‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 > 
 
   
 

Trump Derangement Syndrome and the 2020 Election

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16038
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 September 2019 09:49
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 12 September 2019 02:25 AM

Trump did his hardest to imply…there was no chance he was loyal to this country because of his origin and religion

Right. Not because he is black, but because he was not loyal to his country because of his origin and religion.  The fallacy is in saying that Birtherism is “racist” in the first place, just because some racists also like to believe it.

I’ve been following this discussion with interest, and I suspect that Trump the birtherism isn’t necessarily racist although it appeals to racism in others. So one could say that perhaps it was only cynical. One could also offer Trump’s apparent refusal to rent or sell to blacks back when he started off. That’s a racist action, but with Trump I think it’s more economically motivated (although he may well have an innate bias against blacks), he believed that selling to blacks would reduce his profits. Just a guess, but here’s an example: A friend of mine worked for a property management company in San Francisco and he told me he hated renting to American blacks because they almost always gave him problems. He couldn’t refuse them, but knew that he was likely to have problems when he rented. He had no problem with Africans, however, and went out of his way to help an Ethiopian woman get a good unit where she could open a business in one of his buildings because he knew she was hardworking and responsible. I wouldn’t call him a racist in terms of relating to individuals, but he was in a position where he had direct experiences related to race through his work and had formed opinions based on that. (He also had an interesting comment on cultural differences, to the effect that when any of his buildings needed work the best workers were Chinese and Mexicans, the only difference between them being that he had to give detailed instructions to Mexicans, whereas he only needed to tell the Chinese what needed to be done.) There are lots of distinctions that need to be made that correlate with race, but don’t necessarily imply direct racism.

Regarding your experiences in grad school, here’s a quote from a sociologist in the postmodern vein: “The project of social science can no longer be to uncover the truth about people or society. …the aim of research should become not the discovery of ‘facts,’ but the mobilization of the research process toward a different goal. The goal becomes a pragmatic and political one, a search not for truth but for any usefulness that the researcher’s ‘readings’ of a phenomenon might have in bringing about change for those who need it.”

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1084
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
12 September 2019 10:11
 
Jan_CAN - 12 September 2019 09:35 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 12 September 2019 07:12 AM

Jan_CAN

By not calling you out by name I did not intend to conceal your identity from him.  In fact, I assumed he would know it was you, having already directed him to that thread.  My sole intent there was to prevent passersby not privy to the full context of the conversation from making assumptions about you.  Your clarification here prevents that even better, so thanks.

I have said—twice now—that the specific labels are not the point.  It’s about a trend, or a tendency.  I’ve also said in that same stress that not everyone will self-identify with this trend or tendency, even if their views fall in line with it.  So “hard left,” “far left,” “woke,” or just “left who thinks x, y, z”—it doesn’t matter to me, as long as I am specifying x, y, and z. 

As to where you fall, if you can pick from my posts what you identify with, and what you don’t, that is best, of course; in light of that, what I identify you as is irrelevant.  And to this point, that you believe “systemic racism” means what no_profundia means clarifies one thing for me but raises another, namely: are the social-racial disparities that ipso facto mean racism due to systemic racism or institutional racism.  Institutions being part of the social system, the difference is not altogether clear—at least to me.  Also, (a) in his #5 refers to unintended effects of an otherwise non-racist norm or policy.  Are you saying that the “racism” that explains social-racial disparities is the result of such unintended effects—that the “racism” per se is unintentional…?

I think specific labels do seem to be the point and core to what this thread is about.  I think it’s important for all of us to be careful with the labels and it can be disconcerting to be seen by others so differently from how we see ourselves.  But I don’t think you intended a personal slight per se.

I think that social-racial disparities are due to systemic racism AND institutional racism, with systemic racism probably the largest factor affecting the day-to-day lives of the majority of members of minorities.

What I consider examples of systemic racism:
— Unconscious bias or prejudice that affects hiring and promotion of minorities.
— Stereotyping of minorities in a manner that affects expectations, e.g. students in a classroom.
— Unintentional neglect (and indifference?) that leads to the lack of funding to correct for the effects of poverty on minorities, which creates a vicious cycle of social disparity.
— Subtle-to-explicit racism that minorities have to contend with that can affect psyche, self-esteem, feelings of belonging, etc. 

