This is the challenge to liberalism. In denying the significance of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, liberals deny aspects that are central to an individual's identity. — Banno

Banno, tell us how race is so absolutely significant to you, that it's central to your individual identity.

Even the supposition that identity should not matter is caught in these terms. It holds the only way identity could matter is if it were a stereotype to gain merit over others. — TheWillowOfDarkness

How do you get "identity only matters as a position in a hierarchy" from my moral claim that "race should not confer societal advantages and disadvantages"?

Identity has another side, the binding of an existing person, in a social environment, under a concept of who they are. This side (which is a social construct, as are all our identity categories) of race, religion, gender, ability, etc. is real, the people who are distinguished by concepts, who exist is certain material conditions, who are related in specific ways to culture an organisation of society. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I understand that subcultures can run along ethnic or racial lines, but they don't actually. Groups are collections of individuals that all share something in common. Race can be used to define groups.but they're only as culturally, conceptually, materially, and economically homogeneous as the width and standard deviation of the bell curves that measure in-group diversity (that is to say, individuals are not actually defined or necessarily accurately described by the average situation of other members of their identity group). If you tried to define someone's identity based on their race, and they disagreed with your assessment, then you would have likely been employing a racist stereotype (although you could always accuse them of having "internalized white supremacy"). The moment someone says "All black people", or "All white people", they've departed from reality.

So my rebuke is that you're ultimately advocating we rhetorically divide ourselves into ideologically rigid groups in order to assign collective guilt or virtue, where you ought to be focusing on individual needs.

A society which values equality does not see race, religion, gender or ability as irrelevant. It understands people with those identities are valuable. It sees them as part of society and recognises society will not be equitable if it ignores them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm trying to understand how ability relates to race, gender, or religion. I don't think ability is irrelevant, and since I think we should always be striving toward "equity" for those suffering the most, I fully support the initiatives required to help the disabled lead lives worth living. In assenting to this, I am tacitly admitting that disability is an intrinsic disadvantage; that it is better to be not disabled than to be disabled. Many disabilities are unique, but I think to be counted as a "disabled" an individual has to have some sort of reduced capacity that interferes with the normal living of life, hence, "all disabled people suffer as a result of their disability". We need not employ statistics at any point except when looking for the best bang for our investment buck when we erect or modify institutions to better accommodate the disabled, and at the same time, offering help that is tailored specifically to each disabled individual is how we can (at least forseeably) reduce the most amount of suffering among the disabled.

If we focus on the specific suffering and needs of individuals, regardless of group identity, I think we stand a better shot at delivering more change. We do need to recognize the ways in which we treat people unfairly because of their race, religion, or creed, so that we can cease the unfair treatment (which is the crux of 'colorblindness'). If poverty, immoral outcomes in the justice system, and a lack of access to quality healthcare or education are the things that disproportionately cause suffering in the black community, let's just address those problems directly, on the individual to individual level, and community to community level

There is also a bit of tension with individualist culture here. If we are in a position of respecting notions of individual freedom, we have to admit the woke-capitalist more than just getting some ideas right. We would have to admit the up-down color gradient of horizontal symmetry (note: we do not really have this now, only certain touches here and there) is an improvement, since it will have altered society in which individuals of certain identities are better valued than before. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But symmetry doesn't speak to absolute suffering; we could arrive at symmetry by "devaluing" the whites currently at the top, but that doesn't guarantee any changes for the individuals who suffer at the bottom (the Bolshevics brought about more up-down symmetry, but they certainly didn't do it by valuing individuals or menshevics).

Banno, tell us how race is so absolutely significant to you, that it's central to your individual identity. — ssu

I'm a white fella. I don't have to worry about my race.

Banno, tell us how race is so absolutely significant to you, that it's central to your individual identity. — ssu

I think he meant "victim status".

No one is allowed beg in our street, regardless of how wealthy they are, and what bribes they can pay.

Turkey declaring a ceasefire after it has annexed Kurdistan. That's fair. Any Kurds or Syrians who fight after the declaration of a ceasefire are acting in bad faith.

Whitefella give you your land back, unless it has something in it we can mine, or we need to put a road or pipeline over it, 'cause then it belongs to all of us, again.

