We need to have an honest discussion about race in America

[Kfox]

Not even remotely. I've known a bunch of rich people. But they aren't Forbes 500 rich. I said billionaires, and I gave examples where they are not self made.

You said Gates took what Steve Jobs built, changed it around and put a new label on it. Is it your view that Steve Jobs generated his billions due to what he built?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You said Gates took what Steve Jobs built, changed it around and put a new label on it. Is it your view that Steve Jobs generated his billions due to what he built?

Jobs wealth as well was dependent upon another (Wozniak).

 

[Kfox]

I think we are working with different concepts of privilege. I imagine that the organizations, agencies, and programs to which you are referring exist to address racial disparity that is already present. I am not sure that one could call it "black privilege" to have access to paths that only exist because of current disparity.

For me it is a black privilege because even though I didn’t need it, it was an option for me and my business, but would not have been had I been white. But that’s just business; there are countless other privileges; do you really think admitted racists like Paul Mooney or Nick Cannon would have been able to get away with half the stuff they say had they been white? Do you think had Obama been white and had a racist like Rev Wright as a close friend and pastor would have stood a chance at become President?

Group privilege, as I understand it, can only be analyzed within a system as statistical data.

A system of statical data? No. All you gotta do is look around and see for yourself. All you need are 2 eyes, and the ability to pay attention and you will see places when some have it better or worse than others; and it isn’t a one way street; it goes both ways.

So, we cannot refer to individuals possessing some group privilege based on their membership in that group. Certainly individuals can reflect on their experiences and speculate how their membership in a group has impacted their experiences.

But regardless of whether to what you are referring qualifies as some group privilege, i do not see how some organizations and programs designed to address disparity make it such that "there are more benefits to being 'black' in the USA than 'white.'" Can you try to connect those dots for me?

That is my opinion. I said from the jump that regardless of your differences, there are places where your differences will be to your advantage, and places when it will work to your disadvantage. I pay more attention to my privileges (which includes black privilege) as opposed to the privileges of others. Because I’ve never done a cost-benifit analysis I am more familiar with the privileges that apply to me. Perhaps if I were a white woman, I would be more familiar with those privileges; who knows.

 

[Kfox]

I don't care about your feelings. I care a lot about statistics and things that are relevant to society as a whole. It being looked down upon for white people to use the N word isn't as much of an issue as black communities having a fraction of the average family wealth of white families.

I believe it was Thomas Sowell who did the research to find they have 1/10th the wealth of the average white family, but when you consider 3 out of 4 black families are headed by single parent, while the vast majority of white families are 2 parent, he decided to look at black 2 parent vs white 2 parent households, and the difference was in the single digits. Often the problem with statical data is they see the discrepancy, and automatically assume it is due to racism instead of looking at possible other factors involved

It has nothing to do with culture of a race. We can talk about the cycle of poverty which affects all races but that isn't a culture. You need to bring evidence that there is a cultural explanation for why there is disparity.

I love when people bring up the new immigrant statistic. Do you think the average citizens of those countries are the ones that immigrate? Weird how the successful and wealthier people of a country that have the resources to move do better on average than the people already living in poverty in the new location.

Then why are blacks the only group that are being outperformed by immigrants? You don’t see Mexican immigrants out preforming Mexican americans, you don’t see Asian Immigrants out preforming Asian Americans, you don’t see white immigrants out preforming white americans; why does this excuse only seem to apply to blacks?
Study: Black Immigrants Earn More than U.S.-Born Blacks

Exactly. No one person did anything.

Wrong; a lot of one persons invested, and the one who started the company invested the most. Only investors deserve the return on their investment

They are part of the whole. And yet the economic prosperity is not as evenly distributed as the workload invested.

Work load invested? Yes it is. When you agree to do work for an agreed upon wage, you’ve invested nothing and don’t deserve the rewards of investments; only investors deserve those rewards.

Every single employee. They generate a thousand dollars worth of value and they get paid a dollar. Wages and employment is exploitation by definition.

You’ve got the wrong definition for exploitation. When you are paid an agreed upon wage for your work, that is not exploitation because nobody forced you to agree to the wage.

