Post #227,433
9/30/05 9:25:07 PM
|
Where did you see me defending it?
Humans are a social animal. They like to be part of a group. For the concept of "group" to have meaning, there has to be the concept of "other". Any disagreement so far? I'd suggest that humans are also lazy. This means they'll take the easiest available way to define "other". In the U.S., that's currently race. It is not obvious to me that race is always going to be the flashpoint. In fact my suspicion is that, in due course of time, increased mobility will result in our all becoming a fairly homogenous mixture of races. And when that happens, race won't be the easiest way to identify the "other". Like Bulworth [link|http://www.thecontext.com/docs/2933.html|said], "We've got to keep fucking each other till we're all the same color." ===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #227,443
9/30/05 10:01:55 PM
|
"defended" might be the wrong word
Though I really meant "defended the existence of", not "defended the practice of".
That is, this used to be used about slavery in the form, "Sure, slavery might be a terrible thing for slaves. But it is inevitable that some races are more capable than others, and the more capable ones will subject the less to their will." This doesn't say that slavery is right, just that it is inevitable (and hence trying to get rid of it is useless).
You are arguing that there will always be an easily identifiable underclass, and in a pluralistic society the underclass will tend to be defined by race. I am saying that I consider the arguments to be similar in form, and I disagree with the conclusion of both.
About your reasoning, there are several gaps.
First of all it is quite possible to define the group to which we belong as "all humans" or "all mammals" or some other inclusive category where the "other" is relatively unimportant.
Secondly the definition of "us" and "them" does not necessarily lead to defining "them" as intrinsically horrible - consider sports teams for instance. Sure, a Yankees fan might tease a Red Sox fan, but you aren't going to find many Yankees fans who think that Red Sox fans are awful people because they root for the wrong team.
Third, the existence of an easily identifiable and identified ethnic underclass does not necessarily lead to that group being depressed into a long-lived underclass situation. For instance in US history the Irish, Italians, Greeks, and many other ethnic groups were once clearly disadvantaged, but then as groups worked their way out of it. (Only to turn on later waves of immigration...)
Blacks in the USA are in an unusual situation. They are disadvantaged and remain that way, for generation after generation. Why? My biggest guess as to why is that many blacks feel that they are owed because of a long history of things that have been done to them. And my second biggest guess is that many blacks have no hope that things will improve.
When you focus on grievances past - no matter how justified your outrage may be - you don't go about building a better life in the present. And when you don't have hope, you again don't take steps that would let you have a better life in the present. These are twin millstones around any individual or ethnic group that suffers from them.
But those are both just my guesses. I don't really know why blacks stay poorly off while other ethnic groups whose objective circumstances start off similar manage to improve their lot.
There is some interesting research on this that I saw, which I can't find at the moment. The research found that in a number of countries a sharp distinction can be drawn between minorities whose situation stays the same from generation to generation, and those whose lot improves. When you see both in the same population, the ones who stay poorly off tend to be ones who either didn't choose to be there (eg blacks transported here by slave traders) or ones who didn't choose to be part of the dominant society (eg displaced indigenous people). The ones who do well are immigrants who chose to immigrate.
What I found interesting about the research is that when in country A you have 2 ethnic groups, one of which does fine and the other of which is perennially disadvantaged, if members of both emmigrate to country B, then in country B, both do equally well! Apparently changing external expectations about what you can and cannot do can break dynamics of persistent failure.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #227,446
9/30/05 11:05:15 PM
|
I may have noticed another aspect
(of many such discussions.)
All these ruminations appear to converge eventually upon ~ What does it mean to be human? (and a perhaps expected corollary: where Social Darwinists mean to focus upon any detail as would fragment any such unifying idea - felt as anathema.)
No, I won't attempt answer, either - but I've noticed a theme within many P.K. Dick stories, whatever the main action-plot:
As: Blade Runner / Do Androids Dream ...
I thought it was Boffo that the protagonist runs off with a 'replicant'! - begging all sorts of questions whether say, 'ersatz memories' can produce a continuity of character / sense of Self? - indistinguisable-enough from the usual genesis.
And it is not much of a stretch to compare that plot with MLK's dream of, "little black and white boys/girls holding hands", some.. day.. For the concretized amongst us -- a replicant would be a less formidable hand-holding partner than a ___ [fill in despised ethnicity of a time/place].
In the story: the replicant was a more human(e) partner than - the city-full of "humans" being fled! May we suppose that Dick called that, a minor-QED of sorts?
(We Don't 'Know' what 'Makes Us Human' or, since prose is Never really enough) -
Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
T. S. Eliot
or maybe these two:
We know too much, and are convinced of too little. Our literature is a substitute for religion, and so is our religion.
We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
It wasn't just 'communism' all enigma-wrapped in conundrum paper.
|
Post #227,447
9/30/05 11:08:59 PM
|
Lots of disagreements
This doesn't say that slavery is right, just that it is inevitable (and hence trying to get rid of it is useless). No. I think it's fair to say most of us believe death is inevitable. That's not at all the same as saying we shouldn't try to get rid of it. You are arguing that there will always be an easily identifiable underclass, and in a pluralistic society the underclass will tend to be defined by race. No. I'm saying that humans tend to draw distinctions between "us" and "them". I'm also saying that in a society with large disparity among classes -- such as ours today -- there will tend to be one most-disadvantaged group. Finally I'm saying that in these circumstances, obvious racial differences become an easy way to define who gets to play "most-disadvantaged" this generation. First of all it is quite possible to define the group to which we belong as "all humans" or "all mammals" or some other inclusive category where the "other" is relatively unimportant. Quite possible, and in my opinion totally contrary to the way social dynamics really work. Secondly the definition of "us" and "them" does not necessarily lead to defining "them" as intrinsically horrible - consider sports teams for instance. Sure, a Yankees fan might tease a Red Sox fan, but you aren't going to find many Yankees fans who think that Red Sox fans are awful people because they root for the wrong team. You're not much of a sports fan, are you? Go to Philadelphia some time when the Eagles are playing the Steelers, and wear a Steelers jersey to the game. Oh, make sure your insurance is up-to-date. Third, the existence of an easily identifiable and identified ethnic underclass does not necessarily lead to that group being depressed into a long-lived underclass situation. For instance in US history the Irish, Italians, Greeks, and many other ethnic groups were once clearly disadvantaged, but then as groups worked their way out of it. (Only to turn on later waves of immigration...) No. Turning on later waves of immigrants was precisely how they worked their way out of it. My biggest guess as to why is that many blacks feel that they are owed because of a long history of things that have been done to them. And my second biggest guess is that many blacks have no hope that things will improve. While my gut feeling is that both these factors really do contribute, without some data to back it up this is uncomfortably close to saying, "It's all their own fault." What I found interesting about the research is that when in country A you have 2 ethnic groups, one of which does fine and the other of which is perennially disadvantaged, if members of both emmigrate to country B, then in country B, both do equally well! Apparently changing external expectations about what you can and cannot do can break dynamics of persistent failure. I'd like to see the specifics. I suspect any two ethnic groups from most countries would be seen in the U.S. as the same. i.e.: Arabs, Persians, Sikhs and frequently Indians are all commonly lumped together in the U.S. ===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #227,451
9/30/05 11:33:40 PM
|
On that last bit...
Remember that Star Trek episode, [link|http://www.starfleetlibrary.com/tos/tos3/let_that_be_your_last_battlefield.htm|Let that be your last battlefield]? The one with Bele and Lokai?
Well, being able to distinguish differences between ethnic groups is something that we don't seem to be very good at. (At least I'm not.) It's sort of funny because the human brain is so very good at recognizing faces...
We have a CNA who's worked for us for nearly a couple of years. She's originally from Ethiopia. Let's call her Missy. For a while we had some additional temporary aids helping out. They were generally originally from Mali or Ghana. Their skills varied. Once Missy was telling us about some difficulty she had with one of the other aids and said under her breath, "Oh, those Africans!" :-/
I think you're right that most Americans (and most people?) would lump broadly similar looking strangers together in their minds. I think all of this helps to demonstrate the truism that discrimination must be taught. That is, kids quickly develop the concepts of Me, Family, and Others. Others gets modified over time (friends, acquaintences, enemies, etc.) and I think it's these modifications that leads to us having knee-jerk reactions to people of certain groups. There's nothing innate about us that makes us fearful of people who look "different" - it's a cultural thing.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #227,457
10/1/05 12:51:31 AM
|
I don't know about that
I suspect the suspicion of "other" is instinctive. It's just who gets classified as "other" that's taught.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #227,499
10/1/05 12:02:24 PM
|
You might have a point - see "stranger anxiety"
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #227,477
10/1/05 9:47:19 AM
|
ethiopian comment, they are racially distinct
she was discussing their racial background not geographic :-)
thanx,
bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #227,500
10/1/05 12:18:21 PM
|
We do have several disagreements
First of all I'll grant that I am not a sports fan. It may well be that sports fans are even stupider than I had thought.
I disagree on how ethnic groups worked their way up. It wasn't by turning on others, it was by getting a leg up in work and education so that they became better off. Turning on others seems to me to be a side-effect, not a cause, of their improved circumstances.
And yeah, what I said is awfully close to saying that it's their fault. Which it isn't of course. But I am saying that I believe that there are specific dynamics within the black community that contribute to the persistence of their problems.
Before disagreeing, let's compare blacks and Chinese. Both started in the USA as desperately poor groups, very racially distinct, who were strongly disliked by mainstream society. Both are still racially distinct and there is plenty of racism directed at both. But the Chinese are economically doing a lot better, and are the focus of less crime, than blacks. Why?
I don't really know the full answer. But my personal guess is that differences in attitude within the ethnic group are a big contributer.
Finally, I can't find the study, so I can't give details. But my recollection is that you're right - after emmigration the fighting ethnic groups wound up in a society that couldn't tell the difference between them. (Though they continued to dislike each other...)
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
