So there’s a rich white guy, Whitey O’Richpants, who does loads of work for improving the lot of Africans and African-Americans. He runs charities to provide food & water to needy African areas and funds scholarships for African-Americans to go to trade schools, many millions of dollars each year.
Trade schools and not universities? That’s right, he sees no point providing free rides to university because he believes blacks are intellectually inferior, he’s fairly open about saying this in public too.
He sees all his philanthropy through a patriarchal ‘white man’s burden’ lens; Africans would probably just die of thirst if his charity wasn’t giving them water and American Blacks would likely turn to crime if they weren’t kept busy with blue collar trade jobs.
You have a private meeting with Whitey tomorrow and you’ve got just the best argument about how racism is wrong, you’ve got charts and everything, and you’re pretty sure you can convince him that black people are not inherently inferior…if he comes to agree with you though, he might cancel his charity work since it shouldn’t be necessary (he has no white/asian people based charities and is keen on telling poor whites to yank on their bootstraps)
Do you convince him and hope he becomes a rich, benevolent, non-racist or leave him with his useful racism?
One of the ways racists use boards like this is to find ways to package racism for those who would be uneasy about Stormfront. Gussy it up a little, dress it up in “science,” and you can lure in people who want to be racist but who don’t want to go full-on white supremacist.
A dude like the dude you describe is doing the same thing. He’s selling racism, dressed up and with a rebate, but it’s still selling racism. And the ultimate effect of racism isn’t benevolent or useful. The ultimate effect is to give people the excuse they want to treat others poorly. (Often used by people who want to believe in a just world that happens to favor them.)
I absolutely do not believe someone can be evidenced out of racism, but if it could be done, I would do it.
If he’s been fairly open about his beliefs, [list=A][li]He is oblivious or he would have been driven from public life already, and He has almost certainly heard what you have to say already and is not likely to be convinced, even with charts.[/list]I would keep my mouth shut. [/li]
I had a relative, now deceased, who was a fairly obnoxious racist - in theory. In practice, he treated people he met personally, even members of races he disparaged, courteously. I think he sort of thought “he/she is the exception to the rule” for pretty much everyone he met.
Would it have been better if he could be enlightened in his beliefs as well as his attitudes? Sure, and maybe there were instances where he treated members of other races badly, although I never saw it.
Maybe it’s cowardly to say “pick your battles”, but maybe not.
My general rule is this:
-When trying to figure out whether someone’s a schmuck, rely on their motives.
-When trying to figure out what should happen, rely on outcomes.
I think dude’s a schmuck, based on his motives. I don’t try to persuade him of anything, based on your hypothetical’s outcomes.
(Edit: I find your hypothetical’s outcomes dubious–I suspect there would be other more salubrious outcomes in addition, and that would complicate things–but if we take the hypothetical at face value, that’s my approach)
I’m the argumentative type, so if I feel myself in a position to win an argument for once in my life, I’ll jump at that.
Besides which, the end doesn’t justify the means. I don’t think we should endorse racism ever, even if we can twist it to some not-harmful end.
Also lets consider your worst case scenario - he only donates money because he’s a racist. That means that he’s being compelled to blow his money by an idiotic idea, and he wouldn’t choose to spend it that way if he was in his right mind. Me deliberately using his misconceptions to bend his money to my preferred ends is immoral manipulation by me. He should choose how to spend his money freely without a mind clouded by hatred.
Considering how many university graduates are working at Starbucks, while saddled with crushing student loan debts, one could argue that the trade schools are a better deal anyway. Leave him alone.
This. 50% of the students at university now don’t belong there, no matter what their color. O’Richpants is probably sending those “inferior” students off to very successful lives as professional tradesmen, raking in the dough and free from crippling debt. More power to him, the racist fuck.
There is no price on racism. This reminds me of the old joke about prostitution (“We’ve established what you are; now we’re just haggling over the price.”)
What amount of money is sufficient to pay to be a racist? Millions? What if he offered only a single $100,000 scholarship? Okay to be a racist then? What if someone is willing to hand you $100? Does he then get a pass?
As far as I’m concerned, there is no amount of money you can pay or donate that gives you the right to treat other human beings as inferior based on their race. Giving in to that thinking just gives even more power to the people who need it least and have the easiest time abusing it.
If de-racifying him may have profoundly negative consequences for the people who benefit from his water/scholarship/job initiatives as posited…then, reluctantly , no.
Giving ‘millions and millions’ is possibly enough to make a significant sector of the public listen to what the person is saying (though realistically it might take more than that nowadays), beyond the people benefiting from the millions. This would be IMO the key reason one would want the person to change their mind. That their words do more harm than their actions do good.
