New Rule

Avatar

Kazzy

One man. Two boys. Twelve kids.

Related Post Roulette

258 Responses

  1. Avatar LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    I realize that this is a very loaded topic but I’m really pissed when people refer to Jews as white. In the American context, we are considered to be white and privileged but this really gets to me. Its away of dodging the legacy of thousands of years of Jew-hatred. During the 20th century alone, we have been exposed to Jim Crow like quotas and exclusion, race riots (pogroms) in numerous countries, property confiscation, expulsions that were official and unofficial in nature, and of course one of the most elaborately planned genocides of all time. Lets not get into the previous centuries or the current problems faced by Jews today.

    Calling Jews white is simply away to avoid all this and to deny us justice. It is the ultimate dodge. It is evil.Report

    • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      The problem goes somewhat deeper. Who gets to define these categories? Judaism certainly has halakha definitions for who’s a Jew and who isn’t. Despite the Mitzvah to love the ger convert, I encountered very considerable prejudice when I was ready to convert to Judaism, right here in the Land of the Free. When the parents of the woman you love sit you down and tell you not to marry their daughter, then you get to tell this white boy this prejudice business isn’t a knife which cuts both ways.Report

      • Avatar Barry in reply to BlaiseP
        Ignored
        says:

        ” When the parents of the woman you love sit you down and tell you not to marry their daughter, then you get to tell this white boy this prejudice business isn’t a knife which cuts both ways.”

        If I (a white man) were courting a black woman, it’s not at all unlikely that I’d face resentment from her parents, and if they told me not to marry her, I certainly wouldn’t have a story fit for the front page of the newspapers.

        Does that mean I’m oppressed?Report

        • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Barry
          Ignored
          says:

          No. You don’t get to answer incident with hypotheticals. Nor do you get to beg any questions or ask me if you would have been hypothetically oppressed by hypothetical black parents. When it comes to ultimate dodges and evils, I will be answered by those who make such statements and not by would-be rescuers of their arguments.Report

      • Avatar Kimmi in reply to BlaiseP
        Ignored
        says:

        Racism is racism. I condemn it in my family… and my extended jewish family.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      Lee,

      Being oppressed along one dynamic does not eliminate the privilege one enjoys along another.

      There are white women; they do not lose the privilege of their race because of the oppression they face because of their gender.
      There are white gays; they do not lose the privilege of their race because of the oppression they face because of their gender.
      And there are white Jews; they do not lose the privilege of their race because of the oppression they face because of their gender.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        Sorry, I’m just not seeing it. I’ve encountered too many incidents on the internet and in real life of people waiving away Jew-hatred and not taking it with a modicum of serious because Jews are “white and privileged.” These are people who are absolutely sensitive to all the problems of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. When it comes to Jew-hatred, their absolutely horrible and blind.Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to LeeEsq
          Ignored
          says:

          Lee,

          I am sorry that that has been your experience. That is awful, truly and indeed. I think there is a problem in attempting to calculate privilege on balance… 2 points for being white, 1 point for being male, -1 point for being Jewish… whatever. That’s nonsense. There are situations wherein someone’s religion will not be a factor but there race will; in those dynamics, a white Jew will enjoy privilege. And there will be situations where someone’s race will not be a factor but their religion will be; in those dynamics, a white Jew will suffer oppression.

          I do not and will not deny the oppression that Jews have faced and continue to face.Report

          • Avatar Pierre Corneille in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            Kazzy, I think your response to LeeEsq, while well-worded and considerate, misses some of the point about racism. “Race” is not always defined by phenotype (white skin, black skin, in-between skin), although it often is, especially in America. A people can be “racialized” (a clumsy word, but a useful one, in my opinion) even if they are phenotypically white.

            Now, I do realize that most Jewish people in the U.S. tend to be phenotypically white, and therefore are not necessarily subject to the ready racialization that people with non-white skin are. But I think most antisemitic people would, even while they’re denying they’re antisemitic, say that they know a Jewish person just by looking at him or her, and they certainly tend to treat Jewish people as a separate race and not simply as people who embrace an unpopular religion.Report

            • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Pierre Corneille
              Ignored
              says:

              PC,

              An eminently fair point. And, Lee, I must apologize for failing to recognize or acknowledge the very same when you made it above. I disagree that identifying Jews with European ancestry as white is “evil”, but do recognize the intense complexity of the issue. My intention was not to deny your experiences or perspective, which I ultimately did. So, again, I apologize.

              I will defend the broader point about the issue with folks who act as if AA is the only form of legitimate racism that exists in American society today. As I note in the comments, but not in the OP, my critique here is not aimed at Weiss but at *some* of her defenders who hold the *two* beliefs I articulate at the very start of my post.Report

            • Avatar Rod Engelsman in reply to Pierre Corneille
              Ignored
              says:

              But I think most antisemitic people would, even while they’re denying they’re antisemitic, say that they know a Jewish person just by looking at him or her, and they certainly tend to treat Jewish people as a separate race and not simply as people who embrace an unpopular religion.

              I’m of Dutch ancestry. My oldest daughter is named “Rachael”, which I suppose is the Jewish spelling of that name(?) Turns out that some of her friends in college assumed she was Jewish. In truth, by appearance, she could definitely “pass” for Jewish.

              As far as I know we’re not, although our family history gets kind of obscure earlier than the middle 18th century. Who knows what surprises could lie way up in that tree? What is the history of Judaism in Holland anyway?Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Rod Engelsman
                Ignored
                says:

                Once the Netherlands declared themselves independent of Spain, towards the end of the 16th Century, it alo declared religious toleration, and thus became a Mecca (so to speak) for European Jews, especially Spanish ones, who had had to practice their religion in secret because of the Inquisition. There were also a lot of refugees from the Thirty Years War (the one thing both Protestants and Catholics could agree on was “rob and kill the Jews.”) So it’s quite possible.Report

        • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to LeeEsq
          Ignored
          says:

          When it comes to what we see and don’t see — when it’s Jewish people doing the hating and the proscribing and putting up signs about how everyone else ought to dress and behave, the only place where anyone can say anything about it (without getting his head bitten off!) is within Israel. Isn’t that somewhat curious, even to you? Let one politician in the USA come out and say the State of Israel is behaving abominably — see what happens to him.

          The only people in the entire world who are allowed to verbally abuse the State of Israel (without getting their heads bitten off!) are the Satmars and Neturei Karta. I grow increasingly weary of hearing this sad and tiresome song about antisemitism. I would be far more inclined to take such claims with a Modicum of Serious, were I not as cognisant of how all such criticism, however justified or unjustified, is conflated into one disgusting lump.

          I am not some filthy Cossack come riding into your shtetl to beat and rob you. I was hard done by and told I was not fit to marry a Jewish woman. I speak pretty good Ivrit and read the Torah in Hebrew. Let’s just see how good your Ivrit is.

          “They shall never understand what is means to be an Israeli.” Now it seems not even American Jews are good enough for bnut yishrolReport

    • Avatar A Teacher in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      This little ditty seems relevant to this tangent.

      Report

    • Avatar Pierre Corneille in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      LeeEsq,

      There’s a big literature in history–and probably other disciplines–that document the ways in which Jewish people in the U.S. (not to mention other places) have been treated as non-white. Of what I’ve read, there are parts I don’t fully agree with, but there’s a lot I find convincing in that literature and in what you wrote above.Report

      • Avatar Barry in reply to Pierre Corneille
        Ignored
        says:

        “There’s a big literature in history–and probably other disciplines–that document the ways in which Jewish people in the U.S. (not to mention other places) have been treated as non-white. Of what I’ve read, there are parts I don’t fully agree with, but there’s a lot I find convincing in that literature and in what you wrote above.”

        Amazon carries books like ‘How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America ‘ (by Karen Brodkin, a UCLA anthro professor) uses the past tense. As do similar books with titles like ‘How the Irish Became White’ and ‘How the Irish Became White’ and ‘Are Italians White?: How Race is Made in America’.

        Guess which variant on that title doesn’t exist on Amazon?
        (hint: it uses two colors in the title)Report

    • Avatar Kimmi in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      you should read “when jews were black”…Report

  2. Avatar Kolohe
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s not so much that we live in a society of extreme anti-black racism, it’s that we live in a society where class divisions are growing sharper, and due to the legacy of racism, a disproportionate number of African-Americans find themselves on the wrong side of the class divide.

    But I look forward to a nuanced and fruitful discussion below on this topic, as is always the case on the internet.Report

    • Avatar Just Me in reply to Kolohe
      Ignored
      says:

      Yes, because a post telling some to shut up you look silly is geared towards a nuanced and fruitful discussion.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Just Me
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m a bit tired of nuance. America remains a racist society. We need to stop letting folks who are privileged claim victim status because they control the reigns of conversation.Report

        • Avatar Just Me in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          So basically you are saying that if you are white that shuddup you don’t deserve to have an opinion because white people oppress other people? I”m really trying to figure out what you are saying.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Just Me
            Ignored
            says:

            No.

            What I’m saying is that it is disingenuous for people to argue that Affirmative Action represents a real form of oppression for white people because being treated differently because of your race is wrong WHILE simultaneously arguing that anti-black racism doesn’t exist or is overblown.

            Which a lot of people do. A lot.Report

            • Avatar Just Me in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              So if I say that Affirmative Action represents a real form of oppression for white people but say that black racism still exists I am no longer silly? And if I don’t believe that one form of racism is justification for another form of racism or one form of discrimination is justification for another form of discrimination, and point out that yes racism and discrimination still exist I am a ok to profess my opinion? I’m fine with that.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Just Me
                Ignored
                says:

                Absolutely. Did that not come across in the admittedly short and snark-driven post? Because I included that second paragraph to make clear that this wasn’t a defense of AA or an attack of its critics but an attack of a particular perspective on the state of racism in America today. But if it is still confusing, I can try to clarify.

                I count Will amongst my closest blogging compatriots here, a decidedly unsilly man. As I understand his position, he is opposed to AA, or at the very least squishy on it. And I think he makes some outstanding critiques of it, so much so that he challenges my own views on the matter. There is a lot of room to disagree on AA, both in theory and in practice. But, as I see it, it is just plain silly to cheer on one form of complaining about racism while denying other forms when that first form is AA and the other forms are all those I linked to.Report

              • Avatar Just Me in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Nope, that one line didn’t really soften the shut up you are all silly nature of the short post.Report

              • Avatar A Teacher in reply to Just Me
                Ignored
                says:

                Kinda have to concur.Report

              • Avatar Pierre Corneille in reply to Just Me
                Ignored
                says:

                kazzy didn’t say people ought not to complain about AA at all. He said that when they do, they ought to at least recognize that it’s aimed at resolving a real problem. That’s how I read him.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Just Me
                Ignored
                says:

                I specify exactly which people I think ought to shut up. It is not white people. It is people who “complain about the lack of fairness or “reverse racism” of a system aimed at ending anti-black racism while simultaneously denying that we live in a society of extreme anti-black racism.”

                If you are not one of those people, I am not speaking to you.