 

[Curious George]

For me it is a black privilege because even though I didn’t need it, it was an option for me and my business, but would not have been had I been white.

And i think we may disagree in what counts as a privilege here. I wouldn't call programs designed to help offset a disparity count as privilege. I would say that they are discriminatory.

But that’s just business; there are countless other privileges; do you really think admitted racists like Paul Mooney or Nick Cannon would have been able to get away with half the stuff they say had they been white? Do you think had Obama been white and had a racist like Rev Wright as a close friend and pastor would have stood a chance at become President?

No, i think in general people who are not white are given a "pass" for being mad at people who are white. That doesn't mean that it is right or should happen.

A system of statical data? No. All you gotta do is look around and see for yourself. All you need are 2 eyes, and the ability to pay attention and you will see places when some have it better or worse than others; and it isn’t a one way street; it goes both ways.

This os where I disagree. The concept of privilege is a truth about sets, sure you may be able to have strong hypotheses based on anecdotal evidence, but at the end of the day, anecdotal evidence doesn't entail statistical truth.

That is my opinion. I said from the jump that regardless of your differences, there are places where your differences will be to your advantage, and places when it will work to your disadvantage. I pay more attention to my privileges (which includes black privilege) as opposed to the privileges of others. Because I’ve never done a cost-benifit analysis I am more familiar with the privileges that apply to me. Perhaps if I were a white woman, I would be more familiar with those privileges; who knows.

Well, I find your view interesting, thank you for sharing.

 

[Friend of Mara]

I believe it was Thomas Sowell who did the research to find they have 1/10th the wealth of the average white family, but when you consider 3 out of 4 black families are headed by single parent, while the vast majority of white families are 2 parent, he decided to look at black 2 parent vs white 2 parent households, and the difference was in the single digits. Often the problem with statical data is they see the discrepancy, and automatically assume it is due to racism instead of looking at possible other factors involved

One of the major reasons that black families are run by single parent homes has to do with the war on drugs and the disproportionate number of minorities being incarcerated. All the way down to how Nixon admittedly ran a smear campaign against marijuana and crack specifically to incarcerate his democrat voting minorities.

Or we can talk about the link between poverty and crime. How the amount of crime committed isn't significantly different when divided by both race and income. Or we can talk about how the courts often impose harsher penalties for the same crimes when the only difference in the case was race.

I can go on. Each and every single one of these factors are important. Each and every single one of them can be fixed. And almost every single one can be traced back to harms committed either now or in the past to these groups.

Then why are blacks the only group that are being outperformed by immigrants? You don’t see Mexican immigrants out preforming Mexican americans, you don’t see Asian Immigrants out preforming Asian Americans, you don’t see white immigrants out preforming white americans; why does this excuse only seem to apply to blacks?
Study: Black Immigrants Earn More than U.S.-Born Blacks

To explain why black immigrants do better I will quote your own link.
"While U.S. born blacks have had to battle generations of institutional racism, such as predatory lending, that has put them at a socioeconomic and psychological disadvantage that some immigrants have not experienced in this country."

Asian immigrants and European immigrants do earn more than the average demographic that they represent. The only one that doesn't tends to be Hispanic and that has to do with the particular issue we have at our southerly boarder.

Wrong; a lot of one persons invested, and the one who started the company invested the most. Only investors deserve the return on their investment

I disagree entirely. The investors should either pay better or do the work themselves.

Work load invested? Yes it is. When you agree to do work for an agreed upon wage, you’ve invested nothing and don’t deserve the rewards of investments; only investors deserve those rewards.

Disagree. Hard pass.

You’ve got the wrong definition for exploitation. When you are paid an agreed upon wage for your work, that is not exploitation because nobody forced you to agree to the wage.

Its be exploited or die. Those are your options. Unless you got lucky and was born into the ruling class in which you get exploit rather than be exploited.

 

[Kfox]

And i think we may disagree in what counts as a privilege here. I wouldn't call programs designed to help offset a disparity count as privilege. I would say that they are discriminatory.

Then how are you defining privilege?

 

[Kfox]

One of the major reasons that black families are run by single parent homes has to do with the war on drugs and the disproportionate number of minorities being incarcerated. All the way down to how Nixon admittedly ran a smear campaign against marijuana and crack specifically to incarcerate his democrat voting minorities

.
So the war on drugs are racist now?

