Those are both about actions the person has performed in the past, not who they are. And past actions are the best predictors of future actions. An ex-felon has committed a felony, so we keep them away from guns lest they commit another one with those guns. Someone with bad credit have made purchases they were unable* to pay for in a timely manner. It makes sense to assume they may continue such practices.
But race is different. No action has occurred. Race is an immutable characteristic of a person, due to who one’s biological parents are. And, as a society, we have decided it is wrong to treat people differently due to these immutable characteristics. This is due to the concept of reciprocity, which informs many morals. I don’t want to be thought of as a bigot because I’m white. So I don’t assume people are criminals because they are black. The number of bigoted white people or criminal black people is irrelevant to that calculation.
Assuming that criminals might do more crime or that defaulters might default again is completely different than thinking black people you see are criminals, no matter what reason someone might give for that belief.
All that said, I must issue a frame challenge. What statistics are you talking about? Because I can find no statistics indicating that greater than 50% of the black population are criminals, and such a claim doesn’t pass the sniff test. Prisons aren’t big enough to have housed 50% of the black population. And while there may be criminals who failed to get caught, there aren’t that many.
No, like every other race, any black person you meet is far more likely not to be a criminal than to be one. To assume otherwise must be based on racist stereotypes.
*While it is indeed an injustice that unpaid debt may be due to medical debt, the problem there is the medical debt. We shouldn’t have a form of debt that causes so many people to default through no fault of their own. Hence the need for other solutions to healthcare that don’t bankrupt people and cost the taxpayers anyways.
Last names aren’t necessarily great for identification unless everyone is wearing large name tags. We have I.D., but you have to get fairly close to read it.
Most last names (or first and last name combinations) aren’t that descriptive and frequently impractical for distinguishing between people with similar names or jobs. I can tell someone to go check with Will Miller in FMC and they will still have to look around and ask more questions than if I tell them to go check with Will Miller in FMC, he’s the tall black guy.
FWIW, I make a conscious effort to do so. Colorblindness does nobody any favors, and yeah, skin color is a really easy physical descriptor that doesn’t veer into the creepiness of sexual leering. And I figure white supremacy thrives on white invisibility, keeping whiteness as the default state that doesn’t merit a mention.
Many of my black coworkers & students aren’t shy about using “white” as a simple descriptor.
I’m not as comfortable making that determination for someone else. I know that, as a white guy, I will not mind being called, “The white guy over there.”, but I know for a fact that there is at least one black person I know that strongly resents being referred to as “The black guy over there.”
As I don’t know whether or not a particular individual minds being referred to by the distinguishing characteristic that makes them a minority, I find it easiest to just avoid doing so. The vast majority of people who are not appreciative of being referred to by their skin color will not tell you this, but rather, just take it as just one more reminder of their otherness that they get throughout the day.
Do you consider referring to a woman as having big breasts to be sexual leering? I’m not telling them to leer at her breasts, but rather, just using them as an easy distinguishing characteristic. If you refer to someone by their skin color, you are not, I presume, asking them to leer at their skin or to form any judgments on it.
Which is why the pushback, as, while you may consciously make an effort to always mention someone’s skin color when referring to them, many do not, and only make mention when the skin color is something different from the norm.
And they shouldn’t be. As they are probably used to being pointed out by using their skin color as their most distinguishing characteristic, they would have no reason not to return the favor.
The question is whether I’d refer to someone as “the tall white guy.” I know that using “black” as a reference can carry baggage. Using “white” as a reference is, IMO, one way to lessen that baggage.
I mean, it’s socially inappropriate. I’m not going to get into a back-and-forth on the subject. It just is, and I won’t pretend I’m some sort of computer unable to take into account social norms.
If you are referring only to white guys by their skin color, that’s kinda amusing, and I can get behind that. But I don’t see how it lessens the impact of a person of color constantly being singled out due to it.
I get that. What I am saying is that I have seen that referring to someone by their minority status can be hurtful, and I find it to be inappropriate, equivalently inappropriate as referring to someone by their secondary sexual characteristics. I agree that it isn’t socially inappropriate yet, and I wish to help to change that.
That has been discussed thoroughly in the thread. You might disagree, but I think “white supremacism” fits for statements that clearly intend to indicate that African people are inferior.
Personally, I find his comment proof that he is a racist, but only evidence towards him being a white supremacist.
They certainly do not rule out that he is one, but I’d need to see at least a few more examples before I’d be willing to make a ruling.
If you would consider “white man’s burden” to be white supremacy (and I don’t know that I do, but I certainly lean towards it), then that would be how I see those comments most fit.
African people, or black people? The terms are not synonymous.
It’s perfectly possible to believe that people from some underdeveloped nation across the world are inferior to your own countrymen without believing in racial supremacy; that’s pretty much the definition of xenophobia, e.g. What is the evidence that Reagan’s opinion of them was based solely or principally on the color of their skin, as opposed to their cultural milieu, the history of the countries from which they came, their socioeconomic backgrounds, their political beliefs, etc.?
I don’t mean to defend Reagan; he had some nasty attitudes. However, you are seeing a “clear” indication of white supremacy whereas I see only a clear indication of disrespect for people who were different from him, with the differences being more than just race.