3 ms·

> there are other solutions, because in addition to trying to change the people you can also try to help those in poverty. Yes. That solution, to the problem

> there are other solutions, because in addition to trying to change the people you can also try to help those in poverty. Yes. That solution, to the problem of rich white people trying to stop sharing their school funding with poor black people, is to not allow them to leave. That's what happened. Nobody ostracized anyone and your simple form is an invalid analogy. If anything, it would be more accurate to say that they saw a white shop owner consistently turning away black people and took them to court to say that black people should not be turned away.

kbenson 7y ago
> That solution, to the problem of rich white people trying to stop sharing their school funding with poor black people, is to not allow them to leave. That's what happened. But what about the solution to the problem of the rich people not wanting to share with the poor people? What if that's a major part of the problem? Was that addressed at all, or just swept under the rug as "racist people will be racist, just don't let them"? Preferably, something that also addressed the issue of poverty, or at least kept it acknowledged as part of the problem. > If anything, it would be more accurate to say that they saw a white shop owner consistently turning away black people and took them to court to say that black people should not be turned away. Exactly. But is that the better solution? What about the poor white person that comes in next? Do they get turned away, because they're not black? What about the fact that they're both still homeless? When you identify the wrong problem, you're at risk of implementing a worse solution. Racism is bad, and it's sometimes the case it perfectly explains what happened, but not always, and not often entirely, but it's convenient because it means nobody else has to change or do anything. We all get to point at the bad people that make convenient scapegoats and comment about how we would never do anything like that, while nothing really changes, because the problem was only partially racism to begin with, and there's not a lot to change structurally to stop it that hasn't already happened when it is racism.

kbenson 7y ago

> That solution, to the problem of rich white people trying to stop sharing their school funding with poor black people, is to not allow them to leave. That's what happened. But what about the solution to the problem of the rich people not wanting to share with the poor people? What if that's a major part of the problem? Was that addressed at all, or just swept under the rug as "racist people will be racist, just don't let them"? Preferably, something that also addressed the issue of poverty, or at least kept it acknowledged as part of the problem. > If anything, it would be more accurate to say that they saw a white shop owner consistently turning away black people and took them to court to say that black people should not be turned away. Exactly. But is that the better solution? What about the poor white person that comes in next? Do they get turned away, because they're not black? What about the fact that they're both still homeless? When you identify the wrong problem, you're at risk of implementing a worse solution. Racism is bad, and it's sometimes the case it perfectly explains what happened, but not always, and not often entirely, but it's convenient because it means nobody else has to change or do anything. We all get to point at the bad people that make convenient scapegoats and comment about how we would never do anything like that, while nothing really changes, because the problem was only partially racism to begin with, and there's not a lot to change structurally to stop it that hasn't already happened when it is racism.