Who is Blocking Racial Progress?

Outside of a few radicals it seems to me that here in the US we almost unanimously wish to see more progress in racial equality, and we would mostly agree that much has been accomplished. Is further progress being blocked, and if so who is blocking it?

As is often the case, the ones voicing the loudest demands for change are their own worst enemies. For one thing, it would be helpful to acknowledge the progress made, and this is absent from those voices. I do understand that you can't demand they do, the need to do so comes not from obligation but from knowing what is better practices. If someone had been wronging someone else on a weekly basis, then reformed and was only doing it monthly, that is a vast improvement; however, the person wronged still is right to complain! And for that matter isn't particularly obliged to say 'thanks' for the improvement. But I have to think it is still the wisest policy in the current debate to tell the truth about how things have changed. As a matter of fact, the progress has been huge but acknowledgement is not happening and we all know this, getting things off on the wrong foot. 

It seems to me pretty clear that one result of the current heavily charged activism of the left in this matter is to drive completely out of the picture any moderate voices. In fact the charge is that any dissent against the goals of the radicals is immediately dismissed as more racism. That the Democrats are embracing this as a party is a terrible mistake; we shall see. For sure it is helping to block progress. 

I have more to say but will stop to keep this from being overlong, we'll see if people want to discuss it.

Quote: odiousgambit

Outside of a few radicals it seems to me that here in the US we almost unanimously wish to see more progress in racial equality, and we would mostly agree that much has been accomplished. Is further progress being blocked, and if so who is blocking it?

As is often the case, the ones voicing the loudest demands for change are their own worst enemies. For one thing, it would be helpful to acknowledge the progress made, and this is absent from those voices. I do understand that you can't demand they do, the need to do so comes not from obligation but from knowing what is better practices. If someone had been wronging someone else on a weekly basis, then reformed and was only doing it monthly, that is a vast improvement; however, the person wronged still is right to complain! And for that matter isn't particularly obliged to say 'thanks' for the improvement. But I have to think it is still the wisest policy in the current debate to tell the truth about how things have changed. As a matter of fact, the progress has been huge but acknowledgement is not happening and we all know this, getting things off on the wrong foot. 

It seems to me pretty clear that one result of the current heavily charged activism of the left in this matter is to drive completely out of the picture any moderate voices. In fact the charge is that any dissent against the goals of the radicals is immediately dismissed as more racism. That the Democrats are embracing this as a party is a terrible mistake; we shall see. For sure it is helping to block progress. 

I have more to say but will stop to keep this from being overlong, we'll see if people want to discuss it.

Perhaps if they had majored in something in the realm of business rather than Liberal Arts they would understand how to better market themselves and their ideas.

If you wish, feel free to copy/paste my post to you from the other thread and respond to it in this thread.

Another thing is that, "Racism," is being looked at as a root cause of society being the way that it is. Unfortunately, it's not quite as simple as that, for racism itself has a cause---and that cause is tribalism.

Of course, while tribalism can be something that manifests by way of racial, cultural or religious group, it doesn't have to be. What we see on the Far Left is a manifestation of Tribalism by ideology, in order to be part of the group, or tribe, ideological purity is a requirement. In order to be a, "Progressive," or a, "Liberal," or whatever term you might want to use...individual thought must be cast aside in favor of adherence to the broader ideas of the group with whom you identify...or you might be ridiculed by the group if not outright ostracized.

From that, we see an attempt at a division into two groups who are opposed to one another, "Racists," and, "Anti-Racist." If you don't belong to the latter group, which requires action, then you MUST belong, to some degree, to the former group which can come by way of action, inaction or an insufficient amount of action.

Quote: Mission146

If you wish, feel free to copy/paste my post to you from the other thread and respond to it in this thread.

Doing so.

Quote: Mission146

With all due respect, I think you're giving these purported intellectuals more space in your thoughts than they have earned. 

and now they are crowding your thoughts lol

Quote:

The concept of, "Anti-Racism," is clearly a very politically-motivated one.  In my opinion, the modus operandi is pretty simple and can be summarized in a few quotes from Ibram X. Kendi:

Kendi attempts to moderate his assertions somewhat, I've noticed, compared to some others. However, I wouldnt say he is a moderate. 
...

Quote:

When you look at the first sentence in the first quote, "Racism views a racial group as culturally or socially inferior," then we see a clear and readily agreed upon definition of racism. If that definition doesn't apply to you, then you are not a racist.  However, it is apparently being argued that one cannot simply be, "Not a racist," and everyone is either a racist or an anti-racist...because if you're not an anti-racist you must be a racist.

The first part is a long standing definition, so we can see part of the new thinking is to redefine everything. 

I think I know where the idea comes from. Not just Kendi but I think quite commonly outside of the White community it rankles to have someone say something bigoted, get criticized for it, then see them claim they are not prejudiced or bigoted or racist. I was watching "Driving Miss Daisy" for the first time the other day. Her character is an old Jewish lady in the South who has absorbed much of the bigotry against Blacks of the time and place. However, after saying or doing something reflecting that, she indeed bristles and says "I have never had a prejudiced bone in my body" or something similar. Which is just exactly what makes the case for not saying that, it is pretty empty ofttimes. I don't know about making that movie these days btw, overall she is cast as a sympathetic character. 

Posting this now as I am not trusting my internet this aft. Will have more to say.

Quote: Mission146

Another thing is that, "Racism," is being looked at as a root cause of society being the way that it is. Unfortunately, it's not quite as simple as that, for racism itself has a cause---and that cause is tribalism.

Yes

Quote:

Of course, while tribalism can be something that manifests by way of racial, cultural or religious group, it doesn't have to be. What we see on the Far Left is a manifestation of Tribalism by ideology, in order to be part of the group, or tribe, ideological purity is a requirement. In order to be a, "Progressive," or a, "Liberal," or whatever term you might want to use...individual thought must be cast aside in favor of adherence to the broader ideas of the group with whom you identify...or you might be ridiculed by the group if not outright ostracized.

I'm probably willing to pay the price of ostracism now at my age and place, but I'm not too eager to collect scalps from what I perceive to be my tribe, maybe just not mean enough.

Quote:

From that, we see an attempt at a division into two groups who are opposed to one another, "Racists," and, "Anti-Racist." If you don't belong to the latter group, which requires action, then you MUST belong, to some degree, to the former group which can come by way of action, inaction or an insufficient amount of action.

Divide and conquer can work, but do you have to do a better job of concealing your hand?

Quote: odiousgambit

Doing so.

and now they are crowding your thoughts lol

Yes. Thank you for that. ;)

Quote:

Kendi attempts to moderate his assertions somewhat, I've noticed, compared to some others. However, I wouldnt say he is a moderate. 
...

A fire that takes out only the second story of a house can be considered moderate compared to one that burns the whole thing to the ground.

Quote:

The first part is a long standing definition, so we can see part of the new thinking is to redefine everything. 

I think I know where the idea comes from. Not just Kendi but I think quite commonly outside of the White community it rankles to have someone say something bigoted, get criticized for it, then see them claim they are not prejudiced or bigoted or racist. I was watching "Driving Miss Daisy" for the first time the other day. Her character is an old Jewish lady in the South who has absorbed much of the bigotry against Blacks of the time and place. However, after saying or doing something reflecting that, she indeed bristles and says "I have never had a prejudiced bone in my body" or something similar. Just exactly what makes the case for not saying that, it is pretty empty ofttimes. I don't know about making that movie these days btw, overall she is cast as a sympathetic character. 

Posting this now as I am not trusting my internet this aft. Will have more to say.

It's not only to redefine everything, but when we look at the case of Kendi and the notion of, "Anti-racism," we see two things being accomplished:

1.) We see the promotion of a narrative that is considered, by some, to be convincing. Of course, it's easy to produce a convincing narrative when these three things are true:

A.) Your target market for the narrative is, in general, fairly impressionable.

B.) Your target market wants to buy what you're selling anyway.

C.) Your target market wants to fit into the group that is supported by your narrative.

---I guess the last two of those things are very tightly related and could be argued to be kind of the same thing.

2.) Not only do you redefine everything, but in doing so, you control the terms of engagement for that thing. If we categorize everything as either, "Racist," or, "Anti-Racist," then challenging/questioning anti-racism as a concept or anything that anti-racism supports becomes racist.

In other words, in discussing anti-racism, you're a racist if you challenge anti-racism itself (or whether the racist/anti-racist dichotomy even applies to a thing) on the merits and the thing that is being defined must be unquestionably accepted as true.

Same thing with God, you're not supposed to doubt him. If you find yourself questioning God, then you are not being humble. If you find yourself doubting God, then the problem is that you are not being faithful enough and must find a way to fix yourself or be fixed by someone else.

Intellectually speaking, these are all extremely low-level tactics. Control the narrative, control the definitions and control the terms of engagement and your side of a position cannot possibly lose. If a person really believes that they have an insurmountably meritorious position on something, then they could address that thing using mutually agreed upon definitions and have the terms of engagement be as neutral as possible.

Besides, it's more challenging to have that kind of exchange, but I guess Kendi (and others) aren't exactly constructing this narrative with the goal of having it fairly challenged, now are they?

Quote: odiousgambit

Yes

I'm probably willing to pay the price of ostracism now at my age and place, but I'm not too eager to collect scalps from what I perceive to be my tribe, maybe just not mean enough.

Divide and conquer can work, but do you have to do a better job of concealing your hand?

I don't think you have a tribe; I consider you way too smart to have a tribe. If you were inclined to have one, then you'd be one of the leaders of it.

I would say that you'd normally have to not play your hand so forcefully, but for the time being, you're dealing with people who want to identify, "Ourselves," and, "The other," and have themselves be divided from the other. Between those who agree with them already and those willing to, "Go along to get along," they probably figure they have sufficient numbers to play a strong hand.

I propose that prejudice (which is a component of racism) is the response of the brain relating somewhat to the fight or flight response. It’s also related to gambler fallacies. And it works similar to Pavlov’s dog aka stimulus/response. It’s the brain primitive response to threat which kept us safe from enemies through recognizing generalized traits.

For instance, your survivability from a lion attack was greatly enhanced if you could recognize the shape and movement of lion from a distance rather than waiting until it was so close you could see its teeth.

But this also creates a lot of errors in judgment because it is not refined by preciseness. It’s why you may jump if you are walking along and notice an S shape that your foot is about to step on, until your eyes focus and you see it is merely a piece of rope or broken cable and not a snake.

I bring up gambler fallacies because the brain is automatically engaged in pattern recognition. Even the aware gambler can still hear or see patterns that he needs to ignore and stick to correct play in an Ap game.

So prejudice has a usage but it is a primitive usage not a truly informed one.

Quote: rxwine

I propose that prejudice (which is a component of racism) is the response of the brain relating somewhat to the fight or flight response. It’s also related to gambler fallacies. And it works similar to Pavlov’s dog aka stimulus/response. It’s the brain primitive response to threat which kept us safe from enemies through recognizing generalized traits.

For instance, your survivability from a lion attack was greatly enhanced if you could recognize the shape and movement of lion from a distance rather than waiting until it was so close you could see its teeth.

But this also creates a lot of errors in judgment because it is not refined by preciseness. It’s why you may jump if you are walking along and notice an S shape that your foot is about to step on, until your eyes focus and you see it is merely a piece of rope or broken cable and not a snake.

I bring up gambler fallacies because the brain is automatically engaged in pattern recognition. Even the aware gambler can still hear or see patterns that he needs to ignore and stick to correct play in an Ap game.

So prejudice has a usage but it is a primitive usage not a truly informed one.

That's an interesting proposition that I would assume is sometimes applicable.

The responses that you reference are either taught directly by a trusted person, or can sometimes be experientially learned, such as in the case of a snake. As you point out, humans respond a certain way to a given stimuli (the S coil) until more information is known.

To that extent, some prejudices might be experiential in nature...relating to a bad experience (or multiple) with a particular group of people. Other prejudices against other people might have been those taught to us, much like kids would be taught how to spot a lion before it's too late.

When it comes to prejudices against entire groups of people, in my terms, "Until more information is known," or your terms, "Not a truly informed one," the question then becomes by what means might that be rectified and is there a point (with an individual prejudiced person) that it simply cannot be rectified?

By nature, humans don't want to be wrong about things, so we also have an inherent prejudice that we only want to be exposed (or to take seriously) things that reinforce the ideas that we already have. Because of that, this new information that might result in a more intellectually-founded viewpoint is often rejected if not totally avoided altogether.

I don't know if there's a way to remedy that or how you would as the only likely counter that would be sufficient is to have direct experiences to the contrary...which is pretty tough for a person to do if they are actively avoiding other people or treating them differently (even if it's just internally) when they do encounter them. What I do know is that an attempt to convince someone who is not racist that they actually are racist because they aren't, "Anti-racist," enough isn't going to do anything to disabuse a person who is actually a racist of racist notions.

Quote: Mission146

where have we seen this MO before?


Well, let's think about this.


STEP ONE: Identify something that is bad and that a person does not want to be.


STEP TWO: Convince the person that they are born into sin whether or not they believe that they are a sinner.


STEP THREE: Provide them with hope that they can stop being a sinner, and wicked, and can avoid eternal damnation if they subscribe to a belief in God and repent of all of their sins---then go forth and sin no more.


STEP FOUR: Make them understand that everything in the entire Universe, by one means or another, has to relate back to God in some way.


STEP FIVE: As a result of Steps 1-4, the person will act, behave, think and vote in a way that comports to the desires of the church. They will also give the church money and time.


It's kind of funny that the Far Left yanked its MO from organized religion, which itself is a VERY racist institution, but hell...whatever method works, I guess.

I guess maybe something is always satanic unless it is anti-satanic, and can't just be 'not satanic', if we can expand on the thinking of Ibram Kendi and Robin Diangelo LOL.

I am not a church-goer so anything you want to say about the way religion goes about things is not likely to find me disagreeing. But perhaps I can't deny being interested in Christianity, and sort of feel it is worth defending as a whole. Recently I browsed again the book Zealot by Reza Aslan, having found out it was found to be pretty flawed by other scholars. Won't go into that, but the question of 'just how did this religion get started?' is pretty fascinating to me from the prospective that Aslan was probably right in that Jesus was probably some form of a Zealot wanting to overthrow the Temple Priesthood, collaborators with the Romans.

But you see, this sort of interest is in what is called Higher Criticism* and doesn't have much to do with the current Church, which does in fact disappoint me for the most part. So I know you emphasized this in your response but I don't have much of a reply to make.

I do wonder if you have a grudge.


*that's the old term, the newer 'Historical Criticism' is now in favor