OP started this thread in GD. Let’s give him credit for wanting an honest debate. I’ll start by asking OP a series of True/False questions. After he replies, we can hone in on specific areas of agreement and disagreement.
@ WillFarnaby —
T/F: There is a common-sense distinction between blacks and whites, adequate to address the following questions.
T/F: Blacks suffer from racial discrimination in the U.S. They are kicked out of restaurants, harassed, and mistreated by police in situations where a white would be much less likely to be so treated.
T/F: When it is the police or other governmental entity doing the discrimination, government should seek remedies. Good-spirited citizens should press the the government to seek remedies.
T/F: Discrimination, as in the Starbuck’s incident, is probably a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since that law is on the books, government should strive to enforce it, whether a given citizen approves of it or not.
Let’s start with these. Once we develop a baseline we can work on higher-level teachings like “The everyday person is not as obsessed with racial classification as the rabid activists.”
No we don’t. Since self-identification doesn’t seem to be a problem. Unless you’ve seen stories of multitudes of white people self-identifying as black in order to qualify for black scholarships.
There are a lot of definitions out there on the interwebs-Which one(s) do you have a preference for? if your answer is “none”, then I would say that “lame” is a step up from that.
Sure no problem. But your position seems to be that self-identification of race will allow anyone to benefit from race-based policies. Therefore, we need a different way of classifying race.
I don’t agree that it’s a problem, and you haven’t shown it’s a problem, so why do we need a new solution for a problem that doesn’t exist?
Ok maybe the policy could be fulfilled, but it does nothing to help us understand how progressives define the races. They must have a definition or else how would we know the policy is being fulfilled?
When studies are being done that are trying to determine if the policy is being fulfilled, they only study people who have been affected by the policy. If they ask people “Does this policy affect you?” and the person says “No, because I’m white”, then that person doesn’t get included in the study.
Firstly, I don’t think there is consensus on this definition, this thread is evidence of that.
If progressives have in mind a policy to benefit group X, they have in mind who belongs in that group. I think you said yourself that some people who identify as X may not belong in that group. Who belongs in that group?
No, I said the amount of times someone deliberately identified themselves as a different race in order to take advantage of some program is close to zero. That’s why the problem you keep talking about is not a problem.
[swirling space-loops]I’m going to force these so-called progressives to provide a definition that will apply to every single person in the world without exception. Then I’ll point out an exception. Ha! I’ll demonstrate that their viewpoints are nonsense![/swirling space-loops]
What we’ve much-too-patiently have explained to you is that the world is not hard-edged and precise. Only libertarians think that way, which is why libertarians are laughed at and ignored in every sphere outside their own circles.
Race is a social construct, true, but one that is deeply embedded in those societies. Skin color works as a proxy for race to an extraordinary degree. Virtually all whites can be separated from virtually all nonwhites. We know that because nonwhites feel it. They live that outsiderness every day of their lives. What used to be called “passing” is another real thing. Think about the reasons that existed in large enough numbers to have a name.
Are there some mistaken identities at the borders? Certainly. Southern Europeans can be so naturally dark as to overlap peoples from other continents. Go back and read British mysteries from the so-called Golden Age. Greeks and Spanards and Italians are often referred to as wogs and occasionally niggers. They are considered a lower class of beings and usually turn out to be the murderers. Americans used to think this way as well. That’s why the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed. To keep out darker-skinned Europeans.
That’s only a century ago, not a huge amount of time in societal terms. My parents were both alive in 1923. Even so, Americans came to accept darker-skinned Europeans and shifted the worst discrimination towards darker-skinned peoples of non-European ancestry.
That you and Quartz and some others declaim that colorblindness is mandatory is nicely utopian. I’m positive that every darker-skinned person would happily accept it if all you white utopians would practice it, every minute of every day in every action. (“If only everybody in the world would think exactly like me” is the mantra of all libertarians.) You (collective you) don’t practice it, however. So now what?
Your answer is, pretend it’s true and ignore all those who say otherwise. We won’t do that. I’d say it’s a point of pride that we will never do that. You can stand off in your tiny corner of the world and rail against reality at tedious length (51 posts in this thread!) and all it will get you is derision. Race is a real issue. And you don’t get it. You just don’t get it.