What I consider examples of institutional racism:
(Although laws do not support unfair treatment in institutions, they happen nonetheless.)
— Longer prison sentences for minorities.
— Greater likelihood to be stopped by police, treated with disrespect, subjected to excessive force.
— Credibility of minorities questioned more rigorously, with more suspicion than others (witnesses, victims).

And of course, none of the above are unique to the U.S.  In my country, there have been indigenous women who were reported missing, their disappearances not investigated properly by police, who were later found to have been murdered.  Recently a video surfaced of a police officer interrogating a frightened indigenous teen who was reporting a sexual assault; she was treated like a criminal by a harsh male officer rather than listened to as a potential victim.  However, due to recognition and more public awareness of these problems, it appears that measures are being taken to correct these, I hope.

In clinical work one has to diagnose a client.  It’s a label.  To get that label, the client has to have a cluster of symptoms that meet a set of criterion that cannot, in principle, be reduced to a simple cut-and-dry algorithm.  Yet each symptom has fixed criteria one has to apply in order count the symptom in the diagnosis.  This diagnosis—this label—is necessary both for insurance purposes (insurance won’t pay without a DSM diagnosis) and for treatment planning (if one doesn’t have a conception of what the symptoms represent, then one can’t plan a treatment).  Yet no one defines the client in terms of the label; the living, breathing, suffering individual remains paramount.  So, labels serve a perfectly useful function, if used correctly.

As I see this thread (and others) there seems to be no objections to labeling people who voted for Trump “a Trump supporter,” as though that label defines some cluster of traits that define a type.  The label “racist” is applied to Trump even though no clear standard of what makes one a racist is offered.  And so on.  If we are going to object to labeling, let’s be consistent in it, first, and since we have to do it to orient conversation, let’s be circumspect about it too.  I have called for this circumspection twice now; how about we try it.

The only question I have about your first set of examples is how do you distinguish “systemic” and its explicit sense of pervasiveness—and its likely imputations of “all pervasiveness”—from individual bad actors causing problems?  The two questions I have for your second set are 1) what evidence do you have that these represent problems of intentional racism and not normal responses to things like disproportionate crime rates, and 2) what evidence do you have that those than can’t be that are a pervasive problem?

 

[ Edited: 12 September 2019 10:32 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1084
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
12 September 2019 10:23
 
burt - 12 September 2019 09:49 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 12 September 2019 02:25 AM

Trump did his hardest to imply…there was no chance he was loyal to this country because of his origin and religion

Right. Not because he is black, but because he was not loyal to his country because of his origin and religion.  The fallacy is in saying that Birtherism is “racist” in the first place, just because some racists also like to believe it.

I’ve been following this discussion with interest, and I suspect that Trump the birtherism isn’t necessarily racist although it appeals to racism in others. So one could say that perhaps it was only cynical. One could also offer Trump’s apparent refusal to rent or sell to blacks back when he started off. That’s a racist action, but with Trump I think it’s more economically motivated (although he may well have an innate bias against blacks), he believed that selling to blacks would reduce his profits. Just a guess, but here’s an example: A friend of mine worked for a property management company in San Francisco and he told me he hated renting to American blacks because they almost always gave him problems. He couldn’t refuse them, but knew that he was likely to have problems when he rented. He had no problem with Africans, however, and went out of his way to help an Ethiopian woman get a good unit where she could open a business in one of his buildings because he knew she was hardworking and responsible. I wouldn’t call him a racist in terms of relating to individuals, but he was in a position where he had direct experiences related to race through his work and had formed opinions based on that. (He also had an interesting comment on cultural differences, to the effect that when any of his buildings needed work the best workers were Chinese and Mexicans, the only difference between them being that he had to give detailed instructions to Mexicans, whereas he only needed to tell the Chinese what needed to be done.) There are lots of distinctions that need to be made that correlate with race, but don’t necessarily imply direct racism.

