For Instance color blindness is not just practiced by white people, despite the claims of identity politicians. — NOS4A2

Indeed, racism is not confined to white people either. I have already hinted at this. Colour blindness is however just practiced by dominant power groups. So in, say, a situation where the police, lawyers and judges are overwhelmingly black, they may very well claim to be colour blind, because justice is their job, but the white supplicant will be hyper vigilant about colour.

So when one speaks of white privilege it is not an inherent property of whiteness, but a property of power. The prejudices of Blacks in the US or Pakistanis in Britain, may be just as widespread, virulent and unconscious as those of European descent, but it has importance only to the extent that the group or the individuals have power.

Power is manifested in stereotypes (general rule) - positive stereotypes for dominant groups, and vice versa. Stereotypes have unconscious influence even on people who consciously reject them.

If you can, Patricia Williams Reith Lectures audio here or in book form is very informative on why 'colour-blindness' is not where it's at.

There isn't anything here that proves that opportunity isn't roughly the same for all people in America today.

Since education is organized along community boundaries, suburban communities have generally funded much better education than poorer cities. That's another way that opportunity is not equally distributed. — Bitter Crank

Studies (from the UK at least) show that education funding has very little effect on pupil's academic attainment and life outcomes.

Poor and poorly educated populations tend to have worse health outcomes than more affluent people. That's a third inequity of opportunity. — Bitter Crank

And what's the evidence that bad health outcome is mediated by low education or poverty?
I can simply claim that people who have the personality factors that cause them to be in poverty are the same ones that cause them to be uneducated and make bad decisions for their health.

Anyway, any claim that there's huge variation in people's opportunities in America has to deal with the fact that the highest earners are Asians and Jews. Do Asians have the most opportunity?

In addition, the groups of people with the highest representaion among high social status jobs are Copts, Hindus, Indian Christians, Iranian Muslims, Black Africans etc. Does that mean those groups of people have a surplus of opportunity?

And the picture looks even better when you start looking at which people in particular succeed and which personality traits they have that predict future success. That shows that IQ and conscientiousness are the traits that pick out an individual from a group, regardless of what group they're a member of, for being successful in the future.

Some sources:

"Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2016 inflation-adjusted dollars)". American Community Survey. United States Census Bureau."

1 Indian $128,000
2 East Asian $85,349
3 White $67,865

The most socially mobile groups in the USA are non-white foreigners: 18 m 30 s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QyIMwzHuiCU&t=1110s

I think I should refine my stance on whether or not there is equality of opportunity. I think your comment makes a good point. By equality of opportunity, I mean that nobody has any significant barrier to success. Some may have a small barrier.

So largely, I view outcome as a function of ability, with very little difference in opportunity between people.

Here's a source for my claim that IQ and conscientiousness predict future earnings:
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/1/3

So largely, I view outcome as a function of ability, with very little difference in opportunity between people.

Here's a source for my claim that IQ and conscientiousness predict future earnings:
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/1/3 — Hallucinogen

I'm confused by what you're saying here. You first make a claim that outcome is a function of ability, with very little difference in opportunity between people, then you cite an unrelated study about correlation between IQ and income. Am I missing something?

There's a NY Times piece on how Italian Americans became white. It's pretty good.
— frank

Could you let me know what it's called? What means does it use to prove that? — Hallucinogen

It's called How Italians Became White

Several historians are mentioned. The Times itself is used as a reference since it reflected popular bigotry.

Clearly, you're responding to what you've read into what I wrote and not to what I wrote. — 180 Proof

Clearly you don't understand what you wrote. To assume that others think or act a particular way based on the color of their skin is racist. That is what you proposed that the minorities should do - assume that all whites are racists - which is racist. It's "fighting" racism with racism. It seems that you are blind to your own racial discrimination against "whites".

In other words, how descendents of poor Euro-immigrants became American In-Groupies, thereby privileged enough to (eventually try to) blind themselves to still prevalent racial color-discrimination with kumbaya "racial color-blindness". — 180 Proof

You seem to be confusing blindness to race with blindness to race discrimination.

