So your inquiry was pointless.

Nope.

Please allow me to rephrase. Your inquiry appears to be pointless. What is the point?

Which inquiry?

It was so long ago and forgettable, hmm, let me see… something about fake taxes applying to people? Was that it?

They apply it. — NOS4A2

And what, pray tell, are you not applying it to? Human beings. — praxis

Then it's confusing. Because then those who say they are fighting racism are basically also upholding it.

At least I try to treat people as individuals. I don't believe in stereotypes. If there are 50 people belonging to some group, be it race, sex, age, nationality, class, occupation or whatever, 1 of them will likely be just like the stereotype we have of that group. 49 people won't be with many being as far as possible from the stereotypical ideas.

Then it's confusing. Because then those who say they are fighting racism are basically also upholding it. — ssu

To reiterate an earlier point, the problem isn't applying "pseudoscientific taxonomies", the problem is a marginalized group being taken advantage of. How can trying to prevent a group of people from being taken advantage of be taking advantage of them? Politicizing the issue to garner public support and gain a position of power, all the while not having any intention of significantly helping the marginalized group, could be one way. That's the way that Trumpets like NOS prefer see it, I presume.

Politicizing the issue to garner public support and gain a position of power, all the while not having any intention of significantly helping the marginalized group, could be one way. — praxis

Yet isn't the problem that your talking about groups, focusing and upholding groups and not individuals? Really, I think it always starts with the formal application that you have to fill in asking your race. Asking for sex or nationality might have some value, but why race?

You see there isn't the application that asks if one is lower/middle/upper class. You don't literally segregate people into classes by saying them in which category they are. Simply the income and wealth separates classes by living and other things. Yet there are ways to avoid that this separation doesn't become a huge problem. We don't need to have people openly and actively dividing people to these classes. That there are rich and poor is obvious. Yet smart city planning can avoid the situation where the rich seclude themselves in one place and the poor end up in a slum or ghetto. That's the way to do it. And it doesn't start asking people in which class they belong to.

Yet isn't the problem that your talking about groups, focusing and upholding groups and not individuals? — ssu

I wrote:

the problem is a marginalized group being taken advantage of — praxis

Such is the paradox. They apply racism to fight racism. Hence the term in the US “positive discrimination”. It’s good racism, the kind of racism that benefits the racialized groups we prefer, whether they are victims of racism or not.

Yes, you wrote that.

But let's say we have a marginalized group like "middle-age to eldelry single males with low income". Not easy for them to get into higher paying jobs or to get rental flats. Lot of problems in this group at least in my country. Yet is it better to refer them as a group as "MATESMaWLI?" So in order to help MATESMaWLI-persons, we have to make this divide between MATESMaWLI and other men?

Such is the paradox. They don’t apply racism to fight racism. Hence the term in the US “positive discrimination”. — NOS4A2

Americans have this fixation on race. And it's not going anywhere. I do understand that poverty and race do go hand in hand in the US still. But still. If you want it to be the most important issue, then I guess it will be that.

I personally think that Robin DiAngelo is a great personification of a racist turned to be this anti-racist accusing every white person being such a racist as she still is. And corporations will give her the big bucks to preach this. How progressive.

But let's say we have a marginalized group like "middle-age to eldelry single males with low income". Not easy for them to get into higher paying jobs or to get rental flats. Lot of problems in this group at least in my country. Yet is it better to refer them as a group as "MATESMaWLI?" So in order to help MATESMaWLI-persons, we have to make this divide between MATESMaWLI and other men? — ssu

Here in 'Merika we have this natural talent called “stereotyping”. With a mere glance we can all but instantly assess a complete stranger. With attributes such as age, weight, fitness, bearing, and attire, we can estimate social status, and perhaps much more, practically instantly. If there were a corresponding label for a particular set of attributes and the social status they’re associated with, a label like “MATESMaWLI”, for example, then that label would come to mind. It would come to mind regardless if anyone wanted it to, if they possessed knowledge of the term. In America we call poor single middle-age men losers. Good thing I’m married!

Here in 'Merika we have this natural talent called “stereotyping”. With a mere glance we can all but instantly assess a complete stranger. With attributes such as age, weight, fitness, bearing, and attire, we can estimate social status, and perhaps much more, practically instantly. If there were a corresponding label for a particular set of attributes and the social status they’re associated with, a label like “MATESMaWLI”, for example, then that label would come to mind. It would come to mind regardless if anyone wanted it to, if they possessed knowledge of the term. In America we call poor single middle-age men losers. Good thing I’m married! — praxis

Praxis, I think you just informed me from where the structural racism comes from in your country. :up:

(Yeah, “MATESMaWLI” would be a great definition for a certain male type.)

Please explain.

