The politics and philosophy of racism

[Dan82]

I’m posting this because I think it sheds light on the ways people think about race; I hope the conversation can remain civil.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...ism?fsrc=gn_ep

CHRIS HAYES, host of MSNBC's "Up with Chris Hayes", said on air this past weekend, "It is undeniably the case that racist Americans are almost entirely in one political coalition and not the other", by which he means most American racists lean right, not left. This has since been proven false by Alex Tabarrok, an economist at George Mason University, and John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University, both of whom have denied Mr Hayes' contention, persuasively....

In my experience, the real crux of the left-right divide on policies with fraught racial dimensions, such as welfare or affirmative action, is the question of structural coercion.

When I was a Rand-toting libertarian lad, I believed, as I believe now, that racism of any stripe is a disgusting form of collectivism. Where my opinion has changed is that I used to think that if negative rights to non-interference were strictly observed, liberty was guaranteed, but I don't now. Here's how I had thought about the matter. One racist acting in a private capacity on his or her racist beliefs can't violate anyone's legitimate, negative rights. (No one is entitled to another's good opinion!) Two racists acting as private citizens on their racist beliefs can't violate anyone's rights. Therefore, I inferred, thousands or millions of racists acting non-coercively on their racist beliefs can't coercively violate anyone's rights. I now think this is quite wrongheaded.

Eventually I realised that actions that are individually non-coercive can add up to stable patterns of behaviour that are systematically or structurally coercive, depriving some individuals of their rightful liberty. In fact, rights-violating structures or patterns of behaviour are excellent examples of Hayekian spontaneous orders—of phenomena that are the product of human action, but not of human design. This shift has led me to see racism and sexism themselves as threats to liberty. Racism and sexism have come to matter more to me in that I have come to see them in terms of the political value that matters most to me: liberty. And so I have become much more sympathetic to policies that would limit individual liberty in order to suppress patterns or norms of behaviour that might pose an even greater threat to freedom. So I've become fairly friendly toward federal anti-discrimination law, affirmative action, Title 9, the works. I have found that this sympathy, together with my belief in the theoretical possibility and historical reality of structural coercion, releases me almost entirely from the liberal suspicion that I'm soft on racism (even if I do wish to voucherise Medicare). Phew!

The punchline is that this shift in conviction has almost nothing at all to do with a shift in attitude toward any group of people. I say "almost" because it has required that I come to see victims of structural coercion as real victims, really wronged, and thus to see the demand for reform and redress as both legitimate and urgently necessary. And this makes no small difference in one's relationship to those who see it the same way.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...ism?fsrc=gn_ep

[PurpleCrab]

So, in short... you almost changed your view on racism in general? What holds you back mainly being the victims of it who are indubitably harmed, no way around that.

I wonder what type of debate you intended to start there..?

[mojoe]

what's important here is defining racism and discrimination, before attempting to point out those who adhere to racist or discriminatory beliefs.

Racism

1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Discrimination

1.an act or instance of discriminating.
2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.

My point begins with reiterating what Chris Hayes stated he previously believed, and that is that racist, or prejudiced beliefs are a personal matter. Racism remains a personal issue until it is reinforced with public policy. Here is where one of the greatest political fallacies comes into play. That fallacy would be the belief that the majority of the political right are prejudiced or racist. In my honest, yet humble opinion, there is far more political racism or prejudice coming from the left than from the right.

Take affirmative action, for an example. The policy of affirmative action is honestly, textbook definition of racism, and it is public policy! A policy that fosters the doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.

Let's step away from just racism for a second, and move towards the broader term, discrimination. Once again, the widely held, and commonly reinforced belief that the political right is more discriminatory than the left, is absolute fallacy. Policies concerned with women's rights, or gay rights, or the specific rights of any sub-classification of a group of people, are generally textbook definition of discrimination. Most often it is public policy making a distinction in favor of a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. Honestly that describes many policies of the left, especially within the last 4 years. Simply because someone opposes a policy which is supposed to benefit a particular group of people does not mean that the person is inherently opposed to that group of people. In fact I view it as quite the opposite, in that my opposition to discriminatory policy is actually in opposition to discrimination, regardless of how "good" the policy is supposed to be. This is in part, where my stance on same sex marriage comes from. So far I'm the only gay person I know who feels a sense of opposition to same sex marriage. Obviously this has nothing to do with negative feelings toward homosexuality, as I am gay. My opinions on the subject stem from my adamant opposition to making us into some sort of minority group which relies on the government to protect us. This, again, is the definition of discrimination (making a distinction in favor of a person or thing based on group, class or category).

When looking at issues like these, just keep in mind the actual definition of the terms used to describe someones thoughts, beliefs, or actions. Most importantly, remember that racism and discrimination are negative when it comes to public policy, even when the intentions behind such are proclaimed to be good.