4 ms·

Race isn't a distraction, especially from economic issues. When you look through US history you don't see laws and regulations passed against people that cite

Race isn't a distraction, especially from economic issues. When you look through US history you don't see laws and regulations passed against people that cite income level, but we see them cite race. When blacks were prevented from voting or serving on a jury, no one considered their economic status. When housing covenants were created that expressly forbade selling to blacks, no carve outs were made for blacks of a certain income level.

dahfizz 5y ago
> When blacks were prevented from voting or serving on a jury, no one considered their economic status. When housing covenants were created that expressly forbade selling to blacks, no carve outs were made for blacks of a certain income level. Wouldn't you consider those laws a mistake? Wouldn't you want the law to be blind to race, considering the potential evil you've outlined? I don't understand this reasoning. "Black people used to have their own set of laws, and that was bad, so now we are going to continue to write a set of laws that only apply to black people".
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  >...Black people used to have their own set of laws, and that was bad, so now we are going to continue to write a set of laws that only apply to black people If you're arguing that Jim Crow laws are equivalent to diversity officers in schools in effect, I'm not really sure what to tell you.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  My understanding is that people with resources tend to acquire more resources, which means people who were excluded are as a demographic already set behind with little opportunity to catch up. In order to correct the bias alternate channels need to be made. (That’s the logic anyways. I haven’t seen any evidence the result is as expected…)
- acjohnson55 5y ago
  The impact of generations of de jure racism didn't simply disappear when the laws were overturned. My parents were already in school when the schools were first forced to integrate. Some of their cousins lived under segregation in the South and did not have access to even secondary education, let alone higher ed. On top of that, there are laws that persisted beyond segregation and even to the present day that are highly discriminatory in their impact, even if they are not in their literal content.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >Wouldn't you consider those laws a mistake? >I don't understand this reasoning...now we are going to continue to write a set of laws that only apply to black people Yes, it was a mistake, with grave intergenerational consequences. The idea behind new targeted laws is to make some effort to acknowledge and remedy the damage done. I think you may not fully appreciate the massive, compounded, multi-trillion dollar impacts of this legacy, in conjunction with the profound trauma of psychic and physical violence inflicted over generations. Because it's hard to imagine someone fully internalizing that, then effectively declaring, "can't we just say 'our bad', call it even, and move on?"
causi 5y ago
Attacking drivers of racial division and discrimination has produced very many concrete improvements. Equal housing laws, anti-discrimination laws, anti-segregation laws have all been shown to do good. I think the track record for "positive equity" efforts is much more spotty. If we look at US minority populations whose measurable social position has improved greatly from their historical origins and matched or exceeded the white populace as a whole, how many of their success stories involved this type of heavy-handed brotherly-love enforcement? Irish people, Italian people, Jewish people, Asian people. I don't think the unending reminder of our differences ultimately contributes to social equity.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  Citing ethnic groups that eventually become "white" and model minority groups is a whole thread unto itself, there is a reason your list doesn't include Native Americans, African-Americans and Hispanics. Race-blindness always serves to hide the hierarchy as it currently stands, as society is never blind to marginalized groups.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Most observers predict that Hispanics are on track to become the next "white" minority, followed by other groups. The whole point is that "the hierarchy as it currently stands" is not immutable, in fact it can shift rather quickly.
    - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
      Who is predicting that? Hispanics have been here since Manifest Destiny ran into them way back when. Yet they haven't assimilated like other groups sourced from Europe, or ones that remain at non-threatening numbers. The only time I ever here someone talk about a non-European sourced group ever becoming "white" is in the context of the conservative demographic threat on the horizon.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
cracell 5y ago
So? The solution to discrimination based on race is certainly not to discriminate based on race. Why do you think more racism is the solution?

dahfizz 5y ago

> When blacks were prevented from voting or serving on a jury, no one considered their economic status. When housing covenants were created that expressly forbade selling to blacks, no carve outs were made for blacks of a certain income level. Wouldn't you consider those laws a mistake? Wouldn't you want the law to be blind to race, considering the potential evil you've outlined? I don't understand this reasoning. "Black people used to have their own set of laws, and that was bad, so now we are going to continue to write a set of laws that only apply to black people".

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
>...Black people used to have their own set of laws, and that was bad, so now we are going to continue to write a set of laws that only apply to black people If you're arguing that Jim Crow laws are equivalent to diversity officers in schools in effect, I'm not really sure what to tell you.
SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
My understanding is that people with resources tend to acquire more resources, which means people who were excluded are as a demographic already set behind with little opportunity to catch up. In order to correct the bias alternate channels need to be made. (That’s the logic anyways. I haven’t seen any evidence the result is as expected…)
acjohnson55 5y ago
The impact of generations of de jure racism didn't simply disappear when the laws were overturned. My parents were already in school when the schools were first forced to integrate. Some of their cousins lived under segregation in the South and did not have access to even secondary education, let alone higher ed. On top of that, there are laws that persisted beyond segregation and even to the present day that are highly discriminatory in their impact, even if they are not in their literal content.
unclebucknasty 5y ago
>Wouldn't you consider those laws a mistake? >I don't understand this reasoning...now we are going to continue to write a set of laws that only apply to black people Yes, it was a mistake, with grave intergenerational consequences. The idea behind new targeted laws is to make some effort to acknowledge and remedy the damage done. I think you may not fully appreciate the massive, compounded, multi-trillion dollar impacts of this legacy, in conjunction with the profound trauma of psychic and physical violence inflicted over generations. Because it's hard to imagine someone fully internalizing that, then effectively declaring, "can't we just say 'our bad', call it even, and move on?"

causi 5y ago

Attacking drivers of racial division and discrimination has produced very many concrete improvements. Equal housing laws, anti-discrimination laws, anti-segregation laws have all been shown to do good. I think the track record for "positive equity" efforts is much more spotty. If we look at US minority populations whose measurable social position has improved greatly from their historical origins and matched or exceeded the white populace as a whole, how many of their success stories involved this type of heavy-handed brotherly-love enforcement? Irish people, Italian people, Jewish people, Asian people. I don't think the unending reminder of our differences ultimately contributes to social equity.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
Citing ethnic groups that eventually become "white" and model minority groups is a whole thread unto itself, there is a reason your list doesn't include Native Americans, African-Americans and Hispanics. Race-blindness always serves to hide the hierarchy as it currently stands, as society is never blind to marginalized groups.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Most observers predict that Hispanics are on track to become the next "white" minority, followed by other groups. The whole point is that "the hierarchy as it currently stands" is not immutable, in fact it can shift rather quickly.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
    Who is predicting that? Hispanics have been here since Manifest Destiny ran into them way back when. Yet they haven't assimilated like other groups sourced from Europe, or ones that remain at non-threatening numbers. The only time I ever here someone talk about a non-European sourced group ever becoming "white" is in the context of the conservative demographic threat on the horizon.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago

cracell 5y ago

So? The solution to discrimination based on race is certainly not to discriminate based on race. Why do you think more racism is the solution?