All fair, all good. — Banno

None of those sound like problems where discriminating on the basis of race would have made things better. They're just problems that are not solved just by not further discriminating as in the past. I don't think anybody here who's for color-blindness is saying that just being color blind will fix all problems for everybody. It's not a sufficient condition. But it's a necessary one, and I'm still not seeing a counterexample to that, where treating people differently because of race would solve any problems like these.

So...? — Banno

Yea. I think conscience is the most important thing. Transgress somebody's cultural rules, and they'll forgive you if they know you didn't mean any harm. Usually.

But I don't try to convince anyone of that. I just note when it's time to call a lawyer from the ACLU and otherwise chalk misbehavior up to some people suck.

This might be helpful/interesting to some here:

https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2019/10/21/ep228-1-social-construction-race/

(For those who'd like a more general background on the relevant social ontology, try episode 227.)

I'm a white fella. I don't have to worry about my race. — Banno

Yep. And nonwhites in western developed rich countries, if they're smart about surviving, worry about how white fellas expect to use "race" to gain / maintain advantages at the expense of non-white fellas (& gals) and are wary of tells for those expectations. This is survivor strategy not 'victim mentality'. "Content of character"? One's expections of who ought to benefit and who ought to pay at the intersection of e.g. whites & non-whites in a white majority, or controlled, social order expresses "the content of one's character" either way and in both white majority "fellas" & nonwhite minorities as well.

Also, clearly whites can and often do oppose systemic "anti-nonwhite racism" & overt hateful discrimination just as nonwhites can and sometimes do conform to - even cravenly support when it personally suits them - the very same "anti-nonwhite racism".

Anyway. Without impugning motives or casting aspersions, many commentors on this thread baffle me with their uncharitable (to say the least) responses to what Banno, TheWillowOfDarkness, Swan, Bitter Crank, Isaac, Judaka, et al (from both white & non-white perspectives) have quite clearly said thus far. An incorrigible muddle, I think, from a persistent and pervasive habit of conflating personal prejudice with social-systemic racism. That way leads to the burqa side (as suggested previously) ...

Failing to recognise the indigenous status of an Australian aboriginal would lead directly to multiple issues.

Anyway. Without impugning motives or casting aspersions, many commentors on this thread baffle me with their uncharitable (to say the least) responses to what Banno, TheWillowOfDarkness, Bitter Crank, Isaac, et al (from both white & non-white perspectives) have quite clearly said thus far. An incorrigible muddle, I think, from a persistent and pervasive habit of conflating personal prejudice with social-systemic racism. That way leads to the burqa side (as suggested previously) ... — 180 Proof

Oh, yeah. Hence my quoting Shakespeare...

I like that podcast episode. They covered a lot of stuff all apt for this thread.

Can you elaborate? I’m not very familiar with Australian racial politics. I would guess that is has something to do with the rights of indigenous peoples to their homelands, in which case I’d say it’s still treating people equally to respect that; it’s not that being of some race per se (ought to) give some people rights that other people don’t get, but that nobody should have their rights to their homes etc violated regardless of race. But again, I’m just guessing at what you mean here because I’m not familiar with the actual specifics; please let me know if that’s completely different from what you mean.

I suspect that there is some comfort for us poor white fellas in the idea that all we have to do is ignore race and the issue is solved.

Saves us from having to understand black fellas.

Because, I gotta say, that can be hard.

:lol: Yea, verily!

it’s not that being of some race per se (ought to) give some people rights that other people don’t get, but that nobody should have their rights to their homes etc violated regardless of race. — Pfhorrest

Australian aboriginals were not recognised as the indigenous owners of the land; indeed, the land was notoriously treated as terra nullius. Hence, there is a strong emphasis on recognising their very existence.

SO the advice in the OP would go down very poorly downunder.

Hence, there is a strong emphasis on recognising their very existence. — Banno

Which is a far cry from recognizing or emphasizing difference, no?

Scientifically speaking the definition is quite distinct. There is one human race not multiple sub-subspecies of humans. The genetic differences between humans is minute - nothing that comes even close to talk about different species of humans. — I like sushi

The only one that needs THIS lecture is DingusJones arguing about bone densities and and so-called 'innate' racial IQ disparities to the point of reductionism, as if they have any strong relevancy to the topic.

And I don't think ANYTHING in the OP is culturally interesting regarding 'race'.

