You cannot create institutional and systemic racism against white people. White is the cultural norm in the US: everything is default to white perspective and whiteness is considered the most desireable state. Even if a minority treats an individual white person badly, that white person can typically walk away from that encounter without being affected, nor have that sentiment compounded by society at large every day of their life. Furthermore, policies like affirmative action recognize how badly minorities have been treated both historically and today, so the policy attempts to make a (small) correction for that imbalance.
> Isn't the idea equality? Having everyone playing by the same rules regardless of race?
Yes, but the rules are not evenly applied. People of color are disproportionately affected by the economic and political systems of the US. We live in a state of unfair treatment for people of color right now, eliminating things like affirmative action will not change that reality.
> Example (in my own home state, no less) For jobs offered on native lands, the advertisements are allowed to say "Indian preference applies" - which means exactly what it sounds like. Isn't this wrong on a number of levels?
The only thing wrong here is your sentiment. It is really clear you have no idea how badly native peoples in the US are treated. Native people are much more often victims of violent crime. Most native populations have been wiped out by colonial settlers, and those that survived have been forced from their homelands. Native territories are forbidden from prosecuting criminals under their own laws, leaving them unable to provide legal protection against violent crimes. Racist attitudes towards native peoples are extremely prevalent and popular culture constantly attempts to assimilate native culture as a perpetuation of the colonial settler genocide of native peoples. Giving a native person a job is the least US society could do, when it should be doing things like returning stolen lands and providing permanent economic support for those native nations that still exist.
>..that white person can typically walk away from that encounter without being affected
Meaning, what? I'm not "affected" because I have to deal with someone who, say, hates white people?
>Yes, but the rules are not evenly applied.
Aha. Sounds like the problem is here. The laws we have need to be applied correctly, instead of inventing new and questionable ones.
>The only thing wrong here is your sentiment.
Any "sentiment" you see is purely of your own invention. I mentioned a fact (namely an ad in a newspaper), and asked how that is not wrong. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of the race of the person doing it.
Put another way, the cure to discrimination is not more discrimination, and it's frankly idiotic to assume that it is.
I'm beginning to think race discussions are becoming the new religious discussions. People are incapable of discussing it without moralizing, preaching, or talking down.
> Meaning, what? I'm not "affected" because I have to deal with someone who, say, hates white people?
The problem is mainly that a white person only needs to deal with racism on a personal level, and this racism is easy to ignore and "walk away" from.
A black person or latino has to not only deal with racism from individual people, but also inequities that are the result of our society. What are these inequities?
Here's a list of some:
- lower representation in government
- stereotyping in movies and popular culture
- lower representation in institutions of higher education
- lower representation in the workforce
- more difficulty growing and getting promoted once hired
- assumption that he or she might be residing illegally (this applies mainly to latinos)
Now you might say, "but what if blacks and latinos just aren't suitable for our government, educational institutions, workforce, and popular culture?" Or "what if they just don't want to participate?"
So now the real question becomes, "so how do you encourage them to participate? Or would you prefer to be a society that deliberately ignores a portion of its population?"
And this isn't even mentioning the fact that children don't get to chose where they grow up, who their parents are, and what the color of their skin is. I'm very happy that I didn't grow up black in Compton, and I'm sure you would also feel the same.
We are a byproduct of our surroundings, and until we can eliminate the gang violence, substance abuse, etc. etc. that surrounds a lot of children (predominantly minorities), it seems that the best we can do is lower the barrier to entry for "a different life." Which part of that is racist against white people?
>Now you might say, "but what if blacks and latinos just aren't suitable for our government, educational institutions, workforce, and popular culture?"
Except I wouldn't say that, because first, it doesn't make any damn sense, and second, it's the kind of ignorant tripe you'd expect to hear a white supremacist say.
