Racism - It can, and often does, go both ways.

[epronovost]

Good question. It depends on the individual, which is the over arching point of my post. The outcome should be determined by the individuals who apply, not the demographic they represent.

That's the problem. Systems, insitutions, policies, cultures aren't the product of an individual they are the product of populations and are adapted to the needs of populations not individuals. The opportunities and outcomes of individuals are affected by structures that cannot be tailored to their precise needs to provide a perfect equality of opportunities. They can only offer it to populations and even then, it's a very delicate problem that requires discussion of ethical and moral nature in addition to political, social and economical ones.

 

[Quetzal]

Aww I was all set to use my obnoxious gif too.
Oh well I’ll do it anyway

View attachment 41174

I love that gif.

 

[Quetzal]

That's the problem. Systems, insitutions, policies, cultures aren't the product of an individual they are the product of populations and are adapted to the needs of populations not individuals. The opportunities and outcomes of individuals are affected by structures that cannot be tailored to their precise needs to provide a perfect equality of opportunities. They can only offer it to populations and even then, it's a very delicate problem that requires discussion of ethical and moral nature in addition to political, social and economical ones.

I like this, I want to think about it some more.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Obviously, what's your point? There are still anglo-saxon american and african americans in the US and both those groups experience very different "outcomes" because they experience very different "opportunities". That seems like a pedantic distinction that has no effect on the argument.

Then why make the distinction in the first place?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

If two populations are pretty much identical (AKA that they have equality of opportunity) then equality of outcomes becomes a given. Let's take an example. It's a fact that there is no significant difference in, general health and IQ between anglo-saxon and african americans once one accounts for living conditions and culture. Thus, both population should succeed at the same rate or with an extremely small, statistically insignificant level. This isn't the case. Thus, there is no equality of opportunity else both would be equivalent.

Another problem with the dychotomy you have created is that it ignores the notion of privileges. Let's take another example: men and women. Men and women have differences in terms of biology and face different health challenges thouh they share most of them in common. Men and women have the same average IQ and a similar distribution. Considering there are fundamental, unalterable differences, equality of opportunity between men and women is impossible. What should be the outcome and why in that case?

Interesting ideas, but your claim that equality of opportunity automatically implies equality of outcome assumes that everyone will take the same actions when given the same opportunities. That's obviously false.

 

[epronovost]

Interesting ideas, but your claim that equality of opportunity automatically implies equality of outcome assumes that everyone will take the same actions when given the same opportunities. That's obviously false.

On an individual level you are correct but in a population of millions of people all decisions forks will have similar rates and thus they will remain equal.

 

[epronovost]

Then why make the distinction in the first place?

Because when discussing social inequalities you need to define the population you want to compare. Anglo-saxon americans and african americans are two known social groups for which we have a lot of sociological data to compare.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because when discussing social inequalities you need to define the population you want to compare. Anglo-saxon americans and african americans are two known social groups for which we have a lot of sociological data to compare.

I haven't seen many studies that make that distinction when referring to white Caucasian Americans. Were often all lumped into one group.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

On an individual level you are correct but in a population of millions of people all decisions forks will have similar rates and thus they will remain equal.

Overall, yeah I think you're right. The two populations should have (approximately) the same outcomes. I guess I misunderstood that you were referring to entire populations.

 

[Rival]

Because when discussing social inequalities you need to define the population you want to compare. Anglo-saxon americans and african americans are two known social groups for which we have a lot of sociological data to compare.

I'm confused.

In this country, England, we don't/can't even distinguish between Anglos-Saxons-Jutes and Celts, let alone between ASJs and children of 'white' foreigners. They all look and are treated the same. How such distinctions can possibly be made in the US is beyond me, given the history of Dutch, German, French, Italian and Irish immigration.

 

[Tambourine]

I'm confused.

In this country, England, we don't/can't even distinguish between Anglos-Saxons-Jutes and Celts, let alone between ASJs and children of 'white' foreigners. They all look and are treated the same. How such distinctions can possibly be made in the US is beyond me, given the history of Dutch, German, French, Italian and Irish immigration.

What was all that talk about "Polish migrants" about then that I've heard so much from right-wing Brits?

 

[Rival]

What was all that talk about "Polish migrants" about then that I've heard so much from right-wing Brits?

That's nothing to do with how they are treated according to the law.

 

[Tambourine]

That's nothing to do with how they are treated according to the law.

Do you believe that when discussing racism, it is relevant to look at how people behave in practice?

 

[Rival]

Do you believe that when discussing racism, it is relevant to look at how people behave in practice?

That's not what I was talking about though.

 

[Tambourine]

That's not what I was talking about though.

You were talking about how "[t]hey all look and are treated the same", which is true if we completely ignore how people act in reality and only look at the letter of the law, but not if we actually look at how people are being treated in everyday society.

 

[Rival]

You were talking about how "[t]hey all look and are treated the same", which is true if we completely ignore how people act in reality and only look at the letter of the law, but not if we actually look at how people are treated in everyday society.

Unless you are literally looking at a persons genetics, you can't tell by looking an Anglo-Saxon from a German or a Celt. That was my point.

 

[Tambourine]

Unless you are literally looking at a persons genetics, you can't tell by looking an Anglo-Saxon from a German or a Celt. That was my point.

Migrants are treated differently from citizens, even though you may not be able to tell the difference simply by looking at them.

 

[Rival]

Migrants are treated differently from citizens, even though you may not be able to tell the difference simply by looking at them.

I was responding to this:

"Obviously, what's your point? There are still anglo-saxon american and african americans in the US and both those groups experience very different "outcomes" because they experience very different "opportunities". That seems like a pedantic distinction that has no effect on the argument.!"

I have no idea how you'd tell an AS American from a German one or an Irish one or a Dutch one in order to treat them differently and single out AS Americans in the first place. I'm not talking about first or even second gen immigrants. How the heck do you tell the difference between a family from the UK which emigrated to the states in the last century to a family which came from Germany in the last century? It's impossible.

 

[epronovost]

I'm confused.

In this country, England, we don't/can't even distinguish between Anglos-Saxons-Jutes and Celts, let alone between ASJs and children of 'white' foreigners. They all look and are treated the same. How such distinctions can possibly be made in the US is beyond me, given the history of Dutch, German, French, Italian and Irish immigration.

As you might be aware. In the US, Irish and Italian Americans specifically had very different experience and results than anglo-saxon americans and often suffered from discrimination and racism often linked to their catholicism, but also from their perceived cultural "weaknesses". Hispanics are also often treated seperated from other white people though sometime they are included. Polish descend people and Jews have also been studied as seperate groups from other white people. Of course some of those seperation aren't common anymore, but there is still quite a bit of literature on it.

 

[Rival]

As you might be aware. In the US, Irish and Italian Americans specifically had very different experience and results than anglo-saxon americans and often suffered from discrimination and racism often linked to their catholicism, but also from their perceived cultural "weaknesses". Hispanics are also often treated seperated from other white people though sometime they are included. Polish descend people and Jews have also been studied as seperate groups from other white people. Of course some of those seperation aren't common anymore, but there is still quite a bit of literature on it.

This is very strange to someone like me.