The point here is people conflate the two terms often enough. It’s a relatively easy slip to make given the scientific weight of the term ‘race’ and the political weight of the term ‘race’. I think this kind of conflation has lessened to a agree due to education, but it is tied to a history where the scientific community used to think there were distinct human ‘races’. — I like sushi

I don't think anyone here needs a Daddy; I think it is clear that people think "colorblindness" means 'my personal black queer friends are treated great by me," - attempting to make this some UNIVERSAL outlook - is what is delusional, not helpful, and frankly just ridiculous.

You're "hey guys, just so you know and are confused we're all one human race! =] .... and scientifically speaking [...] " is UNNEEDED, irrelevant, and just downright DISTRACTING/deflecting from real issues to the point where one can only be SUSPICIOUS of the motives - usually coming from a passive colorblind - less so the more aggressive ones like NOS4A2.

(Same thing with the: ... So, uh, hey what about AI's too) as well.

Races are the mental chains that early racists strung around vast, disparate and diverse groups of people to justify their oppression and conquering. — NOS4A2

What's your point? Paying attention to racial conflicts (unique) to particular races, histories, degrees and distinctions are neither attempting to 'justify' racism/oppression or condoning non-white 'conquerers'/imperialism. :roll:

As I understand it, that's a COLORBLIND problem... unless you mean, "Colorblindness actually doesn't mean ignoring these things, but instead 'seeing everyone as equal'" ... So yeah, okay. WHAT IS YOUR POINT.. ("racial forward pedalling" - look at my noble act) - with the minority chick next door? And why should anyone care in terms of large scale racial realities..?

Color-blindness and the dream of a color blind society was always an ethos that propelled abolitionism, civil rights and anti-apartheid, while race-consciousness, “the Veil” of DuBois, was always the problem to begin with. — NOS4A2

Again, no one has time maladaptive daydreamers. 'Conscious people' know they exist. Now tell me what you maladaptively daydreaming about plow driving the minority chick next door (in the present - informally), does for your future curly-haired children growing up in society, where EVEN IN SPITE OF - "civil rights" - she is still SELECTED formally last on the basis of her curly hair.

I generally look at prejudice as prejudice rather than honing in on any particular example of it. So ‘race’, ‘religion’, ‘language’, ‘sex’, ‘sexual preferences, or ‘political attitudes’ are just flavours of human prejudices — I like sushi

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

When did I say anything about IQ and race?

I don’t see why.

How I would address that problem without having to discriminate based on race:

Whenever a tractable case of someone taking someone’s property is at hand, that is when an identifiable person took an identifiable property from another identifiable person, just reverse the theft and restore property to its owner. However in this case I suspect few if any such crimes will be so directly tractable, so...

Whenever you have some intractable mess of intergenerational poverty like we probably have in this case, address that poverty by addressing poverty generally (e.g. by programs to help people who don’t own land to do so), without direct attention to race. If as is probably the case here the indigenous people are disproportionately facing this problem, then addressing this problem generally will end up disproportionately helping them, as is appropriate, without the policy needing to pay any particular attention to race to achieve that.

EDIT to summarize:

• Racism is the historical cause of many ongoing problems, and
• Not doing more racism is not sufficient to undo those problems, but
• Doing more racism in the other direction is not necessary to undo those problems

Or to rephrase, when it comes to fixing ongoing problems left over from past racism:

• Colorblindness is not sufficient, but
• Anti-colorblindness is not necessary

Where you live the distinctions may be more prominent in terms of race. In other countries people have been slaughtered due to many other reasons.

I’m not avoiding the fact that visual distinctions are the first things we notice because I’m aware we’re more inclined to judge experiences by visual cues. Race is one facet of how prejudices operate. I’m interested in the underlying mechanisms of prejudice. In the middle east people look the same yet they’re still at each others throats - clearly there is more to human prejudice than phenotypical traits.

I don’t think it is at all sensible to ignore the way words are used over time either. If you don’t believe that other people took ‘colourblindness’ to be a positive thing years ago then you’re ignoring history and individual accounts expressed here. I don’t think anyone here worth talking to would equate treating people based on character with ignoring social inequalities.

You shouldn’t get so riled up. Frankly it looks childish and makes the underlying sense of what you’re trying to say seem superficial.