Regarding your experiences in grad school, here’s a quote from a sociologist in the postmodern vein: “The project of social science can no longer be to uncover the truth about people or society. …the aim of research should become not the discovery of ‘facts,’ but the mobilization of the research process toward a different goal. The goal becomes a pragmatic and political one, a search not for truth but for any usefulness that the researcher’s ‘readings’ of a phenomenon might have in bringing about change for those who need it.”

This goes to what Thomas Sowell calls “Discrimination I” and “Discrimination II.”  The first is an attempt to discern differences in the qualities of people using empirical evidence in order to determine, say, what they might do or how they might be suitable, while the second is treating people negatively based on arbitrary aversion toward a particular trait, like race, sex, etc.  He further distinguishes I into two types: a costly one that judges each individual as such, regardless of the evidence about a group and a less costly one that judges an individual by the evidence of the group.  He then goes through an interesting take on how these two types of discrimination have played out over time, including uncovering some—to me—rather startling facts about how the first type sometimes offsets the second when economic factors come into play.  Based on what you post here, you might like his book, Discrimination and Disparities.  For my part, I got a lot out of the first five chapters but got sick of the bromide conservative biases (the same ones I’ve read from him for decades) in the last two. 

Amen on graduate school.  It was like that.

(Glad to know you’ve been reading.)

[ Edited: 12 September 2019 10:29 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1900
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
12 September 2019 10:38
 
burt - 12 September 2019 09:49 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 12 September 2019 02:25 AM

Trump did his hardest to imply…there was no chance he was loyal to this country because of his origin and religion

Right. Not because he is black, but because he was not loyal to his country because of his origin and religion.  The fallacy is in saying that Birtherism is “racist” in the first place, just because some racists also like to believe it.

I’ve been following this discussion with interest, and I suspect that Trump the birtherism isn’t necessarily racist although it appeals to racism in others. So one could say that perhaps it was only cynical. One could also offer Trump’s apparent refusal to rent or sell to blacks back when he started off. That’s a racist action, but with Trump I think it’s more economically motivated (although he may well have an innate bias against blacks), he believed that selling to blacks would reduce his profits. Just a guess, but here’s an example: A friend of mine worked for a property management company in San Francisco and he told me he hated renting to American blacks because they almost always gave him problems. He couldn’t refuse them, but knew that he was likely to have problems when he rented. He had no problem with Africans, however, and went out of his way to help an Ethiopian woman get a good unit where she could open a business in one of his buildings because he knew she was hardworking and responsible. I wouldn’t call him a racist in terms of relating to individuals, but he was in a position where he had direct experiences related to race through his work and had formed opinions based on that. (He also had an interesting comment on cultural differences, to the effect that when any of his buildings needed work the best workers were Chinese and Mexicans, the only difference between them being that he had to give detailed instructions to Mexicans, whereas he only needed to tell the Chinese what needed to be done.) There are lots of distinctions that need to be made that correlate with race, but don’t necessarily imply direct racism.

Regarding your experiences in grad school, here’s a quote from a sociologist in the postmodern vein: “The project of social science can no longer be to uncover the truth about people or society. …the aim of research should become not the discovery of ‘facts,’ but the mobilization of the research process toward a different goal. The goal becomes a pragmatic and political one, a search not for truth but for any usefulness that the researcher’s ‘readings’ of a phenomenon might have in bringing about change for those who need it.”

Interesting stuff, Burt. While I toiled for 8 years in one particular computer room (type and graphics) in New York’s Hell’s Kitchen during the 1980s and ‘90s, I managed to get involved with discussions about racial considerations and how they apply to different neighborhoods and communities in that area. The room always contained plenty of outer-borough and Manhattan old-timers with an abundance of local real-estate purchase and rental experience, and not being a native resident there, I listened with fascination to stories and opinions regarding entirely racist shenanigans that were apparently completely in play at that time. For all I know, they still are. Those kinds of misshaped and deplorable circumstances can take place if no one other than critics find a reason to talk about a particularly deranged fact of life.

