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.

Now, the claim wasn't that "black people in the US are worse off than they ever were relative to themselves", it was that "black people in the US are still worse off than whites", and years of "colourblind policy" (in your model of the world) is doing absolutely nothing to change that.

Edit: this post was badly written, I should've wrote "Let's assume policies have been colourblind since 2007 and further that colourblind policies are sufficient to address disparities in poverty". Under this assumption, the roughly constant relative discrepancy between blacks and whites in the US negates the disjunction, so either the policies have not been colourblind, or that colourblind policies are not sufficient to address racial disparities in poverty.

Harry further assumes that policies are colourblind now. But that would then mean that he would be committed to that colourblind policies are not sufficient to address racial disparities in poverty in the US assuming he believed the evidence was valid (which is unlikely, because Harry is Harry).

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

Assuming you’re talking about the US here, just because things are ‘better’ doesn’t mean they cannot be better still. I don’t believe it is justifiable to suggest things are completely equal between blacks, asians, causasians, Italians, Irish, Jews and latinos in the US. The recent historical shifts (and historically we’re talking relatively recent) are still clearly felt throughout US society. That said I wouldn’t be entirely opposed to any statement saying it’s been talked about for too long, but I wouldn’t side with that position because such a history that effects, and has affected, generations living today it about as clear as can be. I’m not fooled by the occasional overly outraged cry from any position and I’m human enough (just about) to understand the emotion involved nevertheless.

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

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/11/16/racial-disparity-cities-worst-metro-areas-black-americans/38460961/
It looks like the Midwest is where we should focus then, particularly Illinois?

It is unrealistic to think that what was the norm for thousands of generations can change in 11 years. 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. It can only make one think that there really isn't a problem to be fixed, or that the solutions you have wouldn't really solve the problem, or include more segregation based on skin color.

I keep asking for solutions. 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?

This isn't very responsive to my post. I'm not calling for outrage, for example, I'm calling for awareness, preciseness, and diligence in the use of words. But I'll get back to this in more detail later.

I never said you were? I certainly wasn’t suggesting you were calling for outrage. We seem to agree. I admit it’s tough to be charitable with some statements made.

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.

Thanks

Thanks for the advice. But I prefer disputation and contention more than uniformity and consensus. Those are the enemies of the open mind and the open book.

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.

Believing the species can be subdivided into distinct biological entities called races is much different than noticing the difference in skin colors. People get their genes from their parents, not some race of peoples.

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.

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

Generally speaking, the reason is to take advantage of people in a minority or weaker position. Skin color is merely an identifier and an unnecessary condition. The Nazis didn’t have any trouble identifying Jews during the holocaust, for example. Godwins rule. :grimace:

Do the institutions of today systematically take advantage of people in a weaker position? Of course they do. You identifying as a libertarian, I understand your ideological objections to interference or regulation. Still, I’m sure you can appreciate that liberty must be fought for. Ignoring the problem won’t make it go away.

If racism is related to power

If?!

That [passing laws that benefit one race over another] is what YOU and 180 and Baden and fdrake, etc. want. — Harry Hindu

I’d like laws and policies that protect people in a minority or weaker socioeconomic position. It would make a stronger democracy and a more stable economy, morality aside.

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

Well, if that was meant as an analogy it’s a bad one, for reasons that should be clear.

Well, if that was meant as an analogy it’s a bad one, for reasons that should be clear.

My only point was that many refuse to use race in their scientific endeavors, not in their day to day speech.

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.

Completely irrelevant to the line of discussion we were having, and we both know that you know that.

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.

If there was never any grounds in the first place, why would we continue utilizing that concept in our thinking?

Completely irrelevant to the line of discussion we were having, and we both know that you know that.

Oh right, the “discussion” was you rifling through my posts looking for transgressions.

Not all who use the term "race" are using it to justify the devaluation of others. In order to reduce racism, it must be identified. That's part of the problem with your proposed definition. It does not do that. It picks out some individuals that do not devalue others based upon race, and fails to be able to pick out some individuals that devalue others based upon skin color(so long as they do not use the term "race").

My pointing out an attempted deception from you was part of a different line of discussion... and we both know that you know that.

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.

Me pointing out your gossiping and backbiting and misrepresentations reveal a far insidious form of deception I want nothing to do with.

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.

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

There are countless posts here which show that you are not drawing that distinction.

It is unrealistic to think that what was the norm for thousands of generations can change in 11 years. — Harry Hindu

It is improbable for it to change a lot, but not improbable that racial disparities in US poverty rates would decrease (rather than stay constant) if well addressed. 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).

This is even a relatively benign example (though still horrible), trying to talk about colonialism or imperialism here as the most pernicious forms of structural/systemic racism would just look like lefty buzzwords.

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

Your argument: "If this guy I'm shouting at on the internet can't solve all of a country he doesn't live in's problems, I am right and he is wrong".

Again, 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.

By your misrepresentation of my definition, I would be racist because I use the term race.

There are countless posts here which show that you are not drawing that distinction.

I was careful with my formulation of the definition, and at no point did I say “using the term race” constituted racism.

By your misrepresentation of my definition, I would be racist because I use the term race. — NOS4A2

Not a misrepresentation of what you wrote. Perhaps, what you wrote misrepresented what you think or believe, but that's not my problem.

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... They are not the same.

Believing that there are races, and believing that some races are inferior to others have the commonality that 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(the devaluation of another based upon race, skin color, ethnicity), there is no 'racism'.

Yet you've not drawn that distinction, despite the fact that the encyclopedia article you offered did.

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.

Me pointing out your gossiping and backbiting and misrepresentations reveal a far insidious form of deception I want nothing to do with. — NOS4A2

Don't be such a drama queen. It doesn't invalidate anything I've posted, and it's rather pathetic of you to think it would.

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

The FHA does not now engage in racial segregation as a matter of policy. They have been reformed by court orders, legislation, and large changes in the political personnel--different than what existed in 1935. In 1935, southern congressmen could force racial exclusion into federal law. The segregationist congressmen, and their allies north and south, have died.

The point I was making is that, even if we became color blind over night racial segregation would continue. Why is that? It would continue because white people, even if they are 100% enlightened about race, possess so much more valuable real estate than any other group. A big hunk of the wealth advantage is a legacy of the earlier segregation. how? After WWII, vast suburban building projects serving many millions of families, were sold only to white people. These were very good housing properties and they appreciated in value several times over. As the older generation moved on, they liquidated that large value and a younger (white) generation inherited the wealth. Real estate, and racially preferential employment policies, has cemented the white advantage.

Most non-whites lack the accumulated advantages of real estate appreciation and preferential employment. THEREFORE, they will not be able to buy into economically segregated communities. The suburbs stay mostly white because blacks can't afford to buy houses there.

The economic crash of 2007 created conditions for some racial integration. Homes owned by bankrupted victims have, in many cases, been bought up by rental companies. Minorities can often rent a house in an otherwise mostly white neighborhood. Rental companies owning large numbers of housing in a community is never a good thing for housing values, but it opens up some opportunities. If housing prices rise sufficiently, the rental houses will be sold to buyers, who will probably be white.

Don't be such a drama queen. It doesn't invalidate anything I've posted, and it's rather pathetic of you to think it would.

It doesn’t invalidate anything. It just shows what type of person you are.

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

I'll accept that, for now, you are not claiming that using the term "race" is equal to being racist.

You need to make sense of the earlier equivalence drawn between all people who believe that there are human races. According to your definition all of them are racist, even those who fight against the devaluation of another based upon race.

Again...

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

Do you not see the problem here?

Person A is racist, and person B is not. Thus... your definition is wrong.

Yes, as I proposed, a racist is one who believe there are racists. This ideology or worldview, upon which all devaluing and valuing is built, is mental apartheid, mental segregation, and we all know too much where it leads. Would calling them proto-racists suffice?