3 ms·

Can you please explain how Obama’s daughters are disadvantaged based on ancestral violence? The point is, racist discrimination, even if “positive”, produces u

by tomp 8y ago

Can you please explain how Obama’s daughters are disadvantaged based on ancestral violence? The point is, racist discrimination, even if “positive”, produces unfair outcomes. Obama’s daughter don’t need even more advantages. If you want to help kids from disadvantaged backgrounds (and I think that’s a worthy cause, even if you ignore “fairness”, simply because it increases the odds of finding the next Ramanujan and improves the well-being of the society), you should help people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Admitting them to degrees they don’t deserve isn’t actually helping them - it’s mainly just fixing superficial statistics and perpetuating harmful stereotypes (e.g. people not wanting black doctors because they suspect they’re worse because they weren’t subject to as strict standards as white, let alone Asian, doctors). To ensure actual equality of opportunity, you need to help them when they’re young, improve their school system, help their families, etc. Everything else is just a bandaid, at best masking rhe underlying problem.

pas 8y ago
We are talking about large, diverse groups and their median or average. That said, usually the correct approach is not discriminating based on race, but discriminating on the actual "disadvantegedness" of the path taken by the applicant. Accidentally that's how it's done around here for university (you get points for being disabled, poor, living far from the campus, and so on).
ForrestN 8y ago
Oh wow! Yes, that's very easy! Let me count the ways. First of all, Obama's daughters are much more likely to be murdered, abused or falsely accused by police than they would be if they were white. Even iconically famous black people are sometimes mistreated by police officers who don't recognize them. I'd say being at a high risk of murder counts as a disadvantage! I don't even need to draw a line back to ancestral violence for that one—that's just regular old present day violence. Second, although the Obama sisters enjoy substantial family wealth due to their parents' incredible achievements, the fact that they were born black means that, statistically speaking, they would have been far wealthier if they'd been born to a comparably wealthy white family. For example, if the Obama's are the X richest African American family, they'd be far richer if they were the X richest white American family. Bingo! Disadvantage! Why does that wealth gap exist? There are many recent crimes, many tied to violence, that exacerbated the situation. But we can start by looking at the fact that Black people, including Obama ancestors, were violently forced to build wealth for white people without any compensation. There are many more ways in which contemporary American society puts extra pressure and psychological burden on African Americans, yes even rich African Americans, all of which can be traced back to historical violence in our history, and all of which clearly affect the outcomes we associate with "success." Whether you admit it or not, you're arguing that the person who "deserves" to win in our economy is the person whose ancestors perpetrated horrific crimes against his competitor's ancestors and who doesn't have to face the constant daily effects of ongoing racism in our society.
- fiter 8y ago
  What if Obama's daughters don't find being more likely to be murdered to be a worthwhile exchange for whatever advantages you're offering them? It doesn't seem like a fair negotiation to not include them.
- changchuming 8y ago
  > First of all, Obama's daughters are much more likely to be murdered, abused or falsely accused by police than they would be if they were white. I don't think this is true. If you compare Obama's daughters against Bush's sons, probably. But against a random white person with no media exposure, unlikely. > they would have been far wealthier if they'd been born to a comparably wealthy white family. Again, why are we comparing against comparably wealthy white families? The reason why Obama's daughters were brought up in the first place is because we recognize that they are incredibly privileged compared to the general population, and they don't need more advantages. We don't care whether they are privileged compared to Bill Gate's children or someone comparatively more privileged.
  - ForrestN 8y ago
    If you want to understand how anti-black bias affects even wealthy African Americans, you have to use methods like this. The GP was saying, basically "if the Obama's succeeded, it doesn't matter that their competitors were cheating." You can be disadvantaged and still be successful. Why would it be useful to compare the most famous and rich African Americans against "a random white person?" Is that the way we prove that African Americans are not disadvantaged, by comparing an anomaly from one group to the average of another? We are comparing comparably wealthy people in order to eliminate other forms of difference so we can see just the effects of ethnicity...
- ForrestN 8y ago
  The responses to this, articulated and expressed as downvotes, are extremely telling.

by tomp 8y ago

pas 8y ago

We are talking about large, diverse groups and their median or average. That said, usually the correct approach is not discriminating based on race, but discriminating on the actual "disadvantegedness" of the path taken by the applicant. Accidentally that's how it's done around here for university (you get points for being disabled, poor, living far from the campus, and so on).

ForrestN 8y ago

Oh wow! Yes, that's very easy! Let me count the ways. First of all, Obama's daughters are much more likely to be murdered, abused or falsely accused by police than they would be if they were white. Even iconically famous black people are sometimes mistreated by police officers who don't recognize them. I'd say being at a high risk of murder counts as a disadvantage! I don't even need to draw a line back to ancestral violence for that one—that's just regular old present day violence. Second, although the Obama sisters enjoy substantial family wealth due to their parents' incredible achievements, the fact that they were born black means that, statistically speaking, they would have been far wealthier if they'd been born to a comparably wealthy white family. For example, if the Obama's are the X richest African American family, they'd be far richer if they were the X richest white American family. Bingo! Disadvantage! Why does that wealth gap exist? There are many recent crimes, many tied to violence, that exacerbated the situation. But we can start by looking at the fact that Black people, including Obama ancestors, were violently forced to build wealth for white people without any compensation. There are many more ways in which contemporary American society puts extra pressure and psychological burden on African Americans, yes even rich African Americans, all of which can be traced back to historical violence in our history, and all of which clearly affect the outcomes we associate with "success." Whether you admit it or not, you're arguing that the person who "deserves" to win in our economy is the person whose ancestors perpetrated horrific crimes against his competitor's ancestors and who doesn't have to face the constant daily effects of ongoing racism in our society.

fiter 8y ago
What if Obama's daughters don't find being more likely to be murdered to be a worthwhile exchange for whatever advantages you're offering them? It doesn't seem like a fair negotiation to not include them.
changchuming 8y ago
> First of all, Obama's daughters are much more likely to be murdered, abused or falsely accused by police than they would be if they were white. I don't think this is true. If you compare Obama's daughters against Bush's sons, probably. But against a random white person with no media exposure, unlikely. > they would have been far wealthier if they'd been born to a comparably wealthy white family. Again, why are we comparing against comparably wealthy white families? The reason why Obama's daughters were brought up in the first place is because we recognize that they are incredibly privileged compared to the general population, and they don't need more advantages. We don't care whether they are privileged compared to Bill Gate's children or someone comparatively more privileged.
- ForrestN 8y ago
  If you want to understand how anti-black bias affects even wealthy African Americans, you have to use methods like this. The GP was saying, basically "if the Obama's succeeded, it doesn't matter that their competitors were cheating." You can be disadvantaged and still be successful. Why would it be useful to compare the most famous and rich African Americans against "a random white person?" Is that the way we prove that African Americans are not disadvantaged, by comparing an anomaly from one group to the average of another? We are comparing comparably wealthy people in order to eliminate other forms of difference so we can see just the effects of ethnicity...
ForrestN 8y ago
The responses to this, articulated and expressed as downvotes, are extremely telling.