Saturday, April 1, 2023
All One in Christ on Bookmark Brief
All One in Christ: A Catholic Critique of Racism and Critical Race Theory for the television programs EWTN Live and EWTN Bookmark. They will be aired in the coming weeks, but a preview of the Bookmark interview has already appeared on Bookmark Brief with Doug Keck. You can view it here.
Posted by Edward Feser at 11:45 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
About 2:40 of the linked preview you speak, to the effect of, folks on the left might be opposed to the radicalism or extremism of CRT. I am not so sure the issue for leftish folks is radicalism or extremism per se (lefties typically don't mind a bit of radicalism), rather, some of your other points about CRT itself having racist elements and other defects of false premises and faulty reasoning.
CRT gets correct that the logical explanation for inequality of outcomes by race is racism. What else would explain inequality of outcomes, actual racial inferiority of mental capacity? If there is somebody here who is willing to assert that racial minorities have lower outcomes because they are on average genetically mentally deficient I would be interested in the citations one would have to support such a claim.
But when was, or is, this widespread racism causing inequality of outcomes? It is pretty obvious how that would be the case during slavery and Jim Crow. Also pretty easy to see how that would be the case Northern style, that is, more subtle but still very real racial discrimination.
But what about today, April 1, 2023? I submit that social inertia has a lot of mass, as it were, so it is going to take some more generations to flush out the very real damage done by historical racism of the recent past.
A proponent of CRT might say "when I see inequality of outcomes I see racism". I agree with that statement, but probably not in the way the proponent of CRT would find agreement. I see the primary root cause of today's inequality of outcomes as historical racism, redlining, job discrimination, Jim Crow, and slavery.
Social inertia carries forward in time the very damaging effects of historical racism, even in the unrealistic ideal that racism is no longer a factor in the present day.
But if social inertia acting on historical racism is what accounts for present day inequality of outcomes then that lends credence to another CRT assertion, that of systemic racism. After all, that is what the perpetuation of unequal outcomes is, a social system that has the oppressive effects of historical racism so baked into the fabric of our society that inequality of outcomes persists even for generations after the racist laws have all been repealed.
But what sort of system? It can't be racist laws per se because we just said they have all been repealed. Systemic racism must then be other sorts of systems, such as lingering geographic concentrations of urban poverty, crime, broken families, joblessness, and social decay. Systemic racism could also take the form of remaining unwitting or overt biases in hiring, policing, and sentencing.
It is interesting that you pretend interest in justice through commenting on the CRT insanity, but fail to acknowledge the increasing, murderous, hatred based attacks on Christianity and Christians around the world, such as exemplified in Israel by the Haaretz article of March 26, cited here a few days ago.
Your New Atheist cult helps to inspire such hatred for religion in general and Christianity in particular but, as usual, you deal with your obvious responsibility by ignoring it.
So it's pretty sickening to see you pretending, through commenting on the CRT insanity, an interest in actual justice, which, of course, in the effect of your own words posted here, is an incoherent concept, there being nothing to sensible reality in your insistent view but deterministic motion. If no one really has a choice then holding a person responsible for what he does is unjust. I can coherently talk about justice because I am not a follower of your views (which are wholly based on circularity) but your talk about justice is necessarily incoherent.
Check out the daily news to find out about the hatred based attacks right here in the USA to see the effect of inspiring hatred for Christianity such as your "work" on this site.
The CRT insanity provides you with no real excuse at all to be concerned with the concept of justice which you abuse - abuse motivated by hatred for freedom such as you necessarily evince in your dying cult's attempt to do as much social harm as possible through your solipsistic insistence that truth radiates from the interior of your head and from nowhere else.
You post nothing but selfish, hatred inspired and inspiring, garbage.😀
All, beware the harmful misleading nut addressed here. Remember the murders inspired by such hatred.
"I see the primary root cause of today's inequality of outcomes as historical racism, redlining, job discrimination, Jim Crow, and slavery."
The USA, by design, creates and cultivates those kinds of problems. None of that can ever be resolved.
There is no ancient culture here, no shared history that could conceivably unite everyone. The founding of this place is based on greed, exploitation, treason and war.
