Describing Whiteness?

Your argument seemed to be that because race doesn't cause a difference in behavior based on genetics, there's nothing to learn about it. But I'll ask: what is your argument?

 

Good point. However, I'll bet that discrimination based on race isn't OK in his country either.

 

I'm arguing what exactly do I need to know? Because a black character can be like any realistic person. If I want to include things relevant to the social status of black people, then yeah, I'll include that. I'll avoid something that doesn't make sense with them of course. And I might include references to black people related issues for a number of black characters as context, but I'm not going to base them of some social justice mold.

 

Nobody asked you to do so. But that doesn't mean that there's nothing for you to know.

And I remain boggled, just boggled, that you seem to think that racial discrimination, as in a cab driver declining to serve black customers, is OK as long as it has an economic motive. I'm deep into, "What the bleep is WRONG with the youth of today?"

 

Well, from my viewpoint that's not racial discrimination. If one gives occasional preference to those with a higher statistical likelihood of being wealthy in situations where one cannot tell the wealth of a customer from other things, then that's not racial discrimination, it's feeding off circumstances of those races. But it's not judging them for their race, merely the statistics. You don't think cab drivers use a variety of different attributes to gauge who is the best customer? I'm not defending someone who excludes, merely saying they might feel (quite logically) that picking black customers when they seem the same is less likely to produce good pay. Business practice is often not exactly nice, the whole concept of advertising is manipulation
And it's definitively ridiculous you are making any kind of step towards my behaviour somehow being a reflection of "youth today". Many people my age or similar would disagree to some degree. Others would agree.

 

And that's the reason for the "youth of today" rant. A young man who is apparently intelligent, apparently well-educated, apparently well-meaning, is defending a form of racial discrimination that has been illegal since before I was born.

I have to assume that there's a problem with education--that education is teaching racism as being all about hatred, and ignoring the rest of it.

If you're making that determination based on race, yes, it is absolutely, clear as day, racial discrimination.

Definition, from humanrights.gov: Racial discrimination is when a person is treated less favourably than another person in a similar situation because of their race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin or immigrant status.

Anti-discrimination laws don't say, "Racial discrimination is illegal--unless it's profitable, in which case, go for it!"

The statistics that, according to you, say that a person of a certain race is less likely to be wealthy. Race is included in the evaluation. Therefore, it is illegal.

Sure, they do. And some of those attributes, like race, are not legally supportable grounds for choosing who one will serve.

Yes, many people feel that engaging in illegal behavior will result in their personal profit. Why would someone engage in illegal behavior if it didn't benefit them in some way?

And false advertising is illegal. Even though it's logically a way to make more profit, it's illegal. Just as racial discrimination is illegal.

You have not been taught the most basic facts about racial discrimination and the law. You seem intelligent, so it seems likely to me that youth of your age and in your country have, in general, not been taught those basic facts.

 

Oscar - takes a generalisation and applies it to individuals.

Chicken - takes an individual and extrapolates a generalisation.

With a solid yin and yang in place, this thing will surely resolve itself soon.

 

@Oscar Leigh - If a black guy and a white guy wore common street clothing, but only the white guy got into the taxi because of the ‘statistically more likely probability that the white guy's from the suburbs’, that's discrimination. If I were a taxi driver, I'd ask if both men wanted a ride and if the black guy declined, well at least he was given the option and decided for himself whether or not to use the taxi.

OK, let me give you an example:

Suppose an American and a French person were walking down the streets of Paris for whatever reason. They pick a taxi, but only the French person was let in because the taxi driver didn't like Americans and refused to let the American enter the taxi. That's discrimination based on nationality.

Or let's say a Christian and a Muslim were in that same scenario, but the taxi driver refused to service the Muslim because he didn't like Muslims. That's discrimination based on religion.

Discrimination is bad, yo. We really shouldn't do that.

 

I made it clear already the discussion is about financial decisions, not personal emnity or false ideas people being savage. It's about corcumstances surrounding race, not race itself.

 

I'm not talking about all taxi drivers or all black taxi customers. My argument is specifically around some people in some circumstances relating to some other people. I'm not generalizing.

 

I'd like to point out that none of the things you've said are new to me. I am aware of "the most basic facts."
I think the issue here is definitionality. It's not good that business tends to essentially punish people for being already unlucky and the reverse. But whether the use of ethnicity related statistics in some circumstances to garner profit is racism depends on your definition. I've always seen racism as an irrational judgement, using false beliefs, or statistics applied judgementally in an excessive way. But when you know nothing else, is it really irrational to play your chances? Think of it not as ideology or grudges but as tactical gambling. That's the way I'm looking at it. I'm not certain of it I just don't like leaping straight to racism whenever we discuss negative treatment on the basis of race. That's an easy and emotional way to think but you need to be careful. So I'm playing the devil's advocate to ensure a greater consideration of different mindsets and explanations.