I start with the assumption that stereotyping is a natural talent that is evenly distributed across the world's population. It is a very useful skill. Just compare your judgement of men who you can only see between ankles and waist:


dark blue worsted wool pants
vs
cotton denim factory-ripped pants
vs
oversized pants almost falling off buttocks

You could derive considerable information about each man, just from 1 piece of clothing. Given a wider view, you could derive much more reasonably accurate information. Of course, one shouldn't take one's stereotypical views as gospel. The dark blue worsted wool pants could have a leading role in a criminal enterprise, but probably not. The falling off buttocks pants could belong to a blond guy, but probably not. The factory ripped pants might be too poor to afford better pants, but probably not.

It isn't just prejudiced people that see patterns. People also behave in patterns. That's why stereotyping yields reasonably accurate results.

Such is the paradox. They apply racism to fight racism.

This is like saying the police apply crime to fight crime whenever they intervene to stop / investigate murders and robberies. No "paradox", just gaslighting or idiocy or both. :shade:

@ssu doesn’t believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, or stereotyping, so this is all just fairytales to him.

It isn't just prejudiced people that see patterns. People also behave in patterns. That's why stereotyping yields reasonably accurate results. — Bitter Crank

Yet then how to behave on that stereotype is the issue. And notice yourself that you said "reasonably accurate". As I've said, believing in stereotypes to be "reasonably accurate" then makes some people to believe in stereotypes and they don't take people as individuals. Who cares, if it's reasonably accurate. And racism creeps easily to those often funny stereotypes. If there is a lot of social cohesion, those stereotypes won't matter so much: people try to behave honorably towards strangers. If there is a rift or hostility between groups of people and there is a lack of social cohesion, it will immediately show.

Yet if the stereotypical person is an applicant of some form, someone in need of help or so, to get over the stereotype and treat him or her as an individual is a little bit more is important than when just observing passers by.

As I've said, believing in stereotypes to be "reasonably accurate" then makes some people to believe in stereotypes and they don't take people as individuals. — ssu

This is silly, as though if a person ‘believes in stereotypes’ they’re slaves to them and can’t distinguish individuals.

Who cares, if it's reasonably accurate. And racism creeps easily to those often funny stereotypes. — ssu

Stereotyping itself is not the reason that racism exists, obviously. Stereotyping does exist though, so it’s best to try dealing with it intelligently, taking control of the narrative as they say in PR talk, rather than ignoring it.

If there is a lot of social cohesion, those stereotypes won't matter so much: people try to behave honorably towards strangers. If there is a rift or hostility between groups of people and there is a lack of social cohesion, it will immediately show. — ssu

It may sound odd but a powerful method for achieving social cohesion is for leaders to identify others. A charismatic leader may intentionally create a rift, or exploit an existing one, in order to help galvanize a group identity. ‘The chosen ones’, or those that share our values, norms, purposes, etc., don’t need to behave honorably towards the others because they are lesser. Unscrupulous leaders of this kind don’t want you to believe in stereotypes. They want you to be color-blind. It’ll make it easier to fool you.

Having spent 40+ years in education and social services, I am well aware of unique and individual differences that confound stereotypes. But at the same time, one sees that people definitely fall into groups of particular traits. We do not, can not, begin each new person-to-person encounter as if we were meeting a species never before encountered.

There is a philosophical divide between those who think "people are all alike" and "people are all different". But practically we don't operate that way. As we get to know 50 to 100 individuals much better -- because they are close friends, family members, spouses, children, long term colleagues, we learn and adapt to all sorts of differences. But the people in our lives who are that well known are likely to be relatively few in number.

Because people are very similar, we can behave in ways that will reliably reduce or increase friction and conflict or ease interactions and reduce conflict, for example. There are plenty of positive aspects to 'everybody is alike'.

This is silly, as though if a person ‘believes in stereotypes’ they’re slaves to them and can’t distinguish individuals. — praxis

Lol, quite a strawman there.

Stereotyping itself is not the reason that racism exists, obviously. Stereotyping does exist though, so it’s best to try dealing with it intelligently, taking control of the narrative as they say in PR talk, rather than ignoring it. — praxis

Try to take control of the narrative then. I assume you can do even there if it is about something else than race.

It may sound odd but a powerful method for achieving social cohesion is for leaders to identify others. A charismatic leader may intentionally create a rift, or exploit an existing one, in order to help galvanize a group identity. ‘The chosen ones’, or those that share our values, norms, purposes, etc., don’t need to behave honorably towards the others because they are lesser. Unscrupulous leaders of this kind don’t want you to believe in stereotypes. They want you to be color-blind. It’ll make it easier to fool you. — praxis

?

Social cohesion basically refers to the extent of connectedness and solidarity among different groups in society. Creating rifts and galvanizing one individual group's identity is the opposite of social cohesion.