It's like trying to forcefully salvage a marriage in which both partners have horribly abused and betrayed each other for years. The only answer is to dissolve such a union and allow those people to go their separate ways.
Of course that doesn't preclude forgiveness or imply that we cannot all be brothers and sisters in Christ. But even the Catholic Church has provisions to nullify a marriage which in retrospect was never truly blessed by God.
CRT gets correct that the logical explanation for inequality of outcomes by race is racism.Delete
So, the higher rate of blacks than whites in the NBA, especially the vastly higher rates considered with respect to their proportions of the US population, is per se proof of racism.
Good to know.
What else would explain inequality of outcomes, actual racial inferiority of mental capacity?
So, the cultural relativists who assert that in other (non-western, non-white) cultures that place a higher value on, say, EQ (emotional (intelligence) quotient) than IQ, and that this explains their higher scores of EQ than in western white culture, are wrong, it's really racism that is the cause of this inequality? Good to know: Their racism is why they score higher on EQ tests than western whites do.
It is just as improper to assert mental inferiority to some races as opposed to others, as it is to assert basketball inferiority or EQ inferiority to some races as opposed to others.
Or, just as proper, speaking in general and by principle: if ALL inequality is because of racism, then that applies to ALL categories and attributes; or if it is not true of some categories, then it MIGHT be not true of X category, whatever X is. They stand and fall together. If it is possible for one race to have attributes that make it that they can be better at X than other races (whatever X is), then it is possible for Y, where Y is something different from X. That is: superiority of some sub-population regarding X attribute of humans cannot be ruled out in principle, just because we would LIKE all humans to have X equally. The reality is that lots of human sub-populations excel in certain traits and fall deficient in others, and finding out which ones takes actual data, not just applying a principle that everyone SHOULD be equal in all traits. For example:
Melanoma is about 20 times more common in white people than in Black people.
The idea that whites must have the same rate of susceptibility to melanoma as blacks because "equality" is a category mistake.
Keeo on posting, Stardusty. You ain't harming no one.Delete
Keep up your good work in providing an alternative pole of thought on this blog to the usual in-house mentality of many of the contributors, and do not be dismayed ( in fact best to simply ignore ) the endless frankly deranged attacks upon you by the clearly unstable Tom Cohoe.
Stardusty is generaly to be ignored, but his reasoning here do have some logic. My knowledge of the EUAs situation is quite limited, but it is not the case that slavery, Jim Crow Laws and all that systematic racism of the past did create big inequalities that do still make a diference today? Notice that this is weaker that what is claimed by CRT and sure does not necessitates that we listen to their "corrections" of that.
It sure is true were i live that the ways things were back them still perpetuate a inferior sittuation of some groups and things do look less tense that there, so why spend all that energy on Stardusty writing like a idiot instead of his point?
"That is: superiority of some sub-population regarding X attribute of humans cannot be ruled out in principle,"
Indeed. And that fact is a sort of third rail in scientific circles.
I was speaking of overall socioeconomic success in the USA, not relatively isolated traits or relatively isolated populations.
CRT is with respect to the entire population of the USA, our entire social system, and pervasive broad based social structures.
"cultures that place a higher value on, say, EQ"
I specifically used the word "genetically". Cultural evolution and biological evolution occur by very different mechanisms, while it cannot be ruled out in principle that the two sorts of evolution could be linked.
"It is just as improper to assert mental inferiority to some races as opposed to others, as it is to assert basketball inferiority or EQ inferiority to some races as opposed to others"
Here you are conflating mental, athletic, cultural, and biological differences, which makes it difficult for me to separate out your precise assertion(s).
"Melanoma is about 20 times more common in white people than in Black people."
Assuming that is a statistical fact, do you know of plausible biological mechanisms to account for this? I don't, but perhaps you do. Maybe, say, dark skin providing more protection against the sun, or perhaps some recessive gene more common in Neanderthal gene carriers, or something (just spitballing here)?
