United States Politics Thread 46

[Linguoboy]

I think something that needs to be considered is that race does not function the same way in different societies.

What makes you think this isn't being considered? The aforementioned formula "racism = prejudice + power" covers this.

Part of the reason why I find this particular discussion tiresome is not just that it's the same every time but that it's the same strawman argument every time. Maybe these blinkered radical identitarians that irk you so really do exist somewhere in the real world. If you know where, by all means, find them and take them to task. But it's pretty clear that they don't exist here so hearing these counterarguments to arguments that no one of the Board is actually making gets quite tedious.

[alynnidalar]

Furthermore, it's all well and good to talk about racism in Japan... except this entire conversation and discussion about "racism" was sparked by talking specifically about racially-motivated attacks against Asian people in the US:

I have been reading about the recent attacks on (often older) Asian people here in the US and learned that they were very often committed by Black individuals and that there exists significant anti-Asian sentiments amongst Black people here in the US and, conversely, there exists significant anti-Black sentiments amongst Asian people here in the US (consider the case of the Rodney King riots).

Literally no one in this conversation has actually said that the same racial hierarchy exists in all societies, or implied that.

[Linguoboy]

Furthermore, it's all well and good to talk about racism in Japan... except this entire conversation and discussion about "racism" was sparked by talking specifically about racially-motivated attacks against Asian people in the US.

"You know what really upsets me about racially-motivated attacks against Asians and Asian-Americans in the USA? That there are people in my head who wouldn't call these 'racist'."

Seriously, listen to yourself, Travis.

[Travis B.]

Literally no one in this conversation has actually said that the same racial hierarchy exists in all societies, or implied that.

I agree, no one here has. I am really reacting to people outside the ZBB, and just complaining about it here. (Like one thing I saw this morning on Facebook said that white men have never been discriminated against, while completely ignoring discrimination or worse (e.g. the Holocaust) against people we would consider white by other people we would consider white.)

[Linguoboy]

I agree, no one here has. I am really reacting to people outside the ZBB, and just complaining about it here. (Like one thing I saw this morning on Facebook said that white men have never been discriminated against, while completely ignoring discrimination or worse (e.g. the Holocaust) against people we would consider white by other people we would consider white.)

It seems obvious to me that what they're saying is that white men haven't been discriminated against solely on the basis of being white men--or at least not on any kind of notable scale. If you look at examples, you'll almost always find (as you do in this case) that some other factors are involved (and--almost invariably--if there's a situation where white men are being discriminated again, other groups in the same situation are being treated worse).

Furthermore, the "whiteness" of Jews is not a settled question. If you're not familiar with the ongoing debate, simply googling "Are Jews white?" will bring up a spectrum of responses from within the Jewish community.

[Travis B.]

I agree, no one here has. I am really reacting to people outside the ZBB, and just complaining about it here. (Like one thing I saw this morning on Facebook said that white men have never been discriminated against, while completely ignoring discrimination or worse (e.g. the Holocaust) against people we would consider white by other people we would consider white.)

It seems obvious to me that what they're saying is that white men haven't been discriminated against solely on the basis of being white men--or at least not on any kind of notable scale. If you look at examples, you'll almost always find (as you do in this case) that some other factors are involved (and--almost invariably--if there's a situation where white men are being discriminated again, other groups in the same situation are being treated worse).

I get this; it just is that what they should have said that "white men have never been discriminated against on the basis of being white men".

Furthermore, the "whiteness" of Jews is not a settled question. If you're not familiar with the ongoing debate, simply googling "Are Jews white?" will bring up a spectrum of responses from within the Jewish community.

It's not just Jews though. It's Irish, Slavs, Italians, a number of groups that were historically (or not necessarily historically, when one considers how Poles and southern Europeans are often seen in parts of northern Europe even today) discriminated against in one fashion or another that we now today consider to be white (even if they were not unambiguously considered to be white at the time).

[Linguoboy]

I get this; it just is that what they should have said that "white men have never been discriminated against on the basis of being white men".

