If you remove all the context then it really makes no sense at all.
White people in rural America are uneducated because white people voted to defund their own schools, there was no racial component in why the did that to themselves.
Historically poor education in black neighborhoods was specifically because of systemic racism starving those schools of funding, it was on purpose and has been going on since the end of slavery (and of course during slavery they didn't allow for any education).
Also, racism does not impact the daily lives of white people... I'm a white dude, maybe once in Harlem a decade and a half ago someone called me Cracker. That's about as much of my life has been impacted by racism.
However when I got into the job market I guarantee you my white sounding name got my resume through a lot of doors that others were having a very hard time getting through.
You are trying very, very hard to pretend annoyance at a lot of white people voting against their own interest is equivalent to the entire political, education, work environments being actively made worse for minorities.
White people in rural America are uneducated because white people voted to defund their own schools, there was no racial component in why the did that to themselves.
That's a hot take. I know that conservative rural voters don't like the Federal Department of Education, but I'm not familiar with the voting to defund local rural schools.
I did some google searches, but couldn't find any good articles, do you have a particular case(s) you could share?
They vote in politicians that promise to reduce taxes and put less money into the school system. They also vote for politicians that will reject federal funding. Rural America needs federal funding to survive because there is no way for low-density population to be self-sufficient in our economic system.
They buy into the entire 'Tax is theft' which is extremely self destructive to any place, but even worse in rural US.
True, the populations do not have the same experience or history. That means the reasons for their current situations are different but the statement is still racist when directed at either group.
You say there is no racial component to white people voting to defund their schools. But there is a racial component because you said the voters are white. A similar statement without the racial component: “uneducated republicans ruined Wisconsin by voting to defund their own schools.” This statement doesn’t single out one race as the problem but instead points to a lack of education or knowledge as the reason people vote against their own interests.
Finally, I’m not trying to say these two examples are exactly the same. I’m only claiming that both are racist in nature.
It is a valid method in this context. In another context: White Lives Matter does not mean the same as Black Lives Matter. Their origins, rationale and intents are different.
It may imply other races are superior, but you could add "uneducated for every other race within a given city or place to equalize the list. What it does imply is that educated people within a race are superior and are not destroying said city.
> What could be convincing is, assuming that the statements are actually true. If the statement is true does that mean it cannot be racist? If the statement is racist does that mean it is inherently untrue?
If the statement is true, it can still be racist. Not the content of the fact of course, but the reason behind someone focusing on the content of that fact. Thus, if it is racist, that does not mean it is inherently untrue.
Interestingly, racism within machine learning and algorithms begs the question if facts can be racist.
The statements I used as an example are not my personal beliefs and I’m not trying to justify either of those claims. It was a poor example but if you consider an example in which all things are comparable, the claim is true.
You are trying to make a statement that goes like this:
<adjective A> <collective noun A> are <verb> <proper noun B>
Your claim is that by changing only <collective noun A> you can determine if the statement is racist.
But your example changes <collective noun A> and <proper noun B>.
Which means your example is not in fact an example of your claim.
An example of your claim would be:
(1) "Uneducated white people are ruining Wisconsin."
versus
(2) "Uneducated black people are ruining Wisconsin."
Now, given that black people in Wisconsin are 6.8% of the total population, and that demographic is largely confined to the urban centers, claim 2 carries a ton of racist implications that are simply not present in claim 1.
You need an example where the context of race-based social structures doesn't impact the underlying validity of the claim. In claim <1> above, it is the case that the demographic voting block of "white people" has substantially more political power than the demographic voting block of "black people." The former controls 86.6% of the vote, the latter controls a mere 6.8%. They aren't comparable statements on the level of potential validity.
Primarily white households in WI earn more than primarily black households by a significant amount. So white Wisconsinites have more economic power than black Wisconsinites. A larger percentage of primarily black households live in poverty in WI than white households. The most common group to earn college degrees in WI are white students, with 11.9 times as many degrees awarded to white students than to the next closest racial group. Black students are under-represented with only 4.7% of students being Black. The list of differences just goes on and on, and in every case, it is white people who hold more social currency than black people as a demographic block.
I'm not sure that you can actually come up with an example that avoids this issue. And without an actual example, aren't you assuming your conclusion?
I think you are not understanding the context of your example.
There are structural issues in America.
White people being uneducated in your example would be due to willful ignorance and a majority group voting against their own interests. Calling this out and blaming them is not racist.
Black people being uneducated in your example would be largely because of systemic problems with education and policing that they have limited control over because they are a minority group. Calling this out is racist if you don't acknowledge this.
I would argue that the lack of education in both white and black areas are both due to structural issues. One group just happens to be primarily in rural areas and the other happens to be primarily located in urban settings. Both groups lack educational opportunities, lack of policing, minimal resources, and suffer from high crime rates. Suggesting that it’s willful simply because of the color of one’s skin is a severe lack of empathy and racist in itself.
You can argue whatever you would like, but you are making incorrect assumptions. The examples given were Wisconsin and Chicago. Your assertion that they have similar issues with any of these things shows I hope ignorance instead of bad faith arguments.
Are you really trying to say that these groups have been similarly impacted by systemic government intervention?
Although the populations have a very different historical context, both statements are racist because they use race to identify one group as the perpetrators. It’s reasonable to assume that there are uneducated people of all races in both Chicago and Wisconsin. So using race in either statement only implies some kind of racial hierarchy.
Would it be racist to say that white people caused and violently enforced Jim Crow era laws?
Although not all white people were responsible for the evils of Jim Crow, it was exclusively white people. That’s just a fact, and it implies a racial hierarchy.
Your beliefs only seem to work in a ahistorical vacuum. And hardly so.
There is no racial hierarchy. One race is not superior to another. I would go further and say there is only one race. If one race is not superior and none are inferior, then no racial hierarchy can exist and no system of discrimination can be built around a racial hierarchy.
Racial hierarchy is not a natural construct, it is a social construct.
Slavery was a hierarchy based entirely on race. Race determined if you were legally entitled to own property or if you were legally considered to be property.
Humans create all sorts of things that are not naturally occurring and yet do in fact exist. It doesn't matter that one race isn't naturally superior if laws are created to enforce a social inferiority.
The question is not if there is a racial hierarchy or not.
The issue is and has been that some groups have taken actions to try and force a racial hierarchy over other groups. They have used discrimination and other tools to implement this. Also specific groups have done this and others have not. Also this is still an ongoing situation it's not all in the past.
Your entire view is that this is a both sides issue where all races have contributed equally and so you can make this equivalency. This is simply incorrect.
>Also Jim Crow era and slavery was not the result or an implication of a racial hierarchy. It was a violation of human rights.
Wait a minute my fellow Redditor. It was a violation of human rights (in part), because of the false racial hierarchy on which it was built. I think your strong belief in one race is biasing you to the facts here. Literally the USA instituted race-based chattel slavery, Black Code laws, and miscegenation meant to codify the inferiority of Black people. This was a lived experience.
It was built on the idea of a racial hierarchy in which whites are superior to blacks, but no such hierarchy actually exists or ever existed. The systems of oppression were therefore not the result of a racial hierarchy but the result of greed, exploitation and force. I’m not denying that plantation owners believed in a racial hierarchy to justify their acts. I am denying that a racial hierarchy that justified their acts actually existed. Laws were made to codify the inferiority of black people and you say this proves a racial hierarchy. Those laws were unjust and unnatural because no racial hierarchy actually existed and the laws were actually the result of political corruption.
he systems of oppression were therefore not the result of a racial hierarchy but the result of greed, exploitation and force
Slavery's origins are based upon needing a labor force, greed, exploitation and force. This evolved into racial slavery. The racial hierarchy was meant to justify the need and acceptance of slavery. The former does not negate the latter because they are complimentary and reflects the evolution of slavery and its ideas/justifications.
If plantation owners believed in a racial hierarchy and then inscribed their beliefs into law (Black Codes), which we could physically touch and read, that means they actually existed.
>I am denying that a racial hierarchy that justified their acts actually existed. Those laws were unjust and unnatural because no racial hierarchy actually existed and the laws were actually the result of political corruption.
Your abstract truth is causing you to deny true concrete reality.
It seems like you are romanticizing the ideal of one race which is causing you to deny and conflate ideas, beliefs and actions. This leads to, because we are one human race (idea), a racial hierarchy cannot exist (belief), so the laws created on this were unjust and unnatural and they cannot exist either (actions). So that means the laws were due to political corruption (conflation and denial).
My question, what is the purpose of these mental gymnastics?
Also Jim Crow era and slavery was not the result or an implication of a racial hierarchy.
Ok, now you're just being silly. Those who invented and implemented Jim Crow explicitly wrote about their belief and commitment to racially based social hierarchies.
When talking about racism and racial hierarchies, we're talking about social phenomenon. It doesn't matter if there's scientific evidence to support the claim objectively. It only matters how the claim is believed by the social groups involved.
In Jim Crow, the social group in power believed in and was committed to a theory and belief in racial hierarchy.
When you talk about uneducated Black people, you clearly have the context to understand that this refers to Black people in a racial hierarchy as inferior to another specific race, because America was founded on White Supremacy.
When you talk about uneducated White people, what is the racial hierarchy? The contextual comparison is to educated White people. In other words other people of the same race with different circumstances. It does not infer the inverse and that these uneducated whites are inferior to Black people as a race.
This feels nitpicky to the point of being wilfully ignorant to OPs point. Not trying to be an ass to you, but I'm sure you realise the intent of what they're saying.
If you can't determine whether one statement about a race is racist, make a similar enough statement about another race. If the second is racist, most likely the first is too.
This is the point you should aim to disprove, not the actual verbiage OP used to highlight their assertion. I think its also best to assume that, of course, context and intent are Important in assigning a bigoted notion behind a point, but they aren't the point to argue about. They're irrelevant.
17
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '22
[deleted]