Are you suggesting that black Americans have a genetic predisposition toward lower scholastic achievement, lower measures of employment, and higher rates of incarceration? If so, I would be interested in your supporting citations for such assertions, if you are indeed making such assertions.
Anonymous April 2, 2023 at 1:02 PMDelete
"...historical racism, redlining, job discrimination, Jim Crow, and slavery."
"The USA, by design, creates and cultivates those kinds of problems. None of that can ever be resolved."
Slavery cannot be resolved?
Jim Crow cannot be resolved?
Job discrimination cannot be resolved?
Redlining cannot be resolved?
I submit your pessimism has blinded you to great factual progress.
I don't know how old you are or what your personal experiences have been, but I have lived from a time of legal segregation and legal overt racial discrimination to a time where we have become highly integrated and discrimination is very much illegal.
I work for a large corporation and we go through all sorts of diversity training, sexual harassment training, and ethics training of many sorts, and that is pretty much universal with all large American corporations now.
And not so much out of the goodness of their corporate hearts, although at a personal level we all agree with the messages in the training. A real incentive for corporations is to avoid damaging lawsuits by doing their due diligence in making corporate anti-discrimination policies crystal clear.
I have seen integration work with this youngest generation. The kids I work with don't care much at all about race, it just is not that big of a deal in schools where integration has been successful.
I see shades of your pessimism in CRT. An unwillingness to stay the course with integration, an impatient pessimism that cries out for separation while blinded to our overall trajectory of positive progress I have in fact seen very strongly in my lifetime.
You know, Anon, I gotta tell you, the USA is such a great country that we dedicated a national holiday to a guy who was jailed under racist laws, very literally branded a criminal under racist laws. Yeah, that guy, you can find his mug shots on line.
But America is such a great country that we change, we look for change, we are introspective and self correcting. We don't have kings or dictators, rather, we have a constitution and the rule of law.
And we change fast, relatively, perhaps not always for the good, depending on who you ask, but generally, toward increasing freedom, increasing equality, increasing personal rights across the board.
So, Anon, I will not be joining the pessimism and separatism of CRT, or that you similarly express.
A nation that makes a national hero out of a man jailed under racist laws is a nation moving in generally the right direction.
OBTW, Barack Obama (2 terms), Thurgood Marshall, Raphael Warnock (Georgia, really?), Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Lloyd Austin and on and on and on. Don't even bother trying to tell me it can't be resolved.
Assuming that is a statistical fact, do you know of plausible biological mechanisms to account for this? I don't, but perhaps you do. Maybe, say, dark skin providing more protection against the sun,Delete
Several of the websites I looked at that confirmed that much higher rate of melanoma in whites than in blacks indicated that it is, specifically, due to higher melanin content in the skin of blacks, and one site mentioned a specific biochemical reason for that result. I saw no reason for these sites to be saying this from some bias.
Are you suggesting that black Americans have a genetic predisposition toward lower scholastic achievement, lower measures of employment, and higher rates of incarceration?
Actually, I am not. I have heard some people well-informed about the facts strongly indicate that the differences in "socioeconomic outcomes" for blacks vs. whites in the US is largely due to cultural differences, and I tend to credit their findings. One, Thomas Sowell, reports credibly that the results of socioeconomic standing for blacks of West Indies descent in the US being vastly closer to that of whites in the US implies that it is mainly due to the ways in which the culture of blacks in the US who are not of West Indies descent differs from the US culture of the blacks who are from West Indies descent, that is the (at least in part) the culprit in the socioeconomic results.
In any case, I would not be in the least perturbed to find that if one were to figure out how to test genetically and exclude culture, blacks tend to have higher intelligence than whites, or better health, or higher rates of industriousness, or any other good trait that COULD have an inheritable component. There is nothing in biology that precludes this.
CRT is with respect to the entire population of the USA, our entire social system, and pervasive broad based social structures.
CRT makes claims broader than the USA and its population and culture.