Ah, my bad -- the sentence was phrased a bit poorly. By "suitable" I meant "good for the job" -- ie there may not be a large enough pool of talent available to fill necessary roles appropriately. There's a common argument that, "maybe they just don't want the jobs" adequately explains and justifies the situation. I didn't mean it personally in any way, nor did I mean that your position automatically includes that kind of an opinion :-)
shantanubala did a good job talking about some of your points, so I don't have any thing particular to add. However, the fact that you see something wrong with providing help in finding employment for native people speaks volumes about how you feel about native peoples with regard to how they interact in US society. You call decisions that include race as a factor as discrimination, but that ignores the long legacy and reality of discriminatory policies and social norms in the US as they relate to people of color.
> I'm beginning to think race discussions are becoming the new religious discussions. People are incapable of discussing it without moralizing, preaching, or talking down.
That you yourself took a position to defend normative ideas that actively perpetuate real, actual violence and harm is a sign you yourself, whether you realize it or not, have taken a position of talking down and over the actual experiences of people of color. The reason why people take race discussion seriously is because for people of color these things are not just discussions, but the real existence they face every single day.
>However, the fact that you see something wrong with providing help in finding employment for native people
I didn't say this. I said that stating a racial preference in an employment advertisement is wrong and discriminatory regardless of the noble aims of the reasons those ads exist.
>That you yourself took a position to defend normative ideas that actively perpetuate real, actual violence and harm
What the actual fuck are you talking about?! Saying that all discrimination is wrong perpetuates violence and harm?? Explain yourself, please. I don't appreciate being tarred with the racist brush for trying to comprehend this.
Well, you directly said you found racial preference for native people in job ads is "wrong on a number of levels" (originally phrased as a rhetorical question). But we know that native people suffer in a systemic way in US society, so they do need targeted help and policies on the basis of race in order to allow them to have the equal participation in society they deserve (and to help them not be disproportionately affected by violent crimes).
Institutional racism isn't just about discrimination, but rather prejudice combined with power. This isn't just about attitudes alone, as we are talking about real policies and incidents that are a direct reflection of racist attitudes. This instance of a job ad with a stated preference for native peoples is discriminatory, yes, but that is wholly acceptable given the state the US and its policies have put native peoples in.
The notion that affirmative action is racist or unfairly discriminatory is a perpetuation of the current racist institutions in the US. It supposes that the experience of people of color is not valid, and that their experiences and lives do not need nor deserve any consideration, ignoring the institutional oppressions that effect them. In the absence of targeted programs to help people affected by institutional racism, that kind of structural oppression thrives.
> Saying that all discrimination is wrong perpetuates violence and harm??
Your message isn't just that all discrimination is wrong. You quite clearly took aim at the behavior of and policies directed towards minorities as wrong or unjust. This ignores the main point: the behavior and policies of the majority have been wrong and unjust, and small programs and policies to help start to correct this are totally and wholly appropriate. This isn't about treating the majority (read: white) population unfairly, but looking at the numbers, seeing how the policies, laws, and enforcement of laws supported by that majority have negatively affected people of color at rates much higher than whites, and taking action to begin to address that.
You scoff at a job ad mentioning they give a preference native applicants, but are thinking about the long history of blood and violence that has occurred and continues to occur to those people? Of course they deserve a better shot at a job (not too mention they deserve much more). The notion of unfair discrimination towards whites as a result of affirmative action policies for jobs and education is a false equivalence.
>This instance of a job ad with a stated preference for native peoples is discriminatory, yes, but that is wholly acceptable given the state the US and its policies have put native peoples in.
You agree that it's discrimination. Finally.
So discrimination is okay in certain circumstances.
.. I find that hard to accept. Again, you're proposing that the answer for discrimination is more discrimination. What does violent crime and equal participation in society that you keep bringing up have to do with allowing one group to do something we don't allow any other group to do?
What does allowing this accomplish that enforcing the existing equality laws does not? (Referring to EEO and EEH acts, if they are applied like they should be?) Legally, how does this not fall afoul of the equal protection laws as defined in the constitution?
On a more practical level, wouldn't it be more beneficial for everyone involved (the employeer, the employee, society at large) for someone hiring for a position to choose the most qualified person for the job rather than selecting explictly for racial background?
