americans would now refer to these people being "white". It doesn't make any sense.

Don't think that racism / ethnicity have any true logic to themselves. It's all horse manure that in the end simply justifies xenophobia and is fitted to the present situation whatever it is.

Stop looking just at the racism in the US. The history of European racism and the true race ideology divided the "white" people as happily and eagerly as Americans are dividing their own citizens into races. Serbs, Poles, Russians, Belarusians, Czechs, Slovaks, and Ukrainians, all were there with the Jews subhumans. And Americans would now refer to these people being "white". It doesn't make any sense.

I fully agree. It doesn’t make any sense. The whole idea of attaching significance to this or that biological grouping for taxonomical, identity or even census purposes presupposes a genetic distinction between this or that group, each with their discrepant genetic material. By definition, none of these groupings can be equal, and all it takes is for someone like Gobineau to build from this pseudoscience a hierarchy of white supremacy.

Racism that is accompanied by hatred is often disappointment and frustration that finds racism as an outlet because it's convenient.

Racism without hatred is a genuine belief that it's correct to categorize and heirarchialize by race.

The latter is the type that disappeared among white American infantrymen during the Korean War. All it took was close association.

The former isn't diminished by association. It disappears when fashions change and the most convenient outlet for angst becomes something non-racial, politics for example.

:up:

It’s not unclear. What is the case is that people don’t use the term in that manner sadly.

I went into this kind of topic more vigorously on a predominately ‘scientific’ based forum and nearly every one of them attacked me and claimed there were no ‘races’. Scientifically of course there aren’t. The issue was that in sociology, and the humanities in general, ‘race’ is used quite openly to refer to cultural/ethnic differences (it’s even on most surveys).

What happened on that forum was kind of a reversal of this one. In both instances the importance of the topic was covered up or avoided.

The problem for the opening post is how you’re wedding your definition of ‘racism’ to the question of ‘colour-blindness’. If you think those against people being ‘colour-blind’ are against shifting the term ‘racism’ more toward ‘ethnicism’ (or something) then I think you’re partly right, but they are also partially justified in doing so because what is a crime against humanity needs a universally applicable term.

Distinctions can be used for protection and for persecution. The need for protection has certainly lessened, but we shouldn’t act too rashly and remain on guard regarding the power words have in the political sphere.

I've already pointed to the disparity between people that are raised in a two parent home with a more cohesive family and those that aren't. Are you so unwilling to accept that there might be other causes to the problems you are pointing out. Is every problem the result of racism? — Harry Hindu

(1) "People without a stable family environment in their childhood generally do worse in their later lives (as measured in income)" is exactly the same kind of statement as: (2) "People with black skin from poor neighbourhoods generally do worse in their later lives (as measured in income)"

"The same kind of statement" there means "they aggregate over individuals to the level of demographics and look at statistically at relative disparities".

You can be white and come from a shitty family environment. Not everything is racism. I would never argue that all disparities come from racism, that would be silly.

So why do you resist the coherency and relevance and truth of statements like (2) but not the coherency and relevance and truth of statements like (1)? You can obviously think (1) in a way that makes (1) obvious and understandable to you, why is (2) much harder for you to think when it's the same concept applied to a different demographic?

Racism that is accompanied by hatred is often disappointment and frustration that finds racism as an outlet because it's convenient.

Racism without hatred is a genuine belief that it's correct to categorize and heirarchialize by race. — frank

Racism is defined as:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Prejudice is defined as :
a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
a harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment - like the preconceived opinion that isn't based on reason or actual experience.

Discrimination is defined as:
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

These aren't my definitions. These are the ones you get when doing a Google search.

So it seems to me that racism is a type of hatred, or ideas that can cause unjust harm to others. If it doesn't entail some unjust treatment that is based on the preconceived opinion that isn't based on reason, and includes that belief that your own race is superior, then it doesn't qualify as racism.

(1) "People without a stable family environment in their childhood generally do worse in their later lives (as measured in income)" is exactly the same kind of statement as: (2) "People with black skin from poor neighbourhoods generally do worse in their later lives (as measured in income)" — fdrake

It's not the same. (1) is about people in general regardless of race, while (2) is implying that only blacks do worse in their later lives when not raised in a stable family environment. (2) would be racist and ignore all the non-blacks who do worse as well.

You can be white and come from a shitty family environment. Not everything is racism. I would never argue that all disparities come from racism, that would be silly. — fdrake

Exactly. Isn't that what I've been saying? So now isn't incumbent upon you to show how certain aspects of our society or system are racist today as opposed to just being the effects of racism in the past that are now present today. Does the effects today that are the result of racism in the past still qualify as racism today? If so, then what do we do about it that doesn't make us go back to doing the same thing that we are saying is wrong? Why is it soooo difficult to answer this question? It needs to be answered, or else all you're doing is complaining without providing any solutions to what you're complaining about - which makes me think that there really isn't a problem, or that you're fine with problem existing.

So it seems to me that racism is a type of hatred, — Harry Hindu

That's a misconception. Racist people may have fondness for an oppressed group which they see as child-like.

That is not inconsistent with the definitions you provided.

That's a misconception. Racist people may have fondness for an oppressed group which they see as child-like.

That is not inconsistent with the definitions you provided. — frank

Sure it is. How is "fondness" a type of harm, or unjust action based on some preconceived notion that isn't based on reason?

How is seeing a group of people as child-like not based on your belief that you are superior?