I was speaking of overall socioeconomic success in the USA, not relatively isolated traits or relatively isolated populations.Delete
Biologists speak of "populations" because they can identify groups that are either wholly or partially distinct or isolated. They don't have to be absolutely, 100% isolated to be distinguishable. Two populations can be distinct enough to IDENTIFY them, even if in fact there was a small amount of cross-breeding. Most of the so-called "races" of humans are distinct enough to be considered as "populations" at least for some purposes, even though there is certainly difficulty at the edges in identifying certain individuals. The very use of the terms "whites" and "blacks" in CRT constitutes an acceptance of these terms as referring to (more or less) identifiable populations, in spite of the fact of it being difficult at the margins to specify.
As long as the is enough difference to even distinguish two groups as separate populations, there could be (in theory) other differences between them than just the explicit marks by which they are distinguished into the two groups. One group, say, might be taller than the other, even though only by 1 inch on the average, and (thus) it was never before noted as part of what made them be distinguished into groups. The fact that height wasn't used to identify the groups doesn't mean that height cannot be different between the two groups. They might have all sorts of differences. Most of the differences might be relevant only in tiny ways, while others might be relevant only with the discovery or application of some new feature of the world: say, blacks might have something genetic that withstands deep space conditions better than the Chinese do.
Frankly, I simply don't care about the genetic differences much, as I view all races of humans as "human" first, i.e. having a rational nature, an immortal soul, and thus able to be united by love with God in eternity. All the other differences are secondary to that. Whites might have lesser intelligence, more of good eyesight in the blue wavelengths, and lesser resistance to obesity than other races, and none of that would affect being made in the image of God.
Some people, either claiming to support or to renounce CRT, do not really care about it at all, although they can admire the circularity by which "experts" demand the exclusion from effective public comment of those they deem to be outside their nice little club😀.
"Equality", "justice", "freedom" and other words of similar ring mark worthwhile goals but are also prone to usage as rally words for corrupt causes of the type which are endemic in America and deep seated in America. Leveling of differences as a source of power is the goal of radical haters of all sorts, inspired by haters of religion and true freedom of choice. We see these New Atheists, a dying cult of death but surviving temporarily from inertia in social effect. They only damage the achievement of the true, continually necessary, rebalancing of equality, justice, and freedom, the way a monomaniacal nut at the wheel will put a car into the ditch, all the while falsely claiming credit for keeping the car on the road.
The dying New Atheist cult, engendering hatred for religion, always an important sign of malevolence, is the type that leads in hatred and ultimately to massive violent death.
Follow sd's "guidance" (it is mis-guidance) at your peril. He has not yet understood the difference between logic and reason, and cannot, because he wills not to escape from the circularity of determinist ignorance.
Beware this pretender, ensconced in corporate culture, empowered to misguide through intimidation, harming a free society's self guidance, who answers by ignoring, reifying (he is allowed to), and engaging in other fallacies of driven thought.
"The very use of the terms "whites" and "blacks" in CRT constitutes an acceptance of these terms as referring to (more or less) identifiable populations,"
Yes, the simultaneous claim that race is wholly a social construct while also speaking so realistically of race with respect to how racist white people are asserted to be, well, it seems self contradictory to me.
"between the two groups. They might have all sorts of differences"
Right, with average height and body mass being an objectively measurable difference, and there are such measurable differences. I do not know of any professional American basketball players of Southeast Asian decent, maybe there have been some, dunno. But people from Southeast Asia simply are relatively small in physical size.
In principle the brain could vary by population too, but I am not aware of any credible scientific evidence to suggest a genetic predisposition among various American subpopulations that would account for observed socioeconomic disparities.
That being the case the primary root cause for observed disparities in socioeconomic disadvantage for black Americans is racism in the form of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, job discrimination, educational discrimination, and law enforcement discrimination.
The farther back in time the more devastating the oppression of blacks by whites. When I see inequality of outcomes, meaning average socioeconomic disadvantage for blacks, I see racism of whites perpetrated against blacks.
I also think CRT gets the mechanism of perpetuation badly wrong. Yes, the racist oppression of blacks by whites got baked into our social structures, but not by persistent racism in the hearts and minds of modern whites, for the most part.
Racial disadvantage has been perpetuated culturally and economically. Advantage gets passed from generation to generation as does disadvantage. Individuals can and often do find ways to break out and succeed in spite of a disadvantaged upbringing, but those tend to be the dramatic success story exceptions we like to hear about and may aspire to.
