7 ms·

I'm very suspicious of this line: > "I’ve never been quite clear on how we’re supposed to get over centuries of judging people by their skin color or ethnicity

by 0atman 5y ago

I'm very suspicious of this line: > "I’ve never been quite clear on how we’re supposed to get over centuries of judging people by their skin color or ethnicity by paying more and more attention to skin color and ethnicity." This seems like the author fundamentally doesn't understand the difference between equality and equity. I'll cite the Monopoly example. If you and I are 100 turns in to a game where I have been given $2000 every time I pass GO, and you have been given $2, you can't just give both of us $200 going forward and expect our inequality to be solved. For starters, I probably own all the board. What's the solution? I don't know. But it's clear from this wording that the author is unwilling to accept relatively small concessions to fix enormous historical oppression.

johntdaly 5y ago
I think you have to consider that many of us where born in a time where “not seeing color” was touted as “the solution” to racism. And while there are points for “correcting” based on skin color the ting is presented and perused rather badly by many rather well meaning people. AND during a time where skin color is becoming less and less of an indicator for who needs help. > What's the solution? I don't know. But it's clear from this wording that the author is unwilling to accept relatively small concessions to fix enormous historical oppression. The confession you want the teacher to just accept is bullshit. Why should anybody accept a relatively huge advantage for some of an ethnic group (while the rest of that group gets nothing) as an acceptable form of restitution? Worse still, the advantage goes to people in that group that are already advantaged! I honestly see this as a problem, the problem that you need to be important enough in you “group” to get those advantages to get ahead while the rest need to go without. Can you imagine how it feels to be on the wrong side of that line? These types of practices aren’t giving people who need a leg up a leg up. They are pulling more lines where more people landing on the wrong side of. I know that the type of solution I prefer is many, many small solutions rather than a few big ones. If I land on the right side of some and the wrong side of others I still have something that boosts my self worth and supports me in some small way. P.S.: The “equality vs equity” argument makes more sense too if you leave skin color out of it. When I think about equity I think about water fountains and entryway that are accessible for people in a wheelchair, not about skin color.
Chris2048 5y ago
But it's common to focus on those who "own all the board" who are mostly white, and ignore all the poor whites who own little. That's not just a difference of race, it's a difference of finances. > the author is unwilling to accept relatively small concessions to fix enormous historical oppression 1) why is it "clear"? You where just "suspicious" but now you are certain? 2) it's not obvious these concession are either small (certainly not for "Daniel"), or that they'll fix anything (they might make them worse). 3) lowering standards doesn't actually mean equality - the new grad is qualified on paper, but not as qualified in practise. I've heard arguments that this doesn't matter - fair enough, but it's an argument that assumes how meaningless educational standard are, and I'm not sure that applies across the board - the US still has to compete with the rest of the world. 4) the concession is not official, but apparently covert, which is objectionable in itself - you might agree with AA, but disagree with extra-legal, "off-the-books" AA.
- krainboltgreene 5y ago
  > But it's common to focus on those who "own all the board" who are mostly white, and ignore all the poor whites who own little It's literally the most common talking point I have ever seen. It is neither original nor a good argument at all.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    Not a good argument, but yet you don't care to refute it? Maybe it isn't original, but so what - its antithesis is also common.
    - krainboltgreene 5y ago
      No, I don't care to spend my time explaining to you what you could look up on an educational youtube video for teenagers.
yucky 5y ago
>This seems like the author fundamentally doesn't understand the difference between equality and equity. My understanding is racial equality is treating people the same regardless of race. Racial equity is using various forms of racial discrimination to generate desired outcomes. Is there a way to achieve racial equity without using racial discrimination?

by 0atman 5y ago

johntdaly 5y ago

I think you have to consider that many of us where born in a time where “not seeing color” was touted as “the solution” to racism. And while there are points for “correcting” based on skin color the ting is presented and perused rather badly by many rather well meaning people. AND during a time where skin color is becoming less and less of an indicator for who needs help. > What's the solution? I don't know. But it's clear from this wording that the author is unwilling to accept relatively small concessions to fix enormous historical oppression. The confession you want the teacher to just accept is bullshit. Why should anybody accept a relatively huge advantage for some of an ethnic group (while the rest of that group gets nothing) as an acceptable form of restitution? Worse still, the advantage goes to people in that group that are already advantaged! I honestly see this as a problem, the problem that you need to be important enough in you “group” to get those advantages to get ahead while the rest need to go without. Can you imagine how it feels to be on the wrong side of that line? These types of practices aren’t giving people who need a leg up a leg up. They are pulling more lines where more people landing on the wrong side of. I know that the type of solution I prefer is many, many small solutions rather than a few big ones. If I land on the right side of some and the wrong side of others I still have something that boosts my self worth and supports me in some small way. P.S.: The “equality vs equity” argument makes more sense too if you leave skin color out of it. When I think about equity I think about water fountains and entryway that are accessible for people in a wheelchair, not about skin color.

Chris2048 5y ago

But it's common to focus on those who "own all the board" who are mostly white, and ignore all the poor whites who own little. That's not just a difference of race, it's a difference of finances. > the author is unwilling to accept relatively small concessions to fix enormous historical oppression 1) why is it "clear"? You where just "suspicious" but now you are certain? 2) it's not obvious these concession are either small (certainly not for "Daniel"), or that they'll fix anything (they might make them worse). 3) lowering standards doesn't actually mean equality - the new grad is qualified on paper, but not as qualified in practise. I've heard arguments that this doesn't matter - fair enough, but it's an argument that assumes how meaningless educational standard are, and I'm not sure that applies across the board - the US still has to compete with the rest of the world. 4) the concession is not official, but apparently covert, which is objectionable in itself - you might agree with AA, but disagree with extra-legal, "off-the-books" AA.

krainboltgreene 5y ago
> But it's common to focus on those who "own all the board" who are mostly white, and ignore all the poor whites who own little It's literally the most common talking point I have ever seen. It is neither original nor a good argument at all.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Not a good argument, but yet you don't care to refute it? Maybe it isn't original, but so what - its antithesis is also common.
  - krainboltgreene 5y ago
    No, I don't care to spend my time explaining to you what you could look up on an educational youtube video for teenagers.

yucky 5y ago

>This seems like the author fundamentally doesn't understand the difference between equality and equity. My understanding is racial equality is treating people the same regardless of race. Racial equity is using various forms of racial discrimination to generate desired outcomes. Is there a way to achieve racial equity without using racial discrimination?