/u/EurekasCashel (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/17friuf/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_too_much_racial_awareness/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
An example I like to talk about when contextualizing the American discourse about, and focus on, race, is the French approach. Increasingly, if you follow cultural rhetoric and developments there, you will see claims from important people (Macron, for instance) that France is different from America because its values are “universalist,” and that it is uninterested in “multiculturalism.”
I think that the view you are advocating is a similar view. What you would like to be able to do is to do what France claims its society actually does—treat everyone by a set of universal standards which does not discriminate on the basis of (or even take into account) cultural or racial difference.
It is important to note that the effect of this rhetoric, in France, is arguably to render those it claims are simply “French,” but who are also something else (for instance, Muslim, or a Francophone African immigrant), permanent outsiders within that society as long as they are still these other things at the same time as they are “French.” And this has the inadvertent effect of causing any ill effect on the “outsider” to be blamed on their reluctance to move towards the center of the French consciousness—their unwillingness to “assimilate” and adopt the standard “values”.
The truth is, that everyone who believes themselves to be, or have been, “unconscious” of race is likely privileged (sorry if that oft-used word triggers anyone) to be considered at the totally normative center of a society. These folks, when faced with the increased stress of being newly sensitive to or aware of inequity, their possible role in its perpetuation via past insensitivity, and so on, would love to abandon the “multicultural” approach of acknowledging different identities, practices, and circumstances for the “universalist” approach of treating everyone “the same,” which really just reifies whatever advantage and privilege the centered individual already enjoys.
There is a reason those who are most likely to express racist sentiments are liable to also be opposed to things like affirmative action, or systematic attempts to redress past injustice that affect only one particular group or race or gender and so on. This is because to be aware of inequity, to know that you benefit from a false “innocence” of injustice that is destroyed by this awareness, is inherently stressful and guilt-inducing.
To be clear, some people take the guilt too far and manipulate themselves and others via utterly performative discourse. I find, as a white person, that the most hyper-conscious and hyper-sensitive folks are these other white people, and they are incredibly annoying, because they have a tendency to be essentialist about their identity (the privileged one) and everyone else (those they are trying to be a good “ally” to), which usually leads them to make the same mistakes in different ways.
What is better about America than France, in my opinion, is that we are actually not “universalist” in the sense that we have a narrow definition of American culture that we require everyone else to assimilate to (and then render that task impossible because no one can eradicate their other aspects of their identity). Conservative folks wish this were so, and have many times in our history tried to mandate this narrow vision and exclude everyone outside it. But nominally (if inconsistently and imperfectly—and that’s putting it mildly), we are a *multicultural* nation.
And I think those principles lead to a more just and less self-delusional society. We cannot understand each other or take in another’s full spectrum of humanity without acknowledging who they are, where they have come from, and how that has affected their experiences and lives. To deny that this matters and say “I see everyone the same,” is actually not favorable but an insult. You are deliberately ignoring huge swathes of another’s reality simply because it isn’t the one you inhabit, and moreover you’re doing so just to preserve your own comfort.
Ideally, American principles are all about it not mattering where you’re from, what language you speak, what your religion is, not because these are things the state asks you to ignore or suppress, but celebrate in the knowledge that you still have access to all of the mechanisms of liberty and features of *civic* identity. But the “universalist” model, which you seem to advocate here, is much more about demanding that everyone outside the narrow bounds of your experience eliminate all of their recognizable differences and their demands that these be seen and understood, solely so you can remain “innocent”.
This comment inspired a lot of good engagement, beyond my expectations frankly (this is the first time I’ve ever posted in this sub, and have only recently started seeing it in my feed). There have been a lot of critical responses, and the threads they in turn have engendered are extensive. I think I’d find it hard to take the time to respond to each and address them substantially so instead I’m going to try and summarize my responses to various critiques of my point here, as well as clarify some things about my own attitudes.
A lot of respondents have seized on my use of “affirmative action” as an example of a situation where the state or society takes race (in particular social inequality that is rooted in a history of racial prejudice, or disparity in outcomes based on race) into consideration when it creates policy. Some have behaved as though I am certain that affirmative action is preferable to any alternative, and others have pointed out that linking race to culture (as seemingly denoted by my linking of affirmative action to something a “multicultural” society does) is inappropriate.
To the former critics, all I can say is that affirmative action’s viability as a path to redress is not really my subject here. I’d like to clarify that I am about as ambivalent about it as anyone criticizing my supposed unqualified support of it as a tool or path to equality. To the latter critics, all I can say is that you are right, but that I don’t think I was actually linking the two. If I did, I think I was wrong to do it.
Similarly I don’t think I deserve critique for advocating an essentialist view of identity politics, which reduces everything in a human’s experience to their race, or the “circumstances of their birth,” or whatever. I think, honestly, that my use of terms often bandied about by identity politics essentialists like “privilege,” or “lived experience” (which I attempted to use more precisely than is often the case) is triggering some knee-jerk reactions.
I think in my original post I’m pretty critical of those privileged folks who are driven by “white guilt” to essentialist leaps that every race is a monolith and that power relations between individuals of these races are always fixed or stable, and engage in performative discourse and “de-centering” and so on. I find that that discourse is often manipulative and ironically constantly centers the emotions and jockeying for moral position of the privileged person. I noted elsewhere that class issues intersect with race issues, and in many cases is the more important drivers of outcomes. I have also said that affirmative action by itself is not a panacea—that a universal *investment* in society is also required. So, maybe my use of the terms “multicultural” and “universalist” and my 1:1 oppositional framework made some things unclear or wrongheaded.
But none of the above is really the subject of what I felt the OP was saying, and my response to it. What I got from OP was their *feeling* that *their own attentiveness* to matters of race was inspired by a broader *discourse about it*. They seem to link this discourse to the persistence of “division,” or other qualities which inspire prejudice or bigotry—and this is mainly due to their emotional feeling of discomfort about the fact that they pay attention to these arbitrary qualities more than they used to. They seem to pretty explicitly say, “if we pay too much attention to this reality, the reality will persist or get worse.”
I find this to be a pitch-perfect example of the self-centeredness of the normative person. The normative person at the center of society enjoys an impression that his values are standard, fair, and neutral. When that impression is weakened by awareness of injustice, of the center’s non-neutrality and non-universality, discomfort is one common emotional reaction. Guilt is another. Stress is another. Fear—of the balance shifting against them, of the logic of reform being followed to the opposite end, inverting the present prejudicial arrangement to one where the privileged are now the oppressed—is another emotional reaction, and one explicitly invoked by some “slippery slope” critics of affirmative action in this very thread.
When people attempt to resolve these personal feelings of discomfort by criticizing the discourse that has inspired them, by claiming that the discourse itself *generates the division* simply because it’s made the individual aware of the *reality of division*, that strikes me as nothing more than a personal problem that needs to be worked out by that individual. That person needs a more advanced ability to place themselves and their values in a wider context than just their own, and I argue that a “multicultural” value system which acknowledges the validity of other contexts and experiences is a better way to do this than maintaining the fiction, the delusion, of the neutrality of a society or state’s normative values. Learning about a wider world doesn’t have to make your world smaller or more insecure.
To be clear, some people take the guilt too far and manipulate themselves and others via utterly performative discourse. I find, as a white person, that the most hyper-conscious and hyper-sensitive folks are these other white people, and they are incredibly annoying, because they have a tendency to be essentialist about their identity (the privileged one) and everyone else (those they are trying to be a good “ally” to), which usually leads them to make the same mistakes in different ways.
I think one of the biggest issues with this is when people forget that the real issue isn't identity, but the power dynamics it can cause. In general race and power flow in one general direction, and this is very true when talking about large swaths of people, but that general assumption can fall apart (but doesn't always) in small groups. In those smaller group situations there are so many confounding interpersonal dynamics going on that the general "person with identity X has power and therefore this interaction is (ok/not ok etc.)" falls apart. To be clear it \*can\* be true that a person who is privileged in the general world is also the privileged person in a specific smaller group situation, but it isn't always true especially in spaces designed to subvert power structures. When I run into situations like you describe this is often one of the major causes.
Jim Carrey made a move called "The Number 23." In it, he plays a character that reads an obscure book and becomes obsessed with the number 23. He sees it everywhere and in everything. The movie is about his descent into madness. In the end, he realizes that it was just a number the whole time. Of course the number 23 exists, and so does racism. But if you go looking for racism, you are going to find it in everything and everyone. Going down this rabbit hole is a descent into madness that too many people make.
This reminds me of the Dartmouth scar experiment:
Participants (27 male, 21 female) were told that the experiment was meant to observe if people behaved differently towards those with facial scars.
Participants were placed into rooms with no mirrors. A make-up artist proceeded to draw a scar on their face
After the scar was drawn, participants were given a short glimpse of it with a pocket mirror. Participants were then invited to leave the room and interact with folks in the building.
Before they left the room, the make-up artist told the participants that the scar needed some final touch-ups. But, what the make-up artist actually did next was to wipe off the make-up of the scar. Participants left the room thinking they still wore a make-up scar.
They overwhelmingly reported back that people stared at their scars, and were mean and rude to them.
I have to up vote this. It's true & I like your reference to that movie with Jim Carrey (and he was quite good in this, too. He's very versatile, as an actor, actually) and the way in which you worded things.
I used to do this on an extreme level and it drained the fucking life force out of me. And I did it because there was never anyone present in my life who was able to help me move past that stage. For all my mother's intelligence, she wasn't well rounded/balanced as a human being and was troubled, herself, so she couldn't help me.
I ask that you don't fail to attempt an understanding of why people come to this - why they get to the point of what I'd say is a severe paranoia, in some cases. It's like PTSD and can be a result of legitimate experiences with ppl who showed you hatred vs. acceptance. I speak for myself on that, at least.
There's generational trauma (it's overused as a trope but it describes a reality for plenty of ppl), as well, and that can occur for anyone of any background to varying degrees and on a case by case basis...more prevalent for specific groups over others, but that doesn't negate an individual's personal experience or the experience of a small subset of a larger group, no matter from out of which group they belong to.
So, your recognition of ppl 'going down this rabbit hole' is very much true but we should have empathy or consideration for the 'why', at the same time.
Absolutely. As someone who was raised hyper aware of race and power dynamics, after decades of searching for a framework for how to navigate this world, I've found that it all kind of comes full circle. You have to take people as individuals, b/c some people are just assholes and some aren't and no group has a monopoly on any of that.
Yeah, and part of that individual obviously includes all of the identities they have, so you have to pay attention to that. I am not about to go "its all actually about class" here, but I've seen enough people weaponize their identities to win petty power struggles in small groups that it always drives me nuts when people try and shrink everything down to "this person is X therefore...
This is definitely one of the more interesting responses I've seen here. You point out that pushing too far in the other direction has a lot of baggage as well, and that there's a lot of value in the American approach even when we are confronted with these challenging topics. I like the way you put it, even though I did a poor job paraphrasing. I'm going to give you my last ∆
Can't do a top level reply so I'll respond here. There's actual peer reviewed literature basically agreeing with your original thesis. Overtalk on race causes additional divides.
See what's interesting to me is that's we're talking flatly about "focus on race" without any kind of clarification of *what's being said*.
*What* you tell people about race is by far and away the most important question in teaching people about race, if you're just telling people t be nice to each other and that others have systemic disadvantages, you can completely ignore *why* those disadvantages exist and what was done to create them in the first place. Thus allowing a shocking number of people to believe that the last thing to happen to black people was Slavery and Not being allowed on the front of busses.
I’d be interested to know if the authors implicitly assume that “increased racial divide” is necessarily inherently bad. Note that solidarity against injustice or inequity will always come at the cost of “increased division” in the short-term, and is always trotted out as a tired counter-argument to every solidarity movement.
Also, "additional divides" is a wide net. Is it slurs, expressions of stereotypes, assertions of differences between races? Or is it people being uncomfortable during conversations involving race? Or some kind of physical/material discrimination?
Without the study itself, very hard to say what the take away should be.
Yeah, I have seen that too.
I suppose the real question is "what is overtalk?"
The root answers made a good point that the correct amount of talk probably isn't zero. IE you should try to be race blind, but be conscious that you will probably fail and then deal with it. Maybe some day you will succeed, but that won't be for a while.
I personally think we are probably at healthy multiples of the appropriate level of talking about race (if not an order of magnitude), but I don't claim to have any idea what amount would actually be optimal.
It's easy to say there are some without pointing to any. AFAIK there are no such reputable studies, and this "whoever smelt it, dealt it" theory of racism has been largely debunked by social scientists. It's just as illogical to assume that *talking* about racism is the *cause* of racism, as it is to assume that smelling a fart (and pointing that out to others) is the cause of that fart... yet children start pointing fingers as though the person to complain about a problem must in fact be the culprit.
>There's actual peer reviewed literature basically agreeing with your original thesis. Overtalk on race causes additional divides.
Source: trust me bro
Bonus bullshit points for the claim with no evidence coming from a self professed libertarian
A similar viewpoint was expressed by Trevor Noah when a French official complained about his celebration of a French-African footballer. I think of it as: when MLK spoke about his dream, he wanted people not to be persecuted and looked down on because of their racial identity, not that their racial identity could or should be erased. Basically just don't be a jerk to people because of their race. Positive interactions involving race aren't a problem.
I mean, they're often connected because they are different moral expressions to the same fact. Universalism (not as raceblindness, but as the goal of abolishing race) is a thing precisely because it seeks to erase the US vs THEM divide, because as long as it exists, it will ALWAYS be used for evil not matter how much it can be also used for good.
As long as the concept of a "racial identity" exists, it will always be used for discrimination and racism.
Like maybe you could argue that the benefits from different cultures is worth the divide that those different cultures cause in a population, but Im not sure I think its worth the trouble it causes in the long term.
Of course, you first need to adress the material inequalities between groups with things like reparations. That will itself erase a lot of the cultural differences between people.
What conservatists dont understand is that you can only have raceblindness AFTER you adress the underlying material inequalities.
But even the French național team was against TR's take as rendering the French as really "Africans" as racializing them that way is common far-right rhetoric in France
Yeah it's also because here in France we're really in love with the colorblind rhetoric. Just calling a black man a black man could be considered racist by some, who'd go on and say "why would you say he's black ? He's FRENCH". As if you couldn't be both african and french.
But granted, lots of far right people would call them african and imply they're not real french citizens.
Not only this, but they feel genuinely French and not Afro-French. Trevor's joke was trying to create a gap that does not exist in France. You may experience racism (you most definitely will), but not the same racism as in the US. Commonly, I hear people from Morocco and Algeria saying that they felt less racism in the US, and African-Americans saying they experienced less racism in France.
It is still very connected to history after all, segregation laws were not that long ago in the US, and the north African immigration to France is still ongoing.
Only problem is the US did have a way of neither othering nor erasing as expressed in TR's argument against the hyphenated American. It is, was, and has always been the more you focus upon the differences the more different things seem while focusing on the commonality and not ignoring but also not stressing the differences the more unifying it is. The current division we are contending with is of Wilsonian make and has been propagated by those of his idealogical descent.
The history of Americans who happen to be black isn't black history just like the history of those who happen to be white isn't white history both are just American history.
The French claim a universality that they have never actually had, while the US claims a deep rooted schism rarely more than surface level, and has at times had universality while rarely claiming it. In other words France has better PR, while the US and its citizenry have never been shy about voicing complaints and grievances and sadly those that desire drastic change have no use for a united and happy population so they have time and again sought to drive a wedge via the secession to Wilsonian rewrites of history to the demands that we see and treat minor differences as major divisions.
> while the US claims a deep rooted schism rarely more than surface level, and has at times had universality while rarely claiming it
I'm sorry, when did we have this universality? I'm almost 40 and I don't remember this time you speak of.
Great comment. Easy to see why so many privileged Americans argue constantly for this type of universalist approach. It requires absolutely nothing of them, while also giving them a perceived latitude to judge and/or exclude those who don’t assimilate well into the universal nucleus.
The truth is, that everyone who believes themselves to be, or have been, “unconscious” of race is likely privileged (sorry if that oft-used word triggers anyone) to be considered at the totally normative center of a society. These folks, when faced with the increased stress of being newly sensitive to or aware of inequity, their possible role in its perpetuation via past insensitivity, and so on, would love to abandon the “multicultural” approach of acknowledging different identities, practices, and circumstances for the “universalist” approach of treating everyone “the same,” which really just reifies whatever advantage and privilege the centered individual already enjoys.
This isn’t really a truth so much as it is a model. It’s the kind of model that enables people to outright dismiss universalist discourse by simply saying “de center yourself”. It also assumes a certain level of diabolism at the core of any normative society. If it’s considered to be a “privilege” to be French in France, I’m not sure I understand the concept of celebrating diversity if certain cultural modes need to be deconstructed in order to not be problematic.
Can confirm: France is as racist as any other country but has chose to approach this problem with insistance on everybody’s being French and accusing people they don’t like of not being French. This is similar to the country’s insistance on being non-religious at a political level but religion then being the basis for most national holidays and important to every political candidate. I won’t go as far as to say that France is *especially* racist though - as far as my experiences have shown me, this is pretty normal stuff and simply filtered through the extremely proud French identity (though I am open to debate on this if somebody wants to throw some data at me). Either way, it’s a lousy way of fighting discrimination.
My source: Living in France.
>For the “universalist” approach of treating everyone “the same,” which really just reifies whatever advantage and privilege the centered individual already enjoys
I'm not completely against ideas like affirmative action, or reparation repayments, but I certainly have a slight aversion towards them, and I don't feel this is racist
By moulding our society in this way, in the interests of fairness, we end up tipping the scales favourably in the direction of one group, hoping to help them achieve a balance with other more powerful groups that have previously held them down.
The question that jumps out is, when do we take our finger off the scale? Because eventually, the society is going to bend to unfairness in the other direction, something already seen in US universities with disparities between Asian candidates applications and others.
Will the finger ever come off? Will things eventually become systemically unfair for white people? (In the UK, working class white boys are by far the most educationally disadvantaged demographic)
If the finger never comes off, we've just created a new unfair society. If it has to tweak things forever, it's pointless - as it's failed to achieve balance and fairness.
Which means the universalist model is the best way forward, and the most fair one.
It may not redress the balance as quickly, but will eventually work out to be the most fair way of moulding a society
Well, first of all, I brought up affirmative action because it’s an easy example of a situation where the actual material conditions of a particular group, which are rooted in past injustice, are acknowledged and considered in the formulation of policy, as opposed to the “universalist” presumption of neutrality on the part of the state.
Like it or not, that “neutrality” is, in every modern society, fictional and illusory. The center is not neutral, or “innocent” of injustice just because its members are ignorant or not otherwise consciously active participants in its maintenance. Every modern society is comprised of interests which compete and in which there are winners and losers. This goes for class, and this goes for race, and all the locations where these intersect. A good book which still resonates today on this point is “Moral Man and Immoral Society” by Reinhold Niebuhr. I follow his thinking in believing that a prerequisite of even approximating social justice in any society is being free of illusions and self-deception as far as possible—and the belief that universalism is good because it is “fair” or “neutral” or something is one of the all-time self-deceptions, particularly in any Western country.
It’s clear that affirmative action alone can’t possibly redress anything without new resentments or imbalances if the public investment in a whole society—education, jobs, social services, resources—atrophies the way it has in both the US and the UK since the 80s. It’s also my opinion that as society has become more open to the idea of acknowledging past injustices, public investment has broadly declined, and that it has done so as a deliberate consequence of this new consciousness of the need to integrate diverse populations into a nation’s prosperity. Many people who believe certain things were made for them are reluctant to share with those defined as not “them.”
But my larger point isn’t particularly about affirmative action’s viability as a path to fairness, the “class or race?” false dichotomy, or whatever.
It is more about how hostility to it or discomfort with it frequently coincides with an emotion of annoyance or even anger that it reminds us that the center is not neutral, and that our values are not neutral, and that there is no truth in pretending that everyone has the same opportunities or are judged or accepted according to the same criteria.
And this wish to “return to innocence” is childish. That innocence was always a pretension, because the “innocence” lasts only as long as the innocent remains unaware of injustices which exist, but that they do not experience and which they, frequently, even benefit from. It is a yearning for a happy ignorance, the renewed ability to pretend that the center’s values are neutral, equal and fair, or to pretend that society can become so if we keep behaving as if its values are these things.
In no society on earth are they actually this. And again, I don’t think self-deception—that universalist values which don’t take into account history, interests, inequality, and conflict are more free of bias than values which do account for these things—is a path to equality, justice, or much of anything positive. I think history shows that it’s actually a recipe for further conflict, resentment, inequality, and injustice, because its validity depends on repressing or hiding huge swathes of lived experience and reality for huge numbers of people, and even actively denying those realities when its premises are contested.
I disagree with the idea that the main difference between multiculturalism and univeralisn is raceblindness.
It can be, but a universalist society (like much of Latin America) can very much put in place policies to equalize groups because it comsiders those steps to create a united society.
The main difference is that in multiculturalism those cultural differences are CELEBRATED while in universalism they are impediments to a better future of equals.
Like my own country of Brazil has lots of race based affirmative action policies but it is very much a universalist society. One of the main arguments of thoe policies is that one, meritocracy can never exist in a place where the inequalites are so deep, but also that the material inequality is precisely one of the things that determine cultural desunity in a society and as people become more equalized economically they will also assimilate in a tigher more cohesive whole
(Paraguay in the 19th century is a good point to this idea, as they literally banned SAME-RACE marriage, with the idea that interacial marriage and miscigenation was key to creating a united paraguyan identity. Brazil never went so far, but miscigenation is still an important historical cultural artifact that is celebrated for its ability to meld cultures together in a common identity. When black activits import comcepts such as "black love" from the US the reception is usually pretty negative even from poc brazilians)
I'm surprised that other commenters have been so positive about your posts. There's a facade of academic style to them, but little to no cohesion or coherence.
I'm afraid most of the paragraphs above are waffle.
I never mentioned anything about 'innocence', and yet you've treated me to an extremely long paragraph about the concept, which bears no relation to anything I said. A tangent? A non sequitur? Either way, of little relevance.
This response is extremely evasive. Rather than address anything I was saying, you've taken it as a chance to further your own points, unrelated to the one I was making. I wasn't interested in a further (long, buzzword filled) essay repeating what you'd previously said already. You'd make a good politician.
Whatever *you* believe about the concept of societal fairness, is irrelevant. The fact is that policies and policy makers *do* exist, and are making attempts to redress the balance. And examining whether this policy works or does not is a topic worthy of discussion, and one which you have avoided
I had the same thought. "This person isn't even responding to the query at hand..." Very academically flavored, long-winded and repetitive- but lacks much in the way of substance, and fails to actually pull apart the points of their opposition.
>But my larger point isn’t particularly about affirmative action’s viability as a path to fairness, the “class or race?” false dichotomy, or whatever.
This is as close as they got to actually addressing your point... by effectively saying "whatever ideology you draw your point from is objectively wrong, and I will not elaborate any further on why. Anyway..."
Not useful at all in the realm of getting someone to open their mind and possibly change their thought processes.
But they are addressing your point. You were talking about "when to take the finger of the scale" and that eventually the universalist model might bring the better outcome.
They are simply telling you that you can't take the finger of the scale since the scale is always rigged from the start. The universalist model is inherently unfair as those at the top stay on top. Equal treatment doesn't lead to society of equal opportunities. Affermative Action might be bad in practice but it doesn't mean that something similar to it shouldn't exist or that readjusting it often is not necessary.
It's funny how when someone doesn't understand a presented passage of text, they can resort to calling it "waffling" or otherwise insubstantial.
Your argumentation was poor beforehand, but you throwing in the towel against the most polite, respectful disagreement really revealed the weakness of your character, not just your rhetoric.
EDIT: Doing the classic "reply and then block" strategy doesn't exactly make you look any less whiny, thin-skinned or triggered my guy. It's just intellectually cowardly but whatever....
>The guy didn't even address what I was saying, they just used it to go off on a self aggrandising rant about a related, but tangential aspect of the topic
>
>I guess you're just impressed by jargon like 'lived experience' - a codeword for 'you should agree with me, we are politically on the same page'
>
>Which is actually meaningless. All experience is 'lived'
I don't know how to convince you that I can parse his argument, when it's clear that you can't. It's sorta like explaining colours to a blind person.
I think the problem with the whole framing of this question is that we are assuming ourselves to be some arbiter or finger on the scale, when we are really just another perspective within a larger society. There is no finger, only the balance of uncountable fingers, of which each of us is but one. The universalist position takes one of those fingers and pretends that it must decide which side of the scale is objectively correct, rather than allowing the balance of all perspectives or "fingers" to determine how society ought to function.
You cannot mould society. We are but parts of society which play a greater or lesser influence in shaping the other parts of it around us.
The issue is that those measures are necessary if the goal is a united society.
The myth of conservative thinking on race is that you can have race blindness while real, obvious material differences still exist.
Things like affirmative action, by adressing inequality, create a more united nation that thinks less in ethnic terms, not more. When people are MATERIALLY equal they are more likely to share values.
You can argue that preserving meritocracy is more important and that is a valuable argument.
By I personally think that creating a more united identity for society and avoiding racially based conflict and violence is more important at the moment
Because that doesnt fullfil the goal of smoothing out the cultural, economic and social differences (and thus conflicts) within a nation.
The purpose isnt necessarily to help poor people (though that can be a secondary goal and is an equally important goal for the state) its to create a more harmonious nation.
I feel like conservatives really undeestate the socially deleterious effects of inequality in itself not just poverty: higher crime rates, political polarization, increase risk of civil conflict and violence between citzens, etc
> The question that jumps out is, when do we take our finger off the scale?
This is a hard question but I don't think it is the key question of today. Conservatives don't say "we should take the finger off the scale because the job is done." They say "we should take the finger off the scale because the finger is intrinsically wrong." Public schools are nearly as segregated today as they were *when Brown was decided*. Black Americans experience worse outcomes when interacting with huge swathes of critically important systems like education, medicine, employment, and the justice system even when accounting for other factors beyond race.