The reality is that whole sub populations tend to perpetuate their advantages and disadvantages based on the education level, income, and assets of ones parents, as well as the living conditions one is born into.
Legal discrimination really was not all that long ago, within living memory, and you don't even need to be all that old to remember it.
So, I agree with CRT that the root cause of inequality of outcomes overall for black Americans is racism, and indeed the oppressive effects of that racism remain significantly baked into our social structures.
But CRT gets badly wrong that the mechanism of perpetuated disadvantage would be present day racism in the hearts and minds of virtually all white people today.
Further, I will never abide any sort of separation or national divorce. Stay the course with integration, it is working. I will agree with Catholics in one respect, divorce is indeed a sin.
Me: "It is just as improper to assert mental inferiority to some races as opposed to others, as it is to assert basketball inferiority or EQ inferiority to some races as opposed to others"Delete
Stardusty: Here you are conflating mental, athletic, cultural, and biological differences, which makes it difficult for me to separate out your precise assertion(s).
No, I am not "conflating", you misunderstand the terms of the debate. I am raising identifiable differences. Until it is proven by DATA and thorough analysis, you cannot know whether any one of those differences are, or are not, SOLELY due to genetic or environmental factors, or (if environmental) whether culture is one of them or not. Some might assert that greater "athletic ability" in blacks is, indeed, determined by genetics, or more by genetics than other factors. Some might assert that EQ is also. We couldn't rule those assertions out except by doing the actual research. Since we have not done that research, it remains an open question. So asserting that one of them "IS" so-called "cultural" without first having figured out, say, whether the cultural differences are, themselves, due also to genetic factors, is non-scientific.
Just as, by the way, asserting that a current cultural difference "IS" due to certain specific unjust cultural differences from the past, without having done the research that proves it. What is highly likely is that some portion of it is due to unjust cultural factors from the far past, some from unjust cultural factors from 1 or 2 generations ago, and some from OTHER CAUSES that are not, themselves, arising from those stated unjust causes. The notion that we have sufficient science to actual pin down the ratios and relationships of those many causes is rather pie-in-the-sky.
sd says, "I agree with CRT that …"
I wonder why he would _agree_ with the fake, self-selected exclusive club's CRT method of attacking people … that … _anything_. It's like saying that he agrees with the people who say that mould (fungal mould) can be used to make good bricks … that bricks are good.
"Legal discrimination really was not all that long ago, within living memory, and you don't even need to be all that old to remember it."
"Discrimination" means "making a choice". For an insistent determinist, there is no such thing, so talk about "legal" discrimination can only be a means to the power to bully people. People not committed to determinism understand that they must make choices - i.e., discriminate - all the time. The dying New Atheist cult's abuse of power uses the threat that a discrimination - choice - is "illegal" to threaten, marginalise ("cancel"), and otherwise hurt people, all the while the New Atheist's hate motivated discrimination against religion and freedom of choice and freedom of thought, gives cover to and encourages murderous violence against their special targets of hate.
"sd" could stand for "stupid". Getting almost hopelessly locked into self-willed circularity, after all, isn't really very bright😀.
Fortunately, an almost inaudible whisper of hope remains for sd, if only he will seek to see or hear it, especially through intercessory prayer.
"Stay the course with integration"
Legally enforced, of course, through the dying, hatred-motivated, New Atheist cult as it exemplifies its vision by its struggle against New Atheist encouraged hatred against religion🤣.
Stop talking about racism! Be colour blind! Stop featuring unwarranted discrimination by use of stolen (mis-appropriated) symbols … like a rainbow, which features apartness (apartheid)! The rainbow is a true symbol of God's covenant and promise to man as featured in the Old Testament and realised in the mission of Jesus Christ in the New.
There is so much more foolishness in sd's comment😀! One balks at going through it all. Every word is based on self-willed, self-harming, foolishness.
Beware a fool who aspires to lead through enforced power!
