4 ms·
Even if an individual’s condition today reflects historical injustices to groups, that doesn’t justify discriminating between individuals today based on their g
by rayiner 3mo ago
Even if an individual’s condition today reflects historical injustices to groups, that doesn’t justify discriminating between individuals today based on their group. To your redlining example: it’s true a black american who inherits a house may have lower home equity than a white american who inherits a house. But isn’t the white american who didn’t inherit anything worse off than both? You can’t lump white americans together based on a group generalization—that’s the very thing we decided is immoral.
The historical argument also doesn’t survive attempts to generalize its underlying principles to immigrants. Objectively, Black americans are extremely privileged by virtue of being americans. A redlined community in 1950s America was still better than my dad’s village in Bangladesh.
Finally, your argument demolishes how affirmative action is actually practiced. Its biggest beneficiaries are immigrants and their children, in particular hispanics. That produces a very unfair result under your logic, because latin america is solidly middle income, and was even more so in the 20th century. In 1990, Mexico’s GDP per capita was ten times higher than India’s and China’s. Yet colleges and corporations discriminate in favor of “hispanics” descended from Spanish conquistadores, and against “asians” whose parents grew up in third world villages.
- dahart 3mo ago> that’s the very thing we decided is immoral Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason. > Objectively, Black Americans are extremely privileged by virtue of being Americans. A redlined community in 1950s America was still better than my dad’s village in Bangladesh. Whoa. They should be happy with what they have, and put up with racism and inequality here because there are poorer people somewhere else in the world? Some Blacks in 1950 couldn’t vote - they were “privileged”?
- rayiner 3mo ago> Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason. No, what we decided was wrong was using race as a salient factor to discriminate between people. That’s why all our laws use that word. The laws reflect the moral principle. > They should be happy with what they have, and put up with racism and inequality here because there are poorer people somewhere else in the world? You’re the one supporting a system of affirmative action that treats people unequally. My point is that, if your justification for that unequal treatment is the historical circumstances of people’s parents and grandparents, then it’s quite relevant that almost any applicant with roots in America has a huge head start over almost any applicant with roots in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East. I’m not the one who brought up the redlining example. That’s an example invoked by proponents of affirmative action. But if you invoke that reasoning, you should follow it through to its logical conclusions. If a university is choosing between an applicant whose family home in America has reduced value due to redlining, and an applicant whose family home is in a literal third world village, then what’s the moral logic for giving an advantage to the first applicant? > Some Blacks in 1950 couldn’t vote - they were “privileged None of my grandparents could vote in 1950 because they lived in a colony. Nobody whose family comes from China, Vietnam, etc., has grandparents who could vote in 1950.
- dahart 3mo ago> You’re the one supporting a system of affirmative action that treats people unequally No, and you’re intentionally escalating things and I don’t appreciate it. I’ve been more than clear already that I don’t necessarily support affirmative action, and that I’m aware it has downsides and have acknowledged multiple times that it can have unintended consequences. Unequal treatment already existed before affirmative action. That is the reason that affirmative action exists, and it is what affirmative action intended to fix. You have yet to acknowledge that fact in this discussion.
- selimthegrim 3mo agoExactly who was East Pakistan a colony of in 1950 and who was denying them the franchise?
- selimthegrim 3mo agoOK I see you meant in the US.
- rayiner 3mo agoNo, I meant in Pakistan. Wasn’t it still technically ruled by Britain at that point? Until the 1956 constitution?
- graemep 3mo agoNo, it was an independent country which shared the same monarch - rather like Canada and Australia still are.
- selimthegrim 3mo agoIt was a Dominion, but again who was denying your relatives the franchise?
- 3mo ago
- graemep 3mo agoYour reasoning is exactly why I loathe any step towards this sort of thing in the UK. You cannot infer disadvantage from a simple racial categories. For example, the majority of South Asians I know in the UK have affluent and/or well educated parents. On the other hand I know there are people whose parents were poor educated, spoke English as a second language, went to schools in bad areas, etc. If you try to balance by ethnic group its the former who will get the most advantage from it. The Asian side of my ancestry was both more affluent, and had more people go to university than the white side. As the article says the best universities here look at predicated A levels grades, their own admissions tests, and interviews. From what I have heard at open days etc. they are often clear that they do not care about ethnicity or skills at sports.