Racism, anti-ractist organisations, and coughlan666

[Squawk]

Well I jumped into coughlans blogtv channel and ended up asking a question on anti-racist organisations. Anyway, the nature of blog tv being what it is, I had a limited number of words and evidently didn't manage to articulate my meaning. I ended up getting booted from the channel.

Anyway, I decided a pm to coughlan was in order, however it seems that he only accepts pm's from friends. No matter, I was going to post it here too in the hope of stimulating some debate.

So, here is my post. Discuss. (oh, and do we know if the coughlan regged on these boards is the real one?)

#################

Hi
I think its clear that I didn't make my point on blog tv sufficiently well and wanted to express myself clearly. In hindsight I suspect blogtv is not the best place for such an exchange of ideas anyway. You may or may not agree with me after reading it, but please at least give it a fair hearing. I appreciate you get a lot of pm's so I won't expect a response. I will post this on the LoR boards to try to guage other opinions on this. I think it is a fertile topic for debate and look forward to hearing other points of view.

#####

If a person is the victim of racism within an organisation they need and should have a channel of communication/complaint to address the situation. This channel should be available to all within the organisation and should be sufficiently powerful to deal with the level of racism presented and take appropriate action. The colour of skin involved in the racism for either victim or perpertrator should make no difference to either the method of enquiry or the consequences from the findings, all cases should be dealt with equally. Using the police as an example, there should be no distinction between a case of a white police officer being racist towards a black police officer and a black police officer being racist towards a white police officer. The situation is that racism is present and needs to be dealt with through official channels.

In response to my question on eye colour you mentioned that people have historically been segregated on skin colour, but not on eye colour. My response is to say yes, precisely. It is that segregation that I wish to end, it is that classification that I wish to irradicate, and I contend that the creation of organisations that by definition acknowledge that skin colour is a means of classification of minorities are a furtherance of the problem. It is a continuation of segregation that should never have happened and should not happen now.

Erect the hypothetical situation that someone was being bullied within the police based on eye colour and the matter would be dealt with by a disciplinary board set up to tackle the act of bullying. There is no need for there to be a representative for those with blue eyes and for those with brown eyes. The bullying is the issue at hand and not the actual characteristics of the individuals involved.

The organisation I cited in chat was the NBPA. Actually I wrote NBPO by mistake, my apologies. NBPA stands for the National Black Police Association, there website is at http://www.nbpa.co.uk/. I feel that creating organisations such as the NBPO is, in the long term, counter-productive. Actually let me clarify that. I think it is counter-productive when organisation such as this represent those with black skin in cases of racism or when they confer privileges (such as membership) to those of a given skin colour. Please note I used the NBPA here as an arbitary example, I picked the first organisation that sprang to mind that deals with black skin.

Organisations that represent those of a given skin colour, whilst actively promoting the rights of those with black skin, affirm that skin colour is a reason to separate people. They are effectivly segregating the white and black police officers by the creation of an organisation in which only those of black skin have recourse to certain functions.

The introduction of an organisation such as the NBPA serves two purposes. It highlights that the current system of dealing with racism within the organisation is not good enough, a fact that you clearly agree with and indeed one that I do too. I agree entirely that racism is prevalent within the police, and indeed I accept that the work that is done by such organisations is positive, however I don't think such an organisation needs any connection to a particular skin colour. The name itself hints at segregation. The creation of an organisation to represent the rights of those with black skin is self defeating in that it actively segregates people, demonstrating to the racists that people can be segregated legitimately by skin colour, be those racists black or white. Creating an organisation in which those of black skin have extra privileges provides further grounds for ill feeling and racism. I contend that in the long term this will hinder the elimination of racism.

An organisation to prevent/police racism is a great idea. Indeed it saddens me to acknowledge that there is a need for such an organisation to exist at all. Granting that such an organisation is required, no distinction should be made regarding the services the organisation provides based on skin colour. The sole criteria for a person to seek recourse from the organisation should be that they have been a victim of racism.

I had hoped that an interesting discussion on this topic could take place. I thought it provided fertile grounds for discussion and could have branched out in a number of directions. Skin is still seen as devisive, that is a reality that we have to live with. That being the case we could have discussed methods of removing racism from society. With respect to the police we could have discussed the reasons that black kids are reluctant to join the police. Identification of the issues leads to solutions.

Perhaps I over estimated the potential of blog tv. Indeed looking at all I have written here I accept that it would have been impossible to get so much information accross. I do hope you will consider this.

 

[Aught3]

Ultimately, I think you are right that eventually these types of associations will disappear but only when they become unnecessary. In your post you say that racism still occurs and that young black people are reluctant to join the police force. I think it goes without saying which direction the racism occurs most often and it seems an organisation like NBPA could still be doing some important work. As for NBPA contributing to racism I suppose it depends on your definition. If you think that racism is dividing the human species into races based on colour then it is a racist organisation. But what we usually mean by racism are the insidious comments and actions that are motivated by the belief that one of these races is better than the others. I don't have to tell you which race has historically considered themselves to be better than all the others.

Overall, racism is more likely to be directed against blacks and it is more insidious because of its historical context. I think it is up to black people to decide when they no longer want organisations like the NBPA. If they go to far anyone is free to criticise them and if white people ever feel like an oppressed majority then they are free to for their own organisation, even if it seems ridiculous from my perspective.

 

[Squawk]

Ultimately, I think you are right that eventually these types of associations will disappear but only when they become unnecessary. In your post you say that racism still occurs and that young black people are reluctant to join the police force. I think it goes without saying which direction the racism occurs most often and it seems an organisation like NBPA could still be doing some important work. As for NBPA contributing to racism I suppose it depends on your definition. If you think that racism is dividing the human species into races based on colour then it is a racist organisation. But what we usually mean by racism are the insidious comments and actions that are motivated by the belief that one of these races is better than the others. I don't have to tell you which race has historically considered themselves to be better than all the others.

Overall, racism is more likely to be directed against blacks and it is more insidious because of its historical context. I think it is up to black people to decide when they no longer want organisations like the NBPA. If they go to far anyone is free to criticise them and if white people ever feel like an oppressed majority then they are free to for their own organisation, even if it seems ridiculous from my perspective.

Thanks for the catch, it's been fixed. Not sure how that got in there.

I must admit I'm unsure about an organisation to encourage black people to join the police force. On the one hand a perfect demographic for the police would be a match with society. On the other racism will only have been truely eliminated when nobody includes skin colour in a demographic. It has no more merit than eye or hair colour.

For the time being my inclination is that a representative demographic would be useful to eliminate racist feelings. Only by encouraging it can the need for it be irradicated.

As for encouraging blacks to join the police, I would suggest that this can cause problems. If the organisation is part of police recruitment there is a danger that sub-standard applicants will be admitted into the police in an attempt to level up demographics. This has happened and been documented, both on entry into the organisation and concerning promotion within the organisation.

A better idea would be to find out why young black people do not wish to enter the police and then start to address those issues. This won't just apply to the police but I would suggest to a number of other organisations. Ideally I would not be referring to blacks here but would simply refer to the unrepresented, which could be white, black or anything in between.

I don't have any hard and fast ideas, other than the notion that the day nobody thinks about racism is the day when it is truely irradicated. That's why I thought it was such a great subject for discussion.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I must admit I'm unsure about an organisation to encourage black people to join the police force. On the one hand a perfect demographic for the police would be a match with society. On the other racism will only have been truely eliminated when nobody includes skin colour in a demographic. It has no more merit than eye or hair colour.

The problem is that you don't fix problems by ignoring them and pretending that they don't exist. Organizations that accept racism as an open fact and work to alleviate some of the problems are not prolonging or worsening racism. That's close but not identical to saying that we could go a long way towards getting rid of discrimination against handicapped people if we pulled out all of the special parking and ramps.

 

[Squawk]

I must admit I'm unsure about an organisation to encourage black people to join the police force. On the one hand a perfect demographic for the police would be a match with society. On the other racism will only have been truely eliminated when nobody includes skin colour in a demographic. It has no more merit than eye or hair colour.

The problem is that you don't fix problems by ignoring them and pretending that they don't exist. Organizations that accept racism as an open fact and work to alleviate some of the problems are not prolonging or worsening racism. That's close but not identical to saying that we could go a long way towards getting rid of discrimination against handicapped people if we pulled out all of the special parking and ramps.

An organisation to promote equal rights is one thing, but an organisation that gives rights specifically to a group based solely on a characteristic is guilty of positive discrimination.

I'm not suggesting ignoring racism, I'm suggesting that the current structure of organisations setup to combat racism are guilty of positive discrimination, something that may lead to a greater feeling of segregation.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

An organisation to promote equal rights is one thing, but an organisation that gives rights specifically to a group based solely on a characteristic is guilty of positive discrimination.

I'm not suggesting ignoring racism, I'm suggesting that the current structure of organisations setup to combat racism are guilty of positive discrimination, something that may lead to a greater feeling of segregation.

I disagree with you completely. Correcting centuries-long discrimination sometimes requires what you call "special rights." The problem is that you can't create "equal rights" and let things run, because the institutional racism will still favor one group over others even if it is not open racism. It takes a greater effort, and to some people that looks like "special rights" but really isn't. It is correcting for more than the open racism that you recognize and stand against, it also corrects for the "invisible" racism that you don't see or experience unless you are the victim of... and that you often don't realize you are benefiting from when you're part of the minority.

 

[Squawk]

Can you give me an example to demonstrate? I can't think of anything that an organisation to promote equal rights for all can't achieve that one geared to furthering the rights of a specific group can.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Here's an example:

Say you have two publicly-funded schools one poor black and one middle-class white (schools are still segregated today, which sort of helps proves my point...). The black school has crappy facilities, crappy equipment, not enough books, and can't afford the best teachers. Say the school district chooses to start desegregation, AND to bring up the black school to EQUAL status as the white school. Well, the black school will need all brand new books, equipment, probably a brand new gym and sports team uniforms. The school system will probably also have to higher extra teachers to make up for years of poor education, in order to bring up academic standards. They'll also have to pay more for the very best teachers, who are equipped to deal with students 2-3 years behind their white peers. The school will probably look into getting more money for free breakfasts because more poor black kids can't get breakfast and home, and can't learn on an empty stomach. There might even be a push for some free medical screenings and vaccinations at the school.

All of these things are things that the white kids are already used to having, from the school and from their family and from their own doctor... but from the outside they might look at the brand new buildings and equipment, the additional teachers making more money, and the social aid, and say "That's not fair! Why should they have special rights! We didn't get new books, uniforms, and teachers this year... and they spent MORE and EXTRA on the black kids!"

Just matching spending might look more equal, but it isn't. For a group that has been discriminated against, it usually takes more to get anything close to really equal outcomes, and equal outcomes is the goal.

 

[Squawk]

Why does that have to involve skin colour? Surely you can look at any two schools and compare them in precisely the same way, the school with the underperforming kids gets the funding, the school that isn't doesn't.

As you pointed out, the schools are already segregated. You are now suggesting adding an extra level of segregation, saying black kids get funding, white kids don't. I say the funding simply goes to the school that needs it, the skin colour is an irrelevance.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Why does that have to involve skin colour? Surely you can look at any two schools and compare them in precisely the same way, the school with the underperforming kids gets the funding, the school that isn't doesn't.

As you pointed out, the schools are already segregated. You are now suggesting adding an extra level of segregation, saying black kids get funding, white kids don't. I say the funding simply goes to the school that needs it, the skin colour is an irrelevance.

And the schools that are predominantly black are the ones that need it... and if you think racism is irrelevant, then I guess there's no reasoning with you. If you think that racism is done, and the "real" racism is people working to correct the harms of racism in a meaningful way, and you favor "color-blind" programs that do pretty much nothing, then I doubt I'll be the one who talks you out of that position.

For instance, you ignored the fact that the predominantly white school has ALWAYS been funded appropriately. Just skipped right past that one on your way to dismissing racism as a non-issue. How can I get through to you when you miss the point?

 

[Squawk]

You're not getting away with a non-sequiter.

And the schools that are predominantly black are the ones that need it

Quite, so those are the ones that get funding. No issue there.

and if you think racism is irrelevant, then I guess there's no reasoning with you.

Perhaps if you bothered to read any of my posts you would note that my intention here is to figure out the best way of eliminating racism. I posit that positive discrimination in the form of organisations will in the long run exacerbate the problem. Perhaps you could point out anywhere in any post I have made where I state that racism isn't a problem.

If you think that racism is done

I don't, never said it, never implied it, never even hinted at it. Where did you get this impression from?

and the "real" racism is people working to correct the harms of racism in a meaningful way

Never said it, never implied it. I said that these organisations that employ positive discrimination are likly to prolongue the racism since they must, by definition, acknowledge segregation by representing people based on skin colour.

and you favor "color-blind" programs that do pretty much nothing, then I doubt I'll be the one who talks you out of that position.

Colour blind programs do pretty much nothing? I'm sorry, but what the hell does that mean? Are you arguing that if you have two schools filled with white kids, one failing, one not, then its not possible to bring up the failing school up to the standards of the good school because colour is not involved?

If I replace the failing school above filled with white kids above with a failing school full of black kids, what changes? Are the methods and investment required to make that school improve different? If so, how? Of those proposed differences, why would an organisation focused on black kids rather than one focused on failing kids make a difference?

If the issue is racism, how would an organisation aimed at eliminating racism not be able to provide the same function of one that is not "colour blind" as you put it?

For instance, you ignored the fact that the predominantly white school has ALWAYS been funded appropriately. Just skipped right past that one on your way to dismissing racism as a non-issue.

There are no failing schools that are predominantly white? What a crock of shit. Come to my home town, there are around 20 schools in the area. I would hazard a guess there are no more than 5 black kids per school. Ergo, every school is white. Do you think they are all at equal standards? Are they hell. You want me to get the league tables and show you?

I have never, EVER, dismissed racism as a non-issue, read what I write for gods sake.

How can I get through to you when you miss the point?

Only one of us here has missed the point.

 

[5810Singer]

Why does that have to involve skin colour? Surely you can look at any two schools and compare them in precisely the same way, the school with the underperforming kids gets the funding, the school that isn't doesn't.

As you pointed out, the schools are already segregated. You are now suggesting adding an extra level of segregation, saying black kids get funding, white kids don't. I say the funding simply goes to the school that needs it, the skin colour is an irrelevance.

And the schools that are predominantly black are the ones that need it... and if you think racism is irrelevant, then I guess there's no reasoning with you. If you think that racism is done, and the "real" racism is people working to correct the harms of racism in a meaningful way, and you favor "color-blind" programs that do pretty much nothing, then I doubt I'll be the one who talks you out of that position.

For instance, you ignored the fact that the predominantly white school has ALWAYS been funded appropriately. Just skipped right past that one on your way to dismissing racism as a non-issue. How can I get through to you when you miss the point?

Sorry for butting in Joe, but your comments make no sense to me as someone living in the south-east of England.

In this region, as in the rest of the UK, the vast number of under-privileged areas, and failing schools are inhabited/frequented by the indigenous white population.
In fact a number of racial equality organisations in the UK have in recent years stated publicly that their policies have been successful to the point of redundancy, and that greater focus needs to be placed on the needs of the impoverished white population. One of their stated reasons for such a change of focus is that improvement of education, and an encouragement of aspirational values amongst the impoverished white population could well result in a reduction in the numbers of disaffected white people being indoctrinated into a racist mind-set.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You're not getting away with a non-sequiter.

Oh, believe me... I am!

Or, at least, I'm getting away one way or another. I think we're talking across one another, and since I've accepted my inability to express my point in a way that you will find convincing, I'm just going to walk away from it.

Or, you know, I could rant and rave and call you names for just not getting it? Because I can do that too... it isn't productive, or even particularly entertaining, but I can take a swing at it if you like. Not for long though... it gives me a tummy ache.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Sorry for butting in Joe, but your comments make no sense to me as someone living in the south-east of England.

Apples and oranges... possibly apples and screwdrivers. I foolishly forgot to append a "this is an American perspective, your issues my vary by location" to my post.

 

[Squawk]

You're not getting away with a non-sequiter.

Oh, believe me... I am!

Or, at least, I'm getting away one way or another. I think we're talking across one another, and since I've accepted my inability to express my point in a way that you will find convincing, I'm just going to walk away from it.

Or, you know, I could rant and rave and call you names for just not getting it? Because I can do that too... it isn't productive, or even particularly entertaining, but I can take a swing at it if you like. Not for long though... it gives me a tummy ache.

The non-sequiter was the implication by you that I think racism is irrelevant, based on the things I have said. Quite evidently it doesn't follow, and niether do the rest of your points since they are primarly based on that premise. Hence, non-sequiter. You could concede the point gracefully and gain my respect.

 

[Squawk]

Sorry for butting in Joe, but your comments make no sense to me as someone living in the south-east of England.

Apples and oranges... possibly apples and screwdrivers. I foolishly forgot to append a "this is an American perspective, your issues my vary by location" to my post.

Also an irrelevance, unless you contend that all "all white" schools in america have equal standards of funding and attainment.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The non-sequiter was the implication by you that I think racism is irrelevant, based on the things I have said. Quite evidently it doesn't follow, and niether do the rest of your points since they are primarly based on that premise. Hence, non-sequiter. You could concede the point gracefully and gain my respect.

You could have accepted my withdrawal gracefully and earned my respect... why wasn't it enough for you?

I thought the point was discussion, not winning points... here, if it makes you feel better: you win, I concede, here are ALL OF THE POINTS.

 

[Squawk]

Primarly for two reasons.

1. You bastardised my position, implying various things about my position on racism that were fallacious. You provided no acknowledgement of this, your exit was phrased in a manner to suggest that all your critique was accurate but not articulate. I didn't like the tone and felt it deserved a response.

2. The thread is set to continue even without your participation, the post impacted on the thread and needed a response.

##edit. Thankyou for the acknowledgement, though this is not about winning or losing, never was. It's about the validity, or not, of organisations that promote positive discrimination. The only "win", as it were, is the best outcome for race relations.

 

[5810Singer]

No rancour on my part, I'm quite happy to continue discussing this topic, it all seems to have been fairly healthy debate to me, nothing for anyone to get upset about.

BTW Joe, race relations are an international issue, and this is an international forum, so these national differences are inevitable. I guess we'll all have to bare that in mind.

And although I disagree with some of what you say Joe, I believe like you that it is necessary to employ racial equality measures/positive discrimination in situations where a dominant racial group is using state power and the law to artificially keep another racial group down, or to make up for historical injustices that have left a racial group playing an unfair game of "catch-up", IE: It's OK to level the playing field.

 

[Squawk]

And although I disagree with some of what you say Joe, I believe like you that it is necessary to employ racial equality measures/positive discrimination in situations where a dominant racial group is using state power and the law to artificially keep another racial group down

That's not what I am arguing against. If there is discrimination against those of a particular skin colour then it needs to be irradicated. Racial equality measures are unfortunately a necessity, measures should be put in place to foster racial equality.
However, those measures should not be designed to cater solely to the needs of one race, they should be setup to cater to any victim of racism. If the current situation dictates that 100% of the resources are directed to one particular race then fine, I have no issues at all with that. Indeed I suspect that in many places that would be the case.

That isn't positive discrimination, thats a move towards equal rights by tackling the issue head on.

Please note that I dislike the term race anyway, I have no idea why skin colour is still used to segregrate people. Unfortunately it is, and hence I still refer to race so we can have a coherant discussion.