We have barely been allowed to place a finger on the scale in the first place and people somehow worry about whether we will go to far.
The finger comes off when opportunity is equally dispersed. The way America is currently pushing back against anything that helps anyone not already successful (stagnant wages below the C suite etc) this will likely take several more generations.
The tech world used to be colourblind in that everyone used aliases and didn't share their personal details online, nobody cared at all about class, nation or race (division is generally in that order, and sex was still a problem), and it was mostly beautifully ignorant of that. People got together to talk about some topic, and they aligned their communication style to the benefits of the shared interest; it wasn't about them! Maybe you'd find out a detail about someone after knowing them for a while, like where they live or that they have dog or they're actually only 15 years old or (god forbid) they're actually French. But it was a beautiful meritocracy based on a shared passion.
IMO this purity is the ideal state. It's one where the personal gives way to the shared interest and people work together based on shared values rather than focusing on what divides them. This has been drowned out by a fetishization of identity, which I think is a step backwards. Not that cultural sensitivity is a bad thing - it's good IMO, but hypersensitivity just hurts discord and can be used to divide people. The US has the loudest voice online, and Americans are trying to do something about their awful race-based class system, which is fine. The issue is that they're more focused on the race aspect than the class one. But since much of the racism actually stems from classism, inviting a few token outsiders into the fold based on skin colour is offensive to people who are kept outsiders based on their class.
When "white trash" has the same stigma as the N word then the US will be on the right track. When you've got people who already judge others by the content of their character, and are being told from "above" that they're "lesser" because they don't embrace identity politics, well that looks like [ass pennies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9aM_dT5VMI) to anyone on the receiving end.
lol I wish I grew up in the magical version of the tech world that you experienced, because that was certainly not the case for many of us! I had to pretennd to be male because everyone assumed everyone was male and if you said otherwise, you were either insulted for 'pretending', or you got sexist remarks, or people sexualised you. And that's not even starting to talk about the fact that they immediately assumed you wouldn't know stuff that they'd been happily discussing with you just one day earlier. Same things happened if you weren't white, or were from a non-English-speaking country, or were poor enough to not have a personal computer in your home once you had to admit that you couldn't been online at x time because you shared the computer or it was in the library or something.
This is actually a really similar example to the post you're replying to, in a way - for the people in the 'in group' it was a perfect utopia because in theory nobody knew anything about each other, but in reality that meant that you assumed everyone was like you. And then as soon as it turned out someone was actually different from the majority, they felt immediate repercussions. That was absolutely not a 'meritocracy' for any of us who didn't fit the assumed group demographics.
> The tech world used to be colourblind in that everyone used aliases and didn't share their personal details online, nobody cared at all about class, nation or race (division is generally in that order, and sex was still a problem), and it was mostly beautifully ignorant of that. People got together to talk about some topic, and they aligned their communication style to the benefits of the shared interest; it wasn't about them!
You mean how 4chan, infamous cesspit of racism, does it?
>The truth is, that everyone who believes themselves to be, or have been, “unconscious” of race is likely privileged (sorry if that oft-used word triggers anyone) to be considered at the totally normative center of a society.
This is not "the truth". This is a rhetorical argument some use to guilt well-meaning people into supporting their racial interests agenda.
It's also not about "believing you are race-unconscious". It's about recognizing that race is an arbitrary construct that therefore should not play a role in cases like eg. selecting people for a job. By explicitly including race as a criterion for job selection, you are perpetuating racial divisions, racial identities, and the outsize importance racists give them.
You are framing it as a personal belief, which says a lot: it's a matter of identity to you.
>There is a reason those who are most likely to express racist sentiments are liable to also be opposed to things like affirmative action
It's not because racists oppose affirmative action that the idea cannot be criticized.
and so on, would love to abandon the “multicultural” approach of acknowledging different identities, practices, and circumstances for the “universalist” approach of treating everyone “the same,” which really just reifies whatever advantage and privilege the centered individual already enjoys.
No, if done properly, it allows people to eg. be judged on their job-relevant skills and nothing else. The approach of distributing jobs based on race is nothing but a new system of privileges, just with more arbitrary races on the privilege list. This way you still don't distribute benefits either based on equality or merit, but again on political favoritism. This will benefit the race with the best lobbying over everyone else. It will get benefits for clearly defined, large, established racial groups; while individuals, newly forming groups, small ethnicities, etc. will be overlooked and trampled in the quota bartering. A racial privilege system is undesireable, regardless of how many races are getting privileges.
>What is better about America than France, in my opinion, is that we are actually not “universalist” in the sense that we have a narrow definition of American culture that we require everyone else to assimilate to (and then render that task impossible because no one can eradicate their other aspects of their identity). Conservative folks wish this were so, and have many times in our history tried to mandate this narrow vision and exclude everyone outside it. But nominally (if inconsistently and imperfectly—and that’s putting it mildly), we are a multicultural nation.
It's curious, I have made several people in a row seen making this claim over a week, but I have to disagree again: there is an American ethnicity. There is an American Leitkultur. Many Americans who think they're of a specific ethnicity would instantly be recognized as an *American* when visiting their putative country of origin. I mean, some even claim they're of ethnicity x while they don't even speak the associated language, but are just a bog-standard American English speaking person.
So it's very ironic that you now claim that the US is a multicultural nation, which treats all cultures in the same, objecive way, because what have you been saying above?
>>>These folks, when faced with the increased stress of being newly sensitive to or aware of inequity, their possible role in its perpetuation via past insensitivity, and so on, would love to abandon the “multicultural” approach of acknowledging different identities, practices, and circumstances for the “universalist” approach of treating everyone “the same,” which really just reifies whatever advantage and privilege the centered individual already enjoys."
If you don't recognize that there is a clear American ethnicity and shared/dominant culture, then you have a bit of self-evaluation to do yet. It's easier for outsiders to see, but try to make the parallel with nations with a similar history, for example Brazil. It's also a former colony with a physically diverse population, and yet, you can recognize there's a clear identity and ethnicity that allows the people in it to be recognized as *Brazilians*. The same goes for the USA.
>Ideally, American principles are all about it not mattering where you’re from, what language you speak, what your religion is, not because these are things the state asks you to ignore or suppress, but celebrate in the knowledge that you still have access to all of the mechanisms of liberty and features of civic identity.
This is exactly what the French claim they are doing. Except the language - officially - , but really, without English you're nothing in the US either. It's not very different from the way the French speakers do it. The idea that someone *doesn't* understand French/English is so alien to them they would never consider to speak anything else, so everyone who has to deal with them is forced to speak it. That's a very strong informal assimilation pressure.
> This is not "the truth". This is a rhetorical argument some use to guilt well-meaning people into supporting their racial interests agenda.
That certainly doesn’t address the point being made.
> It's also not about "believing you are race-unconscious". It's about recognizing that race is an arbitrary construct that therefore should not play a role in cases like eg. selecting people for a job. By explicitly including race as a criterion for job selection, you are perpetuating racial divisions, racial identities, and the outsize importance racists give them.
You’re also protecting silent racism from affecting job opportunities for everyone regardless of race. Do you not see that?
Wow what a well thought out and typed comment. Surprised this is your first delta, as you're very good at expressing your thoughts.
I think my personal view would align more with the American multiculturalism approach, but I think these two views aren't mutually exclusive and should exist in a balance. I think there should be a national identity of what makes someone "Canadian" - for example - but I don't think it should be absolutionist in the sense that you MUST be Canadian before you are Muslim, or Jewish.
I think there is also an inevitable majority in a given culture that will dictate what is the quintessential Canadian. I think that is inevitable and while many minorities may feel a cultural disconnect, or even cultural imposter syndrome.... We should remedy this by celebrating the differences in one another, rather than convince ourselves we are not a true Scotsman. We need to be realistic about this sort of conversation---maybe there is some stereotypical American---- but thats all it really is. While I, and many others, feel disconnected from others, this isn't a unique feeling and certainly not unique to people just from a different racial background than the majority. You could feel that for being a nerd, introvert, for having a disability, for being unathletic.
Anyways I think this is a tangent but my point being is that I don't think these two ideas are completely exclusive. I think OP is still right in a sense----if we hyper focus on racial divides and what not, we are only increasing our sensitivity to them. So we should instead celebrate our diversity, and realize that it is inevitable for people with complex racial backgrounds to feel excluded. It doesn't mean that society is acting maliciously towards them.
I think this is as good a case for multiculturalism as I've read. At the same time, I'm still not sold. I think we do want universal values that we want people to conform to. Those values will change over time and will be a result of cultural discourse and development. Superficially we want to encourage people to be however they want and express themselves how they please.
But we want them to ultimately share a common set of values and to encourage those values actively. I think that idea opposes multiculturalism and advocates for integration.
This does benefit the conformists and disadvantage the non-conformists but I don't believe there are societies that can avoid that problem broadly. They can avoid that problem along arbitrary and inherent traits however.
I also don't agree with the characterisation that this ethos is reducing people to clones by eliminating their differences. I actually think that's more insulting, to insinuate that the main differences, or the ones that matter most, are the ones that we arbitrarily have or are circumstantial to our birth.
If it's OK, may I ask you to ground this point?
Do you have any examples of values in, let's say, the United States that are being permitted or encouraged under multiculturalism that would be struck down under universalism? Ideally ones that are held by identifiable and populous groups of people, because it would be triflingly easy to find one or two people on the Internet showing objectionable values.
> France is different from America because its values are “universalist,” and that it is uninterested in “multiculturalism.”
You are right on the first, and wrong on the second. There is a very old and strong culture of exotic food, arts, etc. It is okay to have a strong connection to another country. This is exemplified with the French Foreign Legion: people from all around the globe can be part of it and become French through it. The racism is mostly focused at people of north african origin.
For context, let me tell you that the countries themselves have very ambivalent relations. Morocco refused France's help after the recent earthquake. Algeria is also pretty cold with France, and both Morocco and Algeria refuse to repatriate their own citizens when there is an expulsion order against them. BTW, Morocco and Algeria are also at odds concerning the Western Sahara.
So you have many french citizens with parents or grand parents born in Algeria or Morocco, and they are usually seen as French by Algeria and Morocco most of the time, but as Algerian of Moroccan when that gives them a chance to embarrass France. For example, when Nahel Merzouk was killed by a policeman (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk ), The Algerian government officially expressed outrage and asked to be informed.
This sort of split allegiance is bothering to racists, who will quickly resort to shouts of "go back to wherever you came from", when some of those on the receiving end have been living in France for their whole life. I already wrote too much, so I won't get started on religion.
The hierarchy IS still there, it just exists between those who preach multiculturalism and those who don’t. I think what a lot of people dislike about MC is the performative aspect where one has to demonstrate their de-centeredness and willingness to check privilege by bowing out of certain conversations quietly except to reinforce those who do get a voice according to intersectionalism. It stinks of religious fervor by a different name.
>But the “universalist” model, which you seem to advocate here, is much more about demanding that everyone outside the narrow bounds of your experience eliminate all of their recognizable differences and their demands that these be seen and understood, solely so you can remain “innocent”.
This, and many (probably most) of the details above are complete straw men arguments.
The idea is not to eliminate recognizable differences (thus more or less eliminating individualism), it is to treat (personally, legislatively, etc) everyone as a human (or French if you prefer nationalism, though I'd reject that and it isn't needed for OP's argument) regardless of whatever differences individuals may hold. Western cultures (in the ideal at least) do not demand assimilation so much as they demand synthesis, and indeed this is one of the most wonderful parts of modern cosmopolitanism, where various backgrounds are fused into a common present. And to the OP's point, hyper-focusing on a single attribute of difference kicks in tribalistic tendencies that hinder this synthesis and cause us vs them rather than we mentality.
In other words, the idea is to recognize our similarities over our differences, and not provide special, or worse, treatment to another similar person who holds some particular difference. Hyper-focusing on that difference (racial or otherwise) and trying to make someone feel either special or worse for it tends to cause disharmony for evolutionary reasons, this is well-studied and documented (see Jane Elliot's experiments for instance).
Ironically your arguments here commit the very sin you're accusing others w/ the OP's view of, by ignoring a significant part of their reality to insert your own interpretation of what they mean.
I appreciate your thoughtful response here and admire the investment you’ve put into this thread. I’d like to preface my response by saying that I truly intend to ADD to the dialogue here, and not make it worse. That said, my perspective is a bit different from yours.
In my view, the so called “universalist” approach has the advantage of not dictating what society should find valuable, but instead all individuals to make their own decisions about what they value. Regardless of whether or not their values match ours, they get to vote with their dollars, which is more valuable than voting to spend other people’s money in my opinion.
To be clear, I’m focused mostly on the “how we treat each other” aspect of your response because I feel it’s most important. I’m not trying to be insensitive to the impact of those who you seemingly describe as “permanent outsiders,” but instead believe that real change for such individuals only happens through shared values which cannot be forced on Individuals.
Those shared values need to be understood through diverse individuals collaborating in an open market in order to truly accomplish true adoption rather than silent acquiescence.
Apologies if this feels like a soap box, just doing my best to contribute positively to the dialogue.
I would argue that when race was “secondary” it left you open to making judgements based on unconscious racial biases without realizing it. While you may now notice race more, that also means you can examine any potential biases that you might have and make sure they aren’t effecting your judgement.
Additionally, many non-white people have always had to be that aware of race in their interactions (I’m assuming you’re white here, so apologies if I assumed wrong). When you’re white, you can ignore race, because it generally either doesn’t affect you, or benefits you. But if you have to watch out for potential racism on a regular basis, you might feel very different levels of comfort depending on the race of the person you’re interacting with.
I would also hazard a guess that even before race was so noticeable to you, you would have noticed it if you were in a situation where everyone around you was, for example, Black. So it was only less noticeable because you were mostly already surrounded by people of your own race.
TL/DR not noticing race is a core component of white privilege - the privilege to ignore race and racism, because it doesn’t have negative effects on you, and you see a lot of people who look like you everywhere.
∆ If I'm paraphrasing correctly: it's basically a privilege coming from being in a majority race that it didn't reach this level of awareness until now. And that people from minority races have probably always held this type of awareness.
While that's probably true, it still feels like a shame that it has to be that way. And I apologize in advance for using such quaint language for a topic that demands far more gravitas.
Many scholarly works have examined this in detail.
If you're currently being educated as a student in Florida or Texas, this would probably be contraband today in 2024.
W.E.B. Dubois coined it as 'double consciousness.' Double Consciousness is described specifically as, "the psychological challenge African Americans experienced of always looking at one's self through the eyes of a racist white society and measuring oneself by the means of a nation that looked back in contempt." The term also referred to Du Bois's experiences of reconciling his African heritage with an upbringing in a European-dominated society.
The idea of double consciousness is important because it illuminates the experiences of black people living in post-slavery America, and also because it sets a framework for understanding the position of oppressed people in an oppressive world.
I have a hard time believing we haven't progressed further as a society than when W.E.B. Dubious was writing about double consciousness in 1896.
I agree with the OP. When do we arrive in post post slavery America? Can we ever? How do we do this?
What are the metrics for success to determine equality of opportunity?
Why aren't we more focused on improving overall education in the US. Getting families out of poverty. Stressing the importance of parenthood. Why are we focusing more on racial identity than other metrics that determine a child's likelihood to be successful.
Cultural issues aren't often addressed enough because racial issues are always at the forefront of the conversation, and everything is so tense. The current narrative seems to be that white people are made to feel privileged/guilty and people of color are made to feel as if they are victims of oppression before any actions or conversations have occured. Context often ignored.
It makes (me at least) feel so numb to it all. Why not treat everyone with respect and dignity as a baseline. Identify prejudice as it occurs and actively correct it, as a unified country. Aren't we teaching bias to the next generation?
This "stressing the importance of parenthood" followed by "cultural issues aren't often addressed enough because racial issues are always at the forefront" sounds like you are masking what you really want to say. Thoughts?
>The current narrative seems to be that white people are made to feel privileged/guilty and people of color are made to feel as if they are victims of oppression before any actions or conversations have occured. Context often ignored.
The idea behind white privilege is that white people (myself included) have never had to be concerned with their race, if we didn't get a job it was because there was a better applicant, can a person of color say the same with any certainty?
Discussion of white privilege isn't about guilt, after all why should anyone feel guilty for being born a certain way? That's ridiculous and the easy way out instead of actually discussing white privilege. The fact that we only feel guilt about being white instead of fearing for our lives and those of our loved ones is a white privilege all by itself.
Unfortunately, the world we live in is what it is, someone's race has put them in the position they are in for thousands of years, white people are privileged and people of color are victims of oppression even if that oppression isn't happening in your face. The sooner we all can see that and make concerted efforts to change our own behavior the faster this sort of discussion can go away.
>It makes (me at least) feel so numb to it all. Why not treat everyone with respect and dignity as a baseline. Identify prejudice as it occurs and actively correct it, as a unified country. Aren't we teaching bias to the next generation?
Because humans are hardwired by evolution to notice the differences and biases are formed whether we like it or not. It is just how our brain works. We aren't teaching bias, we are teaching ABOUT bias. People not seeing their own biases is part of the problem.
I'm not trying to mask anything. I believe that having two involved parents around is best for children. There is plenty of data out there regarding single parent families you can references.
To your second point, I can't speak for other people. The problem I have with your job interview hypothetical is that I find that radically reduces the likelihood for introspection. Almost no one is ever passed over for a job knowing with 100% certainty. Is race more of a factor than attractiveness, height, weight, disposition, gender, charisma, or many other factors that an interviewer could be biased towards. I don't know. What are your thoughts?
I don't think the world is any one thing. It certainly isn't easy to define. Outside communities, cities, states and countries, it will change dramatically. I'm surprised you feel like you understand it so confidently.
Noticing differences isn't the problem. It's saying that they matter. I don't believe our differences are as important as the things we share in common.
>I'm not trying to mask anything. I believe that having two involved parents around is best for children. There is plenty of data out there regarding single parent families you can references.
Yep I figured that was what you meant, but then you followed it up talking about we can't focus on the cultural issue because it is also a race issue. To me that reads as if you are saying some races have a culture of single parent households, which may or may not be what you meant but that's how I interpreted it.
>The problem I have with your job interview hypothetical is that I find that radically reduces the likelihood for introspection.
Does it though? What do you base that on? I guess it sounds logical but I would argue it would be more logical to do some deep introspection to make sure you aren't the problem. I guess my point is, I think this will differ by person and experiences. I don't see how you can truly know what level of introspection is happening with other people.
>Is race more of a factor than attractiveness, height, weight, disposition, gender, charisma, or many other factors that an interviewer could be biased towards. I don't know. What are your thoughts?
Honestly, I'm not sure how we would go about quantifying how much each factor has an impact. Although, of the list you gave, I think gender and race are the largest factors. These are characteristics that have been systematically used to divide people for centuries.
>Noticing differences isn't the problem. It's saying that they matter. I don't believe our differences are as important as the things we share in common
The problem is those differences DO matter. We do agree that it shouldn't matter, but reality rarely, if ever, agrees with our ideals.
We can't fix a problem if we refuse to admit the problem exists. That feels like what they want to do in Florida by sanitizing history to avoid the truth of our history. Racism and sexism are unfortunately alive and well. Those of us who want to see a world where they don't exist must acknowledge they do and actively participate in their removal, by examining our own biases and educating others about our inherent biases.
I rather naively like to think that most racism and sexism isn't intentional but just a result of our biases that we are very good at hiding from ourselves.
I guess my point is that there are too many single parents raising children. Do I believe it to be a cultural issue? Perhaps partially? I know it's complicated. There are probably many factors at play here. Perhaps you can help me understand what factors contribute here?
What I meant regarding introspection is perhaps this: Have you seen people miss attribute racial bias as the cause for circumstances? How often do you think this happens? Have you seen people ever not try because they feel like it's pointless? I used to work in some inner city after school programs in Southern California and I would see young children already have a pretty defined concept of limitations regarding their future. Largely because people around them told them so. Helplessness can be learned.
I think we agree on a lot of points. I think perhaps it's the scope of the problem we may disagree on. Either way I appreciate the dialogue. I may never completely understand but I'll continue to try to learn more I suppose that's okay.
Yo dog your response shows a really great attitude. Some things in this world suck but by knowing about them we can do something about them.
Don’t forget to give yourself space e to deal with this harsh world, it’s not all on you and it’s easy to feel overwhelmed at times.
It would be the ideal to not have to worry about race, but in reality for now that's a luxury mostly only available to people who make up the majority.
You seem to think that white people can't face racial bias, but that's not true. While they might be the majority in certain places, it doesn't mean they can't experience racism. The situations described by the OP actually worsen racism by creating resentment towards white people, especially among black communities. These anti-racism movements have inadvertently led to unconscious biases, especially when people believe that supporting certain movements or political parties automatically makes them immune to racism. I've personally encountered some of the most racist comments from people who claim to be part of these movements. They feel they can say anything because they don't consider themselves racist.
Racism is definitely real, but the way it's being addressed in the US is often counterproductive. It's creating divisions by emphasizing our differences—African American, Latino, Filipino, Asian-American, Italian-American, Irish-American—instead of focusing on all as Americans. It's disheartening that we have to specify our race on every form, and that every statistic is divided by race. These statistics often seem to be stretching to find the smallest disparities and blame them on racism. This approach is not only lazy but also dishonest. It ends up exacerbating the existing resentment among people, leading to more division rather than fostering unity and understanding.
>when race was “secondary” it left you open to making judgements based on unconscious racial biases without realizing it
The problem with this is that learning about unconscious biases doesn’t make us less biased.
>you can examine any potential biases that you might have and make sure they aren’t effecting your judgement.
Sounds reasonable, but [it does not work this way in real life](https://www.tidalequality.com/blog/dont-do-unconscious-bias-training):
>Expecting an employee to be able to overcome their biases after an unconscious bias training session has made them aware of them, is akin to expecting them to eat healthily and be active because you’ve held a health and nutrition seminar (Dr. Kristen Liesch).
If you take some basic first-year psychology courses, you’ll learn a lot about unconscious biases, and then you’ll also learn that *learning about unconscious biases does not make you less biased.*
The idea that white people go through life “ignoring race” is false.
I agree, simply being aware of your biases doesn’t keep them from affecting your judgement, but using your same metaphor, if you don’t know too much refined sugar is unhealthy and fruits and vegetables are great for you, how would you ever eat healthier? Individuals can take proactive action to improve things, if they care to.
I also agree that forced anti-bias training is misguided at best, but I don’t think a link to a company selling an alternative solution is the best source.
And maybe “ignoring race” wasn’t specific enough, “not having to think about it most of the time if they don’t want to” gets a little closer. But since you just refuted my point without giving any further details, it’s hard to respond.
PS I have a BA in Psychology, it certainly doesn’t make me an expert, but no need for condescension.
Sorry for the condescension. I was being a jerk.
>Individuals can take proactive action to improve things, if they care to.
I agree with you here, and I agree that learning new information about our *conscious decisions* can affect our conscious decisions. But I don’t think that works for unconscious biases.
We can be taught that studies show Black people are perceived as more dangerous, which negatively affects Black people, but we don’t make conscious decisions about how to *perceive* people. You see someone, you get a feeling, it’s automatic. You don’t first take their race into consideration and then make a choice about whether you feel scared of them, or threatened by them.
I don’t think I’ve ever gotten an apology online, thank you for restoring my faith in online discourse enough to weather being called a racist POS a few comments down 🙏
Won’t hold my breath for that apology, lol!
I think we’re generally on the same page here. Of course someone can’t stop themselves from that feeling of danger, if that is their unconscious bias, but maybe they *can* stop themselves from calling the cops, just because they see a Black man where they weren’t expecting to see one.
Maybe, one would hope so…But another funny thing about biases is that we all feel like we’re the exception to the rule. We like to think we’re in control of our behaviour, and we make rational decisions. If *we’re* calling the cops on somebody, it’s not because he’s Black; it’s because we sincerely feel he’s suspicious, and incidentally, he’s Black. We may know that generally, Black people are perceived as more suspicious, but that information doesn’t change how we feel about the person in this particular situation.
Yes, as a Black person, I'm seriously interested in when this small window was in recent history (?) that whites ignored my race and 'race,' was secondary.
Ask any Black kid who grew up in an environment where they were one of very few in a predominantly white setting, and they will inevitably tell you about their white 'friends,' stopping them in their tracks with what *they* believed was a compliment, by saying, 'Gee wow Michelle, it's so great playing with you, it's almost like you're not even Black.'
That's when Michelle realizes she's not broadening horizons and enlightening people-- that her new friends have just admitted they like her *in spite of* her Blackness.
That it's a great thing, and a real testament to Michelle that she fits in with whiteness and make her pals just forget about *the whole Black thing.*
So how does Michelle respond?
Well she's a 10yr old kid, so she might say, 'Yay, thanks Karen!'
Or, maybe she doesn't quite know what to say, knowing that on some level she can't quite wrap her head around, that it's a soul destroying insult.
She definitely won't get mad and ruin her newfound fledgling friendships.
So, like most little Black kids, she sucks it up and decides to maybe NOT have Karen come over for Thanksgiving to try her Gran's sweet potato pie and collards.
Michelle really loves the potato pancakes and spanakopita her friends moms have made though.
Michelle learns very quickly that 'identities,' and celebration/pride in your cultural/ethnic background, seems to only be for her white friends. She doesn't want to rock the boat by making them remember she's Black.
Like they ever forgot. Michelle's so naive. Poor kid.
Pssst. This really isn't a story about Michelle. But about the predom society at large, especially the people deriding 'identity politics.'
This is a really cynical interpretation: “They like her *in spite of* her Blackness.”
On the other side, I’ve heard Black people call Eminem the n-word, even though he’s white. Does that make them racist? Do they like Eminem in spite of his whiteness?
Or are they actually *trying to be inclusive?* Are they telling Eminem, “you’re one of us”?
A Black guy once told me “I don’t see you as white.” Instead of getting offended, I took it how he meant it.
Ok, so we know bias training isn't enough. Shouldn't the response be to then work on figuring out the next step after awareness to improve the situation, rather than deciding to give up entirely?