                PC gets it. Thank you, PC.Report

              • Avatar Just Me in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                I have a problem with anybody being told to shut up. But that is just me. I believe that we all have a right to speak our minds and that bad things happen when we do shut up those we don’t agree with. I also don’t think that when we say that something is unfair to a white person we have to add an addendum stating that while this is unfair to this particular white person I know that black people have been treated and continue to be treated unfairly.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s fair, JM. But I don’t need all critics of AA to offer such a corollary. However, I will criticize those who I do see actively making both arguments. And I will tell them to shut up when they so freely use that language to tell black folks, people of color, and their white allies what to do when they raise concerns about racism.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                To clarify my views, since they came up: I am skeptical of using race as a factor in admissions would would prefer use other socio-economic criteria. There are scenarios in which I might drop my objection to race as being a factor in certain circumstances, but we’re nowhere near those scenarios at present.Report

              • Avatar Kimmi in reply to Will Truman
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, I’d rather have a means-tested affirmative action, that’ll catch up kids from the ghetto (white or black), and folks from way in the sticks. They both deserve more of a chance, and a bit of a leg upReport

              • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Just Me
                Ignored
                says:

                Affirmative action, for all its faults, is really the only way to deal with the legacy of anti-Black racism in the country. Some people argue for a class-based affirmative action as an alternative but I think a class-based affirmative action is going to disproportionally benefit poor white people over African-Americans.Report

              • Avatar Pierre Corneille in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                I agree. I favor class-based AA, but alongside of race-based AA, and not instead of it.Report

              • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Pierre Corneille
                Ignored
                says:

                The advocates of class-based affirmative action believe that its way too help African-Americans and people of color without causing bitter feelings among whites. The logic seems to be that since people of color are disproportionately poor than many of them will be included in a class-based affirmative action scheme but that white people won’t feel bitter because white people will be helped as well.

                The problems with this is that not all people of color are poor and middle to upper class people of color are often still victims of racism. They need the same legislation to help them that poor people of color do. Its also entirely possible that fewer people of color would be helped by a class-based affirmative action because the numbers of poor whites out way them.Report

              • Avatar Pierre Corneille in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, I agree pretty much completely. The devil might be in the details, which makes me more of “soft” supporter of race-based AA, but I do support it.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                Excellent comment LeeEsq. There’s an appeal to thinking that racial inequity issues can be addressed more generally by focusing on class issues. But the presumes that certain discriminatory practices won’t track along class divisions, rather than cutting across them.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                Mistake there: “…will track along…”Report

              • Avatar Kimmi in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                LeeEsq,
                This isn’t my reasoning. My reasoning says folks like Field Negro, and rich/high-status folks in general, ought not to be taking the racially assigned slots from the folks in the projects.Report

            • Avatar dand in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              Affirmative action is a case of formal policies being racist. Almost all anti-black racism is individuals acting against formal policies. The thing people who support affirmative action generally also support making it difficult to fire people who discriminate on the basis of race. Public sector unions make it very difficult to fire people. Want to fire a racist teacher or cop, well the unions makes it impossible. I oppose affirmative action and support making it much easier to fire bad teachers and cops.

              My solution to a teacher discriminating on the basis of race is to fire the teacher not punish another white person.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Ahh i see the problem. AfAction is not racist or i don’t see any way of describing it as racist. Racism implies a significant negative persistent attitude towards a group. AA does not in any way say any group is bad or lesser than the other. It is a way of giving a group who has been disadvantaged a way past unfair roadblocks. AfAction is not aimed at holding a group down because they are hated. There really is a huge difference between AA and racism which was directly aimed at keeping blacks down.

                For the record i think we should move more towards AA based on class and less on race or gender.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Affirmative action discriminates against Asians many supports of affirmative action have as one of their political heroes a man who put Asian Americans in concentration camps, pro affirmative action groups also do things like this: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/anti-mcconnell-group-that-sent-racist-tweets-has-little-cash-88308.htmlReport

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                The response to that tweet was . . . telling.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                the anti-Asian sentiment in those tweets is very common how often do you here about companies “shipping jobs to China” in order to believe that’s a bad thing you need to buy into the racist idea the Americans are more deserving of those jobs than Asians .Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                The pushback against moving jobs to China is more, to my mind, about nationalism and self-interest than racism. As an American, I am more concerned about jobs for Americans than I am for jobs about the Chinese. Or Polish.

                Not to the exclusion of all other considerations, of course, and recognizing the argument that outsourcing of jobs to the Chinese does provide benefits to Americans in the greater scheme of things. But I don’t see a preference for American jobs over foreign jobs as being racist much at all.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                I think you misunderstand much of the socio-economic dynamic that leads to complaint about shipping jobs overseas. A factory outside my hometown moved to Georgia (if I remember correctly). The employees were non to happy (as you can probably imagine), but the complaint about shipping jobs is nearly identical, and it centers on them losing their jobs and the town losing that economic base, not some Hoosier superiority.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                There is more concern about trade with non-white countries than there is with white countries. The US imports more goods from Canada than Mexico yet anti-NAFTA protests focus completely on Mexico. Back in the 80s there was far more concern about Japan than Germany even though they were similar in size. Most US oil imports come from Canada yet people claim we’re dependent on Mideast oil.

                I’d also ask how nationalism is any different from racism.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                Dand, the perception is that Canada and the US are on a level playing field. China, India, and Mexico touch a particular nerve because the perception is they can out-compete us by virtue of a willingness to work cheap.

                A lot of people do believe that nationalism is no better than racism. To me, at least some degree of nationalism is a part of the social contract. It’s sort of like valuing people who are a part of your family over people who are not a part of your family.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                Dand, the perception is that Canada and the US are on a level playing field. China, India, and Mexico touch a particular nerve because the perception is they can out-compete us by virtue of a willingness to work cheap.

                In the 80s Japan and the US were on roughly equal footing and there was lots of hostility towards Japanese imports. If there wasn’t a racial element to anti trade sentiment, auto workers wouldn’t have murdered an Asian-American while shouting “It’s because of you little motherfuckers that we’re out of work!”Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, racism may be a factor for some (or an aggravating factor, or at least a factor in how the anger manifests itself). That’s different, though, than saying that it is ipso-facto racist. Or that we should assume that anti-trade arguments are inherently rooted in racism.

                The perception in the 1980’s was that we weren’t really on equal footing. That the Japanese produced cheap junk, played unfair with trade rules, and so on.

                But for the most part? It was that Japan was an economic threat. And therefore there was a fair amount of hostility. These days, there is a lot less hostility, even though they’re the same race now that they are then. And the same race (as far as Americans are concerned) as the Chinese.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, racism may be a factor for some (or an aggravating factor, or at least a factor in how the anger manifests itself). That’s different, though, than saying that it is ipso-facto racist.

                I don’t think it is racist in of itself, however when the political movement the pushes it also admires a man a put Asians in prison camps then it calls in question their claims that their support of discrimination against Asians isn’t motivated by racism.

                But for the most part? It was that Japan was an economic threat. And therefore there was a fair amount of hostility.

                why was Japan seen as more of a threat than Germany?Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                why was Japan seen as more of a threat than Germany?

                It wasn’t. FDR focussed on the war in Europe.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                It wasn’t. FDR focussed on the war in Europe.

                i was talking about the issue of trade during the 1980s.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                I, and probably you, also admire men who held other human beings as personal property (which, mind you, is not the reason I admire them). Everyone has been pretty clear with you on their feeling on Japanese internment, yet you persist in claiming that it somehow shows progressive racism because Asians are negatively affected by AA, . . . or something.

                On the Japanese-German difference, I always thought that the direct competition with American automakers, for a variety of social and economic reasons, was the main reason Japan was viewed as the main threat. Though race may have had something to do with it, see Will’s post above.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                why was Japan seen as more of a threat than Germany?

                For one thing, Germany didn’t exist throughout most of the 80’s, and West Germany wasn’t nearly as ascendant as Japan was. Japan was supposed to be the next world power. I’m not sure anyone thought that of West Germany or post-reunification Germany which had its hands full.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                Actually, Will, Japan making cheap junk was a cliche of the 60s. By the 80s it was clear they made damn good consumer goods (especially cars and electronics) and could out-compete us in those markets. This was partly attributed to cheating (government subsidies, selling under cost to destroy American manufacturing), partly to other kinds of cheating (we did all the real innovation and they just found ways to make out inventions cheaper and more efficiently), and partly to cultural superiority (their knew how to manage better, and their smart people were engineers while ours were just money manipulators.) There was a big vogue in books and classes to teach American businessmen the secrets of Japanese success.

                Unfortunately, the 90s, where the US boomed while Japan stagnated, ended the last of those. The US now glories in its money manipulators, and thinks that management is the art of laying off and extracting pay cuts.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                Everyone has been pretty clear with you on their feeling on Japanese internment, yet you persist in claiming that it somehow shows progressive racism because Asians are negatively affected by AA, . . . or something.

                It cast doubt upon the notion that their support for affinitive action isn’t motivated by bias against Asians.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                Mike, my recollection is hazy, and I was young, but I thought the perception that Japanese stuff wasn’t good continued into the 80’s. Not that it was true, mind you, but that it was one of the things we told ourselves.

                Not that it really matters much to my point either way. To the extent that people were realizing that not only were Japanese products affordable but they were better, that also helps explain why there was more fear of Japan.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                Dand, and your support for that contention is . . . that they like FDR and viewed Japan instead of Germany as a competitor?

                Forgive me if I don’t find that persuasive.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                Even people in heavy denial knew the difference between Toyotas and Ford Pintos 🙂Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                Dand, and your support for that contention is . . . that they like FDR and viewed Japan instead of Germany as a competitor?

                I’m not sure what you’re referring to but I’m saying that opponents of free trade have targeted Asians with their fear mongering and the different treatment of Japan and Germany during the 80s is one example of that.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                I get that, and while people have acknowledged the distinct possibility of racial motivation, they have provided reasons for the rhetoric which was not based on racial animus. But this,

                “I don’t think it is racist in of itself, however when the political movement the pushes it also admires a man a put Asians in prison camps then it calls in question their claims that their support of discrimination against Asians isn’t motivated by racism.”

                Is exactly what I was talking about.Report

              • Avatar Kimmi in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                Will,
                kos had a great article about Nafta and corn. Turns out we were cheaper than Mexico, to mexico’s detriment.Report

              • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, if the USA automobile industry had been attempting to make a lot of money in high-end high-performance sports and luxury cars, then Germany would most certainly have been seen as a competitor. Instead that was a market that the US industry simply decided not to pursue, preferring the large-and-blandly-comfy and small-and-cheap segments. And then the Japanese turned out to be a lot better at small-and-cheap.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                oh sorry for trying to offer a discussion. rant on. its not exactly news the US, even the good guys, has a tortured history with race. sadly putting Japanese in camps was not exactly an unpopular move. show me hoards of Repub’s who disagreed and i’ll give them due credit for that.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Robert Taft voted against it and the left hates him.

                the problem is the double standard.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                To hate him, the left would have to remember him. I mean, I know he was the president’s son and the conservative hopeful who was pushed aside for Eisenhower in 1952, but I’m a history nerd. And if he’s still hated, it’s for things like opposing Lend-Lease and passing Taft-Hartley, not for being against Relocation.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Ummm Taft..i’ll defer to Mike. That is one guy. The sad fact, i repeat, is that oppressing the Japaneses was popular. FDR was wrong, so were the huge majority of Americans.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                The sad fact, i repeat, is that oppressing the Japaneses was popular. FDR was wrong, so were the huge majority of Americans.

