4 ms·

No, no individual or group consciously decided how races should be divided, that happened naturally. What you're saying its that acknowledging the divide exists

No, no individual or group consciously decided how races should be divided, that happened naturally. What you're saying its that acknowledging the divide exists is racist, which is the classic "color blind" excuse.

zepto 5y ago
> No, no individual or group consciously decided how races should be divided, I think the Portuguese, the British, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, and the Danish consciously chose Africans to be imported as slaves to America. Don’t you? Jim Crow laws were consciously written by people who were deciding how races should be divided. Race isn’t even a natural category. > that happened naturally. Are you seriously suggesting that slavery and Jim Crow happened ‘naturally’? > What you're saying its that acknowledging the divide exists is racist, which is the classic "color blind" excuse. This is false. If you can find somewhere I argue for that, you’ll be able to quote it. Here is something I did say: “We don’t have to ignore the effects of racism. There is nothing wrong with looking at the kinds of disadvantage it has produced and then acting to support those who are impacted.”
- teawrecks 5y ago
  > Are you seriously suggesting that slavery happened ‘naturally’? Are you seriously suggesting that humans aren't naturally occurring? Are you suggesting that there is something inherent about the "Portuguese, British" etc that gave them the power and influence needed to enslave other races? Of course not. Randomly populate a geologically non uniform landmass with humans, and over time some will exploit natural advantages over others based on arbitrary factors. The fact that the British colonized everyone wasn't because they were somehow genetically superior or more predisposed to colonization, they just randomly got dealt the best hand. > If you can find somewhere I argue for that, you’ll be able to quote it. I'm referring to your core argument that, > A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building. You're saying that even though we can clearly see how past societies drew their lines when determining how to stunt the "wealth building" of future generations, we should rotate that line so that it's orthogonal to race and only focus on the people who have had the most trouble building wealth. Consider a hypothetical scenario where we had a "perfectly equal past", where there was no slavery or systemic racism and everyone had been treated fairly based on their own ability. Even in this world, you'd still have some people who fall short at "building wealth" compared to others. You'd still see a "line" drawn based on natural ability. This is the only scenario in which I'd agree with you. But the natural ability line isn't the only one that history has drawn. We can see the lines that history drew. Lines based on race, based on geography, based on gender, etc. and I think it would be ignorant of us to ignore the existence of any of those lines. It's not an either/or situation. One day, I hope to get to a point where we're approaching a "perfectly equal past", but until then we have more than 1 line to account for.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Are you suggesting that there is something inherent about the "Portuguese, British" etc that gave them the power and influence needed to enslave other races? Of course not. No. I’m saying they made a conscious choice to enslave other races, just as abolitionists eventually made a conscious choice to oppose it. > You're saying that even though we can clearly see how past societies drew their lines when determining how to stunt the "wealth building" of future generations, we should rotate that line so that it's orthogonal to race and only focus on the people who have had the most trouble building wealth. Yes, why not? This is what it means to stop being racist. You stop enacting race based policies, and you take steps to counteract the impacts of past racism on people in the present. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge that racism was a cause. If you claim that is what I am saying then you are just lying. Consequences of racism are the largest historical reasons black people as a statistical category have had trouble building wealth. There is nothing wrong with recognizing this as a priority. As I point out, the groups with the biggest problem will benefit disproportionately by default if we address this. However black people are not the only ones who have suffered from impediments. Racism is one cause, but there are others. A person who is struggling today should be helped regardless of their own skin color or the skin color of the grandparents. What is wrong, is to continue the racist practices of past societies by enacting race based policies.
    - teawrecks 5y ago
      > You stop enacting race based policies, and you take steps to counteract the impacts of past racism on people in the present. But by definition, that's not what ignoring race does. > This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge that racism was a cause. By definition, that's what "rotating the line to be orthogonal to race" does. > However black people are not the only ones who have suffered from impediments. Racism is one cause, but there are others. > A person who is struggling today should be helped regardless of their own skin color or the skin color of the grandparents. Agreed, that's why I said: "We can see the lines that history drew. Lines based on race, based on geography, based on gender, etc. and I think it would be ignorant of us to ignore the existence of any of those lines. It's not an either/or situation."