If you understand the point they're making, why are you quibbling about the wording? It's almost like you're trying to distract and detract from their point. By why would a white man want to do that in a discussion of racism? It just doesn't make any sense.

Furthermore, the "whiteness" of Jews is not a settled question. If you're not familiar with the ongoing debate, simply googling "Are Jews white?" will bring up a spectrum of responses from within the Jewish community.

It's not just Jews though. It's Irish, Slavs, Italians, a number of groups that were historically (or not necessarily historically, when one considers how Poles and southern Europeans are often seen in parts of northern Europe even today) discriminated against in one fashion or another that we now today consider to be white (even if they were not unambiguously considered to be white at the time).

If they weren't "white" at the time, then the statement holds true. I seem to recall that earlier in this discussion someone made this point:

I think something that needs to be considered is that race does not function the same way in different societies.

Do you recall someone saying that, Travis? Do you think the society of the US a century or more ago can be considered a "different society" from the one we live in today? Why or why not?

[Travis B.]

I get this; it just is that what they should have said that "white men have never been discriminated against on the basis of being white men".

If you understand the point they're making, why are you quibbling about the wording? It's almost like you're trying to distract and detract from their point. By why would a white man want to do that in a discussion of racism? It just doesn't make any sense.

It is more my being literal to a fault.

Furthermore, the "whiteness" of Jews is not a settled question. If you're not familiar with the ongoing debate, simply googling "Are Jews white?" will bring up a spectrum of responses from within the Jewish community.

It's not just Jews though. It's Irish, Slavs, Italians, a number of groups that were historically (or not necessarily historically, when one considers how Poles and southern Europeans are often seen in parts of northern Europe even today) discriminated against in one fashion or another that we now today consider to be white (even if they were not unambiguously considered to be white at the time).

If they weren't "white" at the time, then the statement holds true.

"Unambiguous" was the word I used. There wasn't a day where Irish and Italian people suddenly turned white, rather their becoming to be seen as white was gradual.

I seem to recall that earlier in this discussion someone made this point:

I think something that needs to be considered is that race does not function the same way in different societies.

Do you recall someone saying that, Travis? Do you think the society of the US a century or more ago can be considered a "different society" from the one we live in today? Why or why not?

Differences in time do affect how societies function with regard to race, and yes, the US of the 19th and early 20th centuries is not the same as it is today in this regard (e.g. in the US today people do not think twice about whether Irish, Slavs, and Italians are white). Yet at the same time there is continuity - how race functions in the US of today is a product of how race functioned back then. The treatment of black people in American society today is very much a product of slavery and subsequent discrimination against black people since then.

[Linguoboy]

Differences in time do affect how societies function with regard to race, and yes, the US of the 19th and early 20th centuries is not the same as it is today in this regard (e.g. in the US today people do not think twice about whether Irish, Slavs, and Italians are white). Yet at the same time there is continuity - how race functions in the US of today is a product of how race functioned back then. The treatment of black people in American society today is very much a product of slavery and subsequent discrimination against black people since then.

Right, but the point of the statement is that discrimination against Black people has been a constant throughout the history of this society whereas discrimination against white people qua white people never has. The one constant of USAmerican race relations from the founding of the colonies up through the present day has been a socially dominant group with straight White English-speaking Protestant cismen at its core determining what rights and privileges various members of this society are entitled to and reserving some or all of those rights and privileges solely for themselves. Over the years, that core has expanded in order to maintain their dominance in some form but they've never surrendered the power to make those determinations.

As for the problem of being too literal-minded, I'm not sure what to do about that. I have that tendency myself and to check myself I try to keep in mind the Buddha's teachings on right speech. What I have to say may be factual and true, but is it beneficial to say it? And, if so, is this the proper time to speak? If, after I answer these questions, I don't see a clear benefit beyond stroking my own ego, I don't voice my objections.