 

It's financial decisions based on race. Therefore, it's clear and obvious discrimination.

If a bank decides that they'd rather give mortgages to whites because they think they're more likely to stay employed at a good job, that's racial discrimination.

If the landlord decides that they'd rather rent to whites for similar reasons, that's racial discrimination.

If an employer decides that they'd rather employ whites because their customers might prefer to work with whites, that's racial discrimination.

If a lunch counter decides that they'd rather only have whites in their restaurant because that will make their white customers more comfortable, that's racial discrimination.

If the bus decides that the whites would be more comfortable and more likely to spend money on buses if all the blacks are required to sit in the back, that's racial discrimination.

If a fancy club decides that whites would be more comfortable if no blacks are allowed in there, and so the doormen bar all the blacks, that's racial discrimination.

The fact that racial discrimination may be motivated by finance, rather than hatred, does not make it the least, tiniest little bit less illegal. I'm not sure why you find this so difficult to understand.

Edited to add:

Imagine that drivers for a particular taxi company habitually refuse to pick up black customers. Imagine that that company is taken to court for racial discrimination. Imagine that one of the owners is called to testify. Imagine that that owner says, "Well, yeah, we instruct our drivers to only pick up white fares. We think that we'll make more profit that way. I have statistics to support that belief."

Do you anticipate that the judge will say, "Oh, well, that's all right then. Case dismissed."

?

 

That's your personal definition. The law does not agree. The law does not permit treating other people differently based on their race. It doesn't care if you're doing so because it's useful and profitable to do so, or because you have hate in your heart. The law doesn't care much about your heart; it cares about your actions.

Edited to add:

And this seems to make it clear that this is true of your country as well as mine:

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/employers/good-practice-good-business-factsheets/racial-discrimination

One example from that page:

"For example, it would be direct discrimination if an employer refused to hire a suitably qualified Aboriginal person as a shop assistant and instead hired a less qualified person of a different race because they felt they could lose customers if they had an Aboriginal person working in the shop.'

The above is racial discrimination based on financial motives, the kind that you seem to be defending. It appears that it is indeed illegal in your country.

 

But that's about whether you can prove the illegal activity, not about whether the activity is illegal. The law isn't grey; proving the crime is grey, as it often is for many crimes.

 

No, "black lives matter" isn't racist. It's not as if the saying is "ONLY black lives matter."

I see the saying as something that is apparently not obvious to our society, so it needs saying. Our society seems to understand that white lives matter.

I have no idea whether there are any societies for blacks that prohibit whites from their meetings. To clarify, however, by "club" I was in the context of "nightclub" rather than "private group of friends."

 

I'm reminded of a picture I found on the web showing an old white dude holding a sign that read, "Yes, all lives matter. We're just focusing on the black ones right now as it's becoming increasingly apparent that our law system doesn't know this."

EDIT: Does the NAACP prohibit whites from joining?

 

But, again, ALL of the societies for engineers thoroughly support white engineers. The idea of a "society for (adjective) (collective noun)" is nowadays rarely to exclude those who aren't (adjective), it's to support those that ARE (adjective) because the more general organizations are somehow failing them.

 

I'm 99.999 percent positive that the NAACP welcomes members of any race. The website doesn't say, and I'd guess that that's just because they wouldn't even consider that restriction.

 

Whites can join the NAACP.

Trying to separate out socioeconomic factors from underlying race issues is problematic. A lot of economic inequality derives from current and historical bias. Even if you're just looking at economics as a factor in determining whether to pick someone up (which requires prejudgment), you're still operating within the context of racial inequalities. If there was no racial bias or prejudice, the economic argument might look quite different, but since there is, and it is tied to economics, our discrimination laws address that issue. They also address it because proving someone's subjective motivations isn't easy, and if you could get around discrimination laws by citing the fact that blacks, statistically, have less money (assuming that's true), then the laws wouldn't be very effective.

 

Not to mention that refusing services/denying opportunities creates a vicious cycle where whatever social gap exists gets wider and wider, which is completely counter to why discrimination laws exist in the first place. Apologies if I've just rephrased what you were saying.

Your whole example hinged on the (true? hypothetical?) statistical generalisation that black people are less likely to afford a taxi fare than white people...

Seeing's we're talking statistics, where does your hypothetical taxi driver's impunity end? What if 80.0% of green people are delicious vs 80.1% of purple people, yet that 0.1% difference is statistically significant? Does that mean that a one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater isn't a flaming racist? (I should learn not to make jokes out of serious points )

The taxi example is also problematic because it's dealing with a smaller subset of people than is immediately evident - those that can't afford a taxi fare but would lie that they could - and there may be some unfortunate implications there too. That may be quibbling with the detail of the example rather than the point of it though.