Trevor Noah, in this 3 minute video, brings up an interesting point; watch that video first before reading the rest of the post:
He contrasts racism in South Africa vs. racism in the U.S. SA is more open and blatant with racism, while the U.S. is much more hidden. Noah says he'd rather fight an "obvious" enemy rather than having to become a detective in your own racism.
He uses an analogy of applying for a home loan and being rejected for racist reasons rather than financial ones. Then you have to put the pieces together of why minorities are relegated to certain neighborhoods, certain schools, etc., that are substandard compared to whites; for example, the history of red-lining.
Where as in South Africa, you know you can't live in an area because you're black. It's terrible, it angers you, but at least you know.
I understand his point, and I've heard many people makes comments along the lines of "he may be racist, but I can at least respect his honesty in coming out with it".
Is open racism really better?
When people are openly racist, it means they see nothing wrong with it and racism is something not only normal, but also justifiable. When racism is hidden, it at least shows that society understands racism is wrong, and racists would feel public shame if they were ever revealed as such.
So you have a society like South Africa, where racism is clear and blatant, but you know what you're fighting against; then you have American racism that is more secretive and can be quite difficult to expose; a hidden enemy. However, there's at least an understanding that their racism is wrong; racists who hide their bigotry know it's wrong; racists who are open with don't see a problem with it.
Which is worse?
J.D. Vance's "do you hate Mexicans" ad for public office is as clear as it gets. The enemy is obvious.
But isn't it more dangerous when people feel they can be racist in public? Then you have like-minded people who band together perpetuate each other's racism. Is this better than the more insidious, layered racism that you have to first prove exists before you can even fight it?
Interesting question.
If racism isn’t blatant, is it actually there?
Take, for example, the assertion that in the US, blacks only get to live in certain neighbourhoods. Because of “finances”.
It is indeed possible that it’s hidden racism.
But, say that neighbourhood without blacks is homes worth more than 600.000 dollars.
How many people without a university degree and jobs that go with that level of education, are living there?
Suddenly, it’s not racism, it’s educationalism.
So, you go one step deeper: is the educational system racist?
And then you get into economics. The same argument applies: it is racist? Or is it financialism (you either have the money or you don’t). As an example, eh.
And so forth, down the line.
Until you discover that, generally speaking, people with money get better educations, have wealthier contacts and get better paid jobs, so their children get better educations, etc.
And that is the same in every country. It’s called the poverty trap.
And it can appear racist. But racism is not the driving force behind that dynamic. Racism is not the cause here, but it can be one of the effects.
In South Africa, rascism was one of the causes.
So, the way I see it is that to fight racism in South Africa, you have to tackle racism (cause), to fight racism in the US, you have to fight poverty (cause).
@shavixmir
Very well put. Poverty is the real enemy. So many other negative things flow from it - poor housing, poor nutrition, poor education.
If the top 1% shared 1% of their wealth with the bottom 10%, the world would be a much better place.
@vivify saidIs open racism better? No. No kind of racism is better. But I understand the point made, that it is easier to fight open racism, especially when it is called by its right name and not hidden behind some abstruse pseudo-ideology (genetic 'theory' or some such bosh).
Trevor Noah, in this 3 minute video, brings up an interesting point; watch that video first before reading the rest of the post:
[youtube]XUuLDkDSJKg[/youtube]
He contrasts racism in South Africa vs. racism in the U.S. SA is more open and blatant with racism, while the U.S. is much more hidden. Noah says he'd rather fight an "obvious" enemy rather than having to becom ...[text shortened]... r bigotry know it's wrong; racists who are open with don't see a problem with it.
Which is worse?
Yes, there is something insidious about having to first prove that hidden racism exists before you can begin to fight it.
@shavixmir
TU from me, shav. I agree that there is racism as an underlying cause of social inequality, as in SA, and there is inequality which maps to racial classifications in effect, as in the USA, and that it is important not to conflate them (though, of course, the two cases feel equally yucky to those who suffer it).
@shavixmir saidThis is the issue with "hidden" racism. Everything you say is logical; so when racism is part of the equation, uncovering and proving it becomes part of the challenge.
Interesting question.
If racism isn’t blatant, is it actually there?
Take, for example, the assertion that in the US, blacks only get to live in certain neighbourhoods. Because of “finances”.
It is indeed possible that it’s hidden racism.
But, say that neighbourhood without blacks is homes worth more than 600.000 dollars.
How many people without a university degre ...[text shortened]... ca, you have to tackle racism (cause), to fight racism in the US, you have to fight poverty (cause).
See this article on redlining:
https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america
Blacks were deliberately denied housing by state and federal housing policies, resulting in blacks living in ghettos. This happened in the 1930s, and continued for the next 30 years until 1968, when the Fair Housing Act was passed, banning practices like redlining.
What if you were unaware of redlining in the United States? Then your post seems completely logical: it's not racism, it's just a trap of poverty. That idea, though based in truth, helps keep the racist practices of redlining hidden; "no one is oppressing blacks, it's just an economic cycle".
So this is the evil of hidden racism: having to prove it exists before it can be overcome.
But overt racism can quickly lead to violence. For example, when Martin Luther King lead peaceful protestors who were attacked with bricks and high-pressure water hoses, despite adamantly sticking to a philosophy of non-violence. That was blatant, overt racism, and whites in that time period felt their actions were perfectly acceptable. Or when large crowds of whites harasser black students when schools were desegregated and the U.S. military was sent to protect black children from being attacked.
So I'm still on the fence about which is worse.
@shavixmir saidI don get your comment that people without college education, implying a lesser income or net worth, should have the wherewithal to buy a $600K house?
Interesting question.
If racism isn’t blatant, is it actually there?
Take, for example, the assertion that in the US, blacks only get to live in certain neighbourhoods. Because of “finances”.
It is indeed possible that it’s hidden racism.
But, say that neighbourhood without blacks is homes worth more than 600.000 dollars.
How many people without a university degre ...[text shortened]... ca, you have to tackle racism (cause), to fight racism in the US, you have to fight poverty (cause).
@averagejoe1 saidI don’t think he was saying that, but then I do have a ‘college’ education.
I don get your comment that people without college education, implying a lesser income or net worth, should have the wherewithal to buy a $600K house?
I think the gist of it is that the racism may be evidenced in the disproportionate number of black people without college educations and incomes that would allow ownership of a 600k house rather than a direct prohibition on black ownership of 600k houses.
@shavixmir saidYou are assuming your conclusion. In your example you presented literally zero evidence that blacks are denied from moving into a neighborhood and provided a non-racist counter explanation (finances). Yet somehow you conclude that there is hidden racism. It is both non-persuasive and offensive to claim racism without a shred of evidence.
Interesting question.
If racism isn’t blatant, is it actually there?
Take, for example, the assertion that in the US, blacks only get to live in certain neighbourhoods. Because of “finances”.
It is indeed possible that it’s hidden racism.
But, say that neighbourhood without blacks is homes worth more than 600.000 dollars.
How many people without a university degre ...[text shortened]... ca, you have to tackle racism (cause), to fight racism in the US, you have to fight poverty (cause).
@vivify saidYou might want to start with defining racism.
Trevor Noah, in this 3 minute video, brings up an interesting point; watch that video first before reading the rest of the post:
[youtube]XUuLDkDSJKg[/youtube]
He contrasts racism in South Africa vs. racism in the U.S. SA is more open and blatant with racism, while the U.S. is much more hidden. Noah says he'd rather fight an "obvious" enemy rather than having to becom ...[text shortened]... r bigotry know it's wrong; racists who are open with don't see a problem with it.
Which is worse?
I'll start with what racism is NOT established by: unequal outcomes.
Now you continue by telling me what DOES establish racism.
@moonbus saidDo you propose that we forcibly extract resources from people to solve problems BEFORE they have been proved to exist?
Is open racism better? No. No kind of racism is better. But I understand the point made, that it is easier to fight open racism, especially when it is called by its right name and not hidden behind some abstruse pseudo-ideology (genetic 'theory' or some such bosh).
Yes, there is something insidious about having to first prove that hidden racism exists before you can begin to fight it.
@sh76 said“ I'll start with what racism is NOT established by: unequal outcomes.”
You might want to start with defining racism.
I'll start with what racism is NOT established by: unequal outcomes.
Now you continue by telling me what DOES establish racism.
That’s a big assumption without any justification.
How would you explain a disproportionate number of African Americans in poverty? Whilst proving it has nothing to do with racism?
@sh76 saidI already established that in my reply to Shav.
You might want to start with defining racism.
I'll start with what racism is NOT established by: unequal outcomes.
Now you continue by telling me what DOES establish racism.
You further prove my point. Systemic racism so well-documented, that I started this thread discussing "hidden" racism under the assumption that you are all aware it. Yet despite decades of evidence, you still demand this idea to be proven.
Start with the link I posted about redlining. We'll progress from there.
@kevcvs57 saidThat's not the way it works.
“ I'll start with what racism is NOT established by: unequal outcomes.”
That’s a big assumption without any justification.
How would you explain a disproportionate number of African Americans in poverty? Whilst proving it has nothing to do with racism?
You don't get to make an unfounded hypothesis and then make someone else prove the negative.
If your hypothesis is that there is widespread racism that is holding back African Americans, the burden is on you to prove that hypothesis.
There are many variables that could explain unequal outcomes other than racism. If you want to allege that racism is the driving variable to the extent that government should forcibly extract resources from people to "solve" it, you need to prove the correlation.