5 ms·

Why Race Relations Got Worse: Our Conversations Are Increasingly Tribalistic

8 points by bkohlmann 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago
Unless the underlying economic issues are tackled (basically blacks being hit with a huge economic disadvantage for generations due to racism and issues stemming from it (redlining, segregation, Jim Crow, poorly funded school districts, etc.), race relations can't progress much further. That's because they are also "class" relations, and US society sees it fit to offend, deride and look down upon the poor. So when blacks are predominantly poorer, the will be looked down. People are less inclined to be racist to middle class/richer families (and the inverse is the reason that most can be trivially discriminating and offensive against poor white people "white trash", "trailer tress", the homeless, etc -- the poor, even white ones, are fair game for discrimination and abuse). And this can't be trivialized to "it's 2016, slavery stopped in 1865, they had all the chances to bounce back". Black people alive today, in their 60s, have faced segregation. It's not some ancient history. Their parents faced Jim Crow. They couldn't get job opportunities, study where they wanted, etc. When parents are held down, their kids wont get the education their white middle class peers afforded for theirs. And that will pass on to the next generation, keeping them poorer. And there has been plenty of racism in hiring decisions, redlining, etc since the 70s to assure this goes on. "Affirmative action" compared to the damages done is a drop in the bucket.
- internaut 10y ago
  That sounds right, but is it right? If I understand your position correctly then there is no room for the possibility that blacks (or the so called white trash) are getting in their own way. You have to look upon that possibility as a hypothesis to test for. Otherwise we might as well be treating minority group X like our pets instead of being autonomous human beings. There have existed a great many persecuted peoples in recent history, the Irish, the Jews, the Chinese, the Roma. My race I know did much better abroad than in our home country, evidently institutional constraints were real. If you don't look at all the data you're going to open to the reasonable accusation of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. In my view the question to ask is: Do there exist places on earth where this minority X have better metrics (or subgroups within the population)? Here we ignore genetics and environment questions entirely, we are simply searching for evidence contrary to our (often considered disagreeable in our present culture) hypothesis that the people X are the cause of their own suffering. If not, then by induction we accumulate evidence in favour of the hypothesis. If so, then there is something that can be changed to improve circumstances. For what it is worth, it seems clear to me that whenever there exist new frontiers, fresh cultural experiments can take hold and there can be new beginnings, with America itself being an example of that. Even were it all genetics I would still have some optimism because this is something we can intelligently design around with our technologies, although that line of reasoning is treated as being deeply suspect in our present culture and time. I don't think that can last for much longer though, I and many others see those moral qualms as preposterous as the protests of the anti-vax people. The last thing I'll say is more subjective, but I agree that class issues are the problem the US and Western countries face today. Had we superior economic growth these could be papered over but we don't have the kind of growth we need for that and so they shall have to be faced head on. Stephen Pinker's book on violence reminds me of the futurists who predicted permanent state of peace before world war 1, I think we're heading into some choppy waters.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >If I understand your position correctly then there is no room for the possibility that blacks (or the so called white trash) are getting in their own way. You have to look upon that possibility as a hypothesis to test for. Otherwise we might as well be treating minority group X like our pets instead of being autonomous human beings. I could acknowledge a subgroup of a larger group "causing their own harm". E.g. white trash, or a subgroup of blacks. On the other hand, I don't see how a group like blacks can in general, and for its majority, "cause its own harm", in a different amount than another group. Unless there is evidence of genetic differences to cause discrepancies, I would expect both blacks and whites to have similar percentages of people that "cause their own harm" all other things being equal. Which is not what we see. But of course, all other things are not equal either. One group was extracted forcefully from their native culture and country and forced to work as slaves for centuries, the other was not. One group faced persistent persecution and specific laws against it until late in the 20th century, the other did not.