                And a lot of Americans supported discrimination against blacks as well. But somehow FDR gets absolved of his crimes while Strom Thurmond doesn’t. If it’s wrong to admire Strom Thurmond it should be just as wrong to admire FDR. It’s seems that only people who supported left-wing economics get absolved of racism.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                FDR died in 1945, Strom Thurmond died in 2003. Strom never (fully) renounced his earlier views. Do you really see the two views as equal?Report

              • Avatar Shazbot3 in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Who absolved Roosevelt?

                And at least he (or his defenders) has an excuse: “I was, for a time, irrationally frightened by the events of the war and the possibility of espionage and sedition, and did something horribly racist.”

                Strom Thurmond acted racist for decades, and it wasn’t just the fear of WWII that pushed him.

                Roosevelt did many good things, but he committed an awful, immoral crime.

                Thurmond was pretty much universally awful.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                FDR hasn’t nor should he be absolved of his actions against the Japaneses. He was wrong. Plenty of good and fine people held racist attitudes years ago. It’s one of the reasons AA ended up being needed because it wasn’t just horrible people who were racist, it was the larger society in general. And what Gaelen said. What does this have to do with anything anyway? How does this address my original comment about AA not being racist since there is not stereotyping or racial animus involved.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                hat does this have to do with anything anyway? How does this address my original comment about AA not being racist since there is not stereotyping or racial animus involved.

                Affirmative action discriminates against Asians; I’m showing examples of Anti-Asian sentiment among supporters of affirmative action.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Which still doesn’t address my comment actually. FDR somewhat predates AfAction…just a little. And lots of people have all sorts of unpleasant attitudes, what does that prove? If anything it suggests that maybe gov action was needed to break down some doors. I’ll note again my preference would be to move towards AfirmAc based on class now.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Who absolved Roosevelt?

                If Trent Lott praising Strom Thumond is proof of racism against blacks then praising FDR is proof of racism against Asians.

                Lott said that he admired Thurmond while disagreeing with him on segregation and it was unacceptable. Yet people on the left can hold identical views about FDR and it’s acceptable.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Which still doesn’t address my comment actually. FDR somewhat predates AfAction…just a little

                If someone who proposed discrimination against blacks also had Strom Thurmond as one of their hero’s while claiming that he disagreed with his views on race; would he believe him when he said he didn’t anything against blacks?Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Lott said the US would have been better off if Thurmond had been elected president, when Thurmond’s entire reason for running in 1948 was segregation. It’s not the same as being pro-New Deal and admiring FDR’s leadership during WWII, while still being horrified at the treatment of Japanese-Americans.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Dand,
                Do you actually care about anti-Asian racism? Or are you just trying to score cheap shots against AA and liberals?Report

              • Avatar Turgid Jacobian in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                “I’m showing examples of Anti-Asian sentiment among supporters of affirmative action.”

                Ah, yes, all of those auto workers. So enamored with AA.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Lott said the US would have been better off if Thurmond had been elected president, when Thurmond’s entire reason for running in 1948 was segregation

                Lott claimed it was because Thurmond was a stronger anti-communist than Truman, while disagreeing with him on JIm Crow.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                The Republican governor of Colorado (a state which had to take in many of those removed from the west coast) was a very vocal opponent of Japanese internment, calling it racist, unconstitutional, and immoral, and did all he could to help them.

                Washington state was so bad that they had very vocal groups pushing for a Constitutional amendment to strip Japanese of citizenship, and also trying to make sure Japanese internees couldn’t return to Seattle. The Council of Churches worked hard to shame such people into shutting up.

                Odd tidbit: The US government was so idiotic that they even interned some German Jews because they were German nationals and thus a potential threat.Report

              • Avatar Turgid Jacobian in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                dand has a bad case of posthocergopropterhocitis.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Do you actually care about anti-Asian racism?

                yes, i think the left cares less about anti-Asian racism than anti black racism.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Ah, yes, all of those auto workers. So enamored with AA.

                It’s not just auto workers, anti-trade sentiment is very common on the left.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the individual. Do you care equally about all forms of racism? If so, what steps have you taken to improve things?Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                To add it George’s point: the state with the largest Japanese-American population, Hawaii, didn’t have Relocation. And the AG who pushed hardest for Relocation is also highly admired by the left: a guy named Earl Warren. At least, he did his best to make up for it later.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                So when you read an article that says the health outcomes of blacks are lower than their white peers, even after controlling for other factors because of the cumulative effect of living in a racist society… You think AA is the scourge that deserves your internet rage?

                You’re the one that brought up affirmative action not me. I support making it much easier to fire teachers and police officers. If you can provide an example of blacks being denied equal treatment under the law I’ll oppose it. The solution to racist teachers and police officers isn’t affirmative action it’s firing the racist teachers and police officers.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                My post was about the very real effects of racism that exist in our society and the people who seek to dismiss those while championing a crusade against the cruel institution of AA and the silliness therein.

                Your posts are… I’m not really sure what, actually… trolling, I guess.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                My post was about the very real effects of racism that exist in our society

                Why not post opposing those rather than saying they exist therefore everyone who opposes affirmative action needs to shut up.

                Your posts are… I’m not really sure what, actually… trolling, I guess.

                so since i disagree with you i must be trolling.Report

              • Avatar Pierre Corneille in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                “Lott claimed it was because Thurmond was a stronger anti-communist than Truman, while disagreeing with him on Jim Crow.”

                My suspicion is that Lott said this after the outcry against his praise for Thurmond’s presidential campaign.

                Now, let’s say, for example, I support anti-union shop laws (which some people call “right to work” laws) because I sincerely believe that they open opportunities for workers. (I don’t think I support them, but let’s assume I do.) In that case, I might praise Thurmond for his efforts to promote such laws and yet be able to condemn him for his racist attitudes and actions.

                Similar to FDR: I can praise him for the New Deal (I actually have qualms about some specific New Deal initiatives, but let’s assume that away), and I can criticize him for e.o. 9066. Heck, I can also criticize him for being unwilling to challenge the racist senators in his own party (well, he did challenge some of them, but not because they were racist). FDR doesn’t get a pass from me or from most people I know who are also aware of internment.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Do you care equally about all forms of racism?

                yes

                If so, what steps have you taken to improve things?

                treat everyone i deal with fairly and promote individualism.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                So when you read an article that says the health outcomes of blacks are lower than their white peers, even after controlling for other factors because of the cumulative effect of living in a racist society… You think AA is the scourge that deserves your internet rage?

                Cool.

                You can’t be neutral on a moving train.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                So the doctors can’t figure out the reasons (because whites and blacks must be exactly the same), so any difference must be due to racism? Why didn’t they just blame witchcraft or evil demons, maybe try a few leeches to see if it helps? This is one more example of an area where much of the rest of the world is ahead of us. If Middle Eastern doctors can’t explain a set of outcomes they know it must be a clever plot by the evil Jews.

                Different groups have vastly different attitudes toward seeking medical help and advice, following the recommendations, or actively following up or pursuing other avenues. Some groups tend to nag their doctors, question their decisions, and push push push. Others just feel put off and ignore the advice, or don’t understand it. Many Southern rednecks won’t go to a doctor unless they think the wound is severe enough that they can brag about it.

                Also notice the obvious dodge in the conclusion you cite. If blacks have lower health outcomes due to racism, it’s obviously due to racism in society at large (I’m blaming the check out clerks at Walmart), not the far more obvious conclusion that doctors and health care workers, the people who actually provide the health care whose outcomes show large racial disparities, are racist. It’s like the way that all the really insidious Jewish plots are always discovered in countries that don’t have any Jews – all too convenient.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Did you read the article?Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                No, you didn’t link it, but try reading this one which explains differences in health outcomes between classes, incomes, and races across diverse regions, times, and health care systems with a different factor.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Um…. It is linked right there in the piece, buddy.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                George, there actually is some evidence that doctors treat patients of different races and ethnicities differently. I wish I could find it, but it had pretty solid methodology and wasn’t just looking at aggregate statistics. (It used actors, if I recall.)Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Sorry Kazzy, but the paper you linked reads more than a bit like a parody of a science paper, but is probably the norm in social sciences.

                For example:

                These premature deaths arise from a broad
                spectrum of disorders. Diabetes, cardiovascular heart disease, hypertension, and obesity disproportionately affect African Americans ([cite]). For example, in deaths due to heart disease, the rate per 100,000 persons for African Americans (321.3) is higher than for any other racial/ethnic group, including Asian/Paci?c Islanders (137.4), American Indian/Alaska Natives (178.9), Hispanics (188.4), and Whites (245.6).

                One paragraph later it says:

                . For example, Williams & Jackson (2005) examined Black/White health disparities using data from the National Center for Health Statistics for the years 1950 to 2000, and found that although rates of heart disease were similar for Blacks and Whites in 1950, by the year 2000, African Americans had a rate of heart disease 30% higher than that of Whites. Similarly, in 1950, African Americans had a lower cancer rate than Whites, but by the year 2000, their rate was 30% higher.

                A few paragraphs later it asserts that these differences must be due to racism, but not based on skin color because Caribbean-American blacks don’t show such a disparity. At that point the train has left the tracks. If the disparity was due to white racism, then by any rational meaning of racism the disparity should’ve been larger in 1950, not vastly smaller. And if whites did have this claimed magical power to give people heart disease, diabetes, and every other disorder, as the paper later asserts, why aren’t whites using it against Native Americans, Asians, Mexicans, and Jews? In fact, why are whites using it on themselves more than every other group except non-Caribbean blacks? Heck, according to the paper blacks smoke because whites are racist. Not so mysteriously, they don’t ask, much less explain, why white racism against Jews doesn’t result in bad Jewish health care outcomes, probably because everyone would openly laugh at the authors.

                About the only thing the paper illuminates is how whites who write science papers want to indulge their own guilt so they can get some redemption (and a lot of grant money from the federal grievance industry).

                The serious problem with papers like this is that in explaining bad health care among blacks as the result of white racism, it means the medical community and society doesn’t have to try and radically alter black decisions, habits, and behaviors leading to these outcomes, and do more to compensate for their particular issues, whites just have to become 27.3% less racist, which is easy! (Just say three “Hail MLK’s” and compliment P-Diddy.)Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                And your support for that contention is . . . that they like FDR and viewed Japan instead of Germany as a competitor?

                Forgive me if I don’t find that persuasive.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                oops, wrong place.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                For one thing, Germany didn’t exist throughout most of the 80?s, and West Germany wasn’t nearly as ascendant as Japan was. Japan was supposed to be the next world power. I’m not sure anyone thought that of West Germany or post-reunification Germany which had its hands full.