My country avoided an ethnic conflict with the simple fact that the Swedish-speaking community here never identified themselves as Swedes, but Finns. And the Finnish speaking majority never saw them as Swedish, as foreigners, either. I found only one very nationalistic student paper from the 1930's which referred to the Swedish speaking people being Swedes. And even that paper didn't see the people as a threat or enemy, even if the Swedish speaking elite had "priviledges" at that time starting from the fact that the Capital Helsinki was just transforming from a Swedish speaking town to a Finnish speaking city. Hence We never have such political unrest as even Canada has seen in the French speaking part. Yes, there a small debate about the role of the Swedish language in schools, but it's something that basically belongs to a democracy. There's no hostility between these two genuinely ethnic groups.

Having spent 40+ years in education and social services, I am well aware of unique and individual differences that confound stereotypes. But at the same time, one sees that people definitely fall into groups of particular traits. We do not, can not, begin each new person-to-person encounter as if we were meeting a species never before encountered. — Bitter Crank

And I'm surely not asking that.

Because people are very similar, we can behave in ways that will reliably reduce or increase friction and conflict or ease interactions and reduce conflict, for example. There are plenty of positive aspects to 'everybody is alike'. — Bitter Crank

Yes.

Perhaps the American problem can tried to be explained by an example one of my wife's friends told. This friend is a Mexican, with her father being Canadian and the mother Mexican. She looks like an American brunette WASP, very Anglo-Saxon with pale skin. She speaks perfect English with a Canadian accent and her appearance get's her into trouble in Mexico City as people assume she is a gringo. She was for a while in school in the US and made friends in her class easily. Then one day the principle remembered that she was Mexican and asked if she was willing to help some new Latino students in the school with their English. She agreed and didn't understand what would happen to her then. Word got around that she was a Mexican and immediately her prior friends disappeared and didn't invite her into their doings. She had broken the community divide as she should obviously ought to have known that Latinos only hang in their own group.

Just like the English uphold fervently their class system, so do Americans their own system. And I'm not personally confident about this new anti-racism really putting any end to racism. It just makes it different.

Just one of the first links in a google search:

Watching My Child Experience Racism in a Country of Contentment

Also offered for your amusement:

Implicit Association Test

There have been studies, btw, which correlate IAT results and real-world situations that significantly affect people's lives, even for those who may consider themselves without bias.

And I'm surely not asking that. — ssu

No, you are a well-traveled urban sophisticate, and if you are not urban then you are urbane. In America there are these dreaded 'diversity workshop leaders' who inflict upon their victims stereotypes of people living in monolithic white, suburban, heterosexual cultures who are incapable of insightful, sensitive reactions to persons from unfamiliar cultures. The diversity trainer isn't deploying a clever strategy; they are just selling a shallow idea.

Your wife's friend suffered from having her identity 'spoiled'. She didn't possess the precise identity that her friends thought she had. "Spoiled identity" can be a savage experience. It has happened to me once or twice. One of the good things about our rootlessness is that one can uproot and plant one's self somewhere else fairly easily. One need not be forever stuck with the spoiled identity.

The 'no second acts' idea of F. Scott Fitzgerald might be more valid in a rigid class system such as the UK's, and more in the past than the present. Part of the problem of rigid class system is that the top ranks and not that populous, and if you offend some grand dame, then everyone in your small circle will know about it, and may be inclined to shun you.

Just like the English uphold fervently their class system, so do Americans their own system. And I'm not personally confident about this new anti-racism really putting any end to racism. It just makes it different. — ssu

I don't believe that a classless society exists; I also don't believe that a society without deeply ingrained biases exists.

As far as I can tell, there is no national intention of putting an end to racism. There is plenty of lip service for the idea; there are numerous programs; there are all sorts of initiatives to nudge people towards being nice to one another.

Like this:

@SSU

As far as I can tell, there is no national intention of putting an end to racism. — Bitter Crank

The American Class System rests on a very solid foundation of exploitation. We are not at all unique in this respect. Successive groups have been exploited quite ruthlessly: Poor Englishmen, American Indians, blacks, poor immigrants, Mexicans, Chinese... The degree to which exploitation and suppression has been practiced varies by groups. Whites, of course, had the greatest chance of escaping from the bottom of the class system, but this has not been even remotely universal. Working class whites have remained an exploited majority group. A portion have escaped the "working class" and become "middle class" -- and here "middle class" means business ownership, management, or licensed professional work (medicine, law...). Blacks had the smallest chance of escaping from the bottom, as have American Indians. SE Asians, Chinese, Mexicans, and Caribbean Islanders have faced persistent barriers.

Classism and racial prejudice (in every direction) serves extremely well to keep the the overwhelming majority of working people divided against themselves. And it isn't just prejudice. Class interests are real.