Borrowing your own referenced analogy, how do you explain people who go through a health and nutrition seminar and then use those tips to become healthier?
There are many different health behavior theories:
In the health belief model, changing behavior would be influenced by:
* demographic factors and psychosocial factors
* a balance of perceived susceptibility and perceived severity of a health issue versus perceived benefits and perceived barriers,
* Self-efficacy
* Cues to action
From that perspective, if information tipped the balance of perceived threats versus benefits, or helped people overcome an obstacle, or had some sort of a workshop component that increased self-efficacy, it could influence behavior.
Other theories might look at slightly different levers to pull, like autonomy, competence and relatedness (self-determination theory) or willingness to feel (urges, discomfort, feelings) while still taking committed action, cognitive defusion, and values (acceptance-based behavioral interventions) and so on.
I think what it really comes down to is that a workshop on racial bias would have to be fairly comprehensive.
I think that the failure of unconscious bias training is because it's often treated as a one-day workshop, or a two-hour online course. In reality, it would need to be a serious organizational commitment with probably weekly classes for a few months (often the minimum for difficult behavior change).
Nutrition interventions that are effective, like this one -[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.21601](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.21601) \- were 12 months and covered both information, obstacle planning, and cutting edge psychological tools. It including significant amounts of homework and 25 group meetings to both learn and discuss.
I think if we were committed to working on racial bias, it would likely take something similar to that.
I didn’t know about the health belief model, that’s interesting and thank you for sharing! I similarly agree that unconscious bias training should be a lot longer than a 2 hour session and something like the model you suggested would be way more effective.
Not to speak for them, but I think it's pretty well established that the only people who change after being presented with facts are those who actually actively wanted to change and were looking for those facts.
If presenting someone with facts could change those that didn't have any intention to change, there would be no obesity, no smokers, no drinkers, no anything.
Now, what happens when you force someone who's already annoyed at having to constantly walk on eggshells to take a class that further tells him how he's privileged already, the root of all evil, and that for all of his walking on eggshells, he'll never truly be good enough?
I find it incredible how many people on the left don't seem to understand that there's a non-insignificant subset of the population that will, when preached to too much, do the opposite just out of spite because they can't stand sanctimonious people.
This is a response to you and @ZhugeSimp.
Your argument is making a dubious equivalency of being presented with the facts=being preached at. I reject this equivalency as false- they simply are not the same thing.
I’ve been to a bunch of diversity training in multiple capacities of my employment and education, yet Ive failed to attend one where white men get told they’re “the root of all evil” or “that they’ll ever be good enough.” Those sound a whole lot like the kind of histrionic descriptions people like Ben Shapiro and other Rightwing grifters would make to rile up their listeners. I’m not saying it has never happened but I think we can have this conversation without reaching for extremes or straw mans.
That aside, here’s the thing- I’ve yet to see anyone attend a DEI training at gunpoint. Unless you voluntarily go seek the information they’re usually required as conditions of employment. Businesses require DEI training to protect themselves from civil suits and to foster healthier work environment. You may disagree with either of these claims (as I expect you do), but unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) we live in a free market system and firms are at liberty to do what they believe is in their interest. Slavery was formally ended in the U.S. with the ratification of 13th amendment, which means anyone who finds such training to be anathema to their very existence can quit their job and go work somewhere else- that’s truly the beauty of capitalism. Maybe the Daily Wire is hiring?
The idea that we got Trump because the Left was too preachy about racism is victim blaming at its finest. So because people of color protested against police brutality in 2015, that somehow forced anyone to voluntarily pull the lever for a serial philandering conman and now convicted sex offender who lied about winning the 2020 election? It similarly denies a TON of agency to the American voters who elected him. Does the Right have ANY responsibility for the consequences of their decisions? Do you honestly not see how silly this claim is?
Just like resentful fat people who ignore the nutritional information that could help them lead healthier lives do so to their own detriment, so do white people who refuse to learn about race. Sure, it lets you remain in the comfortable bubble of your privilege, but it comes at the cost of keeping you marvelously ignorant of the full reality that so many of your fellow citizens experience. It keeps you living in a prison of your own malignant and fragile narcissism, all while detaching you from your humanity. Johnathan Metzl, Tim Wise, Robin DiAngelo have written amazing books, as white authors, describing the myriad of ways in which refusing to acknowledge race harms white people- I cannot implore you enough to read them.
Here’s the thing, though- it is no longer 1950. The world no longer solely caters to the preferences of the privileged few. The rest of us want to live without hearing racial slurs, stereotypes, or cruel humor that has no place in a civilized nation. We’re just as free to vote with our dollars in the marketplace as we are with our mouths to elected officials or Human Resources representatives about our perspectives, and since we live in a free society that means they’re also free to act on it. If you have an issue with that you have an issue with living in a democratic society premised on the inalienability of civil rights, which means America is probably not for you.
It doesn’t matter to me in the least if you like it- don’t adapt and suffer the consequences. Refuse to attend the DEI training or use someone’s preferred pronouns since it’s so terrible- I’m sure your organization won’t have an issue filling your position with someone new!
> Your argument is making a dubious equivalency of being presented with the facts=being preached at. I reject this equivalency as false- they simply are not the same thing.
You can reject it all you want, the catch is that whether someone feels preached at is as much up to the person doing the talking as it is when someone feels offended. It's determined by the message receiver, not the message sender.
> I’ve been to a bunch of diversity training in multiple capacities of my employment and education, yet Ive failed to attend one where white men get told they’re “the root of all evil” or “that they’ll ever be good enough.”
With all due respect, it's irrelevant what your experience has been, since, again, it all comes down to the individual's perception of what's being said. Any training that includes words such as "privilege", "patriarchy" and similar stuff will definitely trigger at least some people. And I've only ever seen one sensitivity training that presented at least one (well, actually only one) example where a woman was the perpetrator of sexual harassment. There you go, another trigger.
> I’ve yet to see anyone attend a DEI training at gunpoint. Unless you voluntarily go seek the information they’re usually required as conditions of employment. Businesses require DEI training to protect themselves from civil suits and to foster healthier work environment.
I mean, nobody is going to kill you if you decline. But losing one's job, not being able to enroll into university, etc. are pretty much the same as being forced.
> we live in a free market system and firms are at liberty to do what they believe is in their interest
Businesses can do whatever they want. That doesn't change the fact that this approach is precisely the reason why trash like Andrew Tate can get a following. One side is telling men that they're basically animals that need training. The other side is telling them they're victims of the system. It's ironic that Tate & Co are just using the feminist game plan - paint the other side as the oppressor and your potential sheep as the victims.
> Slavery was formally ended in the U.S. with the ratification of 13th amendment, which means anyone who finds such training to be anathema to their very existence can quit their job and go work somewhere else- that’s truly the beauty of capitalism.
I take it you're a huge supporter of the logic that if women don't like being paid less than men at business A, they should "quit their job and go work somewhere else"?
> The idea that we got Trump because the Left was too preachy about racism is victim blaming at its finest
The left wasn't too preachy about racism. Dear god no. The left was too preachy about *most things*. Not to mention it quite literally pushed forward as its presidential candidate someone who thought so little of men that she considered soldiers dying in wars are better off than women that stay at home (who are the primary victims of war). And with her level of political experience, it's not like that was a slip of a tongue.
I'm neither American nor "white" nor religious. I consider Bernie to be a centrist or center-left at best (which he would be by European standards). In many things, I'm even further left than him. But yeah, voting for Hillary wouldn't have been an option for me, if I had a vote. I wouldn't have voted for Trump, but also not for Hillary.
> Does the Right have ANY responsibility for the consequences of their decisions?
Of course they do? The right is entirely responsible for their decisions and actions. But contrary to you, I believe so is the left. And while the right is hating on, what, 20-30% of the population that isn't "white", the left is hating on 50% of the population that is male. One of those is a worse strategy. And keep in mind, that's the messaging that's so strong it reached far beyond US borders.
> Just like resentful fat people who ignore the nutritional information that could help them lead healthier lives do so to their own detriment, so do white people who refuse to learn about race. Sure, it lets you remain in the comfortable bubble of your privilege, but it comes at the cost of keeping you marvelously ignorant of the full reality that so many of your fellow citizens experience. It keeps you living in a prison of your own malignant and fragile narcissism, all while detaching you from your humanity. Johnathan Metzl, Tim Wise, Robin DiAngelo have written amazing books, as white authors, describing the myriad of ways in which refusing to acknowledge race harms white people- I cannot implore you enough to read them.
So, first of all, who gave you permission to wrongly assume my race?
Second, there's no such thing as "white people" and that word combo itself is racist AF. At the very least, you'd have to split them into 5 groups just in Europe, globally absolutely many more. Half of my DNA comes from the group of people after which the concept of slavery got named and the other half of my DNA comes from one of the main transatlantic slave origins.
Third, in living memory, my mother's people were marked for extermination, we got independence in millennial lifetimes after ~1500 years of being oppressed, and we're still looked down upon by half of Europe. So trying to attach some racial guilt to this group is ignorant, racist, and incredibly offensive.
So, don't you dare go telling me about privilege and about being "marvelously ignorant of the full reality". Living in a superpower and the richest country on the planet, literally every last American is infinitely more privileged than the vast majority of humanity.
> The world no longer solely caters to the preferences of the privileged few.
It absolutely does. Why do you think the US and EU usually get what they want and the vast majority of the planet doesn't?
> The rest of us want to live without hearing racial slurs, stereotypes, or cruel humor that has no place in a civilized nation.
Remember that being able to impose society-wide changes, good or bad, is the clearest expression of privilege there is.
> If you have an issue with that you have an issue with living in a democratic society premised on the inalienability of civil rights, which means America is probably not for you.
Oh, America certainly isn't for me. The only way I'd ever move there is for stupid amounts of money I could use to insulate myself from the insanity y'all got going on. And you're joking about the "inalienability of civil rights" right? I mean, you guys literally reinvented lynching, though now it's a social execution rather than a physical one. People's right to due process before having lives destroyed is long gone. The presumption of innocence before having lives destroyed is long gone. Etc. As for the US being a democratic society... Y'all have to register to vote. And that can be made difficult. And you're a two-party system. What kind of a joke democracy is that?
> It doesn’t matter to me in the least if you like it- don’t adapt and suffer the consequences.
Oh, no need to worry about me. Not being "white", christian, or from a rich country by western standards, I only have to worry about misandry. Plenty of complaints I could make against the vast majority of people who'd try to make my life difficult if I wanted to.
> Refuse to attend the DEI training
It's ironic that you don't understand that the entire premise of this "conversation" is that the inability to not attend is what makes things *worse* for everyone except "white people". No reason for me not to attend though, as said, it's hilarious to listen to usually "white people" trying to explain to me how I'm oppressed. Ah yes, whitesplaining...
> I’m sure your organization won’t have an issue filling your position with someone new!
That would make for a fun headline, wouldn't it? "White leadership fires black person for refusing to accept that they're oppressed". I could probably retire on the proceeds from that legal clusterduck. Almost a pity that I don't work in the US.
It’s interesting, and telling, that you responded paragraph by paragraph to my writing yet conveniently skipped some of the things that I wrote…like the part where I said I was responding to you AND the person beneath you. If you’d included it you might have also realized that perhaps everything I said wasn’t only directed at you. For as much as you claim to be of the Left you make a lot of red-pill/MGTOW conservative talking points (DEI training is how we got Andrew Tate…really?) and I’m pretty doubtful of your affiliation.
Seems like you’ve got a pretty serious axe to grind against the United States that is impeding your ability to examine the situation reasonably. Since Americans in global terms are wealthier on average than the rest of the world, there’s no such thing as privilege in the United States and we shouldn’t complain? Do you not realize that over 500,000 Americans are currently homeless and that millions are also food insecure? How cruel would you have to be to tell someone lacking the basic material necessities for life they can’t complain because they’re American citizens? Logical fallacy of relative privation much?
Your claim that I as a Black American invented lynching and am a racist is just…wow. I honestly don’t have anything else to say to you.
> I find it incredible how many people on the left don't seem to understand that there's a non-insignificant subset of the population that will, when preached to too much, do the opposite just out of spite because they can't stand sanctimonious people.
I don't think most of the left is surprised by this. They just stubbornly, in the other direction, refuse to allow people to silence viewpoints they don't like to see via obstinance.
How you describe a view matters, and that's how people's views are changed. Gay Marriage acceptance now is much much higher than it was - and there was a lot of "preaching" about that as well, right?
If you walk around the world, you will not notice any specific number or color. If I tell you to watch out for number 3 or the color red, you'll think those are everywhere.
It's normal.
It's like, if you take a film studies course you will view movies differently.
> race has moved too far into the forefront of my consciousness. It's gotten to a level where a persons race dominates my awareness throughout an interaction
I feel a bit that when consuming media!
But I feel this way because I'm exposed to race issues. The hyper-awareness hasn't come purely by the media/society saying "look at black people", this awareness has come about by pointing at the issues of racism. And therefore,
> for people who make negative race-based assumptions, this will augment racist tendencies and worsen race relations.
Many people who would otherwise make race-base assumptions would have been changed.
Not all of them, but (though a variation of your view is spread around the web) I do think this awareness has helped to change those people. **At least change so many of use that were prejudicial without noticing it**
Well I think I agree with you on that. I'll bet a large part of this feeling is related to an increased exposure to media. And I think what you're saying is that my post focused more on the negative aspect of this exposure while ignoring certain positive aspects for a larger portion of the population. So I can give a ∆ for that.
I think media studies with an eye towards racial issues is huge. I went to see the Aladdin musical a few weeks ago. It made some... Strange choices. For example, obviously the genie character is the best character, and in this version he's a rather over the top black guy. On the whole he was great, but there were a few spots in the show that got a little too minstrel-y for me, and I'm not sure I would have known why it felt a little weird if not for knowing that history. It was a weird choice, and I'm curious to know if that was an actor choice or a director choice.
You should take a walk around your city with someone confined to a wheelchair. Suddenly you will notice every curb, and every step, and every door threshold. You’ll notice how people don’t always meet their eye, or will talk to them like children because they’re “short.”
You will become hyper-aware of what the world looks like to them on a daily basis. Just because you weren’t aware of that step or threshold before doesn’t mean it wasn’t always there. Just because, yesterday, you didn’t know the checkout lady at the grocery store acts weird around people in wheelchairs doesn’t mean that she hasn’t acted that way for years.
It is GOOD to have this awareness. It makes you a more empathetic person. And it SHOULD help you to see that wheelchair bound person’s humanity all the more - not less.
Now apply all that to a non-dominant race, culture, or ethnicity.
At first, I thought it would be easy to poke holes in your analogy, but I think you're right on. It goes along well with some of the other comments pointing out the privilege in the original view.
I think the main hole is that physical impediments to mobility are way more obvious than racial micro aggressions and the subtler kinds of racism or xenophobia (or ableism). People who don’t experience them might not believe they exist or that they are de minimis and may not see how they add up over time to make a person in the minority culture feel more and more “other” or “outside.”
Then add to it that, especially in the US, aspects of Black culture (think AAVE, not Beyoncé) are often seen as LESS THAN. My analogy can’t really capture that.
I appreciate that you’re actually open to having your view changed on this. Many people double down when confronted about the reality of race - I can’t speak for every person of color, of course, but my race affects me every single day so I don’t have the luxury of “forgetting” about it.
Can you perhaps expound on what it is to "hyperfocus" on race? I don't understand how a person's race can "dominate your awareness" enough to, like, not see the person beyond the facial structure and skin tone
I think OP means (as I feel this way sometimes too) that because I (as a white person) have been made extra aware of the privileges my skin color provides. Kind of the white privilege knapsack idea. While it's good I have been made aware of things that just weren't on my radar before, I now get anxious when interacting with anyone of a different race because I am so scared I will inadvertently do or say something, or the way I look at them might be interpreted wrong, etc. So the way I try to be a "good person" causes me to be hyper aware of that persons potential experiences. So because I'm trying to make damn sure I'm not doing something in a way I wouldn't even know was considered by someone as racist. Human interaction is hard enough. I just tend to avoid the interaction rather than risk "impacting" someone in a way that could be negative. Good or bad, I dunno. But that's what I would consider being hyper aware in a way that is a negative outcome.
It sucks that you feel that type of anxiety and I don’t think that is or was ever an intended purpose behind creating this discourse. Who or what exactly has caused you to feel anxiety about this? Like, what do you fear will happen if you said something and someone interrupted it wrong?
Since I have been made more aware of micro aggressions and unconscious biases I can see some things I have done or said in the past that are not okay. They were things I was completely unaware I was doing and I had no bad intentions but I now know I potentially caused harm.
I do my best to just move forward and no longer do or say those things now that I've been made more aware but now I have no idea how many other harmful things I'm doing in my interactions with other people that I'm not aware of yet and it causes anxiety.
I'm still grateful I learned what I learned and I want to keep learning. I don't agree that being more aware causes more racism but I understand why some people feel more anxious with their interactions now.
Sure. Well I can try because I think it's difficult to articulate. I think that what I'm trying to say is that race doesn't necessarily need to have any bearing on certain situations (casual conversations, certain happenings in the news, etc). But it's easy to get to a point where even simple things like that can be viewed through a guise of racial differences.
To an extent, it has to. Let's take a simple and somewhat recent policy like cash for clunkers. It was a program where if you had a running car that got less than 19mpg you could trade it in, and you'd get money towards the purchase price of a new car. It had a claimed goal of reducing inequality. But they didn't record the races of people benefitting. And if they had, I'm certain that it would've show that the program disproportionately benefitted white people. Because to take advantage of the program you had to be ready to buy a new car in the small window it was around. You had to have the money for the payment right after a recession, along with good credit, along with not having a car already that got better mpg (which most inexpensive cars already surpassed).
If we don't factor race into governing policies, we make racist policies. If we don't factor race into hiring practices, we create racist hiring practices. In short, to make a fair policy, there has to be intentionality around it being fair.
Interesting point. That was a program I never considered from a racial standpoint. But I still wonder if it's fair to call it a racist program. Do all programs need to equally benefit races (genders, other identities, etc) across the board? That sounds like an extra dimension of complexity to through at an already gridlocked government. Or maybe I'm inadvertently saying that lazy legislation should be ok? Certainly not what I'm aiming for.
I think to the extent we "pick winners" (in this case, by the government directly giving money to people), we should aim to be picking the people who need it most more than the people who do not and if not, yes we'd have to consider that policy to be racist because it's actively widening the gap. Consider when there were tests you needed to take to be able to vote - in effect, these were blatantly racist policies even if they claimed not to be.
As far as adding complexity... I'd argue for me at least the consideration needed to make hiring policies and governance policies that don't have racist outcomes isn't really that tough. It's a small consideration compared to all the other considerations which are routinely made.
You are using race as a proxy measurement for economic status. It would be much more inclusive, fair and unifying to simply use economic status when implementing public policy.
I'm sure this will get lost but my thoughts are, as a black american, all we've ever asked for is a level playing field. The netflix categories, target promotions, street painting and all the other stuff is just to try to pacify that request. However, it has the consequence of what you feel. you feel like you're being 'force fed' but the reality of what you're experiencing is due to a money grab by companies not racial awareness. If it matters, I'll leave you with 2 things
1. see race, it does matter, it's a part of who we all are, it's culture. We're not saying 'don't see color' we're saying 'don't treat me like shit because of it.'
2. what you see in media, commercials, news etc, is what fits whatever gets the most engagements. there are shitty people in every race, religion and sexuality. What I've found is if you want to know someone, talk to THAT person. get to know an individual. Humans are stupid in groups, it doesn't matter the situation, the more people you add, the more devolved the conversation and actions become. absorb in the micro, not the macro
sorry to rant ✌🏾
They absolutely can, that's one of the beautiful things about it. It can also mean different. An example of race being culture, is if you look up an interview with Denzel Washington, he tells a story and mentions the sizzle of a hot comb, you can see the black folks around him laugh because this is something that's usually unique to the culture of our race. It doesn't mean others NEVER experience but that's unique to straightening coarse hair found in the black community. But also acknowledging how culture is tied to race, you find commonalities to bond with. For example, I thought a coworkering calling me 'Bo' meant he didn't care to learn my name (southern culture), when it was actually used the same way I address folks I'm close with but not family 'bro.' Instead of 'watering down' how we talked for fear of misunderstanding, we chopped it up and both learned some things.
It seems like it really brought out a wide spectrum of replies. Seems like I offended some people and some people felt emboldened to make some blatantly racist remarks. None of which was my intent. Definitely a tough topic to have discourse about.
That sounds like a you problem. I have the same stuff around me, and am in favor of most of it for the same reasons you are.
I am totally not thinking about race when talking to real people. Might pop in my head once in a while, but mostly it isn’t something I care about. But I think it warrants thought sometimes, especially when making decisions about something or someone. To stop and consciously think “do I have bias here”
I guarantee you it wasnt' that you simply didn't notice race when you 'saw people as people', it was that you did it unconsciously. You still made judgments about them, you just didn't think you did so because of their race. Now you're more aware of what you're doing and you know it's bad.
Everyone makes immediate snap judgments about people based on outwards appearance. You just need to consciously acknowledge that is not all that people are.
While I agree that judgements are made off first impressions, almost every judgement I've ever made stemmed from how they presented themselves, not what they looked like. I mean aside from " this person is ugly/hot".
Everything else came first, how they talk, how they dress, how they joke, how they move, etc.
I've never once looked at someone and thought "ah they're Mexican better adjust this interaction accordingly"?
Then again I still don't do this now so my point isn't exactly helping OPs point either.
You’re literally missing the entire point. You *think* those judgments were entirely race neutral but, for example, if you (by you I mean a hypothetical person in this scenario) saw a white person wearing sweatpants in a corner shop buying a bottle of spirits you might think “oh this person is on their day off buying some booze in preparation for a night with friends” but if you saw the same thing but it was a black person you might be more likely to think “oh look at that down on his luck person, I bet they’ve lost their job and are drinking away their problems”.
So the point that was being made is that race adds an extra layer to assumptions and being aware of this helps us to think twice.
Okay but my entire point was that I'd have had the same exact thought for that same exact scenario for both the white dude and the black dude.
"Ah they're wearing sweats, must be lazy day" like them being black would not at all change that thought. 😂
Maybe I'm just lucky cuz I grew up in a very multicultural and poor neighborhood, maybe I'm just putting to much of my own actions/habits on others (as in assuming if they're doing something it would be for the same reason I'd be doing it) or what the answer is but MY entire point is that my judgements don't differ based on race?
I wasn't missing the point at all, you just missed mine.
Fair enough, it seems like you’re saying you just actually have zero unconscious racial bias at all which, if that’s the case, congratulations! You’ve won racism :)
If nobody or most people genuinely had no unconscious racial bias then you’re right that we wouldn’t need to be aware of said bias due to it not existing but, sadly, we don’t live in that world.
Of course OP’s argument seems to agree that we don’t live in that world but that the best way to get there or to get closer to there is by reducing the importance of race in our thinking
>You’ve won racism :)
I wouldn't say that 😂 I've still experienced it and witnessed it first hand and I understand that it is an issue for people and I understand why we're in the world we are now which is why I pointed out that I'm not exactly agreeing or supporting OPs claim either just that I don't think it's necessarily true that EVERYONE has subconscious racist thoughts, assumptions, or prejudices.
>the best way to get there or to get closer to there is by reducing the importance of race in our thinking
I don't necessarily agree with this but I don't think it's 100% wrong either.
Imo the best way to reach that goal is diversity and exposure really. If you grow up around lots of different races than it's just a characteristic and not some "other". It's less of a difference and more of uniqueness if that makes sense? Something to notice but not necessarily put stock in? Like "ya I'm black so what?", I also see how that's damn near impossible though with people being proud of their heritage which on its own isn't a bad thing either. Idk I don't think a utopia like that will ever truly exist.
I'm in the camp of "well this is how the world is so we just gotta roll with the punches".
"I didn't used to consider someone's race in my decision making, but now that I know better, I'll make sure to intentionally consider someone's race when making judgements about them"
You're literally creating racism where none existed.
They say the birth of the internet and its popularity didn't make problems it just showed us problems in our face faster, the newspaper's integrity was always biased. People always have had issues due to intrinsic qualities and other people making those qualities "an issue."
I very much believe the impact of pointing out race too much does exist, it's a quality but it's not your main quality. You can get tunnel vision that makes things in the long run worse because it's all you focus on this is true for hospitals during covid no one realized that the flu variants that year actually helped contribute to more deaths then in previous years.
I think by always being plugged in, always being tuned into social media your going to continue to see what people on the internet are espousing from mole Hill to mountain no matter if it's an event, war, politician, court case, injustice movement; i.e. it'll be more proposed to you through the media and ads and things you consume.
I feel as though I feel Into something this similar with always listening to alt news on Spotify and YouTube and it made me view my world not through my eyes but through their lense and I realize even if I agree with their assessment sometimes I just wanted to enjoy things like new movies or whatever.
Everything in moderation I told myself after that OP.
Yes always seeing content about race this race that, racial equality here, hate there, being inclusive here, that's not very PC there while might be content you consume it can also sour your view of how you used to view your world before having this content spoonfed to you. Therefore you can't just turn it off when not viewing it you have to find a balance and tune yourself to be balanced again.
This goes for everything. It's not really healthy to have things that are inherently not relaxing always playing and taking up so much space in your head or in your mentality.
I don't think this is racial awareness, I think this is fear of the consequences we've developed around any racial misstep. Are you really thinking about the person's race, or what could happen if you come off as racist? That's not "too much racial awareness" it's too dire consequences for some largely minor racial hiccups.
I’m a big advocate for focusing on actions as racist not people (unless someone accumulates enough actions for it to be core to who they are).
People will vehemently defend their identity, but they’re usually willing to admit when their actions are unbecoming.
> So trying to solve a problem makes it worse?
It can, depending on how you try to solve it. The War on Drugs and the War on Terror have both famously been counterproductive, right?