Even Banno has gone off target by trying to imply his appearance is part of his character. Another rhetorical use of a word that fits into his argument, but sadly in the context of the reference doesn't fit at all.

And to repeat. No here, as far as I can see, is even nearly suggesting that we should ignore people’s cultural backgrounds. The issue is we cannot see someones culture by looking only guess roughly what it might be. If I see a black person I don’t think ‘better treat them like a black person’. I undoubtedly make certain unconscious about anyone I see, and especially the people I meet for the first time - because when I engage with people my brain is trying to figure out who they are, what their intentions are, etc.,. If I’m walking down a street alone at night and there is someone walking towards me a huge number of factors play into how I regard the person. If I’m paying conscious attention then if the person was a woman I’d look at how she is walking (is she confident, worried, scared, drunk, etc.,.) which would factor into whether or not I may decide to cross the street or offer assistance. I am not blind in that sense, yet if she’s just walking along strident and unconcerned I may not even notice her. If it was a man then I may feel threatened due to their stance, my confidence level, their dress and/or their racial appearance. If I’m in Germany and the guy looks German then I’d be more likely to feel in danger, but if they were clearly English or another foreigner, I would see them as a tourist like me.

And before anyone says people don’t look German, they do. You actually have you spend a fair amount of time away from caucasians to glean the differences. I was quite surprised by how many Germans looked like some of my German friends. And when I returned to England I noticed subtle tells in what makes someone look English. There are some African people around where I live and it’s obvious they are African by their dress (although some have a certain American look to them).

I don’t actively TRY to ignore racial differences. I would agree that it is a bad thing. The thing is, whether you like it or not, when I was growing up and I heard the term I took it to mean ‘try to judge people by their character’, but we cannot ever ignore what we see and relate it to our experiences - which is why I find the influence of the internet a huge concern given many people spend lots of time online being fed positive feedback that will un/intentionally reinforce their biases.

As to the topic there are positives and negatives about focusing on racial distinctions. The benefits outweigh the negatives as far as I can see, but there are certainly instances where things go too far (as there with all social issues). It is no wonder racial tensions are high in the US because historically there is a helluva lot of baggage.

So, yes, people are blind to the lack of reason from which bizarre prejudices manifest. Actively trying not to judge someone by the way they look is a double-edged sword too, because some people will go over the top. Once people speak to each other most preconceptions quickly drop away, but without doubt there are certainly grains in us all that hold fast to certain views and opinions that fly in the face of reality.

SO literal.

The left finger. — Banno

Yes, that's a very literal or perhaps concrete interpretation of my quesitons. I was asking what part of character, which is not going to be a body part, I asssume? What part of character is

Noticing someone's ethnicity makes a huge difference to how one ought act towards them — Banno

What part of their character am I noticing?

...and yet the colour of this skin is part of the content of their character. — Banno

Perhaps a specific example would make this clear. I see a person who looks Latino, or perhaps Greek. What do I know about his or her character now?

OK, that makes sense. But was this European liberalism or American?

nationalist liberalism.

Dunno. but I'm sure it's not Australian Liberalism with a "L" - which is a pile of conservative stink.

I don't know what nationalist liberalism refers to. Or, I could come up with a meaning in the states, and perhaps one that would fit for Europe, which possibly like the Australian version, is much more conservative, especially economically than the US version.

Anyway. Without impugning motives or casting aspersions, many commentors on this thread baffle me with their uncharitable (to say the least) responses to what Banno, TheWillowOfDarkness, Swan, Bitter Crank, Isaac, et al (from both white & non-white perspectives) have quite clearly said thus far. An incorrigible muddle, I think, from a persistent and pervasive habit of conflating personal prejudice with social-systemic racism. That way leads to the burqa side (as suggested previously) ... — 180 Proof

Oh, yeah. Hence my quoting Shakespeare... — Banno

And this without impugning motives or casting aspersions. :halo:

The waffling between this straw man and the next suggests to me most of the criticism of color-blindness is made of straw.

No, it’s not to refuse seeing skin-color, or saying someone’s identity does not matter, or to deny racial injustice in both personal and systemic fashions, which suggests color-blindness negates its own intentions. It is only to affirm that one’s skin-tone or preferred racial identity is irrelevant to one’s moral standing as a fellow citizen, a fellow human being.