If one is blind to race. It means that they don't categorize people based on the color of their skin - just as we don't categorize people by the color of their eyes. Being blind to the racial discrimination is another thing. I can't be blind to my own racial discrimination if I'm not racially discriminating. I can however be blind to others treatment of others. But that's the thing isn't it - that not all white people are racist?

That's not going to happen. Given [insert local history here] it simply is the case that people of ethnicity X are liable to be in danger from people of ethnicity Y in the places where people of ethnicity Y rule the roost and there is a history of conflict. This applies to honkeys in the South African townships, and blacks almost anywhere in the US or Europe. Only if you are of ethnicity Y that rules the roost can you afford to ignore the obvious facts of life on some theoretical principle.

One comes to assume these things because they are true, not because genes or skin colour make it true, but because social forces make it true. Just as Germans tend to speak German despite there being no gene for speaking German and no distinct race of Germans. It is a wonder to me that seemingly educated folks hereabouts cannot get their heads around this. — unenlightened

If you are so sure that racism is just a fact of life for cultures that have a majority/minority dichotomy, then what is the purpose of complaining about something that can't be changed? What's the point?

It comes down to how you are raised. Did your parents make it a point to distinguish between the color of peoples' skin? Did they categorize people as "black" and "white" and then treat people differently based on the color of their skin, or raise their children to believe that the other race is out to get them?

Mine didn't. So I grew up thinking that the color of one's skin wasn't a defining property of people - just as eye color or hair color aren't defining properties of people. Their actions are. Skin color is just another variable to being human. When you are raised to see everyone as human and not black and white, it has an effect on how you view others when you become an adult.

Now if you are raised to believe that there is a difference, and that the other side is out to get you, or hold you down in some way, then of course that is the mentality you are going to have as an adult. It's really that simple.

There is difference in cultures that racism is promoted by the state (Nazi Germany) and cultures where racism isn't promoted by the state and is rather promoted by individual families or groups, but it's not systematic (The U.S.).

There is a difference in cultures where racism is promoted by the state (Nazi Germany) and cultures where racism isn't promoted by the state and is rather promoted by individual families or groups, but it's not systematic (The U.S.). How you are raised in a culture that is more open and doesn't apply racial rules (rather it promotes equal treatment which is difficult to enforce), then your parents are going to supply the rules that the rest of society isn't. Is this your "black"/"white" friend, your "black/white" girlfriend, your "black/white" teacher, etc., or just your friend, your girlfriend, or your teacher? How did things get defined for you and categorized for you growing up? Who did the defining?

I don't agree (at all) with OP that diversity training is some kind of malevolent cancer of society or anything like that, but I do generally think that policies ought to treat people without regard for race, and that that doesn't mean denying the history of racial injustice.

Just to clarify I did not state diversity training was a malevolent cancer, only that diversity training is a manifestation of anti-colorblindness.

So when one speaks of white privilege it is not an inherent property of whiteness, but a property of power.

We could just call it “privilege”, then, without racializing it.

Do you prefer judging people according to the content of their character, or does the color of their skin factor into your judgement?

For the reasons you outlined, I have started to question the validity of an "equality of opportunity". Increasingly, it seems to me that "equality of opportunity, not of outcome" has become a kind of mantra, a signal more than an actual policy decision.

Equality is a value judgement, whereby we compare different states and decide whether or not these states are sufficiently similar in their characteristics to warrant being treated in the same way. In that sense, there is no way to establish equality of opportunity, because opportunity is not a state of affairs - it's another judgement.

So what we are actually doing when we assess "equality of opportunity" is looking at outcomes - just not at actual outcomes, but of predicted outcomes. I don't see how we could arrive at a judgement of "equality of opportunity" that wouldn't include a judgement on the equality of outcomes.

For the reasons you outlined, I have started to question the validity of an "equality of opportunity". Increasingly, it seems to me that "equality of opportunity, not of outcome" has become a kind of mantra, a signal more than an actual policy decision.

