We need to have an honest discussion about race in America

[Kooky]

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?

In the interest of discussion, I would prefer it if you stuck to a single topic rather than shifting between several related points from post to post. Your initial claim was about communication, not bad writing specifically, which is what I was responding to, and I'm still sticking to my point - most of academic communication is produced with other academics as a target audience in mind, and so is naturally heavy on jargon, in-jokes, and other methods of in-group gatekeeping that tend to arise naturally whenever you have members of a relatively closed in-group like academia (or lawyers, or IT people, or members of close knit online fandoms) communicating with one another.

On the subject of bad writing in academia, is hardly unusual for academics specificially to be bad at writing. Few academics actually are trained to write well, and this reflects in the quality of their public facing texts, but this is hardly unique to academia. I would actually be shocked to find an above average number of people capable of writing interesting and engaging texts in an entire field where it is highly unusual to have any sort of writing training.

The difference between most other fields and academia, is that most other fields aren't expected to produce high volumes of peer communication, and that most that peer communication isn't readily available to the public.

 

[Curious George]

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.

I think that is correct. However, because of the many variables involved it does not make sense to discuss privilege on an individual basis except for blatant discrimination and for purposes of self reflection. But as it describes a statistical advantage, I would note that the longer a person lives in a system the more likely they are to be impacted by those statistical trends.

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

Being favored by landlords in renter applications

 

[Augustus]

In the interest of discussion, I would prefer it if you stuck to a single topic rather than shifting between several related points from post to post. Your initial claim was about communication, not bad writing specifically, which is what I was responding to, and I'm still sticking to my point - most of academic communication is produced with other academics as a target audience in mind, and so is naturally heavy on jargon, in-jokes, and other methods of in-group gatekeeping that tend to arise naturally whenever you have members of a relatively closed in-group like academia (or lawyers, or IT people, or members of close knit online fandoms) communicating with one another.

On the subject of bad writing in academia, is hardly unusual for academics specificially to be bad at writing. Few academics actually are trained to write well, and this reflects in the quality of their public facing texts, but this is hardly unique to academia. I would actually be shocked to find an above average number of people capable of writing interesting and engaging texts in an entire field where it is highly unusual to have any sort of writing training.

The difference between most other fields and academia, is that most other fields aren't expected to produce high volumes of peer communication, and that most that peer communication isn't readily available to the public.

Outside of perhaps a conference though, if an academic is primarily aiming their formal communication at other academics they are aiming at the wrong audience (often the reason why they are bad communicators though is precisely that they do aim to impress other academics). Seeing this as "peer-communication" akin to 2 lawyers talking shop seems entirely the wrong approach.

If you aim to advance knowledge in a field, especially if you are an educator, you should make it as accessible as you can given the subject matter. Not everyone will be an exceptional writer, but most problems are caused by basic problems that could be pretty easily improved upon.

 

[Kfox]

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.

I ain’t talking about the 1940’s war on drugs, I’m talking about today. I know they used to claim the Crack/Cocaine sentencing discrepancy was racist, but as Clinton pointed out; it was black lawmakers that put those laws into affect due to the destruction it did to black neighborhoods.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...s_are_racist_blame_black_leaders_137273.html#!
Plus now that meth (mostly white folks drug) is given the same sentencing crack was given, there isn’t much talk about that now.

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.

If white racists in power are sentencing minorities unfairly; I’ve already pointed out it goes both ways. However; I’ve got a feeling they get those statistics by just looking at the numbers and drawing conclusions of racism without taking other factors into consideration like economics, where the crime took place, repeat offense, etc.

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.

I don’t agree; I don’t think any of it is negligible, however you are entitled to your subjective opinion

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.

So all of those Haitian boat people, and cubans trying to get here on a raft, whose children are outperforming a generation later were their best?

For sure some just got lucky.

You call 80% 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?

Here is another link that just gives information about millionaires; among the information it says 20% inherited their wealth. Perhaps this link will work for you. If not, just google “80% millionaires first generation rich” and see what comes up.
28 Millionaire Statistics: What percentage of Americans are millionaires?

 

[Kfox]

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:



Do you?

I was refuting the claim that white people only get the privileges, and black people only get disadvantages. I think I waswas clear when I said I believe there was white privilege, black privilege, Brown, male, female, gay, straight, privileges; no mater what is unique about you there will be places where it will work to your advantage, and places where it will work against you.

