tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23999669299648388532024-03-04T21:17:23.764-08:00The Flamboyant IntrovertI question things which people take for granted. I would have been that kid who said the emperor was naked. In real life that kid would probably have been lynched, but I'll take my chances...
I believe truth inherently valuable, no matter how well intentioned the ideology it dispels may be.
I also write about random interesting things from my personal life.Bakari Kafelehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06037720771479419105noreply@blogger.comBlogger345125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-88711828100349460912023-05-16T10:41:00.020-07:002023-05-31T16:21:54.990-07:00On why the current attempt to be gender inclusive is actually regressive and affirms old stereotypes<div><u>Preschoolers</u><br /><br />I have a 5 year old. I work at his preschool one day each week.</div><div><br /></div><div>There's another boy at the school who is frequently mistaken for a girl. He has long hair which he often wears in pigtails, wears dresses and skirts and often has his nails done. He rarely corrects people's use of pronouns, but he will say clearly he is a boy if anyone asks. He is probably a little more classically feminine in behavior and interests than my son or his other friend I'll talk about next, but definitely closer to the masculine side than neutral. He has two moms, who have twins, and they use the pronouns that correspond to each babies sex, while treating them according to their unique personalities. They are clearly making no attempt to gender their children in either direction, but accepting them for who they are - but without feeling that they have to deny their basic biology to do it.</div><div><br />We tried not to gender our own child either. It was interesting to watch how in certain things he naturally aligned with gendered norms (loved buses and trains before he could even talk), and not others (he liked to have his nails painted and wear eye shadow, he wears nightgowns for pajamas, his favorite colors are purple followed by pink, and prefers sparkles on his pink shoes) - basically, right down the line, he exemplified the division between those gendered traits with roots in biology and those which are purely social in origin. <br />I had a conversation with him which started when he expressed surprise that a kid might have a playdate without their sibling. I suggested that maybe when his sister is old enough to have playdates, she might want to have separate ones with her own friends, and when he asked why, I suggested that, among others, one possibility would be that she could be one of those girls who is really into gendered stuff and thinks boys are icky. I said it was unlikely, but possible. He seemed confused as to what I even meant, so I asked the same question about interests I had asked his classmate. He mentioned trucks versus playing family. I asked if there were exceptions, and he said yes, mentioned specific girls who played trucks and trains with him, and also mentioned that just a couple days ago a group of 4 boys, (including both himself and the other kid from the story above), played family together. (He was the dad. The other kid was one of 2 babies, and a 4th boy was the mom.) I asked what if a kid was female and only liked to do things people thought of as "boy" games, and he said it didn't matter. Then he asked if that was right (to which I said yes). I asked if they would still be a girl, and he said "of course", and laughed.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Recently, I used the term "boy", and was told by a 5 year old that no one could define his gender, and that he was neither boy nor girl. I said that I wasn't speaking to his gender one way or the other (btw, I'm not "misgendering" him by using masculine pronouns, that's what he goes by), but rather that I use the term "boy" to refer to sex. He seemed about to continue his lecture, but stopped, seemed to consider that. I asked if he considered himself male, to which he answered unambiguously and unhesitatingly yes. So I said, "in that case, what do you consider "boy" to mean?", to which he answered "boy means male". I said, "no, I mean what do you think of it being besides that", and he said, in a confused half question tone, as though he thought it might be what I was trying to imply; "it means female?"<br />"No, no" I said "boy goes with male, but I mean what <i>else </i>do you think of it meaning. Like, for example, what do you think boys <i>do?". <br /></i>He said "you mean, like in sex?"<br />OMG. "No!" (please, lets not get into the actual mechanics of intercourse with a 5 year old, no matter how much he may already know), "I mean, like what sort of games do boys play"<br />His answer "they can play any games"; "well, of course they can, I mean do you think there is anything boys usually do more than girls?"<br />I eventually was able to explain what I was asking, and he gave a couple examples of things that boys are more often interested in than girls (trains and starwars) and vice versa ("animals that people would think of as mostly female, like horses"), and he pointed out spontaneously (and I agreed completely) that there are plenty of exceptions and we also agreed that is totally ok. </div><div>His parents are supportive of him in whatever expression he is interested in. Although his "presentation" is primarily masculine, he does occasionally wear nail polish.<br />I was never able to get any idea of what, (if anything) it means to him to be male child, but not be a boy.</div><div><br /></div><div>Another little girl told me she identifies as a boy because her favorite band is BTS, and they are a boy band so she has to be a boy to join the group. </div><br /><u>Preface</u></div><div><br /></div><div>To be clear from the start: this is not an attack on any individual. People should be free to express themselves in whatever way they want, so long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else.</div>If you like to wear a big rainbow wig or a suit made of balloons, you like to paint your arms green or your toenails glow-in-the-dark, if you like to pretend your skin is #FFFFFF or rgb(0,0,0) , if your great-grandparents were all from Europe but you prefer to listen to jazz and hip-hop and eat fried chicken and speak ebonics and therefore want to call yourself a "person of color", all of that is nobodies' business but your own.<br />This is not intended to be against specific people or the choices that make them feel comfortable, but rather an honest and critical look at a movement which, while always well-meaning, doesn't understand the path through which it's own concepts evolved, and hasn't noticed that it is acutally working against it's own ideals.<br />But we'll come back around to that eventually...<div><br /></div><div><u><i>Int</i>roduction</u></div><div><br />First we have to establish something more basic, because, no matter what human cultures choose to believe, science is real, and reality outweighs everybody's opinion. Even the "science" in this issue has become politicized, and besides for which, the science has always been so complicated that not only do most lay people not fully understand it, but most doctors and some biologists get it wrong fairly often.<br /><br />Complexity combined with mental shortcuts and sloppy language have combined to make an already shaky understanding devolve to outright contradictions of reality being presented as "science".<br /><br />So lets start at the very very beginning.<div><br /></div><div><u><i>Rep</i>roduction</u><br /><br />The earliest life, bacteria (and archaea) are a-sexual. They just grow, and once they are big enough, they split in half, and then there are two. There is no meaningful "parent" or "child", just two smaller clones made of the original, and then the two clones grow and split. In some multicellular protists, individuals may have somewhat differentiated body parts, and a clone grows in some specific spot and buds off, leaving a specific "mother" and "child". We can recognize this sort of reproduction as many plants do something similar, budding or vegetative propagation. </div><div><br /></div><div><u>Sexual Reproduction</u></div><div><br />Most plants can also reproduce sexually, as can (almost - 99.99%) all animals. Somewhere along the evolutionary path it was discovered that simply having successive generations of clones was too limiting to adaptation, and so mixing genes can be advantageous to survival. In fact, it is so advantageous that out of roughly 2 to 8 million animal species, only around a dozen or so are known to be capable of reproducing asexually, and only a tiny handful of those do so exclusively.<br /><br />Fungus have another system entirely, very complex, and irrelevant here, but among all plants and all animals, sexual reproduction means the same thing: in order to create a new individual, it is necessary to combine exactly one egg cell and exactly one sperm cell. (Other than fungus), this is universal: there is no animal or plant specie that reproduces sexually that can create a new zygote with anything other than one egg cell and one sperm cell. Inside the pistil of a flower are ovum (latin for egg), inside a grain of pollen is sperm.<br />(That's right - on spring days when the pollen count is high, you are breathing in millions of sperm)<br /><br /><u>The Sexes<br /></u><br />Because this is universal, it is the only part of biology that can reasonably be considered the <b>basis of sex</b> differentiation. While humans can make up whatever definitions they want - call a car a bear and call a bear a sheep - from a biological perspective, a female is an individual animal or plant whose body produces eggs, and a male is an individual whose body produces sperm. What this means is that sex acutally is in fact a strict binary.<br />This is not a political or social statement. Science is real.<br /><br />There is a third type of body. The majority of plants produce both ova <i>and </i>pollen, making them hermaphrodites. This does not mean they produce anything <i>other </i>than eggs and sperm, or that they can produce some sort of hybrid of the two, but merely that one individual produces both of the two distinct types of cell necessary to combine into a new offspring. <br />In animals, ova are produced in ovaries, and sperm are produced in testes. Hermaphroditic animals, like most plants, contain both organs.<br />About 65,000 animals are hermaphroditic, (roughly 5%), almost all of which are invertebrates, (the exceptions being about a couple dozen fish species - most of which never produce both types of sex cell at once, but can change depending on various external factors). Common examples of true, simultaneous hermaphrodites include slugs and earthworms. <br /><br />Of particular note in including this "third" type is that (even among those few vertebrate species that can reproduce asexually), <i>there are no mammals (or birds, amphibians, or reptiles) in which one specific individual makes both</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Intersex</u></div><div><br />Even among intersex people, there zero known examples of individuals who have had both fully functioning ovaries <i>and </i>testes.<div>Which means there is an even stricter level to which, for mammals such as ourselves, sex is literally a binary. Everyone, (including intersex people), are born with ovaries, or testicles, never both, and never any sort of hybrid, in-between, or 3rd option.<br /><br />What causes so much confusion is that the animal body is complicated, and we have <i>sex differentiation</i> that goes beyond just the sex cells we produce. This additional differentiation doesn't take the place of the gonads as the basis for defining sex, but it does make it more complicated for us to understand it, intuitively, because we can't see the gonads but we can see the body differentiation associated with them.<br /><br />It is the presence of ovaries or testes which defines an individual as female or male, but different species have different ways of determining which a particular body will have. In mammals, its the presence of a Y chromosome that changes the default body structure plan (female) into that of a future male. The Y chromosome turns the fetal gonad into a testicle. It in turn produces testosterone, which influences all the other cells of the developing embryo, especially the sex organs, turning what is ambiguous genitalia at 6 weeks into a penis at around 11, instead of the vagina that develops in the absence of testosterone.<br />But it's important to note that XY chromosomes are just one of many ways to do it. Birds use different chromosomes altogether, many reptiles use incubation temperature to determine sex, and plenty of other systems work for other species. Since it is not universal, XY chromosomes can't be considered the most basic defining characteristic for sex.</div><div><br /></div><div><u>"Secondary" sexual characteristics<br /></u><br />The changes that happen at puberty - beards in males and breasts in females, for example - are called "secondary" sexual characteristics, but technically speaking, from a strict biological point of view, penises and vaginas themselves are secondary sexual characteristics. The <i>primary </i>sexual characteristics, as detailed above, are the presence of either ovaries or testicles. That makes every other characteristic secondary. Just like breasts and facial hair, the external sex organs are strongly associated with a particular sex, they normally correspond to the sex, but <u>they do not acutally <i>define </i>the sex</u>. <br /><br />In fact, there are millions of animals that don't have them. Most birds and fish don't. They still have distinct sexes. In the seahorse, it is the male that gets pregnant, and carries the offspring to term - but just like in every specie, the female produces eggs - she deposits them in the male's abdominal pouch - and the male produces sperm, which he uses to fertilize those eggs. The reason the last sentence even makes sense is because having sperm - not a particular set of body parts or even getting pregnant - is what <i>defines</i> being male. While we aren't used to thinking of it this way, it's not that far removed from how we think of other secondary sexual characteristics - for example, a woman who has a double mastectomy is still a woman, as is a woman with hormonal abnormalities and grows a beard. This is how we should think of the sex parts themselves as well - something which usually goes along with a particular sex, but not what defines it.</div><div><br /></div><div><u>An extremely practical shortcut</u><br /><br />It is exceedingly more difficult to extract and test a biopsy of the gonads than it is to simply visually observe the external genitalia, and since in 99.99%* of cases the external genitalia do in fact correspond to the type of gonads, doctors take their chances on that 0.01% and determine sex based on genitals. This is a very helpful and practical shortcut, but it is still technically a (very) educated guess.<br /><br />It is <i>not</i>, however, an "assignment"; nor is the term "sex" interchangeable with "gender" (more on that soon)</div><div><br />In other words, babies are not, and never have been "assigned a gender" at birth. No doctor is looking at a baby and saying "hmm, this baby with a penis looks especially effeminate to me, lets call him a girl". They are observing a biological sex characteristic, and noting that observation of male or female.<br />Again: science is real.<br /><br />*(note: this number isn't just an arbitrary high number for dramatic effect, it is the actual number)</div><div><br /></div><div><u>When the shortcut gets it wrong - medical conditions</u></div><div><br /></div><div>But lets go back to that 0.01%, because, while that's not terribly common, it still makes 800 thousand humans on Earth who don't have neatly lined up chromosomes, gonads, and genitals. That reality undermines some of the pseudo-scientific arguments on <i>both </i>sides of the social issue.<br /><br /></div>Because the processes of life, and in particular of complex multi-cellular organism development are so very, well, complex, there are a lot of steps in the process of sex differentiation that can potentially go other than intended.</div><div><br /> There are a number of known reasons why a fetus might end up with a mismatch between its chromosomes, its gonads, its sex organs, and potentially the "gender" of its brain, including Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, Placental Aromatase Deficiency, Testosterone Biosynthesis Defect, 5a-reductase Deficiency, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Gonadal Dysgenesis, XXY chromosomes or other chromosomal abnormalities, abnormal or missing NR3C4 or CYP17 T -34C allele, maternal hormonal imbalance or exogenous hormones as well as some tumors, as well as some even rarer conditions and conditions that are not yet diagnosed or well understood. </div><div> <br />Some of these things can cause, for example, a body to develop with all female genitalia, except that in the place the ovaries should go are testes instead. This person would be technically male, but by all appearances seem to be a (normal, healthy) female. In some cases a person may have matching internal and external body parts and gonads, but the chromosomes normally corresponding to the other sex. (Sometimes in either of these cases the person may not even have any idea that there is any mismatch unless they happen to get genetic testing, or until the seek a fertility specialist for diagnoses). In some cases the external parts may never fully differentiate, leaving them visually ambiguous (the most likely situation to actually be designated as "intersex"). And in some cases medical conditions may affect only brain development, with chromosomes, gonads, and genitalia all reflecting one sex, but behavior and preferences matching the gender normally associated with the other sex, including the person "feeling" they are or should be the other sex.</div><div><br />On the one hand, this reality disrupts some extreme conservative views that there is no medical basis for anyone to be transsexual. There very clearly is. <br /><br /></div><div>Because humans can't directly observe the interior composition of gonads, but can easily observe the secondary characteristics they cause, of course it's the visible body parts we commonly associate with each sex, and if someone has a body with a mismatch between chromosomes, gonads, and genitals, it shouldn't be surprising that some feel as though the genitals they have don't tell the whole story. This error is largely a result of thinking that sex <i>parts </i>is what determines sex, rather than those parts (usually) being a <i>reflection </i>of one's sex.