There’s that “if” again, which I see @iiandyiiii zeroed in on in his reply above.
But I’ll take a different tack from his. Why be so worried about the “what ifs?” that may occur if one of these days we tackle the problem of systemic racism? How about we worry about the very real, actual, not-gonna-go-away-on-its-own problem, and then we can wait and see how things settle out?
I believe your beliefs are genuine. I also believe they have been influenced by people who maybe aren’t so genuine. It seems a common tactic–a rhetorical device if you will–for a certain side of the argument to want to focus on what harm might occur if we take action to solve the problems that are actually affecting us right now. As if the possibility of future harm or future difficulty, even if granted as a real possibility and not just fear-mongering, should on its own lead us to stop pushing for progress on the problems that are affecting society now now now. It’s not so much whataboutism as whatifism.
I was following your arguments until right here. You lost me. Can you give me an example of the sort of tangible, systemic, racist harm an extant race-neutral merit-based system inflicts? Or have I misinterpreted you somewhere?
I thought you were saying race-neutral merit-based systems can perpetuate systemic racism, to which bump replied, “[w]hen I’m saying systemic racism, I’m not talking about the after-effects”. I think bump is talking about fresh racism, not practices which perpetuate racism by being race-neutral. That’s why I used the word inflicts above.
The system inflicts; the nominally race-neutral aspects of it still perpetuate. The gatekeepers for some of those race-neutral aspects (like a hypothetical law school admissions process, to continue with our example) may not have the power to “stop the harm” but they could choose to play a role in helping to overcome it. If they don’t–if they want to continue to play the “race-neutral meritocracy” game–then they are perpetuating the harm.
FWIW, some (possibly even all) law schools do seem to make an effort to counter the harm–what is inflicted–to some degree. But of course “some” effort doesn’t necessarily mean “all that could reasonably be done” much less “enough.”
This is the part I was and am still confused about. The rest makes sense.
Aside from perpetuating inequality that is the product of past racism, how does a race-neutral merit-based system inflict harm?
bump gave a real-life example of actually inflicting harm through systemic racism: the black student was actually harassed because his studies were seen as breaking racial norms. Now you give an example of actually causing new racist harm, and not merely perpetuating harm, through a race-neutral meritocratic system.
I’m starting to think I’ve painted you as self-contradictory, which is why I asked if I misinterpreted you.
I think the “aside from” phrase ignores that this perpetuated inequality, that leftover of past racism, finds new victims every time someone grows up in that environment. We don’t have to invent a new kind of racial injustice to have a fresh impact on the next generation.
These problems are affecting us right now because there are children right now being impacted by perpetuated inequality. But it is argued to refrain from taking action because a different child might be impacted by that action.
Is there a reason you chose to cut my quote off after “The system inflicts” and then responded with:
Please read this again and point to me where it is self-contradictory:
Of note, I never called “the system” race-neutral. Indeed, the fact that I then went on to refer to “the nominally race-neutral aspects of it” suggests that not all aspects of it are race-neutral in my view. In other words, if you have a three-step process to become a lawyer, (A), (B), and (C), if anyone of those points injects racism, then the system as a whole is racist. Decision-makers involved with the other two steps along the way can plead “race-neutral meritocracy” all they want, but the system as a whole is racist. That’s what I mean when I refer to a system with “nominally race-neutral aspects.”
The example requested was for how a race-neutral merit-based system may inflict harm. Except I never claimed the system was race-neutral or merit-based. Why would I provide an example in support of a claim I’m not making?
And here I quote myself, since it seems you’ve missed, for one reason or another, an important point of my argument, even as I’ve offered clarification:
Of note, I never called “the system” race-neutral. Indeed, the fact that I then went on to refer to “the nominally race-neutral aspects of it” suggests that not all aspects of it are race-neutral in my view.
So again, I’m not going to provide evidence to buttress a claim that is not my own.
No one is asking you to buttress the claim. we are asking for examples of how a race neutral system (taking out where a racist policy made them start, or how it helps perpetuate the imbalance) of it inflicting harm.
Basically an example of
"
What you gave us wasn’t harm, but a system not doing enough to combat the wrongs in your eyes.
Why is it being insisted that we put boundaries around what harm is valid for this discussion? If racist policies created an imbalance and our “not racist” system perpetuates the imbalance, inflicting that imbalance on every subsequent generation, why would I exclude that from the concept of inflicting harm?
No bounds as long as you can provide something real which shows it inflicts harm moving forward …
What you stated was a might happen, which was specifically argued against in this very thread.
Please help me understand by showing me something real.
Keep in mind that you are arguing against a meritocracy.
So I did misunderstand you. This makes more sense, thank you.
I want to clarify one final point. bump and Kearsen1 were discussing how years of racism[1] might have (or has) created a pessimistic community attitude or culture which devalues education, sacrifice, and hard work. They discussed how that attitude might (or has) outlast(ed) the racism which created it, and cause lasting poverty. bump asks, how do we deal with this?
Is your response to point out that we shouldn’t worry about that hypothetical question because racism still exists?
~Max
[1] In this case I mean actual discrimination with prejudice to race; a race-neutral system can not be racist by this definition, but it can be part of a larger racist system. (a composite system consisting of a race-neutral component and a racist component is racist overall)
I’m not convinced that even a public apology would carry much water. It’s likely to take actions, and the attitudes/outlooks would have to follow the results of those actions assuming that they were successful.
It would just be a start (and it’s much more than just an apology – it’s recognition that this is real and true, not fiction). But there’s no possibility of helping without it.
My point is we shouldn’t let that possibility, distinct though it may be, preclude us from taking steps to improve or eliminate what actual sources of harm currently exist apart from or beyond that.
To be fair, I don’t believe bump ever asserted “we can’t fix anything until the [insert community] fixes itself,” or words to that effect. But it’s the kind of “I’m just concerned that…” argument that seems to have the predominant effect of distracting discussions of real, actual systemic racism from discussing, well, “real, actual systemic racism.” It’s a sidetrack. If you grant that realm actual racism exists, then why turn the discussion (and the solutions) away from it? Do we need this or that community to “fix itself” before we can remove the institutionalized stumbling blocks along the path? Is it really reasonable to expect that?
It’s not so much that I don’t grant that there is and will be distrust (honestly, I personally prefer to set that issue aside for the reasons I’ve been outlining, and also because I prefer not to assume what is in the minds of other people that are not here to answer), I just think it’s kind of putting the cart before the horse to be concerning ourselves with what distrust might remain if we ever do get around to fixing “the system.” Again, there are real, actual problems to concern ourselves with, not merely hypothetical problems that may become preeminent in the future. And I certainly don’t see how focusing on the broader societal problems now is going to make this supposed problem of distrusts worse.
ETA:
In this case I mean actual discrimination with prejudice to race; a race-neutral system can not be racist by this definition, but it can be part of a larger racist system. (a composite system consisting of a race-neutral component and a racist component is racist overall)
And here I disagree. I think that if a system–or its decisionmakers–are aware of systemic racism in the wider system, and they choose to pretend like race doesn’t matter, then they are perpetuating racism, and therefore that part of the system, too, is now racist to a degree.