Sure it is. How is "fondness" a type of harm, or unjust action based on some preconceived notion that isn't based on reason — Harry Hindu

If the British treat grown Indian men like children that causes harm.

I went into this kind of topic more vigorously on a predominately ‘scientific’ based forum and nearly every one of them attacked me and claimed there were no ‘races’. Scientifically of course there aren’t. The issue was that in sociology, and the humanities in general, ‘race’ is used quite openly to refer to cultural/ethnic differences (it’s even on most surveys). — I like sushi

What types of cultural/ethnic differences?

If the British treat grown Indian men like children that causes harm. — frank

Ask the grown Indian man. How would you feel if I referred to you as something that you aren't? How would you feel if I called you a child?

How is "fondness" a type of harm, or unjust action based on some preconceived notion that isn't based on reason?

Poor little Harry.

How is that an answer to my question? I need an answer to show that we aren't talking past each other and that we are both using the same definition for the term "fondness". You don't want to answer the question, or respond to my post because you know it will be a detriment to your previous claim. All you can do is resort to ad hominems. An ad hominem is when you avoid the claim being made and attack the person rather than their claim. I'm sure you, I like sushi, Baden, fdrake, and 180 know this, but you don't care because you have a political agenda that you've been indoctrinated with.

You know you've adopted your political ideology as a religion when you get to the point where you don't question it and everyone who does is a hater.

If my questions are irrelevant, then show how they are, don't resort to acting like a child (in calling you a child, am I exhibiting fondness or a dislike - I don't know because you won't answer the question about what you mean by "fondness").

You know you've adopted your political ideology as a religion when you get to the point where you don't question it and everyone who does is a hater. — Harry Hindu

"The way things are going... they're going to crucify me."

-Poor little Harry

"The way things are going... they're going to crucify me."

-Poor little Harry — frank

So, you're not going to answer the question, then? You're going to stick to committing logical fallacies? Thanks for giving me the chance to treat you like a child. I'm sure it was pleasant for you.


I used to be a theist. As I developed, my curiosity made me question my beliefs. When I asked questions of those that were more learned than I was and they couldn't answer the questions, avoided them, or gave vague or incoherent answers, it made me believe less and less.

If they took the time to answer the questions in a coherent manner that didn't contradict what was said earlier, or didn't call me a hater or sinner for asking those questions, then maybe I'd still be a theist today.

So if you expect others to align themselves to your way of thinking, you need to answer their questions in a honest and meaningful way. Avoiding the questions, calling them names, or providing incoherent and vague answers is how you make them align themselves with the opposite of what you are trying to claim. What is your goal in this thread?

So, you're not going to answer the question? — Harry Hindu

If you want someone's perspective, say something like: "Frank, what do you mean that a racist person can be fond of the oppressed and exploited? How can that be?"

Then you'll encourage a response. Don't assume anyone gives a shit about persuading you of anything.

If you want someone's perspective, say something like: "Frank, what do you mean that a racist person can be fond of the oppressed and exploited? How can that be?"

Then you'll encourage a response. Don't assume anyone gives a shit about persuading you of anything. — frank

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. All you need to do is explain how you are using the word, "fondness".

If you're not using words to express your ideas so others might share them, then what are you using them for? I have a feeling your not going to answer that question either. I predict that you will respond again with more vitriolic ad hominems.

What you seem to be doing quite consistently is plastering your impressions of people over their faces to the point that you can no longer see behind the mask you’ve made for them. Effectively you’ve ended up talking to nothing more than a mask of your own making.

Hence, people will just stop responding as I did.

It may be easier to stick to exchanging with one person only. Frank seem game enough so offer some charity. I’m not game btw. I don’t see what I have to gain that I don’t gain by observing you try and find a resolution to your current problem in communicating whatever it is you’re trying to communicate.

Good luck. Hope it works out.

Perhaps NOS4A2's question in the OP could be put this way:

Do we unintentionally give racism a chance to continue by upholding and using the race/ethnicity categorization, even if this categorization is intended to fight racism?

It's like the political system of Lebanon that was founded with the 1943 National Pact that made Lebanon to be a "multiconfessional" state, where political power was allocated on an essentially confessional system based on the 1932 census. This meant the President was a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, the Speaker of the Parliament a Shia Muslim and so on.

Now did this "multiconfessionality" stabilize Lebanon? Hell no. It has had one of the worst Civil Wars in the Middle East and the country still has a lot of political problems even today. In fact some argue that this was a ploy of divide and rule by the French. Hence one could say it's about just how we divide ourselves into subgroups and how much these subgroups define our identity.

Typically ethnic or religious divides don't matter when people think of belonging to a group in another way. Basically this means that the most important identity to them and how they see their fellow citizens doesn't go either by religion or language / ethnicity. This is possible. My country is a perfect example as there was a true potential for an ethnic conflict between the Finnish speaking and the Swedish speaking segments of the society. Yet it never happened. Even if there was heated public debate about the status of the languages, it never became a violent political crisis. You see, the Swedish speaking here never saw themselves as Swedes and there was no desire for them to be Swedish. They viewed themselves as Finns. And so has actually the Finnish speaking part of Finland seen them too: as Finns. Hence nobody speaks about ethnicity or an ethnic divide (like we talk about in other places) at all when talking about the Finnish speaking and Swedish speaking Finns. The divide between Protestants and Orthodox Finns has been even more tranquil and peaceful.

(In the case of my country the political crisis was fought along political lines of right and left, which basically was about the Russian Revolution spilling into the country when the local Social Democratic party got carried away with the example of the October Revolution.)