<br /><br />But at the same time, it also undermines the position of the neotrans movement, and largely due to the same misunderstanding. <br /><br /><u>Biological Sex - A Strict Binary</u><br /><br />Every person has a sex. Even though, for all the many reasons listed above, a person may have ambiguous genitals, or even ones clearly opposite of what the chromosomes indicate, they still have a definite sex. Since no human has ever been born with both a fully functioning male <i>and </i>female reproductive system, nor even with both functional ovaries and testes (there is at least one known case of an individual who had one of each, though they did not apparently actually produce both eggs and sperm), nor is there any in-between hybrid of the two nor any third option, the existence of intersex people does not change that sex is a strict binary. Believing otherwise is due to thinking that sex parts is what determines sex, rather than (usually) being a reflection of it.</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Gender</u><br /><br />It is unfortunate for us all that language is such a sloppy, flexible, malleable thing, because it makes it nearly impossible sometimes to have a straight forward discussion of complex things without stopping to define terms.<br />Sex and gender are usually understood to be separate things, but the term gender is very frequently used to mean sex. <br />Sex is reasonably unambiguous, at least from a biological point of view - males produce sperm, females produce eggs.</div><div><br /></div>Gender is an extra complicated one.</div><div><br />For one thing, lay people have been using the terms gender and sex as though they were interchangeable for so long that defining gender as sex has actually been accepted as an official part of the lexicon, and frequently even people who should know better, including doctors, scientists, and advocates for equality and inclusion, can all be found to use the term 'gender' when what they actually mean is 'sex'.<br />The thing we were talking about earlier, where being male is defined by producing sperm and being female is defined by producing eggs, those are the two sexes.<br />They are not genders. <br /><br />In English the way a word is defined can be said to be a question of how it's used, but to make it possible to talk about the subject in a meaningful way, in this blog post at least, we are going to use the most logical, consistent, and accurate definition here:</div><div> <br /><i><span style="font-size: large;">Gender refers to a <u>set of characteristics</u> which are <u>generally associated</u> with one sex or the other.</span></i></div><div> </div><div>Female and male are not genders.</div><div>Neither is 'man' or 'woman'. Neither of those are inherently composed of a set of characteristics.</div><div><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">The terms that encompass a set of characteristics generally associated with one or the other of the two sexes are <i>feminine </i>and <i>masculine</i>. </span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Those </i>are the two genders. Those are the terms which include traits which are purely social in origin, and those are the things which are not binary.</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Non-binary</u><br /><br />And it isn't just that some specific individuals aren't binary; while the two sexes, male and female, are in actuality a strict binary, the genders, feminine and masculine, are <i>intrinsically </i>non-binary. </div><div><br /></div><div>It isn't possible for any one person to encompass everything which defines masculine or feminine, because the terms themselves include incompatible or even contradictory traits.</div><div><br />Archetypes of masculinity include the tattooed motorcycle riding guy who gets into bar fights deliberately, the brave and loyal soldier, the hard working provider for his family, the CEO or politician in a fancy suit, the Casanova ladies man. They are all masculine, but no one person encompasses all of the traits of each.<br /><br />Stereotypes of femininity include the nurturing caretaker, the seductress with her 'feminine charms', the vain beauty queen, the soccer mom, the fierce tiger mom. Archetypes range from giving and emphatic as Mother Teresa, to hysterical "Karen" types. <br /><br />What they have in common is a trait or set of traits more commonly associated with one sex or the other. But within masculine, within feminine, there are so many possible directions to go that it isn't possible to say what "100%" feminine or masculine would be. </div><div>The more devoted a provider, for example, the less inclined to aggression and risk. Not only is it not a "binary", with a person either encompassing every single possible "masculine" trait or else having none of them, it isn't even a 1 dimensional scale. You can't organize all the traits of each gender onto a single line and find a point on that line where any given individual is, because many of the traits are irrelevant to each other, or even contradictory. You would likely need more than a couple dozen different axises, different dimensions, to try to graph every trait that tends to vary by sex: volatility; withdrawal; enthusiasm; assertiveness; openness; industriousness; orderliness; compassion; politeness; risk-taking; aggression / hostility; self-esteem; anxiety; altruism; kindness; impulse control; the relative moral importance given to care, fairness, loyalty, authority or sanctity. And that only covers personality traits, without getting into personal preferences, desires, aspirations, not to mention things like fashion or hairstyle. Trying to turn a 20+ axis graph into a binary or even a numberline-like linear gradation of gray, and say any one person is "more" or "less" feminine is simply ridiculously meaningless.</div><div><br />In other words, <u>by the very nature of the meaning of "gender", <i>everyone</i> is "non-binary"</u>. It makes no difference how any particular individual "identifies", because the term itself is non-linear.<br /><br />So, if sex is inherently a binary, and gender is inherently non-linear, that leaves nothing for "non-binary" to actually mean. <br /></div><div><br /></div><div><u>Fighting a claim no one ever actually made</u><br /><br />The term makes as much sense as saying that some people are short, others are tall, and still others are "non-binary". To even feel the need to use the term "non" binary suggests a belief that anyone anywhere thought that gender was a binary, but no one ever claimed gender was a binary to begin with. There has always been, in every culture, an awareness of a broad range of variation. There have always been men who are particularly macho, girls who are more girly than others. There has always been effeminate men, dandies, tomboys, people who conformed more or less to their designated roles. How much tolerance a society has had for a given amount of non-conformity has varied, but everyone has always acknowledged that it exists. No one has ever claimed that there is one, and only one, standard for being masculine which all males must meet exactly at all times, or risk losing that status of "man". That acknowledgement of range and variation is itself an acknowledgment of a lack of binary in the genders. The only thing that societies have considered an actual binary is sex - which, of course, is scientifically accurate.</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Gendered traits are averages<br /></u><br />Unfortunately, that one term, "gender", covers a number of different things.<br /><br />There do seem to be broad differences in the various personality categories listed above, although they are only <i>average</i> differences, that show up when looking at hundreds of individuals - sex is not a hard determiner of any one personality trait in any one individual. <br /><br />But the list of traits generally associated with one sex or the other also includes physical traits - for example, having wider hips or shoulders, more or less body hair, losing hair in middle age, body fat percentage, leg to trunk ratio, height. These could are all gendered traits, as they differ on average by sex, but none are the defining feature of sex, and an individual can go against the average without it calling into question their sex.<br /><br />Height is a good example to use to intuitively grasp the concept. Across the entire population of any given ethnicity, male adults are taller than female adults. However, there are millions of women who are taller than millions of men. A man 5'5" or a woman 5'8" are both well within the range of normal, both less than 2 standard deviations away from the norm. It wouldn't make any sense to try to define gender using height, even though it is a gendered trait. Keep this in mind, because it is how we should be considering <i>every</i> gendered trait (both social and biological). Being true <i>on average</i> can be useful for things like medical studies, product design, or casual conversation, but knowing someone's sex doesn't reliably tell you anything about where that particular individual falls on any given gendered trait.</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Types of gendered traits <br /></u><br />Body hair and height and facial hair and breasts are physical gendered traits, determined by genetics and biology. Technically speaking, taking into account intersex people, even the external genitals themselves are gendered traits, as there isn't a 100% correspondence between them and the actual gonads. <br /><br />The personality traits listed above are another type of gendered trait. While there are a lot of people (on both sides of the political spectrum) who hold fast to ideas based on socio-political ideology, all objective research suggests that a significant percentage - though not all - of the correlation between biological sex and gendered personality trait differences is acutally due to biological processes and <i>not </i>just social or cultural influences. We are not born blank slates. Those gendered differences may be emphasized and enhanced by culture (although, interestingly, the differences tend to be <i>more</i> pronounced in more egalitarian societies with less rigid sex roles), but they appear to originate somewhere in the evolutionary process and reside somewhere in our genes. </div><div> <br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">As a reminder - this in no way implies that all people of a given sex automatically have any specific given trait. Just like with height, a personality trait can vary by sex across a population AND vary enough in individuals that you can't predict what any specific individual will be like.</span></div><div><br /></div><div>Then there is the third type of gendered trait. This last one is <i>purely</i>, 100%, social/cultural in origin.<br />It includes those things we (at least in this particular culture) think of as associated with one sex or the other, but which have absolutely no origin in anything biological.<br />A good example is the color pink versus blue. The connection between gender and color was made up less than 100 years ago by the clothing industry, as a way to try to get parents to buy new baby clothes rather than reusing clothes between children. In fact, ironically enough, when the concept was originally popularized, pink was considered a strong masculine color for dressing baby boys, while light blue was considered a gentle feminine color perfect for girls.</div><div>Other examples include having names like Alexander or Karen or John or Sarah, painting ones fingernails, wearing a dangly cloth around the neck (a tie), having short or long hair, or going into a room to urinate that has a circle or a triangle on the door.<br /><br />This third type of "gender", in modern gender theory, often goes by the name "gender expression", or "gender presentation". The modern "social justice" style theory further suggests that it is "gender expression" which should define how a person "identifies".<br /><br /><u>Identity</u><br /><br />What is interesting about the traits of expression is that this is the only aspect of gender with absolutely zero origin in biology and genetics. It is purely artificial, purely social. While there do seem to be many aspects of personality which are gendered due to being (on average) genetically linked to sex, none of those aspects that fall under "gender presentation" are among them. </div><div> <br />This shouldn't be surprising, because "expression" and "presentation" are, <i>inherently</i>, social acts - literally "acts", as in "performances" - something one does specifically because someone else is watching.<br /><br />In fact, the very concept of "identity" itself is inherently a social one. Social, to the point where it can not acutally exist without other people.</div><div><br />Think of all the ways one can identify - and what it actually means.<br />In order to be "tall", there has to be someone shorter than you. If everyone had the exact same skin tone, no one would ever think of themselves in terms of their shade. To be "disabled", there must be some baseline of abilities that other people can do - no one can do everything that might conceivably be doable, yet no one thinks of themselves as disabled because they can't fly, or can't lift a truck with one hand. </div><div><br /></div><div>Whatever physical or personality traits a person might have, they are significant only in the relative value compared to average people. <br />No one, for example, identifies as "a 5-fingered person". No one thinks of themselves first and foremost as a vertebrate. No one describes themselves as an "eyebrowed" person, or a "walker".<br /><br /></div><div>All of these are in fact very real characteristics of people. Many of them - like having prehensile hands and being able to walk - very strongly significant to our daily lives, very much a central part of having a body and interacting with the world, and yet, in terms of "identity" they never even occur to anyone as relevant.<br /><br />The entire concept of identity is based on distinguishing one's self from <i>other</i> <i>people. </i>It is, inherently, <i>external</i>.<br />Which means that identity is <i>not </i>something one feels inside themself. <br />Identity is about picking a social group to "identify" <i>with. </i>Nobody is born "feeling" "Black", for example. People are told what they "are", and are taught what that means.<i> <br /><br /></i>Which specific things a person chooses to focus on are a factor of which divisions their society makes, what divisions that particular culture has decided are important and "identifying" features.<br /><br /><u>Gender Identity</u></div><div> <br />And so it isn't by coincidence that none of the things which define gender "expression" are actually internal things, not actually thoughts or feelings that anyone is born with. <br /></div><div><br /></div><div>But here's the key thing:<br />If these things aren't aspects of biology, then they aren't really something anyone can really "feel" that they are deep inside. No one is born feeling like they prefer pants, or prefer to go into toilet rooms with a particular geometric shape on the door, or have a certain type of name. All of these things are taught to us by society.<br /><br />And because they are all made up by society, we - all of us, the humans who society is made up of - can choose at any time to hold on to or let go of any particular association.<br /><br /><u>Separate Spheres</u><br /><br />Because of the biology of mammal reproduction - females give birth to live young, rather than laying eggs, and those young are initially dependent on her milk for survival - every specie of mammal has some difference in the roles and behaviors of each sex, especially relating to caring for offspring. The specific strategies vary widely, but the fact of nursing inherently necessitates <i>some</i> difference; (contrast to birds, in which many species have almost entirely egalitarian methods of child rearing, with parents switching off between finding food and watching over their babies).<br /><br />Until very recent technological innovations (most notably infant formula and breast pumps), humans were no exception. It was out of <i>necessity </i>that females and males had differing roles when raising young children, (which, before the technological innovation of effective birth control, was the majority of the adult life of most people). Given that, differing roles in the larger social context is a natural extension of that, and since one surviving male can potentially impregnate several females at a time - if a society's primary goal is it's own survival - the only logical course is to send your males off to fight neighboring societies or do the most dangerous jobs, and to preserve and protect females. <br /><br />Males, along with their reproductive capacity, are expendable and easily replaceable, while females have a significant minimum investment in producing the next generation of humans. These two facts are the original basis of almost every sex role division in every culture throughout time.<br /><br /></div><div>I'll get much more in depth on that in a future post, the point for now is just that there is a <i>reason </i>sex roles developed, (although those reasons are almost entirely irrelevant today). Today, those divisions society still holds on to (or which some individuals or sub-cultures hold on to) are remnants, relics of a time when they developed out of necessity. <br /><br />This is an important thing for <i>everyone </i>to remember, for two reasons - one, of course, is for those who still cling to outdated ideas. But the other is for those who are most passionately opposed to the differing roles which they see as "oppression"; that they were not originally created for the purpose of harming anyone should affect how we look at it today, as well as the strategies we use to help society let go of obsolete roles.<br /><br /><u>Technology Fosters Egalitarianism</u></div><div><u><br /></u></div><div>Today's world is so vastly different from the world of almost all humans for all of time until around the birth of the oldest people alive today, it's easy to forget how much of what we take for granted wasn't within the realm of even imaginable just a few generations ago and literally for 100s of thousands of years before that. <br /><br />Its easy to "forget", because no one alive acutally lived in that world. We've all read about it, we all know it in theory, but it is abstract. But that was the reality under which all social norms, in every society, developed.<br /><br />Even without social pressure, without safe and effective birth control the majority of married, pre-menopausal females would have spent the majority of their adult lives either pregnant, nursing, or both, and neither of these things - both absolutely critical to the survival of every human, and therefore critical to the survival of any society - could be taken over by men, regardless of whether people of either sex would have preferred it. Without modern luxuries like washing machines, gas stoves, refrigerators, indoor plumbing and supermarkets, something as mundane and everyday as making food palatable and basic hygiene were a many hours-a-day task. Given that females with young children had to be near those children all day to prevent their death, (combined with the expendability of males), the only logical arrangement is for males to take on the dangerous jobs outside the home - whether hunting large animals, going to war with other societies, or working in (pre-OSHA) factories and coal mines and oil rigs - while females stayed in the relative safety of the home - and if they are in the home anyway, it is only logical they would do those home tasks that needed doing.