4 ms·

You do't need identity politics to provide more equal distribution of opportunities. Why not just assess every person as an individual, and dole out help accord

by badpun 8y ago

You do't need identity politics to provide more equal distribution of opportunities. Why not just assess every person as an individual, and dole out help according to their specific situation? For example, a kid from a dysfunctional (or even just very poor in money and culture) family needs extra help and skin color or gender are not relevant.

fzeroracer 8y ago
Now imagine instead a black kid from an area where gang violence is rampant and schooling opportunities are poor. You would have to give that kid extra aid to counter the issues he faces which are a result of years of white flight and systemic racism. When you assess each person as an individual, the whole result would be that minority families would need more aid than white families. But if you chose to implement policies that recognize this problem, you get accused of playing 'identity politics' and people demand you ignore race/gender. Which then the end result is that by attempting to be color blind, you're effectively denying minorities the aid they need. You've circled all the way back around to racist policies that ignore the problems at hand.
- badpun 8y ago
  > When you assess each person as an individual, the whole result would be that minority families would need more aid than white families. But if you chose to implement policies that recognize this problem, you get accused of playing 'identity politics' and people demand you ignore race/gender. Do people really accuse color blind social policies of that? Under color blind policies, a child of a black middle upper class family would get no help, so it's hard to see how it implements identity politics.
  - badpun 8y ago
    (Replying to myself as I can't edit anymore). One way I could see how someone would oppose to such policies is, they could say that these policies are set up in a way which, in practice, gives money goes to minorities - but such claim itself is a form of identity politics (i.e. seeing people through the lens of the group they belong to and not seeing the individuals), so someone would have to be stupid to use that argument.

by badpun 8y ago

fzeroracer 8y ago

Now imagine instead a black kid from an area where gang violence is rampant and schooling opportunities are poor. You would have to give that kid extra aid to counter the issues he faces which are a result of years of white flight and systemic racism. When you assess each person as an individual, the whole result would be that minority families would need more aid than white families. But if you chose to implement policies that recognize this problem, you get accused of playing 'identity politics' and people demand you ignore race/gender. Which then the end result is that by attempting to be color blind, you're effectively denying minorities the aid they need. You've circled all the way back around to racist policies that ignore the problems at hand.

badpun 8y ago
> When you assess each person as an individual, the whole result would be that minority families would need more aid than white families. But if you chose to implement policies that recognize this problem, you get accused of playing 'identity politics' and people demand you ignore race/gender. Do people really accuse color blind social policies of that? Under color blind policies, a child of a black middle upper class family would get no help, so it's hard to see how it implements identity politics.
- badpun 8y ago
  (Replying to myself as I can't edit anymore). One way I could see how someone would oppose to such policies is, they could say that these policies are set up in a way which, in practice, gives money goes to minorities - but such claim itself is a form of identity politics (i.e. seeing people through the lens of the group they belong to and not seeing the individuals), so someone would have to be stupid to use that argument.