What I took away from those conversations was a surprising apparent reality—that if you wanted to work in the real estate business in the New York City area, you’d better not upset the intense discrimination cart or you’ll risk not only your career.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
12 September 2019 11:23
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 12 September 2019 10:11 AM

In clinical work one has to diagnose a client.  It’s a label.  To get that label, the client has to have a cluster of symptoms that meet a set of criterion that cannot, in principle, be reduced to a simple cut-and-dry algorithm.  Yet each symptom has fixed criteria one has to apply in order count the symptom in the diagnosis.  This diagnosis—this label—is necessary both for insurance purposes (insurance won’t pay without a DSM diagnosis) and for treatment planning (if one doesn’t have a conception of what the symptoms represent, then one can’t plan a treatment).  And so on.  Labels, then, serve a perfectly useful function, if used correctly.

Sorry,  but I don’t think this analogy works that well.  Yes, diagnostic labels require judgement and deduction and are not cut-and-dried, but I assume they are arrived at after collection of as much information as possible and with a minimum of emotion.  Political labels are usually assigned to others without clear criteria, usually from one’s own bias, and often involve too much emotion.  We all do it to some extent, but we should be careful and use labels sparingly.

 
As I see this thread (and others) there seems to be no objections to labeling people who voted for Trump “a Trump supporter,” as though that label defines some cluster of traits that define a type.  The label “racist” is applied to Trump even though no clear standard of what makes one a racist is offered.  And so on.  If we are going to object to labeling, let’s be consistent in it, first, and since we have to do it to orient conversation, let’s be circumspect about it.  I have called for this circumspection myself twice now; how about we try it.

It’s an impossible task to look for clear standards or consistency for such terms as ‘racist’; it would be so much easier if there were.  I think it’s fairly clear to many people what Trump is by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’, and found guilty of racism.

The only question I have about your first set of examples is how do you distinguish “systemic” and its explicit sense of pervasiveness—even imputations of “all pervasiveness”—from individual bad actors causing problems?  The two questions I have for your second set are 1) what evidence do you have that these represent problems of intentional racism and not normal responses to things like disproportionate crime rates, and 2) what evidence do you have that those than can’t be that are a pervasive problem?

— I don’t distinguish systemic racism from individual bad actors.  It can be from individuals, or groups of individuals, subtle and unconscious to not so subtle, rare or common place in different settings.
— Even when there are disproportionate crime rates, it’s not justified to treat individuals with prejudice.  And disproportionate crime rates are themselves most likely a result of a system that has not yet fully addressed the effects of poverty on crime.
— “Pervasive’ is your word – there are numerous indications that there are socio-racial problems in the U.S. – what would be an acceptable level, I wonder.


Since I’ve provided my two cents worth, I think I better leave this discussion to the ‘academics’ now.

 

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1084
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
12 September 2019 12:02
 

Jan_CAN

I don’t distinguish systemic racism from individual bad actors.

But you should

I will leave you with a post, rhetorically addressed to you as food for “academic” thought, but one that is in spirit directed to the bigger picture, not you personally per se. It’s just that line captures perfectly, I think, the issue.

(Thank you in advance for indulging me…)

The simplest and most useful way I know to distinguish “systemic” from “non-systemic” racism (or any similar phenomenon) is Rosa Parks.

In Alabama in 1955, Rosa Parks was the victim of systemic racism.  Not only were there laws that separated blacks into inferior facilities with the specific intention of imputing inferiority (schools, for instance, were segregated); there were institutional norms that weren’t required by law per se, but were pervasively enforced nonetheless (restaurants having separate counters for blacks, or not serving them at all, and so on).  There were also cultural norms stacked against her—for instance, it was perfectly acceptable to degrade and berate her publicly as black if she didn’t sit were she was supposed to.  This racism is systemic for all these reasons and because that bus driver (who was white) was forced to tell her where to sit by the same norms and laws that told her where she was supposed to sit.  In other words, even if he thought, personally, blacks were equal to whites and that Rosa Parks should be allowed to sit wherever she wanted to sit, he had no choice—no real choice, any more than hers to protest.  If he let her remain seated, then he would suffer discrimination, loss of job, status in the community, etc.—a fate not as bad as being black, because that’s inescapable, but one not that far off.  In any case, the racism in 1955 was systemic because it was such that individual actors were not free to either be racist or not racist in their behavior—black or white.  Instead, there was this sense of laws, institutional norms, and cultural norms structuring society as such (i.e. the social system) in a racist way, and this structure was pervasive—if not all pervasive—had tremendous inertia, and was unavoidable.

When people of the “woke” left—whatever label ones chooses for them—say “systemic racism” still exists today, it simply makes no sense to use the same word to describe Rosa Parks as it does to describe a bus driver today who might tell a black woman to get up so a white person can sit in her place.  It doesn’t matter whether he does this for unconscious reasons, or explicit, conscious ones; the act is the same.  Today, precisely the opposite norms and laws are set up against him than those oppressing Rosa Parks.  The social system is entirely different.  He would be the bad guy bucking a system that is no longer racist, and she would be the moral winner as an unjust victim.  Defense of her would be immediate, public, and decisive.  Of course, he’s an individual actor in a system, and if one adds up enough of them, one gets a far larger effect than any one individually.  But that does not make his behavior “systemic,” much less his racism systemic; it remains individual.  So, my question is: how do you see today’s racism as systemic, as opposed to individual, given these two radically different situations?  Is it bad actors who are racist acting against the norms and laws of non-racist contemporary America, or are these norms and laws systemically—i.e. pervasively—not just supportive of him but determinative for him as well in some way, meaning he “has to do it,” so to speak, or that he can get away with it even?  How does one reconcile these two diametrically opposed states of society with the same word “systemic racism”?

Now, without exception, when I have proposed that “systemic racism is dead” and that what we have now are bad actors acting against the norms and laws of a non-racist society, I am told I fail to appreciate the pervasiveness of the racism problem; that I am missing its systemic dimensions—i.e. its immovable inertia, its pervasiveness, its determinative force over individual behavior…that sort of thing.  I have cited sources in this thread to this effect.  So again, I ask: what is this pervasiveness now, this determinative force, this inertia, and how am I the one not appreciating what “systemic” means, when it clearly means one thing in 1955 and cannot mean the same thing in 2019?

Again, food for “academic” thought.  No need to reply, and I won’t take your silence as agreement in any way.  As it happens, we agree the items on your list are problems.

[ Edited: 13 September 2019 05:20 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3542
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
12 September 2019 13:06
 
burt - 12 September 2019 09:49 AM

A friend of mine worked for a property management company in San Francisco and he told me he hated renting to American blacks because they almost always gave him problems. He couldn’t refuse them, but knew that he was likely to have problems when he rented. He had no problem with Africans, however, and went out of his way to help an Ethiopian woman get a good unit where she could open a business in one of his buildings because he knew she was hardworking and responsible. I wouldn’t call him a racist in terms of relating to individuals, but he was in a position where he had direct experiences related to race through his work and had formed opinions based on that. (He also had an interesting comment on cultural differences, to the effect that when any of his buildings needed work the best workers were Chinese and Mexicans, the only difference between them being that he had to give detailed instructions to Mexicans, whereas he only needed to tell the Chinese what needed to be done.) There are lots of distinctions that need to be made that correlate with race, but don’t necessarily imply direct racism.

I suspect the reason your friend preferred African tenants to African American tenants was due to the fact that the African American tenants likely knew their rights and the African tenants could more easily be taken advantage of and exploited.  Same with hiring Mexican and Chinese workers.  They’d be more inclined to follow orders and break building codes during construction in order to remain employed.  It sounds as though your friend was using some fairly common tactics.  Like every other slum lord.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  773
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
12 September 2019 15:07
 

I’d tend to use “institutional racism” for the Jim Crow south and related overly racist policies.  Indeed I thought the whole point of “systemic racism” was to identify those aspects of current society that serve to sustain racial disparities despite the fact that overt racism as policy has largely been addressed.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16038
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 September 2019 15:26
 
LadyJane - 12 September 2019 01:06 PM
burt - 12 September 2019 09:49 AM

A friend of mine worked for a property management company in San Francisco and he told me he hated renting to American blacks because they almost always gave him problems. He couldn’t refuse them, but knew that he was likely to have problems when he rented. He had no problem with Africans, however, and went out of his way to help an Ethiopian woman get a good unit where she could open a business in one of his buildings because he knew she was hardworking and responsible. I wouldn’t call him a racist in terms of relating to individuals, but he was in a position where he had direct experiences related to race through his work and had formed opinions based on that. (He also had an interesting comment on cultural differences, to the effect that when any of his buildings needed work the best workers were Chinese and Mexicans, the only difference between them being that he had to give detailed instructions to Mexicans, whereas he only needed to tell the Chinese what needed to be done.) There are lots of distinctions that need to be made that correlate with race, but don’t necessarily imply direct racism.

I suspect the reason your friend preferred African tenants to African American tenants was due to the fact that the African American tenants likely knew their rights and the African tenants could more easily be taken advantage of and exploited.  Same with hiring Mexican and Chinese workers.  They’d be more inclined to follow orders and break building codes during construction in order to remain employed.  It sounds as though your friend was using some fairly common tactics.  Like every other slum lord.

No, you misunderstand. He preferred African tenants because the American blacks often (an individual case by case thing) would not take care of the property, would be found to be engaging in criminal activity, and so on. He was fully aware of social issues behind this, but was speaking from his own position of responsibility for keeping properties in tip top shape (as I said, he worked for a management company, he didn’t own the properties). African tenants were far better at treating the property responsibly, in other words, a cultural thing. Likewise with Mexican and Chinese workers, those were who was mostly available and he found that many white workers tended to be slackers. So his comment wasn’t about following orders and breaking building codes, it was about a cultural difference between two groups of otherwise good workers.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16038
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 September 2019 15:30
 

Gregory Cheadle – a black man who Donald Trump referred to as “my African American” during a rally – has announced he is leaving the Republican party, citing the president’s “white superiority complex”... Although Cheadle refused to describe the president as racist, he said Trump has a “white superiority complex”. ~The Guardian

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
12 September 2019 16:03
 
mapadofu - 12 September 2019 03:07 PM

I’d tend to use “institutional racism” for the Jim Crow south and related overly racist policies.  Indeed I thought the whole point of “systemic racism” was to identify those aspects of current society that serve to sustain racial disparities despite the fact that overt racism as policy has largely been addressed.

That’s also what I thought.  There seems to be difference of opinion on this thread about the meaning of these terms.

[ Edited: 12 September 2019 17:36 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2041
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
12 September 2019 17:01
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 12 September 2019 04:23 AM
MrRon - 12 September 2019 04:10 AM
Twissel - 12 September 2019 01:40 AM

Questioning the birth status of a Presidential Nominee isn’t racist in itself - wondering if Ted Cruz is a born Canadian isn’t racist.

But the degree to which Trump hyped the Borther Conspiracy, with explicit claims that there had been a cover-up to hide Obama’s real birthplace and the fact that he is a born Muslim IS ABSOLUTELY RACIST.
Trump did his hardest to imply that Obama is an Al Qaida plant to bring down the US. That there was no chance he was loyal to this country because of his origin and religion (as he claimed it was).

It is a fallacy to say that because Birtherism might sometimes be not racist, it never is.

Trump also called Obama a “terrible student” and demanded to see his academic records. He questioned how he had been admitted to Columbia University and Harvard Law School. On what basis would Trump make such accusations??? We can speculate on Trump’s motivations, but I think there is a pretty clear pattern of racist behavior if not outright racism. The clincher for me was Trump’s interviews with Michael Savage during the 2016 campaign. Anybody who knows anything about the despicable Savage (and I listened to him for two years on my daily commutes to work) knows that he is without a doubt a racist through and through. And Trump made it clear that he greatly admired and respected Savage. To this day, I think the two are still quite friendly.

Anyway, I’m pretty sure that anyone who is a bonafide racist voted for Trump and not Hillary in 2016. If Trump is NOT a racist, then he sure is sending out the wrong signals to the electorate.

