All you have to do is use your eyes and you can see that blacks are not worse off now than they were in 1964. — Harry Hindu
All you have to do is use your eyes and you can see that blacks are not worse off now than they were in 1964. — Harry Hindu
Was that the claim? No. Was the claim "Blacks are worse off now than they were in 1964 in the US"? No. Let's grant your claim that all policies are colourblind now, and at least have been since 2008. What would you expect to happen? I'd expect that without targeted intervention on effected communities, we'd see that economic indicators like poverty for black people would have a roughly constant difference from those of white people. And that is what you see. — fdrake
Its informed by genetics. Thats where those sorts of differences come from. Its not about the colour of skin per say, its about a genetic expression.
Its no different than noticing red heads generally have freckles.
Anthropologists and geneticists use terms like ‘white people’ and ‘black people’. Why wouldn’t they? And what new and old concepts are you talking about?
If noticing color in the past led to racist systems and institutions...
— Harry Hindu
To make sense of what follows this I think you should probably explain exactly what “noticing color” means in this sentence.
— praxis
I thought I was using the phrase the same way everyone else was - recognizing the race of an individual for a particular reason. — Harry Hindu
If racism is related to power
That [passing laws that benefit one race over another] is what YOU and 180 and Baden and fdrake, etc. want. — Harry Hindu
Anthropologists and geneticists use terms like ‘white people’ and ‘black people’. Why wouldn’t they? And what new and old concepts are you talking about?
But many have abandoned the use of “race” in their field. No one said they stop using those phrases. What a strange misrepresentation. — NOS4A2
Believing the species can be subdivided into distinct biological entities called races is much different than noticing the difference in skin colors. — NOS4A2
Devaluing another human based upon their skin color is the problem we call "racism". It need not be identified as such in order to be a problem. Call it by any other name and it's still the same problem. It's not corrected by abandoning the notion of "race". It was a problem long before the notion of "race" was even invented/coined. It was a problem long before scientific classification. It will remain a problem as long as people devalue another based upon skin color and/or ethnicity(mainly visual appearances).
Thus, this notion you have of removing the ground of racism is nonsense. There is no such ground to begin with. The classification merely allowed those who were determined to be racist to talk about it in new terms that made it seem as though science supported their devaluation of others.
Using the term “race” is a lot different than believing the species can be subdivided into discreet biological units called races. My definition applies to the latter, not the former. — NOS4A2
It is unrealistic to think that what was the norm for thousands of generations can change in 11 years. — Harry Hindu
Short of taking people's children away and raising them to be color-blind by the state, what is your solution? I keep asking for specific institutions and specific solutions and you can only speak in vague generalities. — Harry Hindu
There are countless posts here which show that you are not drawing that distinction.
By your misrepresentation of my definition, I would be racist because I use the term race. — NOS4A2
Sure if you want to group people into races, be my guest. But you are applying the same ideology of the worst of humankind. — NOS4A2
See that? The above quote shows that you are clearly equating all belief in races with racism... believing that there are races and believing that some races are inferior to others both believe in race. They are the same in that regard. The difference between them is the devaluation aspect. One can believe in races without believing that one race is inferior to another. The former(belief in races) is not racism, whereas the latter is. Without that additional component, there is no racism.
Yet you've not drawn that distinction, despite the fact that the encyclopedia article you offered did.
Does the FHA still "notice color" for the purpose of segregating whites and blacks today? I didn't get an answer - just more ad hominems. — Harry Hindu
See that? The above quote shows that you are clearly equating all belief in races with racism... believing that there are races and believing that some races are inferior to others both believe in race. They are the same in that regard. The difference between them is the devaluation aspect. One can believe in races without believing that one race is inferior to another. The former(belief in races) is not racism, whereas the latter is. Without that additional component, there is no racism.
Yet you've not drawn that distinction, despite the fact that the encyclopedia article you offered did.
Yes, that is clear from what I wrote. What is not clear from what I wrote is your misrepresentation that using the term “race” is racist, which seemed to be pulled from thin air. — NOS4A2
Imagine person A who does not use the term "race" but hates asian people, and does not think that they should be allowed to live anywhere near person A and their family.
According to your definition this person is not racist.
Imagine person B who uses the term "race" and believes that there are such things as human races, all the time in a concerted effort to fight against the devaluation of another based upon race.
According to your definition this person is racist. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.