4 ms·

The issue with slavery is that the children of slaves and victims of racism are still affected by it economically. I consider myself middle-of-the-road on most

by ethbr0 3y ago

The issue with slavery is that the children of slaves and victims of racism are still affected by it economically. I consider myself middle-of-the-road on most of this stuff, but if everything were fair there'd be an equivalent wealth distribution when comparing races. There's not. Ergo, it's kind of like the British plundering everyone's stuff, sticking it in the British Museum, then declaring "We're done with all that racism stuff, but we're keeping all this stuff that's ours."

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
But does your theory include slavs too? I mean.. the word 'slave' is similar for a reason. What about the irish? Italians? What about young british Bobby or Billy, whos alcoholic single mother moved to USA, and now they both live in a trailer park in bumfuck arizona? Should he be excluded since someone somehwere did something, and that someone lived on the same island as his ancestors did?
- joshuamorton 3y ago
  Since you've already admitted that you aren't actually from the US, which of the following do you believe / not believe: 1. The US has social programs and educational programs that assist economically underprivileged people in racially independent ways 2. In the US, there are particularities of racial relations and history that make groups like Native and African American populations particularly underserved even when accounting for economic status 3. Social programs that attempt to address (2) are morally objectionable, even if there are particular racial issues unique to the US's history and culture that make race a distinct class in addition to economic class. (One thing I find particularly odd is that people seem to generally favor anti-caste-discrimination regulations on HN, but find anti-US-race-discrimination laws. But both of those stem from the same underlying recognition: caste and race in the US are both strongly correlated with economic class, but even restricting to equivalent economic situations, lower-caste people in India (and subcultures where there is significant Indian cultural influence), and African American people in the US are more likely to face discrimination).
  - happytoexplain 3y ago
    It's rarely useful to ask a person to simplify their opinion on something complicated into yes/no answers to a few questions. It's usually a form of leading/framing (even if we don't intend it to be).
happytoexplain 3y ago
Yes, but the problem is that the British have options for fixing that situation that are both effective (just give it back, if those governments want it) and don't do too much collateral harm. It's an oversimplified comparison. The effects of slavery can't just be undone, and the indirect steps we can try to take (force diversity in business/education) do other harm, which some of those harmed will (totally understandably) not tolerate. On top of that, we can only try to force a theoretical ideal - as you say, "if everything were fair there'd be an equivalent wealth distribution when comparing races". But many things are not fair, and the effect of slavery is only one thing contributing to that, so it's an ineffective indicator that the effects of slavery have been undone. And frankly, even if we magically fixed everything unfair, there could still easily be racial differences in wealth distribution by simple correlation of harmless factors (i.e. if there is any racial correlation in types of jobs preferred). It's practically an impossible problem - both to completely fix and even just to discuss. Of course we should do what we can and what is reasonably fair, but ultimately, voters (who are at no fault for the historical situation) must largely agree to what "fair" means. Good luck on that one.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  I picked the British Museum because they aren't even willing to give things back. Low hanging fruit and dual-purpose example. The way I look at it is that if ones goal is equality of economic opportunity, and one accepts that (a) education is the strongest method to create economic opportunity & (b) that access to education is gated by factors that are heavily influenced by family economics, which are historically influenced by race, then you arrive at affirmative action. It's absolutely a racist policy. It's absolutely unfair to those not advantaged by it. But it's also the only way of getting from (everyone not in these groups has generational advantage) to (equality of economic opportunity). It's impossible to afford direct redress of ~200 years of lost wages and restriction / destruction of economic opportunity for ~15% of the US population. Advantaging still-disadvantaged members of those groups for a few generations seems the next best thing. I can't look at the racial wealth inequality statistics [0] and feel ethical about advocating anything less. I do think that it should be done in a meritocracy within advantaged groups, rather than lifting the minimum and applying to everyone within the advantaged group -- that is, we should broaden those with access (i.e. +X% should go to college, versus non-advantaged) and outcome (i.e. success should be +X% successful, versus non-advantaged) but there should still be winners and losers within the group. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_Uni...

by ethbr0 3y ago

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

But does your theory include slavs too? I mean.. the word 'slave' is similar for a reason. What about the irish? Italians? What about young british Bobby or Billy, whos alcoholic single mother moved to USA, and now they both live in a trailer park in bumfuck arizona? Should he be excluded since someone somehwere did something, and that someone lived on the same island as his ancestors did?

joshuamorton 3y ago
Since you've already admitted that you aren't actually from the US, which of the following do you believe / not believe: 1. The US has social programs and educational programs that assist economically underprivileged people in racially independent ways 2. In the US, there are particularities of racial relations and history that make groups like Native and African American populations particularly underserved even when accounting for economic status 3. Social programs that attempt to address (2) are morally objectionable, even if there are particular racial issues unique to the US's history and culture that make race a distinct class in addition to economic class. (One thing I find particularly odd is that people seem to generally favor anti-caste-discrimination regulations on HN, but find anti-US-race-discrimination laws. But both of those stem from the same underlying recognition: caste and race in the US are both strongly correlated with economic class, but even restricting to equivalent economic situations, lower-caste people in India (and subcultures where there is significant Indian cultural influence), and African American people in the US are more likely to face discrimination).
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  It's rarely useful to ask a person to simplify their opinion on something complicated into yes/no answers to a few questions. It's usually a form of leading/framing (even if we don't intend it to be).

happytoexplain 3y ago

Yes, but the problem is that the British have options for fixing that situation that are both effective (just give it back, if those governments want it) and don't do too much collateral harm. It's an oversimplified comparison. The effects of slavery can't just be undone, and the indirect steps we can try to take (force diversity in business/education) do other harm, which some of those harmed will (totally understandably) not tolerate. On top of that, we can only try to force a theoretical ideal - as you say, "if everything were fair there'd be an equivalent wealth distribution when comparing races". But many things are not fair, and the effect of slavery is only one thing contributing to that, so it's an ineffective indicator that the effects of slavery have been undone. And frankly, even if we magically fixed everything unfair, there could still easily be racial differences in wealth distribution by simple correlation of harmless factors (i.e. if there is any racial correlation in types of jobs preferred). It's practically an impossible problem - both to completely fix and even just to discuss. Of course we should do what we can and what is reasonably fair, but ultimately, voters (who are at no fault for the historical situation) must largely agree to what "fair" means. Good luck on that one.

ethbr0 3y ago
I picked the British Museum because they aren't even willing to give things back. Low hanging fruit and dual-purpose example. The way I look at it is that if ones goal is equality of economic opportunity, and one accepts that (a) education is the strongest method to create economic opportunity & (b) that access to education is gated by factors that are heavily influenced by family economics, which are historically influenced by race, then you arrive at affirmative action. It's absolutely a racist policy. It's absolutely unfair to those not advantaged by it. But it's also the only way of getting from (everyone not in these groups has generational advantage) to (equality of economic opportunity). It's impossible to afford direct redress of ~200 years of lost wages and restriction / destruction of economic opportunity for ~15% of the US population. Advantaging still-disadvantaged members of those groups for a few generations seems the next best thing. I can't look at the racial wealth inequality statistics [0] and feel ethical about advocating anything less. I do think that it should be done in a meritocracy within advantaged groups, rather than lifting the minimum and applying to everyone within the advantaged group -- that is, we should broaden those with access (i.e. +X% should go to college, versus non-advantaged) and outcome (i.e. success should be +X% successful, versus non-advantaged) but there should still be winners and losers within the group. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_Uni...