Ron

He could have questioned Obama’s admission to and performance at Columbia and Harvard on the same grounds that Clarence Thomas has quipped that his own law degree from Yale was worth “15 cents” because of affirmative action; that it was worth so little because of the doubts he faced (even for himself) that he’d earned it and not gotten into Yale Law School just because he was black (he reports working twice as hard to avoid this stigma and signing up for the hardest classes he could).

I doubt it. Like I said, Trump actually likes and respects MICHAEL SAVAGE! Someone who makes a living by unabashedly vilifying minorities. That (and really what more do you need?) plus the long list of Trump’s dogwhistles, comments, and actions leaves little room for doubt about his racism. In my opinion anyway.


Ron

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1084
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
12 September 2019 17:03
 

no_profundia

I have said: the “woke” left—or whatever label one chooses—has as its default prior “a social-racial disparity is de facto proof of systemic racism.”

In this very thread we have: “I thought the whole point of ‘systemic racism’ was to identify those aspects of current society that serve to sustain racial disparities…” (emphasis added).

I look forward to your reply…

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  773
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
12 September 2019 17:37
 

I’m not getting why Analytic chose to put in emphasis— there are the social/political factors that are currently operating to maintain racial disparities, and it is useful to have a name for them.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18127
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 September 2019 17:45
 
Jan_CAN - 12 September 2019 09:35 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 12 September 2019 07:12 AM

Jan_CAN

By not calling you out by name I did not intend to conceal your identity from him.  In fact, I assumed he would know it was you, having already directed him to that thread.  My sole intent there was to prevent passersby not privy to the full context of the conversation from making assumptions about you.  Your clarification here prevents that even better, so thanks.

I have said—twice now—that the specific labels are not the point.  It’s about a trend, or a tendency.  I’ve also said in that same stress that not everyone will self-identify with this trend or tendency, even if their views fall in line with it.  So “hard left,” “far left,” “woke,” or just “left who thinks x, y, z”—it doesn’t matter to me, as long as I am specifying x, y, and z. 

As to where you fall, if you can pick from my posts what you identify with, and what you don’t, that is best, of course; in light of that, what I identify you as is irrelevant.  And to this point, that you believe “systemic racism” means what no_profundia means clarifies one thing for me but raises another, namely: are the social-racial disparities that ipso facto mean racism due to systemic racism or institutional racism.  Institutions being part of the social system, the difference is not altogether clear—at least to me.  Also, (a) in his #5 refers to unintended effects of an otherwise non-racist norm or policy.  Are you saying that the “racism” that explains social-racial disparities is the result of such unintended effects—that the “racism” per se is unintentional…?

I think specific labels do seem to be the point and core to what this thread is about.  I think it’s important for all of us to be careful with the labels and it can be disconcerting to be seen by others so differently from how we see ourselves.  But I don’t think you intended a personal slight per se.

I think that social-racial disparities are due to systemic racism AND institutional racism, with systemic racism probably the largest factor affecting the day-to-day lives of the majority of members of minorities.

What I consider examples of systemic racism:
— Unconscious bias or prejudice that affects hiring and promotion of minorities.
— Stereotyping of minorities in a manner that affects expectations, e.g. students in a classroom.
— Unintentional neglect (and indifference?) that leads to the lack of funding to correct for the effects of poverty on minorities, which creates a vicious cycle of social disparity.
— Subtle-to-explicit racism that minorities have to contend with that can affect psyche, self-esteem, feelings of belonging, etc. 

What I consider examples of institutional racism:
(Although laws do not support unfair treatment in institutions, they happen nonetheless.)
— Longer prison sentences for minorities.
— Greater likelihood to be stopped by police, treated with disrespect, subjected to excessive force.
— Credibility of minorities questioned more rigorously, with more suspicion than others (witnesses, victims).

And of course, none of the above are unique to the U.S.  In my country, there have been indigenous women who were reported missing, their disappearances not investigated properly by police, who were later found to have been murdered.  Recently a video surfaced of a police officer interrogating a frightened indigenous teen who was reporting a sexual assault; she was treated like a criminal by a harsh male officer rather than listened to as a potential victim.  However, due to recognition and more public awareness of these problems, it appears that measures are being taken to correct these, I hope.

This kind of thinking is the problem not the solution.

 
 
‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 >