11-09-2015, 06:43 PM
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13558.msg140662#msg140662 date=1447117389]
To extend off of cardcoug's point, I think attributing certain problems to poverty rather than racism is not thinking things through sufficiently. If you agree that:
a) most people agree with the Martin Luther King formulation that people should be judged by "the content of their character" rather than the color of their skin. They agree with that because of a recognition that race is, in the final analysis, irrelevant to our other qualities as a human being -- that neither black nor white nor brown people have an exclusive claim to virtue and high character.
b) if you believe that there isn't an essential difference between the characters of white, black, and brown people, then how can there be substantially unequal results? So that a black or brown person is more likely to grow up with lead poisoning, or more likely to be quoted a higher mortgage rate, and so much more. It may be that some of these sicknesses are due to being poor but then:
c) if there is no essential difference in character -- and you believe, like most capitalist/meritocrats, that rewards ought to flow to people with greater ability or character -- then why are black and brown people generally poorer? In effect, you are condoning a situation in which people are being judged by their skin color rather than their character.
I tend to not discuss politics on message boards, but this is a Stanford message board so I will assume a higher level of discourse and give it a try.
I do not believe that character is the main determinant in economic success. I would not say that the Germans have better character than the Greeks, but I think the Germans have proven themselves better at economic success (in recent times that is.....it's interesting how the reverse would of course been true 2500 years ago.) There are plenty of similar examples.
In other words, I think there are other factors beside character that significantly affect economic success. So I do not think we should assume that if two groups have different levels of economic success, it is because of discrimination, even if we can all agree that their character is essentially the same. I think it is much more complicated than that.
To be clear, obviously African-Americans have suffered substantial discrimination in our country, but that does not necessarily mean that such discrimination is the prime reason for current economic disparity.
To extend off of cardcoug's point, I think attributing certain problems to poverty rather than racism is not thinking things through sufficiently. If you agree that:
a) most people agree with the Martin Luther King formulation that people should be judged by "the content of their character" rather than the color of their skin. They agree with that because of a recognition that race is, in the final analysis, irrelevant to our other qualities as a human being -- that neither black nor white nor brown people have an exclusive claim to virtue and high character.
b) if you believe that there isn't an essential difference between the characters of white, black, and brown people, then how can there be substantially unequal results? So that a black or brown person is more likely to grow up with lead poisoning, or more likely to be quoted a higher mortgage rate, and so much more. It may be that some of these sicknesses are due to being poor but then:
c) if there is no essential difference in character -- and you believe, like most capitalist/meritocrats, that rewards ought to flow to people with greater ability or character -- then why are black and brown people generally poorer? In effect, you are condoning a situation in which people are being judged by their skin color rather than their character.
I tend to not discuss politics on message boards, but this is a Stanford message board so I will assume a higher level of discourse and give it a try.
I do not believe that character is the main determinant in economic success. I would not say that the Germans have better character than the Greeks, but I think the Germans have proven themselves better at economic success (in recent times that is.....it's interesting how the reverse would of course been true 2500 years ago.) There are plenty of similar examples.
In other words, I think there are other factors beside character that significantly affect economic success. So I do not think we should assume that if two groups have different levels of economic success, it is because of discrimination, even if we can all agree that their character is essentially the same. I think it is much more complicated than that.
To be clear, obviously African-Americans have suffered substantial discrimination in our country, but that does not necessarily mean that such discrimination is the prime reason for current economic disparity.