When Should the Federal Government use Race to Exclude Beneficiaries?

It's about helping disadvantaged people overcome their disadvantages. Claiming that it's a racist or exclusionary policy is like looking at someone paralyzed in a wheelchair and then wondering why you have to walk around on your own two feet. However, I also think that the policy misses the mark - not that it doesn't help, but that it really doesn't go far enough. We're applying band-aids to individuals who are still stuck in a system that was designed to break them - to break us all (unless you happen to be a very wealthy white man in a position of power, then you've hit the jackpot. Lucky you.).

I often look at the world through more of a class than a race-based lens, but it's very difficult to disentangle them. Historical systemic racism (for hundreds of years) has certainly impacted the class-status of Black and Native peoples (and to a similar but maybe lesser extent, other racial minorities). While being poor sucks for everyone, white people still benefit in only having to deal with poverty and not poverty + racism. On the other end of the economic spectrum, post-emancipation, we've seen example after example of economically successful individuals, businesses, and communities sabotaged by racism and violence, one of the most famous being "Black Wall Street" in Tulsa Oklahoma, which was burned to the ground by white people "defending" the dignity of one white woman. 300 Black people killed and 1000 homes torched because one Black shoe shiner may or may not (probably not) have tried to assault a white lady elevator operator.

So, you get a pattern over and over again, in which people of color are discriminated against by those in power, and when they've built something for themselves, it gets taken away from them. Over time (not just days or years, but generations), this can lead to a psychological phenomenon calledf 'learned helplessness' in which people just give up trying because through past experience, they expect defeat. You can basically lay the demoralization and pessimism of Black people in America at the feet of white people and the systems they constructed to benefit and protect themselves. Of course, that's all history and the people who did those things (or were victims of it) are all dead now... but the systems are not mortal, they don't die, and they don't depend on their creators for their existence or operation. History stays with us and we are all continuously having to deal with the past.

If you feel an ounce of shame over slavery, jim crow, the 'trail of tears' or other ugly racist systems from history and prefer that we just forget about them and move on, imagine what it's like to be on the other side. The fuckers that kept your people down and systematically erased whatever gains you've made are still around, and still in control. Their racism may not be as overt as individuals in the past, but that's because many of the racist systems have been institutionalized. Instead of personal accountability, they shift responsibility to the abstract, impersonal 'the system,' 'the government,' 'big-business,' etc. which lets them off of the hook for actually doing anything about these issues, particularly when they don't actually touch their personal lives. In general, white people don't hate people of other races; they just don't think much about them at all until they feel inconvenienced when those people start to point out that their needs are legitimate and valid as well and that the systems white people have built to serve themselves are creating significant harm for others.

With this MBDA policy we're 'giving a man a fish' and yes, he'll eat for a day, maybe, if he takes care of that fish and doesn't let anyone snatch it away from him. However, what we need to be doing is asking why there seems to be so few fish to go around, why that one massive fishing boat seems to have all of them, and what might be a more fair and equitable system to keep the man and others like him from constantly facing starvation. As for the captain of the fishing boat, don't worry about him. He may end up with a few less fish in the end, but he'll be alright.

Quote by Tantaleyes

Growing up in a system that says "special treatment's OK for certain classes of people" creates and supports people who want to get and keep getting the special treatment. The system creates a client class of people who expect support. That's where I break ranks, because that's not good for the individual, even though the class benefits.

Why do conservative weirdos do this?

The incredibly bizarre Dean Browning and “Dan Purdy” Twitter drama, explained

A politician was accused of using a fake burner account for a gay Black Trump supporter. That’s when things got weird. 

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/11/10/21559458/dean-browning-dan-purdy-byl-holte-patti-labelle-twitter-gay-black-man

In South Africa that’s been part of process for years so it’s really normalised for me. It’s about securing equality of outcome which a lot of people argue is the only method for ensuring equal rights. I would also be one of those people.

Quote by Tantaleyes

Maybe, if I was stuck trying to defend racist policies, I'd attack the people who didn't agree with me instead of arguing the merits.

But why do conservative weirdos do this? What you're doing here.

Quote by PrincessC

In South Africa that’s been part of process for years so it’s really normalised for me. It’s about securing equality of outcome which a lot of people argue is the only method for ensuring equal rights. I would also be one of those people.

I like the term "equality of outcome".

Quote by Tantaleyes

You're the one who's defending racist policies and attacking people who don't agree with you.

OK but pretending to be black online to spew right wing nonsense is weird. Even you have to admit that.

Quote by Chryses

One approach would be to find, pursue and eliminate the racism that holds back those who the agency claims to assist.

That would not require implementing racist policies.

You cannot be racist towards white people because there is no systemic oppression of white people. You can be bigoted. Before you respond to this please note that this is not my opinion but the opinion of anybody who has formal education in political philosophy.

Quote by Chryses

And doing so based on "race"? I'm not so sure about that.

And you think that is different than economic victims, natural disaster victims, etc.?

I believe people who's ancestors were stolen from their land, forced into slavery, then subjected to racist laws and second/third class citizenry for a century, would easily fit into the categories needing aid just like disaster victims, etc.

I can only see those opposed to that as racist bigots. And no fucking apologies to any small minded pricks here that feel offended by that. You know who you are.

Quote by Chryses

Some people cannot see clearly while some people can.

Some people support racist policies while some people are opposed to them.

Who is the policy racist against? And how long has the policy been around?

Some people believe helping those oppressed for centuries is racist because the oppressed have a different color?

Would y'all say that is just an excuse for empowering and continuing white supremecy?

Quote by Chryses

That question has already been answered in this thread.

edited

Sounds like you know I will corner you with logic again so you're afraid to answer.

Quote by Chryses

So, how did your SBA research go?

Who is the policy racist against? And how long has the policy been around?

Simple questions about a thread you started, but if you're too scared to answer, that's fine I guess.

Quote by Chryses

My question was, "When Should the Federal Government use Race to Exclude Beneficiaries?" not how long have those policies existed. Did you notice?

I guess when your thin veneer of dumbassery wears off, there's just a big fat pussy underneath.

Good day, Penny Chryses.

Quote by Chryses

I shall take that as an acknowledgment you had not noticed my question was, "When Should the Federal Government use Race to Exclude Beneficiaries?" not how long have those policies existed.

So, are you opposed to the Federal Government helping the Black American descendents of slaves, stolen from their native lands, living under 2 centuries of oppression to acquire equal status in the USA? And also the same with Native Americans having their Homeland overran, significantly wiped out by European disease, militarily defeated, and forced onto reservations?

And do you support keeping a White Supremicist status quo?

Quote by Chryses

I shall take that as an acknowledgment you had not noticed my question was, "When Should the Federal Government use Race to Exclude Beneficiaries?" not how long have those policies existed.

Who is the policy racist against? And how long has the policy been around?

Answer if thou be-est a man or deflect if thou be-est a mouse, with small testicles, even for a mouse.

Quote by Chryses

Methinks 'tis a gallant gesture of yours to offer those prized items of yours to me as tokens of your surrender.

Who is the policy racist against? And how long has the policy been around?

The reason Chryses, with his below average mouse sized testicles, is scared to answer my questions is as follows.

Who is the policy racist against?

Answer: White people.

And how long has the policy been around?

Answer: Decades.

Now this proves the policy being "racist" doesn't matter because if we were to crunch some numbers... White people have no trouble starting businesses. In fact, most business owners, CEOs and most positions of power really, are held by white people.

Penny-Chryses knows this. That's why he can't bring himself to answer those two simple questions because it completely negates the whole point of his thread... That the policy is designed to be racist to white people which would put them at a disadvantage.

But in reality, racism against white people in America isn't a thing. Not a thing enough to actually economically or socially put them at a disadvantage.

The real point of Chryses' thread is to just actually be racist against minorities by attempting to get white people angry about "anti-white racism", that in reality, doesn't actually exist when it comes to this policy.

It's just right wing culture war poison think. An attempt to create more racism.

"Hey white people, your enemy is minorities! Not corporations, rich people and politicians." <-- That is what conservatives are desperate to make people think.

Quote by Chryses

If attacking me and defending racist policies is what floats your boat, by all means have at it! Keep in mind that because the policies are racist, they fail the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I have cornered you with logic once again.

I accept your surrender.

Quote by Chryses

If attacking me and defending racist policies is what floats your boat, by all means have at it! Keep in mind that because the policies are racist, they fail the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Do you have any objection to the Bureau of Indian Affairs?

Quote by Chryses

See my response above.

I won, tenderfoot.

We've read your above posts, Chryses, as well as your history of Think Tank posts. Re-reading them does not answer the questions. That's why l asked those questions.

A Penny for your thoughts doesn't get much, does it?

Quote by Chryses

Insofar as it functions as the intermediary between the United States of America and the several Native American Nations, no.

Otherwise, it does have a certain quaintness about it.

So that means that you're also OK with the Department of the Interior having a Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Education, the Department of Labor having a "Division of Indian and Native American Programs", and the Federal government having an Indian Health Service.