    - internaut 10y ago
      > On the other hand, I don't see how a group like blacks can in general, and for its majority, "cause its own harm", in a different amount than another group. Alright, I see that to be in error. Suppose we were talking about sex differences. Feminists frequently point out that men are murderous. They commit almost all murders. Usually of other men. Clearly this is a subgroup in the general population that causes disproportionate problems in an area that another group i.e. women, do not. I'm not a feminist but I've no trouble or dispute with the notion that men are more violently dangerous than women. We are. It is a fact. This of course is not an argument to discriminate against all men. Evidently there are different sorts of discrimination. Some wise, some sexist. > Unless there is evidence of genetic differences to cause discrepancies, I would expect both blacks and whites to have similar percentages of people that "cause their own harm" all other things being equal. That is exactly what conservatives, reactionaries and others do say. They say there is evidence of genetic differences which lead to different outcomes. This is not a black/white thing by the way, that is just an American-centric example. We could easily talk about Europeans and Japanese people too, Europeans are significantly more likely to be violent than Japanese people. Of course average rates of violence is not the only criteria on which people should be judged. There are other things humans do besides that! > But of course, all other things are not equal either. Right, exactly. > One group was extracted forcefully from their native culture and country and forced to work as slaves for centuries, the other was not. One group faced persistent persecution and specific laws against it until late in the 20th century, the other did not. That is true, and yet if I remember correctly poor whites in Appalachia have fewer years of education and lower incomes than poor (predominately urban) blacks. This is incidentally why I believe class issues are more problematic for America in the future than race. Race has and is been used as a proxy for class and this is failing to make sense of the world as it is. To put it like this: I see America a big place where a lot of people got jumbled up together in a haphazard fashion. Then over time, and especially in the last century assorted mating has resulted in concentrations of similar people. Birds of a feather flock together. It is funny because in Europe the opposite is kind of happening. At least these are my impressions for whatever they are worth. It does though give a policy prescription for poor people. They could be distributed randomly by family over a wide geographical area. At least that is one view, I had better stop now before I get called Stalin or Hitler. ;-)
acjohnson55 10y ago
Only halfway done, but a good article so far. This coming from someone who is biased to skepticism toward the National Review. > Alone among the countries in the world, it has attempted to construct not just a state of different tribes, but a nation of them — white and black, Christian and Muslim, and many others, too. This perception of exceptionalism is amusing to me, since I'm currently sitting in South Africa. Update: Just finished the article, and I remained impressed. Unfortunately for the author, he's probably going to have to switch parties to find an audience for his ideas. It's really, really tough to imagine the GOP being able to rebuild the bridges it has burned with minorities in the Obama era. We're headed for a huge realignment in American politics. The GOP elite who have stuck with Trump have sealed their own fates. The Democratic elite are already courting them. But neither are doing much to appeal effectively to the poor, white or black. It remains to be seen whether we'll see a movement that captures both, as well as grabbing some of the intelligentsia. The Sanders campaign came close, but what's needed is something on the order of a political party.
- Senji 10y ago
  >But neither are doing much to appeal effectively to the poor, white or black. Trump has not stopped talking about economic protectionism and the blue collar workers, job creation etc. If that's not appealing to the poor I don't know what you want.
  - acjohnson55 10y ago
    That's true. I phrased my point poorly. He's certainly appealing to a sense of frustration. But he's not providing actual viable solutions. Of course, mere pandering is more than the party elites are doing. They've been counting on success repackaging the same tired ideological lines that no one really cares about when they're actually losing their clout.
- pop8row9 10y ago
  I have a serious question: why can't bridges be rebuilt instantaneously, similar to a reset in the diplomatic sphere? If it is within the best interest of all parties involved, it can and should happen... Westphalia comes to mind. We should keep in mind that fates don't have to be sealed, that redemption is always possible. After all, the goal is peace. I like the party idea.

8 points by bkohlmann 10y ago

Unless the underlying economic issues are tackled (basically blacks being hit with a huge economic disadvantage for generations due to racism and issues stemming from it (redlining, segregation, Jim Crow, poorly funded school districts, etc.), race relations can't progress much further. That's because they are also "class" relations, and US society sees it fit to offend, deride and look down upon the poor. So when blacks are predominantly poorer, the will be looked down. People are less inclined to be racist to middle class/richer families (and the inverse is the reason that most can be trivially discriminating and offensive against poor white people "white trash", "trailer tress", the homeless, etc -- the poor, even white ones, are fair game for discrimination and abuse). And this can't be trivialized to "it's 2016, slavery stopped in 1865, they had all the chances to bounce back". Black people alive today, in their 60s, have faced segregation. It's not some ancient history. Their parents faced Jim Crow. They couldn't get job opportunities, study where they wanted, etc. When parents are held down, their kids wont get the education their white middle class peers afforded for theirs. And that will pass on to the next generation, keeping them poorer. And there has been plenty of racism in hiring decisions, redlining, etc since the 70s to assure this goes on. "Affirmative action" compared to the damages done is a drop in the bucket.

internaut 10y ago
That sounds right, but is it right? If I understand your position correctly then there is no room for the possibility that blacks (or the so called white trash) are getting in their own way. You have to look upon that possibility as a hypothesis to test for. Otherwise we might as well be treating minority group X like our pets instead of being autonomous human beings. There have existed a great many persecuted peoples in recent history, the Irish, the Jews, the Chinese, the Roma. My race I know did much better abroad than in our home country, evidently institutional constraints were real. If you don't look at all the data you're going to open to the reasonable accusation of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. In my view the question to ask is: Do there exist places on earth where this minority X have better metrics (or subgroups within the population)? Here we ignore genetics and environment questions entirely, we are simply searching for evidence contrary to our (often considered disagreeable in our present culture) hypothesis that the people X are the cause of their own suffering. If not, then by induction we accumulate evidence in favour of the hypothesis. If so, then there is something that can be changed to improve circumstances. For what it is worth, it seems clear to me that whenever there exist new frontiers, fresh cultural experiments can take hold and there can be new beginnings, with America itself being an example of that. Even were it all genetics I would still have some optimism because this is something we can intelligently design around with our technologies, although that line of reasoning is treated as being deeply suspect in our present culture and time. I don't think that can last for much longer though, I and many others see those moral qualms as preposterous as the protests of the anti-vax people. The last thing I'll say is more subjective, but I agree that class issues are the problem the US and Western countries face today. Had we superior economic growth these could be papered over but we don't have the kind of growth we need for that and so they shall have to be faced head on. Stephen Pinker's book on violence reminds me of the futurists who predicted permanent state of peace before world war 1, I think we're heading into some choppy waters.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >If I understand your position correctly then there is no room for the possibility that blacks (or the so called white trash) are getting in their own way. You have to look upon that possibility as a hypothesis to test for. Otherwise we might as well be treating minority group X like our pets instead of being autonomous human beings. I could acknowledge a subgroup of a larger group "causing their own harm". E.g. white trash, or a subgroup of blacks. On the other hand, I don't see how a group like blacks can in general, and for its majority, "cause its own harm", in a different amount than another group. Unless there is evidence of genetic differences to cause discrepancies, I would expect both blacks and whites to have similar percentages of people that "cause their own harm" all other things being equal. Which is not what we see. But of course, all other things are not equal either. One group was extracted forcefully from their native culture and country and forced to work as slaves for centuries, the other was not. One group faced persistent persecution and specific laws against it until late in the 20th century, the other did not.
  - internaut 10y ago
    > On the other hand, I don't see how a group like blacks can in general, and for its majority, "cause its own harm", in a different amount than another group. Alright, I see that to be in error. Suppose we were talking about sex differences. Feminists frequently point out that men are murderous. They commit almost all murders. Usually of other men. Clearly this is a subgroup in the general population that causes disproportionate problems in an area that another group i.e. women, do not. I'm not a feminist but I've no trouble or dispute with the notion that men are more violently dangerous than women. We are. It is a fact. This of course is not an argument to discriminate against all men. Evidently there are different sorts of discrimination. Some wise, some sexist. > Unless there is evidence of genetic differences to cause discrepancies, I would expect both blacks and whites to have similar percentages of people that "cause their own harm" all other things being equal. That is exactly what conservatives, reactionaries and others do say. They say there is evidence of genetic differences which lead to different outcomes. This is not a black/white thing by the way, that is just an American-centric example. We could easily talk about Europeans and Japanese people too, Europeans are significantly more likely to be violent than Japanese people. Of course average rates of violence is not the only criteria on which people should be judged. There are other things humans do besides that! > But of course, all other things are not equal either. Right, exactly. > One group was extracted forcefully from their native culture and country and forced to work as slaves for centuries, the other was not. One group faced persistent persecution and specific laws against it until late in the 20th century, the other did not. That is true, and yet if I remember correctly poor whites in Appalachia have fewer years of education and lower incomes than poor (predominately urban) blacks. This is incidentally why I believe class issues are more problematic for America in the future than race. Race has and is been used as a proxy for class and this is failing to make sense of the world as it is. To put it like this: I see America a big place where a lot of people got jumbled up together in a haphazard fashion. Then over time, and especially in the last century assorted mating has resulted in concentrations of similar people. Birds of a feather flock together. It is funny because in Europe the opposite is kind of happening. At least these are my impressions for whatever they are worth. It does though give a policy prescription for poor people. They could be distributed randomly by family over a wide geographical area. At least that is one view, I had better stop now before I get called Stalin or Hitler. ;-)

acjohnson55 10y ago

Only halfway done, but a good article so far. This coming from someone who is biased to skepticism toward the National Review. > Alone among the countries in the world, it has attempted to construct not just a state of different tribes, but a nation of them — white and black, Christian and Muslim, and many others, too. This perception of exceptionalism is amusing to me, since I'm currently sitting in South Africa. Update: Just finished the article, and I remained impressed. Unfortunately for the author, he's probably going to have to switch parties to find an audience for his ideas. It's really, really tough to imagine the GOP being able to rebuild the bridges it has burned with minorities in the Obama era. We're headed for a huge realignment in American politics. The GOP elite who have stuck with Trump have sealed their own fates. The Democratic elite are already courting them. But neither are doing much to appeal effectively to the poor, white or black. It remains to be seen whether we'll see a movement that captures both, as well as grabbing some of the intelligentsia. The Sanders campaign came close, but what's needed is something on the order of a political party.

Senji 10y ago
>But neither are doing much to appeal effectively to the poor, white or black. Trump has not stopped talking about economic protectionism and the blue collar workers, job creation etc. If that's not appealing to the poor I don't know what you want.
- acjohnson55 10y ago
  That's true. I phrased my point poorly. He's certainly appealing to a sense of frustration. But he's not providing actual viable solutions. Of course, mere pandering is more than the party elites are doing. They've been counting on success repackaging the same tired ideological lines that no one really cares about when they're actually losing their clout.
pop8row9 10y ago
I have a serious question: why can't bridges be rebuilt instantaneously, similar to a reset in the diplomatic sphere? If it is within the best interest of all parties involved, it can and should happen... Westphalia comes to mind. We should keep in mind that fates don't have to be sealed, that redemption is always possible. After all, the goal is peace. I like the party idea.