zepto 5y ago

> No, no individual or group consciously decided how races should be divided, I think the Portuguese, the British, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, and the Danish consciously chose Africans to be imported as slaves to America. Don’t you? Jim Crow laws were consciously written by people who were deciding how races should be divided. Race isn’t even a natural category. > that happened naturally. Are you seriously suggesting that slavery and Jim Crow happened ‘naturally’? > What you're saying its that acknowledging the divide exists is racist, which is the classic "color blind" excuse. This is false. If you can find somewhere I argue for that, you’ll be able to quote it. Here is something I did say: “We don’t have to ignore the effects of racism. There is nothing wrong with looking at the kinds of disadvantage it has produced and then acting to support those who are impacted.”

teawrecks 5y ago
> Are you seriously suggesting that slavery happened ‘naturally’? Are you seriously suggesting that humans aren't naturally occurring? Are you suggesting that there is something inherent about the "Portuguese, British" etc that gave them the power and influence needed to enslave other races? Of course not. Randomly populate a geologically non uniform landmass with humans, and over time some will exploit natural advantages over others based on arbitrary factors. The fact that the British colonized everyone wasn't because they were somehow genetically superior or more predisposed to colonization, they just randomly got dealt the best hand. > If you can find somewhere I argue for that, you’ll be able to quote it. I'm referring to your core argument that, > A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building. You're saying that even though we can clearly see how past societies drew their lines when determining how to stunt the "wealth building" of future generations, we should rotate that line so that it's orthogonal to race and only focus on the people who have had the most trouble building wealth. Consider a hypothetical scenario where we had a "perfectly equal past", where there was no slavery or systemic racism and everyone had been treated fairly based on their own ability. Even in this world, you'd still have some people who fall short at "building wealth" compared to others. You'd still see a "line" drawn based on natural ability. This is the only scenario in which I'd agree with you. But the natural ability line isn't the only one that history has drawn. We can see the lines that history drew. Lines based on race, based on geography, based on gender, etc. and I think it would be ignorant of us to ignore the existence of any of those lines. It's not an either/or situation. One day, I hope to get to a point where we're approaching a "perfectly equal past", but until then we have more than 1 line to account for.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Are you suggesting that there is something inherent about the "Portuguese, British" etc that gave them the power and influence needed to enslave other races? Of course not. No. I’m saying they made a conscious choice to enslave other races, just as abolitionists eventually made a conscious choice to oppose it. > You're saying that even though we can clearly see how past societies drew their lines when determining how to stunt the "wealth building" of future generations, we should rotate that line so that it's orthogonal to race and only focus on the people who have had the most trouble building wealth. Yes, why not? This is what it means to stop being racist. You stop enacting race based policies, and you take steps to counteract the impacts of past racism on people in the present. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge that racism was a cause. If you claim that is what I am saying then you are just lying. Consequences of racism are the largest historical reasons black people as a statistical category have had trouble building wealth. There is nothing wrong with recognizing this as a priority. As I point out, the groups with the biggest problem will benefit disproportionately by default if we address this. However black people are not the only ones who have suffered from impediments. Racism is one cause, but there are others. A person who is struggling today should be helped regardless of their own skin color or the skin color of the grandparents. What is wrong, is to continue the racist practices of past societies by enacting race based policies.
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    > You stop enacting race based policies, and you take steps to counteract the impacts of past racism on people in the present. But by definition, that's not what ignoring race does. > This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge that racism was a cause. By definition, that's what "rotating the line to be orthogonal to race" does. > However black people are not the only ones who have suffered from impediments. Racism is one cause, but there are others. > A person who is struggling today should be helped regardless of their own skin color or the skin color of the grandparents. Agreed, that's why I said: "We can see the lines that history drew. Lines based on race, based on geography, based on gender, etc. and I think it would be ignorant of us to ignore the existence of any of those lines. It's not an either/or situation."