                I believe that during the 80s the Japanese and German economies were fairly similar in strength and were certainly closer to each other than the much larger American economy.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Affirmative action is a case of formal policies being racist. Almost all anti-black racism is individuals acting against formal policies.

                I don’t agree with those statements, actually, even tho I see what you’re saying. (Note: I could be wrong about what follows, but convincing me of that would require an argument rather than blunt assertion.)

                AA was instituted as a response to anti-black racism, but not at the formal level. It was intended to remedy cultural norms and social practices that prevented blacks from expressing their right to equal opportunity within society. So the anti-black racism that AA was attempting to redress wasn’t generated by, or contingent upon, formal policies, but cultural practices.

                If blacks are currently perceived to receive preferrential treatment in hiring as a result of the instituted policies, that criticism isn’t against blacks as individuals or a race, but against the formal policies which are viewed as imposing an unjustified (and unjustifiable) hiring/acceptance regime. But that view isn’t a form of racism, strictly speaking. It’s a criticism of policy based on views that aren’t racist, but a-racist: race shouldn’t be, so the idea goes, a determiner of hiring practices.

                So I’d say, granting that you disagree, that Affirmative Action not is a case of formal policies being racist. And that anti-black racism isn’t individuals acting against formal policies.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                If a law firm said:
                There is common perception that Jews are better lawyers, the perception puts gentiles at a disadvantage; in order to rectify this we will implement a system that grants preferential treatment to gentiles.

                Would you consider it ant-Semitic?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                How are the actions of a firm which views gentiles as inferior analogous to AA? Or are you saying that AA is the view that blacks are inferior to whites and therefore require preferential treatment?Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                If firm said that there is a common, false belief that Jews are bettor lawyers, the fact that gentiles are underrepresented in the legal profession is evidence of such; therefore we will give preferential treatment to gentiles.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Is it time for someone to post the clip of Larry David finding out that his lawyer wasn’t actually Jewish? Yes it is.

                Youtube clip.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                dand,
                Just to be clear: are you saying AA is based on the false conception that blacks are inferior to whites?

                If that’s your view of things, then it’s really easy to see why you and some of the other commenters are talking past each other.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                “She’s gonna get everything!”

                hah!Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                no i’m referring to your statement that:

                It was intended to remedy cultural norms and social practices that prevented blacks from expressing their right to equal opportunity within society. So the anti-black racism that AA was attempting to redress wasn’t generated by, or contingent upon, formal policies, but cultural practices.

                although not that i’ve reread it i misunderstood it the first time around. i mistook your argument for another argument used by AA supporters.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                This is a progress. You misunderstood my argument, and I don’t understand yours. Given that you have a fresh take on the argument I made above, does it seem compelling to you?

                If not, in what specific way is it wrong?Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                This is a progress. You misunderstood my argument, and I don’t understand yours. Given that you have a fresh take on the argument I made above, does it seem compelling to you?

                im not sure what you mean when you say:

                And that anti-black racism isn’t individuals acting against formal policies.

                Can you give me an example of discrimination that doesn’t violate a formal policy every organization that I’m aware of has policies the prohibit discrimination on the basis of race.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Can you give me an example of discrimination that doesn’t violate a formal policy every organization that I’m aware of has policies the prohibit discrimination on the basis of race.

                Now they do! That wasn’t the case in bygone time, or the policy would never have been instituted. Right?

                You seem to be arguing that AA is inherently formally racist while my argument is that AA was instituted to ameliorate cultural racism.

                That’s a difference between us, yes? And that’s the difference I’d like to hear your thoughts on.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not sure how much there is to say. Generally speaking I don’t think thoughts are the problem I think actions are the problems. If a cop thinks racist thoughts that doesn’t harm anyone, when a cop treats black people differently that’s the problem and I have no problem firing cops who discriminate against blacks.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Generally speaking I don’t think thoughts are the problem I think actions are the problems.

                Well, you have plenty of thoughts that people seem to disagree with. Maybe thoughts aren’t such a bad thing to focus on. Especially given that the thing you think is the most important part of this is people’s actions. Are people’s actions are largely determined by their thoughts?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Aren’t people’s actions largely determined…”Report

        • Avatar A Teacher in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          Good or bad I’m not sure that telling a white girl, privileged or not, that because of a history of racism committed by ~other people~ that she has to work harder and better and smarter than someone with a different color of skin is going to help.

          I see this a lot with my students and I don’t see them becoming less racist when they’re told that they need to focus their charity work on “diverse” groups because their geography is that of other whites.

          I know part of this is that “white is easy mode”, and I think Scalzi’s article to that effect is pretty spot on.

          But we should not allow the fact that an aggregate “fairness” equates to a specific “Fairness.”

          It may be more “fair” over all that some get “bonus points” when it comes to college admission because they do not get those same bonus points in job searches, appartment searches, etc. But for the specific event of “Getting into college” it’s not fair and should not be pretended to be.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to A Teacher
            Ignored
            says:

            But she *doesn’t* have to work harder. And the thinking that she does overtly ignores her privilege. She has a great number of benefits that make it easier to situate herself well for college that are not available to most students of color.

            Would she *really* have a better shot at getting into the college of her dreams if she traded places with the average black girl? Hell frickin’ no. What she is assuming is that she could magically change her skin color yet retain every other aspect of her experience. Which is a fantasy.Report

            • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              The “choice” is not between being born Jessica in the suburbs of Pittsburgh with the sister who works for the WSJ or being born Jasmine in the suburbs of Pittsburgh with the sister who works for the WSJ.

              The “choice” is between being born Jessica in the suburbs of Pittsburgh with the sister who works for the WSJ or being born Jasmine in Hampton Roads, VA or Baltimore or Harlem with the sister who is the secretary at the WSJ.

              But a lot of white people like to think it is the former. In the vast, vast majority of cases, it is not. As the links demonstrate, the experiences of blacks and other people of color in this country is VASTLY different than their white counterparts.Report

              • Avatar A Teacher in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                The thing is that in College Admissions, it is far far far too easy to see it as just that.

                My cousin, whom I love, grew up in an affluent family, in a lovely rural suburb, attended an exclusive private school, and got amazingly good grades. Because she is 50% Hispanic she was invited to join a tour of a local large state college as a potential student during one of their “diversity outreaches.”

                She had the exact same experiences as any other “privledged white girls” but because of her mother’s ethnicity was treated as more of a scared calf in the college admission process.

                I think you’re right to say that it’s not fair for people to cry about being “oppressed white people”. But I think your choice of battlefields is incredibly poor. There are far better hills to die on for this cause than the one you’ve picked….Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                The “choice” is not between being born Jessica in the suburbs of Pittsburgh with the sister who works for the WSJ or being born Jasmine in the suburbs of Pittsburgh with the sister who works for the WSJ.

                The “choice” is between being born Jessica in the suburbs of Pittsburgh with the sister who works for the WSJ or being born Jasmine in Hampton Roads, VA or Baltimore or Harlem with the sister who is the secretary at the WSJ.

                There are black people who live in suburban locations and they still receive the benefits of affirmative action.Report

              • Avatar Kimmi in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                You ever had to worry because your son was in a car with three girls of a different race?Report

            • Avatar A Teacher in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              See, that’s a disconnect as well.

              Two kids go to the same school. They have the same social economic status growing up. They get the same grades. They get the same test scores. Their parents take them to the same extra curriculars. They do the same volunteer work.

              Because life will be harder ~Over All~ for the black girl, she gets bonus points in the college admission “game” to make up for it. The white girl, who will have an easier time ~Over All~ does not.

              So, if the white girl, in this example, wants to get into the same college as the black girl, again in this example, then the white girl will have to do more to make up that difference.

              You can talk all you want about how being white is easy mode and I generally ~agree~ with you ~OVER ALL~. But at the same time, I think that saying “hey, white is easy mode” misses the fact that for the specific event of two kids of similar back ground trying to get into the same college, the fact is that one of them will ~have~ to do more to have same shot due that whole “being white is easy mode”.

              With respect, that’s the reality: Because life, over all, is easier, we have made getting into college a little bit harder as a way to balance it out later on down the road.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to A Teacher
                Ignored
                says:

                One of the girls in my church growing up got into MIT on an “Appalachian scholarship” that was obviously created in the aftermath of Bobby Kennedy’s call to help the dirt-poor hillbillies of the region. Her dad was a wealthy abortion doctor and aerospace engineer (an odd combination) who drove a Maserati – possibly the only car of that class within fifty miles.

                I’m sure someone at MIT felt good about increasing their diversity (by accepting a rich girl who lived in a mansion on a hill), but the only real result of such policies would be luring all the rich, smart kids out of Appalachia so they end up living in Boston. (Like most poor or rural regions, “they never move back home” is a fact of life.) One could argue that AA admissions are a misguided attempt to help the chaff by separating it from the wheat.

                I’m sure others have brought up the horrible results of recruiting people into colleges that they aren’t academically prepared for (intense competition for minority students to meet quotas), which has been discussed at length by many minority academics.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to A Teacher
                Ignored
                says:

                the horrible results of recruiting people into colleges that they aren’t academically prepared

                I suspect he gets elected and invades Iraq even without getting into Yale.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to A Teacher
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes and no. We’d have to assume that those students are treated identically by their teachers and administrators (rarely the case), are treated identically by strangers on the street (rarely the case), are treated identically by the police and the criminal justice system (rarely the case).

                But even if all of that is true, you are talking about a very small handful of situations. Fewer still because it is rare that those two folks are competing for just one spot.

                Even still, if you showed me a case where that happened, I’d agree that the white student got a raw deal. And that is not necessarily how AA is supposed to work, though I am of the belief that AA can or should seek goals beyond just correcting for racism; if the school believes that a diverse student body improves the educational environment for all students, than that is something unique a student of color brings to the table and they are being weighed differently and appropriately.

                All this to say that even though I see the reason of your objection and would consider it a worthy objection to AA as a whole, it doesn’t change my specific point about the hypocrisy of folks who argue that AA is a racist blight on our nation but uppity blacks should stop whining because slavery is over. THAT is what I’m attacking… not broader critiques of AA.

                Weiss is not my target; some of her supporters are.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                I actually find the strongest argument in favor of AA to be the free speech/academic freedom angle (ie. freedom to choose the curriculum, choose the professors, and choose the student body). My small liberal arts college would have been almost entirely middle and upper middle class liberal/hippies if not for a concerted effort on the part of the school to recruit and admit kids from Gary and rural IN. And while kids from those backgrounds were always going to be a minority, trying to get a diversity of viewpoints (even through the proxy of race, geography, and class) is a worth while goal.

                With that said, I’m certainly open to arguments about reforming AA to take as little/or no account of race as possible, and that it’s unfair wrt poor/rural whites and asian studentsReport

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Gaelen
                Ignored
                says:

                One of my issues with AA in practice is poor articulation of goals. Correcting for past racism, offsetting current racism, broadening a school community, and others are laudable goals, but require different mechanisms to achieve.