>Your message isn't just that all discrimination is wrong. You quite clearly took aim at the behavior of and policies directed towards minorities as wrong or unjust.
That is my message, and whatever other subtext you choose to read into it is entirely between you and your keyboard. Knock it off.
I don't feel particularly discriminated against here, so I hardly have a dog in this hunt. I don't like how I'm not allowed to question a discriminatory law without being presumed racist. Basically pointing and asking "WTF?" is what I'm doing here.
> So discrimination is okay in certain circumstances.
Yes absolutely, we discriminate all the time and discrimination is a morally neutral thing. I think you are mostly speaking about racial discrimination, because most people most certainly support discrimination for, say, a choice between skilled and unskilled people when hiring for a particular job role.
> What does violent crime and equal participation in society that you keep bringing up have to do with allowing one group to do something we don't allow any other group to do?
Well, as a society we DO allow some groups to do things that other groups do not. A lot of basic human rights revolve around letting people do things that some group of others do not, for example attending particular religious service. Again, I think you are getting at that we as a society do not allow racist discrimination in our society due to the harms that come from racism.
> What does allowing this accomplish that enforcing the existing equality laws does not? (Referring to EEO and EEH acts, if they are applied like they should be?) Legally, how does this not fall afoul of the equal protection laws as defined in the constitution?
I do not know much about the EEO and EEH programs you mention, so I can't really comment on those specific things. However, there is a great body of evidence that shows right now, in our current legal framework, there are racial injustices and disparities. For new legislation and policies, then question then becomes can this inequality be addressed through the law, and if so how. How any given program or policy interacts with equal protection under the law isn't an answering question without more specific questions about policy, as in the US the legal system and Supreme Court have both accepted and rejected laws and programs that do seek to fix racial inequality. To date, though, affirmative action programs have been found to be valid within certain criteria, so the allowed existence of such programs is not in question here.
> On a more practical level, wouldn't it be more beneficial for everyone involved (the employeer, the employee, society at large) for someone hiring for a position to choose the most qualified person for the job rather than selecting explictly for racial background?
It is a common misconception that affirmative action programs mean that unqualified people will be hired or admitted to an educational institution. Generally such programs include race as a factor when comparing alike, qualified candidates. How exactly these processes work will depend on specific programs, some of which have been found to not be legal in the US and were struck down (but affirmative action itself remains legal and valid). Further, there is a large cost to societies that keep populations based on race, age, disability, and economic class suppressed or excluded from education, jobs, equal legal protection, and personal integrity (among other things), so policies that can address those societal problems do have a measurable benefit.
Lastly, I meant to say that you were presenting the notion that policies that benefit minorities were wrong and unjust by questioning the need for those policies: that says to me that you either aren't familiar with the data about this or that you are familiar with that data and still don't believe it and would prefer a world without policies that help addressed our most fundamental inequalities as a society. This is my last post on this, if you would like to learn more, there are far better sources than I a Google search away.
> Isn't the idea equality? Having everyone playing by the same rules regardless of race?
Yes, but the rules are not evenly applied. People of color are disproportionately affected by the economic and political systems of the US. We live in a state of unfair treatment for people of color right now, eliminating things like affirmative action will not change that reality.
> Example (in my own home state, no less) For jobs offered on native lands, the advertisements are allowed to say "Indian preference applies" - which means exactly what it sounds like. Isn't this wrong on a number of levels?
The only thing wrong here is your sentiment. It is really clear you have no idea how badly native peoples in the US are treated. Native people are much more often victims of violent crime. Most native populations have been wiped out by colonial settlers, and those that survived have been forced from their homelands. Native territories are forbidden from prosecuting criminals under their own laws, leaving them unable to provide legal protection against violent crimes. Racist attitudes towards native peoples are extremely prevalent and popular culture constantly attempts to assimilate native culture as a perpetuation of the colonial settler genocide of native peoples. Giving a native person a job is the least US society could do, when it should be doing things like returning stolen lands and providing permanent economic support for those native nations that still exist.