Why do you equate “looking into” something with “meddling”?
It’s human nature. People can’t help themselves.
My point is, why is this a problem? It actually seems to be a result of multiculturalism, which is supposed to be good! If we allow different groups to have different cultures then we should expect there to be some differences between them. Obviously it’s bad that only 41% of blacks live in owner-occupied homes compared to 71% of whites, and that is something we should try to change, but that doesn’t mean all differences are inherently racist.
I don’t know about you, but I like understanding how the world works. How physics, chemistry, and biology interact to create the wonderful world we see before us, and how psychology, economics, and politics create the human societies that fill that world.
Ignoring how racism impacts our social systems is like trying to figure out the mechanics involved with racecars going around a track while ignoring friction, or aerodynamics.
When Lewis and Clark went west, would you have followed them demanding to know what the problem with the east coast is?
Eta: that came out a bit snarkier than intended. My point is, how are you supposed to know if it’s a problem or not, if its harmful or not, unless you study it?
I understand the temptation but can we try to dispense with the bad analogies.
See: .
…
You asked:
But earlier you said:
Which is why I said:
No argument here. Except that “wokeness” by it’s nature isn’t about just trying to understand why cars go around the race track. Or why most of the drivers are white. Or why most of the NBA players are black. More often than not, it’s about trying to fix what may or may not need fixing.
I do think that is exactly why it is nearly impossible to have a difficult conversation about the topic. Any time it is mentioned that a group disproportionally benefits from a racially biased policy or cultural, members of that group immediately get defensive, and claim that you called them a racist.
The conversation really does need to be between white people. Informed by and commented upon by minorities, but it is not their job to teach us how to not be racist. It is not their job to tell us how to stop hurting them through our privilege.
And if one side shuts down at the merest suggestion that they may be beneficiaries of a racially biased system, that conversation cannot happen.
I don’t want to eliminate my privilege as a white heterosexual cis-male, I want to extend it and make sure that everyone gets to enjoy it. That cannot happen as long as a substantial portion of our cohort doesn’t believe it exists in the first place.
This is utterly not true. It is exactly looking at the root causes that is being done, and is being vilified by anti-anti-racists.
Root causes does not mean solutions, though. If your house is on fire, the root cause may have been electrical, or it could have been a cooking accident, or it could have been arson. But that’s not your problem, and fixing your electrical or being more careful with cooking isn’t going to put the fire out. If the firefighters show up, and tell you that you should have updated your wiring, rather than start putting out the fire, you will be rightly cross with them.
150 years ago, the root cause was pretty close to 100% racism. Even as little as 50 years ago, it was still the vast majority of the cause. Now, generational poverty, caused by that historic racism is a very significant factor, but that still has its cause rooted in racism.
The problem is the fire now, and putting out that fire should be the priority. Affirmative action or quotas are a way of putting out that fire. Lifting someone out of poverty so that their children do not grow up impoverished is the ultimate goal here.
So, I’d say right now, it’s more like 80% generational poverty, and 20% racism. When I was a fast food manager, I was told by my GM not to hire black people, as they would quit after their first paycheck. “N**** rich” he called it. And it did happen, sometimes black people would quit after their first paycheck, but so did white people.
So, while the generational poverty may be the majority of the issue at this time, it is not being addressed without some sort of active measures, and it cannot be denied that racism still plays a part in exacerbating that situation.
The percentages do not tell the whole story, but they should be treated as flags that indicate where we should look more closely.
As far as what percent become doctors, or how many become lawyers or bankers or civil engineers, there are many non-racial reasons why those percentages may vary, and we shouldn’t really worry too much about those sorts of choices.
However, the percent of different demographic groups that are impoverished is both a serious flag that should have quite a bit of attention paid to, and is also a case of a house fire, where the root causes are less important than fixing the immediate problem.
Well, indeed. But here is someone saying it’s a problem by definition; that it’s not discrimination that is racist, but inequity. And there is a whole movement trying to put these ideas into practice.
Those education committee members were arguing over whether to remove the tests from the selective schools, presumably because the result was racial inequity. The policy they were proposing is anti-racist according to this definition, no?
What about the percent qualifying for the selective schools in NY? Or the percent qualifying for Harvard? Are those something we should worry about?
@Babale, @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness, @k9bfriender, was the Jewish quota at Harvard a racist policy or an anti-racist policy?
This feels like a gotcha. I’m not going to discuss a policy that I’m not familiar with, whose background I’m not familiar, with, and whose effects I’m not familiar with.
Hey…what happened to being charitable in conversations with others? 
You start off the same with “Charitable” and “chump”, but you don’t end up in the same place.
Sure. But aren’t you curious to know how we got here?
Here:
It might be a gotcha for Kendi. ‘Too many’ Jews were getting in to Harvard, antisemitism grew among the students, and the administration deliberately created a policy to reduce the percentage admitted. Or in other words, passed a policy to increase racial equity. Remember, “an antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups”.
So what do you think? Is that the conclusion of Kendi’s premises? And do you agree with them?
Look, I’m not trying to trick anyone. I’m asserting that given Kendi’s definitions, and the situation as described, the conclusion follows that the policy was an anti-racist one. And I’m asking whether you agree with those definitions and that conclusion.
I am perfectly satisfied with my previous answer. No interest whatsoever in your gotcha.
I’ve laid it all out for you, I’ve explained the point, there’s no surprises. It’s not a gotcha, it’s just an awkward question you don’t want to answer.
Why don’t you tell us what you think, as you are the one posing the question here?