Or we can talk about the link between poverty and crime. How the amount of crime committed isn't significantly different when divided by both race and income. Or we can talk about how the courts often impose harsher penalties for the same crimes when the only difference in the case was race.

Which courts have been doing this?

I can go on. Each and every single one of these factors are important. Each and every single one of them can be fixed. And almost every single one can be traced back to harms committed either now or in the past to these groups.

I have never claimed there was not white privilege, I was just pointing out that there was also black privileges as well. Nothing here you’ve said refutes what I said.

To explain why black immigrants do better I will quote your own link.
"While U.S. born blacks have had to battle generations of institutional racism, such as predatory lending, that has put them at a socioeconomic and psychological disadvantage that some immigrants have not experienced in this country."

That is a poor excuse. To suggest blacks from the diaspora had it better off than blacks in the USA is absurd. Life in those 3rd world countries is much harder.

Asian immigrants and European immigrants do earn more than the average demographic that they represent. The only one that doesn't tends to be Hispanic and that has to do with the particular issue we have at our southerly boarder.

I have heard when comparing European and Asian immigrants who start at the bottom, they are more likely to move up the economic ladder than poor native born European and Asians, but I have never heard nor been able to find any data suggesting when including the rich whites and rich asians in the group, that immigrants do better. Where did you get your data?

I disagree entirely. The investors should either pay better or do the work themselves.

Based on what?

Its be exploited or die. Those are your options. Unless you got lucky and was born into the ruling class in which you get exploit rather than be exploited.

Born into the ruling class? Wrong again; 80% of the richest are first generation rich. The days of people being rich due to rich parents are becoming more of a rarity.
Millionaire Myth Busters

 

[Curious George]

Then how are you defining privilege?

I thought I already explained. Forgive me if I had not done so clearly. Privilege is an emergent concept. That is because it is describing something that is statistically true over a set, but not necessarily true for all members of that set.

Say we have two groups, group A and group B. Each group is made up of a's and b's. If group A is more likely to receive x than group B based on their group membership, then we can say that one of the groups is privileged over the other based on whether x is a benefit or detriment. But this says nothing necessarily about the individual members.
Say we have individuals
ax, a, a, ax, ax, a, a
And
bx, b, b, b, b, b, b,
Where x is a benefit.

The second member of the first group doesn't necessarily have any privilege: they didn't even receive x. But when we look closer the first member of the first group doesn't necessarily have any privilege either. That they received x doesn't entail they had privilege because receiving x is not exclusive to membership in group A.

Now in your scenario we can replace x with "help from an organization"

You would think that the groups would look like this
ax, ax, ax, ax, ax, ax, ax
And b, b, b, b, b, b, b

But that isn't quite true. Firstly not all members can receive x based on their membership with group A. Each one of those programs required a secondary characteristic. And the benefit isn't actually help from the program but what that help adds such as qualifying for a loan or advertising. We realize that these programs are put in place to help offset a balance that is already in play. So prior to the help from the program the data set may have appeared as:
ax, a, a, a, a, a, a
And
bx, b, b, bx, bx, bx, b

With the program the results are

ax, ax, a, a, a, ax, a
And
bx, bx, b, b, bx, bx, b

So was the "help from a program really a privilege? It may have been. But when we look at the results we see that Group A is and group B do not have the same level of disparity. And as far as obtaining x, B is not less likely to obtain x than A.

Consequently, i am not sure we can say that the programs you have described are privileging group A.

Like all statistics how you divide the groups and which sets you analyze will allow you to make different statements of truth regarding those sets. But these are not statements of truth about the individuals within those sets. You made the statement that all groups have moments or positions where there group membership brings an advantage or disadvantage. I agree with that sentiment. But that doesn't mean that I think all groups have roughly equal advantages and disadvantages. I think some groups are more advantaged in areas that correlate to our cultural views of success. I think that some groups have more advantages in areas that correlate to our cultural views of justice. I think that some groups have more advantages in areas that correlate to our social views of freedom.

I think that we should do our best to address racial disparity. While racial disparity in itself is not a clear indication of racial privilege it is a clear clue that something is off. Rarely are issues ever so one dimensional that race is the only factor. But, i think people often use this to try to suggest race is not a factor.
On a side note:
"Race" and "racism" carry a lot of baggage as terms go. Ultimately race is a somewhat arbitrary term that doesn't really lend itself to good categorization. However, race and concepts of race are so ingrained in our culture, because of our history, that people cannot help but perceive it, rightly or wrongly. Thos perception of race impacts individuals in our society. Listening to how individuals have been impacted by perceptions of race is helpful in understanding each other, it is helpful in making hypotheses about areas for amelioration. Statistics are another tool to help us toward this same goal. Privilege at its core is just a term that was developed to progress our conversation and actions of amelioration. Unfortunately, i think the term has backfired. Maybe that is because people struggle to have honest conversations about race?

 

[Augustus]

Unfortunately, i think the term has backfired. Maybe that is because people struggle to have honest conversations about race?

The term backfired because it is just about the worst branding in history that completely ignores human psychology. Honest conversations are rarely facilitated by insisting on using ideologically loaded terminology that is bound to make people defensive.

Any branding that causes people who generally agree with the idea to viscerally reject it is spectacularly poor communication.

Making people admit guilt/repent rather than support those who are disadvantaged will always produce pushback.

Then doubling down and saying those who reject the branding only do so because they are racist or want to preserve their privilege is just the icing on the pisspoor communication cake.

The only worse branding I can think of was calling secular humanists "Brights" as it basically calls everyone else stupid which is not exactly a winning strategy. Defund the police might also give it a run for its money (bonus points for being accompanied by riots, destruction of property and looting).

 

[oldbadger]

Over the years, I’ve heard many people say that we need to have an honest discussion about race in America, but when the people who say this get the discussion, I’ve found 100% of the time (not most of the time, not even 90%, but 100% of the time) it turns out these are the very people who do not want an honest discussion about race in America. What they want is to dictate their subjective views about race to everyone else, even to the point of offending others, but they do not want others dictating their subjective views at them; even even to a point that they might find offensive.
They want to express their views to others and have others listen to them, without giving input or disagreement, and they attempt to conflate this with having an honest discussion about race. This is not a discussion, this is dictation; this is indoctrination. Now if this is what you want, fine; just just say so! Say you want to dictate your subjective views about race on to others and just have them listen; and quit calling it a desire for an honest discussion, because that it is not.
Your thoughts?

I'm late to this, and don't really qualify because I'm a Brit.
Whilst a view is objective, most descriptions of it will be subjective.
Where I live there doesn't seem to be as much heat in discussions concerning bigotries about gender, race, colour, nationality, religion, creed, marital status, age, sexual status, sexual orientation etc..... the bigotries that I notice here are all about mental health, disability, unreasonable wealth, unreasonably poverty, etc.

But all bigotry sucks........ and there are morons here that are so full of bigoted mess, the nutter who screams and howls at our Hindu post master, calling him disgusting names because he thinks the postmaster is a Muslim. What a muppet!

The bloke whose company is relaying our roads is a Muslim, but rather too big to called anything by anybody. A Thai Buddhist lives over the road with his English wife. The couple next door are ex Londoners, he drove a black-cab all his life and rants about a London which is now effectively closed to him. A wide range of colours, cultures live around here and most of us don't think about that.

 

[Curious George]

The term backfired because it is just about the worst branding in history that completely ignores human psychology. Honest conversations are rarely facilitated by insisting on using ideologically loaded terminology that is bound to make people defensive.

Any branding that causes people who generally agree with the idea to viscerally reject it is spectacularly poor communication.

Making people admit guilt/repent rather than support those who are disadvantaged will always produce pushback.

Then doubling down and saying those who reject the branding only do so because they are racist or want to preserve their privilege is just the icing on the pisspoor communication cake.

The only worse branding I can think of was calling secular humanists "Brights" as it basically calls everyone else stupid which is not exactly a winning strategy. Defund the police might also give it a run for its money (bonus points for being accompanied by riots, destruction of property and looting).

I am not head of branding so I certainly cannot speak in defense of choices.

I imagine the reason academics choose the words they do, and how they subsequently frame those words has to do with garnering attention and publishing. Inflammatory ideas create more of a stir.

 

[Kfox]

I thought I already explained. Forgive me if I had not done so clearly. Privilege is an emergent concept. That is because it is describing something that is statistically true over a set, but not necessarily true for all members of that set.

Say we have two groups, group A and group B. Each group is made up of a's and b's. If group A is more likely to receive x than group B based on their group membership, then we can say that one of the groups is privileged over the other based on whether x is a benefit or detriment. But this says nothing necessarily about the individual members.
Say we have individuals
ax, a, a, ax, ax, a, a
And
bx, b, b, b, b, b, b,
Where x is a benefit.

The second member of the first group doesn't necessarily have any privilege: they didn't even receive x. But when we look closer the first member of the first group doesn't necessarily have any privilege either. That they received x doesn't entail they had privilege because receiving x is not exclusive to membership in group A.

So if I am understanding your correctly, in your view not all white people have white privilege since receiving "x" is not exclusive to membership in group "a"; is this correct? If not tell me where I'm going wrong.[/quote]

Now in your scenario we can replace x with "help from an organization"

You would think that the groups would look like this
ax, ax, ax, ax, ax, ax, ax
And b, b, b, b, b, b, b

But that isn't quite true. Firstly not all members can receive x based on their membership with group A. Each one of those programs required a secondary characteristic. And the benefit isn't actually help from the program but what that help adds such as qualifying for a loan or advertising. We realize that these programs are put in place to help offset a balance that is already in play. So prior to the help from the program the data set may have appeared as:
ax, a, a, a, a, a, a
And
bx, b, b, bx, bx, bx, b

With the program the results are

ax, ax, a, a, a, ax, a
And
bx, bx, b, b, bx, bx, b

So was the "help from a program really a privilege? It may have been. But when we look at the results we see that Group A is and group B do not have the same level of disparity. And as far as obtaining x, B is not less likely to obtain x than A.

Consequently, i am not sure we can say that the programs you have described are privileging group A.

Like all statistics how you divide the groups and which sets you analyze will allow you to make different statements of truth regarding those sets. But these are not statements of truth about the individuals within those sets. You made the statement that all groups have moments or positions where there group membership brings an advantage or disadvantage. I agree with that sentiment. But that doesn't mean that I think all groups have roughly equal advantages and disadvantages. I think some groups are more advantaged in areas that correlate to our cultural views of success. I think that some groups have more advantages in areas that correlate to our cultural views of justice. I think that some groups have more advantages in areas that correlate to our social views of freedom.

I think that we should do our best to address racial disparity. While racial disparity in itself is not a clear indication of racial privilege it is a clear clue that something is off. Rarely are issues ever so one dimensional that race is the only factor. But, i think people often use this to try to suggest race is not a factor.
On a side note:
"Race" and "racism" carry a lot of baggage as terms go. Ultimately race is a somewhat arbitrary term that doesn't really lend itself to good categorization. However, race and concepts of race are so ingrained in our culture, because of our history, that people cannot help but perceive it, rightly or wrongly. Thos perception of race impacts individuals in our society. Listening to how individuals have been impacted by perceptions of race is helpful in understanding each other, it is helpful in making hypotheses about areas for amelioration. Statistics are another tool to help us toward this same goal. Privilege at its core is just a term that was developed to progress our conversation and actions of amelioration. Unfortunately, i think the term has backfired. Maybe that is because people struggle to have honest conversations about race?

In your view; what are some examples of White Privilege?

 

[Augustus]

I am not head of branding so I certainly cannot speak in defense of choices.

I imagine the reason academics choose the words they do, and how they subsequently frame those words has to do with garnering attention and publishing. Inflammatory ideas create more of a stir.

I generally put it down to the fact that academics are amongst the worst communicators in the world

 

[Friend of Mara]

.
So the war on drugs are racist now?

Always has been. In fact its very inception was entirely constructed for this reason. It wasn't done out of hate of minorities but for maintaining a status quo of power that required weakening those demographics.

Which courts have been doing this?

If you want specific examples those are easy to get by a google search. But the statistics of it matter more than the individual court case. Is every courtroom in every case in America biased against minorities? No. But the average lean is against them.

I have never claimed there was not white privilege, I was just pointing out that there was also black privileges as well. Nothing here you’ve said refutes what I said.

I also haven't claimed that there were not black privileges. I have simply stated that in the grand scheme of things they are neglegible at best while white privilege is not.

That is a poor excuse. To suggest blacks from the diaspora had it better off than blacks in the USA is absurd. Life in those 3rd world countries is much harder.

Its not an excuse. Its fact. The average citizen in those 3rd world countries likely wouldn't out preform native born US citizens. However the average citizen of those countries are not who immigrates. It is the ones who are already educated and have enough wealth or connections to leave those countries. So if the US only allows the best and brightest of a nation no matter how poor of course the ones that make it will be high achievers.

I have heard when comparing European and Asian immigrants who start at the bottom, they are more likely to move up the economic ladder than poor native born European and Asians, but I have never heard nor been able to find any data suggesting when including the rich whites and rich asians in the group, that immigrants do better. Where did you get your data?

I believe I already linked the data above. If I didn't I will go looking for the source.

Though it is not placing against "rich asians" or "rich whites". The average immigrant does better than the average native born.

Based on what?

Based on common decency.

Born into the ruling class? Wrong again; 80% of the richest are first generation rich. The days of people being rich due to rich parents are becoming more of a rarity.
Millionaire Myth Busters

For sure some just got lucky.

However I didn't see the source of the study for your link. It simply said it. Can you find the link to the study?

 

[Kooky]

I didn't say white people are being systematically disadvantaged.

I don't see how else to interpret these posts of yours claiming that Black people have advantages and privileges versus White people in the US:

IMO there are more benefits of being black in the USA than being white. All you gotta do is open your eyes.

I think you get the picture; pretty much every major city has something to promote black business. Obviously if you are white this is not an option for you. I see this as a black privilege

Do you?

 

[Kooky]

I generally put it down to the fact that academics are amongst the worst communicators in the world

That's not actually true - they simply tend to communicate among themselves, just like every other job.

It takes a special kind of training to break down complex in-group subjects for an out-group, although of course, in a public context, people with such training are frequently treated as lesser and typically denigrated as lazy and useless, because god forbid we respect the people whose job it is to educate others in subjects not typically accessible to outsiders.

 

[Augustus]

That's not actually true - they simply tend to communicate among themselves, just like every other job.

It takes a special kind of training to break down complex in-group subjects for an out-group, although of course, in a public context, people with such training are frequently treated as lesser and typically denigrated as lazy and useless, because god forbid we respect the people whose job it is to educate others in subjects not typically accessible to outsiders.

Can't say I agree with you at all there. It's not well written from the perspective of academics either, and certainly not for students (many of whom are studying in a 2nd/3rd language).

Writing should never get in the way of the topic, and 90% of academic articles, the writing makes the topic harder rather than easier to understand accounting for the subject complexity.

The idea that these ideas are too complex or profound to be written clearly is nonsense. Poor style largely results from pretentious signalling and aping the style of other academics engaging in pretentious signaling (a habit picked up by students who think they 'must' write like academics do).

4 of Orwell's rules for writing - academic rules for writing

Never use a long word where a short one will do. - always use the most abstruse expression possible to show off your Brobdingnagian vocabulary

If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. - if possible to add a word, add one that is positively Daedalian in its abstruseness

Never use the passive where you can use the active. - The passive voice should be frequently utilised by you for the purpose of enhancing gravitas

Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. - Haha, now you are being silly. How else can we signal our erudition without including excessive and wholly unnecessary jargon and foreign terminology? Moreover, whenever possible while making a key point, you should throw in a lengthy foreign language quote without providing a translation because if the reader doesn't understand whatever languages you do then they don't deserve to understand your point.

 

[Kooky]

Can't say I agree with you at all there.

That's okay, I didn't expect you to.

 

[Augustus]

That's okay, I didn't expect you to.

It's good you don't expect me to be wrong

Seriously though, you read journals and other scholarly texts and think that, in general, they are well written?