                Also, in your comment below about the “margin for error”… That is a brilliantly simple way to characterize the issue. Well put. Have you ever talked to your brother about his schooling experiences and yours vis a vis race.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Thanks, we’ve talked about it, and societal perceptions more generally, a good deal (my sister is adopted from Korea so we had some diversity of experience in that regard).

                I agree with your first paragraph, and it seems supreme court precedent and our inability to talk about AA (or race generally) really hampers the articulation of coherent goals.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                I have a little personal experience (for what it’s worth) that bears on your first paragraph.

                My little brother and I had very different experiences in our suburban/rural IN high school. The school police officer standing around his locker bay, the vice principle who had a hard-on for him, the numerous times he was accused of being high (even though he rarely smoked). He was also, in addition to being seven years my junior, a better student, and citizen (ie. I was a bit of a druggie and jack*ss, he was a good kid, got a 4.0, etc.). He was also adopted and black. Its hard for me to think of other explanations for the differences in scrutiny we faced than the subtle, subconscious prejudice of those in authority.

                While everything turned out all right in the end, that increased scrutiny seriously narrows the margin of error for the kids subjected to it.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kolohe
      Ignored
      says:

      Kolohe,

      Did you read the links? A number of the control for economics.Report

      • Avatar dand in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        Unequal outcomes are not Prima facie evidence of racism.Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
          Ignored
          says:

          I repeat: Did you read the links? They go beyond simply describing unequal outcomes.Report

          • Avatar dand in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            i read the nbc and cbs links and neither of them provided any evidence of anything other than unequal outcomes.Report

            • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
              Ignored
              says:

              Let me ask this…

              What would I have to show you for you to believe that racism plays a factor in those unequal outcomes?Report

            • Avatar dand in reply to dand
              Ignored
              says:

              i just a read the one on drug arrests and it provided better of evidence of unequal treatment, however the Supreme Court justices opposed to affirmative action were the same ones who voted to strike down drug laws in Gonzales v. Raich.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s kind of a non-sequiter.

                The vast majority of people sentenced for drug offenses are sentenced in state court, and the Justices who sought to limit federal power in Raich have a dubious record on actually helping criminal defendants (see mandatory minimum sentences, three strikes laws, ineffective assistance of counsel, racial profiling, etc.).Report

      • Avatar dand in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        and when your links contain false statement such as “And the schools that educate them typically receive less state and local funding than the ones serving mainly white students” it;s hard to take them seriously.Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
          Ignored
          says:

          Citation please.Report

        • Avatar dand in reply to dand
          Ignored
          says:

          to provide a follow up here is spending per student in massachusetts http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ppx.aspx

          Boston spends $16,902 per student far more the most suburban schools spend.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
            Ignored
            says:

            A) Typically does not mean all.
            B) Per pupil spending needs to be controlled for a number of factors, which those numbers do not.

            Try again.Report

            • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              More importantly, these are pinholes, not points. “Wahhh… your article isn’t perfect. So I’ll disregard everything because the truth that they hold is inconvenient for my position.”

              Bring something substantive.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                When someone reports false information as truth it means that nothing they say is credible.
                But I was no more dismissive than you were when you said white people need to shut up and accept their collective punishment.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                I didn’t say that. And now you’re reporting false info. Credibility gone.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                that was a a paraphrase of your op.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                No it wasn’t. Read it again. And again. And try to understand who I am talking to and about. It is not all white people. It is people (of any race) who “complain about the lack of fairness or “reverse racism” of a system aimed at ending anti-black racism while simultaneously denying that we live in a society of extreme anti-black racism.”

                That is a both/and statement… people who do both of those are silly.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                you called SUZY LEE WEISS whiney, unless she has personally denied a black person equality under the law she has every right to be upset about being punished for the crimes of others.Report

            • Avatar dand in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              A) Typically does not mean all.

              ok, other districts that have a high number of minorities and their per student spending:
              SPRINGFIELD : $14,635
              HOLYOKE: $15,422

              B) Per pupil spending needs to be controlled for a number of factors, which those numbers do not.

              The statement was that schools that are largely minority receive less funding those numbers refute that statement. How does controlling numbers change that?Report

    • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Kolohe
      Ignored
      says:

      “But I look forward to a nuanced and fruitful discussion below on this topic, as is always the case on the internet.”

      space awesomeReport

  3. Avatar Mark Thompson
    Ignored
    says:

    Ugh. I realize this is just a sidebar post, but a snarky post about race is a guaranteed way to make a train wreck of a thread, even if I may agree with your underlying point (and I do). I can understand being tired of nuance and of these discussions, but if so, that’s a reason to stop participating in discussions on the topic, not to start an even more unproductive shouting match in which it is guaranteed that no one will listen to each other.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Mark Thompson
      Ignored
      says:

      Mark,

      You’re probably right. I just grow increasingly frustrated that thoughtful, nuanced pieces on racism get the same bullshit trolling as snarky ones so I went with snark. If you think this is out of place, I won’t object to you removing it. But this is the venue I have to communicate my feelings and this is what I’m feeling so I ran with it.Report

      • Avatar Shazbot3 in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        I disagree with Mark.

        A little frustration and righteous indignation is well-warranted sometimes, and you did a good job balancing the expression of that frustration through snark with being minimally polite.

        I doubt a discussion of the post will be fruitful, but somethings ought to be said, even if the discussion won’t go very far.Report

      • Avatar A Teacher in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        Thing is there will always be trolls. Always.

        I mean look at the whole “Cutting for Beiber” fiasco: Nothing but little kids playing with the internet to do as much harm as they could. Trolls through and through.

        The thing is that there has to be nuance because we’re trying to deal with “Big Injustice” at the same time that we’re committing our own “Little Injustices” along the way. And for good or bad I’ve found it’s nigh impossible to have a reasoned conversation with 95% of people at large when it comes to these kinds of issues.

        Society is a massive complex machine with millions of interacting parts. Every part turns another wheel which attaches to a dozen axels and gears. I once tried to have a conversation about Race, Crime and Poverty and simply by stating facts was labeled a racist within minutes.

        But I disagree that we should cast of nuance then. Snark is good for a laugh but it rarely goes far on its own as it too easily devolves into the traditional name calling you already see.

        That said, if it’s been bugging you, get out there. Let’s see where this train wreck lands. 🙂Report

  4. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    You know who keeps coming up with new rules? White People.Report

  5. Avatar ktward
    Ignored
    says:

    I haven’t yet read the thread’s comments. I will. But meantime, this is a New Rule I can get on board with.

    I’m only sort of a Maher fan.
    Which is to say that I like his shows because of his guest mix and their roundtable interaction, but imho Maher’s more funny than he is informed. (Contrast Stewart, who is just as funny but way more informed than Maher. Hell, even Colbert’s Jedi ways are better informed than Maher.)

    Anyhoo, isn’t this the crux of New Rules?
    That even if there might exist a rational argument buried somewhere in X position, if X position is built upon layers of hypocrisy then X’s proponents should expect to be called out. Cop a clue already.

    Myself, I prefer X be mocked and made fun of by the likes of Maher and Stewart, vs. castigated by the likes of O’Reilly/Hannity. But that’s just me.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to ktward
      Ignored
      says:

      I should say I wasn’t thinking of Maher when I started to write this but realized halfway through it was one of his shticks. Ultimately, I was too lazy to change it. I do watch his show from time to time, mostly for his guests. Your assessment is a pretty fair one; at best, he’ll clue me into something I didn’t know about but will look into elsewhere. I’ll never cite him or anything though.Report

      • Avatar Aidian Holder in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        Maher is funny when he’s not too stoned. My girl’s a big fan of his, so I see his show regular. You can just see it in his face and hear it in his voice when his loaded, and when he is his monologue isn’t sharp and he can’t keep the discussion on point. When he’s (relatively) sober he can be pretty funny.Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to ktward
      Ignored
      says:

      My basic issue with the issue in the post is that it holds that anyone who thinks they’re suffering institutional racial discrimination should shut up (or more accurately anyone who thinks such institutional racial discrimination exists). Wasn’t that exactly the position that caused the problem in the first place?

      We’re trying to remedy the legacy left by institutional racism by re-institutionalizing racism, although of a different kind and opposite bent. But the basic reason we oppose racism is because it invariably produces victims, and in fact laugh at victimless faux racism (like hating the Welsh). Inevitably our policy of AA produces victims, and some of them are going to speak out, just like every victim of racism is inclined to do. Nowadays we tell them to shut up because the institutional racism exists for the betterment of society, whereas before we told them to shut up because institutional racism exists for the betterment of society. Maybe we should try a new line.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        George,

        I’ve reiterated that this post is not about shutting down criticism of AA, but about ridiculing absurdly false and hypocritical positions.

        If you think AA is racism but what people of color face every day in this county isn’t… You’re being silly.Report

        • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          That’s actually a good line to pursue, kazzy. If we’re talking about the relative demerits of racist policies, then we’re left with a question of who’s the most racially discriminated-against group: whites or blacks. Personally speaking, I don’t think that’s a fruitful path for the “AA is discrimation against whites!” crowd to walk down.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Stillwater
            Ignored
            says:

            I guess I just whiffed on the OP since I thought that was what I was saying. Pobody’s nerfect.

            The problem is one of definitions. A great many folk think it isn’t racism if it doesn’t involve the N-word, white hoods, nooses, or Jim Crow style laws. AA qualifies as the final one of those… Hence the outrage.

            I find that wrong. And silly.Report

            • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              No, you didn’t whiff. I think we all got it right away. I’m just saying that maybe it’s useful to chase the rabbit down the hole. Eg, George talked about AA remedying a legacy of institutional racism. Does he mean cultural or governmental institutions?Report

        • Avatar George Turner in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          But blacks no longer face institutional racism (codified into law and policy), and when we find cases where they do we pursue remedies in the courts. Any such racism is not only not condoned, it’s condemned for its unfairness and injustice.

          Why do we allow colleges to have overtly racist policies to correct perceived racism that occurs somewhere other than the colleges, in places where they have no authority or responsibility? If there are racial disparities in the attainment levels of inner-city schools, why is Harvard obligated to change its entry requirements as the solution instead of fixing the inner city schools? If blacks in Chicago have trouble getting home loans, why is the solution expected in the makeup of Yale’s freshmen class?

          And the elite schools (aside from Stanford) are being very racist regarding Asians. Many schools saw their Asian enrollment peak in the early 1990’s. Since then the Asian college-age population has doubled yet Asian enrollment in elite schools declined or barely moved. (Stanford, which can’t discriminate, has indeed seen a doubling of their Asian enrollment, showing that the Asian applicants aren’t getting stupid or anything). The modern trends happen to reflect the universities’ limits on Jewish enrollment instituted in the 1920’s, just after they decided to accept Jewish applicants for the first time and panicked when they realized that Jews would become a large part of their student population instead of just a few tokens. A 1997 study found that Asians have to score a perfect 1600 SAT to get the same acceptance rate as whites with 1460 scores or blacks with an 1150.