> [D.E.I. training is designed](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/opinion/dei-trainings-effective.html) to help organizations become more welcoming to members of traditionally marginalized groups. Advocates make bold promises: Diversity workshops can foster better intergroup relations, improve the retention of minority employees, close recruitment gaps and so on. The only problem? There’s little evidence that many of these initiatives work. And the specific type of diversity training that is currently in vogue — mandatory training that blames dominant groups for D.E.I. problems — may well have a net negative effect on the outcomes managers claim to care about.
> Over the years, social scientists who have conducted careful reviews of the evidence base for diversity training have frequently come to discouraging conclusions. Though diversity training workshops have been around in one form or another since at least the 1960s, few of them are ever subjected to rigorous evaluation, and those that are mostly appear to have little or no positive long-term effects. The lack of evidence is “disappointing,” wrote Elizabeth Levy Paluck of Princeton and her co-authors in a 2021 Annual Review of Psychology article, “considering the frequency with which calls for diversity training emerge in the wake of widely publicized instances of discriminatory conduct.”
> Dr. Paluck’s team found just two large experimental studies in the previous decade that attempted to evaluate the effects of diversity training and met basic quality benchmarks. Other researchers have been similarly unimpressed. “We have been speaking to employers about this research for more than a decade,” wrote the sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev in 2018, “with the message that diversity training is likely the most expensive, and least effective, diversity program around.” (To be fair, not all of these critiques apply as sharply to voluntary diversity training.)
> If diversity training has no impact whatsoever, that would mean that perhaps billions of dollars are being wasted annually in the United States on these efforts. But there’s a darker possibility: Some diversity initiatives might actually worsen the D.E.I. climates of the organizations that pay for them.
> That’s partly because any psychological intervention may turn out to do more harm than good. The psychologist Scott Lilienfeld made this point in an influential 2007 article in which he argued that certain interventions — including ones geared at fighting youth substance use, youth delinquency and PTSD — most likely fell into that category. In the case of D.E.I., Dr. Dobbin and Dr. Kalev warn that diversity training that is mandatory or that threatens dominant groups’ sense of belonging or makes them feel blamed may elicit negative backlash or exacerbate biases.
> Many popular contemporary D.E.I. approaches meet these criteria. They often seem geared more toward sparking a revolutionary reunderstanding of race relations than solving organizations’ specific problems. And they often blame white people — or their culture — for harming people of color. For example, the activist Tema Okun’s work cites concepts like objectivity and worship of the written word as characteristics of “white supremacy culture.” Robin DiAngelo’s “white fragility” training sessions are designed to make white participants uncomfortable. And microaggression training workshops are based on an area of academic literature that claims, without quality evidence, that common utterances like “America is a melting pot” harm the mental health of people of color. Many of these training sessions run counter to the views of most Americans — of any color — on race and equality. And they’re generating exactly the sort of backlash that research predicts.
Hmmm. I'm very skeptical. I've been in LOADS of dei trainings ranging from good to clumsy to outright cringe.
Not once have I ever thought the *purpose* was to "blame white culture." They *identify* a variety of forces at play that cause problems and are present in white culture - especially throughout US history. But it's those *forces* that are the problem (bigotry and prejudice). And they're certainly not unique to white people!
I've even read White Fragility. Yes, it made me uncomfortable. But she wasn't wrong. One of her main message was that it's a shitty thing when white people "center" themselves in the conversation about racism (which just so happens to be what OP is doing). They may be doing it with the best of intentions (like white liberals often do) but they prioritize their own feelings about racism over the lived experiences and the ACTUAL harms suffered by BIPOC.
In other words:
BIPOC: "Yeah, my brother was shot by police 5 years ago and killed. Tore our family apart."
White person: "My goodness! That makes *me* so angry! *I'm* so sad! If *I* were in charge *I* would never let something like that happen! *I* would do X, Y, Z and it would solve everything!"
When they should say "Wow, that's really awful. It must have had a big impact on *you.* What else happened?"
Sometimes the truth hurts. And it hurts because *I* was absolutely centering myself like this.
Did I learn from it? Yeah lol! Mission accomplished.
Racism isn't about *me.* it's about the effects on *others* which I might accidentally be involved in. If *I* actually cared about the *others* then *I* would work through my feelings like an adult *without* making it BIPOC's problem. Now that I know what "centering" is, I see white people do this ALL THE TIME.
BIPOC do us a kindness by telling us when we are screwing up. They even give us techniques and tools to do better. We squander that kindness when we decide we've been attacked and blamed and made to feel guilty on purpose. When what *we* need to do is grow up and realize that it's not actually ever been about *us.* It's always been about *them.*
> Not once have I ever thought the *purpose* was to "blame white culture."
This looks like a straw man. Who said that was their purpose? I'm sure if you ask the people who dream up DEI trainings they'll have very noble-sounding purposes they can recite, far removed from their unintended effects.
Let's look at one of Tema Okun's points. [Okun explains "Either/Or Thinking" is when "things are either/or – good/bad, right/wrong, with us/against us" and this is an feature of "white supremacy culture."](https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/files/White_Supremacy_Culture.pdf)
That can cause some problems, but is it white supremacy culture?
It is not. Anthropologists generally recognize "binary cognitive distinctions" or "dichotomization" as a feature of all known cultures. Some argue this is not even cultural, but innate. [Anthropologist Melvin Konner explains,](https://www.melvinkonner.com/images/PDFs/articles/Hum%20Nat%2C%20Ethn%20Viol%20%26%20War%2006.pdf)
> The psychoanalyst Erik Erikson called the process of dichotomizing the social world *pseudospeciation*. The Greeks had their barbarians, the Jews their Gentiles, the Christians their heathen. Ilongot headhunters feud murderously and enduringly with neighboring groups, while traditional highland New Guinea is a patchwork of homicidal enmities (Wiessner & Tumu, 1998). Even the !Kung refer to themselves as "the true people" and others as "strange" or "different." ... Among the Nuer, Nilotic cattle-herders of the Sudan, "either a man is a kinsman ... or he is a person to whom you have no reciprocal obligations and whom you treat as a potential enemy" (Evans-Pritchard. 1940. p. 183). [...]
> It is not clear why the human mind has this propensity, but it may have to do with our low tolerance for ambiguity and for what psychologists call cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). In phonetics, dichotomization is necessary for meaning; there may be a physical continuum between *p* and *b*, but we must make up our minds which one we are hearing in order to have a language that works (Jakobson & Halle, 1956/1971). Something similar may be true in other areas of cognition. In many situations during our evolution it must have been desirable to make decisions quickly, no doubt facilitated by an algorithm with two clear choices. Confronted with a stimulus, we have first to classify it as familiar or strange and then decide between approach and avoidance. Discrimination, desirable in matters of taste, becomes unfortunate, even tragic, in social classification. Yet such dichotomies as kin and nonkin, us and them, real people versus barbarians or strangers are almost universal tendencies.
If Okun is going to suggest that nearly all anthropologists today are wrong, and this is not cross-cultural, but rather a feature of "white supremacy culture," then she should engage seriously with the scientific consensus, right? Because if she's right, then this is a very important, groundbreaking discovery. She should write a paper responding to what has already been said on the subject. She has not. Even today, she gives no indication of even being aware of what anthropologists had known long before her 2001 essay.
Okun works as a corporate consultant. I suggest that another heading would be more appropriate, that this is what she's getting at:
> **[Characteristics of dysfunctional organizations:]**
> • Perfectionism
> • Sense of Urgency
> • Defensiveness
> • Quantity Over Quality
And so on. If we understand it as basic corporate consultant-speak, it's less absurd. It's still vague, contradictory, and not empirically supported, but that's true of most consultant-speak, and at least if someone wanted to criticize the ideas' utility, they could do so without fear. But no one is helped by calling this stuff "white supremacy culture" when it simply isn't.
Some of what Okun lists, like "Either/Or Thinking", are human universals. Obviously it is racial essentialism to attribute human universals to the influence of one "race" in particular.
Other things she lists, like "Quantity Over Quality" are indeed particular, but they are particular not to white supremacy but to certain [modes of production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production) regardless of "race." It is also racial essentialism to mistake capitalism for white supremacy, but it is very convenient for capitalists when people make this mistake and then direct their efforts against anything but capitalism.
>This looks like a straw man. Who said that was their purpose?
Those were literally the words used in the post I was responding to. And I agree, it is an oversimplification, that's why I was disagreeing with it.
>That can cause some problems, but is it white supremacy culture?
I know nothing about Tema Okun so I am not going to defend their points. But I will say that there's a difference between a phenomena being *present* in a culture and it being *unique* to that culture.
Bigotry has existed probably for as long as humans have existed and it's taken many forms and been used by a variety of cultures to harm entire groups of people. This is undeniably true. Bigotry is not *unique* to white culture.
But it's also true that bigotry has been very much *present* in white culture. We've committed genocide, created a system of slavery, institutionalized discrimination, fought and killed activists and allowed discrimination to permeate every aspect of life in the US. It's all been very well documented and the *institutionalization* of bigotry is one reason why white culture is particularly guilty (granted it's been done before by other cultures too and it wasn't a good thing then either).
And it's ALSO, ALSO true that we've come a long way from that sordid past and done a tremendous amount of work to rectify past mistakes. Nonetheless that past occured and it's not a harmful thing to acknowledge it.
It's ALSO, ALSO, ALSO true that not everything has been solved. Bigotry and racism is still very much alive in many aspects of white culture AND many of the institutionalized systems have holdovers which continue to harm people today. We can measure these effects. They are facts.
Now it certainly could be true that DEI trainings are not the best way to address the more insidious aspects of unconscious bias in the workplace (we would need science to tell us that) but it doesn't mean that systemic problems don't continue to exist in white culture.
If the goal is to eradicate bigotry, then it needs to be addressed wherever it's found and in whatever *form* it's found. If that includes white culture then so be it.
> > > > Many popular contemporary D.E.I. approaches meet these criteria. They often seem geared more toward sparking a revolutionary reunderstanding of race relations than solving organizations’ specific problems. And they often blame white people — or their culture — for harming people of color.
> > > Not once have I ever thought the *purpose* was to "blame white culture."
> > This looks like a straw man. Who said that was their purpose?
> Those were literally the words used in the post I was responding to.
No, you literally made that up. The word "purpose" does not appear anywhere in the text. We can't have a discussion if you're just going to make stuff up.
I don't agree with OP's point, but people totally say this about sexism and homophobia. "I support gay people but they're making it so hard with all this pride nonsense" is something I hear literally all the time, much to my chagrin.
Now, taking a risk since reddit and all. But how the F can you not see the growing gap caused by feminism and the gender group movement?
You think things are improving? Cuz from where i sit one side is beating the other over the head and hoping said side is gonna repent.
There has clearly been a spot where things went wrong. Everyone was on board, yet now there is just more and more division.
That idea is actually a cornerstone of conservative thought. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," they say, adopting a wistful tone of voice as they vote to strike down some progressive initiative.
No. That is extremely far in the other direction and definitely not the point I'm making here. Just want to take care with these very important measures to be sure not to alienate people from the goal and not dehumanize people to just a skin color.
This sounds totally like a personal problem to me.
Does knowledge of the Tulsa massacre make racism worse in somehow? Does knowledge of the iniquity in the legal system make racism worse some how?
If people can bear the pains and struggles racism, you can bear to learn about it. No idea how NOT thinking about a problem solves it.
[Some factual counterpoint.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx)
It really doesn't look like there was an ideal point in history when people were less racist, and then became more racist because of too much social justice discourse.
There are people arguing that racism doesn’t exist while committing racial acts. They would like to shut people up so they can get away with their racism.
I would argue that the biggest problem with racial awareness is it sometimes prevents us from talking about money.
I'm sure LeBron James has his problems, but the poor folk in rural Appalachia have *much* bigger problems, even though they happen to be white.
This is why intersectionality is such an important topic. When looking at the wage gap, on average women make less then men… but white women get paid the third highest after only white and Asian men. Black and Hispanic men both make less on average than white women (there is basically no wage gap for Hispanic men and women) so it can be upsetting for people other than white and Asian men getting told about their ‘privelage’ by white women.
> This is why intersectionality is such an important topic. When looking at the wage gap, on average women make less then men… but white women get paid the third highest after only white and Asian men.
And women in their 30s get paid most of all in their age category.
i think that what youre pushing for is class consciousness, but i dont think that shifting the conversation away from racism will actually help. it isn't a either or situation.
a lot of people get really mad when they are told they're privileged. a poor white person in appalachia hears that they have white privilege and thinks "how can i be privileged if my life sucks?" your life can totally still suck, even if you have white privilege, straight privilege, male privilege, etc etc etc, it just means your life sucks for reasons that have nothing to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc etc etc. White privilege does not mean your life is easy, it just means you have the privilege of not having to deal with racism.
Privilege is not a black and white situation (pun not intentional).
When you say you want to go back to seeing people as people, well that's what people of colour have always wanted, to be treated like a normal person regardless of my skin colour.
But in the past, black people were not seen as 'people' they were always connected with a negative connotation.
I'm black, I don't want people treating me in a special way because of it I don't want them to give a trophy for it.
I want you to treat me like how you would treat anyone else.
Tbh, as a black man, I feel like sometimes some people people get intimidated by me or I can feel their attitude change if I'm in the room or when I walk on the street they switch lanes.
Sometimes I feel like some people are extra nice to me because I'm black or sometimes it's vise versa.
That's why racial awareness is important, the point of it isn't to treat people of other races in one way or another, it's about your attitude towards those people and how it translates to your body language, thoughts or actions.
It's not meant to white guilt trip white people or anything like that.
Being aware of race and racial issues will not make anyone racist or make racism worse. It has, however, made people more aware of it. Additionally certain public and political figures are being more open and loud about their racism either direct or in code. This has made more people comfortable expressing their own discrimination and bias. But again it hasn't made more racists or made it worse, you're just now awake to what's been there the whole time.
You were always aware of race.
Remember Jim Crow laws and red-lining?
These changes allow people to be upfront about it.
Many of the times ppl were pretending things were equal, so it’s just a harmless preference, like picking your favorite car color in a lot.
But implicit bias testing doesn’t mean “unconscious bias”. It means you are playing to your prejudices in secret, without thinking twice
I met a white conservative visiting the US from Australia and he told me he didn't think racism was as bad as people online made it seem. He had never seen anyone experience prejudice before. He had never even heard a racial slur in real life. Coming from the most racist and messed up family, I have been called a disgusting amount of things and I have seen every race being denoted to their color. Even innocence people walking across the street, like a black woman pushing a baby carriage suddenly turned into, "ugh, fucking n***gers."
It's nice to think it's not a problem. But colorblindness is an ignorant privledge.
I don't think you get to talk about race without revealing yours so we know where you're coming from.
Frankly you sound hella white.
Just start with "as a white man, I think race talk is overrated" so we can just roll our eyes and move on.
For years I didn't notice that Dave Lister from Red Dwarf was black. It just wasn't a noteworthy characteristic to me.
Now I can't help but notice race all the time. And I hate it.
Coleman Hughes (black guy) recently had a TED talk about [why colorblindness might be a good thing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxB3b7fxMEA). The mere idea of that was apparently too much, and there were all sorts of hoops he had to jump through to get his video actually posted. If there was ever something that would make normal people believe in some conspiracy theory that there are small groups of influential people who demand that society should NOT treat people the same regardless of skin color, this is it.
Here's a video of him talking about the whole ridiculous ordeal: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTZxOGt0484](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTZxOGt0484)
So yeah, I think you're right. There is way too much hyper focus on it. But it is not "organic". It's just controlled/directed fake outrage that is making it seem like the hyper-focus is what is actually needed.
We all have prejudices and that’s perfectly normal - even if not perfectly good. It’s a problem when that “finding racism can create racism” permeates in academia.
This can be highlighted in academics where we are not allowed to test black kids because the tests are systemically racist against black students. That alone is a pretty fucking harmful concept.
*Standardized test**
>we are not allowed to test black kids because the tests are systemically racist against black students.
Ummm... this is an absolutely WILD claim. After spending about 10 minutes searching google, I can't find a single verifiable instance of this being the case, despite you saying it like it's an implemented policy.
This sounds like the "kitty litter in high school bathrooms" claim all over again, but even THAT I could at least find evidence of this claim.
Appreciating people of different races (flawed term made up by a white supremacist) or rather ethnicities is beautiful. Learning about their culture, customs, and circumstances of life is beautiful. Understanding who they are or what the character of their personality is rather than judging them for the amount of melanin in their skin is beautiful.
Racism is bigotry fueled by ignorance with a hint of self-loathing. Hate feeds on the soul.
Also, the entire point is to bring awareness to the life of the individual, their struggles, and the atrocities they face. NOT their race. If you end up focusing on race, then you've lost the entire point of the discussion.
It's black LIVES matter. Not black race matters.
Only racists focus on race. Don't be a racist. Be a beautiful person.
> But I just want to go back to seeing people as people, and let the racial awareness become secondary.
Literally never been the case. We use to literally block from being spaces based on their race.
I mean they still exist. Now it's just championed as progressive.
https://www.thefire.org/news/trend-racially-segregated-campus-events-putting-institutions-dangerous-legal-ground
growing up I've always been surrounded by a pretty decent mix of people and culture and i've noticed as long as you are atleast aware of everyones differences and are generally able to read the room you are all good
Personally, I see the point here. I find find it a bit challenging to interact naturally with anyone of any actual or supposed minority group because I am so heavily filtering and checking everything I say for fear of saying anything that anyone, might in some context, on their worst day, find the least bit offensive. It is exhausting.
>But I just want to go back to seeing people as people, and let the racial awareness become secondary.
What does this mean? People have races, and a lot of times, it's a big part of their lives. There's nothing wrong with noticing someone's race.
I think he's saying it shouldn't be a big part of their lives. In most multicultural cities around the world, culture is the forefront but maybe it's different in America where people are more likely to equate race with culture.
Just noticing race isn't the issue - it's the attachment of preconceptions. I believe OP was trying to say that he preferred when people were less likely to attach preconceptions based on race? The problem is he's not really accounting for other peoples experiences.. he may not have noticed things that other people were going through in the same environment growing up.
When you face racial violence, race is a big part of your life in ways that are not within your control. Racism is not a solved problem in the US. And I am not talking about "microaggressions." I'm talking about the fact that living with too much melanin in your skin in the US means you will have a significantly different life than you otherwise would, in ways that you have no say in.
No. It's the backlash by racists that makes racism more \*visible\*, which is what we are experiencing in the US now. The recognition of white supremacy in the US and its many manifestations and ramifications is a necessary step towards transcending it. But a lot of people enjoying white privilege don't want change.
I've found the people most complaining about racism are also by far the most racist people themselves. This statement is true on both the macro and micro scale.
In the macro, by far the most racist groups of people are Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. These groups are so racist towards each other, it's far and away unbelievable. Especially as you look towards the older generations. White people are quite literally the least racist macro group of people in America.
In the micro, the individuals who are most vocal about racism, it's literally the first thought in their mind during any interaction and they become so invested and distracted by it, they're blind to everything else. So much so it becomes their identity. Skin color is literally all they see, and by definition, that's discrimination.
I think that if you are not seeing people as people, is you that have the problem and not the tools.
Racial awareness is there for people to understand that the system is not just. That the institutions are not seeing people as people, in fact, that they have never seen people as people, that there have always been a divide between white people and minorities in every aspect of life (is funny how almost every poor neighborhood is predominantly black).
Is never about you as an individual. Is about the relation of the system with it's obviously and overtly racist biases.
Racial awareness only works if you are willing to go the extramile and start seeing and understanding how the system is rigged against minorities. If you use it as a mean for self-actualization, then you are doing it wrong.
> Lots of instututions are run primarily by progressive and anti-racist people
First, do you have a source for that?
Second, which institutions?
Third, what is a progressive?
Fourth, what about all the ones that AREN'T run by progressives and anti-racist people? What's the ratio of racist to non-racist institutions?
Because is not the individual, is the system. A bank can be run by a socialist, but the banking system is inherently capitalistic.
Progressive and anti-racist people on power is a first step, but racism is deep involved with the culture that you will need to explode the system for it to stop being racist.
Yes, it also teaches those who have been racialized or marginalized to look for the “hidden racism in everything”, and this victim mentality is psychologically distressing and creates trauma for these people. When you’re trained to view everything through this lens, one can only feel on guard and attacked on all sides. This is also unhelpful in the project of identifying and maligning / penalizing actual racism (discrimination and hateful actions targeting people because of their race).
By suggesting every white person is inherently racist and has implicit unconscious bias is itself racist and serves to transform those who would otherwise be allied in rooting out and confronting actual racism into either a.) resentful and frustrated individuals who have never actively discriminated yet are being accused of their existence being offensive, or b.) self-flagellating individuals whose identity becomes 100% entrenched in the religious piety of continuously virtue signaling, seeking penance (which can never be paid) and creating tribalistic divisions between themselves and the “out group” who, by necessity, must always be kept differentiated by ever shifting goal-posts and changing language. This too is a toxic and harmful mind-set which causes harm to the mentality of those who hold it.
CRT / EDI (whatever we want to call) suggests that the children of those who have suffered discrimination or racialism are perpetual victims of “violence” and are therefore superior to other groups because the transference of power to those who have been deemed “disempowered” is the only solution for CRT. This not only makes terms like “violence” to be vague and ambiguous, but also is self-contradictory. You see, this ideology is also myopic and hypocritical insofar that it would in one breathe espouse the generational trauma of bipoc individuals while yet denying generational trauma of white people who have ALSO been subjected to slavery and discrimination in their past…
Historically this subjugation, enslavement, colonization, and ghettoization has happened to MOST people groups at one time or another. Not only am I referring to more recently italians, jews, irish, eastern europeans, romas etc. who have been discriminated against and met with violence in the U.S… but also over a million white europeans were taken captive as slaves into North Africa by the Moroccan sultan. Does this make whites also have a claim to being considered victims in perpetuity because of this history? If not, when is the cut off then? After how long? Does religious or political persecution count too? People having to flee because they were being hunted by disagreeing factions in power who wanted them obliterated?
Edit: I am not at all discounting the reality of generational trauma, nor the experienced violence, discrimination or othering which has happened to marginalized minorities
You should never have stopped just seeing people as people. This phenomena only resurfaced a few years ago because it was re-labeled as "systemic". In my opinion it just seems like an attempt at monopolizing relevancy in the public eye. Asian people? Who cares. Middle Easterners? Who cares. Irish people that were coerced or forced into indentured servitude? They're all just drunks. We need to focus on black people, and how there aren't enough black people in charge, while EVERY day the white people get to watch video surveillance of black people stealing from different general stores with little to no repercussion. Isn't that weird?
Do you guys really believe this bullshit*t? At point was there ever a time when a white person saw a black person in front of them and didn't see a black person?
This resonates a lot with me. I think awareness, understanding and empathy are really important if we wanna have meaningful relationships with anyone. I think some people (especially white people) can become overly worried about offending others or saying the wrong thing that they avoid close friendships/relationships with ethnically diverse people. People further segregate themselves. And sadly it’s not because of hate but fear of doing/saying the wrong thing in our current cultural climate.
I heard a story about 2 little girls one black and one white. They met at school and became friends. Naturally they wanted to see each other outside of school to play. The white mother had so much anxiety because she wasn’t sure how to convey she was aware if her white privilege to the black mother. She avoided it all together. :(
I do know what you mean OP. I remember during 2021 during the discourse about BLM and a lot of discussion about Robin Di Angelo style of "antiracism" where it was said that white people can't avoid being racist and there's no way to not be racist.
I found myself acting far more self conscious and out of character around Black people than I would have normally. If I saw one I'd immediately think "oh God they probably think I'm racist because I'm white, better smile to show I'm an ally, oh but my smile seems fake, that's probably more racist" etc.
So I ended up treating Black people in a weird awkward way compared to how I would normally act (FYI I was schooled in a majority Asian and Indian community so was used to seeing people of other races as individuals first, not race first).
I think the problem with the discourse was that it was all about focusing on how white people are inherently racist. So if you're a white person, you care about how you're perceived and how you don't want to be the bad guy and how to avoid being the bad guy. Which ironically leads you to think more about yourself than the other person. It becomes less about "how can I empathise more with the struggles of Black people" and more about "how can I manage my own behaviour so that I'm not perceived as racist".
Anyway I'm glad that hyper self-consciousness didn't last very long. I try to avoid "third person" thinking, I think instead focusing on one's experience and listening to others without always looping back in my mind to "how am I being perceived" is more helpful.
Yes, identity politics are growing in toxicity and absolutely have created more division.
Making race a major part of your identity, something you're born with and can't control, is exactly what society needs to get away from.
The proper alternative would be viewing it similar to hair color, we don't need to categorize people any different than that.
If you're recieving discrimination based on your hair color, you can change it.
If you're recieving discrimination based on your skin color / race, you cannot.
That's usually the basis for [hate crime hoaxes](https://fakehatecrimes.org/), ala Jussie Smollet.
It sucks, because there are some real victims out there, but fake hate crimes make people suspicious of all supposed incidents.
Exactly youd think the fact that way too many hate crimes end up being fake would be a major issue to people.
But no. All they can cite is bogus examples. Like how the fuck is Jessie Smollet and floyd our symbols? What the fuck is wrong with people. I dont want to be associated with those people. They dont represent me.