"CRT gets correct that the logical explanation for inequality of outcomes by race is racism. What else would explain inequality of outcomes, actual racial inferiority of mental capacity?"Delete
Or, certain cultures are inferior than others, and because people tend to inculcate their culture in to their children, and their children are the same ethnicity as them, it just so happens that there is a correlation between ethnicity and culture (no necessary link of course, just correlation).
There are unequal outcomes by culture, which just so happens to correlate with race. Cultures that value education, respect for parents, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, etc have better outcomes than those that don't. It's not because Asians are necessarily superior to every other race that they do so well compared to others, but that many cultures that, for whatever reason, developed in countries predominantly populated by Asians, those from these backgrounds still hold on to many of these cultural values and instill it in their Asian children.
It's not racism that Asians parents have Asian children. But Asians often have cultural values that lead to good outcomes, and they pass them on to their children, thus of course this will lead to unequal outcomes by race. No racism needed.
"Cultures that value education, respect for parents, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, etc have better outcomes than those that don't."
"cultures that, for whatever reason, developed"
What do you suppose the reasons are for development of black American culture?
"it just so happens that there is a correlation between ethnicity and culture"
So, just poof? No reason?
Everything was all equal for black Americans over the past couple hundred years so just, poof, for no identifiable reason black American culture has lower socioeconomic standing?
Or do you suppose that maybe long standing laws against literacy (the criminalization of literacy), separate and unequal education, inability to pay for higher education, and discrimination in educational opportunities might just have the effect of influencing a culture toward lower scholastic outcomes?
When I see inequality of educational outcomes for black Americans I see racism because I am not willfully ignorant of recent historical racism as it actively and strongly suppressed education for black Americans.
But Ed's concern cannot legitimate because he is Catholic and by "pouf" Ed is magically transformed into a supporter of sd's in whatever sd wishes to proclaim🤣.
The activist determinist bound by willful circular thought, is intolerant of and hateful towards, and encouraging of murderous, violent hatred towards religion, freedom of choice, and freedom in general. sd's "concern" is his own power to intimidate according to words with legitimate meaning but wrongly codified by him and his likes into tools of interference with a free society. He merely seeks power for his own purposes with no real concern for the good of society. This is very clear from his own hateful prejudice against religion.
He, and the dying New Atheist cult need only go "pouf" and an argument is established by ignorant, determinist, magic.
You cannot argue with this magical ability to change, with a "pouf", his contradictions into consonances. His mind is supreme in his own mind, allowing him this magical ability to be supreme. People with plain sense, however, see that circular nuts are dangerous.
Beware the leveler in all his false, parasitic and destructive abuse of freedom.
"What do you suppose the reasons are for development of black American culture?"
Fundamentally, the collapse of the nuclear family structure, which has wrecked more than just Black American culture. It impacted basically every group. Parents were no longer teaching their children the good values they learned due to having broken families.
Now, what were the reasons for this collapse and why did it hit Black Americans the hardest? I'd say a primary reason for this collapse was the mismanagement of the welfare state, which, in the American context, was explicitly and intentionally aimed at raising the socioeconomic standards of Black Americans in particular. LBJ was explicit about this when he implemented his "War on Poverty". Black Americans were directly targeted. The intentions were good (not racist), but it was(and continues to be) entirely mismanaged.
This, the mismanagement of the welfare state, which was specifically targeted at Black Americans, I would argue, was probably the primary reason (among others, for sure) for the current socioeconomic standing of Black Americans. Racism plays its part, but I don't think its the main part. Black Americans were on their way to overcoming the effects of slavery before the welfare state was really ramped up.
Between 1939 and 1949, the gap between White and Black American wages reduced by 15%. Black education didn't really change, however. This was before the welfare state, before the civil rights act, etc. From 1949 to 1969, it reduced by another 5%. Again, education didn't change much for Black Americans. Since then, the wage gap basically hasn't changed, fluctuating 1-2% each decade. There was more improvement of Black socioeconomic status back when racial discrimination was far more prevalent, even as Black education didn't really improve. That's because Black Americans still held on to good cultural values. Black Americans are waaay more educated now(though still lagging behind) than they were in the early 1900s, but their socio-economic position hasn't improved like it did then.