          Yet Asians also face discrimination in society at large, sometimes quite pointed discrimination and outright hatred (some veterans still freak out over Asians). Yet in their case the remedy for general societal discrimination is more discrimination against them in university admissions, not discrimination in their favor. So the whites are hurt by discrimination in favor of blacks, but helped by discrimination against Asians and Jews.

          With so many potential victims of discrimination (pretty much everyone who’s graduated from high school), some are going to complain, and complain loudly. Telling them to shut up and hitting them with a guilt trip about what other people have to face just perpetuates the racial discrimination. It also doesn’t remedy the greater problems, as people start to compensate by undervaluing black degrees or overvaluing Asian ones, sometimes referenced in relation to the soft bigotry of low expectations.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            “But blacks no longer face institutional racism (codified into law and policy), and when we find cases where they do we pursue remedies in the courts. Any such racism is not only not condoned, it’s condemned for its unfairness and injustice.”

            Simply put, this is wrong.Report

            • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              I’ll ask you what I asked dand (and got no response)…

              What would it take to show you that quoted portion is wrong, especially if we do not conflate institutional with codified into law, as there are may other ways to institutionalize something without overt, explicit laws. But what would you have to see to change your stance on that?Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                to answer your question evidence of unequal treatment. such as a teacher giving different grades to white and black students for equal workReport

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                We have tons of that, but folks like to explain it away because it is abstract, nebulous, and not directly measurable.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                how is it not measurable?Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Not directly measureable. I’m a teacher; I’ve seen behind the grading curtain. There is a lot of subjectiveness and teachers are given a lot of latitude. I’ve seen two kids of different races engage in the same behavior garner different punishments with the explanation offered being largely about perception. The teachers involved didn’t do what they did deliberately or consciously… It’s death by a thousand paper cuts.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Not directly measureable. I’m a teacher; I’ve seen behind the grading curtain. There is a lot of subjectiveness and teachers are given a lot of latitude.

                And the same political movement the supports affirmative action opposes attempts to make grading more objective and removing latitude from teachers.

                I’ve seen two kids of different races engage in the same behavior garner different punishments with the explanation offered being largely about perception.

                that’s measurable teachers could be required to log every infraction they see and the punishment that they give out, those that treat white and blacks differently could then be fired.

                I bet if there was an attempt to fire that racist teacher that the union would be up in arms about it.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                You really need to stop with the anti-union screeds. I’m not union and while I broadly support the right to unionize, I also believe in firing incomptenent people. So stop conflating different movements and ideologies because they have an overlap of supporters.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                What anti-union screeds. You seem to think that any criticism of unions is an anti-union screed. Pointing that the same movement that supports affirmative action because of discrimination in the education system also opposes making educational standards more objective is completely relevant.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s not ecause no one here is arguing against firing racist teachers.

                Again, pinholes, not points. And you’ e demonstrated yourself to be over the lower20 so I’m done with you. Those who have more patience for silliness might engage you but you’ve done a whole lot of disingenuous talking with saying much of anything and this is getting tedious. Peace.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Those who have more patience for silliness might engage you but you’ve done a whole lot of disingenuous talking with saying much of anything

                in other words i made a point you couldn’t refute so you ran away.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                here’s another example of a public sector union defending racism:

                http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/06/01/loc_police_union_defends.htmlReport

              • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t know if this would count, but Portland Police did a study last year where they found that blacks were far more likely to be pulled over and searched for illegal substances than whites, despite the fact that the whites pulled over were significantly more likely to have illegal substances.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to Tod Kelly
                Ignored
                says:

                Great now all they need to do is figure out which cops are the ones doing the discriminating and fire them.Report

              • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                And the city leaders will have the support of local conservatives and Republicans to fire them, will they? (Hint: They won’t. Talks of trying to address it internally are being described as “PC” city bureaucrats gone amok and used as a rallying point.)

                Interestingly, everyone involved seemed genuinely surprised at the data. The story that they told themselves for years (“but we only pull them over more because they end up being guilty more often!”) held up in their heads despite the fact that they were collecting data on a daily basis that disputed that story.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Who cares what the republicans think? I’m suggesting that the solution to racist cops is firing the racist cops not affirmative action.Report

              • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh – my bad, then. I thought we were talking about whether or not institutional racism still existed in the country.

                As to the solution you suggest in this case, I of course agree. (Though I’m not certain I know of anyone that would suggest that AA was the solution to pulling people over disproportionally.)Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh – my bad, then. I thought we were talking about whether or not institutional racism still existed in the country.

                I’m sure the police department prohibits racial profiling, so I’m not sure it institualtional racism rather than individuals acting against policy.

                As to the solution you suggest in this case, I of course agree. (Though I’m not certain I know of anyone that would suggest that AA was the solution to pulling people over disproportionally.)

                The argument seems to be that affirmative action is needed to make up for the racism in other places. My solution is to get rid of the racists in other place rather than affirmative action.Report

              • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Police searching black citizens over more often despite their being less likely to be carrying illegal substances, and that practice being defended as necessary by one of the two major political parties isn’t institutional racism?

                I suspect we have a very different definition of institutional racism.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                The results Tod mentioned would be an example of institutional racism, whether that was the stated policy or not (they are officers of the state). This would be especially true if there is community support and those officers can’t/or won’t be fired. And similar policies, such as the one in NY, are explicitly racial profiling (stop and frisk designed to “instill fear” in young black males, officer being told to stop YBM 18-25).

                And on your second point. It’s been 150 since the Civil War Amendments and 50 years since the CRA, but lord knows it’s as easy as just firing the racists. I’ll go spread the good news.

                The ways race subtly affects individuals and institutions seems more complex than your making it out to be, but that’s just my opinion.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                does police department policy allow for discrimination on the basis of race? if it does then it is institutional racism. if it doesn’t then it individuals going against policy.Report

              • Avatar RTod in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                It is my understanding that institutional racism does not require written polices, simply instituional practice.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                This reminds of suits over civil rights violations before Monroe v. Pape, where, if the actions of the officer were illegal, the officer would not be deemed to be acting in his official capacity, hence no 1983 suit.

                Similarly, you can’t pick an individual to represent the state, train them to do a job, clothe them in considerable state power, and then wash your hands of anything that doesn’t conform to policy.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                could be but the exact definition doesn’t matter to me and i don’t dispute that there are racists in the police department. i don’t think it’s imposible to believe that both Aff. action and discrimination by the police are wrong.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Similarly, you can’t pick an individual to represent the state, train them to do a job, clothe them in considerable state power, and then wash your hands of anything that doesn’t conform to policy.

                no ones trying to do that.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m about done here, but you said,

                “does police department policy allow for discrimination on the basis of race? if it does then it is institutional racism. if it doesn’t then it individuals going against policy.”

                I.e., if it’s against policy it doesn’t count as institutional racism. Which is where the wash your hands reference comes in, they are still acting on behalf of and representing institutional authority (because , after all, we were talking about whether those actions were institutional racism). On that not, lets move on.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                I.e., if it’s against policy it doesn’t count as institutional racism. Which is where the wash your hands reference comes in, they are still acting on behalf of and representing institutional authority (because , after all, we were talking about whether those actions were institutional racism).

                How do you propose the department prevent any officer from ever being racist? There are individual cops who are thieves does make the department guilty “institutional theft”. If the department is ignoring the racism then that’s a problem but a few officers being racist is not institutional racism. To say that the racism is not institutional is not washing your hands of it.Report

              • Avatar Shazbot5 in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Dand,

                You’re trying to make the distinction between passive and active affirmative action and argue that only the latter is unjust to some individuals, even if it creates a more egalitarian society in the long run.

                The distinction and the argument is important, interesting, and controversial, but you are not explaining it clearly or effectively, which is pretty sad, given that it isn’t that complicated.

                Moreover, your arguments have nothing to do with Kazzy’s OP, which you could’ve easily agreed with and still be ardently against AA.

                Instead, your protestations suggest that on some level you don’t believe that there is institutional and cultural and even legal discrimination against AA’s, which is pretty disturbing.

                I won’t bother responding to any of your replies to this comment. But I suggest that you work on clarifying your positions, given that this page is generally for a higher-level of discussion than the one you seem to be wanting to have.

                Don’t mean to sound snobbish.Report

              • Avatar Shazbot5 in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Sorry, I mean “procedural” and “preferential” affirmative action, not “active” and “passive.”Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Dand,

                You’re trying to make the distinction between passive and active affirmative action and argue that only the latter is unjust to some individuals, even if it creates a more egalitarian society in the long run.

                The distinction and the argument is important, interesting, and controversial, but you are not explaining it clearly or effectively, which is pretty sad, given that it isn’t that complicated.

                Moreover, your arguments have nothing to do with Kazzy’s OP, which you could’ve easily agreed with and still be ardently against AA.

                Instead, your protestations suggest that on some level you don’t believe that there is institutional and cultural and even legal discrimination against AA’s, which is pretty disturbing.

                I won’t bother responding to any of your replies to this comment. But I suggest that you work on clarifying your positions, given that this page is generally for a higher-level of discussion than the one you seem to be wanting to have.

                Don’t mean to sound snobbish.

                The Phrase “”passive affirmative action” only has 21 matches in Google so it’s obviously not used very often. Yet you belittle me for not knowing it

                instead launching an ad-hominem and attributing positions to me that I don’t hold then running away like the cowardly jerk you are. why didn’t you respond to the posts where you don’t think a was clear enough because I didn’t use words that only exist in your mind.

                Why did I bother writing that when you’ve already stated that you’re too much of a coward respond?Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Look the jerk didn’t even know the terms he belittled be for not knowing.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                dand,

                You can say alot of things here, but you can’t call people jerks because they disagree with you. That crosses a line as far as I’m concerned.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                You can say alot of things here, but you can’t call people jerks because they disagree with you. That crosses a line as far as I’m concerned.

                I didn’t call him a jerk because he disagreed with me I called him a jerk because rather than address any points I made I launched a more general attack on my intellect for not using terms that he himself got wrong then stated that he had no intent to engage in conversation with me. If he had simply disagreed with something I said I wouldn’t have responded the way I did.

                When someone insults me and states that they don’t think I’m worthy of debating with I’m not going to treat them with much respect.Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Now hear this. Around here, Dand, we have a low tolerance for Jackassery and Google Geniuses. Passive affirmative action is what we got with the 14th Amendment, where everyone was sposta be equal — and were you any more aware of that fact, you wouldn’t be letting your mouth outrun your ass.

                Passive, insofar as nobody was made to actually do anything. Jim Crow grew up with the 14th Amendment in place.

                That’s passive affirmative action. I do so hope that definition suits you.

                And just a kindly word: do not call anyone a jerk around here or I will Hurt Your Widdle Feewings. Ask anyone around here. I have chewed up and shit out such people. Call it a minor speciality.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Now hear this. Around here, Dand, we have a low tolerance for Jackassery and Google Geniuses. Passive affirmative action is what we got with the 14th Amendment, where everyone was sposta be equal — and were you any more aware of that fact, you wouldn’t be letting your mouth outrun your ass.

                Passive, insofar as nobody was made to actually do anything. Jim Crow grew up with the 14th Amendment in place.