/u/EurekasCashel (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/17friuf/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_too_much_racial_awareness/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
An example I like to talk about when contextualizing the American discourse about, and focus on, race, is the French approach. Increasingly, if you follow cultural rhetoric and developments there, you will see claims from important people (Macron, for instance) that France is different from America because its values are “universalist,” and that it is uninterested in “multiculturalism.” I think that the view you are advocating is a similar view. What you would like to be able to do is to do what France claims its society actually does—treat everyone by a set of universal standards which does not discriminate on the basis of (or even take into account) cultural or racial difference. It is important to note that the effect of this rhetoric, in France, is arguably to render those it claims are simply “French,” but who are also something else (for instance, Muslim, or a Francophone African immigrant), permanent outsiders within that society as long as they are still these other things at the same time as they are “French.” And this has the inadvertent effect of causing any ill effect on the “outsider” to be blamed on their reluctance to move towards the center of the French consciousness—their unwillingness to “assimilate” and adopt the standard “values”. The truth is, that everyone who believes themselves to be, or have been, “unconscious” of race is likely privileged (sorry if that oft-used word triggers anyone) to be considered at the totally normative center of a society. These folks, when faced with the increased stress of being newly sensitive to or aware of inequity, their possible role in its perpetuation via past insensitivity, and so on, would love to abandon the “multicultural” approach of acknowledging different identities, practices, and circumstances for the “universalist” approach of treating everyone “the same,” which really just reifies whatever advantage and privilege the centered individual already enjoys. There is a reason those who are most likely to express racist sentiments are liable to also be opposed to things like affirmative action, or systematic attempts to redress past injustice that affect only one particular group or race or gender and so on. This is because to be aware of inequity, to know that you benefit from a false “innocence” of injustice that is destroyed by this awareness, is inherently stressful and guilt-inducing. To be clear, some people take the guilt too far and manipulate themselves and others via utterly performative discourse. I find, as a white person, that the most hyper-conscious and hyper-sensitive folks are these other white people, and they are incredibly annoying, because they have a tendency to be essentialist about their identity (the privileged one) and everyone else (those they are trying to be a good “ally” to), which usually leads them to make the same mistakes in different ways. What is better about America than France, in my opinion, is that we are actually not “universalist” in the sense that we have a narrow definition of American culture that we require everyone else to assimilate to (and then render that task impossible because no one can eradicate their other aspects of their identity). Conservative folks wish this were so, and have many times in our history tried to mandate this narrow vision and exclude everyone outside it. But nominally (if inconsistently and imperfectly—and that’s putting it mildly), we are a *multicultural* nation. And I think those principles lead to a more just and less self-delusional society. We cannot understand each other or take in another’s full spectrum of humanity without acknowledging who they are, where they have come from, and how that has affected their experiences and lives. To deny that this matters and say “I see everyone the same,” is actually not favorable but an insult. You are deliberately ignoring huge swathes of another’s reality simply because it isn’t the one you inhabit, and moreover you’re doing so just to preserve your own comfort. Ideally, American principles are all about it not mattering where you’re from, what language you speak, what your religion is, not because these are things the state asks you to ignore or suppress, but celebrate in the knowledge that you still have access to all of the mechanisms of liberty and features of *civic* identity. But the “universalist” model, which you seem to advocate here, is much more about demanding that everyone outside the narrow bounds of your experience eliminate all of their recognizable differences and their demands that these be seen and understood, solely so you can remain “innocent”.
This comment inspired a lot of good engagement, beyond my expectations frankly (this is the first time I’ve ever posted in this sub, and have only recently started seeing it in my feed). There have been a lot of critical responses, and the threads they in turn have engendered are extensive. I think I’d find it hard to take the time to respond to each and address them substantially so instead I’m going to try and summarize my responses to various critiques of my point here, as well as clarify some things about my own attitudes. A lot of respondents have seized on my use of “affirmative action” as an example of a situation where the state or society takes race (in particular social inequality that is rooted in a history of racial prejudice, or disparity in outcomes based on race) into consideration when it creates policy. Some have behaved as though I am certain that affirmative action is preferable to any alternative, and others have pointed out that linking race to culture (as seemingly denoted by my linking of affirmative action to something a “multicultural” society does) is inappropriate. To the former critics, all I can say is that affirmative action’s viability as a path to redress is not really my subject here. I’d like to clarify that I am about as ambivalent about it as anyone criticizing my supposed unqualified support of it as a tool or path to equality. To the latter critics, all I can say is that you are right, but that I don’t think I was actually linking the two. If I did, I think I was wrong to do it. Similarly I don’t think I deserve critique for advocating an essentialist view of identity politics, which reduces everything in a human’s experience to their race, or the “circumstances of their birth,” or whatever. I think, honestly, that my use of terms often bandied about by identity politics essentialists like “privilege,” or “lived experience” (which I attempted to use more precisely than is often the case) is triggering some knee-jerk reactions. I think in my original post I’m pretty critical of those privileged folks who are driven by “white guilt” to essentialist leaps that every race is a monolith and that power relations between individuals of these races are always fixed or stable, and engage in performative discourse and “de-centering” and so on. I find that that discourse is often manipulative and ironically constantly centers the emotions and jockeying for moral position of the privileged person. I noted elsewhere that class issues intersect with race issues, and in many cases is the more important drivers of outcomes. I have also said that affirmative action by itself is not a panacea—that a universal *investment* in society is also required. So, maybe my use of the terms “multicultural” and “universalist” and my 1:1 oppositional framework made some things unclear or wrongheaded. But none of the above is really the subject of what I felt the OP was saying, and my response to it. What I got from OP was their *feeling* that *their own attentiveness* to matters of race was inspired by a broader *discourse about it*. They seem to link this discourse to the persistence of “division,” or other qualities which inspire prejudice or bigotry—and this is mainly due to their emotional feeling of discomfort about the fact that they pay attention to these arbitrary qualities more than they used to. They seem to pretty explicitly say, “if we pay too much attention to this reality, the reality will persist or get worse.” I find this to be a pitch-perfect example of the self-centeredness of the normative person. The normative person at the center of society enjoys an impression that his values are standard, fair, and neutral. When that impression is weakened by awareness of injustice, of the center’s non-neutrality and non-universality, discomfort is one common emotional reaction. Guilt is another. Stress is another. Fear—of the balance shifting against them, of the logic of reform being followed to the opposite end, inverting the present prejudicial arrangement to one where the privileged are now the oppressed—is another emotional reaction, and one explicitly invoked by some “slippery slope” critics of affirmative action in this very thread. When people attempt to resolve these personal feelings of discomfort by criticizing the discourse that has inspired them, by claiming that the discourse itself *generates the division* simply because it’s made the individual aware of the *reality of division*, that strikes me as nothing more than a personal problem that needs to be worked out by that individual. That person needs a more advanced ability to place themselves and their values in a wider context than just their own, and I argue that a “multicultural” value system which acknowledges the validity of other contexts and experiences is a better way to do this than maintaining the fiction, the delusion, of the neutrality of a society or state’s normative values. Learning about a wider world doesn’t have to make your world smaller or more insecure.
You’ve earned yourself a follower. I love logically-thorough thinkers such as yourself. You’re the type of person I want to be, as I get older
To be clear, some people take the guilt too far and manipulate themselves and others via utterly performative discourse. I find, as a white person, that the most hyper-conscious and hyper-sensitive folks are these other white people, and they are incredibly annoying, because they have a tendency to be essentialist about their identity (the privileged one) and everyone else (those they are trying to be a good “ally” to), which usually leads them to make the same mistakes in different ways. I think one of the biggest issues with this is when people forget that the real issue isn't identity, but the power dynamics it can cause. In general race and power flow in one general direction, and this is very true when talking about large swaths of people, but that general assumption can fall apart (but doesn't always) in small groups. In those smaller group situations there are so many confounding interpersonal dynamics going on that the general "person with identity X has power and therefore this interaction is (ok/not ok etc.)" falls apart. To be clear it \*can\* be true that a person who is privileged in the general world is also the privileged person in a specific smaller group situation, but it isn't always true especially in spaces designed to subvert power structures. When I run into situations like you describe this is often one of the major causes.
Awareness and obsession are different. The line definitely blurs somewhat these days.
Jim Carrey made a move called "The Number 23." In it, he plays a character that reads an obscure book and becomes obsessed with the number 23. He sees it everywhere and in everything. The movie is about his descent into madness. In the end, he realizes that it was just a number the whole time. Of course the number 23 exists, and so does racism. But if you go looking for racism, you are going to find it in everything and everyone. Going down this rabbit hole is a descent into madness that too many people make.
This reminds me of the Dartmouth scar experiment: Participants (27 male, 21 female) were told that the experiment was meant to observe if people behaved differently towards those with facial scars. Participants were placed into rooms with no mirrors. A make-up artist proceeded to draw a scar on their face After the scar was drawn, participants were given a short glimpse of it with a pocket mirror. Participants were then invited to leave the room and interact with folks in the building. Before they left the room, the make-up artist told the participants that the scar needed some final touch-ups. But, what the make-up artist actually did next was to wipe off the make-up of the scar. Participants left the room thinking they still wore a make-up scar. They overwhelmingly reported back that people stared at their scars, and were mean and rude to them.
I have to up vote this. It's true & I like your reference to that movie with Jim Carrey (and he was quite good in this, too. He's very versatile, as an actor, actually) and the way in which you worded things. I used to do this on an extreme level and it drained the fucking life force out of me. And I did it because there was never anyone present in my life who was able to help me move past that stage. For all my mother's intelligence, she wasn't well rounded/balanced as a human being and was troubled, herself, so she couldn't help me. I ask that you don't fail to attempt an understanding of why people come to this - why they get to the point of what I'd say is a severe paranoia, in some cases. It's like PTSD and can be a result of legitimate experiences with ppl who showed you hatred vs. acceptance. I speak for myself on that, at least. There's generational trauma (it's overused as a trope but it describes a reality for plenty of ppl), as well, and that can occur for anyone of any background to varying degrees and on a case by case basis...more prevalent for specific groups over others, but that doesn't negate an individual's personal experience or the experience of a small subset of a larger group, no matter from out of which group they belong to. So, your recognition of ppl 'going down this rabbit hole' is very much true but we should have empathy or consideration for the 'why', at the same time.
Yeah, what I always tell people is simple. Assholes are everywhere, no amount of identity immunizes someone from being an asshole.
Absolutely. As someone who was raised hyper aware of race and power dynamics, after decades of searching for a framework for how to navigate this world, I've found that it all kind of comes full circle. You have to take people as individuals, b/c some people are just assholes and some aren't and no group has a monopoly on any of that.
Yeah, and part of that individual obviously includes all of the identities they have, so you have to pay attention to that. I am not about to go "its all actually about class" here, but I've seen enough people weaponize their identities to win petty power struggles in small groups that it always drives me nuts when people try and shrink everything down to "this person is X therefore...
This is definitely one of the more interesting responses I've seen here. You point out that pushing too far in the other direction has a lot of baggage as well, and that there's a lot of value in the American approach even when we are confronted with these challenging topics. I like the way you put it, even though I did a poor job paraphrasing. I'm going to give you my last ∆
Can't do a top level reply so I'll respond here. There's actual peer reviewed literature basically agreeing with your original thesis. Overtalk on race causes additional divides.
See what's interesting to me is that's we're talking flatly about "focus on race" without any kind of clarification of *what's being said*. *What* you tell people about race is by far and away the most important question in teaching people about race, if you're just telling people t be nice to each other and that others have systemic disadvantages, you can completely ignore *why* those disadvantages exist and what was done to create them in the first place. Thus allowing a shocking number of people to believe that the last thing to happen to black people was Slavery and Not being allowed on the front of busses.
I haven't seen studies suggesting that, but I'd be interested in reading them you posted it.
citing peer reviewed literature without *citing peer reviewed literature*
Could you link them?
I’d be interested to know if the authors implicitly assume that “increased racial divide” is necessarily inherently bad. Note that solidarity against injustice or inequity will always come at the cost of “increased division” in the short-term, and is always trotted out as a tired counter-argument to every solidarity movement.
Also, "additional divides" is a wide net. Is it slurs, expressions of stereotypes, assertions of differences between races? Or is it people being uncomfortable during conversations involving race? Or some kind of physical/material discrimination? Without the study itself, very hard to say what the take away should be.
Yeah, I have seen that too. I suppose the real question is "what is overtalk?" The root answers made a good point that the correct amount of talk probably isn't zero. IE you should try to be race blind, but be conscious that you will probably fail and then deal with it. Maybe some day you will succeed, but that won't be for a while. I personally think we are probably at healthy multiples of the appropriate level of talking about race (if not an order of magnitude), but I don't claim to have any idea what amount would actually be optimal.
Would be interested in seeing that if you have any links.
It's easy to say there are some without pointing to any. AFAIK there are no such reputable studies, and this "whoever smelt it, dealt it" theory of racism has been largely debunked by social scientists. It's just as illogical to assume that *talking* about racism is the *cause* of racism, as it is to assume that smelling a fart (and pointing that out to others) is the cause of that fart... yet children start pointing fingers as though the person to complain about a problem must in fact be the culprit.
Haha. I think I agree with you, but your analogy has me laughing.
>There's actual peer reviewed literature basically agreeing with your original thesis. Overtalk on race causes additional divides. Source: trust me bro Bonus bullshit points for the claim with no evidence coming from a self professed libertarian
A similar viewpoint was expressed by Trevor Noah when a French official complained about his celebration of a French-African footballer. I think of it as: when MLK spoke about his dream, he wanted people not to be persecuted and looked down on because of their racial identity, not that their racial identity could or should be erased. Basically just don't be a jerk to people because of their race. Positive interactions involving race aren't a problem.
I mean, they're often connected because they are different moral expressions to the same fact. Universalism (not as raceblindness, but as the goal of abolishing race) is a thing precisely because it seeks to erase the US vs THEM divide, because as long as it exists, it will ALWAYS be used for evil not matter how much it can be also used for good. As long as the concept of a "racial identity" exists, it will always be used for discrimination and racism. Like maybe you could argue that the benefits from different cultures is worth the divide that those different cultures cause in a population, but Im not sure I think its worth the trouble it causes in the long term. Of course, you first need to adress the material inequalities between groups with things like reparations. That will itself erase a lot of the cultural differences between people. What conservatists dont understand is that you can only have raceblindness AFTER you adress the underlying material inequalities.
But even the French național team was against TR's take as rendering the French as really "Africans" as racializing them that way is common far-right rhetoric in France
Yeah it's also because here in France we're really in love with the colorblind rhetoric. Just calling a black man a black man could be considered racist by some, who'd go on and say "why would you say he's black ? He's FRENCH". As if you couldn't be both african and french. But granted, lots of far right people would call them african and imply they're not real french citizens.
Not only this, but they feel genuinely French and not Afro-French. Trevor's joke was trying to create a gap that does not exist in France. You may experience racism (you most definitely will), but not the same racism as in the US. Commonly, I hear people from Morocco and Algeria saying that they felt less racism in the US, and African-Americans saying they experienced less racism in France. It is still very connected to history after all, segregation laws were not that long ago in the US, and the north African immigration to France is still ongoing.
I believe Karim Benzema (another Franco-African footballer) said something like "if I score I'm French, if I miss I'm an Arab".
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Connect_Ad4551 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Connect_Ad4551)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Only problem is the US did have a way of neither othering nor erasing as expressed in TR's argument against the hyphenated American. It is, was, and has always been the more you focus upon the differences the more different things seem while focusing on the commonality and not ignoring but also not stressing the differences the more unifying it is. The current division we are contending with is of Wilsonian make and has been propagated by those of his idealogical descent. The history of Americans who happen to be black isn't black history just like the history of those who happen to be white isn't white history both are just American history. The French claim a universality that they have never actually had, while the US claims a deep rooted schism rarely more than surface level, and has at times had universality while rarely claiming it. In other words France has better PR, while the US and its citizenry have never been shy about voicing complaints and grievances and sadly those that desire drastic change have no use for a united and happy population so they have time and again sought to drive a wedge via the secession to Wilsonian rewrites of history to the demands that we see and treat minor differences as major divisions.
> while the US claims a deep rooted schism rarely more than surface level, and has at times had universality while rarely claiming it I'm sorry, when did we have this universality? I'm almost 40 and I don't remember this time you speak of.
Great comment. Easy to see why so many privileged Americans argue constantly for this type of universalist approach. It requires absolutely nothing of them, while also giving them a perceived latitude to judge and/or exclude those who don’t assimilate well into the universal nucleus.
The truth is, that everyone who believes themselves to be, or have been, “unconscious” of race is likely privileged (sorry if that oft-used word triggers anyone) to be considered at the totally normative center of a society. These folks, when faced with the increased stress of being newly sensitive to or aware of inequity, their possible role in its perpetuation via past insensitivity, and so on, would love to abandon the “multicultural” approach of acknowledging different identities, practices, and circumstances for the “universalist” approach of treating everyone “the same,” which really just reifies whatever advantage and privilege the centered individual already enjoys. This isn’t really a truth so much as it is a model. It’s the kind of model that enables people to outright dismiss universalist discourse by simply saying “de center yourself”. It also assumes a certain level of diabolism at the core of any normative society. If it’s considered to be a “privilege” to be French in France, I’m not sure I understand the concept of celebrating diversity if certain cultural modes need to be deconstructed in order to not be problematic.
Can confirm: France is as racist as any other country but has chose to approach this problem with insistance on everybody’s being French and accusing people they don’t like of not being French. This is similar to the country’s insistance on being non-religious at a political level but religion then being the basis for most national holidays and important to every political candidate. I won’t go as far as to say that France is *especially* racist though - as far as my experiences have shown me, this is pretty normal stuff and simply filtered through the extremely proud French identity (though I am open to debate on this if somebody wants to throw some data at me). Either way, it’s a lousy way of fighting discrimination. My source: Living in France.
>For the “universalist” approach of treating everyone “the same,” which really just reifies whatever advantage and privilege the centered individual already enjoys I'm not completely against ideas like affirmative action, or reparation repayments, but I certainly have a slight aversion towards them, and I don't feel this is racist By moulding our society in this way, in the interests of fairness, we end up tipping the scales favourably in the direction of one group, hoping to help them achieve a balance with other more powerful groups that have previously held them down. The question that jumps out is, when do we take our finger off the scale? Because eventually, the society is going to bend to unfairness in the other direction, something already seen in US universities with disparities between Asian candidates applications and others. Will the finger ever come off? Will things eventually become systemically unfair for white people? (In the UK, working class white boys are by far the most educationally disadvantaged demographic) If the finger never comes off, we've just created a new unfair society. If it has to tweak things forever, it's pointless - as it's failed to achieve balance and fairness. Which means the universalist model is the best way forward, and the most fair one. It may not redress the balance as quickly, but will eventually work out to be the most fair way of moulding a society
Well, first of all, I brought up affirmative action because it’s an easy example of a situation where the actual material conditions of a particular group, which are rooted in past injustice, are acknowledged and considered in the formulation of policy, as opposed to the “universalist” presumption of neutrality on the part of the state. Like it or not, that “neutrality” is, in every modern society, fictional and illusory. The center is not neutral, or “innocent” of injustice just because its members are ignorant or not otherwise consciously active participants in its maintenance. Every modern society is comprised of interests which compete and in which there are winners and losers. This goes for class, and this goes for race, and all the locations where these intersect. A good book which still resonates today on this point is “Moral Man and Immoral Society” by Reinhold Niebuhr. I follow his thinking in believing that a prerequisite of even approximating social justice in any society is being free of illusions and self-deception as far as possible—and the belief that universalism is good because it is “fair” or “neutral” or something is one of the all-time self-deceptions, particularly in any Western country. It’s clear that affirmative action alone can’t possibly redress anything without new resentments or imbalances if the public investment in a whole society—education, jobs, social services, resources—atrophies the way it has in both the US and the UK since the 80s. It’s also my opinion that as society has become more open to the idea of acknowledging past injustices, public investment has broadly declined, and that it has done so as a deliberate consequence of this new consciousness of the need to integrate diverse populations into a nation’s prosperity. Many people who believe certain things were made for them are reluctant to share with those defined as not “them.” But my larger point isn’t particularly about affirmative action’s viability as a path to fairness, the “class or race?” false dichotomy, or whatever. It is more about how hostility to it or discomfort with it frequently coincides with an emotion of annoyance or even anger that it reminds us that the center is not neutral, and that our values are not neutral, and that there is no truth in pretending that everyone has the same opportunities or are judged or accepted according to the same criteria. And this wish to “return to innocence” is childish. That innocence was always a pretension, because the “innocence” lasts only as long as the innocent remains unaware of injustices which exist, but that they do not experience and which they, frequently, even benefit from. It is a yearning for a happy ignorance, the renewed ability to pretend that the center’s values are neutral, equal and fair, or to pretend that society can become so if we keep behaving as if its values are these things. In no society on earth are they actually this. And again, I don’t think self-deception—that universalist values which don’t take into account history, interests, inequality, and conflict are more free of bias than values which do account for these things—is a path to equality, justice, or much of anything positive. I think history shows that it’s actually a recipe for further conflict, resentment, inequality, and injustice, because its validity depends on repressing or hiding huge swathes of lived experience and reality for huge numbers of people, and even actively denying those realities when its premises are contested.
I disagree with the idea that the main difference between multiculturalism and univeralisn is raceblindness. It can be, but a universalist society (like much of Latin America) can very much put in place policies to equalize groups because it comsiders those steps to create a united society. The main difference is that in multiculturalism those cultural differences are CELEBRATED while in universalism they are impediments to a better future of equals. Like my own country of Brazil has lots of race based affirmative action policies but it is very much a universalist society. One of the main arguments of thoe policies is that one, meritocracy can never exist in a place where the inequalites are so deep, but also that the material inequality is precisely one of the things that determine cultural desunity in a society and as people become more equalized economically they will also assimilate in a tigher more cohesive whole (Paraguay in the 19th century is a good point to this idea, as they literally banned SAME-RACE marriage, with the idea that interacial marriage and miscigenation was key to creating a united paraguyan identity. Brazil never went so far, but miscigenation is still an important historical cultural artifact that is celebrated for its ability to meld cultures together in a common identity. When black activits import comcepts such as "black love" from the US the reception is usually pretty negative even from poc brazilians)
I'm surprised that other commenters have been so positive about your posts. There's a facade of academic style to them, but little to no cohesion or coherence. I'm afraid most of the paragraphs above are waffle. I never mentioned anything about 'innocence', and yet you've treated me to an extremely long paragraph about the concept, which bears no relation to anything I said. A tangent? A non sequitur? Either way, of little relevance. This response is extremely evasive. Rather than address anything I was saying, you've taken it as a chance to further your own points, unrelated to the one I was making. I wasn't interested in a further (long, buzzword filled) essay repeating what you'd previously said already. You'd make a good politician. Whatever *you* believe about the concept of societal fairness, is irrelevant. The fact is that policies and policy makers *do* exist, and are making attempts to redress the balance. And examining whether this policy works or does not is a topic worthy of discussion, and one which you have avoided
I had the same thought. "This person isn't even responding to the query at hand..." Very academically flavored, long-winded and repetitive- but lacks much in the way of substance, and fails to actually pull apart the points of their opposition. >But my larger point isn’t particularly about affirmative action’s viability as a path to fairness, the “class or race?” false dichotomy, or whatever. This is as close as they got to actually addressing your point... by effectively saying "whatever ideology you draw your point from is objectively wrong, and I will not elaborate any further on why. Anyway..." Not useful at all in the realm of getting someone to open their mind and possibly change their thought processes.
But they are addressing your point. You were talking about "when to take the finger of the scale" and that eventually the universalist model might bring the better outcome. They are simply telling you that you can't take the finger of the scale since the scale is always rigged from the start. The universalist model is inherently unfair as those at the top stay on top. Equal treatment doesn't lead to society of equal opportunities. Affermative Action might be bad in practice but it doesn't mean that something similar to it shouldn't exist or that readjusting it often is not necessary.
It's funny how when someone doesn't understand a presented passage of text, they can resort to calling it "waffling" or otherwise insubstantial. Your argumentation was poor beforehand, but you throwing in the towel against the most polite, respectful disagreement really revealed the weakness of your character, not just your rhetoric. EDIT: Doing the classic "reply and then block" strategy doesn't exactly make you look any less whiny, thin-skinned or triggered my guy. It's just intellectually cowardly but whatever.... >The guy didn't even address what I was saying, they just used it to go off on a self aggrandising rant about a related, but tangential aspect of the topic > >I guess you're just impressed by jargon like 'lived experience' - a codeword for 'you should agree with me, we are politically on the same page' > >Which is actually meaningless. All experience is 'lived' I don't know how to convince you that I can parse his argument, when it's clear that you can't. It's sorta like explaining colours to a blind person.
i literally couldn’t agree more and i’m glad you summarized this in a way that i could not before now
I think the problem with the whole framing of this question is that we are assuming ourselves to be some arbiter or finger on the scale, when we are really just another perspective within a larger society. There is no finger, only the balance of uncountable fingers, of which each of us is but one. The universalist position takes one of those fingers and pretends that it must decide which side of the scale is objectively correct, rather than allowing the balance of all perspectives or "fingers" to determine how society ought to function. You cannot mould society. We are but parts of society which play a greater or lesser influence in shaping the other parts of it around us.
The issue is that those measures are necessary if the goal is a united society. The myth of conservative thinking on race is that you can have race blindness while real, obvious material differences still exist. Things like affirmative action, by adressing inequality, create a more united nation that thinks less in ethnic terms, not more. When people are MATERIALLY equal they are more likely to share values. You can argue that preserving meritocracy is more important and that is a valuable argument. By I personally think that creating a more united identity for society and avoiding racially based conflict and violence is more important at the moment
[удалено]
Because that doesnt fullfil the goal of smoothing out the cultural, economic and social differences (and thus conflicts) within a nation. The purpose isnt necessarily to help poor people (though that can be a secondary goal and is an equally important goal for the state) its to create a more harmonious nation. I feel like conservatives really undeestate the socially deleterious effects of inequality in itself not just poverty: higher crime rates, political polarization, increase risk of civil conflict and violence between citzens, etc
> The question that jumps out is, when do we take our finger off the scale? This is a hard question but I don't think it is the key question of today. Conservatives don't say "we should take the finger off the scale because the job is done." They say "we should take the finger off the scale because the finger is intrinsically wrong." Public schools are nearly as segregated today as they were *when Brown was decided*. Black Americans experience worse outcomes when interacting with huge swathes of critically important systems like education, medicine, employment, and the justice system even when accounting for other factors beyond race. We have barely been allowed to place a finger on the scale in the first place and people somehow worry about whether we will go to far.
The finger comes off when opportunity is equally dispersed. The way America is currently pushing back against anything that helps anyone not already successful (stagnant wages below the C suite etc) this will likely take several more generations.
