I'm not going to call merely describing reality while identifying people by their races is racist, I do that and have done it many times this thread. — Judaka
What utter nonsense!
Racial discrimination is all about the color of one's skin. You cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing upon it. You cannot focus upon it without focusing upon skin color. — creativesoul
Making assumptions based on race; depends a lot of how it's done, no? Is it in intellectual act of critique which highlights socio-economic-legal disparities ("privileges")? In this context assumptions based on race are neutral on the metaphysics of race *; it doesn't have to matter what race is for the purposes of showing what it does. You don't hold any opinions of any individual, you hold opinions of a population based on disparities that the population has been shown to face.
That is much different, I hope is clear, from holding a negative opinion or treating someone badly in a manner rooted in their race. — fdrake
socio-economic-legal disparities — fdrake
By systemic discrimination I understand a socio-economic mechanism that increases the chances of negative outcomes for members of a group * based upon their membership of that group. — fdrake
A discriminatory prejudice is a negative judgement of a person that results in holding an unsubstantiated negative opinion of their character, capacities, and possible behaviours causally derived from an agent's recognition of their membership in a group. A racial prejudice is a discriminatory prejudice where the group assignment mechanism is race — fdrake
For example, if we eradicated all forms of systemic racism in the US (magically, instantly) but black Americans are still disproportionately poor (not changed), would that be a problem for you? — Judaka
↪Number2018
It seems to me that that account is an oversimplification based upon a couple of false equivalencies. Supporting X is not equivalent to not challenging X.
Complicity requires knowledge of that which one is an accomplice to and the intent to be an accomplice. Typically it is some illegal action and/or wrongdoing. Typically speaking many white people - particularly those lacking close relationships with non whites - are not aware of the everyday struggles that non whites suffer simply for being non white. White privilege is a benefit that many(perhaps most poor) whites do not realize that they have. To say that they are complicit in systemic racism is problematic to say the very least. To say that they are responsible for something that was otherwise completely out of their control, is wrong-minded to say the least. There are much better approaches. — creativesoul
Yeah. You seem to think that names only refer to people(or perhaps that only proper nouns are names?). Names pick something out of this world to the exclusion of all else. Not just people have names. The red brick has a name too. "Red brick" is the name we've given to red bricks. "Red brick" is not a red brick. Houses are made of red bricks, not "red bricks". When I name the object I want you to hand me, if it is a red brick, I call it by it's name. "Hand me a red brick". — creativesoul
"White privilege" is a name that refers to the immunity that all white individuals have from suffering injury because one is non white. Below are explicit descriptions of white privilege. — creativesoul
Therefore, individuals may exercise acts of systemic racism unbeknownst to themselves, or even contrary to their intentions, — Number2018
Supporting X is not equivalent to not challenging X. — creativesoul
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
For me there's a distinction between complicity - what I think MLK diagnoses as the system justifying behaviour of the "white moderate" in a different vocabulary - and collaboration, like the FBI's actions against black civil rights movements in COINTELPRO + within Garvey's movement. Complicity's "The wrong life cannot be lived rightly" vs collaboration's being an agent that works to promote or sustain the unjust conditions of life. — fdrake
Both require direct, knowledgeable involvement in a previously determined illegal act. — Pro Hominem
Racist = uses racial categories in arguments = can think about people in terms of races. — fdrake
If complicity and collaboration in an injustice both require that that injustice is illegal, it becomes impossible to be complicit in or collaborate in the execution of an unjust law; since by definition it is legal — fdrake
As long as we continue to employ the language and symbolism of the race-based view of the world, we will never live in a "post-racist" world. This is my concern with most anything that uses the "black" or "white" labels. If every one of us just stopped believing those terms correlated to something real in the world, racism would immediately disappear. That is what the end of racism looks like. — Pro Hominem
Racial discrimination is all about the color of one's skin. — creativesoul
You cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing upon it. You cannot focus upon it without focusing upon skin color. — creativesoul
Magically abolish racial categorisation in language, there would still be systemic discrimination, and it won't be long after that until racial stereotypes crop up — fdrake
So racism is inevitable? I could not more vehemently disagree. — Pro Hominem
Why not start on that now? — Pro Hominem
Oh no. That's not what I meant at all. I simply meant that how we talk about race isn't the primary means by which systemic racism re/produces itself - in my view the primary means are economic and legal (function of the enforcement of law rather than letter of the law). Say when Glasgow Council decided to tackle the systemic risk of knife crime, they didn't intervene on how people spoke about each other, they treated it as a public health and education issue; effectively increasing the social capital of the target communities to address the conditions that lead to knife crime being more commonplace in those areas. They did not and could not stop anyone referring to community members as neds or schemies, but they could address the disadvantages that increased the risk of knife crime for the targets of the words.
"Defund the Police" from the BLM protests wants a similar shift in strategic focus; public health over punishment, prevention through addressing the economic issues that lead to higher crime rates over the punitive treatment of the symptoms of those issues — fdrake
In a time where "Black Lives Matter" is an effective rallying slogan, and "white privilege" as a concept is forcing us to discuss systemic racism like this, it is still completely necessary. — fdrake
Immunity is a thing. Exemption is a thing. — creativesoul
(sorry if an American bias is present there - I acknowledge it and it doesn't change my point). — Pro Hominem
Straw manning again. I did not say that vocabulary was sufficient to end racism. I said it was a factor. — Pro Hominem
Obviously addressing the conditions that support the racist fiction is a bigger factor. I would never say otherwise, and have in fact said that I don't think the "white privilege" framing is somehow fatal to progress in race issues - I just think it's unproductive. — Pro Hominem
Immunity is a thing. Exemption is a thing.
— creativesoul
...and you've decided to "name" those things "white privilege?"
Seriously, what are you saying? That's incoherent. — Pro Hominem
Racial discrimination is all about the color of one's skin.
— creativesoul
I am tentatively agreeing with this. I think it's correct, but it's very broad so reserving the right to re-examine. This is me agreeing with you.
You cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing upon it. You cannot focus upon it without focusing upon skin color.
— creativesoul
To finish this syllogism, "therefore you cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing on skin color." I would argue this is false — Pro Hominem
What would you replace "white privilege" with? I'm genuinely curious, not asking in a "gotcha" way. Or if you don't agree that the role that concept plays in discourse still needs to be played, why not? — fdrake
Racist = personally defines or categorizes people by the color of their skin, according to a made up concept called "race"... — Pro Hominem
Well. Do it. — creativesoul
Every language user who has ever used the terms "black", "white", "asian" is racist according to that criterion for what counts as being racist. — creativesoul
Y says X is bad
some people are X
Y is bad — Pro Hominem
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.