                That’s passive affirmative action. I do so hope that definition suits you.

                And just a kindly word: do not call anyone a jerk around here or I will Hurt Your Widdle Feewings. Ask anyone around here. I have chewed up and shit out such people. Call it a minor speciality.

                In spite of very heated debate the only time I called anyone names was after I spoken to I an extremely condescending manor by someone who couldn’t even get his own terms right and stated upfront that he (or she) thought I was beneath debating them. If I had been shown respect I would have shown in return.Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                May I refer you at this time to the League Commenting Policy. You will, henceforward, keep a civil tongue in your head around here.Report

              • Avatar dand in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                May I refer you at this time to the League Commenting Policy. You will, henceforward, keep a civil tongue in your head around here.

                did you read the post that i just made?Report

              • Avatar NewDealer in reply to Tod Kelly
                Ignored
                says:

                When I was in Portland, there was a big to-do about Portland Police officers who kept on shooting at Blacks.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                So, to prove my assertion that we don’t allow institutional racism, I have to come up with a hypothetical example of allowed institutional racism?

                Hrm… An all-white NBA team wouldn’t quite do it.

                Keep in mind that the case also requires institutional racism that inflicts measurable harm (and ideally enough to get you into Harvard), and that the required examples are always elusive or useless, kind of like claims that the Jews control Hollywood, the banking system, and the drier lint industry – which explains unrelated facts X, Y, and Z.

                I’m stumped, but I’ll keep thinking in hopes of winning a cookie. 🙂Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                Fine. Prove that AA does real harm to white folks.

                Difficult, no?Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                That example is trivially easy. An instance of a girl stating she was harmed by institutional AA was the thread that spawned this one. Not only that, but the harm knocked her out of the Ivy League. 🙂

                There are also lawsuits filed by Asian Americans.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                And she knows that the reason she wasn’t admitted to her dream school was AA because …. ? Right, she doesn’t, but AA is a handy thing to blame her disappointment on. Which is Kazzy’s point.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                That is a really perverse double-standard. Blacks claim all the time of the harm done by the racism they face. I linked to four different articles detailing harm done. But that’s not enough.

                But one white girl complains that she doesn’t get into a school she wanted to and it is all because of AA, despite offering no evidence that she would have gotten in absent AA or that she was actually harmed by going to a different institution is enough to demonstrate the evil of AA?

                Dude, seriously, that is just fucked up.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                Ah, so now there’s only one white girl who has ever complained about being denied admissions because of AA. Isn’t that like all the segregation defenders who dismissed each and every cry and protest as just a few “uppity troublemakers” who were completely unrepresentative of their happy and content brethren?

                Can you point to a black who didn’t get into a university because they were black? That used to be the case at just about all non-historically black colleges. It is no longer the case. Now have tens of thousands of whites and Asians who didn’t get into a university because they were white or Asian.

                If it used to be wrong to exclude people from a university on the basis of race, why is it now a mark of liberal progress that it’s right to exclude people on the basis of race? Even the Supreme Court has had trouble buying into it.

                Supporting institutionalized racial bias in college admissions standards, simply because some blacks are disadvantaged by life in some unrelated area, is a convenient way to dodge the underlying problems. It’s like arguing that since blacks or women aren’t making nearly as much as their white male counterparts, we’ll just give them a discount on food by giving them some stigmatizing badge of failure.

                Or universities could be more honest and say that they feel obligated to admit applicants of different races, ethnicities, nationalities, or religions in the same proportions as they exist in the high-school graduate population served by the university, and that any competition for admissions will be within those groups, not between them.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                Can you point to a black who didn’t get into a university because they were black?

                Yes. Lots of them. Whatever point you’re trying to make, that’s just stupid and borderline evil.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                If it used to be wrong to exclude people from a university on the basis of race, why is it now a mark of liberal progress that it’s right to exclude people on the basis of race?

                We’re confusing a lot of things here. First, the Ivies aren’t state run schools, so they adopt standards independently of government “this and that”. Second, there is no reason to think the Weiss was denied admission because her preferred universities were using racism as a tool to discriminate against whites. At maximum, they’re using it as a tool to promote social diversity and equality of opportunity consistent with they’re mission statements.

                Finally, Weiss made a specific argument against the “just be yourself” criterion that she assumed was sufficient to get accepted to her preferred schools. But the requirement isn’t that “just be yourself” is sufficient for *anything* wrt getting into a specific school. Rather, it’s sufficient (ostensibly anyway) for getting into schools that match the talents and abilities of that person. So her whole argument is just whacked.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                “Hrm… An all-white NBA team wouldn’t quite do it.”

                Have you seen the Minnesota Timberwolves roster, to fill out an NBA team full of white guys they had to go to Russia. 🙂Report

            • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              “But blacks no longer face institutional racism (codified into law and policy)”

              This line right here, I think, is really the crux of everything. Leaving aside that minority of consciously overt racists, I think the reason white conservatives and liberals and most minority conservatives talk past each other is because each side answers this question differently. More than that, each side sees their side as being self-evident.

              So when you have a Republican in Kansas use “n**ger-rigging” in a public forum, libs and minorities say “SEE???!!!,” and when that guy says that he isn’t really racist white conservatives say “SEE???!!!” and nobody gets why everyone doesn’t see.

              And before anyone trots out the tired “false equivalence” trope, please note I am not suggesting there is an equivalence here.Report

          • Avatar Stillwater in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            Sure some people are going to complain. That’s the way of it.

            But I have to say that the “discrimination” you’re talking about here is not imposed by government and instead the free choices of private institutions. So the complaint at that point isn’t against governmental policy. So it’s not about government. It’s about something else, which presumably can only be remedied by government intervention to rectify the injustices by private citizens acting on their preferences.Report

            • Avatar dand in reply to Stillwater
              Ignored
              says:

              But I have to say that the “discrimination” you’re talking about here is not imposed by government and instead the free choices of private institutions.

              Most of the disputes of affinitive action government run universities not private ones.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                Argh. You just keep shifting the goal posts, dude.

                You have a gripe, and you won’t be denied the legitimacy of your gripe. I get that. Unfortunately the world is a complicated place and griping doesn’t constitute an argument.Report

          • Avatar Gaelen in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            Same quote as above.

            See stop and frisk or driving while black.Report

          • Avatar Kimmi in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            Do I really fucking need to pull court cases?
            Because blacks have been winning against ninja loans these past few years. (North Carolina had a full on class action suit. YOU look it up).Report

  6. Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto
    Ignored
    says:

    This is a trainwreck.

    And I have to admit, I found the screeds about how teacher accountability and unified curriculae are somehow opposed by pro-AA supporters to be comical.

    Also, on the whole “But FDR was racist against asians” thing.

    You know who signed this abomination of a law into effect?

    That would be Calvin Coolidge.

    The Senate that passed it was majority Republican, and most of them voted in favor…just saying.Report

    • Avatar dand in reply to Nob Akimoto
      Ignored
      says:

      And I have to admit, I found the screeds about how teacher accountability and unified curriculae are somehow opposed by pro-AA supporters to be comical.

      Are you seriously denying that the bulk of the opposition towards school reform in the country comes from the left? Are you claiming that most off the opposition to standardized testing comes from the left? Are you denying that most of the people who oppose making it easier to fire teachers are on the left?

      Also, on the whole “But FDR was racist against asians” thing.

      You know who signed this abomination of a law into effect?

      That would be Calvin Coolidge.

      How is that relevant to the issue? Is the only way you see things team red and team blue? The point is that open admiration of FDR is one data point there is anti-Asian racism on the left today; the way the left talks about trade (not necessarily the trade policies they favor in and of themselves) is another data point.Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dand
          Ignored
          says:

          dand,

          FYI, comments with 2 or more links in them usually end up in moderation. We’re usually pretty quick to free them up, but it is part of the anti-spam software, as I understand it. It is the case for everyone so if you throw up a bunch of links but don’t see the comment appear, know that this is a default action and not a targeted one and, once vetted, the comment will go through.Report

      • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto in reply to dand
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m denying that standardized testing and gutting collective bargaining powers for teachers in any sense counts as “education reform”. Unified curriculum standards, more charter and magnet schools, more flexible metrics for measuring student progress tailored toward district needs, are all efforts the “left”, particularly its technocratic wonk base have supported. I would also note that so much of what passes as “education reform” is simply either an attempt to allow public subsidy of religious education or mass commodization of education, which in either case is not exactly school reform in any meaningful sense of the word.

        As for the relevance of the issue that Coolidge signed the Immigration Act of 1924, and that his party largely endorsed measures in similar scope is that “anti-Asian racism” is scarcely a left-right phenomenon as you seem to want to portray it. Further everything from the nativist “Chinese professor” ad, to ominous warnings about how the yellow folks are hoarding up American debt are all part and parcel of the political language used by the conservative movement in the US.

        Given that your angle basically seems to be “affirmative action supporters are the REAL racists”, I’m not even sure where to start on the critiques. Trolling isn’t particularly novel and your false outrage on behalf of asian-americans is both hokey and offensive.Report

        • Avatar dand in reply to Nob Akimoto
          Ignored
          says:

          I’m denying that standardized testing and gutting collective bargaining powers for teachers in any sense counts as “education reform”.

          Kazzy suggested that there was a problem with teachers treating white and black students differently, standardized tests for all their flaws don’t discriminate on the basis of race. I seems strange that the same political movement that thinks racism among teachers is a major problem would oppose moving to a grading system that is race neutral.

          As for the relevance of the issue that Coolidge signed the Immigration Act of 1924, and that his party largely endorsed measures in similar scope is that “anti-Asian racism” is scarcely a left-right phenomenon as you seem to want to portray it. Further everything from the nativist “Chinese professor” ad, to ominous warnings about how the yellow folks are hoarding up American debt are all part and parcel of the political language used by the conservative movement in the US.

          I’m not a conservative I’m a libertarian, yes there is significant ant-Asian racism among conservatives but that doesn’t isn’t the issue, the issue was that it was claimed that supporters of affirmative action aren’t motivated race, the attitude that they show towards Asians is evidence that they are.

          Trolling isn’t particularly novel and your false outrage on behalf of asian-americans is both hokey and offensive.

          Now I see you think that since I’m not a leftist that I can’t oppose anti-Asian racism.Report

          • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to dand
            Ignored
            says:

            Stop condescending. Did it ever occur to you that the League has been round and round this issue for quite some time? All the standard arguments have been made, for and against these issues. So often have we been around this prickly pear, Kazzy proposes a New Rule, a reasonably obvious one, by my lights.

            You’re at least two years late to this little party. We have long since stipulated to the fact that AA is “reverse racism”. We have also stipulated to the fact that genuine racism exists enough in American society, a good deal of it hiding behind a lot of orc-talk about Educational Reform. We have furthermore stipulated to the need for meaningful educational reforms. Many of us are actual educators. Many of us have advanced degrees. League’s debates on education rival anything currently floating around the Internet.

            For all your blethering, you have yet to say anything new or meaningful we haven’t said a hundred times around here, from Libertarian, Liberal and Conservative perspectives.