<br /><br /></div><div>It's unlikely many people would have thought this "oppressive" or a sacrifice, when there simply was no other option. Not because society forced it on anyone, but just due to biology. The single most important imperative of all living things, after physical survival, is reproduction - passing one's genes to the next generation. In humans, that takes the form of not only sex drive and attraction, but also of "love", of wanting children, of finding babies "cute", of being willing to sacrifice one's self for them. <br /><br /></div><div>People everywhere, in all of history, say family comes first, family is most important, that parenthood is the most meaningful thing in life. In fact, the idea that "work" would be anything other than a means by which to obtain resources for the purpose of providing for ones children, the idea that work itself could be in anyway meaningful, is a very recent concept - (one, incidentally, developed and promoted by religious, political, and industrial leaders who wanted to encourage people to do more work for them). <br />It would likely have been "understood", so obvious as to go without saying, that creating and raising children successfully <i>is </i>the primary meaning and purpose of life, and that literally every other human endeavor is, however indirectly, ultimately in support of that goal.</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Technology which allows egalitarianism is almost inconceivably recent.</u><br /><br />Homo sapiens specifically have been around roughly 200,000 years. The genus "homo", somewhere on the order of 2 million. Many of the related, but technically different species of "homo"s, of proto-humans, had similar evolutionary advances to our own, tribes of upright walking people intelligent enough to make and use wood, bone and stone tools. Neanderthals and homo-erectus both most likely used fire and language. Which means human cultures date back further than homo sapiens themselves. We would have inherited language, technology, habits, customs, perhaps even traditions and social structures, from the beings we evolved from. Just as individuals aren't born blank slates, humanity wasn't either.<br />That puts the beginning of social norms somewhere on the order of 1 to 2 millions years ago.<br /><br />The technological advances that allow for egalitarianism are, on the scale of how long humans have existed, extremely recent. Both safe and effective infant formula and safe and effective birth control (in the form of latex condoms) were not invented until the late 19th century. Even "feminine hygiene products" (in the form of menstrual pads), which were a necessary precursor to females wearing pants, were not invented until the late 19th century. <br /><br />That's a ratio of roughly 120 years to 2,000,000 which reduces to 1 in 16,600 or, as a percentage, 0.006%<br />That's how long the modern world we take for granted has existed in the grand scheme of human existence.<br /><br />Translated into a scale of time with personal meaning, if you are 30 years old, 0.006% of your life is the last 15 hours. Imagine something as ingrained in you as your language, religion, preferences, or sense of morality, and then imagine trying to do a complete 180 on it in the time its been since you woke up this morning. Language especially, since you start learning it from day 1, and it becomes so ingrained that we even think internally and dream in our primary language. Imagine at age 30 you go to a place where the language has nothing in common with your primary (ie, if you are reading this, any language with no European roots), and no one speaks yours, and being expected to completely <i>forget </i>your primary language <i>and </i>become fluent in a totally new and different one, within 15 hours of arrival.<br /><br />Considering the big picture, it is remarkable that humanity has managed to progress socially as quickly as it has, and that so many of us are able to take the new reality, the options that technology has created for us, for granted. At the same time, it should give us some patience for those cultures and individuals that are stuck in "tradition", as well as help inform us on how to best get those hold outs to eventually come around.</div><div><br /><u>Human Culture Becomes Obsolete as Fast as New Technologies Can Emerge</u><br /><br />In regards to reproductive related activity, (what we can now just call "sexual activity"), considering the potential consequences of each instance of it (or lack there of), not only gendered roles, but nearly every single custom, value, social more, expectation, judgement, prohibition, standard, etc is entirely rational and, in one way or another, can be seen as a particular society trying to find ways to maximize the chances of survival of their own people as a whole. However, the invention of practical, affordable, safe, and most important, effective birth control (as well as the back up of safe and effective abortion) almost entirely changed the equation overnight by reliably and predictably decoupling sexual activity from reproduction. While human cultures may be slow to change (particularly those that value "tradition" for its own sake - although there are aspects of the culture/technology lag in every society - note that even among social liberals, it's still taken for granted that humans should wear clothing at all times in public, even when it's hot out), the fact is, these technologies <i>do</i> in fact exist, and nearly all of the traditional views on every aspect of sex are in fact obsolete. </div><div><br /></div><div><u>Culturally Mandated Gender Roles Are Especially Obsolete</u></div><div><br /></div><div>While every aspect of sexuality is changed merely by the decoupling of coupling and creating offspring, there are a number of other changes - some perhaps seemingly unrelated on the surface - that serve to make culturally enforced gender roles particularly outdated. Agriculture had a major impact on population growth. The consolidation of tribes and city-states into countries, and the stabilization of world nations into a world with (almost) universally agreed upon borders, reduced battles and wars. Each nation's having its own set of codified laws, and police and courts as neutral agents of enforcement, reduced battles between families and neighbors. All of these contribute to a lack of need for any modern society to maximize birth rates, as well as reducing the need to see individual males as expendable agents for a society's survival.<br /><br />Germ theory and modern medicine reduced death rates, especially among children, dramatically, which in turn means it is no longer necessary for a family to have as many children as possible for fear that many or most of them will die before having children of their own.<br /><br />And then there's the more obviously related, things like breast pumps and infant formula, which mean even if people do choose to have children, they can still exchange the biological default gender roles for every stage past pregnancy and birth.</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Technology </u><i style="text-decoration-line: underline;">Only </i><u>Makes </u><i style="text-decoration-line: underline;">Culturally </i><u>Defined Aspects of Gender Obsolete</u><br /><br />As noted before, gendered traits encompass a lot of different things, from the entirely biological (having a beard) to the entirely cultural (pink and blue). It has been well researched that there are behavioral traits that are associated with biological sex that are not a result of socialization. Some differences are visible even in infancy, and they are consistent across all cultures. The fact that there is no legitimate reason to <i>mandate </i>sex roles doesn't magically make it no longer true that some aspects of mental gender are biological in origin.<br /><br />However, the fact that a particular trait can be observed to be statistically correlated with a particular sex in no way legitimizes mandating that difference for everyone. Just as males on average are taller than females on average, and yet knowing any two people's sex doesn't tell you their relative heights, a statistical tendency across populations for females to be more slightly more socially oriented and males slightly more object oriented tells you nothing about any particular individual.<br /><br /><u>The Issue is Forced Conformity.<br /></u><br />The problem with stereotypes and generalizations isn't that they aren't accurate, (as generalizations), the problem is the assumption that they apply (or "should" apply) to everyone of a particular category. Similarly, the problem with, for example, having mothers focus on child rearing and fathers on securing food and shelter, is in society making it <i>mandatory.</i> <br /><br />It isn't necessary to make a point to try to encourage little girls to play with cars and guns or to make little boys play dress up and family. It's just necessary to give them the choice. It's necessary to recognize that its perfectly <i>ok </i>for any individual to be different than the norm. But it's also necessary to accept <i>everyone</i> for who they naturally are - even all those who <i>do </i>fit the stereotypes. </div><div><br /></div><div><u>Times Have Changed<br /></u><br />Societies don't change overnight, but the technologies that have allowed increased egalitarianism - going as far back as agriculture - have been gradually developing over tens of thousands of years. Even the most recent are over a full generation old, so that few if any alive today can even remember a time when they couldn't be taken for granted.<br />And while there has been a delay,<i> the old paradigm of gender roles has in fact, in all but a few hold-out cultures, changed to reflect that. </i></div><div><br />Gendered roles now are more similar to gendered traits generally - statistically people tend to lean toward particular roles - but it is no longer a requirement, or even an expectation. No longer is it a given that a woman will focus on family and a man on career, men expected to focus on the public sphere and women in the personal domain. Even the most conservative Americans are not shocked by women having jobs outside the home. Women work in some of the most masculine fields, CEOs, police officers and security, firefighters, construction, political leadership...</div><div><br />Of particular note, women have been the leaders of many countries throughout the world, including many developing nations, many places who modern western liberals might designate "patriarchies", in Asia, Africa, South America, even Muslim nations. All together, about 1/4 of all nations have elected or appointed at least one female leader, dating back as far as 1940 - merely 20 years after the US first allowed women to vote. (Over 80 years later, the US still hasn't elected a single female president.) <br />Also notable, in Western democracies with conservative/liberal political splits, it is very frequently the conservative parties who first field, and ultimately elect, female candidates. <span style="font-size: x-small;">(Both of these facts somewhat undermine Western progressive / liberal claims to being the world representatives of feminism.)</span><br /><br /></div><div>Even the US military has opened combat roles to women, all the way to marine core infantry.<br /><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Women in combat represents a major change in underlying mindset, in the collective subconscious, as one of the primary factors motivating gender role differences is the relative expendableness of individual males without affecting the viability of maintaining or increasing the population in the next generation.</span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.1px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.1px;"><u>The Meaning of Life</u><br style="font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;" /><br style="font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;" /></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">As societies have grown larger and more complex, and as it has served the interests of kings, politicians, and the powerful, as well as the nobility / land owning / investor / capitalist class, the source of meaning and value, the implicit goal of life, has gradually shifted from the personal: the health of well being of one's family, spending time around and taking care of friends and loved ones; to the public: being 'productive' to society, career, politics, 'making a difference'.</span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit; letter-spacing: 0.1px;"><br style="font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;" /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Tom Sawyer got other kids to do his work for him by pretending it was great fun. In a similar fashion, the successful attempt at developing citizens into workers via the glamorization of service was <i>so </i>successful that it became almost universally accepted that 'working' is 'meaningful'. While many women entered the </span></span><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">workforce</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> out of necessity as wealth became more concentrated (making it harder to keep up with the ever improving standard of living), the Tom Sawyer effect helped make it seem like an </span></span><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">inherent</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> thing of value to be employed, just for </span></span><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">its</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> own sake.</span></span><span style="font-family: inherit; letter-spacing: 0.1px;"><br style="font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;" /><br style="font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;" /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">In reality, of course, the only goal of life is to live, which, in the evolutionary sense includes future generations. </span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.1px;">Consider that if you ask any single individual about their own personal life, they are much more likely to rank their spouse, children, parents - family - above their job in terms of personal value and meaningfulness. Most people would rather spend a holiday or vacation with loved ones than volunteering unpaid hours to their employer. On one's deathbed, you are much more likely to hear someone lament not spending more time with their family during their life than lament not climbing higher in their career.<br /><span style="font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Raising a family is actually the </span><i style="font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">only </i><span style="font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">thing that matters, the only thing of value. The whole purpose of working is, and has always been, to be able to provide for that family. </span><br style="font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;" /><u><br />How the Meaning got Twisted</u><br /><br style="font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;" /></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Originally the value of strong families included significant benefits to an entire people. In early human tribes (early, meaning the vast majority of human existence), of a couple dozen people, the benefit is obvious, and with it, it is equally obvious that of the two, it is the female's role in society which is more important and valuable, both to the family, and to the entire society. But as the size of a society grows, the death rate decreases, political borders stabilize, and wars decrease in frequency, the benefit to everyone of any particular family decreases. </span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.1px;"><br style="font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;" /></span><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Because there is limited value to the public for someone to raise their own children, there stopped being as much public emphasis on it's value, until our collective consciousness did a complete flip, and everyone agreed that it was actually the <i>external </i></span></span><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">(the male's)</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> role that was important and meaningful. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.1px;"><br style="font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;" /></span><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">As such, women (and men) pushed hard, for a long time, for women to be allowed to take on the traditionally male role.
</span></span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Society advanced only in the direction it was pushed, so that now women wearing pants is so taken for granted in seems odd that it was ever an issue. There was never any corresponding push for men to be allowed into traditionally female roles, and so to this day - while men wearing skirts isn't illegal, per say - it simply isn't done, (not unless a particular </span></span><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;">individual</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures: none; letter-spacing: 0.1px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is making a deliberate social statement).
And so t</span></span></span>he other side of the equation has crawled along at a tiny fraction of the pace, women being freed from their expected gender role generations before men. <br />However, even that is finally changing. We still sometimes use gender to specify "male nurse" or "male nanny", because they are assumed to be female, but "flight attendant" has replaced "stewardess" and "stay-at-home dad" is now a phrase in reasonably common usage. That last of course is much more significant than career options, as it is due to biology that child rearing had always been the core of the female domain in every culture and every era. That same technology that frees mothers from being the primary care provider after birth allows fathers to step into that role.<br /><br />And in fact, while it never received even a tiny fraction of the attention that allowing women into male roles has had for the past hundred years, this change is actually increasingly occurring as well. Go to any playground, and you may very well find close to 50% of the parents (as opposed to nannies) in attendance to the children are fathers. <br /><br />This is a much bigger deal than many people seem to recognize. 50% of married couples are dual earner households, income is slowly but steadily increasing among women and decreasing among men, while it is increasingly normal for husbands to contribute to housework and childcare. The other side of the equation is quietly changing, catching up to the side which changed loudly and forcefully.<br /><br />It is the missing piece of the puzzle of breaking down gender roles and allowing for true freedom of choice, true egalitarianism.</div><div><br /><div><u>What it Means To Be a Man (or Woman, or Girl or Boy)<br /></u><br />Despite all of the many layers surrounding gender, the nature vs nurture, the biological and the social, the norms that developed out of necessity now obsolete from technological advances,<i> the definitions of the impersonal gendered nouns has always acutally been very straightforward, precise, and scientifically accurate. </i><br /></div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"></blockquote><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Man: Male human adult.</li><li>Woman: Female human adult.</li><li>Boy: Male human child.</li><li>Girl: Female human child.</li></ul><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"></blockquote><div><div>These are not terms describing "genders". They are terms describing biological sex.<br /><br />They always have been. Note, for example, that when a person has trouble remembering (or refuses to) use the term "they" for someone who self-identifies as "non-binary", that they will always default to the biological cues of the person's body. The default pronoun used by, for example, a child, or just someone not hip to the culture of someone who dresses androgynously always defaults to physical cues - face shape, voice, body shape. When you talk to a customer service agent on the phone, and later talk about them, you say "he" or "she" based on the pitch of their voice. Long prior to this particular era of social justice fundamentalism, you could see the same thing: no matter how effeminate a man, no matter how flamingly gay, everyone still called him by masculine pronouns. A leather-wearing motorcycle riding "butch" female was still a "woman". A bunch of drag queens could go by, and a conservative commenting on it would refer to them as a bunch of men in dresses. Not a bunch of women with penises. </div><div><br /> Up until very recently, <u>no one</u>, whether liberal or conservative, traditional or counterculture, straight or gay, or whatever miscellaneous other, <u>considered the terms man and woman to refer to whether a person was more masculine or feminine.</u> <br /><br />They have always been terms that identify a <i>body</i>, just like referring to someone as blond or brunette, as tall or short, fat or skinny.<br /><br />While its true that society <i>associated</i> all sorts of traits with the sexes (and therefor with the terms woman and man), and in fact largely <i>expected</i> that people would (or should) conform to their assigned role based on whether they happen to be born girl or boy, no one ever has used the terms themselves as anything other than a description of the physical body - our visual best guess as to whether an individual has ovaries or testicles.<br /> <br />When the physical cues are ambiguous - say, a fully dressed pre-pubescent child - we will turn to social gender cues like clothes and hair length, but if physical cues are present - beard, breasts, hip to shoulder ratio - those outweigh any socialized gender cues, and everyone's natural instinct is to use the terms that correspond to the simple definitions above.<br /><br />The term - in fact the very <i>concept -</i> of a "real" man wouldn't make any sense if the term "man" itself inherently implied stereotypical masculinity. The term "real" refers to conformity to the archetype. It implies it is possible to be <i>technically</i> a man - having a male body - without being "manly" enough. <br /><br />This universal meaning, which defines people not by their genders, but by biological sex:<br /><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Man: Male human adult.</li><li>Woman: Female human adult.</li><li>Boy: Male human child.</li><li>Girl: Female human child.</li></ul></div><div>also applies to pronouns:</div><div><br />She / her / hers - refer to a human with ovaries.<br />He / him / his - refer to a human with testes.<br /><br />They don't have anything to do with gender.<br />Or, at least, they never used to...</div><br /><u>Summary to Here<br /></u><br />Since this has been somewhat long, here's a summary of some of the key points so far:<br />- Science is real. Sex is a real thing.<br />- Unless you are a fungus, sex is a strict binary<br />- Gender is partially biological, and partially social, but it describes a set of statistical correlations among populations, not a quality of a particular individual. As such, neither biological nor social gender are binary<br />- Identity is by its very nature a social issue. It does not reflect something inherently true about a person internally, but rather what group of other people someone aligns themself with.<br />- Because of the reality of biological gender differences between the sexes and the importance of successfully creating new generations of humans for the survival of a society, all societies developed sex based roles.<br />- New technology has made those roles almost entirely unnecessary, and as a result, in most societies they are becoming more flexible. Generally the more access to those technologies a society has, the faster the change is occurring. </div><div>- The gendered impersonal nouns and pronouns have always referred to biological sex, female and male; (not to the genders, feminine and masculine).<br /><br /><u>The Great Irony</u></div><div><br /></div><div>For millennia societies worldwide imposed gender roles based on sex out of necessity.<br />For the past century or so, that universal cultural phenomenon was made unnecessary by technology.<br />It took half that time for females to be accepted into traditionally male roles, and as long again for males to be accepted into traditionally female roles.<br />It took about 200,000 years, but we are finally edging toward full egalitarianism, in which an individual's path in life is determined by personal preference rather than the body they happened to be born into.<br /><br /></div><div>In other words, for the first time in human history, terms like "woman" or "he" no longer are assumed to imply anything about an individual's "proper" role or their personality.<br /><br />And just as this has begun becoming normalized, a once fringe subculture has gained enough influence to become a part of mainstream culture which asserts that "man" "woman", "she" and "he" are actually terms that <i>do </i>refer to gender after all.<br /><br />If the gendered pronouns refer to biological sex, then <br /><br />1) people don't have any choice about them. You are born with whatever parts you are born with.<br />and<br />2) there is absolutely no reason to <i>care</i>, because (almost) everyone accepts that one's body doesn't define them as a person.<br /><br />Male and female aren't "identities". </div><div>Using the terms that way makes no more sense than if an individual claimed they "identified" as someone with multiple stomachs, or someone without a gall bladder. The body is what it is, and barring an accident or genetic mutation, humans have 10 fingers and toes, 2 lungs, 206 bones, and either ovaries or testicles.</div><div><br />If we all accept that a person isn't defined by their sex parts any more than they are defined by any other organs, then there isn't any reason to care what sex people think you are, in which case it doesn't matter what pronouns other people use for you. <br /><br /><u>Impersonal pronouns are just that; impersonal</u><br /><br />In fact, further showing just how <i>social</i><i> </i>the issue is (about what <i>you </i>assume <i>other </i>people <i>might </i>assume about you, as opposed to being about something intrinsic or internal), people don't use gendered pronouns when talking <i>to</i> someone anyway. Gendered pronouns are used only when talking to someone about a 3rd party. The person being referred to is not involved in the conversation. The pronouns that are relevant to ones' self are "you / your / yours". "You" is ungendered - because you know who exactly I am talking about if I say to you "you". The fact that so much emphasis is being paid to <i>third-person </i>pronouns reflects the cultural nature of it, rather than it being an internal, personal thing.<br /><br />The only reason to care about whether people see you as more femaleish or maleish or neither, is if you buy into the antiquated assumptions of what it "means" to be a 'man' or a 'woman'. It means accepting that what a 'man' or 'woman' is is something beyond the having of testicles or ovaries.</div><div><br /></div><div>Connected with this is another clue that this is a social phenomenon, as opposed to a deeply held internal feeling (that would presumably just be suppressed in a less open environment). Making a point to tell people what pronouns to use, just like making a point to publicly <i>identify </i>as "trans" or "non-binary", is something you do because you <i>want other people to know</i> you identify as something other than your external presentation. As with any form of lack of conformity that someone makes a point to draw attention to, it is as much a social or political statement as an identity.<br />Contrast that with transexual people prior to the last few years - to whatever degree possible (and if the transition happens young enough, it usually pretty possible) the most common thing to do was to just <i>become</i> the other sex, the one they felt they should have been, (or always really were). The hope was just to be accepted as what they had become - and that includes not being treated any differently than a cissexual person of that sex <br />(A friend pointed to the episode of Horace and Pete in which Horace's one-night-stand implies that she might possibly have been born male. Horace is quick to say the "correct" things about trans people having equal rights, but still really wants to know if she is or is not in fact trans. She never says one way or another, but points out that if he really believes what he's saying about equality, it shouldn't matter.) <br /><br /><u>The Exception</u><br /><br />There is one special circumstance in which third person pronouns won't necessarily always align with one's chosen physical sex, and that's in true trans<i>sexuals</i> - people who feel they were born into the wrong <i>physical </i>body, and actually want to make the changes (at least as much as is currently medically possible, surgeries and/or hormonal treatments), to make the <i>physical </i>body match as closely as they can what they feel they should always have been. In that case, their gendered nouns and pronouns would generally change along with their physical sex traits. <br /><br />Its true, and relevant, that this can be somewhat of a challenge for people who make the decision to transition to the complimentary sex late in life, when hormonal treatments may not alter enough physical traits to cue people instinctively as to what sex they mean to reflect. There is a benefit to the current social trend of "choosing" pronouns to people in that situations, which I don't mean to minimize, however that isn't the focus of this, it isn't the part of the movement that is regressive.</div><div><br />The actual number of people who want to make a total, physical, transition to the limits of what medical science can do has not changed significantly over time.<br /><br /><b><u>The Rest<br /></u><br /></b>Recall the earlier point that the terms woman, boy, (etc), and their accompanying pronouns have always referred to sex, not gender - to physical body types, not to masculine or feminine traits. In the modern world it is within the realm of possibility to hide one's sex (especially for children) without actually altering it. (And by "modern", I mean the last 10- to 100- thousand years - clothing dates back roughly 100,000 but its unclear when it became more or less universal and mandatory in most societies). As long as that is, its a lot less than the 1.5 million years our ancestors spent naked after evolving to not be covered in fur. We are so used to it we take it for granted - it "feels" natural, but of course it isn't. Without the artificial social creation and enforcement of wearing clothes, it would simply be obvious what sex each and every person was, just as much as it is what specie or height an individual is. It is only because of clothing that there is any need to look for <i>clues</i> to determine someone's sex. The idea of one's sex being a personal choice would be obvious non-sense in a world where sex parts weren't hidden away. The very concept of gender "presentation" is dependent on the artificial human invention and social requirement of hiding parts of the body away. Aside from the ability for medical technology to change it, the body simply is what it is - whether a person conforms to gendered social roles and expectations or not.<b><br /></b><br />While the number of people who want to make a physical transition has not changed significantly over time, the number of people who make a point to identify in some way as gender non-conforming <i>without </i>making any changes to their actual sex (nor having any desire to), has exploded.<br /><br />Incidentally, this should be a source of comfort to all the scared angry conservatives who are reacting to the pronoun and binary trends by restricting access to drugs that help a trans person transition: the vast majority of the new generation of people who are "identifying" as something other than their birth sex don't acutally want to physically alter their bodies.<br /><br /><u><b>The Problem</b></u><br /><br />And there's a big problem with anyone (who <i>doesn't</i> want to physically alter their body to match as closely as possible the complimentary sex) using any terms or pronouns which don't align with their physical sex..<br /><br />If you reject that basic definitions of:</div><div><blockquote>She / her / hers / woman / girl - refer to a human with ovaries.<br />He / him / his / man / boy - refer to a human with testes.</blockquote><br />Then <b>those things have to be defined by <i>something</i> else.</b><br /><br />If they don't in fact, (as is understood by everyone else, everywhere, always), reflect the physical body, the only way they can meaningfully mean anything is if they imply all the stuff we humans have been working for the past hundred years to <i>reject</i>!<br /><br />In other words, the only other option is</div><div><blockquote>Woman / girl / she / her / hers - refer to a feminine person.<br />Man / boy / he / him / his - refer to a masculine person.</blockquote>By rejecting the terms above as reflecting the <i>sex </i>binary, it leaves the only possibility being them reflecting <i>gender</i>. And since there are only two set of terms, it implies the very thing that the movement claims to reject (and which no one else had ever thought to begin with): that gender itself is binary.</div><div><br />Including "they" only serves to suggest that the binary may also have some neutral, "zero" point in-between, a "trinary" perhaps, or maybe that there is a linear scale that some people are in the middle of, however, as detailed above, feminine and masculine don't exist even on a linear scale, but rather a multi-directional spectrum of largely unrelated traits. <br /><br />If being a man doesn't mean having testicles, then all that's left for it to mean is being "manly", which validates the concept of "manliness". </div><div><br />In other words: <br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><u>|</u><br /><b>rejecting the terms as referring only to physical sex inherently validates gender stereotypes.</b></span><br /><br /><u>Worse Than Conservative</u><br /><br />The implication that the terms man and woman refer to genders (sets of traits), and that those genders are binary is why the movement is regressive; worse than conservative, it is actively moving our understanding and acceptance of the difference between sex and gender <i>backwards. </i> <br />It is blurring the two concepts when the rest of society - even conservative society - is more and more willing to separate them. By saying people can "choose" their pronouns we are saying those terms reflect gender, not sex, which in turn means that gender is actually binary (or at best, trinary) afterall. </div><div><br />You can no more choose what gonads you are born with than you can choose your skin tone, your birth nationality, or your specie.<br />However, no one should care, because those things are not what define someone as an individual.<br /><br /><u>Extreme Gone Mainstream</u><br /><br />It's gotten to an extreme where it's common to hear statements like "it's transphobic to say men can't get pregnant", or media specifically talking about the biology of reproduction using terms like "person with ovaries". Even in the medical field this idea of 'gender' being meaningful and sex being within a person's choice has taken hold - but cellular biology don't base your susceptibility to ovarian or testicular cancer on your preferred pronouns. <br /><br />It would be very convenient, in talking about the science of biology, if instead of using a clunky 3 word phrase (like "persons with ovaries") to refer to people whose contribution to creating a new life was an egg, there was just a single word that meant "person with ovaries". <br />Of course, there is. It's "female". <br />If we are talking about a person who is sexually mature, it's "woman". <br /><br />Redefining the terms woman and man to refer to 'genders' instead of sexes, and then using complicated descriptions such as 'person with a uterus' or 'registered male at birth' (in England they use the term 'registered', which at least doesn't imply that the doctor made their own personal 'assignment' of a newborn's sex), doesn't really accomplish anything. Just like changing the term for imbecile to retarded to developmentally delayed, the meaning in always the same, and no matter what the pc term is of the day, everyone knows what the actually meaning is. <br /><br /> On a document as official as a birth certificate - a document who's whole purpose is to establish that a baby was born, and to keep track of which individual people contributed the egg and sperm that created that baby - information that can be relevant for medical histories, not to mention genealogy - the terms "mother" and "father" have been eliminated.<br /><br />In "social justice" based preschools, children as young as 2 are actively encouraged to "choose" their pronouns, with absolutely zero instruction on the physical sexes. Then that (completely uninformed) "choice" is to be respected, so that a child can be designated as "trans" from then on based on something as meaningless as a literal mistake.<br /><br />There's a certain irony here, because for decades we have said that the conservative notion of "teaching kids to be queer" was ridiculous; now some people are literally doing exactly that.<br />There's nothing wrong with being queer, if that's what you actually are. But think back to the preschoolers from the beginning. If you teach a child to conflate sex with gender and that that "gender" is a choice, they can memorize and repeat back the script. But the kids who actually don't fit gender stereotypes, but who are never taught that they should in the first place, feel no need to reject their physical sex, or the labels that go along with it. <br />The only things we should be teaching kids is the biology of reproduction - because science is real, whether we like it or not - and that it is ok to like and dress and play whatever they feel like no matter what anyone else might tell them. We shouldn't be using children to make political statements.<br /><br /><br /><u>The Alternative<br /></u><br />The alternative lies in the stories from preschool from the beginning. <br /><br />What we <i>should </i>be doing is pushing the trend that had already started long before this new movement: <br />Realize, accept, and promote that the concepts of "gender" refer only to statistical demographic trends, and have no meaning applied to individuals. Accept that, even if on average "most" boys and girls, men and women, have some traits more in common with other individuals who share their sex, not all do, and that's ok. Just like not all African people or all people who speak French or all short people have the same personalities or preferences - even if there are identifiable trends - not all people of one sex will have anything (other than their gonads) in common. And that's ok.<br /><br />The problem was never that people can't choose their own bodies. The problem was having one's available life roles defined by it. The problem was forced conformity.<br /><br />The real solution is making it ok for women to join the army and men to raise babies. <br />Accept "tomboys" and "metrosexuals" as part of the diversity of humanity, without making the "tomboys" feel like they need to pretend to be actual boys and the "metrosexuals" have to identify as acutally being women.<br /><br />Its ok for girls to wear pants and boys to wear skirts. <br />Its ok if a little boy wants to paint his nails and prefers putting on nice shoes to playing with trains. <br /><br />There is absolutely no reason a child can't be unambiguously a "boy" - because he has testicles - and still want to play dress up or family or princess (or prince).<br />That doesn't make him a "her" or mean that he is "trans". He's a boy who likes pretty shoes. <br /><br />A girl doesn't need to choose what pronouns other people use for her when talking in the third person to have all life paths open to her, to be able to be who and what and how and why she wants. </div><div> <br />There is nothing limiting about accepting the sex one was born with - and having other people be aware of your physical sex and publicly acknowledge it, other than the biological limitations of being able to get pregnant, versus the ability to impregnate others.<br /><br />But by creating this false narrative we are actually implying there is something limiting about sex. We should be able to acknowledge the reality of biological sex independent of our desire to not pigeonhole individuals into social roles. In fact we can, we could, and we used to; but we're slipping backward - and the next generation is going to eventually experience the consequences and have to start differentiating all over again, work to make the same progress that had already been made before the neotrans movement began. <br /><br /><u>A Preview of Where the Trend Leads</u></div><div><u><br /></u></div><div>Thailand. </div><div><br />In popular western culture, Thailand appears to be a paradise for LGBT(etc) people, because the so-called "kathoey" (roughly translated as "ladyboy"), are very visible, and based on that visibility, assumed to be accepted culturally. The reality for people who live there is very different; the whole reason kathoeys are so visible is because the entertainment (and sex worker) industries - both largely serving tourists - are for the most part the only professions open to them. </div><div> <br />Although it has been legal to preform sex-change operations ever since the technology has been available, the people who undergo it have <a href="https://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Thailand/sub5_8d/entry-3248.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">never </a>been <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/93wm88/thailand-lgbtq-queer-discrimination-experience-rights-law-implementation" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">socially accepted</a>. Westerners also assume that the apparent prevalence of kathoey - who we assume to be mostly trans people - implies a freedom to transition which is the only thing preventing more people in every other culture from doing so. <br />In actuality, only a minority of kathoey actually undergo the physical transformation (despite it being the most popular destination in the world for foreigners to go for it, due to its relatively low cost and high quality and success rates). <a href="https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/special-reports/584465/trapped-beneath-the-transgender-glass-ceiling" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Among those that do</a>, however, even after the operations and hormones, it is not an option to change the sex listed on one's government ID card (never mind a birth certificate). </div><div> </div><div>Thailand has very <a href="https://www.christinebedenis.co/2013/11/15/gender-roles-identity-thailand/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">strict </a><a href="https://gendersocietyinthailand.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/divorce/#:~:text=Traditional%20Thai%20women%20are%20expected,possess%20physical%20and%20emotional%20strength." rel="nofollow" target="_blank">gender roles</a>, and in nearly all legal and professional jobs it is an expectation, if not a requirement, to dress as the gender that matches one's birth sex. If you were born with testicles, even if you have had them removed, your workplace will mandate you wear pants and conversely, (assuming you could get the job in the first place), if you were born with ovaries, you <i>must </i>wear a skirt.</div><div><br />Why, if there is so little<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identities_in_Thailand" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> social acceptance</a> and so much <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Thailand" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">discrimination</a>, are there so many kathoey in Thailand? And why, when the physical transformation is legal, cheap, and medically high quality, don't most of them make the change? The reasons have a lot to do with a history of the same cultural blending of sex, gender, and sexuality that we are beginning to embrace here today. </div><div><br /></div><div>While in recent years Thai culture has started adopting a few words and concepts from the west, traditionally there was no concept of "gay" in Thailand. For a male, kathoey covered the entire range of LGBTQQIP2SA possibilities. In other words, there was simply no distinction between what we would call a "gay man" and a "transwoman". <i>The mere fact of being gay inherently designated someone as trans. </i><br />(Although "gay" in this context might only refer to being a "receptive" partner in sex - an otherwise hetero-man (a "king") might engage in sex with a kathoey the same way he would a female prostitute, without calling his masculinity into question - especially if that was the only form of sex immediately available.)</div><div><br />In a culture with strict enough gender roles, simply being "effeminate", or preferring or enjoying any aspects of culture traditionally assigned to females - being emotionally or physically sensitive, wearing make up or caring too much about your appearance, liking certain colors or clothes or hairstyles - can be enough to call a man's sexuality into question, but in Thailand, where there is only one word to capture the whole range of possible gender expressions and sexualities, that can be enough to designate someone as not even really "male" at all (although, as noted above, only culturally - legally in Thailand even if a person really is transexual, they are still male). </div><div><br />It shouldn't be surprising, then, that the rate of kathoey is roughly 8 times as high as the rate of trans women everywhere else - it falls exactly in line with the rate of gay men everywhere else. It turns out it isn't that more people who inside truly feel they are female are free to be themselves there, but rather that everyone who doesn't fit the strict social role of what it is to be a man is forced into the feminine role.</div><div><br />For a woman, traditionally the concept of being anything other than cis/hetero didn't even fully exist at all. The word used today is "tom" or ("thom") which comes directly from the English "tomboy". And again, it refers to both any female who prefers to take on any traditionally masculine roles or presentations (for example, wearing pants), or to lesbianism (esp. if she is the dominate one in a relationship or sexual encounter). The counter-part "dee" (a feminine female who has sex with toms), when it is acknowledged to exist at all, much like a "king", is generally assumed to be a temporary confusion. </div><div><br /></div><div>Picture one way this assumption plays out: A young boy likes playing with dolls and wearing his mom's clothes, isn't into sports, and just generally doesn't fit gender stereotypes. He is, however, entirely comfortable with his body and has no desire to be a woman, and, once he reaches puberty, his sexual desire is exclusively toward females. In a culture with strict gender roles, and with no separate concepts of "gay" and "trans", this boy is labeled - and treated as - essentially both gay <i>and </i>trans since the time he is very young; young enough that he is told he will be sexually interested in boys before he is sexually interested in anyone. Being labeled as anything by society - and especially during childhood - has an effect on one's self-image, and its nearly impossible to avoid internalizing it at least a little bit if it is strong enough and consistent enough. So his innate tendency to be drawn toward more feminine presentation is reinforced by there not being any in-between option (no "metrosexuals", no "cross-dressers" or "drag queens"), and he goes all in on presenting as a woman. Of course, now his only real job prospects are as a dancer or a sex-worker (incidentally, a majority of male sex-workers in Thailand actually identify as heterosexual, with many partaking of female sex workers' services themselves, and some even being married to women - the pay is just better than what is otherwise available to many), so now his best options are to either start having sex with men (for money), or, to have the best chance of acceptance as a woman, (and the best pay as a dancer) and go (almost) all in and get hormone treatment as well.<br />The numbers go up by one, and in the West that's seen as the cultures acceptance of diversity, rather than the pigeon-holing it really is. <br /><br /></div><div><u>Our Turn</u></div><div><br /></div><div>As we in the West intentionally blur the meaning and the lines between the biological reality of sex and the idea of gender, we move toward the Thai model.<br /><br />When we tell children they are free to choose their "pronouns", we are teaching them that pronouns don't reflect the reality of their physical body, but something abstract, some feeling, which is what "really" defines someone as a girl or boy. This "choice" we give them is inevitably uninformed, since this is rarely if ever coupled with an in-depth education on sex and reproduction, never mind the complex interplay of biology and culture that makes up the various things we lump under the umbrella of "gender". </div><div>When we expect everyone else to respect that choice, we then reinforce whatever that child (possibly arbitrarily) "choose", and whatever mild tendencies toward less than strict gender-role conformity they may have had just to being a unique individual are transformed into a self-identification of trans or "non-binary". Of course, as discussed above, no one is "binary" in terms of gender, but as an "identity", it becomes something of great personal significance once it is internalized, it becomes not just a fact (one that's true of every single human), but an "identity", a defining aspect of what differentiates one individual along the dividing lines their culture deems significant. As with the Thai model of gender, this is limiting, not liberating.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><u>Why Now?</u><br /><br />This new view of gender - of defining "man" and "woman" not as sexes, but as "genders", and claiming that people should be able to "choose" which they are, has gained mainstream acceptance alongside the rise of Social Justice Fundamentalism in general. I personally always found it confusing that such a socially regressive movement would find it's home among the most outspoken progressives of the day, but I think I might possibly have figured out at least one small part of what primed society to accept this view.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is young people, by a large margin, who accept this new outlook. The rate of "non-binary", "trans" and other non-gender-conforming people (who do <i>not</i>, and have no desire to, use hormones or surgery to modify their physical body to match the other sex than the one they were born) is several times higher among late millennials as any age group before them, and several times higher again among "Generation Z". (Of course, the term "young" is relative; gen Zers are old enough to have significant influence on society, hence their generations redefinition rapidly becoming accepted as a mainstream view). When sex and gender were two distinct things, only about 0.1% of the population (1/10th of 1%) were transsexual. Today about 5% of all Gen Z self-identifies as something other than their biological sex at birth - an increase of 5000%. Of that, however, those that actually make use of medical technology to change their sex is a minority, around 0.2% - twice as much as the baseline, but still dramatically less than those who are comfortable with their body but reject the social label that corresponds to it - what they are really rejecting is not the sex they were born with, but some other quality they assume goes along with it.<br /><br /><b><u>My (Partial) Theory (or, at least, maybe a factor)</u></b><br /><br />Note, up until here I've been mostly saying things backed up by science and other research. What comes next is purely speculation on my part. There is no more evidence of my theory than that it makes sense, and the dates work.</div><div><br /></div><div>Its certainly nothing new that in Western cultures (probably most non-western ones too, here is just what I know best) femininity is associated with weakness, female sexuality with victimhood. Its been seen this way by society for thousands of years, and has never fully stopped. In fact, I've written at length about some of its various insidious, almost invisible forms a number of times on this blog. But for nearly 100 years, and especially the last 50, there has been a large component of feminism which has been more interested <br />in empowerment, in acknowledging and celebrating women's own desires and potential for pleasure in sex rather than just protecting women from what was assumed to be an aggressive and dangerous male sexuality;<br />in allowing women the choice to work, be a parent, or both, rather than just lamenting the burdens that inevitably go along with all of the options; <br />in making sure every individual had the opportunity to do what she truly wanted and wasn't discriminated against if she choose something non-gender-traditional, rather than trying to force every industry and realm of society to have equal representation even when the reason for a disparity is lack of interest in the part of most women; <br />in acknowledging that all humans are sexual, and that being sexual in no way detracts from one's humanity or ability to be taken seriously, rather than simply insisting that society desexualize women;<br />in encouraging women to embrace their own sexuality, as well as their power, by speaking up to their partners about what they want, rather than just demanding that those partners assume that any ambiguity or submissiveness be interpreted as lack of consent.<br />In other words, a new brand of feminism which, while recognizing that sexism exists in society, did not assume some <i>inherent </i>victim hood invoked by either femaleness or femininity which society was responsible for counter-acting; one which didn't assume that females needed to be protected from sexuality.<br />While this form of feminism was never the only one, it was fairly dominate, especially among liberal / progressive / left leaning types, for decades. Then some time around the late 2000s and early 2010s it's opposite extreme counter-part - the one which has often dominated conservative feeling on sexuality, started making a comeback. At first it was fairly fringe, although with the advent of the internet, fringe ideas had a chance to spread rapidly, with ideas like "due to the power imbalances in our society, meaningful consent is not possible in heterosexual intercourse" (or, in other words, 'all penis in vagina sex is rape') passing as feminism in some social justice circles.<br />Then in 2017, the abuses of power of Harvey Weinstein became public, and #MeToo (which actually predated 2017) became a major movement. The original purpose of it - to expose ways in which people in positions of power were able to get away with abuse - was an important and necessary step forward, but it very quickly expanded, and allowed the people who felt that sexuality itself inherently victimized females a platform to (re)spread that anti-feminist axiom. So, you had various celebrities attacked for having weird fetishes (Louie CK) or being bad at sex (Aziz Ansari), even when there was no power factor and the "victims" acknowledged that they had in fact been asked for, and given, consent. Soon public service billboards on transit were proclaiming that the very act of looking at a female (while, presumably thinking sexual thoughts) is a form of harassment, if not assault. We were back to the idea that sexuality is something women must be shielded and protected from. <br /><br />In this view, male sexuality is inherently aggressive, dominating, and predatory. Sex is something males do <i>to</i> females, something that males seek out at the expense of females, and which females want to avoid. Under perfect conditions - a woman who is old enough, already sexually experienced, has not taken any sort of alcohol or other intoxicant (even voluntarily), has no professional relationship with the partner, is, by the standards of society, competent enough, and, most importantly, has no ambiguous or conflicted feelings about it (including after the fact) she may be allowed to have sex that isn't rape, but the priority became to define consent as narrowly as possible and invalidate it even when given if any reason could be found to do so. In this worldview, while its possible for a female to have sex in circumstances that don't make her a victim, victimhood is still the default. This view is certainly not new to history, but this was the first time in modern history where it became quite so mainstream.<br /><br />To those who were adults, who had had romantic and sexual relationships for years or decades prior, we could see it as a moment in history, a social reckoning with much merit and value but which occasionally went to far and sucked people up like a witch hunt. But to someone growing up, just learning about the world, about love and sexuality, about how babies are made and gender roles, and most especially about how they themselves fit into everything around them, there is no outside context. #MeToo, with everything it implies about both male and female sexuality IS the context, around which everything else becomes framed.<br />Perhaps this is just coincidence, but Gen Z, the ones who have largely embraced the idea that you can choose not to be a man or a women, were in the age range of about 5 to 18 in 2017. The sexual victimization of women by men was the primary focus of society - on social media, in the news, in everyone's conversations, during the most formative years of their lives.<br /><br />And if those are the options presented to you for sexuality - to be either predator or prey - it is no wonder that a significant minority would decide to opt out.<br /><br />When they rejected that model, rather than being shown that, despite all the media attention, despite all the individual anecdotes adding up to a prevalence far beyond what many people may have expected, this was still the minority, that there are actually lots of healthy consensual relationships among heterosexual people, those people who were still confusing gender and sex were ready to step in and offer an easier answer: rather than the difficult and complex process of becoming a strong and independent women whose role in life isn't defined by her ovaries, just deny that you have them. Rather than rejecting social assumptions by being a man who is sexually attracted to women while still respecting them as people, a easier, safer bet is just to deny being a man in the first place.</div><div><br /><u>Whats Next?</u><br /><br />One upside is that in order to accommodate all the new "genders", some of the remaining social structures which were still using the old "separate spheres" model are becoming ungendered - 100 years after females won the right to wear pants, its finally, just barely beginning, to be normalized for boys to wear skirts. Children are less heavily gendered, and that shows, even when they accept their own birth sex. Restrooms - places for urinating and pooping, which everyone do, are beginning to be less segregated. <br />There was never any good reason for them to be separate in the first place. <br />It is disturbing, though, that nearly every gender-neutral restroom needs to have the urinals and female hygiene products removed. The whole point isn't supposed to be that we can pretend that penises and vaginas don't exist; its supposed to be that it doesn't matter. The idea that it would be harmful for a female or trans person to see a man urinating from the back, implying he had a penis, could be in anyway harmful is another manifestation of the idea that sexuality is intrinsically negative to female people. Just like the "crimes" of flashing and peeping, it assumes that wearing clothing is a default state of being human and not a social invention designed to control sexuality. A public urinal is just practical. It uses less water. It keeps stalls free and prevents men from accidentally peeing on seats. Its faster to use and takes up less space than a stall. Its better for everyone, but we still have this mindset of needing to "protect" people without penises from the existence of penises. While they may say "all-genders", it apparently means "lets pretend there are no sexes".</div><div> While the de-segregation of restrooms is a step in the right direction overall, the manifestation of it shows how far we still have to go. </div><div><br />The adoption of "they" is similar - while its sometimes slightly clearer to understand who someone is talking about with a gendered pronoun, it is a reasonable argument that that slight convenience isn't worth the degree of significance of sex it implies. We don't use different pronouns for people based on their race or income or religion. And, unless you plan to have sex with a particular individual, there isn't much reason their sex should matter one way or another. What advantage is there to having gendered names and hairstyles? A gender neutral pronoun could imply that the sex of a person doesn't really matter, its not really relevant to whatever topic is at hand. It would be a positive direction for our culture to take to change the language.<br />However, saying there is no reason to specify sex whenever talking about someone is very different than having individuals <i>choose</i> their own pronouns. If the goal is egalitarianism, what we should be doing is using gender neutral pronouns for <i>everyone</i>, all the time. Regardless of what sex or gender they identify as or prefer. Making it a choice doesn't mean it ceases to matter, it makes it even more of a focus. <br /><br />In the long run we are going to find that changing the language and denying biology isn't going to change anything meaningful in the dynamics of sex and love and relationships and discrimination and power, any more than changing the words we use for people with mental disabilities every generation makes those people any more capable of functioning in society. What it might do is actually set us back on the road to egalitarianism we had been on the past 100 years.<br />Hopefully not. Personally, I don't feel especially optimistic. Maybe it will just depend on how long the trend lasts, or on how pervasive it gets. Maybe it will end up being neutral. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.</div><div><br /><u style="font-weight: bold;">Apology</u><br /><br />I know the topic is hot right now, very politicized, very tied into social justice.<br />I have no doubt this would generate all kind of hate - but, lucky for me, no one reads this blog anymore, so I'm off the hook there...<br />I know also it is deeply personal for a great many people. I know my take would probably be pretty unpopular - probably with people on both sides, but more importantly I think it could be interpreted as offensive or be hurtful to individuals who personally feel they are transgender (or non-binary or misc other) not who aren't (and don't which to be) transsexual.<br />My hope is that its been clear in this that I don't think negatively of the individuals themselves. I find it entirely understandable - given the social framework we are in. I don't think there is anything wrong with a person rejecting gender roles; the problem I have is with a culture that makes people feel like the only way to truly reject gender roles is to reject the reality of their own biology as well. I believe that if we had a truly egalitarian society there would be no need, no desire, for anyone to choose pronouns or identify as non-binary or any of the rest other than that less than 1% of people who actually feel they have the wrong sex parts. I think the culture is largely inadvertently creating the discomfort its trying to alleviate, and that's what inspired me to write.<br /><br /><br /><br /></div></div>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-90240833510315574602022-06-28T14:16:00.006-07:002022-06-30T08:32:52.062-07:00The wrong question (or: why the abortion debate may never end)<p> I've covered this a couple times before, but it was many years ago, and now is a primetime for a reminder.</p><p>The debate over abortion is one of those things to which the correct answer seems mind-bogglingly obvious to everyone - regardless of what their opinion actually is - as well as seeming utterly horrifying that anyone would have a different opinion.<br /><br /></p><p>Every time that happens, it's worth taking a step back and searching for the tribalism factor, because its likely there somewhere. In this case it manifests in one of its more common forms: assuming the motivations, (the "real" motivations), of the other side are something other than what they state, something nefarious, something sneaky. The assumption is that any reasoning the other side - the bad guys - give is really just an excuse for what amounts to essentially evil for the sake of evil.<br /><br />When 130 million people disagree with what you think is obviously correct, its worth remembering that nearly everyone considers themselves to be the good guy, everyone imagines themselves to be the hero of their own story. There are, granted, a fair number of sociopaths in the world - estimates order as much as 1-4% - but that isn't nearly enough to account for the number of people who hold strongly held and opposite views.<br /><br />The reality is, anti-abortionists are not against abortion as a way to oppress women. That view doesn't even make any sense. "The patriarchy" doesn't actually benefit in any way from people having unwanted children, and the whole point of oppression is to derive some form of selfish benefit at someone else's expense. In fact, nearly half of all anti-abortionists (47%) ARE women - some 60 million of them, give or take.</p><p>To be clear: abortion should absolutely be legal. The debate over <i>exactly </i>when it should stop being legal is a perfectly reasonable debate, with not only no clear cut right answer, but probably no possible right answer, but everything we know about the human brain says that what makes someone sentient and conscious and a "person" is all a manifestation of the materials and patterns in the physical brain, and everything we know about the development process of an embryo says without question that a zygote and a blastocyst don't have one, and an embryo still doesn't in any meaningful sense of the word. Not until at an absolute minimum of 20 weeks from conception is there enough of a brain and enough brain activity for it to be even remotely possible that it has any meaningful consciousness.</p><p>That said, if the goal is to create a society where believing abortion should be illegal is a rare view, it is worth trying to <i>understand</i> the millions of people who hold it, rather than just demonizing them. In that light, it is absolutely vital to point out that it is the anti-abortionists, and <i>not</i> the pro-choice movement, that are actually making any relevant points. </p><p>Not <i>correct </i>points, mind you - they get the answers to the question completely wrong - but they are at least addressing the correct question. The pro-choice people rarely even address the only relevant issue.<br />That is true all the way down to the word "pro-choice" itself. Nobody on the religious right is suggesting that doctors or politicians or male partners or anybody else should have the right to make the choice to force a woman to have an abortion. It isn't about whether the pregnant woman chooses instead of anyone else. Nor is the liberal left suggesting that we live in a society of anarchy, where anyone can choose to do anything they want without consequence. The concept of "choice" is a strawman.</p><p>At the core of the debate is just one basic question:<br />At what point does a developing fetus become "human".<br />There are only two moments where one can draw a hard and exact line: conception and birth.<br /><br />Almost everyone agrees that having an abortion during labor is not morally acceptable (with possible exception for saving the life of the mother).<br />That fact alone undermines nearly all of the arguments pro-choice people make, and underscores the relevance of the arguments pro-lifers make.<br />We feel intuitively that murdering a pregnant woman is worse than murdering someone who isn't pregnant. Would be parents mourn late miscarriages. By 12 weeks the image on an ultrasound <i>looks</i> like a baby, and the common language people use - 'how is the baby doing?' - reflects that.</p><p><br />But the fact that we all agree birth isn't the defining moment does not tell us when that moment is.<br /><br />According to anti-abortionists, that critical moment is conception.<br />As stated above, there is absolutely no scientific validity to this view.<br /><br />What that leaves is a messy, impossible-to-define-precisely somewhere-in-between moment - which is in fact where the opinion of a majority of Americans as well as a majority of state laws put it.<br /><br />But in order to fight the extreme view that a blastocyst is "human" at the instant a sperm joins an egg, we need arguments that are actually relevant to the beliefs anti-abortionists have, and in order to do that we need to not just demonize them, but actually <i>understand</i> them.<br /><br />This is not at all hard to do, if we are honest with ourselves.<br /><br />Just imagine that you believed that humans have a "soul", that individuality and perception and personhood resides not in the brain, but in this "soul", and that it is injected directly into the ball of cells that will eventually become you by God himself (or herself, or fate, or whatever) at the moment the process of creating you gets started.<br /><br />As crazy as this idea is, it is still incredibly common. There are few if any religions that don't hold consciousness as something other than a manifestation of a physical brain. To believe in any form of afterlife, be it heaven or hell, nirvana, rebirth, reincarnation, requires that there be something that makes up us other than our physical body and the patterns in our brains. Any form of "we are all connected", any spirituality, requires there to be more to existence than just the tangible physical that we can observe and measure. Depending on the study, anywhere in the range of 60% to 97% of all Americans believe something somewhere along the lines of a God, or an 'essence' or whatever. As obsolete as this view is, it's common, and if there are gods, or spirits, or if everything is connected by some cosmic energy - if there is anything beyond the physical world we can quantify, it is no more of a stretch to say that conscious life is something other than an arrangement of atoms in a brain, and if so, there's no rational argument that can be made that the soul <i>isn't</i> injected as soon as one's chromosomes are settled on and cells start dividing and differentiating. <br /><br />So, lets give them the benefit of the doubt, and consider how our own arguments sound if we assume that "fetus" and "person" really are interchangeable. </p><p><br />Nobody really thinks that a conjoined twin should have the moral and legal right to non-consensually surgically remove their other twin if it means certain death for the one removed, if both of them are fully conscious individuals with their own independent, fully functioning brains.<br />Which means we don't actually think being physically connected to one's body is the deciding factor.<br /><br />In fact, we don't even need such an extreme (yet entirely realistic, albeit rare) example - we consider parents to be legally and morally responsible for the wellbeing of their children. While they may not be physically attached to us, they are dependant on us taking certain proactive steps to keep them from dying. We have to use our bodies in such a way as to ensure they are fed and temperature regulated and safe. An expectation that everyone has full bodily autonomy would mean that a parent could spend stick their newborn infant in a closet and spend their time doing whatever they felt like. We are obligated to do specific actions, with body parts like arms and legs, and that means we don't actually have complete control over what we do mean we don't have complete choice over what we do with our bodies. More specifically, there is an expectation of doing a specific and intimate thing with the body - breast feeding. Infant formula has been around 150 years. Humans have been around without it for roughly 199,850 years, about 99.93% of our existence. The current baby formula shortage underscores that formula is an artificial and recent creation of a technologically advanced and wealthy society, and in leu of it the only option, since human beings are mammals, is that our offspring drink their mother's milk. </p><p><br />Even if one wants to relinquish parental rights, at a minimum there is still a moral and legal obligation to take proactive steps to ensure the child ends up somewhere safe with another adult who will take responsibility for them. One may have amnesty from prosecution if they leave their baby at a hospital or with social services. Leave a baby by the side of the road, and you'll end up in jail.</p><p>The expectation that a person take steps to endure the health and well being of their baby isn't negated if that baby was unintended, even if it was the product of rape or incest. How it was created is not the fault of the child. </p><p><br />In more ordinary circumstances, it would not be all that outrageous for someone to say something along the lines of "if you didn't want to have to change dirty diapers, you probably shouldn't have had a kid".<br /><br />Because we understand that an embryo and a baby are quantitatively different things - one is conscious, one is not - that argument sounds totally different than one that says "if you didn't want to have a baby, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant". But if you think that what makes a person who they are is not their brain, but some sort of mystical "soul", and that God implants the soul upon the beginning of the process of development, those two points are <i>exactly the same</i>.<br /><br />-</p><p>Consider what it would look like if the motivations we ascribe to anti-abortionists were actually true.<br />If the purpose were really males trying to exert power over females, why wouldn't we just go all the way, and make it law that all women must submit to all demands made by any male, sexual or otherwise, at all times and in all circumstances? Why not just legalize not just spousal rape, but all rape, make sex a free-for-all, take what you can get without consequence? The reason this isn't a proposal, here, or anywhere, now, or ever, is because there is not and never has been a society whose primary objective was to oppress all females for its own sake. Strategies for dealing with the reality of biology and reproduction vary widely, but in every society females are at least half the population, and are a part of deciding the rules that everyone lives by. The goal is always a stable, successful society that continues to exist generation to generation (and I'll get more into detail on that in a future post...)</p><p>If the purpose was to punish people for having sex, the focus wouldn't be on abortion, it would be on banning all forms of birth control and overturning Lawrence v Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut, (re)outlawing adultery and fornication. There would be a push to raise the age of consent to 21, making all porn illegal, and perhaps a call for head-to-toe clothing at all times in public. While the religious right has never been a fan of recreational sexuality, none of these things have anywhere remotely near the movement behind them as the anti-abortion one does.<br /><br />If the purpose was to encourage or force fertility, so that humans (or perhaps a particular race?) can "populate the earth", and "go forth and multiply", their would be a campaign to make it a crime to <i>not</i> have children continuously. There could be tax penalties for not having a child, starting at 19, and increasing in every year a couple doesn't have either a baby 2 years old or less, or a pregnant female partner. Abstinence would be a crime. <br /><br />The fact that no one holds a funeral every month for the egg and the millions of sperm that <i>didn't</i> become a blastocyst shows that the issue isn't the loss of a <i> potential</i> human.<br /></p><p>The reason all of the above ideas are ridiculous yet there are still nearly 150 million anti-abortionists is because they aren't lamenting the loss of a "potential" human. In their minds, they are lamenting the loss of an <i>actual </i>human.<br /><br />To them, arguments about choice, or about women's freedom or bodies, all ring totally hollow, because talking about the freedom to end a "life" is no different than claiming a mother should have the freedom to neglect their newborn until it dies. Similarly, no one would suggest that a woman should have the choice to leave an infant in a closet to starve even if it is the product of rape or incest.</p><p>If we make the assumption that a fetus is a human, none of the arguments made by the pro-choice movement sound the least bit reasonable. <br />If, on the other hand, we make the assumption that a fetus is unquestionably <i>not</i> a human, than the same arguments are simply unnecessary. Either way, they aren't relevant.<br /><br />So if the anti-abortionists are the ones asking the right question, but they are getting the answer wrong, how do we help society get the answer right?<br /><br />Well, to start with, we should be actually listening to them. Instead of just shouting them down and drowning them out with slogans and catch phrases of our own, assuming that everything they claim to believe is a lie and a trick, actually listen to what they are saying and try to understand it. If we don't start off with the mindset that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys, it really isn't at all hard to understand and even sympathize with. And then, instead of repeating all the specific reasons it is practical and ideal for individuals to be able to get safe abortions, just address the points they make.<br />Shift the focus away from "freedom" and "choice" and "oppression" - topics American's are obsessed with but which aren't at all convincing when used to justify harmful outcomes (no more than when the same arguments are made by the right regarding gun control); and bring the focus onto the science. God, if there is one, created humans with brains. Whether it was God or evolution or aliens or the programmers of our simulation, whatever designed us, it was with a physical brain with billions of neurons and trillions of connections with incredibly complex patterns, with chemical and electrical energy flowing through it in their own complex patterns. <br />This has been shown very conclusively and consistently, from the case of Phineas P. Gage to the examples of Oliver Sacks, and nearly 100 years of increasingly sophisticated brain surgery, from lobotomy to deep brain stimulation and focused ultrasound. <br />Change the brain, change the person. <br />No brain, no person.</p><p>Maybe we should stop allowing people to teach impressionable young children ridiculous ancient mythologies as though they were factual histories, and relegate religion to where it belongs, a subject of anthropological study. At least, start calling them out on the ridiculousness, the absurdity, of believing in "the Bible" in 2022. Point out the emperor has no clothes, it gets harder for everyone else to keep ignoring it, and all the people who secretly held the same opinion can start admitting it. Once we're done with Noah's flood and Sodom and Gomorrah and pillars of salt and rising from the dead and ascending to heaven, then we can all settle down to the hard science question of when exactly does the brain make the transition from random noise to conscious thought, and perhaps endlessly debate the subtleties of <i>that</i> question, but with far less at stake. <br /><br /></p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-61358524177945292892021-11-09T11:12:00.014-08:002021-11-13T18:13:30.796-08:00Public Service Message: Your healthy toddler / preschooler / grade schooler is at almost zero risk from covid<p> COVID 19 is real.<br />It has killed a lot of people.<br />It has made a lot of people sick.<br />Vaccines are good. <br />I am vaccinated. <br /><br />In the world wide panic over this new pandemic, however, we, collectively, seem to have conflated several facts which, independently are all accurate.<br /><br />- COVID spreads faster than most deadly diseases.<br />- COVID has a high rate of hospitalizations <i>in certain high risk groups, </i>specifically the elderly, and those with known, serious health issues, such as heart disease, cancer, or diabetes.<br />- Middle aged people with no known health condition, occasionally get very sick, and in rare instances even die from COVID<br />- Young people sometimes catch covid.<br /><br />From these facts has come the belief that children are at high risk due to the COVID epidemic.<br /><br />It is easy to see, if one gets information from the news or any other media source, how this mistake would be easy to make - those rare exceptions get a lot of attention. Even if you go straight to the original data sources, it can be difficult to get to the truth, because almost no one publishes data on age, preexisting health issues, and severity of outcome, <i>independently.</i><br /><br />I came across a way to conceptualize the risk by age in a way that makes sense, intuitively: <br />Just think about the risk of dying of heart disease.<br /><br />Like covid, heart disease kills people of all ages, and like covid, its prevalence gets exponentially larger as the age of the person increases. Kids sometimes have heart disease, but it is really rare. Middle aged people do on occasion, and the elderly die of it quite often.<br />As it turns out, the relative rates of death by covid and heart disease are actually reasonably close all throughout the curve.</p><p><br />Here are some actual hard numbers, comparing the risk for a healthy person of each age group of dying of covid, and comparing it to the rate of overall death due to heart disease as well as the death rate due to car crashes.<br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTR9mSuw7wP6JPLa_H06nJ9RnJKgJXk_7bF-Z0gn_zJRNSnARwkzDP1XRoZMlVI1KO1mvmhjtAUAN7uHTLYHldhGP2jZA_Ip727qf5XgJyXE5Cxs05UO5Vc2V5RJQEG5ogk05lRAX1Na1i/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="376" data-original-width="750" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTR9mSuw7wP6JPLa_H06nJ9RnJKgJXk_7bF-Z0gn_zJRNSnARwkzDP1XRoZMlVI1KO1mvmhjtAUAN7uHTLYHldhGP2jZA_Ip727qf5XgJyXE5Cxs05UO5Vc2V5RJQEG5ogk05lRAX1Na1i/s16000/image.png" /></a></div><br /></div></div><br /></div><div>A 0.01 rate translates to a 0.00001% chance, or 1 in ten million. There's twice as good a chance of dying from getting hit by lightning. </div><div><br /></div>Note that the numbers for adjusted covid risk are actually likely to be generous. The reason for this is that I simply can't find reliable data for the percentage of cases that have known major pre-existing health conditions, by age. All sources that mention it agree that those with them are "over represented", or that "most" cases have them. Some sources find a rate of 100% among young children, others 50% among all "children", which includes 15-18 year olds. One CDC report finds the rate to be 94%.<br />Overall, including the full population across all ages, the comorbidity rate (the percentage of people who have at least one other contributing factor besides covid as a cause of death) is actually 94%, although it is unclear what percentage of those were necessarily pre-existing (vs caused by covid).<div><br />The people who collect the data simply don't release the source material granularly enough to answer the relevant question. Overall, from all the data I can find, the overall average rate of all covid deaths (across age groups) who had preexisting major health issues (things like cancer, neurologic conditions, or diabetes, not just obesity or asthma) ranges somewhere from 70% to 100%.<br />It seems likely that that rate increases as age decreases.<br />However, to err on the side of caution and be generous with my assumptions, I take the lowest estimate, 70%, and applied it across all age groups. <br />In other words, when you look at the risk data for the whole population, and you want to apply it to yourself or a loved one, and that person does <i>not</i> have any preexisting major health condition, you have to correct for that. The rate of covid deaths per 100,000 population of 0.03 among all young children translates to a rate of 0.01 when you subtract the 70%. <br />That is what is reflected in the 3rd column, marked "adjusted". It represents the overall risk of covid for a healthy individual of that age. <p>It does not take into account local rates or outbreaks, vaccination rates, gender, time variances, etc, but the truth is, while those factors affect the numbers, none of them affects them anywhere close to as much as age. The countries with the least and those with the most fatalities both have the exact same age curve, and the safest places still lose more elders to covid that the highest case count countries lose young children. Depending on what sources you search for, you may find different numbers and adjust mine slightly up or down, but it won't affect the overall point.<br /><br />One of the most significant things to notice is that at nearly every age group, there is a better chance of a random person dying of heart disease than there is an otherwise healthy person dying from COVID.<br />Of course, in one sense this isn't a "fair" comparison, because the person who dies of heart disease obviously has a major health condition (heart disease), but the point is to help conceptualize the relative risks. We understand intuitively that a relatively healthy 80 year old has a decent chance of having a potentially fatal heart attack, but this is not something that even crosses our minds to worry about in our children. No one suggests grade schoolers should take daily aspirin or that its critical that preschools have automated defibrillators on the walls for easy access, because the chances of an otherwise healthy child suddenly having a heart attack, while not zero, are vanishingly low.<br /><br />This is exactly how we should be thinking about covid, because the risk vs age curve is almost exactly the same. In fact, the age range of 1-10 is actually 125 times <i>more likely</i> to die of heart disease than from COVID. <br />At any age group, if you aren't worried about heart attacks, you shouldn't be worried about covid, because your risk of heart attack is lower than your risk of covid.</p><p>That same age group is <i>367 </i>times more likely to die from a car crash! Car crashes outcomes don't vary by pre-existing conditions, so this is an even more direct and relevant comparison. Think about how many hours your child has spent in a car, how many miles, how many trips. If this is something you can allow, and still sleep at night, it makes absolutely no sense to change anything about your life specifically to shield your child from the risk of covid. In fact, the risk of covid doesn't eclipse the risk of car crashes until you reach middle age.</p><p>One last thing. A lot of people acknowledge healthy children almost never die of covid, and hospitalization are extremely rare (the rate of hospitalization in the 1-10 age group is 0.06, or 0.15 adjusted) - but they worry about so-called "long covid".<br />While there has been a lot of reporting about it, and a small but percentage of children <i>self-reporting</i> symptoms, the few legitimate independent studies of the issue demonstrate rather conclusively that it does not actually exist. The symptoms described by those who supposedly have long covid <i>are exactly the same, and occur with the exact same frequency</i> in those children who have had covid and those who (confirmed by testing) have never had it.<br />In other words, covid has nothing to do with it. <br />Every study or report which claims to have examples of long covid in children doesn't bother to actually check for similar "symptoms" in children who never had it, and without this most basic control of every valid scientific and medical study, their conclusions are worse than completely worthless. <br />They serve to validate people's fears while maintaining a false air of scientificiness, generating lots of views and clicks (and ad revenue) while causing people to be less informed and less able to make objective risk calculations.<br /><br />It is easy enough for us to all see how transparently anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers are really just being loyal to former president Trump and the ideology of conservatism in general, and yet we seem to have quite the blind spot to just how much of the extremeness a reaction we have to this situation is driven by the exact same political loyalty, just in the opposite direction. You wear a mask when walking alone on an empty street not because there might be covid wafting on the breeze, but so that anyone who might drive by or look out their window and see you will realize you are one of the Good people who didn't vote for Trump. We've internalized so much that it's hard to be objective about any related issue, and suddenly this disease which pretty much just affects the elderly and the already sick in any significant numbers is the number one threat to our vulnerable children.<br />Except the reality is it just isn't. </p><p>It's important to take some basic precautions to avoid children getting COVID, because they can be carriers, and spread it even though they themselves may have only minor symptoms or be entirely asymptomatic, and that can be dangerous for the more vulnerable people they may in contact with: grandparents, teachers, any one they spend time around who is older than 60 or has health issues, and because the more covid spreads generally, the more likely high risk groups end up exposed.<br /></p><p>But don't be careful for the sake of protecting the children themselves. <br />If you want to be really careful, and avoid exposing your child to risk of death or serious injury, stop allowing them in motor vehicles.</p><p><br /></p><p>You don't have to take my word for it.<br />Here is a bunch of information:</p><p><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">"</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Exchange, Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px;">Our report found a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Exchange, Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px;"> "<br /></span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wsj.com/articles/cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-side-effects-hospitalization-kids-11626706868&source=gmail&ust=1636504493290000&usg=AFQjCNEIFTAIcExJj7m7sDo0PN8XipWnig" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-side-effects-hospitalization-kids-11626706868" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" target="_blank">https://www.wsj.com/articles/<wbr></wbr>cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-<wbr></wbr>vaccine-side-effects-<wbr></wbr>hospitalization-kids-<wbr></wbr>11626706868</a></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">"<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Exchange, Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px;">Six of the children [in England] who died due to Covid-19 didn’t appear to have an underlying health condition, researchers said."</span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-children-risk-of-covid-19-death-or-serious-illness-remain-extremely-low-new-studies-find-11625785260%23&source=gmail&ust=1636504493290000&usg=AFQjCNFx8lbxDd4gcLiMrMNlAOKQdUFSJA" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-children-risk-of-covid-19-death-or-serious-illness-remain-extremely-low-new-studies-find-11625785260#" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.wsj.com/articles/<wbr></wbr>in-children-risk-of-covid-19-<wbr></wbr>death-or-serious-illness-<wbr></wbr>remain-extremely-low-new-<wbr></wbr>studies-find-11625785260#</a></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">"<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Exchange, Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px;">Our report found a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Exchange, Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px;"> "<br /></span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wsj.com/articles/cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-side-effects-hospitalization-kids-11626706868&source=gmail&ust=1636504493290000&usg=AFQjCNEIFTAIcExJj7m7sDo0PN8XipWnig" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-side-effects-hospitalization-kids-11626706868" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.wsj.com/articles/<wbr></wbr>cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-<wbr></wbr>vaccine-side-effects-<wbr></wbr>hospitalization-kids-<wbr></wbr>11626706868</a></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtRbglCzzWQCxcdjgxAQJEYJo3c9aCrM8DQxMSHj5XCeJ2V9qUAGnaYDh6Mv01hQK1boYsjza11XtRURZPlluF7hjVMFhyphenhyphenNz7krbYFbXaIiYltutJOO2GplrxsyEUCTw8XGHyNfV5CnqW9/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="192" data-original-width="356" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtRbglCzzWQCxcdjgxAQJEYJo3c9aCrM8DQxMSHj5XCeJ2V9qUAGnaYDh6Mv01hQK1boYsjza11XtRURZPlluF7hjVMFhyphenhyphenNz7krbYFbXaIiYltutJOO2GplrxsyEUCTw8XGHyNfV5CnqW9/" width="320" /></a></div><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(20)30581-3/fulltext&source=gmail&ust=1636504493290000&usg=AFQjCNFJ6AHArW1yYd2BtG0AQE0Lutznpw" href="https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(20)30581-3/fulltext" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" target="_blank">https://www.jpeds.com/article/<wbr></wbr>S0022-3476(20)30581-3/fulltext</a><br /><br />"Between January 4, 2020 and January 2, 2021, there were 105 deaths attributed to COVID among children under 15. To put this in context, there were 26,273 total deaths in this age group from all causes over this period"<br /><a href="https://explaincovid.org/kids/kids-and-covid-19/">https://explaincovid.org/kids/kids-and-covid-19/</a><div><br /></div><div>"Being a child aged 1 to 17 is 99.9 percent protective against the risk of death and 98 percent protective against hospitalization"<br /><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/go-ahead-plan-family-vacation-your-unvaccinated-kids/618313/">https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/go-ahead-plan-family-vacation-your-unvaccinated-kids/618313/</a></div><div><br /></div><div>“Your Unvaccinated Kid Is Much Safer Than a Vaccinated Grandma.”