Posty, you did a FINE JOB. Here's another good book for those interested in the topic:

Family Properties: How the Struggle Over Race and Real Estate Transformed Chicago: Beryl Satter, Picador, 2010.

Beryl Satter's father was involved in an effort to help black people resist and defend themselves from being ripped off by the post WWII Chicago real estate industry. It was a valorous but loosing battle, but the book provides a lot of up-close and personal stories about dispossession rather than stats and maps.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/19/498536077/interactive-redlining-map-zooms-in-on-americas-history-of-discrimination — Posty McPostface

This is a really useful link to examine housing assessments in the late 1930s-40s. Lots of maps of cities showing what was considered (at the time) good, stable, declining, and "hazardous for loaning mortgages" neighborhoods.

thanks for finding the information.

Of course, we don't "need" more Haitians, and we actually don't need more Norwegians here either--there are plenty here already. Besides which, the US would now be a step down for the Norwegians.

Immigration patterns have a history. In the 19th century, Europeans were favored over all others, Europeans didn't just show up here, a lot of them were recruited in Europe. At the time, a major population infusion was needed to populate, cultivate, and work in the western 60% of the country. Europeans remained most favored until early in the 20th century, when we decided that there were too many eastern Europeans here. Then after WWII, there were a couple of major changes, shifting favored status to people south of the Rio Grande. Later on this was changed again, opening more places for Asians, and various Africans, currently West Africans.

It should be noted that all the large batches of immigrants, whether European, African, Asian, or South Americans have almost always resulted in friction with prior arrivals and nattering by political elites. Relatively recently arrived and comfortably settled Northern European immigrants weren't thrilled with all of the Ukrainian Jews and Italians getting off the boat in the late 1800s, early 1900s. Later on the conflicts were between Italians and Puerto Ricans, and so on. Today Italians, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Russians, etc. are the establishment. Mexicans, Hmong, Vietnamese, Chinese, Indians, etc. the earlier wave. The new arrivals currently upsetting the apple cart locally are from Somalia and Burma (not the Rohingya). In this state it's the Karen people from Burma, or Myanmar. In a while they too will be the earlier wave of immigration.

Really, the US doesn't need any more immigrants at all. There are enough people here to meet labor needs (and then some) and to keep the demographics reasonably stable. From a global warming point of view, the more people who live like Americans, the worse it is for the global climate.

New York City, which is probably the only part of the US that Trump (and quite a few of the political elite) knows well--if that, even--is becoming too expensive to absorb new immigrants from poor countries. It's a culturally rich stew, of course, but poor people have a hard time making it in NYC because of rising rents and the other usual costs.

True enough, the US would experience some losses if we expelled all the Haitians, Salvadorans, Hondurans, and some others. The bigger problem for these people would be their forced return home. First, poor countries would lose the remittances their expat citizens send back home. For El Salvador it's a huge hunk of their economy. Second, a country like El Salvador doesn't have the means to reintegrate 200,000 people arriving over a fairly short period of time (like a year or two). Third, El Salvador has the highest murder rate outside of war zones. That's because of gang activity started in southern California and then repatriated to El Salvador.

The situation in Haiti and Honduras are of course different than for the Salvadorans. Haiti used to be either food self-sufficient or close to it--not centuries ago, just decades ago. Now its not, and it wasn't population growth that changed that. It's not only a shit hole, it's a badly fucked over country for which several other countries, including the US, are responsible. Then there have been earthquakes and hurricanes which haven't helped.

Speaking of the Congo, as TimeLine was, "The Congo" had been subjected to a really bad colonial regime by the Belgians, and then were further screwed around with after independence by various countries, and their own thugs.

You realize that there is a legal framework for refugee acceptance, right? — Akanthinos

Actually, I do understand something about the process by which people attain refugee status. Refugees are often in dire straits, and the process by which they get from a refugee center in Kenya, for example, or one in Turkey or Thailand, to Sweden or the United States, Canada, or... is slow and difficult. But that wasn't the question I was asking.

The question I was asking was NOT about refugees, but how does the UK prioritize non-refugee would-be immigrants? Many on the various roads around the world are not refugees. Many are migrants, seeking better opportunities than they can find at home.

It isn't a pickup line. It's a flirty conversation. — Michael

That would be a workable flirty conversation only if you had already engaged in sexually exploitative behavior and were in the eager queue to take off on runway # 1, like, she facing you, your arms around her waist, she pressing herself against you, her lips a tongue flick from yours, and so on.