            Nobody liked AA, from the very beginning. You ask many questions, you just don’t answer any. We call that the Little Prince Syndrome around here, from Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s little book, about a little boy who asked many curious and often heartbreaking questions but didn’t answer very many asked of him. Unlike the Little Prince, your questions are neither curious nor heartbreaking.

            Wise up and pay attention. League is chock full of smart people. Even you might have something to contribute, were you willing to

            1. Copy the comment or post into a separate text editor window
            2. Think through the thread and the post, including what others have said
            3. Presume the other writers are at least as intelligent as yourself.
            4. Respond to the comment in the spirit of either
            4a. inquiry or
            4b. contradiction from what facts you may summon up.

            Helpful Hints from BlaiseP.Report

          • Avatar Gaelen in reply to dand
            Ignored
            says:

            “standardized tests for all their flaws . . .”

            Do you see what you did there? Those flaws would be a reason not to adopt testing even if that”political movement” thinks racism is a major problem. And, lo and behold, those flaws are the reason a part of that “political movement” doesn’t support those tests.

            “the attitude that they show towards Asians is evidence that they are [motivated by race]”

            This is similar to your claims that we (the left) “discriminate against Asians,” and that “there is anti-Asian racism on the left today.”

            So we have been over the FDR “evidence,” as well as your Japan example, which, in all honesty, are nonsensical as examples of liberal racism against Asians (for the reasons stated up and down this thread, which, you know, you should actually read). But a quick semantic point. You do realize that to “discriminate against” Asians with AA, the policy has to be chosen not despite of, but because of its affects of Asian Americans. Are you really suggesting that AA was chosen to keep the Asian man down?

            Because I can’t let have someone else have the last word. On the thread dealing with whether the actions of the Portland Police qualify as institutional racism. Whether or not one officer acting alone is institutional racism was, again, a non-sequiter–we were discussing Portland (remember), and whether it would be IR even if their actions were against policy (I said yes, for the reasons stated above). How many people have to be prejudiced on the scale from one – to – everybody doesn’t really interest me–kind of a pointless exercise, you know. So, agree, disagree, I don’t really care, I am officially out.

            P.S.

            If you want to take the temp down on these conversations I’d recommend not calling people racists for reasons that only you can understandReport

            • Avatar dand in reply to Gaelen
              Ignored
              says:

              Do you see what you did there? Those flaws would be a reason not to adopt testing even if that”political movement” thinks racism is a major problem. And, lo and behold, those flaws are the reason a part of that “political movement” doesn’t support those tests.

              Do you have another suggestion for how to prevent racist teachers from treating students differently? How do you suggest we deal with racist teachers? Affirmative action is a two wrongs make a right approach standardized testing is an eliminate the wrong approach.

              This is similar to your claims that we (the left) “discriminate against Asians,” and that “there is anti-Asian racism on the left today.”

              So we have been over the FDR “evidence,” as well as your Japan example, which, in all honesty, are nonsensical as examples of liberal racism against Asians (for the reasons stated up and down this thread, which, you know, you should actually read).

              Neither one of those is racist by itself, however collectively they are a strong indication of racism. If a republican said the he respected Strom Thurmond and also said that Obama was going to ship American jobs to Kenya would you consider that to be a strong indication of racism?

              . But a quick semantic point. You do realize that to “discriminate against” Asians with AA, the policy has to be chosen not despite of, but because of its affects of Asian Americans.

              1. It discriminates against Asians regardless of if it is the primary motivator or not
              2. An affirmative action program could be designed that gives Asians the same preferential treatment that blacks and Hispanic receive.

              Are you really suggesting that AA was chosen to keep the Asian man down?

              I think colleges want to keep the number of Asian from getting too high and I think affirimative action one method of doing so.

              If you want to take the temp down on these conversations I’d recommend not calling people racists for reasons that only you can understand

              I have not called one participant in this thread racist. A challenge you to show me where I have.Report

    • Avatar dand in reply to Nob Akimoto
      Ignored
      says:

      ok here’s evidence that supporters of affirmative action oppose standardized testing. here’s affirmative action supporter Erik Loomis railing against standardized tests

      here http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/08/education-reform-and-the-worthlessness-of-standardized-testing>and hereReport

    • Avatar dand in reply to Nob Akimoto
      Ignored
      says:

      ok here’s evidence that supporters of affirmative action oppose standardized testing. here’s affirmative action supporter Erik Loomis railing against standardized tests

      <a href='http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/01/standing-up-to-rheeism'<here <a href='http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/08/education-reform-and-the-worthlessness-of-standardized-testing'<and hereReport

  7. Avatar DRS
    Ignored
    says:

    I really don’t understand what the big deal is about affirmative action. It simply means that certain students – black students – get a break to get into universities. Universities give out all kinds of breaks like athletic scholarships and legacy admissions – and have for many decades longer than affirmative action – and somehow society didn’t collapse in a heap over it. If you want to increase the number of black students in a university, and after that into the middle classes, then affirmative action justifies itself.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to DRS
      Ignored
      says:

      Heh… oh DRS… but don’t you see? Those other things primarily or at least partly help white folks. AA, by definition, doesn’t. And we just can’t have that!Report

      • Avatar DRS in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        Americans might want to take a deep breath and consider why they “just can’t have that”.

        By the way, Kazzy, as a gentle reproof – sarcasm is not your forte. You’re just a bit too heavy-handed in tone for it to be successful. Stick to sincerity; it’s better appreciated.Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to DRS
          Ignored
          says:

          Well, I think the reason that they/we “just can’t have that” is because we are self-serving. Not white people… people in general. But white folks, white men in particular, have been uniquely positioned to employ policies, laws, and other structural elements to serve their own interests. Having such things in place has become a bit of an expectation because they have always been there. And while they were largely predicated on race, they were not necessarily done so explicitly, so they didn’t feel like racist actions. You start to get the “It just so happens…” defense.
          “Legacy priority isn’t racist. It’s available to anyone. It just so happens that it goes almost exclusively to white folks.” Etc.
          Ultimately, as it does so many times, it comes back to privilege. White folks, myself included, have gotten very used to privilege. Attempting to identify it and understand it is like trying to explain wetness to a fish; it so often just doesn’t compute. So many attempts to promote equity and equality seem contrary to that end, because they are taking something away from us that we have gotten very comfortable and used to having. But those are things that we have not earned and do not deserve and, as such, must make our peace with giving up and/or extending to others to build a better society.

          As for the sarcasm, thanks for the feedback. I can’t guarantee I won’t still roll it out, but I can certainly try to be more thoughtful and judicious with its usage and, when employing it, more effective.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            And allow me to share a personal story to show just how tricky this is and to demonstrate that I know not all, or necessarily even most, opposition to AA is rooted in racism.

            As I discussed in another post, I recently learned that my school’s former head had a practice of bringing in male employees at higher salaries than comparable females. This led to some big disparities in pay between the genders. While negotiating for a new contract, my boss revealed this to me as the reason she couldn’t just up my base salary. I will confess that my initial response was along the lines of, “Well, that wasn’t my fault. I deserve this raise. I need this money. Why should it be on me to fix this?” It is very, very easy to fall into that line of thinking. I get it. Fortunately, I was able to step back, put the situation in proper perspective, and my boss and I were able to work out a plan that met both our needs (my need for a raise with her need to balance unequal pay amongst the genders). Rarely are people going to take kindly to decisions that seemingly leave them in a worse position than they were before, regardless of whether they deserved that preferable position in the first place.Report

            • Avatar dand in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              Couldn’t the problem be solved by raising the pay of the female teacher to the same level as the men? I don’t think anyone would object to that.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to dand
                Ignored
                says:

                And the solution to the college admissions problem is for the Iyys to admit all qualified students. Problem solved!Report

              • Avatar DRS in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                John Scalzi nails it on a recent post (about women and gaming, but still apropos):

                I think people are inherently conservative about social structures that favor them, because a) duh, and b) most people assume their own life experience is similar to other people’s even when they’re told otherwise and are given specific examples. When they’re confronted with this ignorance, they feel defensive and feel like the real problem is the person who is complaining, because they themselves are not bad people, therefore the person making them feel bad must be.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to DRS
                Ignored
                says:

                That is really well said, DRS. Thanks for sharing.

                Will and I had an exchange recently wherein we discussed how people might best come to understand how oppression works by actually experiencing oppression… not assumed victimhood… but actual oppression. In a sort of warped and twisted way, that idea is present in this post: if AA really *is* oppression of whites, then perhaps that should make whites more empathetic towards people of color and other groups who face more regular oppression. For whatever reason, it doesn’t. It is just too hot button an issue.

                This is not to say that we should go about oppression privileged folks to make them more empathetic… no… the goal is less oppression, not more. But when there are times where someone is really made to feel oppressed or uncomfortable or disempowered… a frank and fruitful conversation along the lines of, “How did that feel? Really shitty, right? Really unsettling? Perhaps giving into despair by the end? What if I told you there were folks who faced that every day?”

                Along similar lines is that guest post we received about a world where the burden of proof in rape accusations is flipped. As a man reading that piece, I grew increasingly uncomfortable with what that world would like then… and when it was hammered home that that imagined world was how the real world works for women… damn… powerful moment.Report

  8. Avatar Gaelen
    Ignored
    says:

    Right, because money grows on trees.Report

  9. Avatar Brandon Berg
    Ignored
    says:

    Kazzy:
    The claim about health outcomes has some pretty awkward counterexamples to contend with. For one, Asians and Hispanics both have generally better health outcomes than whites. This is arguably unremarkable in the case of Asians, as they have SES comparable to whites (though this in itself poses a challenge to the “racism causes poverty” hypothesis, as does the high SES of Jews) and lower rates of obesity. Hispanics, however, have markedly lower SES, much lower rates of health insurance, higher rates of obesity, and—perplexingly, since metabolic syndrome seems to accelerate all of the most common causes of nonviolent death—higher rates of diabetes.

    Moreover, men have worse health outcomes than women, and commit suicide at much higher rates. Shall we attribute this to societal misandry?

    The problem with the “It’s the racism, stupid” hypothesis is that you need to do so much cherry picking to make it work out. Ignore the superior health outcomes of Hispanics. Ignore the superior socioeconomic and educational outcomes of Asians and Jews. Ignore the fact that whites commit suicide at rates much higher than other races, and men* at much higher rates than women. Ignore the fact that women live longer than men, and have higher educational attainment. And hey, look at that! We have a model that implicates racism for the poor health and socioeconomic outcomes of blacks.

    *Women aren’t a race, but they’re alleged to be oppressed in a manner not entirely dissimilar to racial minorities.Report

  10. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    “No one is allowed to complain about the lack of fairness or “reverse racism” of a system aimed at ending anti-black racism while simultaneously denying that we live in a society of extreme anti-black racism.”

    Sorry, YOU don’t tell me what I can and cannot do. We all know racism exists and we know it occurs on all color sides. Not talking about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. All of it is still wrong. No one should get a pass for it but there are plenty of anecdotal examples that some groups do and some do not. That is not acceptable.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *