User loginNavigationLive Discussions
Blog linksA Skeptical Blog NathanNewman.org Tech Notes |
Google searchTip jarDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Link CollectionsNews sourcesOn CultureReality checksThe Public LibraryWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 293 guests online.
...Syndicate |
On racial justice II - Honorby Prometheus 6
August 24, 2003 - 12:01am. on Race and Identity Natalie Davis at All Facts and Opinions has a personal approach that I respect for its morality and consistency. My own approach is not moral; it is ethical, and rational. I find Natalie's approach is not incompatible with mine but mine may be incompatible with hers. This sort of thing troubles me on a certain level. I always feel like I'm yelling at someone that I really don't mean to offend.I think this quote represents the nub of Natalie's position: I have no problem with the color of my skin; in my opinion, it is pretty (and I am better looking than that photo shows; I ain't a beauty, but eh, I'm all right). And I am as proud of my African ancestors as I am of my European, Native American, and Cuban ones. Leaping to the assumption that I am any one thing is unjust, and in my Heinz 57-Muttley case, erroneous to boot. This member of the one race -- the human race -- does not want to be judged by melanin for any reason: not for "racial" profiling, not for college scholarships, not for preferential or derogatory treatment of any kind. And that is why I can not support affirmative action: If pigmentationism is immoral in cases of "racial" profiling, then it is always immoral, in my estimation.
That said, I am put in a difficult position with lefties who insist that AA is the way to go to rectify past discrimination. I know full well that pigmentationism -- "racism," "bigotry," whatever -- exists. I know it causes suffering. Having felt its sting, I can not and will not inflict it upon any other human being for any reason. For every Clarence Thomas, there is an Allan Bakke. I am no fan of US Supreme Court Justice Thomas, but I know he traveled a tough road to get into the dangerous position where he sits. But as much as it is obvious that something must be done to heal the still-open wounds of systematic prejudice, I can not justify causing difficulty for another person using the rationale that "your dad had it easier than my dad" or "it's our turn now." All people are my people. The way I see it, when skin color is the issue, everyone should be treated equally, always. I'm not looking for affirmative action of the type I think Natalie is describing. What I'm looking for may need a new name. I'm not looking for anyone to address past discrimination. I'm looking to address present discrimination, present racism. And I honestly have a hard time understanding how anyone who has been affected and knows the problem is racially based doesn't support a racially based solution. When I read this post, I left this comment: Natalie, I'd rather see someone live up to their morals than not so I'm not challenging you on the level of personal decision. But the fact is the only way to reverse specific exclusion based on any quality at all is specific inclusion based on that same quality.
Economic status is not equivalent to race (whatever race is). I have no issue with supporting people's efforts to change their financial condition. But that is not an affirmative action approach. Not just that, but as things are structured now it's not possible to address everyone's economic ills. As long as there is an optimum level of unemployment there will be poor people. Truly addressing that would require removing capitalism's current status as a religion and restoring it to its proper place as a mere economic system. And that's not an affirmative action approach either. Again, I respect your personal choice. I just don't think it scales well. And she replied (among other things): Economic status is not equivalent to race (whatever race is). I have no issue with supporting people's efforts to change their financial condition. But that is not an affirmative action approach.
But it could be. Admissions departments could establish quotas based on economic considerations, thereby establishing diversity on that basis. As some minority groups have a disproportionate number of economically disadvantaged people, this would ensure representation in education by members of those groups. Those with financial wherewithal would still have access, so they are not barred from the process. And disadvantaged members of all groups -- even the majority group -- would have access to economically based AA, removing the "reverse-racism" obstacle that exists in attempting to justify melanin-based AA The thing is, if the discrimination is based on race, then counting on economic assistance (EA, not AA) to correct it is much like the Texas and Florida plans to correct college level discrimination by admitting the top 10% of every school. Just as these state plans actually require discrimination on the high school level to integrate colleges, depending on EA requires to resolve racial discrimination requires economic inequities to be inequitably distributed by race. As for all people being my people, I just don't find that to be the case.I simply will not accept people without certain ethics in my in-group. Natalie's morals implies ethics that are more than acceptable to me, but I don't think my ethics imply morals that are up to her standard. LATER: Nightcrawler gives his perspective on affirmative action programs. Trackback URL for this post:http://www.prometheus6.org/trackback/1408
|