These aren't intermediaries to native nations. These are services specific to native nations, supported by the federal government. So, this must be racist too, right?

Quote by ElCoco

Let's try a different angle. Since nobody's said the policies aren't racist, and felix looks like he understands they are racist, "But in reality, racism against white people in America isn't a thing. Not a thing enough to actually economically or socially put them at a disadvantage", then let's try "How much/many racist policies are the right amount for the US government?"

It isn't racist. Does that help?

The first definition I found for racist was: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

I would argue that exclusion in this case is not prejudiced, discriminatory, or antagonistic.

So, currently, the answer is zero racist policies are the right amount for the US government. People who would like to apply the word "racist" to white people who's biggest complaint is that not every program, contract, and program is designed for them any longer, are the same people who like to think we're in a "post-racist" society.

Quote by Chryses

Those services of Interior are specific to native nations, just as State has services specific to other nations. For example, the Country Security Report for [your nation here], The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, The Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and The Bureau of African Affairs. Do those bureau names sound familiar? Do you think they are racially based or based upon the nations they serve?

The DoD has analogous geographical services. U.S. Africa Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, U.S. Southern Command.

I should be available for daytime conversation this week.

edited

Native Americans are (1) citizens of this country, (2) residents of the states in which they live, (3) AND a member of their specific native nation. In this case, it's services put in place by the federal government (using federal funding) for one specific demographic, just like in the OP. In this case, it's even narrower. It includes only those people of the Native American ethnicity.

Somehow, it's not racist to have programs for just Native Americans but it is racist to have a program that includes "black, African America, Hispanic, Latino, American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, Eskamo, Hasidic Jew, Asian Indian or Spanish-speaking American".

How is that possible?

Quote by ElCoco

I can’t fault you for being wishy-washy!

Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability:

Since the policy discriminates between different categories of people based on race or ethnicity, the policy is racially or ethnically discriminatory. Take your pick.

Since the policy’s racially or ethnically discriminatory, and your answer is “zero racist policies are the right amount for the US government,” then I’d expect you’re against the policy unless you take the ethnically bit as being OK.

Discrimination actually had two definitions. The second one is: recognize a distinction; differentiate. You're mixing the two definitions up.

Keeping white people out of a program intended to make up for the problems caused by white people does "recognize a distinction". However, for your definition to apply, noticing the difference would need to be "unjust". Is it "unjust" to recognize white people as white and accept that they did a lot of bad things that has an generational effect on people who aren't white?

Quote by ElCoco

Or you're mixing them up.

I'd say it's unjust to say to anybody, "You're not entitled to what others are because of the color of your skin." Do you think that's the right way to treat people?

In this case, yes I do. You're (general "you") not entitled, as a white person, to resources put aside for non-white people because of the atrocities you, a white person, have done to them. That sounds very just to me.

Quote by ElCoco

OK. Now let's replace some race with another race. Is it still very just to you?

Let's see....

You're not entitled as a German to resources put aside for Jewish people because of the atrocities you, a German, inflicted on Jewish people.

Yep. Still sounds just.

Quote by ElCoco

I'm not a general person. I'm somebody who's trying to get ahead like everybody else, and now you're saying that something that happened to somebody else in the past makes me, because of the color of my skin, ineligible for what somebody with a different skin color can have.

I'd say that's a racist policy.

You've heard of "royal we"? This is "general you".

If you're white in America, you do better because of it. That's just the truth. You benefit from the systems put in place by other white people, usually men, designed to specifically make white people do better. You don't have to like that white people have this advantage, but if you're truthful, you'll acknowledge it.

So, if we acknowledge that, it isn't something happening to someone else in the past. It's a current system in place right now unevenly benefiting white people. And you think it's unjust to do anything material to change that?

Quote by ElCoco

I thought we were talking about ethnic or racial groups of Americans.

I thought we were replacing some race with some other race.

See you tomorrow.

Quote by Tantaleyes

You don't get rid of racism with more racism.

Why not? It's said to work for guns.

Quote by Chryses

I expected you not to provide any posts of mine to warrant your opinions, and you delivered what I expected.

Thank you.

edited

As expected you danced around the answer.

Are you opposed to the Federal Government helping African American descendents I'd slaves, who as a people suffered 2 centuries of oppression in The United States, leaving them generally in a seriously disadvantaged economic, educational, and civil liberties situation? Or would you rather push a pro-white supremecist agenda that keeps American Black people as second class citizens?

Can you give a conclusive yay or nay answer to those questions, or will you put on your dancing shoes and talk in circles, saying nothing that means anything?