Equality is a value judgement, whereby we compare different states and decide whether or not these states are sufficiently similar in their characteristics to warrant being treated in the same way. In that sense, there is no way to establish equality of opportunity, because opportunity is not a state of affairs - it's another judgement.

So what we are actually doing when we assess "equality of opportunity" is looking at outcomes - just not at actual outcomes, but of predicted outcomes. I don't see how we could arrive at a judgement of "equality of opportunity" that wouldn't include a judgement on the equality of outcomes.

Another reason to be skeptical of equality of opportunity is that opportunities are only available in a particular time and place, out of the reach of a vast majority of the human population. There is no such thing as equality of opportunity. Perhaps it is a bad phrase.

But I think the main point of it, at least colloquially, is the removal of unjust barriers to participation.

We do not have time to review the history of the United States and the United Kingdom (just for starters) to find all of the major causes of economic success and failure among various groups. But...

Studies (from the UK at least) show that education funding has very little effect on pupil's academic attainment and life outcomes. — Hallucinogen

In the US, education funding is largely a local matter. It may be the case that in the UK education funding is largely a national matter. How funding is distributed would be a factor in examining differing educational outcomes. In the US, the relationship between the average income of a school district (which generally overlap municipal boundaries) is very strongly related to academic performance. Income of households is certainly correlated with (even caused by) the personal characteristics of parents and children. Among any group one can find individuals whose life outcomes are much better (and much worse) than the average. Averages submerge individual achievements and failures.

And what's the evidence that bad health outcome is mediated by low education or poverty?

I can simply claim that people who have the personality factors that cause them to be in poverty are the same ones that cause them to be uneducated and make bad decisions for their health. — Hallucinogen

The evidence is in both case histories and statistically large group outcomes. In the case histories one will find personality factors and bad decisions that resulted in poor health, but these disappear in large statistical groups, and other factors emerge. Being born in "the fried fish belt" of the Deep South, for instance, is indicative of poorer health outcomes. Why? Because of lower income, more smoking, more bad diets (too much fat, sugar), obesity, stress, and so forth. People with low income MUST behave differently than people with high income because their choices are limited by low income.

And the picture looks even better when you start looking at which people in particular succeed and which personality traits they have that predict future success. — Hallucinogen

Of course. If you select people who have succeeded (however success is defined) you will find similarities. If you select out people who have failed (however failure is defined) you will also find similarities. Personal characteristics (conscientiousness, success-producing habits, successful role models, etc.) will be there In most cases.

There isn't anything here that proves that opportunity isn't roughly the same for all people in America today. — Hallucinogen

You will have to read the book (The Color of Law, among others) to get the evidence on black/white achievement differentials.

I do not disagree with you that personal characteristics play a strong role in success. But group histories and characteristics amplify personal features. Take your high-achieving South and East Asians for example. My guess is that this high achieving group do not represented a cross section of the populations in South and East Asia from which they originated. This would be unlikely for two reasons: #1 immigration quotas in the US favor people who are educated and have skills that are in demand. #2 is that leaving South and East Asia to immigrate and settle in the United States would require considerable wherewithal. These people are successful here because they were successful there.

If you are ready to perform at a high level In technological fields and you settle in Silicon Valley or Boston, one ought to do well. Similarly, if you leave China and can afford to settle in Vancouver, you had to have been a success already. Success begets success.

Success begets success: this is a truth Americans do not love. The popular mythology holds that anyone can be a big success if they work very hard, save their pennies, invest wisely, and so on.

There are a few rags to riches stories that are true. In most cases, those who end up rich did NOT start out with rags. Most successful people started out with advantages: Successful parents with at least above-average incomes; stable homes; good schools; good community environment; good role models; (often) higher education; good health, stable personality.

In all cases of success, the brains and piles of wealth represented by investment banking step in (or not) to make good ideas a success. If the best idea in the world doesn't appeal to the bankers, you'll have to take a begging bowl out to raise funds. Unlikely.

But all that is about a tiny minority of the population--people who belong to the 1%. For people who make it into the top 10%, you will find that far more often than not, they came from the top 10%.
Conversely, people who "make it" into the bottom 10% generally came from the bottom 10% (except the very downward mobile). And on up the line.

