5 ms·
> Also, though, what it is is necessary: a corrective for multiple centuries of --- let's call it what it is, I guess: institutionalized oppression. It sounds
by troupe 9y ago
> Also, though, what it is is necessary: a corrective for multiple centuries of --- let's call it what it is, I guess: institutionalized oppression.
It sounds you feel that the way to right the wrongs of racism against blacks in the past is to practice racism against other races today. I know you aren't alone in this view, but I disagree for the following reasons:
First of all, if we agree that racism is morally wrong, then I don't see how practicing racism today can be considered a morally right solution to racism in the past.
Second, even if we can morally justify penalizing the descendants of slave owners in order to create benefit for the descendants of slaves, categorizing people based on the color of their skin isn't a good way to do this. There are white people whose lineage had nothing to do with owning slaves and there are people whose African ancestors owned, captured and sold people into slavery.
- tptacek 9y agoBasically what your argument appears to boil down to is: if white people oppress black people for 2 centuries, leaving them in a state of enduring poverty, it is unfair to correct that in any way, because any such correction would be race-based and thus "racist".
- troupe 9y agoI'm all for giving people opportunities to get out of poverty. I do not think such opportunities should be limited to a particular race. Pell Grants are a good example. The grants aren't racist in that everyone can apply. However, the odds of a randomly selected Pell Grant student being black are twice as high as what should be expected if Pell Grants are evenly distributed amoung college students, but it isn't a race-based opportunity. You can give people opportunities to get out of poverty without practicing racism.