What was disgusting? Tell me so I can send more of it.

only regret I have was that I didn’t study Latin harder in school so I could converse with them." — TimeLine

Learning Latin wouldn't have helped. They speak Spanish, Portuguese, and an assortment of Amerindian languages. Some even speak English without an Australian accent--always a plus.

I don't think the UK rations out immigration "places" by country. — Michael

So how is it determined which immigrants to accept and which to reject? First come, first served? Most plausible sounding sob story? Parts missing? What?

Being from a shit hole (like New Orleans) doesn't make one into a shit hole. The concern is that people from shit holes (like New Orleans) may lack resources to help themselves in whatever place they end up in.

I'll also share some evidence for my claim that women are, in general, more irrational than men due to certain biological processes and hormones. — JustSomeGuy

The article reminds me of a joke:

Why do they call it "pre-menstrual syndrome"?
Because "mad cow" was already taken.

I'm not sure that the menstrual cycle makes women more irrational; it might, don't know. I think that at least many women in the world are socialized to be less rational, more irrational, or something similar.

It seems like women in other countries are much more rational/mature than Anglo-American-Australian women. But that's not based on first hand knowledge. Rational men are all alike; irrational women are all different in their craziness, as Tolstoy said.

I never voted for Brexit. — Michael

Glad to hear it.

this doesn't really address the issue, which is a claim like "we don't want people from these countries coming here". — Michael

What country is it that makes no distinctions about the number of immigrants from which countries may enter? It is the case that everyone who may wish to can not be accepted. Every immigrant from country A takes up the space that an immigrant from country B would like to occupy. Choices are made. Trumps list of preferred places might not be the same as mine, but there will be preferred sources of immigration.

Why would anyone want the Dutch?
When did you stop voting for Brexit?

Several things can be true at one time.

• Trump is racist.
• Haiti is a shit hole.
• People who live in shit hole countries would rather live somewhere else; that's why they come here.
• People who work at the UN and various African intergovernmental agencies are professionally obligated to object to generalizations which may be only somewhat true and not be entirely false.

Bad subcontractors? Don't designs evolve?

God influences my decisions in that I try to be kind to people and refrain from drugs, alchohol and violence. — Starthrower

Many will approve your abstinence from drugs, alcohol and violence, but you know, God was never very outspoken against alcohol. In fact, there are a few places in the OT where "strong drink" is recommended. We don't know what sort of drug use the ancient Israelies may have had available, and at least in the OT, God doesn't seem all that opposed to the regular application of violence (though He seems to have improved his position on this issue over time).

We evolved. So Charles Darwin?

creepiness — Akanthinos

Vague concept. Can you clarify.

Could you post evidence in support of this? I can't find any information online on it. — Posty McPostface

I assume you are referring to National Defense Education loans. Sorry.

I am afraid my composition was sloppy. It was the FHA loans (and VA housing benefits) that were restricted to whites. I don't know that various groups were systematically excluded from the National Defense education grants. At the time, before and for a while after WWII, discrimination in college admissions was rife. Jews were subject to quota ceilings -- some colleges would only admit a certain number, like the Ivy League schools. Blacks with the cash to pay for college would have run into a brick wall at many admissions offices in 1950. Not all, but at most of them. Hispanics and asians would have had similar experiences, depending where they lived.

Remember, in 1950, non-discrimination laws were a ways into the future.

If you are referencing housing discrimination, I don't have a list of web sites available. Most of the information I have is from The Color of Law and a second book, When Affirmative Action Was White, both recently published.

I will continue to serve Him, because it’s better to be safe than sorry. — Starthrower

that is Pascal's Wager, a perfectly sensible approach.

There are two possibilities: god exists, god does not exist

You have two choices: god exists, god does not exist

You win if you chose "god exists" and in fact "god exists"

You lose if you choose "god does not exist" and in fact "god exists".

If you choose "god exists" and in fact "god does not exist" you lose nothing.

If you choose "god does not exist" and in fact "god does not exist" you lose nothing.

So, your choice is the safe one, and possibly very beneficial.

So true.

This has been resolved in science fiction stories. If memory serves, exiting a worm hole before you reach the opposite end results in death, so it won't matter to you. Since everybody aboard died, there was no one present to figure out where they were.

Recommendation: When traveling through worm holes, just sit still and keep your hands off the controls.