"When I see inequality of educational outcomes for black Americans I see racism because I am not willfully ignorant of recent historical racism as it actively and strongly suppressed education for black Americans."
As I hope the above showed, education isn't the primary problem.
That was well said
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
All of them?Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
Surely it depends on the reason for opposing it, right?Delete
I haven't seen AA bear much fruit, especially when weighed against the negatives it brings, particularly to those its supposedly meant to be helping, let alone society in general. It's more of an opposition in practice than in principle.
AA is also known as positive discrimination. Is a person who seeks to avoid discrimination in principle really racist? Or are they simply opposed to discrimination of any kind? I don't think discrimination broadly is inherently bad, but some people do.
There are some whose aim is the good of society and simply think meritocracy is better at achieving that. Is a person who thinks positive discrimination toward merit (meritocracy) over race really racist? Some people don't see meritocracy as discrimination, but simply a kind of justice, since the person has earned the position, so they would say. They see it as wrong not to give that person the job or college admission, like not giving the 1st place trophy to the person who actually came 1st.
Some might claim that the person who came 1st (to take the previous analogy again) might have unearned privileges that helped them, thus you can't really claim to know that the person really earned the 1st place trophy. But, even then, some could say that overarching privilege isn't obvious. In terms of, say, race, to assume that racial privilege is something overarching, thus everyone of a certain race receives it, isn't obvious. Some see privilege as being individual and circumstantial, not overarching.
It would seem that opposing AA makes you racist if you oppose AA to intentionally be a detriment to a particular race or races. The thing is: Is there really that many of those people out there? I doubt it. I'd say, most people simply don't think about race that deeply. Yet, most people oppose AA, even most minorities, according to recent polling.
A Blessed Easter to all.ReplyDelete
Many of the commentators on this YouTube video of a black stabbing someone on a train claim that blacks are more violent than any other race. Is it racist to notice that 6% of the population commits 50 % of the violent crime, or does racism lie somewhere else?ReplyDelete
I think "racism" is just a grift. I can't find it used one time before 1965 by a Catholic. It was invented by the Jewish homosexual, Margus Hirshfeld, and all our white ancestors said and did racist things that they assumed were common sense. Now, here comes a religion, out of the revolutionary 1960s that all of a sudden teaches that you can't move out of violient black neigborhoods, or take your children out of dangerous blacks schools. No one seriously thinks blacks can be racist, just try saying that on twitter and see where it gets you.ReplyDelete
The catholic church is also precise. The term racism is vague.
Na. Not a sin to stay away from blacks. Actually smart and good.
I think you could switch out the terms anti-semitic with racist in this quote by Joe Sobran:ReplyDelete
Clear definitions put a burden of proof on the accuser, and properly so. If you falsely accuse a man of murder or burglary, not only is he apt to be acquitted–you may pay a heavy penalty yourself. As a result, few of us are afraid of being charged with murders and burglaries we didn’t commit.
By contrast, the Soviet legal system left prosecutors with a wide discretion in identifying “anti-Soviet” activities. Almost anything irritating to the Soviet state could qualify. An impossible burden of proof lay on the accused; guilt was presumed; acquittals were virtually nonexistent. To be indicted was already to be convicted. Since the charge was undefined, it was unfalsifiable; there was no such thing as a false accusation. As a result, the Russian population lived in fear.
The word anti-Semitic functions like the word anti-Soviet. Being undefined, it’s unfalsifiable. Loose charges of “anti-Semitism” are common, but nobody suffers any penalty for making them, since what is unfalsifiable can never be shown to be false. I once read an article in a Jewish magazine that called the first Star Wars movie “anti- Semitic.” I was amazed, but I couldn’t prove the contrary. Who could? And of course people in public life–and often in private life–fear incurring the label, however guiltless they may be.
If you want to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, you define crimes precisely. If, however, you merely want to maximize the number of convictions, increase the power of the accusers, and create an atmosphere of dread, you define crimes as loosely as possible. We now have an incentive system that might have been designed to promote loose charges of “anti-Semitism.”