Where does the African American fit into this? As a group, they tend to have started out poorer than average and generation after generation stayed poorer than average. Did they like it that way? No, they did not, do not.

Successive generations of poverty create an impoverished culture which imparts to individuals habits that do not lead to success. This is NOT unique to blacks: any group mired in successive generations of poverty (including anglo-saxons) will develop habits that do not lead to success, and they will -- by definition -- not have the resources it takes to leap out of the impoverished culture/comunity/family.

Do you prefer judging people — NOS4A2

That's a fairly shitty question. I'd prefer to conduct a detailed interview following a written application, and then follow up the references. But when I'm walking down the street at 1.30 am on a Saturday night, I don't have that luxury. And that's why people who look intimidating tend to get shot by cops. They're not trying to be prejudiced, they don't prefer to be, they just are.

That's a fairly shitty question. I'd prefer to conduct a detailed interview following a written application, and then follow up the references. But when I'm walking down the street at 1.30 am on a Saturday night, I don't have that luxury. And that's why people who look intimidating tend to get shot by cops. They're not trying to be prejudiced, they don't prefer to be, they just are.

That’s a pretty shitty answer. I was merely asking if race factors into your own judgement, and if not, why should it factor into the judgement of others?

I won't be able to reply in detail soon, but until then, material by Gregory Clark (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2Ugb4VKH8) is central to showing why you're wrong. Quite simply, people from illustrious biological lineages who fall into poverty see their children and grandchildren return to riches.

illustrious biological lineages — Hallucinogen

Ah yes. And to think we started out as fish.

people from illustrious biological lineages who fall into poverty — Hallucinogen

Well, it may be that some people from "illustrious biological lineages" can fall into poverty (like, not so much as a room and a pot to piss in) and then in subsequent generations become magnates of industry. There is no reason why such a thing can't happen. But then, why do people from "illustrious biological lineages" fall into poverty in the first place if they are so illustrious? Lots of illustrious biological specimens went bankrupt in the Great Depression. It wasn't their fault that there was a depression that wiped out an enormous amount of wealth, but they were swept along to their financial doom. And their great grand children tell stories about their illustrious biological lineage who struck it rich, once upon a time. Meanwhile, the great grand children are living pay check to pay check, as did their parents and grand parents.

We are all products of at least somewhat illustrious biological lineages, because we are here. Really fucked up biological lineages get eaten alive -- go a ways back and that would be literally eaten alive.

Another problem with illustrious biological lineages is defining the thing. What is an illustrious biological lineage exactly? Perfect physical specimen plus very high IQ plus athletic ability, plus incredibly good looks, plus a big dick?

Peter Watson (you wouldn't know him) was an important person in mid-century modern art. What was Peter's biggest asset (besides good looks and a big dick, which he reportedly had)? It was income from a hundred million dollar trust fund. Plus, it was the years at "public school" (AKA private schools) such as Eton and Oxford. It happened that Pete flunked out of Oxford. Still, his family connections, his schooling, and his money gave him automatic entre to places that would tell schmucks like us to take a flying fuck. Peter Watson was smart, very well educated on his own as well as school, fluent in a couple of languages besides English. He knew a lot about art, which he learned on his own, mostly.

But then, there are quite a few people who are multilingual who are not "important people". There are quite a few intellectuals and artists that die poor, or at least, not well off.

My working formula:
Prejudice (e.g. "racial"-color stereotypes/biases) +
Power (i.e. majority/over-Class) =
Racism (i.e. modes/strategies of discrimination against "racial" minority/under-Class)

Clearly, you're responding to what you've read into what I wrote and not to what I wrote.
— 180 Proof

Clearly you don't understand what you wrote. To assume that others think or act a particular way based on the color of their skin is racist. That is what you proposed that the minorities should do - assume that all whites are racists - which is racist. It's "fighting" racism with racism. It seems that you are blind to your own racial discrimination against "whites". — Harry Hindu

Thanks for proving my point, Harry. :clap:

I was a white kid who grew-up a racial minority and I can’t recall the luxury of being color-blind at the time.