BTW, sharp left hand turns may turn out differently than sharp right hand turns. That is certainly true on the freeway.

We have to assume (because there can't be any material proof) that language and thought arose together in our distant past. We can not now ask the question, "Is rational thought without language possible?"

There are a few people who have been born without hearing who were also rather neglected who grew up with very deficient language. They had some, but not the full set. Oliver Sacks, the always interesting neurologist now deceased, wrote about them in Seeing Voices. It's a nice short book. When they were adults, they finally were instructed in sign language, which is a complete language system. It was a major improvement in their lives, because they now had access to ideas that were previously missing.

There have been a few observed cases of deaf children inventing a language of sorts when nothing else was available. We are designed to acquire and use language, and if nothing else is available, children will start making one up. It's not going to be anything like a full fledged language, but it demonstrates the tight linkage of language and thought. We have to have both, together.

reconciliation over payback — Erik

There is another book, White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg which tells yet another story, While "white privilege" was enshrined in the Colonies as the bedrock of society, the privilege of race applied to only those with wealth and pedigree. Those without wealth and inherited status were viewed as riff-raff, not a whole lot better than slaves.

From the colonies to the present, the bifurcation of whites into "quality people" and "riff raff" (my term, not Isenberg's) has continued. Most white people were wage earners under pretty unfavorable circumstances until only recently. While many white working class people did achieve a reasonably stable, prosperous life by working class standards, they weren't so well off that they could expect to rise very far in society.

It wasn't until the post WWII boom that unionized, working class white people were able to achieve a solid upgrade. Some of that was thanks to programs like the FHA, VA, National Defense Education Loans and so on. In the last 30 to 40 years, however, the economic circumstances of white working class people (the majority of white people) have receded.

Yes, it's fair to mention Donald Trump at this point -- who benefitted from white dissatisfaction and disenchantment with the status quo. But Trump didn't win by a landslide.

So, structuring a payback program for blacks who were pretty thoroughly shafted in the 20th century (never mind having been enslaved up until the middle of the preceding century) must avoid also shafting white working class people who were not the prime movers (and in many cases, not even the beneficiaries) of the federal housing program.

reconciliation over payback — Erik

In his very good book, The Color of Law: How the Federal Government Segregated America, Richard Rothstein makes a useful distinction:

Individual acts of discrimination can not be systematically redressed, all of the 1-on-1 discriminations, refusals to rent, refusals to hire, refusals to share schools, and so forth. What can and ought be redressed are programs of discrimination shaped and supported by law. The laws creating and policies governing the Federal Housing Administration (1935) extended and fixed in place a pattern of nearly complete racial segregation in housing.

The rules were explicit: blacks and whites are to be segregated through the power of guaranteeing home loans issued by lenders. The positive effect of this law is for whites (the home loan and wealth accumulation) and the negative effect of this law is for blacks -- consignment to over-priced second and third-rate housing, primarily rental, and minimal wealth accumulation.

So, it is proper to demand more than reconciliation for systematic housing discrimination, because it was a wrong carried out by government. The wrongs of housing segregation were far reaching, powerfully shaping education and health outcomes, and employment: positively for whites, negatively for blacks. The effects were of course general. There are many exceptions.

Yes, it makes sense within the system of belief. If you don't believe it, then it doesn't make sense.

There isn't any way around belief here: In the beginning there was the Big Bang. So, what triggered the Big Bang? What came before the Big Bang? We don't know, we haven't found out yet, so we have no choice but to believe "somehow" the Big Bang happened.

In the beginning, God said... or In the beginning the Word was... is like the Big Bang: What came before God, or the Word? We don't know. Somehow God brought about the cosmos. We don't know how, and we almost certainly will never get an explanation.

I get the impression from discussions on the internet and reading philosophers that people are not being honest or honest about their biases. — Andrew4Handel

What if they don't know what their biases actually are? They might not be dishonest -- they might not have adequately examined themselves. Biases, like a lot of other influences, operate subconsciously.

For instance, I have a bias in favor of theism; not just any old theism, but mainline Protestant theism. I am probably never really objective when it comes to the topic of God. Even though I claim to be an atheist, that theistic bias is still ticking away down there in level 93 of the subconscious, and I can't keep track of what all it's influencing, at any given moment.

The worst story I can remember my wife telling was of a guy running her to the side of the road with his car while she was riding a bike and then masturbating in front of her. Freaky, and probably not the sort of thing any dude needs to worry about. — praxis

But such routines are so damned complicated! I just don't get it. Rococo perversity.

a guy at a park who was staring me down — Marchesk

It isn't aggression; the intense stare is invitational. It's a silent signal of interest; staring back is likely to be taken as confirmation of interest. for a full discussion of signaling in park restrooms, see Laud Humphrey's Tearoom Trade, 1971, Aldine-Atherton, publisher.

particularly at parks — Marchesk

Tastes vary, but what's not to like about sex in a park? (Maybe not in the shithole, unless it's really well maintained. But if it's that well maintained, it's probably never unattended. It might as well be locked.)

More generally, I don't accept that studies have established women fall for bastards — Benkei

Of course some women fall for bastards. I don't know why they do, but some women gravitate towards abusive men, and when they find an abuser, it is difficult to pry them loose. Sometimes. Childhood abuse sometimes accounts for this tendency, but not always.

I have no problem with women calling out the bastards, the crude abusers, the beaters, and so forth. It is proper that these men should be identified as assaulters. This is not the kind of behavior that is difficult to understand

I'm as gay as June 21st is long, so I have no expertise in relating sexually to women, or even romantically. But...

Is it not the case that men are usually expected by women to be the initiator of romantic activity, of sexual activity, and so on? Women can and do also initiate amorous, romantic sexual activity, but it seems like men are expected to prosecute the case, so to speak. Clearly, the beginning of an assault could be similar to the beginning of an exceedingly pleasant interlude.

If sex is about power (it is only to some extent, frequently not very much) then there are power games women can play as well. There also seems to be a long tradition of women taking the task of controlling male sexuality to suit the needs and wants of women and child rearing.

[Straight men don't behave (sexually) like gay men because straight women don't let them, I have heard. Gay men amongst themselves tend to put up few barriers to sex with each other.]

I can see women (or men) in a relationship (or marriage) fending off advances from an interloper in order to avoid conflict. But the same fending off of advances seems to occur just as often when there is no relationship to defend. It appears to be a power game, I hear references to women repelling advances from someone in an ordinary social situation, but it seems like there is a certain amount of 'gate keeping' about it. "I'm free of any commitments, but male approaches have to be metered so I stay in control."

So that hand on the knee is ok, moving 2 inches up the thigh is ok, but 3 inches exceeds the allowable loss of control.

It isn't assault and battery that is disruptive about #me2, it's the power game playing that is confusing and annoying, and the power game is one women do and can play along with men. Women aren't defenseless, powerless, ineffectual agents; they never have been, and they aren't now.

I'm not very interested in the cultural wars over race and gender, and I generally am no more than annoyed with it.

But... There has been systematic impoverishment of some people (not just blacks) and the systematic enrichment of others (not just whites) through law and government programs. Over time the differences in wealth between haves and have nots has become quite extreme. No one is guilty but everyone is responsible. I don't feel guilty, but I do feel some responsibility. I would hope many would feel responsible (which isn't the same as guilt or being a bad actor).

Surely you have read or heard accusatory references to "white males" dead or alive, "white privilege", and so on, with the implication the privileges of whites and men have cost people of color and women something they would otherwise have had?

the thread is a play on the title of the "Why should you feel guilty" thread.

Actually, I do not feel guilty for being a rich white male (rich, relative to dwellers in the suddenly famous shit holes of the world). However, casting guilt seems to be the intention of referencing white privilege, male privilege, first world wealth, etc. If I have white privileges, or male privileges, or both rolled up together, fine by me. But Billy Bragg says "Rights are merely privileges extended/if not enjoyed by one and all". Why would one not enjoy having privileges, earned or inherited? I don't have much wealth, though I do have a lot of "stuff" I would like to get rid of.

Perhaps I should send my old dusty books, old ratty clothes, and collection of screws, nails, and other odds and ends overseas. Or at least to a poor family in the near-by shit hole. I have quite a few plastic food containers, for instance, two plastic pink flamingos--surely one is enough. Would you like one of them? How about an interior door I retrieved from the alley? Need one? Once I get rid of the dusty books, I'll have some unused book cases. They're quite lovely -- still unpainted, after many years of use.

So, we practice affirmative action, and decisions shouldn't be driven by emotional reasoning. What's the point? — Posty McPostface

What's the point of what -- affirmative action or emotional reasoning?

So here: While it is true, that some whites and blacks are tied for last place at the bottom of the barrel, most Most black people are much, much poorer than most white people. The gap in wealth is not an accident. Whites were given tremendous wealth creating opportunities in the form of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) starting in the 1930s. The program was intended to assist white people and to do nothing for black people: it was written into the policies when Roosevelt created the program. Millions of Americans bought new homes with mortgages guaranteed by FHA. These homes have since appreciated several times over, plus inflation. A very affordable post WWII house selling for $8,000 in 1950 ($100,000 roughly in 2015 dollars) sold for $300,000 to $450,000) in 2016. That's a tremendous gain of wealth that can be used for advancing education and careers. White veterans also were eligible for college loans or grants. Blacks (and Mexicans, Aboriginals, and Asians) were systematically excluded.

Most black workers in the south (domestic workers and agricultural workers) were not even eligible for social security until quite a bit later.

Affirmative action is not robust enough to undo the damage of "dis-privileging" black people in these critical ways for 50 years. Reparations are in order, many people feel. Why? Because these programs were not an act of individual racism. There isn't much than can be done to pay people back for private racism. But the FHA was a federal program, not a private one. When the government does wrong, it should be corrected, and in this case, it means transferring wealth.

How do you feel about being asked to help scrape up the billions that would be coming to black people? I'm not baiting you. Were we to solve the problem, people would pay for the correction out of tax revenue. Lots of poeple would object, many for good reason. "I didn't benefit, why should I have to help pay?" "I didn't cause the problem, why should I have to pay?"

Intelligence is obviously important, but so are personality traits that support long-term focused activity. "Drive", whatever that is, would be high on my list. Ambition; openness to new ideas; patience; The ability to sit still and read for lengthy periods--take notes, remember; the ability to contemplate a problem for hours or days on end; a good memory; freedom from disruptive distractions, etc.

Involvement with other people who have kindred interests. A quality education which imparts the necessary knowledge and skills. Connections with at least somewhat powerful people who can create openings for one's work.

Freedom isn't a personal trait, but creative people (in whatever field) have to have enough freedom to actually produce. Not just political freedom, but personal freedom; religious freedom; economic freedom.

Since you only know about the productive people that have intelligence, and have no historical information about the vast host of intelligent people who history does not record, you have decided that intelligence and productivity are necessarily linked. — charleton

Exactly.

You are right that it is social privilege and the system of family support, encouragement, contacts, resources, etc. that comes with it. Without this privilege of wealth, a very smart white and poor working class boy living in a West Virginia shithole will be unable to develop his intelligence and interests.

white male — darthbarracuda

Surely you are aware that being "white" and "male" is no guarantee of privilege, or that being "white" and "male" is inherently privileged.

Of all the roughly 500,000,000 white males presently in the world, I would guess 98% are not "materially and socially privileged as to have the means to pursue personal interests in the depths these people did". Sex and race do not differentiate what accounts for the difference between 490,000,000 who are white and male and without the wherewithal to pursue personal interests in depth and the 10,000,000 who have the necessary resources.

I submit that it is substantial disposable wealth that differentiates those who can pursue their personal interests in depth, and those who can not. "Substantial disposable wealth" isn't a little extra cash; it's a lot of extra cash, cash from investments, rent, interest, dividends -- the usual sources of substantial disposable wealth.

I had my own religious wrapping to peel off; it was more Wesleyan than Calvinist, but still a problem, since I no longer assented. It has taken a very long time to resolve the issue, if it is even. Decades.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

I love to argue with people, and discuss, and explore, but I have pretty much ceased being a fan of trying to educate my relatives. My siblings have become progressively more conservative (we are all over 70) one of them in particular is an ardent Calvinist of some sort. She wants to save her siblings, but with me, at least, she usually ends up in a rage because I don't, won't, can't agree with her.

She is better off, clearly, wrapped up in the Baptist Bullshit Calvinist Cocoon. It gives her mental certainty and security. She needs those things (like we all do) and while she is more than intelligent enough to pursue other views, lacks the educational background to do so on her own.

So we don't talk about politics or religion anymore, which are of course the two most interesting of all topics. Money is a touchy area too, as are some parts of our common history. We can talk about health very successfully. We're all reasonably healthy, but at our age health problems are always just around the corner, either in the past or the future. Weather, crop yields, gossip about other people, and that sort of thing work well too.

Just avoid philosophy, religion, politics, and economics, the idiot occupying the white house, congress, and the like and everything will go fine.

...