I don't know if an example would help, but since you brought up Facebook, there's a meme which goes around periodically to the effect of "There are no white people in the Bible." Now, in a sense, this is trivially true because--as we've just been discussing here--the concept of "white people" didn't exist at the time the Bible was composed, recorded, and edited into its most widely-accepted form. But if something is trivially true, why bother saying it?

Perhaps "white people" here is a shorthand for "people who would now be considered 'white' according to our contemporary understanding of race"? It's a common enough shorthand to project our current definitions backwards into the past[*]. If that's the case, then it's an easily disprovable statement. Genesis mentions the origins of all peoples, which presumably includes the ancestors of today's white people (traditionally reckoned to the descendants of Japheth). And the New Testament features Romans and Greeks, most of whom had the racial characteristics we today associate with "white people". If a statement is so easily proven false, why make it?

This is the point at which--instead of popping up with an "Actually..."--it's best to go meta and ask: What is the larger context which makes this statement appear necessary and valid? And you don't have to look far: In this case it's a 2000+ year tradition of depicting Biblical figures with the racial characteristics of those doing the depicting, which leads to Europeans giving them (white) European features, which in turn leads to contemporary white USAmerican Christians conveniently ignoring the contradiction of barring (nonwhite) Middle Easterners from entring their country while holding sacred the teachings of a (nonwhite) Middle Easterner who was forced to flee to a foreign country to escape death and persecution.

How do I know this is the correct conclusion? Because you'll see the same folks who share this meme sharing others which make the connexion explicitly clear (often around Christmastime, when the story of the Nativity and the Flight Into Egypt is fresh in a lot of people's minds). So put the meme into context and you'll see that it's not a factual assertion about the demographic statistics of the Ancient Near East and so shouldn't be "refuted" as such. Rather, it's a corrective to a particular worldview and can't properly be interpreted without also understanding that worldview.

So the next time you see some post something about white men that you find factually questionable on some technical grounds, take a step back. Remind yourself of the current situation (one of the widespread discrimination against people other than white men), the motivation for making these assertions (discontent with that situation), and the ultimate goal of those making them (securing equal rights and equitable treatment for all regardless of race, sex, or other accidental characteristics). Then the question becomes not, "Is this statement factually unassailable?" but "Do I support this goal?" And if the answer is "Yes", then ask yourself, "Will my objection further this goal or will it derail progress toward it?" And if it will lead to derailment, why are you making it? What exactly are you hoping to achieve in this situation?

Sometimes I arrive at this point and still say something unhelpful because I'm a stubborn asshole with a big ego who likes being "right" in all situations. But I'm finding I do that less and less, so change is possible if you want it.


[*] I recently had an argument with along these lines with a fellow cataloger. We've been looking at purging the heading "Primitive societies" from our catalog because it's both racist and unhelpful. She brought up as a counterexample a book whose contents (essentially a travelogue of visits to see the last "primitive peoples" left) couldn't really be accounted for without appealing to this category to give them coherence. But my countercounterargument is that we don't catalogue books "historically". If we'd succeeded in removing the heading "Primitive societies" before we acquired the book, we'd find some way to shoehorn it into other existing categorisations--in the same way that if we acquire a book on "sexual deviants" from fifty years ago we don't use the obsolete heading "Sexual deviancy". Instead, we try to pinpoint how these subjects would be categorised according to our contemporary scheme for such topics. If someone wants to understand why they've been lumped together the way they have (1) 9 times out of 10, the title is a dead giveaway and (2) that other 1 in 10 times, well, that's what we have educators for, right?

[alynnidalar]

Then the question becomes not, "Is this statement factually unassailable?" but "Do I support this goal?" And if the answer is "Yes", then ask yourself, "Will my objection further this goal or will it derail progress toward it?" And if it will lead to derailment, why are you making it? What exactly are you hoping to achieve in this situation?

This is... a really good way to think about things. I need to do more of this in my life.

[Travis B.]

Then the question becomes not, "Is this statement factually unassailable?" but "Do I support this goal?" And if the answer is "Yes", then ask yourself, "Will my objection further this goal or will it derail progress toward it?" And if it will lead to derailment, why are you making it? What exactly are you hoping to achieve in this situation?

It is one thing to recognize, as you mention above, that something may not be literally true, but which has a kernel of truth beyond that, e.g. statements made based on some sort of unstated context (e.g. statements about race relations that assume the context of American society and which are not actually meant to be universal, even if when taken literally they are such). Oftentimes such statements are better soundbites than more lengthy, qualified statements which are more true when taken literally, e.g. "white males have never been discriminated against" is a better soundbite than "white males have never been discriminated against for being white males in American society".

At the same time, we should not give up truth as a goal for the sake of expediency. Take for instance (for an example that has nothing to do with race or gender) the crimes committed under the various forms of Communism. Modern Communists and authoritarian-leaning socialists tend to try to ignore or whitewash these because they do not suit their own political purposes, and when they do acknowledge them at all, they say things to the effect of "these were just due to the development of socialism in the Soviet Union/the People's Republic of China" or "they were necessary to fight the enemies of socialism", as if these sorts of things justify the oppression that started with the bloody consolidation of power by the Leninists, to the many crimes of the Stalinists, to the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Honest socialists recognize that all these things happened and do not try to excuse or justify them, favoring truth over expediency; consequently, they support social structures that would prevent these kinds of things from happening again were socialism adopted in the future.

[Linguoboy]

Oftentimes such statements are better soundbites than more lengthy, qualified statements which are more true when taken literally[.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about the online equivalents of catchy slogans on protest signs?

At the same time, we should not give up truth as a goal for the sake of expediency. Take for instance (for an example that has nothing to do with race or gender) the crimes committed under the various forms of Communism.

That escalated quickly.

Again, I think it's all about context. If I were reading a twenty-page manifesto on the goals of an activist organisation and it was riddled with what I considered serious errors of fact or framing, I'd be more likely to bring it up than if it was just something on one dude's wall on Facebook. Again, you have to ask what your goals are. If it's to prevent another string of atrocities on the scale of the Stalinist purges and the Cultural Revolution, well, I think you'll have a couple more chances to speak up than just this one.

I'm in a planning group that's looking at issues of equality, diversity, and inclusion within the organisation where I work and one of the ground rules we've set for discussion is that we're not going to overpolice each other's terminology. That is, we're going to make every effort to be respectful and accurate, but we recognise that sometimes in these contexts people worry so much about "saying the wrong thing" that they end up saying nothing at all and then the entire group misses out on potentially useful and constructive contributions. Nothing will leave the group without multiple rounds of review and revision, so if there are issues with word choice or framing, we'll have plenty of opportunities down the road.

[Travis B.]

Oftentimes such statements are better soundbites than more lengthy, qualified statements which are more true when taken literally[.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about the online equivalents of catchy slogans on protest signs?

That is definitely true.

At the same time, we should not give up truth as a goal for the sake of expediency. Take for instance (for an example that has nothing to do with race or gender) the crimes committed under the various forms of Communism.

That escalated quickly.

I apologize for the over-the-top example. I just wanted something that had nothing to do with race or gender where I in broad terms support a general position, if not always the specifics, but at the same time other people with broadly similar views sometimes negate the truth for the sake of their goals.

Again, I think it's all about context. If I were reading a twenty-page manifesto on the goals of an activist organisation and it was riddled with what I considered serious errors of fact or framing, I'd be more likely to bring it up than if it was just something on one dude's wall on Facebook. Again, you have to ask what your goals are. If it's to prevent another string of atrocities on the scale of the Stalinist purges and the Cultural Revolution, well, I think you'll have a couple more chances to speak up than just this one.

Agreed.

I'm in a planning group that's looking at issues of equality, diversity, and inclusion within the organisation where I work and one of the ground rules we've set for discussion is that we're not going to overpolice each other's terminology. That is, we're going to make every effort to be respectful and accurate, but we recognise that sometimes in these contexts people worry so much about "saying the wrong thing" that they end up saying nothing at all and then the entire group misses out on potentially useful and constructive contributions. Nothing will leave the group without multiple rounds of review and revision, so if there are issues with word choice or framing, we'll have plenty of opportunities down the road.

Perceived overpolicing is probably why many people often react so badly to wokeness and to alleged "cancel culture", because they perceive it as making every single thing they say or do be scrutinized and held against them.

[Linguoboy]

Big news for Illinois: Representative Mike Madigan is leaving office after 50 years. For 37 (nonconsecutive) years--longer than anyone else in any legislature, state or federal, in the USA--he was Speaker of the House, which is even more powerful position in Illinois (where Democrats hold a 3/5ths supermajority in the state legislature) than it is on the federal level. But he's being investigated (again) for corruption, his rivals scented blood, and they were able to successfully mount a challenge last month which resulted in the selection of Rep. Chris Welch as the new Speaker. Apparently if he can't run the show, he doesn't wanna place the game, so he's taking his ball and going home.

Well, not quite. He's not yet said he'll resign as Head of the state's Democratic Party, which is a hugely influential body in a state as thoroughly blue as Illinois. But he's almost 80 and I'm not sure how much fight he's got left in him any more--especially if he's fending off another spate of legal battles. Between this and developments in Chicago and Cook County, I'm finally beginning to hope we'll see some truly progressive politics around here at long last.

[Moose-tache]

If you've been following the news about the latest anti-Asian hate crime bill that passed the Senate, you may have been wondering, as I was, why the media is to terrible. I must have read dozens of articles, and couldn't find one that mentioned the name of the bill or included any information about what it actually says. I wondered "why would they have a hate crime bill that only mentions one specific race?" But it took some digging. Without a name, I had no recourse but to search senate.gov for keywords and hope for the best. I think the bill is S.937, which does not mention the word "Asian" in its title or summary, or any of the legally effective sections. It is a bill to address racially-motivated hate crimes related to Covid-19. That's obviously a reference to the anti-Asian hate crimes that have occurred in the last year or so (which are mentioned in the "whereas" section), but it's a far cry from how the bill has been described in the news.

Why is every single news outlet so insistent on mislabeling this bill? Why do they refuse to says its name or its actual contents? I don't remember this happening with any high-profile bill in the past, and it's kind of frightening. How can the public remain informed if the media is doing everything it can to prevent that?

[Linguoboy]

I just googled “Asian hate crimes bill”. The top hit was a CNN article which named it as the “COVID 19 Hate Crimes Act”. You can judge for yourself how accurate their summary of it is, but googling those words in turn took me directly to the official text of the bill.

So I’m not sure what to tell you really.

[Raphael]

One of the most prominent right-wing economic "thinkers" in the USA, Larry Kudlow, has predicted that Joe Biden's environmental proposals would have all kinds of bad consequences for the USA - and, among other things, he predicted that people would be forced to drink "plant-based beer". Leading to the question of what, exactly, the former associate director for economics and planning in the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan, former chief economist of the Wall Street firm Bear Stearns, and former Director of the National Economic Council under Donald Trump, thinks about how regular beer is made.

[Nortaneous]

i think he's on to something. adding animal products to american beer can't make it worse

[Raphael]

“They had dined on horse meat, horse cheese, horse black pudding, horse d’oeuvres and a thin beer that Rincewind didn’t want to speculate about.”
― Terry Pratchett, The Light Fantastic

[Moose-tache]

From a linguistic point of view, that's fascinating. Terms like "plant-based" usually become buzz words over time. They're supposed to. If they were only meant to be non-emotional apolitical statements of fact they wouldn't exist because we already have the word "vegetarian." The proper definition of "plant-based" is: "This comes from plants, but more importantly I am better than you." This Larry Kudlow idiot has responded to the full text of the definition rather than its literal meaning, opening himself up to obvious criticism by anyone willing to pretend the full definition doesn't exist. It's like saying "What next? An anime Mickey Mouse?" and then your friend chimes in "Um, actually anime just means animation, so Mickey Mouse is already anime."