 

[Kooky]

Outside of perhaps a conference though, if an academic is primarily aiming their formal communication at other academics they are aiming at the wrong audience (often the reason why they are bad communicators though is precisely that they do aim to impress other academics). Seeing this as "peer-communication" akin to 2 lawyers talking shop seems entirely the wrong approach.

The overwhelming amount of text an academic will produce in their career are likely going to be either journal articles or conference papers; the rest would be monographies aimed at people in their field, and perhaps specifically writing for textbooks or journals as they climb the career ladder.

Being myself usually a very interested amateur to many academic fields rather than any sort of insider, I would therefore argue that there is very little academic literature being produced that is intended to interface with the general public. And what I've read on the subject suggests that there is also very little prestige, or even recognition, in actually writing to interface with the general public to begin with, as nearly all evaluation and career advancement in academia is dependent on peer recognition.

If you aim to advance knowledge in a field, especially if you are an educator, you should make it as accessible as you can given the subject matter. Not everyone will be an exceptional writer, but most problems are caused by basic problems that could be pretty easily improved upon.

I would say that these are different approaches that require different skills, and, crucially, different writing skills as well.

Military historian Bret Deveroux outlines this very well in his (public facing, layperson-focused) blog, I think, when he talks about the issues many academics face when having to write public facing texts:

The first [of my points] is a question of presentation style: good public engagement should feel more like a (good) lecture than a conference paper. That can be tricky when writing for traditional media publications because you have a point you are trying to make and a sharp word limit in which to make it, but the idea remains the same: you are mostly aiming to build a base of knowledge for a reader with little grounding in your topic and then – in a persuasive or argumentative piece – perch an argument on top of that basis of knowledge. Looking at my own public-facing writing outside of ACOUP, I have a fairly standard structure that I start with: in the first couple of paragraphs I introduce a current issue and a historical analog which can help us think about it. Then I spent the middle of the piece (generally the largest chunk), explaining what the historical analog is, because of course most readers don’t know what the auxilia were, or who Peisistratos was or any of that. I am building the basis of historical knowledge in my reader, introducing the facts I need them to know in order for my conclusion (which is about the current issue, not the historical analog) to make sense. I assume this method works because editors keep paying me to do it.

Instead, what a lot of academics end up doing is trying to write conference papers to the public. And I understand the instinct: the conference paper in its structure and formality looks the most like a public-facing article. But the audience is totally different and so the genre is also very different: a conference paper is fundamentally a research report on a very niche topic to an audience of specialists. Conference papers tend to be oriented towards that audience, with academic in-jokes, too-clever-by-half academic titles and language written in a compressed, technical register which is exhausting for most people to read.1 That’s not a critique of the conference paper (or the related creature, the invited talk) – they have their purpose and are designed to it. But engaging the public is not that purpose. Do not write conference papers to the public.

And that leads to the next point: if you want to get your public audience to eventually be interested in something they have no knowledge or connection of, you have to build your way there from things they know. That can, it turns out, be a really long effort; to take my own project, you can see pretty clearly how I use popular culture products as the bridge to what my audience knows in order to get into many topics. The nice thing about keeping at this for a few years is that now I have an audience which has a broader basis of that knowledge, which lets me cut into narrower and deeper topics (9,000 words on trace italienne fortresses or 8,500 words on the modern reception of classical ethnography). This is tricky for Classicists who often now do their work on authors who are now very obscure; in the end, I’m afraid my advice is what many would not want to hear: public outreach is often going to have to begin with the authors people have heard of (Homer, Vergil, Cicero, Caesar) and build to the ones they haven’t over what is likely going to be a generational effort to get people2 interested in whole genres of literature.3

 

[Kooky]

I was refuting the claim that white people only get the privileges, and black people only get disadvantages. I think I waswas clear when I said I believe there was white privilege, black privilege, Brown, male, female, gay, straight, privileges; no mater what is unique about you there will be places where it will work to your advantage, and places where it will work against you.

Can you think of examples for white privilege, then?

 

[Kfox]

I think that is correct. However, because of the many variables involved it does not make sense to discuss privilege on an individual basis except for blatant discrimination and for purposes of self reflection. But as it describes a statistical advantage, I would note that the longer a person lives in a system the more likely they are to be impacted by those statistical trends.

Why? Why would time spent dealing with statistical trends make a difference at the individual level?

 

[Kfox]

Can you think of examples for white privilege, then?

The vast majority of people in power in the US are white, and no doubt some of those people with such power are racist, biased, or more comfortable with their own kind than those who are different than they are. Such people in power will likely go against the system they are a part of, and favor whites over all others.

 

[Kooky]

The vast majority of people in power in the US are white, and no doubt some of those people with such power are racist, biased, or more comfortable with their own kind than those who are different than they are. Such people in power will likely go against the system they are a part of, and favor whites over all others.

But you can't think that privilege applying in any kind of systematic or widespread way, only individual circumstances based on deliberate individual choice based on irrational individual prejudice.

So we're back to you not believing that systematic or structural racism exists (except to favor Black people).

 

[Kfox]

But you can't think that privilege applying in any kind of systematic or widespread way, only individual circumstances based on deliberate individual choice based on irrational individual prejudice.

So we're back to you not believing that systematic or structural racism exists (except to favor Black people).

As I pointed out before; if (for example) a cop takes an oath to the system; to be fair and protect all equally, but secretly betrays that oath due to personal prejudices, how can you blame the system for his betrayal?

 

[Kooky]

As I pointed out before; if (for example) a cop takes an oath to the system; to be fair and protect all equally, but secretly betrays that oath due to personal prejudices, how can you blame the system for his betrayal?

"The system" does not exist as a discrete entity that is separate from individuals. "Systemic" issues are simply issues produced by a certain critical mass of individuals engaging in similar individual behavior to produce similar individual effects over a range of individual situations.

Or, to turn your example on its head, I want to ask you a question in reverse: How many individual cops "betraying" their oath to treat people, or supporting other cops betraying their oath, or refusing to reprimand those cops, or simply avoiding dealing with the problem would it take until you were to label this a systemic problem?

 

[Kfox]

"The system" does not exist as a discrete entity that is separate from individuals. "Systemic" issues are simply issues produced by a certain critical mass of individuals engaging in similar individual behavior to produce similar individual effects over a range of individual situations.

To me, “Systemic racism”, and “Institutional racism” are the same thing. When someone says systemic/institutional racism, they are saying there are actual systems/institutions employed within society that are racist. Police Departments, Medical centers, Criminal Justice systems, Education Systems, etc. these are examples of institutions/systems that we are talking about when we say systemic/institutional racism. In order for the system to be racist, the laws of the system have to be written in such a way that following said laws as intended would require you to discriminate against those of a specific race. Jim Crow laws would be an example of this.

Or, to turn your example on its head, I want to ask you a question in reverse: How many individual cops "betraying" their oath to treat people, or supporting other cops betraying their oath, or refusing to reprimand those cops, or simply avoiding dealing with the problem would it take until you were to label this a systemic problem?

When Freddie Gray was killed in Baltimore, people began to riot in the streets due to Police brutality. An independent agency concluded that there was bias against black people during that time in that city; yet the Mayor was black, the Police Chief was black, the police force was mostly Minority, 9 out of 15 city counsel members were black, heck even the President at that time was black. Are we to assume when blacks get in positions of power they become racist against their own kind?

 

[Kooky]

To me, “Systemic racism”, and “Institutional racism” are the same thing. When someone says systemic/institutional racism, they are saying there are actual systems/institutions employed within society that are racist. Police Departments, Medical centers, Criminal Justice systems, Education Systems, etc. these are examples of institutions/systems that we are talking about when we say systemic/institutional racism. In order for the system to be racist, the laws of the system have to be written in such a way that following said laws as intended would require you to discriminate against those of a specific race. Jim Crow laws would be an example of this.

We've already come to the conclusion that you do not believe systemic or structural racisms exist.

Did you want a discussion, or are you simply going to re-state your opinion over and over in the hopes that the third, fourth, fifth time will convince me that your subjective understanding is the only correct one?

 

[Kfox]

We've already come to the conclusion that you do not believe systemic or structural racisms exist.

Did you want a discussion, or are you simply going to re-state your opinion over and over in the hopes that the third, fourth, fifth time will convince me that your subjective understanding is the only correct one?

I’m sorta enjoying this conversation. Obviously your subjective opinion is different than mine, you believe if a racist is a part of a system, and uses his position within the system to discriminate, the system becomes racist; is that correct? If not, tell me where I’m going wrong. If I am right, what about a system that has (for example) white racists who secretly discriminate against blacks, and black racists who secretly discriminate against whites working within the same system? Who is such a system racist against in that scenario? Is it a wash with such a case?

 

[Kooky]

I’m sorta enjoying this conversation. Obviously your subjective opinion is different than mine, you believe if a racist is a part of a system, and uses his position within the system to discriminate, the system becomes racist; is that correct?

That is one way to look at it, with one distinction that I personally believe is important: I do not believe that there are racist people, as such. I believe that people do things or say things that have various degrees of racist effects. Therefore, I do not think that intention is important to qualify speech or action as racist; what matters is the harm it causes in others.

I believe it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to not have prejudices against people.
I believe it is, however, possible to minimize the harmful effects these prejudices can have on others.

I also believe that we live in a fundamentally unfair and unequal society regardless of the racism that is also part of it.

 

[Kfox]

That is one way to look at it, with one distinction that I personally believe is important: I do not believe that there are racist people, as such. I believe that people do things or say things that have various degrees of racist effects. Therefore, I do not think that intention is important to qualify speech or action as racist; what matters is the harm it causes in others.

If various people within the same system say things and do things that harmful to all races, who is the system racist against?

I believe it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to not have prejudices against people..

Do you believe it is impossible to not have prejudices only against a specific race of people?

 

[Kooky]

If various people within the same system say things and do things that harmful to all races, who is the system racist against?

You seem to assume a mindset of fairness and equality where it doesn't exist.

To be clear, I don't accept the common liberal-conservative idea of racism as prejudice or hyper-rudeness that can be solved by just not acting so offended; it is an insidious and pervasive complex of systematic inequality that has accumulated over decades, in some areas centuries. In such a system of oppression and discrimination, almost by definition, people are not being discriminated and oppressed in eqal measure; the inequality is the entire point.

Do you believe it is impossible to not have prejudices only against a specific race of people?

Well, races are social constructions and can only exist in societies which are reproducing them as social realities, so I'd say it would be kind of strange to assume that people who have no concept of a White or Black race would act racist specifically towards the category of Black people.

For example, the ancient Romans were definitely bigoted and oppressive towards people of different ethnicities, but the idea of basing that oppression solely on skin color seems to have eluded them for the most part.

 

[Kfox]

You seem to assume a mindset of fairness and equality where it doesn't exist.

No I don’t. I assume if systemic racism is people employed within a system acting racist, then logic will tell you not everybody within the same system will be racist towards the same race.

To be clear, I don't accept the common liberal-conservative idea of racism as prejudice or hyper-rudeness that can be solved by just not acting so offended; it is an insidious and pervasive complex of systematic inequality that has accumulated over decades, in some areas centuries. In such a system of oppression and discrimination, almost by definition, people are not being discriminated and oppressed in eqal measure; the inequality is the entire point.

That’s nice! Now care to answer my question?

Well, races are social constructions and can only exist in societies which are reproducing them as social realities, so I'd say it would be kind of strange to assume that people who have no concept of a White or Black race would act racist specifically towards the category of Black people.

We don’t live in a society with on concept of a white or black race. Care to answer my question?

For example, the ancient Romans were definitely bigoted and oppressive towards people of different ethnicities, but the idea of basing that oppression solely on skin color seems to have eluded them for the most part.

Thousands of years ago people lived around their own race because people of other races lived in an area of the world they didn’t have a way of getting to; so racism was not an issue. Now care to answer the question?

 

[Curious George]

Why? Why would time spent dealing with statistical trends make a difference at the individual level?

I thought that i was clear that it is not something that can clearly transposed onto the individual level.

Disparity occurs, when tested we find disparity even when all other variables are similar. The disadvantage is there for a group in the set and consequently the advantage is there for a different group in the set.

It matters on an individual level because we all make up that set. The term privilege was used, if i am not mistaken, to drive at the notion that one group benefits from another groups detriment. The idea was to raise awareness of the fact that one cannot simply say I'm not racist, so I play no part in the racism. However, others quickly latched on to the term and tried to weaponize it to guilt anyone they judged "privileged." This reactionary viewpoint was then seized upon by others with opposing views in an attempt to highlight the extremism.

Now it seems everyone is only allowed to have two viewpoints: 1. All white people (especially straight men) are bad and racist or 2. Critical race theory, feminism and any other pursuit that critically analyzes power structures, race and gender are bad.

The discussion has become so polarized that if you espouse even the slightest opinion, you are assumed to have a cascade of beliefs.

Discussions on race so often become a battleground of strawmen and talking past each other.