Putting an end to racism, exploitation, class divisions, and so on would break many of the pylons on which the structure of ruling class power rests. It would also break boundaries which various groups have erected around themselves. We could have a people's revolution; that doesn't seem likely. Even less likely is the Ruling Class shooting themselves in the head. Not going to happen,

Classism and racial prejudice (in every direction) serves extremely well to keep the the overwhelming majority of working people divided against themselves. And it isn't just prejudice. Class interests are real.

Putting an end to racism, exploitation, class divisions, and so on would break many of the pylons on which the structure of ruling class power rests. It would also break boundaries which various groups have erected around themselves. We could have a people's revolution; that doesn't seem likely. Even less likely is the Ruling Class shooting themselves in the head. Not going to happen, — Bitter Crank

Well said, Bitter Crank.

And I guess because there is social mobility upwards and also downwards, then the color of your skin is the last refuge for this division. Your observation also reinforces my thinking that the political discourse in the US is to divide and rule.

I don't believe that a classless society exists; I also don't believe that a society without deeply ingrained biases exists. — Bitter Crank

It surely not doesn't, because what we intend for the society to be is a meritocracy. And that results also in a class society. The question is if there is enough social mobility.

As far as I can tell, there is no national intention of putting an end to racism. There is plenty of lip service for the idea; there are numerous programs; there are all sorts of initiatives to nudge people towards being nice to one another. — Bitter Crank

Well, those don't work. The success has been basically that now a white racist will look over his shoulders before uttering the n-word.

We could have a people's revolution; that doesn't seem likely. — Bitter Crank

I agree with you. The US would be ripe for a unifying movement and one emerging would be theoretically possible, but I think it's unlikely. What is more likely is that you will have radical movements on the left and on the right that then will absolutely hate each other. In public debate poignant commentators who annoy the other side will be cherished. Yet it's not a debate when you don't listen to the other one. And what else those in power now could hope for? Other than they don't instill the divide into violence on the streets.

The US of course will go it's own way. All I can say that the Nordic model of "Folkhemmet", national home, has at least worked in the past as it has been alliance with the social democrat movement and the conservatives: the conservatives understanding that the welfare of the working class and the poor are very important and the social democrats understanding that the capitalist system has merits too. The real power in a left-right alliance is to have the ability to agree on few basic important issues and then let the less important details be the center of the political fight and heated political debate. When policies get to the level of agreement as the US supporting Israel (lousy example, but you get the point) then things happen. Here the parties are at their throats, as typical, but when it comes security policy and Russia, suddenly they are in unison. Naturally they don't openly admit it.

No, you are a well-traveled urban sophisticate, and if you are not urban then you are urbane. — Bitter Crank

Lol. Well, something like that. We don't have diversity training. Yet. I assume it will come here too.

"Spoiled identity" can be a savage experience. It has happened to me once or twice. One of the good things about our rootlessness is that one can uproot and plant one's self somewhere else fairly easily. One need not be forever stuck with the spoiled identity. — Bitter Crank

Race taxonomies are a pseudoscience as agreed on this thread, so "spoiled identities" do happen. All those "diversity workshop leaders" have to get their jobs! At least there are women and sexual minorities among the white Finns in the workplaces.

As Finns have lived in the same place for literally thousands of years, that identity based on language and your family roots is really hard to be transformed. At least for the US there is an identity that everyone can be an American. Finland along with other Nordic countries are struggling with this as there hasn't been such an option to become one earlier in the national myth. My wife, even if she has dual-citizenship now, thinks that she will be never be accepted here. And she doesn't like so much Finns in general (hopefully at least there's one exception). I just pick on her sometimes that I have darker skin than she has.

Alas while it is true that a classless society does not exist and for that matter never has at least not after discovering fire. there have always been people that were better at organizing others (though they did not always achieve leadership), those that just had a knack for raising crops (the proverbial GREEN THUMB), people better at teaching (usually women because the men went off to hunt and fight), There were those better at art (I still cannot color inside the lines), Musicians, Dancers, Mathmaticians

There were also those with the gift of gab and those that just would not conform or weren't able to. Those with calming, soothing voices who learned to heal the mind, body, and soul.

I made good sense to have women who stayed back from hunting and raiding (for what they couldn't get on their own). These women naturally would teach the young the basics of their history, tribal ethics and morals, what plants to eat or more importantly what not to eat, basics of hunting. They were the ones who were the keepers of the civilization's lore and wisdom because they would always be there to teach. You never knew who would return from a hunt or a raid, so you could not rely on them being able to hand down the knowledge. Only the women. And the women of tribal civilizations often times would be the leaders, shamans, and healers. They had all the knowledge to hand down to the next generations.