The problem with the racism = power + prejudice model is that it rules out simple racial prejudice from the referents of "racism", whereas I'd expect most people would think of either that, or race essentialism, as the definition of racism. It's certainly much more sociologically significant when that kind of prejudice (whether or not supported by essentialist beliefs) is backed by power, but it seems more useful to have a more specific term for that, like "institutional racism" or something, and allow the broader range of colloquially "racist" attitudes and behaviors to still be included under the umbrella of racism proper. So if e.g. a poor white dirt farmer calls a black investment banker a racial slur, that's still racism, even though in that case there is no power advantage behind the prejudice (at least not without erasing all individuality and saying that a powerless member of a statistically powerful class is necessarily powerful by association, and vice versa).

point?
I can say "wealthy families" instead, does that make it clearer?

What was Peter's biggest asset (besides good looks and a big dick, which he reportedly had)? It was income from a hundred million dollar trust fund. Plus, it was the years at "public school" (AKA private schools) such as Eton and Oxford. — Bitter Crank

You're assuming the conclusion of your own argument. The information I've linked to outright refutes this.
Also, with a spot of Googling you can see that receiving a private education produces little to no effect on life outcome, which is amusing because people pay so much for it. Having gone to an exclusive school is associated with having a higher paying job as an adult, but I shouldn't have to point out to philosophers that that doesn't mean it causes it. What causes it is the genetic advantage of the parents wealthy enough to send their kids to an exclusive school.

The information I've linked to outright refutes this. — Hallucinogen

Where? I've already asked you for the information you're referring to proving that social factors don't have a causal relationship with wealth. All you've provided is evidence that IQ does have a correlation, not that other factors don't. In fact the very report you cited said, quite specifically, that sex at birth was also correlated.

I shouldn't have to point out to philosophers that that doesn't mean it causes it. What causes it is the genetic advantage of the parents wealthy enough to send their kids to an exclusive school. — Hallucinogen

The report you cite only demonstrates a correlation. You can't claim correlation is causation when it suits your argument and that it isn't when it doesn't.

Where? I've already asked you for the information you're referring to proving that social factors don't have a causal relationship with wealth. All you've provided is evidence that IQ does have a correlation, not that other factors don't. — Isaac

My argument is that social influences are less than genetic factors.

In fact the very report you cited said, quite specifically, that sex at birth was also correlated. — Isaac

Wouldn't sex at birth be a genetic influence?

The report you cite only demonstrates a correlation. You can't claim correlation is causation when it suits your argument and that it isn't when it doesn't. — Isaac

I have difficulty seeing how attaining wealth could change one's genes. Or that necomjng wealthy would raise one's IQ, especially given pre-existing evidence that variation in IQ is ~75% due to genetic variation.

I was merely asking if race factors into your own judgement, and if not, why should it factor into the judgement of others? — NOS4A2

And I was saying that of course it does, and to pretend that it doesn't is fairly shitty. It shouldn't according to some fantasy of social relations, but it does. So I acknowledge the fact, and if you would have the honesty to do the same, then we could begin to talk about whether there is anything to be done about it. When I see @180 Proof walking down the street, I'm watching to see if he pulls out a weapon. And he knows my white fear, and he's watching me the same way. Until maybe we say hi, and then since we are both liberal to a degree, he might let me move in next door or marry his daughter.

So when one speaks of white privilege it is not an inherent property of whiteness, but a property of power. — unenlightened

Yet then it basically isn't talked as "(put the racial/ethnic term here) priviledge". And that wouldn't have the same connotations. In fact it's really stupid to take this term "white priviledge" out of the US context and generalize it to everywhere.

When I see 180 Proof walking down the street, I'm watching to see if he pulls out a weapon. And he knows my white fear, and he's watching me the same way. Until maybe we say hi, and then since we are both liberal to a degree, he might let me move in next door or marry his daughter. — unenlightened

:victory: :death: