As the OP I'm curious to hear your view on my little summary of the merits of both sides of this argument:

• 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

I feel like your side is saying "Anti-colorblindness is not necessary", and the other side is replying "Colorblindness is not sufficient", as though that's a rebuttal. I think both things are true, and not in contradiction to each other, and that "anti-colorblindness" people should not be against colorblindness per se, but for something more than just colorblindness, which nevertheless does not have to be anti-colorblindness.

Of course. I think every will agree with that. The issue seems to be more about the thread starting out by saying things have gone backwards and that what you’ve said may undermine certain inequalities?

I have tried, and failed, to highlight items about the exchange of information and how advertising and new technologies are pervading everyone’s lives - even in areas of serious poverty (phones are widespread).

It is fascinating, to me at least, that algorithms can reveal our shortcomings due to living within a certain cultural framework. How innocuous streams of data can reveal social/cultural trends that we’re both proud of and ashamed of. I don’t imagine that we’ll ever assume a human cooking will always be a woman - but it is more likely globally - but should we at least limit how these images are spread in advertising and online? How education affects attitudes, how the loudest voices are now being heard where before they were ignored? What is good and bad these social changes? Have racial tensions and tensions around sex become more strained in recent years or is it at least partly the case that a previously unexperienced form of mass and immediate global communication has magnified people’s concerns (some for good and some for bad). Should we celebrate that we can discuss this and get to it or look for easy targets?

How about a steel-man argument from the main characters in this dialogue?

To anyone.

Feel free to say what think my position is here and I’ll happily present as solid an opposition to what you claim my view is without resorting to insults and evasive rhetoric. I am quite able to argue strongly against my own positions, it’s just that I tend to lean more toward one direct or another depending on the context - I’m not going for the fallacy of the middle here either.

Prove you have any intelligence. — unenlightened

Banno says so:

That's brilliant, Harry. So erudite. — Banno

(Even though it's the only thing Banno has gotten right in this thread)

the solution is actually remarkably simple
stop describing humans using simple colour labels that are imprecise and unsophisticated descriptors start describing humans more directly and clearly
if you want to talk about someone's physical characteristics...do so...he had dark curly hair with medium complexion and brown eyes
if you want to talk about someone's culture, do so, his parents were born in Egypt, but he was born and raised in new york.

the terms "white" "black" "brown" etc, imprecisely link physical appearance and cultural ties
they do nothing useful and we would do better to abandon them

Odd, that genetics is seen as relevant here. I guess it's a bias carried over from the predominance of Americans. — Banno

That's your's, unenlightened and 180's position - that genetics isn't just relevant, it's all that matters. You're saying ignoring genetics (skin color) is racist. I'm saying that we should be ignoring genetics - especially where genetics isn't a factor, or part of what it is that we are taking about. Genetics/race should have nothing to do with choosing someone for a job for instance, but you're saying it should - that I should choose someone for a job because they're black. Race/genetics should only be part of scientific conversations of biology and medicine.

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

What is central to one's identity? Doesn't it differ from individual to individual? There are people who don't see their skin color as part of their identity - just as their eye color isn't part of their identity. Oh, and haven't you said that identities were social constructions, not something that an individuals can decide for themselves.... :roll: In your world, there is no such thing as an individual identity - only social ones.

Racism is the historical cause of many ongoing problems, and — Pfhorrest

It's both a cause and an effect. Block a minority's path to wealth and influence, then point to their diminished status as proof of their poor character.

Not doing more racism is not sufficient to undo those problems, but — Pfhorrest

True. Accessing wealth and influence takes time. Multiple generations.

Doing more racism in the other direction is not necessary to undo those problems — Pfhorrest

True. That would just reinforce the misguded use of materialism that started the tragedy in the first place.

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. — NOS4A2

Of course. I think every will agree with that. — I like sushi

I believed earlier so too, but now I'm really not so sure anymore.

You see, earlier I too thought about in similar fashion as above, and thought there is no contradiction, that actually both sides are just making a different point.

Yet Banno has stated that race is central to his identity (or to the identity of people). He of course has no problems as he can enjoy all the white priviledge there is as a 'white fella'.

Let that sink in.

It's not that some people are racist or some people use 'colorblindness' as a mask and this has effects on everyone. Race and the color of your skin seems to be central. So not only is race something real and inherent, but also very important to one's identity, central to it. It's not something that you could overcome. So I guess that NOS4A2's above statement then is offensive.

↪Artemis I don’t see why — Banno

Because it only involves recognizing the human rights of human beings who have settled an area before others.

What's race got to do with that?

For some people in certain circumstances I’m sure their racial identity is of the utmost importance. For others it’s political orientations or artistic sensibilities.

To repeat, we all have prejudices (realised and hidden). If Banno says that I’m sure he has good reason too, but I don’t understand it - the explanation needs to be refined by him not us.

I doubt he meant that he woke up and thought ‘what is my whiteness going to be about today?’. Maybe he just thinks too many ignore racial problems? Maybe he’ll try and explain better?

I’m pretty sure I have more in common with an Englishman my age of any colour than I do with an American or an Australian my age. The mainstay is the cultural understanding - granted there are divisions within countries, cities and eveb neighbourhoods too.

I could attempt a steel-man to side with Banno. Should I?

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.
— NOS4A2

Of course. I think every will agree with that.
— I like sushi
I believed earlier so too, but now I'm really not so sure anymore. — ssu

The only people who don't agree with what NOS42 states there are racists.

NOS4A2 has a history of ridiculous trolling, so a casual glance at the OP leads one to think he's wanting to say that legislation designed to protect minorities is racist. Nobody believes that. It's not a thing (except to a troll).

After being hammered for his trollness, the thread was due to expire into the bit bucket when Banno began to bring claims that are identical to what a white supremacist would say: that race should guide us in the way we treat people. We might have been able to understand it as an Australian angle on the topic, except he felt the need to contradict MLK Jr.

Subsequently, NOS4A2 reverted to a standard view: that race has nothing to do with a person's moral standing.

So we did with this thread what philosophy tends to do. We made a pile of confusion out of a very simple issue.

That sounds about right, but I do believe racial-colorblindness is required in order to not be racist, that it is a fundamental step to refusing racism, and that color consciousness is a learned, racist behavior.

Well yes, preferential treatment for race groups is racism almost by definition. And it is a thing.

Troll away Tim, but let me know when you can add anything to the conversation, because your play by play of this thread and the piffle and snark of your posts weaken it.

Thank's for a short ingenious abstract of the thread, frank.

Subsequently, NOS4A2 reverted to a standard view — frank

Isn't that a good thing?

So we did with this thread what philosophy tends to do. We made a pile of confusion out of a very simple issue. — frank

:lol:

That would be such a fitting motto for the whole Forum.

Sadly that’s pretty much on the mark.

The interesting doors are left closed because people prefer to strut about with puffed out chests.

Hope for everything, expect nothing and enough the writing practice :)

That's your's, unenlightened and 180's position - that genetics isn't just relevant, it's all that matters. You're saying ignoring genetics (skin color) is racist. — Harry Hindu

I have not claimed or implied anything about "genetics" anywhere on this thread. Read what I actually wrote to find out what I've said is "racist". As pointed out in a previous post, you only seem interested in responding to what you've read into what I wrote rather than to what I wrote - why is that, Harry? :shade:

So we did with this thread what philosophy tends to do. We made a pile of confusion out of ... — frank

... a complex issue.

[...] 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. [...] — I like sushi

Another useless autobiography that addressed no point (for yet another "middle man") .. your stance does a GOOD job as misinterpreting my posts and spewing irrelevant points, which leaves nothing but a FISHY after taste regarding this topic.

And no one, I repeat, NO ONE plowing the field cares about the flowering peach tree you grew.

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. — NOS4A2

The only one sucking themselves DRY here with trivialization and trite 'points' is you. A long with the Pforrest human implying 'race conscious' people on this thread are anywhere CLOSE to 'anti'-anti racism.

That sounds about right, but I do believe racial-colorblindness is required in order to not be racist, that it is a fundamental step to refusing racism, and that color consciousness is a learned, racist behavior. — NOS4A2

You MUST spout this because otherwise this entire thread would be for nothing (which it already is..)

You MUST spout this because otherwise this entire thread would be for nothing (which it already is..)

I say it because judging people according to their race and not their character is a prerequisite to racism. I say it because race-consciousness and race-thinking were essentially written into law in places such as apartheid South Africa. The opponents of apartheid (to you, “ maladaptive daydreamers“) were, as is usually the case in racist systems, interested in a color-blind system.

It's both a cause and an effect. Block a minority's path to wealth and influence, then point to their diminished status as proof of their poor character. — frank

That is a good point, thank you.

Banno has stated that race is central to his identity (or to the identity of people). He of course has no problems as he can enjoy all the white priviledge there is as a 'white fella'.

Let that sink in.

It's not that some people are racist or some people use 'colorblindness' as a mask and this has effects on everyone. Race and the color of your skin seems to be central. So not only is race something real and inherent, but also very important to one's identity, central to it. It's not something that you could overcome — ssu

I'm seeing here an analogue to the argument between gender abolitionists and trans people, which is yet another argument where I think both sides have a point and are largely talking past each other.

Race/gender can be individually important to a person as part of their sociocultural identity, and yet at the same time race/gender ought to be morally irrelevant as a matter of public policy or social norms.

That sounds about right, but I do believe racial-colorblindness is required in order to not be racist, that it is a fundamental step to refusing racism, and that color consciousness is a learned, racist behavior. — NOS4A2

Yes, I was thinking about that after I posted last night. Anti-colorblindness is not just unnecessary, it is impermissible; colorblindness is morally obligatory, even though it is still not morally sufficient. We have to be colorblind, but we also have to do more than just be colorblind.

not so much. I’m not as polite as some.

Yes, I was thinking about that after I posted last night. Anti-colorblindness is not just unnecessary, it is impermissible; colorblindness is morally obligatory, even though it is still not morally sufficient. We have to be colorblind, but we also have to do more than just be colorblind.

You’re right, it’s not sufficient to combat racism as it exists in society, but it is at least sufficient to combat racism in ourselves and in our own behavior, I think. It certainly does not address racial injustice, the historical application of racism, and any racial disparities that result.

I'm guessing that the reply you might get from an Australian or Indian indigenous person would be that the white flea came, took the land, broke the families, took the children, took the language, gutted the culture and now says that race doesn't count for anything in terms of recompense.

The descendents of slaves might have a not too dissimilar complaint.

Your answer is the classic liberal reply, claiming blindness as a virtue. It's what I am objecting to.

Yes, Harry.
That's right.

Now if you can put these ideas together in a coherent way,. you will have understood what we have been saying.

I'm guessing that the reply you might get from an Australian or Indian indigenous person would be that the white flea came, took the land, broke the families, took the children, took the language, gutted the culture... — Banno

I'm not denying any of that.

...and now says that race doesn't count for anything in terms of recompense. — Banno

What more besides the things I already described (giving land etc back directly when the crimes are tractable, helping people to get new land etc when it's not) do you or they want in recompense? All that comes to mind is "kick all the white people out of the country", which is just retaliatory vengeance visited upon the innocent children of the original criminals and so is unconscionable. What was done to the indigenous people was unconscionable too, but two wrongs don't make a right. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it right either, true, but I'm not advocating that. I've advocated a means of making right without doing more wrongs, and I'm open to improvements on that plan too. Is there something more you want, besides just to do more wrongs in vengeance?

I've advocated a means of making right without doing more wrongs, — Pfhorrest

Not do much. There's the wrong of pretending that aborigionality is not important, that you would perpetrate.

I'm saying that we should be ignoring genetics - especially where genetics isn't a factor, or part of what it is that we are taking about. Genetics/race should have nothing to do with choosing someone for a job for instance, but you're saying it should - that I should choose someone for a job because they're black. Race/genetics should only be part of scientific conversations of biology and medicine. — Harry Hindu

This ought to be evident, but some people simply are quite infatuated with the rhetoric that ignoring race simply means denial of racial problems and gives a veil to racism. It seems there's not much effort to understand your point here.

I think one problem is that talking about identity here two different terms get mixed: first there is personal identity and then there is social identity. The norm is that we judge people as individuals with theirpersonal identity and their individual actions. What isn't tolerated is to judge an individual by a social or collective identity they have. Because that is what racism, xenophobia and misogyny do. (Then of course being 'colorblind' to people that have a collective identity is totally different from treating individuals equally.)

In the end the woke argument can easily turn on it's head: it can come down to the idea that people, especially white people, are inherently racist and anything else is just denial of this. And once we introduce race as something eternal, something central to the identity of the individual, something real, we naturally give it then credence. And once we give it credence, then we do create racial divides and literally divide people into races.

I’m pretty sure I have more in common with an Englishman my age of any colour than I do with an American or an Australian my age. The mainstay is the cultural understanding - granted there are divisions within countries, cities and even neighbourhoods too. — I like sushi

In the intersectionality roulette nationality and culture define by country isn't hip as it's the thing that the wrong people emphasize.

Yet nationality is a good example of a truly man made or "invented" identity, which can have absolutely dramatic consequences on how we treat each other. Just think what happens when countries go to war. Still, I would say that race, gender, sex, nationality, ethnicity are all not so determinative than wealth. Being rich gives you real privilege in this World.

Can you then please answer the question I asked in the message you replied to, both before and after the part you quoted: "What more besides the things I already described (giving land etc back directly when the crimes are tractable, helping people to get new land etc when it's not) do you or they want in recompense? [...] I'm open to improvements on that plan too. Is there something more you want, besides just to do more wrongs in vengeance?" (Or, I suppose, to exclude the much smaller number of whites etc who might need similar assistance, by limiting aid to aboriginals only?)

For anyone interested, here is a great account of a debate regarding race and racism between Gobineau, arguably the father of white supremacy, and Alexis De Tocqueville, that great Christian liberal.

The Study of Man: A debate on Race

For anyone interested — NOS4A2

?

Good riddance for 18th century 'scientific' racism.

Good riddance for 18th century 'scientific' racism.

Exactly right, but De Toqueville’s arguments are, it seems, still prescient today.