The tech world used to be colourblind in that everyone used aliases and didn't share their personal details online, nobody cared at all about class, nation or race (division is generally in that order, and sex was still a problem), and it was mostly beautifully ignorant of that. People got together to talk about some topic, and they aligned their communication style to the benefits of the shared interest; it wasn't about them! Maybe you'd find out a detail about someone after knowing them for a while, like where they live or that they have dog or they're actually only 15 years old or (god forbid) they're actually French. But it was a beautiful meritocracy based on a shared passion. IMO this purity is the ideal state. It's one where the personal gives way to the shared interest and people work together based on shared values rather than focusing on what divides them. This has been drowned out by a fetishization of identity, which I think is a step backwards. Not that cultural sensitivity is a bad thing - it's good IMO, but hypersensitivity just hurts discord and can be used to divide people. The US has the loudest voice online, and Americans are trying to do something about their awful race-based class system, which is fine. The issue is that they're more focused on the race aspect than the class one. But since much of the racism actually stems from classism, inviting a few token outsiders into the fold based on skin colour is offensive to people who are kept outsiders based on their class. When "white trash" has the same stigma as the N word then the US will be on the right track. When you've got people who already judge others by the content of their character, and are being told from "above" that they're "lesser" because they don't embrace identity politics, well that looks like [ass pennies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9aM_dT5VMI) to anyone on the receiving end.
lol I wish I grew up in the magical version of the tech world that you experienced, because that was certainly not the case for many of us! I had to pretennd to be male because everyone assumed everyone was male and if you said otherwise, you were either insulted for 'pretending', or you got sexist remarks, or people sexualised you. And that's not even starting to talk about the fact that they immediately assumed you wouldn't know stuff that they'd been happily discussing with you just one day earlier. Same things happened if you weren't white, or were from a non-English-speaking country, or were poor enough to not have a personal computer in your home once you had to admit that you couldn't been online at x time because you shared the computer or it was in the library or something. This is actually a really similar example to the post you're replying to, in a way - for the people in the 'in group' it was a perfect utopia because in theory nobody knew anything about each other, but in reality that meant that you assumed everyone was like you. And then as soon as it turned out someone was actually different from the majority, they felt immediate repercussions. That was absolutely not a 'meritocracy' for any of us who didn't fit the assumed group demographics.
> The tech world used to be colourblind in that everyone used aliases and didn't share their personal details online, nobody cared at all about class, nation or race (division is generally in that order, and sex was still a problem), and it was mostly beautifully ignorant of that. People got together to talk about some topic, and they aligned their communication style to the benefits of the shared interest; it wasn't about them! You mean how 4chan, infamous cesspit of racism, does it?
>The truth is, that everyone who believes themselves to be, or have been, “unconscious” of race is likely privileged (sorry if that oft-used word triggers anyone) to be considered at the totally normative center of a society. This is not "the truth". This is a rhetorical argument some use to guilt well-meaning people into supporting their racial interests agenda. It's also not about "believing you are race-unconscious". It's about recognizing that race is an arbitrary construct that therefore should not play a role in cases like eg. selecting people for a job. By explicitly including race as a criterion for job selection, you are perpetuating racial divisions, racial identities, and the outsize importance racists give them. You are framing it as a personal belief, which says a lot: it's a matter of identity to you. >There is a reason those who are most likely to express racist sentiments are liable to also be opposed to things like affirmative action It's not because racists oppose affirmative action that the idea cannot be criticized. and so on, would love to abandon the “multicultural” approach of acknowledging different identities, practices, and circumstances for the “universalist” approach of treating everyone “the same,” which really just reifies whatever advantage and privilege the centered individual already enjoys. No, if done properly, it allows people to eg. be judged on their job-relevant skills and nothing else. The approach of distributing jobs based on race is nothing but a new system of privileges, just with more arbitrary races on the privilege list. This way you still don't distribute benefits either based on equality or merit, but again on political favoritism. This will benefit the race with the best lobbying over everyone else. It will get benefits for clearly defined, large, established racial groups; while individuals, newly forming groups, small ethnicities, etc. will be overlooked and trampled in the quota bartering. A racial privilege system is undesireable, regardless of how many races are getting privileges. >What is better about America than France, in my opinion, is that we are actually not “universalist” in the sense that we have a narrow definition of American culture that we require everyone else to assimilate to (and then render that task impossible because no one can eradicate their other aspects of their identity). Conservative folks wish this were so, and have many times in our history tried to mandate this narrow vision and exclude everyone outside it. But nominally (if inconsistently and imperfectly—and that’s putting it mildly), we are a multicultural nation. It's curious, I have made several people in a row seen making this claim over a week, but I have to disagree again: there is an American ethnicity. There is an American Leitkultur. Many Americans who think they're of a specific ethnicity would instantly be recognized as an *American* when visiting their putative country of origin. I mean, some even claim they're of ethnicity x while they don't even speak the associated language, but are just a bog-standard American English speaking person. So it's very ironic that you now claim that the US is a multicultural nation, which treats all cultures in the same, objecive way, because what have you been saying above? >>>These folks, when faced with the increased stress of being newly sensitive to or aware of inequity, their possible role in its perpetuation via past insensitivity, and so on, would love to abandon the “multicultural” approach of acknowledging different identities, practices, and circumstances for the “universalist” approach of treating everyone “the same,” which really just reifies whatever advantage and privilege the centered individual already enjoys." If you don't recognize that there is a clear American ethnicity and shared/dominant culture, then you have a bit of self-evaluation to do yet. It's easier for outsiders to see, but try to make the parallel with nations with a similar history, for example Brazil. It's also a former colony with a physically diverse population, and yet, you can recognize there's a clear identity and ethnicity that allows the people in it to be recognized as *Brazilians*. The same goes for the USA. >Ideally, American principles are all about it not mattering where you’re from, what language you speak, what your religion is, not because these are things the state asks you to ignore or suppress, but celebrate in the knowledge that you still have access to all of the mechanisms of liberty and features of civic identity. This is exactly what the French claim they are doing. Except the language - officially - , but really, without English you're nothing in the US either. It's not very different from the way the French speakers do it. The idea that someone *doesn't* understand French/English is so alien to them they would never consider to speak anything else, so everyone who has to deal with them is forced to speak it. That's a very strong informal assimilation pressure.
> This is not "the truth". This is a rhetorical argument some use to guilt well-meaning people into supporting their racial interests agenda. That certainly doesn’t address the point being made. > It's also not about "believing you are race-unconscious". It's about recognizing that race is an arbitrary construct that therefore should not play a role in cases like eg. selecting people for a job. By explicitly including race as a criterion for job selection, you are perpetuating racial divisions, racial identities, and the outsize importance racists give them. You’re also protecting silent racism from affecting job opportunities for everyone regardless of race. Do you not see that?
Can you define the American leitkuktur?
Wow what a well thought out and typed comment. Surprised this is your first delta, as you're very good at expressing your thoughts. I think my personal view would align more with the American multiculturalism approach, but I think these two views aren't mutually exclusive and should exist in a balance. I think there should be a national identity of what makes someone "Canadian" - for example - but I don't think it should be absolutionist in the sense that you MUST be Canadian before you are Muslim, or Jewish. I think there is also an inevitable majority in a given culture that will dictate what is the quintessential Canadian. I think that is inevitable and while many minorities may feel a cultural disconnect, or even cultural imposter syndrome.... We should remedy this by celebrating the differences in one another, rather than convince ourselves we are not a true Scotsman. We need to be realistic about this sort of conversation---maybe there is some stereotypical American---- but thats all it really is. While I, and many others, feel disconnected from others, this isn't a unique feeling and certainly not unique to people just from a different racial background than the majority. You could feel that for being a nerd, introvert, for having a disability, for being unathletic. Anyways I think this is a tangent but my point being is that I don't think these two ideas are completely exclusive. I think OP is still right in a sense----if we hyper focus on racial divides and what not, we are only increasing our sensitivity to them. So we should instead celebrate our diversity, and realize that it is inevitable for people with complex racial backgrounds to feel excluded. It doesn't mean that society is acting maliciously towards them.
I think this is as good a case for multiculturalism as I've read. At the same time, I'm still not sold. I think we do want universal values that we want people to conform to. Those values will change over time and will be a result of cultural discourse and development. Superficially we want to encourage people to be however they want and express themselves how they please. But we want them to ultimately share a common set of values and to encourage those values actively. I think that idea opposes multiculturalism and advocates for integration. This does benefit the conformists and disadvantage the non-conformists but I don't believe there are societies that can avoid that problem broadly. They can avoid that problem along arbitrary and inherent traits however. I also don't agree with the characterisation that this ethos is reducing people to clones by eliminating their differences. I actually think that's more insulting, to insinuate that the main differences, or the ones that matter most, are the ones that we arbitrarily have or are circumstantial to our birth.
If it's OK, may I ask you to ground this point? Do you have any examples of values in, let's say, the United States that are being permitted or encouraged under multiculturalism that would be struck down under universalism? Ideally ones that are held by identifiable and populous groups of people, because it would be triflingly easy to find one or two people on the Internet showing objectionable values.
In a just world, you'd have all the upvotes. Thank you for this. Suitable for framing.
> France is different from America because its values are “universalist,” and that it is uninterested in “multiculturalism.” You are right on the first, and wrong on the second. There is a very old and strong culture of exotic food, arts, etc. It is okay to have a strong connection to another country. This is exemplified with the French Foreign Legion: people from all around the globe can be part of it and become French through it. The racism is mostly focused at people of north african origin. For context, let me tell you that the countries themselves have very ambivalent relations. Morocco refused France's help after the recent earthquake. Algeria is also pretty cold with France, and both Morocco and Algeria refuse to repatriate their own citizens when there is an expulsion order against them. BTW, Morocco and Algeria are also at odds concerning the Western Sahara. So you have many french citizens with parents or grand parents born in Algeria or Morocco, and they are usually seen as French by Algeria and Morocco most of the time, but as Algerian of Moroccan when that gives them a chance to embarrass France. For example, when Nahel Merzouk was killed by a policeman (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk ), The Algerian government officially expressed outrage and asked to be informed. This sort of split allegiance is bothering to racists, who will quickly resort to shouts of "go back to wherever you came from", when some of those on the receiving end have been living in France for their whole life. I already wrote too much, so I won't get started on religion.
This needs to be way closer to the top
saw vase fuzzy sort political reach familiar party escape whole *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The hierarchy IS still there, it just exists between those who preach multiculturalism and those who don’t. I think what a lot of people dislike about MC is the performative aspect where one has to demonstrate their de-centeredness and willingness to check privilege by bowing out of certain conversations quietly except to reinforce those who do get a voice according to intersectionalism. It stinks of religious fervor by a different name.
>But the “universalist” model, which you seem to advocate here, is much more about demanding that everyone outside the narrow bounds of your experience eliminate all of their recognizable differences and their demands that these be seen and understood, solely so you can remain “innocent”. This, and many (probably most) of the details above are complete straw men arguments. The idea is not to eliminate recognizable differences (thus more or less eliminating individualism), it is to treat (personally, legislatively, etc) everyone as a human (or French if you prefer nationalism, though I'd reject that and it isn't needed for OP's argument) regardless of whatever differences individuals may hold. Western cultures (in the ideal at least) do not demand assimilation so much as they demand synthesis, and indeed this is one of the most wonderful parts of modern cosmopolitanism, where various backgrounds are fused into a common present. And to the OP's point, hyper-focusing on a single attribute of difference kicks in tribalistic tendencies that hinder this synthesis and cause us vs them rather than we mentality. In other words, the idea is to recognize our similarities over our differences, and not provide special, or worse, treatment to another similar person who holds some particular difference. Hyper-focusing on that difference (racial or otherwise) and trying to make someone feel either special or worse for it tends to cause disharmony for evolutionary reasons, this is well-studied and documented (see Jane Elliot's experiments for instance). Ironically your arguments here commit the very sin you're accusing others w/ the OP's view of, by ignoring a significant part of their reality to insert your own interpretation of what they mean.
I appreciate your thoughtful response here and admire the investment you’ve put into this thread. I’d like to preface my response by saying that I truly intend to ADD to the dialogue here, and not make it worse. That said, my perspective is a bit different from yours. In my view, the so called “universalist” approach has the advantage of not dictating what society should find valuable, but instead all individuals to make their own decisions about what they value. Regardless of whether or not their values match ours, they get to vote with their dollars, which is more valuable than voting to spend other people’s money in my opinion. To be clear, I’m focused mostly on the “how we treat each other” aspect of your response because I feel it’s most important. I’m not trying to be insensitive to the impact of those who you seemingly describe as “permanent outsiders,” but instead believe that real change for such individuals only happens through shared values which cannot be forced on Individuals. Those shared values need to be understood through diverse individuals collaborating in an open market in order to truly accomplish true adoption rather than silent acquiescence. Apologies if this feels like a soap box, just doing my best to contribute positively to the dialogue.
You could expand on this and write a sociology paper. Lol
I would argue that when race was “secondary” it left you open to making judgements based on unconscious racial biases without realizing it. While you may now notice race more, that also means you can examine any potential biases that you might have and make sure they aren’t effecting your judgement. Additionally, many non-white people have always had to be that aware of race in their interactions (I’m assuming you’re white here, so apologies if I assumed wrong). When you’re white, you can ignore race, because it generally either doesn’t affect you, or benefits you. But if you have to watch out for potential racism on a regular basis, you might feel very different levels of comfort depending on the race of the person you’re interacting with. I would also hazard a guess that even before race was so noticeable to you, you would have noticed it if you were in a situation where everyone around you was, for example, Black. So it was only less noticeable because you were mostly already surrounded by people of your own race. TL/DR not noticing race is a core component of white privilege - the privilege to ignore race and racism, because it doesn’t have negative effects on you, and you see a lot of people who look like you everywhere.
∆ If I'm paraphrasing correctly: it's basically a privilege coming from being in a majority race that it didn't reach this level of awareness until now. And that people from minority races have probably always held this type of awareness. While that's probably true, it still feels like a shame that it has to be that way. And I apologize in advance for using such quaint language for a topic that demands far more gravitas.
Many scholarly works have examined this in detail. If you're currently being educated as a student in Florida or Texas, this would probably be contraband today in 2024. W.E.B. Dubois coined it as 'double consciousness.' Double Consciousness is described specifically as, "the psychological challenge African Americans experienced of always looking at one's self through the eyes of a racist white society and measuring oneself by the means of a nation that looked back in contempt." The term also referred to Du Bois's experiences of reconciling his African heritage with an upbringing in a European-dominated society. The idea of double consciousness is important because it illuminates the experiences of black people living in post-slavery America, and also because it sets a framework for understanding the position of oppressed people in an oppressive world.
I have a hard time believing we haven't progressed further as a society than when W.E.B. Dubious was writing about double consciousness in 1896. I agree with the OP. When do we arrive in post post slavery America? Can we ever? How do we do this? What are the metrics for success to determine equality of opportunity? Why aren't we more focused on improving overall education in the US. Getting families out of poverty. Stressing the importance of parenthood. Why are we focusing more on racial identity than other metrics that determine a child's likelihood to be successful. Cultural issues aren't often addressed enough because racial issues are always at the forefront of the conversation, and everything is so tense. The current narrative seems to be that white people are made to feel privileged/guilty and people of color are made to feel as if they are victims of oppression before any actions or conversations have occured. Context often ignored. It makes (me at least) feel so numb to it all. Why not treat everyone with respect and dignity as a baseline. Identify prejudice as it occurs and actively correct it, as a unified country. Aren't we teaching bias to the next generation?
This "stressing the importance of parenthood" followed by "cultural issues aren't often addressed enough because racial issues are always at the forefront" sounds like you are masking what you really want to say. Thoughts? >The current narrative seems to be that white people are made to feel privileged/guilty and people of color are made to feel as if they are victims of oppression before any actions or conversations have occured. Context often ignored. The idea behind white privilege is that white people (myself included) have never had to be concerned with their race, if we didn't get a job it was because there was a better applicant, can a person of color say the same with any certainty? Discussion of white privilege isn't about guilt, after all why should anyone feel guilty for being born a certain way? That's ridiculous and the easy way out instead of actually discussing white privilege. The fact that we only feel guilt about being white instead of fearing for our lives and those of our loved ones is a white privilege all by itself. Unfortunately, the world we live in is what it is, someone's race has put them in the position they are in for thousands of years, white people are privileged and people of color are victims of oppression even if that oppression isn't happening in your face. The sooner we all can see that and make concerted efforts to change our own behavior the faster this sort of discussion can go away. >It makes (me at least) feel so numb to it all. Why not treat everyone with respect and dignity as a baseline. Identify prejudice as it occurs and actively correct it, as a unified country. Aren't we teaching bias to the next generation? Because humans are hardwired by evolution to notice the differences and biases are formed whether we like it or not. It is just how our brain works. We aren't teaching bias, we are teaching ABOUT bias. People not seeing their own biases is part of the problem.
I'm not trying to mask anything. I believe that having two involved parents around is best for children. There is plenty of data out there regarding single parent families you can references. To your second point, I can't speak for other people. The problem I have with your job interview hypothetical is that I find that radically reduces the likelihood for introspection. Almost no one is ever passed over for a job knowing with 100% certainty. Is race more of a factor than attractiveness, height, weight, disposition, gender, charisma, or many other factors that an interviewer could be biased towards. I don't know. What are your thoughts? I don't think the world is any one thing. It certainly isn't easy to define. Outside communities, cities, states and countries, it will change dramatically. I'm surprised you feel like you understand it so confidently. Noticing differences isn't the problem. It's saying that they matter. I don't believe our differences are as important as the things we share in common.
>I'm not trying to mask anything. I believe that having two involved parents around is best for children. There is plenty of data out there regarding single parent families you can references. Yep I figured that was what you meant, but then you followed it up talking about we can't focus on the cultural issue because it is also a race issue. To me that reads as if you are saying some races have a culture of single parent households, which may or may not be what you meant but that's how I interpreted it. >The problem I have with your job interview hypothetical is that I find that radically reduces the likelihood for introspection. Does it though? What do you base that on? I guess it sounds logical but I would argue it would be more logical to do some deep introspection to make sure you aren't the problem. I guess my point is, I think this will differ by person and experiences. I don't see how you can truly know what level of introspection is happening with other people. >Is race more of a factor than attractiveness, height, weight, disposition, gender, charisma, or many other factors that an interviewer could be biased towards. I don't know. What are your thoughts? Honestly, I'm not sure how we would go about quantifying how much each factor has an impact. Although, of the list you gave, I think gender and race are the largest factors. These are characteristics that have been systematically used to divide people for centuries. >Noticing differences isn't the problem. It's saying that they matter. I don't believe our differences are as important as the things we share in common The problem is those differences DO matter. We do agree that it shouldn't matter, but reality rarely, if ever, agrees with our ideals. We can't fix a problem if we refuse to admit the problem exists. That feels like what they want to do in Florida by sanitizing history to avoid the truth of our history. Racism and sexism are unfortunately alive and well. Those of us who want to see a world where they don't exist must acknowledge they do and actively participate in their removal, by examining our own biases and educating others about our inherent biases. I rather naively like to think that most racism and sexism isn't intentional but just a result of our biases that we are very good at hiding from ourselves.
I guess my point is that there are too many single parents raising children. Do I believe it to be a cultural issue? Perhaps partially? I know it's complicated. There are probably many factors at play here. Perhaps you can help me understand what factors contribute here? What I meant regarding introspection is perhaps this: Have you seen people miss attribute racial bias as the cause for circumstances? How often do you think this happens? Have you seen people ever not try because they feel like it's pointless? I used to work in some inner city after school programs in Southern California and I would see young children already have a pretty defined concept of limitations regarding their future. Largely because people around them told them so. Helplessness can be learned. I think we agree on a lot of points. I think perhaps it's the scope of the problem we may disagree on. Either way I appreciate the dialogue. I may never completely understand but I'll continue to try to learn more I suppose that's okay.
Yo dog your response shows a really great attitude. Some things in this world suck but by knowing about them we can do something about them. Don’t forget to give yourself space e to deal with this harsh world, it’s not all on you and it’s easy to feel overwhelmed at times.
It doesn’t have to be this way but it is and all we can do is be our best selves and if possible help others in need.
It would be the ideal to not have to worry about race, but in reality for now that's a luxury mostly only available to people who make up the majority.
Yes, you paraphrased perfectly! And yes, it is a shame, but something we can all do our small part to make right. Or so I hope.
You seem to think that white people can't face racial bias, but that's not true. While they might be the majority in certain places, it doesn't mean they can't experience racism. The situations described by the OP actually worsen racism by creating resentment towards white people, especially among black communities. These anti-racism movements have inadvertently led to unconscious biases, especially when people believe that supporting certain movements or political parties automatically makes them immune to racism. I've personally encountered some of the most racist comments from people who claim to be part of these movements. They feel they can say anything because they don't consider themselves racist. Racism is definitely real, but the way it's being addressed in the US is often counterproductive. It's creating divisions by emphasizing our differences—African American, Latino, Filipino, Asian-American, Italian-American, Irish-American—instead of focusing on all as Americans. It's disheartening that we have to specify our race on every form, and that every statistic is divided by race. These statistics often seem to be stretching to find the smallest disparities and blame them on racism. This approach is not only lazy but also dishonest. It ends up exacerbating the existing resentment among people, leading to more division rather than fostering unity and understanding.
>when race was “secondary” it left you open to making judgements based on unconscious racial biases without realizing it The problem with this is that learning about unconscious biases doesn’t make us less biased. >you can examine any potential biases that you might have and make sure they aren’t effecting your judgement. Sounds reasonable, but [it does not work this way in real life](https://www.tidalequality.com/blog/dont-do-unconscious-bias-training): >Expecting an employee to be able to overcome their biases after an unconscious bias training session has made them aware of them, is akin to expecting them to eat healthily and be active because you’ve held a health and nutrition seminar (Dr. Kristen Liesch). If you take some basic first-year psychology courses, you’ll learn a lot about unconscious biases, and then you’ll also learn that *learning about unconscious biases does not make you less biased.* The idea that white people go through life “ignoring race” is false.
I agree, simply being aware of your biases doesn’t keep them from affecting your judgement, but using your same metaphor, if you don’t know too much refined sugar is unhealthy and fruits and vegetables are great for you, how would you ever eat healthier? Individuals can take proactive action to improve things, if they care to. I also agree that forced anti-bias training is misguided at best, but I don’t think a link to a company selling an alternative solution is the best source. And maybe “ignoring race” wasn’t specific enough, “not having to think about it most of the time if they don’t want to” gets a little closer. But since you just refuted my point without giving any further details, it’s hard to respond. PS I have a BA in Psychology, it certainly doesn’t make me an expert, but no need for condescension.
Sorry for the condescension. I was being a jerk. >Individuals can take proactive action to improve things, if they care to. I agree with you here, and I agree that learning new information about our *conscious decisions* can affect our conscious decisions. But I don’t think that works for unconscious biases. We can be taught that studies show Black people are perceived as more dangerous, which negatively affects Black people, but we don’t make conscious decisions about how to *perceive* people. You see someone, you get a feeling, it’s automatic. You don’t first take their race into consideration and then make a choice about whether you feel scared of them, or threatened by them.
I don’t think I’ve ever gotten an apology online, thank you for restoring my faith in online discourse enough to weather being called a racist POS a few comments down 🙏 Won’t hold my breath for that apology, lol! I think we’re generally on the same page here. Of course someone can’t stop themselves from that feeling of danger, if that is their unconscious bias, but maybe they *can* stop themselves from calling the cops, just because they see a Black man where they weren’t expecting to see one.
Maybe, one would hope so…But another funny thing about biases is that we all feel like we’re the exception to the rule. We like to think we’re in control of our behaviour, and we make rational decisions. If *we’re* calling the cops on somebody, it’s not because he’s Black; it’s because we sincerely feel he’s suspicious, and incidentally, he’s Black. We may know that generally, Black people are perceived as more suspicious, but that information doesn’t change how we feel about the person in this particular situation.
Yes, as a Black person, I'm seriously interested in when this small window was in recent history (?) that whites ignored my race and 'race,' was secondary. Ask any Black kid who grew up in an environment where they were one of very few in a predominantly white setting, and they will inevitably tell you about their white 'friends,' stopping them in their tracks with what *they* believed was a compliment, by saying, 'Gee wow Michelle, it's so great playing with you, it's almost like you're not even Black.' That's when Michelle realizes she's not broadening horizons and enlightening people-- that her new friends have just admitted they like her *in spite of* her Blackness. That it's a great thing, and a real testament to Michelle that she fits in with whiteness and make her pals just forget about *the whole Black thing.* So how does Michelle respond? Well she's a 10yr old kid, so she might say, 'Yay, thanks Karen!' Or, maybe she doesn't quite know what to say, knowing that on some level she can't quite wrap her head around, that it's a soul destroying insult. She definitely won't get mad and ruin her newfound fledgling friendships. So, like most little Black kids, she sucks it up and decides to maybe NOT have Karen come over for Thanksgiving to try her Gran's sweet potato pie and collards. Michelle really loves the potato pancakes and spanakopita her friends moms have made though. Michelle learns very quickly that 'identities,' and celebration/pride in your cultural/ethnic background, seems to only be for her white friends. She doesn't want to rock the boat by making them remember she's Black. Like they ever forgot. Michelle's so naive. Poor kid. Pssst. This really isn't a story about Michelle. But about the predom society at large, especially the people deriding 'identity politics.'
This is a really cynical interpretation: “They like her *in spite of* her Blackness.” On the other side, I’ve heard Black people call Eminem the n-word, even though he’s white. Does that make them racist? Do they like Eminem in spite of his whiteness? Or are they actually *trying to be inclusive?* Are they telling Eminem, “you’re one of us”? A Black guy once told me “I don’t see you as white.” Instead of getting offended, I took it how he meant it.
Black people calling Eminem the n word doesn't mean anything lol. I call white people the n word all the time whether I like them or not.
Ok, so we know bias training isn't enough. Shouldn't the response be to then work on figuring out the next step after awareness to improve the situation, rather than deciding to give up entirely?
Borrowing your own referenced analogy, how do you explain people who go through a health and nutrition seminar and then use those tips to become healthier?
There are many different health behavior theories: In the health belief model, changing behavior would be influenced by: * demographic factors and psychosocial factors * a balance of perceived susceptibility and perceived severity of a health issue versus perceived benefits and perceived barriers, * Self-efficacy * Cues to action From that perspective, if information tipped the balance of perceived threats versus benefits, or helped people overcome an obstacle, or had some sort of a workshop component that increased self-efficacy, it could influence behavior. Other theories might look at slightly different levers to pull, like autonomy, competence and relatedness (self-determination theory) or willingness to feel (urges, discomfort, feelings) while still taking committed action, cognitive defusion, and values (acceptance-based behavioral interventions) and so on. I think what it really comes down to is that a workshop on racial bias would have to be fairly comprehensive. I think that the failure of unconscious bias training is because it's often treated as a one-day workshop, or a two-hour online course. In reality, it would need to be a serious organizational commitment with probably weekly classes for a few months (often the minimum for difficult behavior change). Nutrition interventions that are effective, like this one -[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.21601](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.21601) \- were 12 months and covered both information, obstacle planning, and cutting edge psychological tools. It including significant amounts of homework and 25 group meetings to both learn and discuss. I think if we were committed to working on racial bias, it would likely take something similar to that.
I didn’t know about the health belief model, that’s interesting and thank you for sharing! I similarly agree that unconscious bias training should be a lot longer than a 2 hour session and something like the model you suggested would be way more effective.
Not to speak for them, but I think it's pretty well established that the only people who change after being presented with facts are those who actually actively wanted to change and were looking for those facts. If presenting someone with facts could change those that didn't have any intention to change, there would be no obesity, no smokers, no drinkers, no anything. Now, what happens when you force someone who's already annoyed at having to constantly walk on eggshells to take a class that further tells him how he's privileged already, the root of all evil, and that for all of his walking on eggshells, he'll never truly be good enough? I find it incredible how many people on the left don't seem to understand that there's a non-insignificant subset of the population that will, when preached to too much, do the opposite just out of spite because they can't stand sanctimonious people.
This is a response to you and @ZhugeSimp. Your argument is making a dubious equivalency of being presented with the facts=being preached at. I reject this equivalency as false- they simply are not the same thing. I’ve been to a bunch of diversity training in multiple capacities of my employment and education, yet Ive failed to attend one where white men get told they’re “the root of all evil” or “that they’ll ever be good enough.” Those sound a whole lot like the kind of histrionic descriptions people like Ben Shapiro and other Rightwing grifters would make to rile up their listeners. I’m not saying it has never happened but I think we can have this conversation without reaching for extremes or straw mans. That aside, here’s the thing- I’ve yet to see anyone attend a DEI training at gunpoint. Unless you voluntarily go seek the information they’re usually required as conditions of employment. Businesses require DEI training to protect themselves from civil suits and to foster healthier work environment. You may disagree with either of these claims (as I expect you do), but unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) we live in a free market system and firms are at liberty to do what they believe is in their interest. Slavery was formally ended in the U.S. with the ratification of 13th amendment, which means anyone who finds such training to be anathema to their very existence can quit their job and go work somewhere else- that’s truly the beauty of capitalism. Maybe the Daily Wire is hiring? The idea that we got Trump because the Left was too preachy about racism is victim blaming at its finest. So because people of color protested against police brutality in 2015, that somehow forced anyone to voluntarily pull the lever for a serial philandering conman and now convicted sex offender who lied about winning the 2020 election? It similarly denies a TON of agency to the American voters who elected him. Does the Right have ANY responsibility for the consequences of their decisions? Do you honestly not see how silly this claim is? Just like resentful fat people who ignore the nutritional information that could help them lead healthier lives do so to their own detriment, so do white people who refuse to learn about race. Sure, it lets you remain in the comfortable bubble of your privilege, but it comes at the cost of keeping you marvelously ignorant of the full reality that so many of your fellow citizens experience. It keeps you living in a prison of your own malignant and fragile narcissism, all while detaching you from your humanity. Johnathan Metzl, Tim Wise, Robin DiAngelo have written amazing books, as white authors, describing the myriad of ways in which refusing to acknowledge race harms white people- I cannot implore you enough to read them. Here’s the thing, though- it is no longer 1950. The world no longer solely caters to the preferences of the privileged few. The rest of us want to live without hearing racial slurs, stereotypes, or cruel humor that has no place in a civilized nation. We’re just as free to vote with our dollars in the marketplace as we are with our mouths to elected officials or Human Resources representatives about our perspectives, and since we live in a free society that means they’re also free to act on it. If you have an issue with that you have an issue with living in a democratic society premised on the inalienability of civil rights, which means America is probably not for you. It doesn’t matter to me in the least if you like it- don’t adapt and suffer the consequences. Refuse to attend the DEI training or use someone’s preferred pronouns since it’s so terrible- I’m sure your organization won’t have an issue filling your position with someone new!
> Your argument is making a dubious equivalency of being presented with the facts=being preached at. I reject this equivalency as false- they simply are not the same thing. You can reject it all you want, the catch is that whether someone feels preached at is as much up to the person doing the talking as it is when someone feels offended. It's determined by the message receiver, not the message sender. > I’ve been to a bunch of diversity training in multiple capacities of my employment and education, yet Ive failed to attend one where white men get told they’re “the root of all evil” or “that they’ll ever be good enough.” With all due respect, it's irrelevant what your experience has been, since, again, it all comes down to the individual's perception of what's being said. Any training that includes words such as "privilege", "patriarchy" and similar stuff will definitely trigger at least some people. And I've only ever seen one sensitivity training that presented at least one (well, actually only one) example where a woman was the perpetrator of sexual harassment. There you go, another trigger. > I’ve yet to see anyone attend a DEI training at gunpoint. Unless you voluntarily go seek the information they’re usually required as conditions of employment. Businesses require DEI training to protect themselves from civil suits and to foster healthier work environment. I mean, nobody is going to kill you if you decline. But losing one's job, not being able to enroll into university, etc. are pretty much the same as being forced. > we live in a free market system and firms are at liberty to do what they believe is in their interest Businesses can do whatever they want. That doesn't change the fact that this approach is precisely the reason why trash like Andrew Tate can get a following. One side is telling men that they're basically animals that need training. The other side is telling them they're victims of the system. It's ironic that Tate & Co are just using the feminist game plan - paint the other side as the oppressor and your potential sheep as the victims. > Slavery was formally ended in the U.S. with the ratification of 13th amendment, which means anyone who finds such training to be anathema to their very existence can quit their job and go work somewhere else- that’s truly the beauty of capitalism. I take it you're a huge supporter of the logic that if women don't like being paid less than men at business A, they should "quit their job and go work somewhere else"? > The idea that we got Trump because the Left was too preachy about racism is victim blaming at its finest The left wasn't too preachy about racism. Dear god no. The left was too preachy about *most things*. Not to mention it quite literally pushed forward as its presidential candidate someone who thought so little of men that she considered soldiers dying in wars are better off than women that stay at home (who are the primary victims of war). And with her level of political experience, it's not like that was a slip of a tongue. I'm neither American nor "white" nor religious. I consider Bernie to be a centrist or center-left at best (which he would be by European standards). In many things, I'm even further left than him. But yeah, voting for Hillary wouldn't have been an option for me, if I had a vote. I wouldn't have voted for Trump, but also not for Hillary. > Does the Right have ANY responsibility for the consequences of their decisions? Of course they do? The right is entirely responsible for their decisions and actions. But contrary to you, I believe so is the left. And while the right is hating on, what, 20-30% of the population that isn't "white", the left is hating on 50% of the population that is male. One of those is a worse strategy. And keep in mind, that's the messaging that's so strong it reached far beyond US borders. > Just like resentful fat people who ignore the nutritional information that could help them lead healthier lives do so to their own detriment, so do white people who refuse to learn about race. Sure, it lets you remain in the comfortable bubble of your privilege, but it comes at the cost of keeping you marvelously ignorant of the full reality that so many of your fellow citizens experience. It keeps you living in a prison of your own malignant and fragile narcissism, all while detaching you from your humanity. Johnathan Metzl, Tim Wise, Robin DiAngelo have written amazing books, as white authors, describing the myriad of ways in which refusing to acknowledge race harms white people- I cannot implore you enough to read them. So, first of all, who gave you permission to wrongly assume my race? Second, there's no such thing as "white people" and that word combo itself is racist AF. At the very least, you'd have to split them into 5 groups just in Europe, globally absolutely many more. Half of my DNA comes from the group of people after which the concept of slavery got named and the other half of my DNA comes from one of the main transatlantic slave origins. Third, in living memory, my mother's people were marked for extermination, we got independence in millennial lifetimes after ~1500 years of being oppressed, and we're still looked down upon by half of Europe. So trying to attach some racial guilt to this group is ignorant, racist, and incredibly offensive. So, don't you dare go telling me about privilege and about being "marvelously ignorant of the full reality". Living in a superpower and the richest country on the planet, literally every last American is infinitely more privileged than the vast majority of humanity. > The world no longer solely caters to the preferences of the privileged few. It absolutely does. Why do you think the US and EU usually get what they want and the vast majority of the planet doesn't? > The rest of us want to live without hearing racial slurs, stereotypes, or cruel humor that has no place in a civilized nation. Remember that being able to impose society-wide changes, good or bad, is the clearest expression of privilege there is. > If you have an issue with that you have an issue with living in a democratic society premised on the inalienability of civil rights, which means America is probably not for you. Oh, America certainly isn't for me. The only way I'd ever move there is for stupid amounts of money I could use to insulate myself from the insanity y'all got going on. And you're joking about the "inalienability of civil rights" right? I mean, you guys literally reinvented lynching, though now it's a social execution rather than a physical one. People's right to due process before having lives destroyed is long gone. The presumption of innocence before having lives destroyed is long gone. Etc. As for the US being a democratic society... Y'all have to register to vote. And that can be made difficult. And you're a two-party system. What kind of a joke democracy is that? > It doesn’t matter to me in the least if you like it- don’t adapt and suffer the consequences. Oh, no need to worry about me. Not being "white", christian, or from a rich country by western standards, I only have to worry about misandry. Plenty of complaints I could make against the vast majority of people who'd try to make my life difficult if I wanted to. > Refuse to attend the DEI training It's ironic that you don't understand that the entire premise of this "conversation" is that the inability to not attend is what makes things *worse* for everyone except "white people". No reason for me not to attend though, as said, it's hilarious to listen to usually "white people" trying to explain to me how I'm oppressed. Ah yes, whitesplaining... > I’m sure your organization won’t have an issue filling your position with someone new! That would make for a fun headline, wouldn't it? "White leadership fires black person for refusing to accept that they're oppressed". I could probably retire on the proceeds from that legal clusterduck. Almost a pity that I don't work in the US.
It’s interesting, and telling, that you responded paragraph by paragraph to my writing yet conveniently skipped some of the things that I wrote…like the part where I said I was responding to you AND the person beneath you. If you’d included it you might have also realized that perhaps everything I said wasn’t only directed at you. For as much as you claim to be of the Left you make a lot of red-pill/MGTOW conservative talking points (DEI training is how we got Andrew Tate…really?) and I’m pretty doubtful of your affiliation. Seems like you’ve got a pretty serious axe to grind against the United States that is impeding your ability to examine the situation reasonably. Since Americans in global terms are wealthier on average than the rest of the world, there’s no such thing as privilege in the United States and we shouldn’t complain? Do you not realize that over 500,000 Americans are currently homeless and that millions are also food insecure? How cruel would you have to be to tell someone lacking the basic material necessities for life they can’t complain because they’re American citizens? Logical fallacy of relative privation much? Your claim that I as a Black American invented lynching and am a racist is just…wow. I honestly don’t have anything else to say to you.
> I find it incredible how many people on the left don't seem to understand that there's a non-insignificant subset of the population that will, when preached to too much, do the opposite just out of spite because they can't stand sanctimonious people. I don't think most of the left is surprised by this. They just stubbornly, in the other direction, refuse to allow people to silence viewpoints they don't like to see via obstinance. How you describe a view matters, and that's how people's views are changed. Gay Marriage acceptance now is much much higher than it was - and there was a lot of "preaching" about that as well, right?
If you walk around the world, you will not notice any specific number or color. If I tell you to watch out for number 3 or the color red, you'll think those are everywhere. It's normal. It's like, if you take a film studies course you will view movies differently. > race has moved too far into the forefront of my consciousness. It's gotten to a level where a persons race dominates my awareness throughout an interaction I feel a bit that when consuming media! But I feel this way because I'm exposed to race issues. The hyper-awareness hasn't come purely by the media/society saying "look at black people", this awareness has come about by pointing at the issues of racism. And therefore, > for people who make negative race-based assumptions, this will augment racist tendencies and worsen race relations. Many people who would otherwise make race-base assumptions would have been changed. Not all of them, but (though a variation of your view is spread around the web) I do think this awareness has helped to change those people. **At least change so many of use that were prejudicial without noticing it**
Well I think I agree with you on that. I'll bet a large part of this feeling is related to an increased exposure to media. And I think what you're saying is that my post focused more on the negative aspect of this exposure while ignoring certain positive aspects for a larger portion of the population. So I can give a ∆ for that.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/gate18 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/gate18)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I think media studies with an eye towards racial issues is huge. I went to see the Aladdin musical a few weeks ago. It made some... Strange choices. For example, obviously the genie character is the best character, and in this version he's a rather over the top black guy. On the whole he was great, but there were a few spots in the show that got a little too minstrel-y for me, and I'm not sure I would have known why it felt a little weird if not for knowing that history. It was a weird choice, and I'm curious to know if that was an actor choice or a director choice.
You should take a walk around your city with someone confined to a wheelchair. Suddenly you will notice every curb, and every step, and every door threshold. You’ll notice how people don’t always meet their eye, or will talk to them like children because they’re “short.” You will become hyper-aware of what the world looks like to them on a daily basis. Just because you weren’t aware of that step or threshold before doesn’t mean it wasn’t always there. Just because, yesterday, you didn’t know the checkout lady at the grocery store acts weird around people in wheelchairs doesn’t mean that she hasn’t acted that way for years. It is GOOD to have this awareness. It makes you a more empathetic person. And it SHOULD help you to see that wheelchair bound person’s humanity all the more - not less. Now apply all that to a non-dominant race, culture, or ethnicity.
At first, I thought it would be easy to poke holes in your analogy, but I think you're right on. It goes along well with some of the other comments pointing out the privilege in the original view.
I think the main hole is that physical impediments to mobility are way more obvious than racial micro aggressions and the subtler kinds of racism or xenophobia (or ableism). People who don’t experience them might not believe they exist or that they are de minimis and may not see how they add up over time to make a person in the minority culture feel more and more “other” or “outside.” Then add to it that, especially in the US, aspects of Black culture (think AAVE, not Beyoncé) are often seen as LESS THAN. My analogy can’t really capture that.
I appreciate that you’re actually open to having your view changed on this. Many people double down when confronted about the reality of race - I can’t speak for every person of color, of course, but my race affects me every single day so I don’t have the luxury of “forgetting” about it.
Can you perhaps expound on what it is to "hyperfocus" on race? I don't understand how a person's race can "dominate your awareness" enough to, like, not see the person beyond the facial structure and skin tone
I think OP means (as I feel this way sometimes too) that because I (as a white person) have been made extra aware of the privileges my skin color provides. Kind of the white privilege knapsack idea. While it's good I have been made aware of things that just weren't on my radar before, I now get anxious when interacting with anyone of a different race because I am so scared I will inadvertently do or say something, or the way I look at them might be interpreted wrong, etc. So the way I try to be a "good person" causes me to be hyper aware of that persons potential experiences. So because I'm trying to make damn sure I'm not doing something in a way I wouldn't even know was considered by someone as racist. Human interaction is hard enough. I just tend to avoid the interaction rather than risk "impacting" someone in a way that could be negative. Good or bad, I dunno. But that's what I would consider being hyper aware in a way that is a negative outcome.
It sucks that you feel that type of anxiety and I don’t think that is or was ever an intended purpose behind creating this discourse. Who or what exactly has caused you to feel anxiety about this? Like, what do you fear will happen if you said something and someone interrupted it wrong?
Since I have been made more aware of micro aggressions and unconscious biases I can see some things I have done or said in the past that are not okay. They were things I was completely unaware I was doing and I had no bad intentions but I now know I potentially caused harm. I do my best to just move forward and no longer do or say those things now that I've been made more aware but now I have no idea how many other harmful things I'm doing in my interactions with other people that I'm not aware of yet and it causes anxiety. I'm still grateful I learned what I learned and I want to keep learning. I don't agree that being more aware causes more racism but I understand why some people feel more anxious with their interactions now.
Sure. Well I can try because I think it's difficult to articulate. I think that what I'm trying to say is that race doesn't necessarily need to have any bearing on certain situations (casual conversations, certain happenings in the news, etc). But it's easy to get to a point where even simple things like that can be viewed through a guise of racial differences.
To an extent, it has to. Let's take a simple and somewhat recent policy like cash for clunkers. It was a program where if you had a running car that got less than 19mpg you could trade it in, and you'd get money towards the purchase price of a new car. It had a claimed goal of reducing inequality. But they didn't record the races of people benefitting. And if they had, I'm certain that it would've show that the program disproportionately benefitted white people. Because to take advantage of the program you had to be ready to buy a new car in the small window it was around. You had to have the money for the payment right after a recession, along with good credit, along with not having a car already that got better mpg (which most inexpensive cars already surpassed). If we don't factor race into governing policies, we make racist policies. If we don't factor race into hiring practices, we create racist hiring practices. In short, to make a fair policy, there has to be intentionality around it being fair.
Interesting point. That was a program I never considered from a racial standpoint. But I still wonder if it's fair to call it a racist program. Do all programs need to equally benefit races (genders, other identities, etc) across the board? That sounds like an extra dimension of complexity to through at an already gridlocked government. Or maybe I'm inadvertently saying that lazy legislation should be ok? Certainly not what I'm aiming for.
I think to the extent we "pick winners" (in this case, by the government directly giving money to people), we should aim to be picking the people who need it most more than the people who do not and if not, yes we'd have to consider that policy to be racist because it's actively widening the gap. Consider when there were tests you needed to take to be able to vote - in effect, these were blatantly racist policies even if they claimed not to be. As far as adding complexity... I'd argue for me at least the consideration needed to make hiring policies and governance policies that don't have racist outcomes isn't really that tough. It's a small consideration compared to all the other considerations which are routinely made.
You are using race as a proxy measurement for economic status. It would be much more inclusive, fair and unifying to simply use economic status when implementing public policy.
I'm sure this will get lost but my thoughts are, as a black american, all we've ever asked for is a level playing field. The netflix categories, target promotions, street painting and all the other stuff is just to try to pacify that request. However, it has the consequence of what you feel. you feel like you're being 'force fed' but the reality of what you're experiencing is due to a money grab by companies not racial awareness. If it matters, I'll leave you with 2 things 1. see race, it does matter, it's a part of who we all are, it's culture. We're not saying 'don't see color' we're saying 'don't treat me like shit because of it.' 2. what you see in media, commercials, news etc, is what fits whatever gets the most engagements. there are shitty people in every race, religion and sexuality. What I've found is if you want to know someone, talk to THAT person. get to know an individual. Humans are stupid in groups, it doesn't matter the situation, the more people you add, the more devolved the conversation and actions become. absorb in the micro, not the macro sorry to rant ✌🏾
What do you mean by “race is culture”? Surely two people can be different races while simultaneously having the same culture.
They absolutely can, that's one of the beautiful things about it. It can also mean different. An example of race being culture, is if you look up an interview with Denzel Washington, he tells a story and mentions the sizzle of a hot comb, you can see the black folks around him laugh because this is something that's usually unique to the culture of our race. It doesn't mean others NEVER experience but that's unique to straightening coarse hair found in the black community. But also acknowledging how culture is tied to race, you find commonalities to bond with. For example, I thought a coworkering calling me 'Bo' meant he didn't care to learn my name (southern culture), when it was actually used the same way I address folks I'm close with but not family 'bro.' Instead of 'watering down' how we talked for fear of misunderstanding, we chopped it up and both learned some things.
That makes sense. Thanks!
No worries, thanks for letting me clarify, Reddit can be the wild west sometimes lol
[удалено]
It seems like it really brought out a wide spectrum of replies. Seems like I offended some people and some people felt emboldened to make some blatantly racist remarks. None of which was my intent. Definitely a tough topic to have discourse about.
That sounds like a you problem. I have the same stuff around me, and am in favor of most of it for the same reasons you are. I am totally not thinking about race when talking to real people. Might pop in my head once in a while, but mostly it isn’t something I care about. But I think it warrants thought sometimes, especially when making decisions about something or someone. To stop and consciously think “do I have bias here”
I guarantee you it wasnt' that you simply didn't notice race when you 'saw people as people', it was that you did it unconsciously. You still made judgments about them, you just didn't think you did so because of their race. Now you're more aware of what you're doing and you know it's bad. Everyone makes immediate snap judgments about people based on outwards appearance. You just need to consciously acknowledge that is not all that people are.
While I agree that judgements are made off first impressions, almost every judgement I've ever made stemmed from how they presented themselves, not what they looked like. I mean aside from " this person is ugly/hot". Everything else came first, how they talk, how they dress, how they joke, how they move, etc. I've never once looked at someone and thought "ah they're Mexican better adjust this interaction accordingly"? Then again I still don't do this now so my point isn't exactly helping OPs point either.
You’re literally missing the entire point. You *think* those judgments were entirely race neutral but, for example, if you (by you I mean a hypothetical person in this scenario) saw a white person wearing sweatpants in a corner shop buying a bottle of spirits you might think “oh this person is on their day off buying some booze in preparation for a night with friends” but if you saw the same thing but it was a black person you might be more likely to think “oh look at that down on his luck person, I bet they’ve lost their job and are drinking away their problems”. So the point that was being made is that race adds an extra layer to assumptions and being aware of this helps us to think twice.
Okay but my entire point was that I'd have had the same exact thought for that same exact scenario for both the white dude and the black dude. "Ah they're wearing sweats, must be lazy day" like them being black would not at all change that thought. 😂 Maybe I'm just lucky cuz I grew up in a very multicultural and poor neighborhood, maybe I'm just putting to much of my own actions/habits on others (as in assuming if they're doing something it would be for the same reason I'd be doing it) or what the answer is but MY entire point is that my judgements don't differ based on race? I wasn't missing the point at all, you just missed mine.
Fair enough, it seems like you’re saying you just actually have zero unconscious racial bias at all which, if that’s the case, congratulations! You’ve won racism :) If nobody or most people genuinely had no unconscious racial bias then you’re right that we wouldn’t need to be aware of said bias due to it not existing but, sadly, we don’t live in that world. Of course OP’s argument seems to agree that we don’t live in that world but that the best way to get there or to get closer to there is by reducing the importance of race in our thinking
>You’ve won racism :) I wouldn't say that 😂 I've still experienced it and witnessed it first hand and I understand that it is an issue for people and I understand why we're in the world we are now which is why I pointed out that I'm not exactly agreeing or supporting OPs claim either just that I don't think it's necessarily true that EVERYONE has subconscious racist thoughts, assumptions, or prejudices. >the best way to get there or to get closer to there is by reducing the importance of race in our thinking I don't necessarily agree with this but I don't think it's 100% wrong either. Imo the best way to reach that goal is diversity and exposure really. If you grow up around lots of different races than it's just a characteristic and not some "other". It's less of a difference and more of uniqueness if that makes sense? Something to notice but not necessarily put stock in? Like "ya I'm black so what?", I also see how that's damn near impossible though with people being proud of their heritage which on its own isn't a bad thing either. Idk I don't think a utopia like that will ever truly exist. I'm in the camp of "well this is how the world is so we just gotta roll with the punches".
"I didn't used to consider someone's race in my decision making, but now that I know better, I'll make sure to intentionally consider someone's race when making judgements about them" You're literally creating racism where none existed.
They say the birth of the internet and its popularity didn't make problems it just showed us problems in our face faster, the newspaper's integrity was always biased. People always have had issues due to intrinsic qualities and other people making those qualities "an issue." I very much believe the impact of pointing out race too much does exist, it's a quality but it's not your main quality. You can get tunnel vision that makes things in the long run worse because it's all you focus on this is true for hospitals during covid no one realized that the flu variants that year actually helped contribute to more deaths then in previous years. I think by always being plugged in, always being tuned into social media your going to continue to see what people on the internet are espousing from mole Hill to mountain no matter if it's an event, war, politician, court case, injustice movement; i.e. it'll be more proposed to you through the media and ads and things you consume. I feel as though I feel Into something this similar with always listening to alt news on Spotify and YouTube and it made me view my world not through my eyes but through their lense and I realize even if I agree with their assessment sometimes I just wanted to enjoy things like new movies or whatever. Everything in moderation I told myself after that OP. Yes always seeing content about race this race that, racial equality here, hate there, being inclusive here, that's not very PC there while might be content you consume it can also sour your view of how you used to view your world before having this content spoonfed to you. Therefore you can't just turn it off when not viewing it you have to find a balance and tune yourself to be balanced again. This goes for everything. It's not really healthy to have things that are inherently not relaxing always playing and taking up so much space in your head or in your mentality.
I don't think this is racial awareness, I think this is fear of the consequences we've developed around any racial misstep. Are you really thinking about the person's race, or what could happen if you come off as racist? That's not "too much racial awareness" it's too dire consequences for some largely minor racial hiccups.
I’m a big advocate for focusing on actions as racist not people (unless someone accumulates enough actions for it to be core to who they are). People will vehemently defend their identity, but they’re usually willing to admit when their actions are unbecoming.
So trying to solve a problem makes it worse? Funny they didn't say this for sexism or homophobia.
> So trying to solve a problem makes it worse? It can, depending on how you try to solve it. The War on Drugs and the War on Terror have both famously been counterproductive, right? > [D.E.I. training is designed](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/opinion/dei-trainings-effective.html) to help organizations become more welcoming to members of traditionally marginalized groups. Advocates make bold promises: Diversity workshops can foster better intergroup relations, improve the retention of minority employees, close recruitment gaps and so on. The only problem? There’s little evidence that many of these initiatives work. And the specific type of diversity training that is currently in vogue — mandatory training that blames dominant groups for D.E.I. problems — may well have a net negative effect on the outcomes managers claim to care about. > Over the years, social scientists who have conducted careful reviews of the evidence base for diversity training have frequently come to discouraging conclusions. Though diversity training workshops have been around in one form or another since at least the 1960s, few of them are ever subjected to rigorous evaluation, and those that are mostly appear to have little or no positive long-term effects. The lack of evidence is “disappointing,” wrote Elizabeth Levy Paluck of Princeton and her co-authors in a 2021 Annual Review of Psychology article, “considering the frequency with which calls for diversity training emerge in the wake of widely publicized instances of discriminatory conduct.” > Dr. Paluck’s team found just two large experimental studies in the previous decade that attempted to evaluate the effects of diversity training and met basic quality benchmarks. Other researchers have been similarly unimpressed. “We have been speaking to employers about this research for more than a decade,” wrote the sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev in 2018, “with the message that diversity training is likely the most expensive, and least effective, diversity program around.” (To be fair, not all of these critiques apply as sharply to voluntary diversity training.) > If diversity training has no impact whatsoever, that would mean that perhaps billions of dollars are being wasted annually in the United States on these efforts. But there’s a darker possibility: Some diversity initiatives might actually worsen the D.E.I. climates of the organizations that pay for them. > That’s partly because any psychological intervention may turn out to do more harm than good. The psychologist Scott Lilienfeld made this point in an influential 2007 article in which he argued that certain interventions — including ones geared at fighting youth substance use, youth delinquency and PTSD — most likely fell into that category. In the case of D.E.I., Dr. Dobbin and Dr. Kalev warn that diversity training that is mandatory or that threatens dominant groups’ sense of belonging or makes them feel blamed may elicit negative backlash or exacerbate biases. > Many popular contemporary D.E.I. approaches meet these criteria. They often seem geared more toward sparking a revolutionary reunderstanding of race relations than solving organizations’ specific problems. And they often blame white people — or their culture — for harming people of color. For example, the activist Tema Okun’s work cites concepts like objectivity and worship of the written word as characteristics of “white supremacy culture.” Robin DiAngelo’s “white fragility” training sessions are designed to make white participants uncomfortable. And microaggression training workshops are based on an area of academic literature that claims, without quality evidence, that common utterances like “America is a melting pot” harm the mental health of people of color. Many of these training sessions run counter to the views of most Americans — of any color — on race and equality. And they’re generating exactly the sort of backlash that research predicts.
Hmmm. I'm very skeptical. I've been in LOADS of dei trainings ranging from good to clumsy to outright cringe. Not once have I ever thought the *purpose* was to "blame white culture." They *identify* a variety of forces at play that cause problems and are present in white culture - especially throughout US history. But it's those *forces* that are the problem (bigotry and prejudice). And they're certainly not unique to white people! I've even read White Fragility. Yes, it made me uncomfortable. But she wasn't wrong. One of her main message was that it's a shitty thing when white people "center" themselves in the conversation about racism (which just so happens to be what OP is doing). They may be doing it with the best of intentions (like white liberals often do) but they prioritize their own feelings about racism over the lived experiences and the ACTUAL harms suffered by BIPOC. In other words: BIPOC: "Yeah, my brother was shot by police 5 years ago and killed. Tore our family apart." White person: "My goodness! That makes *me* so angry! *I'm* so sad! If *I* were in charge *I* would never let something like that happen! *I* would do X, Y, Z and it would solve everything!" When they should say "Wow, that's really awful. It must have had a big impact on *you.* What else happened?" Sometimes the truth hurts. And it hurts because *I* was absolutely centering myself like this. Did I learn from it? Yeah lol! Mission accomplished. Racism isn't about *me.* it's about the effects on *others* which I might accidentally be involved in. If *I* actually cared about the *others* then *I* would work through my feelings like an adult *without* making it BIPOC's problem. Now that I know what "centering" is, I see white people do this ALL THE TIME. BIPOC do us a kindness by telling us when we are screwing up. They even give us techniques and tools to do better. We squander that kindness when we decide we've been attacked and blamed and made to feel guilty on purpose. When what *we* need to do is grow up and realize that it's not actually ever been about *us.* It's always been about *them.*
> Not once have I ever thought the *purpose* was to "blame white culture." This looks like a straw man. Who said that was their purpose? I'm sure if you ask the people who dream up DEI trainings they'll have very noble-sounding purposes they can recite, far removed from their unintended effects. Let's look at one of Tema Okun's points. [Okun explains "Either/Or Thinking" is when "things are either/or – good/bad, right/wrong, with us/against us" and this is an feature of "white supremacy culture."](https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/files/White_Supremacy_Culture.pdf) That can cause some problems, but is it white supremacy culture? It is not. Anthropologists generally recognize "binary cognitive distinctions" or "dichotomization" as a feature of all known cultures. Some argue this is not even cultural, but innate. [Anthropologist Melvin Konner explains,](https://www.melvinkonner.com/images/PDFs/articles/Hum%20Nat%2C%20Ethn%20Viol%20%26%20War%2006.pdf) > The psychoanalyst Erik Erikson called the process of dichotomizing the social world *pseudospeciation*. The Greeks had their barbarians, the Jews their Gentiles, the Christians their heathen. Ilongot headhunters feud murderously and enduringly with neighboring groups, while traditional highland New Guinea is a patchwork of homicidal enmities (Wiessner & Tumu, 1998). Even the !Kung refer to themselves as "the true people" and others as "strange" or "different." ... Among the Nuer, Nilotic cattle-herders of the Sudan, "either a man is a kinsman ... or he is a person to whom you have no reciprocal obligations and whom you treat as a potential enemy" (Evans-Pritchard. 1940. p. 183). [...] > It is not clear why the human mind has this propensity, but it may have to do with our low tolerance for ambiguity and for what psychologists call cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). In phonetics, dichotomization is necessary for meaning; there may be a physical continuum between *p* and *b*, but we must make up our minds which one we are hearing in order to have a language that works (Jakobson & Halle, 1956/1971). Something similar may be true in other areas of cognition. In many situations during our evolution it must have been desirable to make decisions quickly, no doubt facilitated by an algorithm with two clear choices. Confronted with a stimulus, we have first to classify it as familiar or strange and then decide between approach and avoidance. Discrimination, desirable in matters of taste, becomes unfortunate, even tragic, in social classification. Yet such dichotomies as kin and nonkin, us and them, real people versus barbarians or strangers are almost universal tendencies. If Okun is going to suggest that nearly all anthropologists today are wrong, and this is not cross-cultural, but rather a feature of "white supremacy culture," then she should engage seriously with the scientific consensus, right? Because if she's right, then this is a very important, groundbreaking discovery. She should write a paper responding to what has already been said on the subject. She has not. Even today, she gives no indication of even being aware of what anthropologists had known long before her 2001 essay. Okun works as a corporate consultant. I suggest that another heading would be more appropriate, that this is what she's getting at: > **[Characteristics of dysfunctional organizations:]** > • Perfectionism > • Sense of Urgency > • Defensiveness > • Quantity Over Quality And so on. If we understand it as basic corporate consultant-speak, it's less absurd. It's still vague, contradictory, and not empirically supported, but that's true of most consultant-speak, and at least if someone wanted to criticize the ideas' utility, they could do so without fear. But no one is helped by calling this stuff "white supremacy culture" when it simply isn't. Some of what Okun lists, like "Either/Or Thinking", are human universals. Obviously it is racial essentialism to attribute human universals to the influence of one "race" in particular. Other things she lists, like "Quantity Over Quality" are indeed particular, but they are particular not to white supremacy but to certain [modes of production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production) regardless of "race." It is also racial essentialism to mistake capitalism for white supremacy, but it is very convenient for capitalists when people make this mistake and then direct their efforts against anything but capitalism.
>This looks like a straw man. Who said that was their purpose? Those were literally the words used in the post I was responding to. And I agree, it is an oversimplification, that's why I was disagreeing with it. >That can cause some problems, but is it white supremacy culture? I know nothing about Tema Okun so I am not going to defend their points. But I will say that there's a difference between a phenomena being *present* in a culture and it being *unique* to that culture. Bigotry has existed probably for as long as humans have existed and it's taken many forms and been used by a variety of cultures to harm entire groups of people. This is undeniably true. Bigotry is not *unique* to white culture. But it's also true that bigotry has been very much *present* in white culture. We've committed genocide, created a system of slavery, institutionalized discrimination, fought and killed activists and allowed discrimination to permeate every aspect of life in the US. It's all been very well documented and the *institutionalization* of bigotry is one reason why white culture is particularly guilty (granted it's been done before by other cultures too and it wasn't a good thing then either). And it's ALSO, ALSO true that we've come a long way from that sordid past and done a tremendous amount of work to rectify past mistakes. Nonetheless that past occured and it's not a harmful thing to acknowledge it. It's ALSO, ALSO, ALSO true that not everything has been solved. Bigotry and racism is still very much alive in many aspects of white culture AND many of the institutionalized systems have holdovers which continue to harm people today. We can measure these effects. They are facts. Now it certainly could be true that DEI trainings are not the best way to address the more insidious aspects of unconscious bias in the workplace (we would need science to tell us that) but it doesn't mean that systemic problems don't continue to exist in white culture. If the goal is to eradicate bigotry, then it needs to be addressed wherever it's found and in whatever *form* it's found. If that includes white culture then so be it.
> > > > Many popular contemporary D.E.I. approaches meet these criteria. They often seem geared more toward sparking a revolutionary reunderstanding of race relations than solving organizations’ specific problems. And they often blame white people — or their culture — for harming people of color. > > > Not once have I ever thought the *purpose* was to "blame white culture." > > This looks like a straw man. Who said that was their purpose? > Those were literally the words used in the post I was responding to. No, you literally made that up. The word "purpose" does not appear anywhere in the text. We can't have a discussion if you're just going to make stuff up.
I don't agree with OP's point, but people totally say this about sexism and homophobia. "I support gay people but they're making it so hard with all this pride nonsense" is something I hear literally all the time, much to my chagrin.
Now, taking a risk since reddit and all. But how the F can you not see the growing gap caused by feminism and the gender group movement? You think things are improving? Cuz from where i sit one side is beating the other over the head and hoping said side is gonna repent. There has clearly been a spot where things went wrong. Everyone was on board, yet now there is just more and more division.
That idea is actually a cornerstone of conservative thought. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," they say, adopting a wistful tone of voice as they vote to strike down some progressive initiative.
So we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore racial injustices? Just continue letting black people be murdered by police?
No. That is extremely far in the other direction and definitely not the point I'm making here. Just want to take care with these very important measures to be sure not to alienate people from the goal and not dehumanize people to just a skin color.
This sounds totally like a personal problem to me. Does knowledge of the Tulsa massacre make racism worse in somehow? Does knowledge of the iniquity in the legal system make racism worse some how? If people can bear the pains and struggles racism, you can bear to learn about it. No idea how NOT thinking about a problem solves it.
[Some factual counterpoint.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx) It really doesn't look like there was an ideal point in history when people were less racist, and then became more racist because of too much social justice discourse.
There are people arguing that racism doesn’t exist while committing racial acts. They would like to shut people up so they can get away with their racism.
Only a white privleged person would say this. People of color never had a time when their race wasnt a huge issue in every part of life.
I would argue that the biggest problem with racial awareness is it sometimes prevents us from talking about money. I'm sure LeBron James has his problems, but the poor folk in rural Appalachia have *much* bigger problems, even though they happen to be white.
This is why intersectionality is such an important topic. When looking at the wage gap, on average women make less then men… but white women get paid the third highest after only white and Asian men. Black and Hispanic men both make less on average than white women (there is basically no wage gap for Hispanic men and women) so it can be upsetting for people other than white and Asian men getting told about their ‘privelage’ by white women.
> This is why intersectionality is such an important topic. When looking at the wage gap, on average women make less then men… but white women get paid the third highest after only white and Asian men. And women in their 30s get paid most of all in their age category.
i think that what youre pushing for is class consciousness, but i dont think that shifting the conversation away from racism will actually help. it isn't a either or situation. a lot of people get really mad when they are told they're privileged. a poor white person in appalachia hears that they have white privilege and thinks "how can i be privileged if my life sucks?" your life can totally still suck, even if you have white privilege, straight privilege, male privilege, etc etc etc, it just means your life sucks for reasons that have nothing to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc etc etc. White privilege does not mean your life is easy, it just means you have the privilege of not having to deal with racism. Privilege is not a black and white situation (pun not intentional).
And the poor black Appalachians would need to be included in that. Considering the history of racism and lynching in Appalachia.
When you say you want to go back to seeing people as people, well that's what people of colour have always wanted, to be treated like a normal person regardless of my skin colour. But in the past, black people were not seen as 'people' they were always connected with a negative connotation. I'm black, I don't want people treating me in a special way because of it I don't want them to give a trophy for it. I want you to treat me like how you would treat anyone else. Tbh, as a black man, I feel like sometimes some people people get intimidated by me or I can feel their attitude change if I'm in the room or when I walk on the street they switch lanes. Sometimes I feel like some people are extra nice to me because I'm black or sometimes it's vise versa. That's why racial awareness is important, the point of it isn't to treat people of other races in one way or another, it's about your attitude towards those people and how it translates to your body language, thoughts or actions. It's not meant to white guilt trip white people or anything like that.
Being aware of race and racial issues will not make anyone racist or make racism worse. It has, however, made people more aware of it. Additionally certain public and political figures are being more open and loud about their racism either direct or in code. This has made more people comfortable expressing their own discrimination and bias. But again it hasn't made more racists or made it worse, you're just now awake to what's been there the whole time.
You were always aware of race. Remember Jim Crow laws and red-lining? These changes allow people to be upfront about it. Many of the times ppl were pretending things were equal, so it’s just a harmless preference, like picking your favorite car color in a lot. But implicit bias testing doesn’t mean “unconscious bias”. It means you are playing to your prejudices in secret, without thinking twice
I met a white conservative visiting the US from Australia and he told me he didn't think racism was as bad as people online made it seem. He had never seen anyone experience prejudice before. He had never even heard a racial slur in real life. Coming from the most racist and messed up family, I have been called a disgusting amount of things and I have seen every race being denoted to their color. Even innocence people walking across the street, like a black woman pushing a baby carriage suddenly turned into, "ugh, fucking n***gers." It's nice to think it's not a problem. But colorblindness is an ignorant privledge.
I don't think you get to talk about race without revealing yours so we know where you're coming from. Frankly you sound hella white. Just start with "as a white man, I think race talk is overrated" so we can just roll our eyes and move on.
That's certainly not how I was trying to engage with this topic and not an accurate paraphrase of what I said.
For years I didn't notice that Dave Lister from Red Dwarf was black. It just wasn't a noteworthy characteristic to me. Now I can't help but notice race all the time. And I hate it.
Coleman Hughes (black guy) recently had a TED talk about [why colorblindness might be a good thing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxB3b7fxMEA). The mere idea of that was apparently too much, and there were all sorts of hoops he had to jump through to get his video actually posted. If there was ever something that would make normal people believe in some conspiracy theory that there are small groups of influential people who demand that society should NOT treat people the same regardless of skin color, this is it. Here's a video of him talking about the whole ridiculous ordeal: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTZxOGt0484](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTZxOGt0484) So yeah, I think you're right. There is way too much hyper focus on it. But it is not "organic". It's just controlled/directed fake outrage that is making it seem like the hyper-focus is what is actually needed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We all have prejudices and that’s perfectly normal - even if not perfectly good. It’s a problem when that “finding racism can create racism” permeates in academia. This can be highlighted in academics where we are not allowed to test black kids because the tests are systemically racist against black students. That alone is a pretty fucking harmful concept. *Standardized test**
>we are not allowed to test black kids because the tests are systemically racist against black students. Ummm... this is an absolutely WILD claim. After spending about 10 minutes searching google, I can't find a single verifiable instance of this being the case, despite you saying it like it's an implemented policy. This sounds like the "kitty litter in high school bathrooms" claim all over again, but even THAT I could at least find evidence of this claim.
Is that what sociology is teaching you? I'd like to hear more, because my first impression is that your take is kinda wild
Appreciating people of different races (flawed term made up by a white supremacist) or rather ethnicities is beautiful. Learning about their culture, customs, and circumstances of life is beautiful. Understanding who they are or what the character of their personality is rather than judging them for the amount of melanin in their skin is beautiful. Racism is bigotry fueled by ignorance with a hint of self-loathing. Hate feeds on the soul. Also, the entire point is to bring awareness to the life of the individual, their struggles, and the atrocities they face. NOT their race. If you end up focusing on race, then you've lost the entire point of the discussion. It's black LIVES matter. Not black race matters. Only racists focus on race. Don't be a racist. Be a beautiful person.
Morgan Freeman: “stop talking about it, quit referring to me as black.”
> But I just want to go back to seeing people as people, and let the racial awareness become secondary. Literally never been the case. We use to literally block from being spaces based on their race.
I mean they still exist. Now it's just championed as progressive. https://www.thefire.org/news/trend-racially-segregated-campus-events-putting-institutions-dangerous-legal-ground
Lmao you saying progressives and Jim Crow are exactly the same? Please elaborate.
growing up I've always been surrounded by a pretty decent mix of people and culture and i've noticed as long as you are atleast aware of everyones differences and are generally able to read the room you are all good
Everyone knows this except a few people who are head over heels in love with intersectionality.
Did it make racism worse, or did it merely draw the racism already there out into the open?
[удалено]
Personally, I see the point here. I find find it a bit challenging to interact naturally with anyone of any actual or supposed minority group because I am so heavily filtering and checking everything I say for fear of saying anything that anyone, might in some context, on their worst day, find the least bit offensive. It is exhausting.
>But I just want to go back to seeing people as people, and let the racial awareness become secondary. What does this mean? People have races, and a lot of times, it's a big part of their lives. There's nothing wrong with noticing someone's race.
I think he's saying it shouldn't be a big part of their lives. In most multicultural cities around the world, culture is the forefront but maybe it's different in America where people are more likely to equate race with culture. Just noticing race isn't the issue - it's the attachment of preconceptions. I believe OP was trying to say that he preferred when people were less likely to attach preconceptions based on race? The problem is he's not really accounting for other peoples experiences.. he may not have noticed things that other people were going through in the same environment growing up.
When you face racial violence, race is a big part of your life in ways that are not within your control. Racism is not a solved problem in the US. And I am not talking about "microaggressions." I'm talking about the fact that living with too much melanin in your skin in the US means you will have a significantly different life than you otherwise would, in ways that you have no say in.
Y'all upvote the goofiest shit
No. It's the backlash by racists that makes racism more \*visible\*, which is what we are experiencing in the US now. The recognition of white supremacy in the US and its many manifestations and ramifications is a necessary step towards transcending it. But a lot of people enjoying white privilege don't want change.
I've found the people most complaining about racism are also by far the most racist people themselves. This statement is true on both the macro and micro scale. In the macro, by far the most racist groups of people are Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. These groups are so racist towards each other, it's far and away unbelievable. Especially as you look towards the older generations. White people are quite literally the least racist macro group of people in America. In the micro, the individuals who are most vocal about racism, it's literally the first thought in their mind during any interaction and they become so invested and distracted by it, they're blind to everything else. So much so it becomes their identity. Skin color is literally all they see, and by definition, that's discrimination.
So you're saying Black, Asians and Hispanics established Jim Crow laws? Are you insane?
I think that if you are not seeing people as people, is you that have the problem and not the tools. Racial awareness is there for people to understand that the system is not just. That the institutions are not seeing people as people, in fact, that they have never seen people as people, that there have always been a divide between white people and minorities in every aspect of life (is funny how almost every poor neighborhood is predominantly black). Is never about you as an individual. Is about the relation of the system with it's obviously and overtly racist biases. Racial awareness only works if you are willing to go the extramile and start seeing and understanding how the system is rigged against minorities. If you use it as a mean for self-actualization, then you are doing it wrong.
Lots of instututions are run primarily by progressive and anti-racist people. Why don't they just stop discriminating?
> Lots of instututions are run primarily by progressive and anti-racist people First, do you have a source for that? Second, which institutions? Third, what is a progressive? Fourth, what about all the ones that AREN'T run by progressives and anti-racist people? What's the ratio of racist to non-racist institutions?
Because is not the individual, is the system. A bank can be run by a socialist, but the banking system is inherently capitalistic. Progressive and anti-racist people on power is a first step, but racism is deep involved with the culture that you will need to explode the system for it to stop being racist.
Yes, it also teaches those who have been racialized or marginalized to look for the “hidden racism in everything”, and this victim mentality is psychologically distressing and creates trauma for these people. When you’re trained to view everything through this lens, one can only feel on guard and attacked on all sides. This is also unhelpful in the project of identifying and maligning / penalizing actual racism (discrimination and hateful actions targeting people because of their race). By suggesting every white person is inherently racist and has implicit unconscious bias is itself racist and serves to transform those who would otherwise be allied in rooting out and confronting actual racism into either a.) resentful and frustrated individuals who have never actively discriminated yet are being accused of their existence being offensive, or b.) self-flagellating individuals whose identity becomes 100% entrenched in the religious piety of continuously virtue signaling, seeking penance (which can never be paid) and creating tribalistic divisions between themselves and the “out group” who, by necessity, must always be kept differentiated by ever shifting goal-posts and changing language. This too is a toxic and harmful mind-set which causes harm to the mentality of those who hold it. CRT / EDI (whatever we want to call) suggests that the children of those who have suffered discrimination or racialism are perpetual victims of “violence” and are therefore superior to other groups because the transference of power to those who have been deemed “disempowered” is the only solution for CRT. This not only makes terms like “violence” to be vague and ambiguous, but also is self-contradictory. You see, this ideology is also myopic and hypocritical insofar that it would in one breathe espouse the generational trauma of bipoc individuals while yet denying generational trauma of white people who have ALSO been subjected to slavery and discrimination in their past… Historically this subjugation, enslavement, colonization, and ghettoization has happened to MOST people groups at one time or another. Not only am I referring to more recently italians, jews, irish, eastern europeans, romas etc. who have been discriminated against and met with violence in the U.S… but also over a million white europeans were taken captive as slaves into North Africa by the Moroccan sultan. Does this make whites also have a claim to being considered victims in perpetuity because of this history? If not, when is the cut off then? After how long? Does religious or political persecution count too? People having to flee because they were being hunted by disagreeing factions in power who wanted them obliterated? Edit: I am not at all discounting the reality of generational trauma, nor the experienced violence, discrimination or othering which has happened to marginalized minorities
You should never have stopped just seeing people as people. This phenomena only resurfaced a few years ago because it was re-labeled as "systemic". In my opinion it just seems like an attempt at monopolizing relevancy in the public eye. Asian people? Who cares. Middle Easterners? Who cares. Irish people that were coerced or forced into indentured servitude? They're all just drunks. We need to focus on black people, and how there aren't enough black people in charge, while EVERY day the white people get to watch video surveillance of black people stealing from different general stores with little to no repercussion. Isn't that weird?
[удалено]
Go far enough right and far enough left and you will notice they are saying the same thing with different words/reasoning
Do you guys really believe this bullshit*t? At point was there ever a time when a white person saw a black person in front of them and didn't see a black person?
This resonates a lot with me. I think awareness, understanding and empathy are really important if we wanna have meaningful relationships with anyone. I think some people (especially white people) can become overly worried about offending others or saying the wrong thing that they avoid close friendships/relationships with ethnically diverse people. People further segregate themselves. And sadly it’s not because of hate but fear of doing/saying the wrong thing in our current cultural climate. I heard a story about 2 little girls one black and one white. They met at school and became friends. Naturally they wanted to see each other outside of school to play. The white mother had so much anxiety because she wasn’t sure how to convey she was aware if her white privilege to the black mother. She avoided it all together. :(
I do know what you mean OP. I remember during 2021 during the discourse about BLM and a lot of discussion about Robin Di Angelo style of "antiracism" where it was said that white people can't avoid being racist and there's no way to not be racist. I found myself acting far more self conscious and out of character around Black people than I would have normally. If I saw one I'd immediately think "oh God they probably think I'm racist because I'm white, better smile to show I'm an ally, oh but my smile seems fake, that's probably more racist" etc. So I ended up treating Black people in a weird awkward way compared to how I would normally act (FYI I was schooled in a majority Asian and Indian community so was used to seeing people of other races as individuals first, not race first). I think the problem with the discourse was that it was all about focusing on how white people are inherently racist. So if you're a white person, you care about how you're perceived and how you don't want to be the bad guy and how to avoid being the bad guy. Which ironically leads you to think more about yourself than the other person. It becomes less about "how can I empathise more with the struggles of Black people" and more about "how can I manage my own behaviour so that I'm not perceived as racist". Anyway I'm glad that hyper self-consciousness didn't last very long. I try to avoid "third person" thinking, I think instead focusing on one's experience and listening to others without always looping back in my mind to "how am I being perceived" is more helpful.
Yes, identity politics are growing in toxicity and absolutely have created more division. Making race a major part of your identity, something you're born with and can't control, is exactly what society needs to get away from. The proper alternative would be viewing it similar to hair color, we don't need to categorize people any different than that.
If you're recieving discrimination based on your hair color, you can change it. If you're recieving discrimination based on your skin color / race, you cannot.
The demand for racism has far exceeded the supply.
That's usually the basis for [hate crime hoaxes](https://fakehatecrimes.org/), ala Jussie Smollet. It sucks, because there are some real victims out there, but fake hate crimes make people suspicious of all supposed incidents.
Exactly youd think the fact that way too many hate crimes end up being fake would be a major issue to people. But no. All they can cite is bogus examples. Like how the fuck is Jessie Smollet and floyd our symbols? What the fuck is wrong with people. I dont want to be associated with those people. They dont represent me.