A monologue about “a conversation about race”
I’m hardly the first person to notice that we haven’t yet had a useful “conversation about race”, and are not likely to have one in the future.
There are multiple reasons for this. Many on the right have an unimaginative view of the black community, seeing it as “the other”. Thus problems of unemployment and drug use are assumed to reflect cultural failings in the black community. When the same sorts of problems of unemployment and drug use hit many working class whites in the eastern Rust Belt, those impacted were romanticized by some conservatives as innocent victims of Globalization and Neoliberalism. Republican politicians who opposed providing economic help to inner city blacks suddenly began favoring policies to help unemployed working class whites.
Conservative politicians who took an uncompromisingly hard line on heroin use in the inner city suddenly began to see abuse of opioids in rural American as a medical problem. People disdainful of the idea of prosecutorial abuse directed against blacks changed their tune when the prosecutors came after top Republican officials.
So perhaps the left can lead a conversation on race? Unfortunately, most people on the left discuss race as if they are walking on eggshells, trying so hard not to offend that they say almost nothing of value. At times they seem to deny minorities the dignity of personal agency, which is to dehumanize an entire population.
When the average American hears a leftist tell them “we need to have a conversation about race”, they are about as enthused as a Chinese academic in 1967 being told by the Red Guard that it was time for a conversation about communism. “Please, just tell me what I’m supposed to say, and let’s get this over with.”
A recent essay by Jonathan Chait discusses political correctness. What can we infer from his essay?
1. Political incorrectness is about identity. The left cares a lot about all sorts of issues, not just identity. But identity is a sort or religion, which has much stronger taboos than other issues.
Just to be clear, it’s not that left-leaning people are not required to hold certain views on a wide range of issues in order to get elected, or even be nominated. It’s pretty hard for a Democrat to hold pro-life views or oppose national health care. Rather it’s comments on identity issues that get even non-politicians into hot water.
2. The victims of PCism run amok are often on the left. All three of Chait’s examples are left-leaning individuals who got in trouble for saying or tweeting things about race, or allowing a controversial editorial. To almost everyone on both the left and the right, except a few illiberal radicals who oppose free speech, these three individuals would be viewed as having received “unfair” treatment.
3. The relatively small mob of illiberal leftists is apparently more influential than their numbers would suggest, as the broader progressive movement is clearly intimidated by their criticism. Mainstream liberals often feel they need to sacrifice someone in their own tribe, to placate these radicals.
4. Chait’s essay is not a defense of liberal ideas. He clearly sees the radical left as primarily being a threat to the mainstream left. Thus he does not cite a single example of a conservative who is victimized by PCism run amok, and in places seems to edge close to defending certain forms of left wing illiberalism:
It is easy to understand why somebody — especially one predisposed against Fang — would view this comment with suspicion. Bringing up crime in black communities to deflect away from systemic racism is a conservative trope so familiar and clichéd it is often summarized with the mocking shorthand “what about black-on-black crime?” And the simplistic comparison of deaths at the hands of white police versus minorities fails to acknowledge both the broader patterns of mistreatment by police that falls short of outright murder, and the fear this creates, so that a single police murder can terrorize thousands and shape their view of the state in a way that a local murder cannot.
Fang’s interview subject probably lacks familiarity with the history of this issue being used as an excuse for racism, and almost surely didn’t realize the cruel resonance of the phrase “black-on-black crime.”
When a discussion of “true facts” is taboo, you know that a political movement has gone off the rails.
Chait presumably picked sympathetic left-of-center victims of witch hunts in order to be more persuasive with his readers. He’s not trying to defend liberalism (although he may well privately support the concept); he’s trying to persuade other left leaning readers to cool it, in order to save the left from itself.
And there’s good reason for mainstream liberalism to be terrified of PCism. First, it helps people like Trump at the polls. Second, the victims are likely to be mostly other people on the left. Conservatives are less likely to work in jobs where they are victimized by PCism, and radical leftists view them as the enemy—people completely beyond the pale. The radicals instead focus on trying to “purify” their side of the ideological spectrum, to eliminate dissent from their ever-shifting dogma on identity.
[I’ve seen people argue that just as the purpose of fashion is to exclude people too unfashionable to keep up with changing trends, the purpose of continually shifting acceptable political views on identity is to exclude those who are not cool enough to keep up with the latest shifts in dogma. In both cases, ambitious young people are the villains—just as old people are the villains who push reactionary policies.]
Some argue that PCism is an overrated issue, as the outrages you hear about in the press are relatively rare. There are two problems with that argument. First, the cost of a repressive apparatus is not accurately measured by the number of transgressors who are caught. If only two people were caught last year protesting for democratic rights in Tiananmen Square and sent to concentration camps, that doesn’t mean that Chinese repression was not severe, rather it means most people chose not to do things that would lead them to be sent to concentration camps.
Second, it’s a mistake to view cases of outright dismissal from a job as the biggest cost. Most people on the left don’t want to be attacked by a twitter mob of illiberal radicals calling them “racist”. People who are seen as being on the “right” (even those incorrectly seen as being on the right, like me) don’t mind such attacks nearly as much. The Noah Smiths of the world insinuate that right wingers are just a bunch of racists that are not worth listening to. So what do they have to lose by being called racist?
I don’t go to cocktail parties or participate in Twitter. Unless I’m criticized by someone I respect, I’m not going to lose sleep over it. I have no fear in pointing out that “black on black crime is a problem“. But I also have no problem in annoying conservatives, as you see at the top of my post. Most of all, I don’t feel I have anything very useful to say about racial problems in America, so I don’t tend to blog on the subject very often. At best, I might argue that some of the policy reforms I favor would help black Americans, including drug legalization, kidney markets, zoning reforms, school choice, challenge studies of Covid-19 vaccines, etc. But these reforms would also help whites.
In contrast, progressives have a much more ambitious agenda:
1. Cancel and publicly shame progressive intellectuals who say something a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny bit politically incorrect.
2. Tear down statues.
3. Defund the police.
I have to admit that my policy proposals are not in that class, at least from a utilitarian perspective. (I’ll let the reader decide whether my ideas would help more or less.)
Is it impossible to have an intelligent conversation on race? If it is possible, it’s likely to meet these criteria:
1. The participants need to have an understanding of the black community and a sympathy for the problems faced by blacks. (Yes, other races matter, but in America “race” is a code word for black issues.)
2. The participants must be able to boldly speak the truth, even if it makes some people feel uncomfortable.
If you look hard enough, you can find an occasional bona fide conversation on race. But they are exceedingly rare.
When pundits go on TV and say “Americans need to have a conversation about race”, they might just as well ask for a conversation about string theory or neutron stars. Such conversations can happen, but the number intelligent conversations about the issue is rather small.
Tags:
30. June 2020 at 10:58
I can’t say that i agree with your theory. Smartest commentators i know view the troubles of both urban blacks and rust-belt whites as having one major root cause: a lack of economic opportunity due to the loss of quality manufacturing-type jobs (which also forces the “best & brightest” to flee local communities). Other issues are largely downstream from there.
Any attempt to frame this issue otherwise simply ensures that those groups will never cooperate as a voting bloc, which is probably what needs to happen for real change.
30. June 2020 at 11:45
It’s much easier to have a conversation about neutron stars, since the limiting factor there for most people is knowledge, which at least some people have, and many more could learn. With race, perhaps more than any other issue, it is widely believed that the issue is purely a moral one. Theres a good side and a bad side, and if you’re on the bad side, even where your errors are analytical in nature, you’re probably wrong because your moral defects blind you to what’s obviously true. No amount of knowledge about racial matters can overcome the inability to disaggregate moral questions from analytical questions.
No one who doesn’t know anything about neutron stars believes their moral intuition is enough to justify a strong (and angrily indignant) position on neutron stars. It seems most people, however, believe that moral intuition alone justifies a strong position on racial issues.
Oh, I’d add that another issue with “PCism” not often appreciated by those who think it’s an overstated problem is the uncertainty over what will be considered “PC” in the future. It’s not just about what will get you fired today, but what you might say today that’s fine that will get fired in 5 years or 10 years when it resurfaces. Since it’s a mentality that doesn’t even acknowledge that norms change, but rather are etched into the fabric of the universe, so someone who wore 40 years what is today considered an inappropriate Halloween costume should’ve somehow “just known” when there’s really no way they could’ve known. Maybe we need an Overton Window futures market.
30. June 2020 at 12:48
Scott, you said: “Is it impossible to have an intelligent conversation on race?”
I would say: Is it impossible to have an intelligent conversation on anything?
This post could apply to 99% of topics, I think.
30. June 2020 at 13:31
I do not see an American that has done more for the black country than yourselves. Nothing heals race relations like plentiful jobs and full employment. NGDP targeting influence on the FED has clearly pushed the the US closer to full employment which especially helps those with criminal records.
30. June 2020 at 14:24
“America needs to have a conversation about race” translates to:
Get ready for some policy proposals that will only make sense during a moral panic.
30. June 2020 at 14:26
Curse you autofill! Can you edit my last name out of that previous post please. Scott H.
30. June 2020 at 15:08
One small way I’ve been able to defuse tense conversations on these subjects is to slice the data a little differently. I find that the two most commonly cited statistics in arguments about racism and the police are 1) the disproportionate rate at which police kill and harass black people (this tends to be cited by Progressives) and 2) the disproportionate rate at which black people commit violent crimes (this tends to be cited by Conservatives). I’ve had some small success loosening up the conversations when I point out that men in general commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than women and are the victims of police shootings at a much higher rate than women. This tends to cause the people in the conversation to bring in many more factors including age, region of the country, family structure, income levels, police training and accountability, the difficulties of doing good police work and so forth.
Some sources:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
30. June 2020 at 15:11
Important. Nothing really coherent in this post with all due respect. Rather, scattered propositions. Yet:
What is really important, is the proposition, that, I quote:
” ……the number of intelligent conversations about the issue is rather small”
It is correct, not only for race and racism. But also for: abortions, second amendment, same sex marriage etc…. There are many reasons for it, but one right now:
Freedom of speech and liberty ( in general terms).For they are pushing aside profound and serious or intellectual conversations. When liberty and freedom of speech, matter so much, one doesn’t seek to create or convince genuinely about nothing. Conformity of or on views is not necessary, it does even hurt the idea, that each one, may live or reside wildly inside his own “ideological bubble”. Finally, it is his constitutional right! right?
Thanks
30. June 2020 at 15:27
Scott,
I appreciate you touching on this topic.
There are lots of intelligent conversations about race happening everyday, most of which are not on twitter. I suggest you listen to the Weeds podcast for a start.
I am personally involved in several intelligent conversations about race. More so lately, but I’m also talking more about immunology now than I normal do. But this has been a topic of interest to me for many years. I have “stepped in it” many times both with left-leaning white friends and African American friends, and have always been treated charitably. I don’t tweet.
I disagree with the “rules” you lay out for the having an honest conversation.
1. Is a good start, but I would add that the participant needs to have an understanding of systemic racism, which requires some reading. An understanding of intersectionality is very helpful too. Both terms have been misrepresented by the right. They are not super simple concepts, but I think it is very hard to have an intelligent conversation about race without understanding them.
2. Is complete nonsense. This is an extremely sensitive topic. If you want to have a conversation about a topic this sensitive, with a person who has been personally impacted, you need to show some empathy. “Black on Black crime” is a perfect example of a stupid thing to say if you are trying to have a conversation about race. Why, because you are changing the subject. Changing the subject when you are talking about a sensitive topic is insensitive, possibly cruel, and quite often manipulative. You are married right?
We are currently facing three or four major crisis in America, in my view:
1. A possible breakdown of political and democratic norms, which I personally think could be a threat to the republic.
2. Systemic racism to include police violence towards African Americans.
3. A pandemic.
4. An economic crisis.
Everyone expects you to write about #4. And it’s required reading for me.
You’ve taken a great interest in #1 and I think it has been a productive conversation.
You’ve also started up a very interesting, and honestly helpful, conversation about the pandemic. I assume that doing so required a fare amount of reading and study (it has for me), but it is one of the four most important topics facing America right now.
You have chosen to have a conversation about PC instead of a conversation about race on this blog, and I am specifically talking about this point history. Do you believe that PC is a more important issue, in June 2020, than race?
On a completely different note, can we consider the view that much of the right has become a movement of white and/or christian grievance? The idea that identity politics only occurs on the left is a little outdated.
30. June 2020 at 15:57
“ Republican politicians who opposed providing economic help to inner city blacks suddenly began favoring policies to help unemployed working class whites.”
Really? What policies? The Border Wall? Trade Wars?
30. June 2020 at 16:45
Effem, You said:
“I can’t say that I agree with your theory. Smartest commentators i know view the troubles of both urban blacks and rust-belt whites as having one major root cause: a lack of economic opportunity due to the loss of quality manufacturing-type jobs”
Umm, I didn’t present any “theory” of smartest commentators you know. So what is there to disagree with? See my reply to Burgos.
Carl, Yes, and I seem to recall that white men are much more violent than black women.
bb, You said:
“There are lots of intelligent conversations about race happening everyday, most of which are not on twitter. I suggest you listen to the Weeds podcast for a start.”
I linked to one such example of an intelligent conversation. But I disagree that there are lots of such examples. And I don’t base this on “twitter”.
You said:
“If you want to have a conversation about a topic this sensitive, with a person who has been personally impacted, you need to show some empathy.”
I agree. Indeed my opening section was trying to make the point that many people don’t seem to show the required empathy.
You said:
“Do you believe that PC is a more important issue, in June 2020, than race?”
What sort of “conversation about race” do you want me to have? Do you want me to suggest public policies that I believe would help non-whites? I’ve done many such posts. Or do you have some sort of other conversation in mind?
As far as your four serious problems in America, are you going to seriously argue that police brutality is a bigger problem than the war on drugs?
Burgos, There are plenty of American nationalists who justified their rejection of neoliberalism on the grounds on helping downtrodden white working class people. I see it all the time. And yes, that includes their opposition to immigration and free trade.
30. June 2020 at 18:09
Scott,
I’ve wondered for the longest time why the US has such a hard time with “race”. Then I suddenly understood, it isn’t just a code word for “black”, it’s a code word for “descendant of African slaves”. Pretty much everyone else, regardless of race, seems to have much more of a feeling of opportunity, rather than the feeling of permanent oppression experienced by African Americans (and native Americans too may I say). This includes recent African immigrants and other immigrant groups that were historically mistreated as well. So yes, that poor guy Diallo who was shot 37 times by police years ago for reaching for his wallet, he was a recent African immigrant. But the telling fact is that later, police said he seemed suspicious precisely because he didn’t run when the police showed up. He intended to show his ID. They felt offended that he didn’t run. An African American would have run. And that’s the crux of how African Americans are so different even from other “blacks”. Police assumes they’d run. They are a permanent target and always have been. Things simply never improve for them as a group, in terms of acceptance. So of course this has long been internalized if you’re African American.
Oh, and the first black President? Half African. Not half African-American.
So if it is the historical injustice that lingers in African American (and native American) identities, rather than color of skin, then this is what needs to be addressed and resolved in some way. I don’t think “race” is even the issue here. It’s just an easy shorthand. Other black people, even if mistreated, on the whole end up fine. Other Asian people, even if mistreated, on the whole end up fine. The Irish, Italians, etc., even if initially mistreated, ended up fine. African Americans for centuries keep on being mistreated and feeling mistreated, and are still not fine. So, I don’t think it is “race”. Race is just the easiest identifier by looks. But ultimately it’s not race.
Personally I would so love to get rid of the very concept of identity. I don’t feel it myself – I really don’t know which “identity” I am supposed to have. I suspect that the feeling of “identity” is nothing else but a feeling of strong group affiliation, the feeling to belong to a specific kind of protective mob, if you will, that “cares for me”. But once you base life on identity, it bites you back at every corner. I don’t think “black identity” helps black people. I don’t think “white identity” helps white people. I think a lot of issues simply go away when you get rid of “identity”. Identity is the basis of prejudice.
30. June 2020 at 18:09
Scott,
First, my tone may have come across as a little snarky, and directed at you personally. Not a great start.
“As far as your four serious problems in America, are you going to seriously argue that police brutality is a bigger problem than the war on drugs?”
No, I think systemic racism is one of the four biggest problems facing our nation, at all times, but particularly in this moment when it has the nation’s attention. I think police violence and harassment against African Americans, residential zoning, and the war on drugs, are the product of systemic racism. And if you understand systemic racism, you know that fighting for zoning restrictions does not make a person racist, but zoning restrictions are quite often racist. And many of your strongest opponents on the issues you put forth oppose you because of race.
The conversation I would like to have with you, and the members of this blog, is on how many of the policies we oppose exist because of systemic racism, and that they are opposed in many case because of reasons of race. Betsy Devos is a proponent of school choice, but I think if we put her in charge she’ll find a way to do it while preserving systemic racism.
You did touch on issues that will offend conservatives, but in all fairness, you then changed the subject to an issue that I consider to be less urgent at this moment. I think your intentions are pure. I’m just pointing out that if you want to have a conversation about race, changing the subject to PC will come across as disingenuous to people who care deeply about the topic. If you want to have an intelligent conversation about race, don’t change the subject from race. Because like it or not, people will reason from a subject change. That’s kind of funny, right?
Also, can you really have an intelligent conversation about the war on drugs without the context of systemic racism?
I apologize if I ended up writing a combative response, but my kids are waiting to watch a movie. I want to be clear that I don’t think you are racist or making light of current issues. I’m just trying to share a point of view that makes this topic, and other topics you care about, more constructive, and more intelligent.
30. June 2020 at 19:01
mbka, I agree with you that the concept of identity is bad and I’d like to get rid of it. However, I think there are also significant differences in how people are treated based on their skin color, and that reinforces the identity issue in a negative feedback loop. African and Asian immigrants do tend to be successful in the US but they are not randomly selected—it’s much easier to immigrate into the US if you are talented and skilled to begin with, which makes those immigrant groups more likely to succeed in spite of discrimination. If we deported all African-American descendants of slavery who wouldn’t qualify for a skilled worker visa if they were foreigners, the remaining African-American descendants of slavery would be doing fine too.
30. June 2020 at 23:42
The fact that Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Glenn Loury and John McWhorter all describe BLM as a new “religion” is fairly significant. All of these men are data driven academics. If you want to hear deep conversations you may watch Glenn Loury and McWhorter’s podcast. Or read any books written by W.Williams or T.Sowell.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” – John Adams
1. July 2020 at 03:54
Speaking of drugs and addiction, here in Politico, titled:
“Pandemic unleashes a spike in overdose deaths”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/29/pandemic-unleashes-a-spike-in-overdose-deaths-345183
1. July 2020 at 04:41
“…I think police violence and harassment against African Americans, residential zoning, and the war on drugs, are the product of systemic racism”…
-This is simply not true. Reputable studies conclude, and the numbers show, that police brutality is color blind. This has been shown by a number of prominent academics, many of whom are black (e.g., Thomas Sowell and John McWhorter). Drugs are a health and national security risk. Addiction and death, can “literally” destroy a country. Ask any Chinese what Opium did to their society. You may advocate for whatever policy you wish, but I fail to see how saving lives is “racist”.
“…I think your intentions are pure. I’m just pointing out that if you want to have a conversation about race, changing the subject to PC will come across as disingenuous to people who care deeply about the topic…”
-What you “think” and how you “feel” are of no importance to data. Facts don’t care about “feelings” or random “assertions”.
1. July 2020 at 04:50
Race seems a completely intractable and hopeless conversation in America. I remember listening to a painful podcast discussion a few years ago between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein about Charles Murray and his views on race and IQ. To a lesser extent, large corporates and the public service in other western countries like Australia seem to allow only fairly strong progressive views to be expressed about race and sex or gender. If anyone has a different view, they can’t and don’t express it. Because there is never an honest conversation, we see token appointments and promotions, but others struggle to see why at the broader grassroots level things don’t change. I’m always struck by how when some women complain about their loss of career opportunities from taking time out to have children or their male partners not contributing equally to housework and child-rearing, policy wonks start talking about flexible work, childcare, paying care-giving workers more and paternity leave. Everything but women talking openly to their male partners about their expectations and coming to an understanding about sharing responsibilities.
1. July 2020 at 07:00
bb: “I think police violence and harassment against African Americans, residential zoning, and the war on drugs, are the product of systemic racism.”
Aren’t those would-be *examples* of systemic racism? If they’re the product of systemic racism, how are we defining systemic racism then?
bb: “I’m just pointing out that if you want to have a conversation about race, changing the subject to PC will come across as disingenuous to people who care deeply about the topic.”
But I’d turn this around and say that this formulation in turn strikes me as disingenuous. You can’t have a “conversation” about race with a certain type of “woke” person, you can only listen to a lecture – instruction – from them. And it’s that type of person where unless the “PC” thing is straightened out in their minds first, no actual conversation is really possible.
(Of course you can’t really have much of a convo with certain right-wingers as well, simply because their “circle of sympathy,” or something like that, does not include the plight of black people in America – but that’s a separate issue).
1. July 2020 at 07:27
Note: the James Baldwin interview with Dick Cavett, that Tyler C. linked to yesterday, is just amazing. Cavett keeps throwing out these questions that miss home plate by a foot and a half, two feet, yet Baldwin rips every one, right on the sweet spot. He was really the Manny Sanguillen or Vladimir Guerrero (notorious bad-ball hitters) of interview subjects, I guess.
I’ve argued before on this blog that the most underappreciated problem in America is the persistence of inner-city poverty. (Hence always glad to see links to Glenn Loury!). One thing this interview brings home is there really has been a lot of improvement; no one today would ask the questions Cavett asks and no one would answer them the way Baldwin does.
(And to the extent you could see something like it, it would probably be a lot more “performative” or “meta,” whereas the Cavett/Baldwin exchanges are not that at all).
1. July 2020 at 08:11
https://twitter.com/shadihamid/status/1277966905391759367
If Scott Sumner ever gets too depressed at the idiotic right-wingers who comment here (not me of course), he should just check out the folks responding to this tweet. Really drives home Chait’s point. Brrr!
1. July 2020 at 09:00
mbka, Yes, Thomas Sowell (who just turned 90) made similar observations. It’s more an issue of “culture” than skin color. Although there are times where people react to skin color, as you say.
You said:
“Personally I would so love to get rid of the very concept of identity. I don’t feel it myself”
The response is that many whites refuse to ignore the identity of blacks. But yes, the goal should be a society where identity doesn’t matter, just individual characteristics. That was MLK’s ideal.
bb, You said:
“I think police violence and harassment against African Americans, residential zoning, and the war on drugs, are the product of systemic racism.”
Yes, I agree.
As for PC being less urgent than white nationalism right now, I agree! I think any fair minded person would see that I rail against white nationalism far, far more often than against PCism run amok. I’m not even opposed to all forms of PCism—such as “don’t be racist.”
You said:
“If you want to have an intelligent conversation about race, don’t change the subject from race.”
The point here is that I don’t want to personally have an intelligent conversation about race, as I don’t have much intelligent to say. This post is certainly not about race. I’d rather listen to experts like Loury and McWhorter, and learn. That was my point.
You said:
“Also, can you really have an intelligent conversation about the war on drugs without the context of systemic racism?”
If you reread the intro to this post you’ll see I’m aware that we are more likely to put black drug users in prison than white drug users, a point I’ve made numerous times in posts.
I think you assume we disagree more than we actually do. Perhaps the difference is that I couldn’t care less what’s currently fashionable with millennials. I go with the anti-racists views I’ve held my entire life. When I see a good reason to change them, I’ll do so. So far I’m sticking with the vision of MLK.
Allan, I don’t know enough about BLM to comment, but I will say that I respect the individuals that you name.
Jason. My understanding of the research is that blacks are not disproportionately killed by police, holding socioeconomic factors constant, but they are disproportionately harassed. Is that wrong?
BTW, on this issue I go with the data, I don’t search out data that supports some preconceived view of liberals or conservatives. So I’m open to being convinced that I’m wrong in either direction.
Rajat, Gender issues are only slightly less fraught with emotion than racial issues. Maybe I’ll post on that some day.
anon, I’d probably become more right wing if I spent a lot of time reading “woke” twitter. 🙂
You said:
“Aren’t those would-be *examples* of systemic racism? If they’re the product of systemic racism, how are we defining systemic racism then?”
I think of it in terms of psychology, not some sort of plot by the establishment. People instinctively are more sympathetic to those who look like them, and that leads to unconscious bias of whites (and Asians/Hispanics) against blacks. You must work to overcome that problem.
It wasn’t until 1998 that most Americans favored interracial marriage, and lots of people probably still privately oppose it, but don’t tell pollsters:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx
Thus when I got married (1994), most Americans opposed my marriage.
1. July 2020 at 14:06
@scott,
-“As for PC being less urgent than white nationalism right now, I agree! I think any fair minded person would see that I rail against white nationalism far, far more often than against PCism run amok. I’m not even opposed to all forms of PCism—such as “don’t be racist.””
I did not say white nationalism, which is obviously a very serious but different issue. I was talking about system racism which is a distinct concept. I’m suggesting that these conversation will be much more productive if you take the time to learn that concept. Learning this concept has been beneficial to me.
– “The point here is that I don’t want to personally have an intelligent conversation about race, as I don’t have much intelligent to say. This post is certainly not about race. I’d rather listen to experts like Loury and McWhorter, and learn. That was my point.”
You just wrote a post bemoaning the fact that it’s “impossible to have an intelligent conversation on race”. But you don’t “want to personally have a conversation…”. Really?
BTW: Loury and McWhorter are smart guys, but it’s probably fair to say they don’t speak for the 100s or thousands of protesters. That is a very selective sampling of experts.
– “I think you assume we disagree more than we actually do. Perhaps the difference is that I couldn’t care less what’s currently fashionable with millennials. I go with the anti-racists views I’ve held my entire life. When I see a good reason to change them, I’ll do so. So far I’m sticking with the vision of MLK.”
I just think that you don’t understand institutional racism and this blog would be more interesting if you did. I definitely think you are on the right side. I don’t think you are at all racist. I just think there is a gap in your understanding of the subject, and you will not close that gap listening to Loury.
1. July 2020 at 14:39
@anon
– “Aren’t those would-be *examples* of systemic racism? If they’re the product of systemic racism, how are we defining systemic racism then?”
You are 100% correct. They are examples, not products.
– “But I’d turn this around and say that this formulation in turn strikes me as disingenuous. You can’t have a “conversation” about race with a certain type of “woke” person, you can only listen to a lecture – instruction – from them. And it’s that type of person where unless the “PC” thing is straightened out in their minds first, no actual conversation is really possible.”
I din’t think I’m being disingenuous for a few reason.
First, as a white man, my goal when having a conversation about race with an African American is to learn, not persuade. It’s really hard to persuade people in general. Besides, the person who is passionate about this topic probably know more about it. Scott is citing Loury.
Second, I think it is a reasonable expectation that we should try to understand the other persons point of view on the subject before we try to take it down another path. Since BLM protesters are literally fighting for the dignity and safety of their children, we should let them go first.
Third, changing the subject is a deliberate tactic used by racists throughout history. Even if your intention is not to make light of the issue or misdirect, you can’t fault people for being skeptical when you use language that others use to undermine their cause.
– “(Of course you can’t really have much of a convo with certain right-wingers as well, simply because their “circle of sympathy,” or something like that, does not include the plight of black people in America – but that’s a separate issue).”
Totally agree. But this is good news too. Polling shows that people are changing their views at a rate that hasn’t been seen too many times in the past. I think it’s inspiring. If Americans can change their minds about this, maybe we can change our minds about other things too.
1. July 2020 at 15:11
@Jason,
African Americans are almost three times as likely to be killed by police when you adjust for population.
Substance use rates for White and African Americans roughly the same, but African Americans account for 30% of drug related arrests, despite only comprising 13% of the US populations.
It’s true that white people are as likely to experience police abuse when we get arrested, but black people are way more likely to get arrested.
I “feel” comfortable saying that I “think” you are wrong.
1. July 2020 at 16:22
In my experience, the problems with left-wing PCism run amok is one primarily on social media, and otherwise, one regarding high profile people. That’s not to minimize or exuse the problem, but I just don’t see these problems in most walks of life. I do get attacked by seemingly leftist mobs on Twitter at times, but the attacks are so ridiculous, I wonder if the perpetrators are bots. It doesn’t disturb me much anyway. I just block them all.
Of course, there’s also right-wing PCism, and it’s at least as bad, if not worse than left-wing PCism, at least it seems to me. You’re not supposed to kneel in protest during the national anthem, burn an American flag, criticize America under a Republican President, or say “Happy Holidays”. I also get attacked by those sorts on Twitter. Again, doesn’t bother me much. It’s easy to block people.
1. July 2020 at 16:26
Oh yes, and let’s not forget it’s very much against right-wing PC dogma to wear a protective mask during a pandemic, as is speaking against their cult leader.
1. July 2020 at 17:16
bb,
Your data seems to be wrong, see for example the current entry on MR on the topic. It is twice as often, if one just considers population.
I’ve been told there are other factors to consider as well not just population.
Slate Star Codex has discussed the studies in more detail a few months ago, with all the adjustments, and came to the conclusion that blacks are not killed disproportionately often by the police. That was before the NYT came and hounded SSC to death of course.
Another race was shot disproportionately, I have just forgotten which one it was. Is this important???
So in other words, the media and the BLM movement seem to have no database at all, except imagination and wishful thinking.
95% of those killed are men, no matter which race, so I strongly assume that very soon BLM and the media will raise a hue about this, too.
If 26% is supposed to be such a scandal, then I am sure that 95% is also very important if you apply the same hypocritical standards.
We need free speech and SSC back as soon as possible.
Mike,
You distract from the subject and what you write might exist, but it is not a PC culture.
Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted, illegitimate, and prehistoric. It is against free spech.
It is basically a Marxist idea. One may only express oneself if you belong to the “correct” class and have the “correct” ideas. The modern far left has borrowed the Marxist critique of liberalism and substituted race and gender identities for economic ones.
1. July 2020 at 18:42
Anyone who thinks the PCism isn’t a significant force in the world aught to take a look at Facebook’s stock price. I’m not a FB fan but this is clearly a matter of Zuckerberg failing to adaquately signal his allegence.
1. July 2020 at 19:32
….I “feel” comfortable saying that I “think” you are wrong.
It is true that blacks are 3x times more likely to die at the hands of an officer. It is also true that they commit a disproportional amount of crimes. Black men make up 7% of the U.S. population, yet commit more than half of its violent crimes. This data is publicly available in the FBI database.
When a young black kid brandishing a toy weapon is killed by an officer, the outrage is palpable. When a young white kid brandishing a toy weapon is killed by an officer, where is the same media outrage? Two weeks before Floyds death, a white man died in the exact same manner. Where were the calls of systemic racism?
Why do you think the Bronx was the primary target for stop and frisk? Do you think Bloomberg was racist? Was that the logical motive? Or do you think a data driven mayor, and data driven entrepreneur, looked at the DATA (god forbid he used evidence) and said to himself: if most of the crimes occur in the Bronx, perhaps I should send more officers to the Bronx? If more crimes are committed by men 18-25, then perhaps I should stop and frisk that age group more often.
In regards to harassment: how do you quantify that? Is being pulled over for speeding harassment? Is stop and frisk harassment? When a man is standing on a street corner and is suspected of selling drugs, and subsequently questioned, is that harassment? Or are police officers attempting to keep communities safe?
Thailand implemented a new customs strategy that targeted Nigerian passengers, because most Nigerians traveling to Thailand are working for Nigerian drug lords. The strategy was overwhelmingly successful at reducing crimes and drugs. Is that harassment? Or is it good policy?
Facts don’t care about feelings!
1. July 2020 at 19:52
Before you answer that question, let me be clear that Thailand doesn’t “harass” passengers based on immutable characteristics (skin color). The policy was designed to target Nigerians, not other African nations or black men in general. Police officers don’t bother Thomas Sowell and Glenn Loury, or the black google engineer driving home from work. They Stop and Frisk people who stand on street corners, wearing gold chains, between the ages of 18-25. And perhaps for good reason! Facts Matter! Data is color blind!
1. July 2020 at 20:54
I would agree with most of what Jason said.
I am also concerned because many corporations and academic departments are discriminating too.
I read on the society of academic freedom and scholarship website that academic positions at the University of British Colombia and Athabasca require the person have a “disability” to qualify. That means so many people of high merit cannot be considered simply because they are not in a marginalized group. It’s happening in my company too. There was a mandatory corporate class on social justice. If we refused to attend, the director said a mark of bigotry would go on record. It sounds insane. A mark of bigotry. Think about that for a moment. Isn’t anyone concerned about such things? I hear that some academic institutions have even created a department of social justice. Students say they selectively show some stats, and disregard others. All of the inspirational speakers at our company are democrat. It seems to me that Information is being funneled through a lens. There is only one view now, and if you don’t share that view then you are afraid to say so. It might cost you your job. I hope academics can put an end to this. Thanks.
1. July 2020 at 21:15
I noticed the comment about Sowell being 90. That comment makes me feel old too! 🙂 Regardless of age, he’s a genius 😀
50+ books. His knowledge is so vast. Is he the last of the Chicago School (under Friedman)?
Is the Chicago School still producing quality candidates (other than Scott)? I hope so. He quotes W.E.B. Dubois a lot, so I think most of his race related writings come from that book. For those that don’t know, Dubois was a sociologist who wrote about reconstruction era. I think the title is “black reconstruction”. It might be of interest to you if you haven’t already read it.
Terry
1. July 2020 at 21:24
Christian List,
The origin of the term “political correctness” may have come from the left, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t always been around or that it’s a left-wing phenomenon. It clearly exists on both sides, and it’s actually worse on the right in the US currently. What’s worse than it being politically incorrect to wear a mask during a pandemic?
1. July 2020 at 21:27
In general, I think complaints about political correctness miss the point. We have a cultural war that’s been heating up for decades. At the center of this, are not only the roots of fascism versus various forms of inclusionism, but religious fundamentalism.
The left, some in the center, and some on the right are correct to want to limit the influence of fascism and religious fundamentalism. It must be recognized, that there can be no compromise on some of the issues in this culture war. Relgious fundamentalists see abortion as murder, for example. Where’s the room for compromise?
2. July 2020 at 06:22
@Christion
– “Your data seems to be wrong, see for example the current entry on MR on the topic. It is twice as often, if one just considers population”
Was working for memory. This study says 2.8 times as likely from 2009 to 2012:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/
Ran the numbers myself this morning- I found number for 2017 – 2020 for lethal shootings, which is admittedly a different stat, but:
2017: 2.17
2018: 2.33
2019: 2.82
2020: 2.29
Tyler’s numbers come to 2.35 which is less than 3 but more than twice.
That said, is “it’s only twice as likley” really a winning argument?
– “If 26% is supposed to be such a scandal, then I am sure that 95% is also very important if you apply the same hypocritical standards.”
The police in America are too violent, and the BLM movement has been very successful at the local level instituting policies that make the police less violent for all of us. Police violence is of larger concern to African Americans because African Americans are over policed.
As for “hypocritical standards”, let’s talk about Germany. 48% of Turkish kids are relegated to Hauptshule, as compared to 16% for ethnic German kids. Systemic racism is arguably much worse in your country. And anecdotally, most Germans I’ve known have a very simplistic understanding of racism.
2. July 2020 at 06:36
@Michael,
You make excellent points. I think the right is very good at labeling things. For instance “identity politics” can only be used to describe minorities, when white and evangelicals clearly match any description of identity politics I’ve heard.
BTW, I prefer the terms illiberal and authoritarian to fascism, because they are less provocative. But that’s just preference.
2. July 2020 at 08:27
bb, You said:
“I’m suggesting that these conversation will be much more productive if you take the time to learn that concept.”
You don’t think I understand systemic racism?
You said:
“Loury and McWhorter are smart guys, but it’s probably fair to say they don’t speak for the 100s or thousands of protesters.”
Thank God for that! Do you think one can have an intelligent conversation with most protesters?
You said:
“I just think there is a gap in your understanding of the subject, and you will not close that gap listening to Loury.”
Oh really? So Loury doesn’t “understand” institutional racism either? Please tell me just one thing about institutional racism I don’t know. Just one example. I’m all ears.
You said:
“First, as a white man, my goal when having a conversation about race with an African American is to learn, not persuade.”
When the white man is being told what it’s like to be a victim of racism, he should listen and keep his mouth shut. But when he’s being told how he needs to change is life, or his policy views, then it MUST be a two way conversation. I’m not sure if all “woke” people understand that distinction.
You said:
“African Americans are almost three times as likely to be killed by police when you adjust for population.”
That’s an absolutely useless data point. The fact that you cite it shows that you are the last person that should be lecturing me about being ill-informed on the issues. Why not look at some academic studies of the problem, which control for socioeconomic status, or crime rates?
By the way, I think police brutality is a big problem especially for African Americans. But you don’t help your cause if you cite worthless data. Instead, you make it easier for intelligent conservatives to mock your cause (a cause I mostly support.)
Michael, Yes, left wing people are fired from their jobs for advocating the wearing of a mask. SMH.
2. July 2020 at 09:29
Scott,
You replied:
“Yes, left wing people are fired from their jobs for advocating the wearing of a mask.”
I think you miss the point. Trumpists pressure people to let them go without wearing masks, and encourage others to likewise. Some even pressure others not to wear masks. This presumably leads to more infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Is that better or worse than getting people fired?
By the way, was Kaepernick black-balled due to left-wing or right-wing PC pressure? Did your statement imply that right-wing PC pressure never gets anyone fired? Consider some former never-Trump Republicans in media or in the party apparatus.
2. July 2020 at 09:54
Scott,
And Kaepernick is not the only example of people the right-wing PC police try to get get people fired. Consider Dr Fauci, in no small part for advocating mask wearing. Or, Kathleen Kennedy and others at Lucus Film, for making Star Wars more diverse. Or, consider boycotting Starbucks for putting “Happy Holidays” on their cups. Or consider the death threats so many get from Trump supporters for criticism of Trump. Remember David French?
2. July 2020 at 10:47
This is not a distinction everyone will agree with, but Social Justice Warriors, even when they’re wrong and/or going overboard, are at least interested in bringing about justice. Fascists try to bring injustice.
Fascism and other extremist right-wind ideologies are the pathogens, and left-wing PC is the immune response. Unfortunately, there are autoimmune problems that come with left-wing PCism.
2. July 2020 at 11:57
Michael,
Funny, in my point of view it seems the SJW are the fascists. They want to encode their weaponized morality in the law and bring the cultural revolution to the U.S. Their power is growing and their influence is spreading day by day.
The number of extreme right-wingers seems small and mostly a backlash to the excesses and injustices of SJW. For example “alt-right”/”neo-reactionary”, the latter of which in my few encounters seems very intellectual. Of course like anyone I have a limited viewpoint, but I run into much more SJW than right-wing anything.
2. July 2020 at 12:10
Anonymous,
You’re confusing fascism and general authoritarianism. Fascism is a right-wing ideology, by definition. Fascists want to exclude others, even to the point of murdering them, in the extreme.
Left-wing ideologies are about inclusionism, and extremists, like communists, want to force that inclusion, even to the point of murder.
2. July 2020 at 12:13
Also, I’ll say that in my experience, alt-right types are extremely ignorant and unintelligent, while extremist social warriors are valid pseudointellectuals.
2. July 2020 at 12:27
@scott
– “You don’t think I understand systemic racism?”
You replied to a comment about system racism with a comment about white nationalism, which is a very distinct concept. That made me think you might not be familiar with the concept. And you’re preferred authority on the subject disputes the existence of systemic racism. So, yes.
– “Thank God for that! Do you think one can have an intelligent conversation with most protesters?”
Do you have any idea how large these protest have been. We’re not talking about a handful of extremists. These protesters represent a a broad cross-section of America. If you think that none of these people are capable of having an intelligent conversation, then I am probably wasting my time. BTW, I’ve been to the protests, which may or may not confirm your bias.
– “Oh really? So Loury doesn’t “understand” institutional racism either? Please tell me just one thing about institutional racism I don’t know. Just one example. I’m all ears.”
Loury does understand institutional racism, but he disputes it, so if he is your main source on the subject you may not be getting the best representation of the theory.
I obviously can’t divine what you do or do not know, but I would guess that going into this conversation you did not know that systemic racism is not dependent on the presence of racist people.
– “When the white man is being told what it’s like to be a victim of racism, he should listen and keep his mouth shut. But when he’s being told how he needs to change is life, or his policy views, then it MUST be a two way conversation. I’m not sure if all “woke” people understand that distinction.”
You are cherry-picking my comments and misrepresenting what I wrote. I think the full context of what I wrote is reasonable, so absent a more thoughtful critique, I’ll let my comments stand on their own.
“African Americans are almost three times as likely to be killed by police when you adjust for population.”
– “That’s an absolutely useless data point. The fact that you cite it shows that you are the last person that should be lecturing me about being ill-informed on the issues. Why not look at some academic studies of the problem, which control for socioeconomic status, or crime rates?”
I’m not lecturing you. I am aware of those studies, but they do not control for over policing. They also don’t control for the fact that African Americans are more likely to be arrested for drugs, despite not having higher rates of usage. They don’t control for racial profiling, which I hope we can agree exists. And socioeconomic status is a result of systemic racism, if you believe in systemic racism.
– “By the way, I think police brutality is a big problem especially for African Americans. But you don’t help your cause if you cite worthless data. Instead, you make it easier for intelligent conservatives to mock your cause (a cause I mostly support.)”
I’ve seen you right elegantly about police brutality many times. And I think I’ve made clear that I don’t think you have racist views. Let’s assume I’m wrong, and you have a deep understanding of systemic racism. Do you believe systemic racism is real?
To your other point, if you cite Sowell and Loury to intelligent liberals, you will be laughed out of the room.
2. July 2020 at 12:36
I have no idea what the average intelligence level of the protesters is, but Mitt Romney was one of them, and he’s pretty bright.
It does seem though that the protests have very much changed the political mood and probably hurt Trump, though there were obviously excesses and some collateral damage.
Is remains to be scene, but these protestors may have done more good on net than all of those looking down on them combined. They’ve certainly probably accomplished more than I ever will.
2. July 2020 at 12:57
@jason,
– “It is true that blacks are 3x times more likely to die at the hands of an officer. It is also true that they commit a disproportional amount of crimes. Black men make up 7% of the U.S. population, yet commit more than half of its violent crimes. This data is publicly available in the FBI database.”
That’s not a compelling argument against systemic racism.
When a young black kid brandishing a toy weapon is killed by an officer, the outrage is palpable. When a young white kid brandishing a toy weapon is killed by an officer, where is the same media outrage? Two weeks before Floyds death, a white man died in the exact same manner. Where were the calls of systemic racism?
Again, I don’t think you understand system racism.
– “Why do you think the Bronx was the primary target for stop and frisk? Do you think Bloomberg was racist? Was that the logical motive? Or do you think a data driven mayor, and data driven entrepreneur, looked at the DATA (god forbid he used evidence) and said to himself: if most of the crimes occur in the Bronx, perhaps I should send more officers to the Bronx? If more crimes are committed by men 18-25, then perhaps I should stop and frisk that age group more often.”
Bloomberg recently apologized for stop and frisk, and acknowledged it was a racist practice. A lot of bad ideas took hold in the 90s around policing. You’ll notice that stop and frisk is no longer being used, because most of us understand that it was racist as hell.
– “In regards to harassment: how do you quantify that? Is being pulled over for speeding harassment? Is stop and frisk harassment? When a man is standing on a street corner and is suspected of selling drugs, and subsequently questioned, is that harassment? Or are police officers attempting to keep communities safe?”
Yes, yes, yes, yes. And police officers are trying to keep communities safe, but the institution corrupt. Hence systemic racism.
. “Thailand implemented a new customs strategy that targeted Nigerian passengers, because most Nigerians traveling to Thailand are working for Nigerian drug lords. The strategy was overwhelmingly successful at reducing crimes and drugs. Is that harassment? Or is it good policy?”
Sounds like harassment, but I don’t know if enough to make a judgement.
I do care about feelings, so I apologize for being snarky in my last post. Material conditions matter. Being born in American affords you more opportunity than being born in N Korea. The same is true of where you are born in America. Being harassed by police affects life outcomes. Being arrested for a minor drub offense affect outcomes. Having a parent in jail affects outcomes. Having a mayor instruct the police department to harass everyone who looks like you affects outcomes. Systemic racism is a useful concept when looking at these issues.
2. July 2020 at 16:43
Above, bb characterized “changing the subject to PC” as “disingenuous,” to which I responded by suggesting “you can only listen to a lecture – instruction” from a person with this sort of stance on the PC thing – not have a conversation.
And sure enough, bb, in short order, was cracking open a lecture:
“I just think that you don’t understand institutional racism and this blog would be more interesting if you did. I definitely think you are on the right side. I don’t think you are at all racist. I just think there is a gap in your understanding of the subject, and you will not close that gap listening to Loury.”
Note the confidence in his own competence at judging who is and who is not racist, and in his own competence at judging which black people we should be listening to.
I think “listen to black people” is good advice, but saying “listen to white people like me tell you which black people to listen to” is really just saying “listen to white people like me.”
2. July 2020 at 16:44
“Thus when I got married (1994), most Americans opposed my marriage.”
But the poll question is specifically “black/white,” not inter-racial marriage in general, at least after 1978.
2. July 2020 at 16:45
“anon, I’d probably become more right wing if I spent a lot of time reading “woke” twitter.”
Matt Yglesias had an interesting point in response to that tweet:
“What was really striking to me during the primaries was actually how many extremely online people don’t seem to know any *Biden supporters* in their real life when America’s big coastal metros are genuinely full of them.”
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1278050896862048256
2. July 2020 at 16:46
“When the white man is being told what it’s like to be a victim of racism, he should listen and keep his mouth shut.”
I’d push back gently against this. First, it’s fine to listen, but you still have to listen critically, because after all, black people have diverse views on this subject, just like anyone else.
Also I wonder if some black people wouldn’t push against this a bit, for various reasons, perhaps one being they might find it slightly patronizing?
Another being that when you put a communication between two humans into this formulation – one talks, the other listens – does it necessarily serve the interests of either, in the long run?
I think the writer in the link in my next comment (I’ve got `em lined up, likes planes landing at the airport), perhaps obliquely, addresses these points….
2. July 2020 at 16:47
Books loved by wokesters aren’t always loved quite so much by every black person (non Loury/McWhorter edition):
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/19/the-fight-to-redefine-racism
2. July 2020 at 18:12
Anonymous, You said:
“The number of extreme right-wingers seems small”
Well we have white nationalists as president.
Michael, Fair point about Kaepernick.
You said:
“I have no idea what the average intelligence level of the protesters is, but Mitt Romney was one of them, and he’s pretty bright.”
OK, I’ll have a conversation about race with Mitt next time I see him.
Seriously, I do listen to conversations about race from time to time, and I’ve learned a lot. But its obviously not my area of expertise, and I don’t blog on it (or gender) very often.
bb, Let’s review the previous discussion:
“bb, You said:
“I think police violence and harassment against African Americans, residential zoning, and the war on drugs, are the product of systemic racism.”
Yes, I agree.”
So those are not examples of systemic racism? I’m confused.
anon/portly, You said:
“I think “listen to black people” is good advice, but saying “listen to white people like me tell you which black people to listen to” is really just saying “listen to white people like me.”
I wish I could write like that. Touche.
You said:
“But the poll question is specifically “black/white,” not inter-racial marriage in general, at least after 1978.”
OK, but look how smooth the line is before and after 1978. I doubt it would have made much difference if you asked about “inter-racial marriages”. If people think interracial marriages are wrong, they probably apply that to all interracial marriages.
2. July 2020 at 18:59
@anon,
I haven’t read the book, but I’ve listened to an interview of Ibram. Despite the fact that I always root for local kids, go DMV, and I’m obviously sympathetic to his views, I think his tone and style is not welcoming. His tone is “lecturing”. You make a very good point.
I’ll try to post a link to someone who is more charitable than Ibram and more eloquent than me. I do appreciate you taking some time to read on the subject. I can’t ask for more than that.
And to be honest, Ibram hurt my feelings a little bit.
I’m honestly not trying to be preachy. I think the concept of systemic racism brings hope to an issue that often seems intractable. Taking the time to learn more about the concept has helped me have a much more nuanced and constructive view. I’m personally still digesting many of these concepts, so I would not suggest that you listen to a wokester like me. I have deliberately not attempted to explain the concept because i’m not qualified to do so. I will post a link.
You said:
– “Also I wonder if some black people wouldn’t push against this a bit, for various reasons, perhaps one being they might find it slightly patronizing?”
I totally agree, and that has definitely happened to me before. I owe you a link.
2. July 2020 at 19:21
@scott,
what you actually said:
“I think police violence and harassment against African Americans, residential zoning, and the war on drugs, are the product of systemic racism.”
Yes, I agree.
As for PC being less urgent than white nationalism right now, I agree!
Thought experiment:
If you wrote at some time in the future or the past:
“I think monetary policy is currently too tight”
and I responded:
“I agree.
Popping the real estate bubble is less urgent than maintaining full employment right now. I agree!”
You might think that I don’t understand the point you were making?
I’ll add that your comment was very dismissive of the ability of protesters to have an intelligent conversation. Hopefully you misspoke, but that’s fine. We all have day jobs, sometimes we just type too fast.
But more to the point, do you believe that systemic/institutional racism is fundamental to any discussion on current issues of race, or do you believe that systemic racism is either not real or immaterial?
3. July 2020 at 07:16
bb
What is race? What is racism?
Is it just “black” vs “white” or something else?
Genuinely interested.
3. July 2020 at 08:20
bb, No not a typo, I’m dismissive of the ability of 99% of whites to have an intelligent conversation on race, including protesters, including me. Blacks can obviously speak to what it’s like to experience racism.
You misread my comment on structural racism, I understand what it is. I’ve frequently claimed that many laws and cultural practices indirectly work against the interest of blacks. But unlike you, I see white nationalism as part of the problem, as making structural racism worse.
Sorry if I sounded hostile. I do appreciate your comments, which are generally quite thoughtful. I just find the whole atmosphere of PCism to be annoying on multiple levels, and that impacts the way I respond. I personally know people who have been impacted, even one who lost his job. (I haven’t been impacted. BTW) That doesn’t mean it’s anywhere near the biggest problem facing America, but it is an annoying practice.
3. July 2020 at 10:39
Scott,
I think you’re mostly correct about the looney left. Cancel culture has gone much too far. What bothers me lately is a complete inability by some to judge people in the context of their times, and the inability to simultaneously acknowledge that some people with accomplishments worth celebrating have very dark sides of their personalities. Henry Ford and George Patton come to mind.
Here is Bill Maher complaining about the cannibalizing “gotcha” culture on the left:
https://youtu.be/Yv0P1-gpEFc
That said, we should also acknowledge that Fang’s timing, to choose one example, couldn’t have been more stupid. It’s like bringing up the subject of personal responsibility concerning weight to your wife minutes after she’s diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Everything said may be intelligent, relevant, and ultimately even useful, but the timing is obviously dumb.
That doesn’t mean Fang deserves to be fired or shunned from polite society, but it does mean that we shouldn’t completely excuse such stupidity.
4. July 2020 at 13:18
@scott,
That’s fair. Thank you for the reply.
@anon,
Here is a good conversation from Vox that I think captures the tone on the subject that I prefer.
https://megaphone.link/VMP1899698721
@jammin,
Broad question. For this conversation, I am specifically talking about institutional/structural/systemic racism against African Americans. Podcast above gives much better context than I can provide.
5. July 2020 at 09:22
“OK, but look how smooth the line is before and after 1978. I doubt it would have made much difference if you asked about “inter-racial marriages”. If people think interracial marriages are wrong, they probably apply that to all interracial marriages.”
I wouldn’t have thought opposition to White/Asian marriage in 1978 would have been anywhere near the opposition to White/Black marriage.
Then again, the US is 5.9% Asian and 13.4% Black/African American, and I grew up and now live in a county that is 6.2% Black/African American and 14.6% Asian. (Wikipedia). I have been around White/Asian couples my whole life, it seems like, and to be honest hadn’t really thought about it very much. Maybe my perspective is somewhat sheltered. And also “Oblivious” should probably be my middle name.
5. July 2020 at 09:52
anon/portly, Again, why didn’t the approval rate suddenly drop after 1978, when they changed the wording?
And why did the laws banning interracial marriage apply to all races?
And what is the logic of opposing some types of interracial marriages but not others?
You might be right to some small extent, but I’m sticking with my view that these poll numbers are fairly reliable even after 1978. If anything, the percentage approving recently is probably a bit lower than reported, as it’s increasing politically incorrect to say you don’t approve.
5. July 2020 at 11:19
“I’m honestly not trying to be preachy. I think the concept of systemic racism brings hope to an issue that often seems intractable. Taking the time to learn more about the concept has helped me have a much more nuanced and constructive view. I’m personally still digesting many of these concepts, so I would not suggest that you listen to a wokester like me. I have deliberately not attempted to explain the concept because i’m not qualified to do so. I will post a link.”
“@anon, Here is a good conversation from Vox that I think captures the tone on the subject that I prefer.”
The promised link went to a whole set of podcasts, so I’m not sure which particular one was the intended target.
Here’s a question: why does “the concept of systemic racism brings hope?” Hope for whom? What makes your view more “constructive?” Constructive in what way?
Consider:
(1) Is there actually any good evidence that efforts to promote “conceptual understanding,” such as anti-bias training, make white people less racist?
(2) Is there actually any good evidence that if white people become less racist, in some real (i.e. measurable) way, that this will improve the lives and fortunes of black people?
(3) Meanwhile there is heaps and heaps and heaps of evidence – good reasons to believe – that various public policy interventions would improve the lives and fortunes of black people. This is true regardless of whether certain magical transformations take place in the minds of white people.
So while maybe it’s great that some white people like bb are experiencing their Awokenings and feeling good about themselves, I’m not sure that this is really all that important. I’d say that overall “less ignorance” and “greater awareness” on the part of the public or the population as a whole are good things, very important things, but I don’t think bb’s model of how this is achieved is a very good model. It’s not so simple.
Consider Maria’s comment on July 1 at 20:54 or Scott Sumner’s comment on 3 July. “Having a conversation” can morph into something else….
5. July 2020 at 11:33
“And what is the logic of opposing some types of interracial marriages but not others?”
Well, I would say nowadays on the “oppressed” scale, Indians rank way ahead of Asian people. And yet White/Indian intermarriage was not uncommon, even when White/Black marriage was obviously unthinkable. Why was that?
I don’t really know the answers to your question. I was just giving you my impressions on the subject. When I was in high school and the Scott next door married a Japanese woman, I don’t recall anyone thinking it was all that strange.
(The Scott next door tried to teach me the guitar and quickly threw in the towel – I was an unserious person then, as now).
5. July 2020 at 11:40
I have appreciated bb’s comments on this thread, even though I disagree with him. But this one I really object to:
“To your other point, if you cite Sowell and Loury to intelligent liberals, you will be laughed out of the room.”
As I have been sheltered on racial matters by occupying spaces that are too white, so to maybe bb is sheltered somewhat on other matters. I’d say the number of “intelligent liberals” who would laugh at a Loury cite, at least, is zero.
6. July 2020 at 08:47
@anon,
That was a direct, and petty, response to Scott’s comment that I would by “mocked” by “intelligent conservatives”. On this topic, they are considered contrarians- I”m not familiar with their other work. Citing only contrarians can hurt your credibility. And it’s probably wise to take some time to learn the non-contrarian point of view. That’s all I was trying say. My tone was poor.
7. July 2020 at 08:40
“Citing only contrarians can hurt your credibility. And it’s probably wise to take some time to learn the non-contrarian point of view.”
Citing contrarians should hurt your credibility only if they’re making bad arguments. Maybe there’s a hidden, false assumption lurking in this formulation? And how can you avoid learning the non-contrarian view, if you’re going to be at all well informed on an issue?
Earlier, there was the suggestion to “listen to the protesters” but to the extent that a large group of people actually speak with one voice, or that we think we can so discern, are their view contrarian or non-contrarian? “Defund the police” for example is to me clearly a contrarian view.
7. July 2020 at 10:09
Bb
Thanks for the link.
Afro-Americans can’t be a race in any technical sense as the genes of Afro-Americans are far too diverse. You probably know this, and things like the fact that Africans have far more diverse genes amongst themselves than between many of them and white Europeans.
So what is the racism you talk about? Mere skin colour? But that won’t work given the phenomenal success of black Asian Americans.
Does that leave us with cultural discrimination? Systemic cultural discrimination? Perhaps. But it’s not quite the same thing as racism.
10. July 2020 at 08:37
@anon,
That’s not what I said.
“Citing contrarians” and “citing only contrarians” are two very different statements.
@jammin,
I’m not making a genetic argument. African American in general are people who self identify as African Americans.