But the idea the person would openly say this is by far IMO the least realistic aspect of the hypothetical. I can’t think of any real world example on which this would be based, in many decades at least. I can think of cases where people would infer such beliefs (the philanthropist is a conservative generally, so ‘must’ be inclined toward ‘racism’ to begin with, and look they contribute to trade schools and most of the students are minority, so they ‘must’ think non-whites are inferior…) but the person actually agree rather than vociferously deny it? Hard to imagine that in the environment of recent decades at least.
And it seems some answers implicitly ignore the idea the person would openly say he believes in categorical racial inferiority since that’s so far fetched (guys on Stormfront don’t have, certainly aren’t donating, ‘millions and millions’). Rather those answers seem to consider the question as if one knew the person felt this way, even though they never said it publicly. In which case I’d agree, base it on outcomes: the outcome of his private views is by itself nothing; the programs he sponsors are a positive.
Since I’m the one who mentioned Stormfront, I assume you’re talking about my answer. But my answer is based on the hypothetical saying that this man asserts his belief in the inferiority of black people. He’s selling a more acceptable version of racism (“gosh, we need to do more to protect the poor dears!”) than a Stormfront-y (“kill them all!”) version, just as people on this board try to sell a more acceptable version of racism by dressing it up as “science.”
Making racism more attractive is a terrible outcome for the world.
But here’s the thing: Yes, in his own mind, he’s treating black people as inferior to whites. But is he really, in actual practice?
He’s giving black people a fine education, and a wonderful chance at a financially-successful life. How is that any different–in actual practice–from affirmative action and/or needs-based scholarships?
He says that black people are intellectually inferior. In practice, he says that. He is admitting racism, and he’s going to make racism seem a-ok to some people. That is the practice that he’s engaging in.
The premise of this hypothetical is that we are explicitly given the fact that the racist has charitably decided to donate his money, and he gives it to poor black people because they need the help due to being inferior. So we know he’s a nice generous guy who’s a racist.
The hypothetical then asks us to assume that without the influence of racism he would stop being a generous nice guy and stop giving anything at all. (Because racism causes generosity, apparently.)
It’s worth noting that this is an assumption we’re asked to make - it’s not a given that it’s true.
Personally I choose not to make that assumption, because it’s a really bizarre one. Instead I’ll assume that after I get the chance to educate the racist that black people aren’t inherently inferior, that I’ll get the chance to remind him that a lot of them are still in bad situations and are financially inferior, and could still use his help. Could he be all like “no - I only give money to animals, not actual people”? Sure! But it’s a risk I’m willing to take.
There’s always a potential downside to any good deed. If I jump in the pool to save the drowning toddler, he might grow up to be the next Adam Lanza. If I mentor a poor kid and help him get into a good college, he might grow up to be the next Bernie Madoff. But I’m guessing what is MORE likely is that in both case my good deed will be met with a good outcome. I shouldn’t let the slim chance of a bad outcome keep me from doing the right thing.
Knowing that I’m talking to a philanthropist, I would frame my argument to appeal to his idealism and desire to make a positive difference in the world. I would first start off the conversation by asking if he’s ever thought about donating to the UNCF or a historically black college/university. And when he comes back with derisiveness, I’d pepper him with some facts. And then I’d ask him to consider that the negative views he has about black people would likely not exist if black people were nurtured just like everyone else. And if I can convince him of that, it shouldn’t be hard to convince him that his generosity helps create nurturing spaces and opportunities that are still very much needed.
This ain’t gonna happen. Facts don’t matter to people like you’ve described. Spend a few minutes on Twitter or watching Fox News if you don’t believe me.
Since there’s no way in hell I’m getting Whitey O’Richpants to change his views, the whole exercise is pointless. I suppose “No” would have been an accurate answer, but I said “Other” because I can’t even entertain the hypothetical that charts and facts will flip a racist.
My point is simply that people on some extreme websites openly espousing categorical racial inferiority are either speaking anonymously or such non-entities it almost doesn’t matter if they give their real names or you could figure out who they really were.
Philanthropists giving millions simply do not in today’s world espouse such views in public, even in a ‘nicer’ way. People often infer or imply that such figures have such views, but the people themselves essentially never admit it. That’s the difference I’m pointing to v Stormfront.
Assuming otherwise is so unrealistic that I think many responses slipped into the (common sense) assumption that the person deciding whether to try convince the philanthropist to change his opinions knows the philanthropist thinks this way, even though the philanthropist doesn’t admit it publicly. But unfortunately the realistic version of the hypothetical is significantly different than the stated one.
Of course. Racism is wrong. It’s not less wrong because this guy is doing some good deeds. If I have a chance to stop racism and I refuse to take it, then I clearly don’t actually think racism is wrong, since our beliefs are proven by our actions.
The hypothetical says that I have a chance, so I do. Hypotheticals are not tethered to reality. In reality, this would never happen. That’s what makes hypotheticals so much easier to answer than real life issues.
This statement is worthy of debate in a thread all of its own, I reckon. If you believe something is wrong, are you obliged to try to correct it? I’m not sure my answer to this is absolutely ‘yes’.