<br /><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/12/briefing/covid-age-risk-infection-vaccine.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/12/briefing/covid-age-risk-infection-vaccine.html<br /></a><br />"94% of patients who died from COVID-19 had complicating conditions"<br /><a href="https://acdis.org/articles/news-94-patients-who-died-covid-19-had-complicating-conditions-data-confusion-surrounding">https://acdis.org/articles/news-94-patients-who-died-covid-19-had-complicating-conditions-data-confusion-surrounding</a></div><div><br /></div>"Among patients aged ≥19 years, the percentage of non-ICU hospitalizations was higher among those with underlying health conditions (27.3%–29.8%) than among those without underlying health conditions (7.2%–7.8%); the percentage of cases that resulted in an ICU admission was also higher for those with underlying health conditions (13.3%–14.5%) than those without these conditions (2.2%–2.4%) (<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6913e2.htm#T2_down">Table 2</a>). Small numbers of COVID-19 patients aged <19 years were reported to be hospitalized (48) or admitted to an ICU (eight). In contrast, 335 patients aged <19 years were not hospitalized and 1,342 had missing data on hospitalization. Among all COVID-19 patients with complete information on underlying conditions or risk factors, 184 deaths occurred (all among patients aged ≥19 years); 173 deaths (94%) were reported among patients with at least one underlying condition."<div><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6913e2.htm">https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6913e2.htm</a></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="background-color: white; color: #292929; font-family: charter, Georgia, Cambria, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 21px; letter-spacing: -0.063px;">If you’re the parent of a high school student with no preexisting conditions, your child’s chances of dying from Covid-19 (if they even get it) is about 1 in 100,000. If your child is under 11 years old, the odds are literally 1 in a million.<br /></span><span style="color: #0000ee;"><u>https://towardsdatascience.com/covid-19-comorbidities-are-the-elephant-in-the-room-7d185bd6cfe2</u></span><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6913e2.htm"><br /></a><p><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7003e1.htm#T1_down">https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7003e1.htm#T1_down</a></p><p><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932e3.htm&source=gmail&ust=1636504493290000&usg=AFQjCNE46g7RYB8fwdTVNMyxggs8_ja0ng" href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932e3.htm" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" target="_blank">https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/<wbr></wbr>volumes/69/wr/mm6932e3.htm</a></p><p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0</a></p><p><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-689684/v1&source=gmail&ust=1636504493290000&usg=AFQjCNHPFcSCsS9sF-UV3B5z6rf6Lqf8iw" href="https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-689684/v1" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" target="_blank">https://www.researchsquare.<wbr></wbr>com/article/rs-689684/v1</a></p><p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7260492/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7260492/<br /></a><br /><a href="https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-020-00785-1">https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-020-00785-1<br /></a><br /><a href="https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-by-age-group/">https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-by-age-group/<br /></a><br /><a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.11.21257037v1">https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.11.21257037v1<br /></a><br /><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01935-7">https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01935-7</a></p><p><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932e3.htm%23T1_down&source=gmail&ust=1636504493290000&usg=AFQjCNFf9P1HXuMwTzCBYZIRwJ8aYU78YQ" href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932e3.htm#T1_down" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" target="_blank">https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/<wbr></wbr>volumes/69/wr/mm6932e3.htm#T1_<wbr></wbr>down</a><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/long-covid-in-children-how-long-might-it-last#Not-enough-data">https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/long-covid-in-children-how-long-might-it-last#Not-enough-data<br /></a><br /><br /></p><p><br /></p></div></div>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-62980970957987275852021-09-24T16:06:00.004-07:002021-09-26T08:44:39.256-07:00My Checklist for How to Actually be a Good Ally<p>Part 2 of my latest on race in modern America. </p><p>For an explanation of the points below, <a href="http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2021/09/anti-racists-new-racists.html">read the last post</a></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>1) Stop using the term “poc” (or “brown people” or “bipoc”, or anything else equivalent). </p><p>Tacking on “black and indigenous” supposedly somehow makes the term less reductionist, or less emphasizing of European’s special place in society (even though it still contains the same last 3 letters, which means its not so much changed as merely redundant). Just as society came up with the word “retarded” to provide a clinical, neutral term to replace feeble minded, which itself was to replace imbecile, and before that moron, which replaced idiot – and then “retarded” became the new pejorative, to then be replaced by “mentally disabled” and then “challenged” and… changing the actual specific words or terms, while leaving the meaning the same, doesn’t really change anything. Regardless of what acronym is currently in favor, the actual meaning of the term is still exactly the same as “colored people” – and we should all be just as offended by hearing “bipoc” as we would be from “colored people”.</p><p><br /></p><p>2) Be conscious of – and reject – all forms of “separate but equal”.</p><p>They are everywhere, some more subtle than others. There are obvious ones, like decrying artists for “cultural appropriation” because they happen to like a genre dominated by people of a different appearance, or referring to all movements of European Americans into areas they aren’t already dominate as “gentrification” even when the location in question has rent control and just cause for eviction laws ensuring that no individual is displaced due to increasing rent prices. There are less obvious forms, like collecting separate data on people based on their demographics, when no equivalent data is collecting on equally irrelevant factors such as whether particular people are left-handed or whether they have attached earlobes or can fold their tongues. Summaries of what “the ____ community” thinks or does or wants or what is good for it, made by anyone other than the representative of a formal association made on the grounds of a particular demographic, are a form of advocating segregation. Look for it. Don’t do it.</p><p><br /></p><p>3) Stop fueling the fire! </p><p>Don’t repeat dramatic, outrage inducing anecdotes, unless you have taking the time and effort to personally research the relevant statistics, and you know that this particular anecdote is actually representative of a larger overall trend. Consider that the more outrage inducing a particular story is, the more likely it is that some or many relevant details have been left out somewhere in the retelling. This has always been true, but it is perhaps especially true in the age of character limited social media and the attention deficit disorder it has caused to become normal in everyone. Don’t constantly search for confirmation of the narrative. If you search for it, you will be able to find the evidence you want – just like you can do for any narrative. But taken out of a larger context, that “evidence” might really be nothing more than a random anecdote. The New York Times is a terrible offender in this. Literally every time they report on a story that fits the traditional Narrative of Oppression and will spark outrage (therefore selling more papers) they will make a point of noting the race of the individual’s involved, no matter how inorganically it fits into the headline: “White officer shoots black man”. When the story doesn’t fit the narrative - if they report it at all - there is no mention of race “Officer shoots suspect”; as though race is relevant if, and only if, it fits a predefined model of oppression. Because of media framing, almost everyone “knows” that police almost never shoot at white people, and certainly never unarmed white people – this just happens to be factually inaccurate, they actually shoot at white people more often. And while of course the ratio seems biased again when you account for the proportions of people in society, it turns out that when you adjust for rates of involvement in violent crimes (e.g. blacks commit more than half of murders annually), black men are actually shot at disproportionately less than white men in the same situation. The reason “everyone knows” something that is factually inaccurate is because media cherry picks outrage inducing stories, frames them misleadingly, and then the public repeats the implications of the stories to each other without bothering to fact check. Don’t have time to fact check every story? That’s fine. Just don’t repeat it, or take it at face value.</p><p><br /></p><p>4) Don’t ignore real “intersectionality”, crimes, and other anti-social behavior committed by minorities.</p><p>Including that intersectionality works in both directions. That term is basically used simply to count the number of oppressed groups which a given individual falls into. But an intersection involves different paths crossing. The whole concept of “people of color” primes us to think of every human interaction as being between white people (presumably straight and male, and with all of the power, all the time), and everyone else, who are the white male’s victims. The only question asked is how many different ways is any specific person a victim. Reality is a lot more complex. If we really want to look at how different groups intersect, we need to be prepared to actually look at it, and look at it honestly. Reality includes that a majority of Muslims worldwide are homophobic, with a number of Islamic countries enforcing the death penalty on gay people, while even among those Muslims who immigrate to the US (on average more liberal than nations based on sharia law) half are opposed. If one asserts that you should always support a black man against the racist police and biased criminal justice system, and also that one should always support women against violent and predatory men, what do you do and who do you support when a black woman calls the police due to domestic violence or rape? This is a real situation that actually happens in reality. Do you condemn the white police officer who shows up and arrests the black man, or the DA or court that decides to give him jail time? As a black police officer I once worked with once said – if you want to abolish both the death penalty and the prisons, what do you do with white cops who commit murder? It is a comforting fantasy land to live in where rich straight white males are the only people who ever do anything wrong, and society would be a peaceful wonderland if only they would stop abusing their power and being so prejudiced, but unfortunately this view doesn’t even begin to approximate reality. <a href="https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/cori-bush-wants-to-defund-the-police" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">There is a reason that the defund the police movement is overwhelmingly white and middle class, while black people who actually live in poor, high crime neighborhoods are against it</a>: people who actually have to live in a high crime environment every day know from personal experience how much more likely they are to be attacked or murdered by criminals than by the police – and how much worse it would get if the police disappeared.</p><p>Instead of focusing on a small handful of high-profile cases where police behavior was unjustified, consider the victims of the 1 to 1.5 million annual arrests for violent crime in the year. Despite all the attention given to the occasional “hate” crime, the vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated within a community – white criminals have mostly white victims, black criminals have mostly black victims. Which means that by advocating on behalf of a person arrested by the police for involvement in a crime – thereby potentially saving him from the racist criminal justice system – one is also giving him free reign to continue to terrorize more victims in his own community. When the rate of violent crime by citizens compared to the rate of unjustified violence by police against citizens is on the order of several thousand to one, yet only police actions are protested, the message this sends to violent black men is that no one minds what they do.</p><p>Simplify it this way: if you are not personally a black person who lives or spent a significant percentage of your life within the last couple decades living in a mostly minority, poor, and high crime neighborhood, then you should not have a strong opinion on issues that affect the people who are.</p><p>When well meaning allies willfully ignore things like black crime out of an understandable but misplaced sense of guilt or fear of appearing racist, they end up advocating for counter-productive and destructive “solutions”.</p><p><br /></p><p>5) Stop creating more purebreds</p><p>Seriously. I realize how outrageous that will sound at first. Is that an incredibly personal ask? Of course it is!</p><p>Society is not some giant living in the hills that imposes its will on people. Society isn’t “government” or “white people”. “Society” is nothing but the sum of all the various individual people. As a result, the conditions of society are nothing more or less than the sum total of individual choices. Which means there can be no meaningful distinction between the personal and the political. Your personal choices are what makes society what it is. </p><p>To object publicly to racism, while limiting your personal dating / marriage / mating prospects to people of your own race is as ridiculous as it would be to verbally object to climate change while actually owning and driving a motor vehicle that runs on gasoline and eating animals raised on a farm. Personally owned automobiles and the production of animals for consumption (plus the production of feed for those animals as well as clearing land for them) together make up the majority of the source of greenhouse gases that directly drive climate change. It simply makes no sense whatsoever to rally against something that while personally causing the problem – yet you can actually see bumper stickers decrying climate change on gasoline powered vehicles. It isn’t politicians or oil company executives or people who don’t believe in climate change who are purchasing and burning the gasoline to move that car around. </p><p>What society does is nothing more than the sum of the individual choices of everyone who makes it up, so there can be no division between the personal and the political. Everyone contributes their own little bit to climate change – unless they make the choice to sacrifice their own convenience for the good of us all – and everyone contributes their own little bit to the preservation of the racial divide by keeping their own life segregated.</p><p>There is a reason why interracial marriage is the white supremacist worst nightmare, why isolationist religions ban marriage outside the religion, why the government of India will actually pay a year’s salary to any couple that marries across caste: marriage is, and always has been, the single strongest bridge across cultures and groups. Nothing else can come close to shared grandchildren in making two families feel like a single family, and that makes the imaginary significance of physical differences begin to disappear. And of course, it literally bridges the gap between those physical differences as well. Had we been interbreeding sense the time slavery ended, the whole discussion would be moot, because everyone would have mixed heritage and it would be impossible to look at someone and place them firmly in any meaningful group based on appearance in the first place. But if we don’t start now, we can expect to still be stuck in the same place we are now in another 150 years. </p><p>It is understandable if a person lives in Algeria, Gambia, Japan or Togo, where close to the entire population shares a single ethnicity, any given individual ends up with someone who looks pretty similar to themselves. If you live in the United States - and especially in CA, (and especially in the Bay Area, with it’s high concentration of window signs proclaiming their progressive values), where no ethnic group has a majority, there is no excuse. Even if you are in the most represented group (European Americans), approximately 65% of the people in reasonable dating distance look different than you. If one truly believes that all people are equal, than statistically it is most likely you end up with a partner of a different race. The fact that less than 5% of the population identifies their ethnicity as “two or more races” shows just how much race is still a primary criteria for seeking mates – in an area where about 80% of people lean left / liberal / progressive, and bumper stickers and lawn signs proclaiming allegiance to anti-racist movements are common place. Real integration is about much more than having “diversity” at the city level. If race doesn’t matter, if we are all one people, then it shouldn’t play a factor in who people end up with for partner, and the family unit is the most fundamental, and most meaningful, level on which integration can occur. </p><p>Just as it is an obvious ethical imperative to avoid owning a gasoline powered car or eating farmed animals if a person believes that anthropogenic climate change is a threat to all humanity, the first and most important place to put beliefs of anti-racism into practice is one’s own personal life.</p><p>No where is that more powerful or meaningful than it actually mixing your DNA with someone's of another race.</p><p><br /></p><p>Of course, there will be many reading this for whom it's too late. Of course every person who is already here is valuable in their own right, pure breed or not, and I wouldn't even go so far as to advocate committed couples split up just because your choosing of a partner whose ancestors came from the same continent as yourself is borderline incestuous.</p><p>However:</p><p><br /></p><p>6) Recognize that "giving your children every advantage" is literally the definition of "privilege". </p><p>Again, "society" is nothing more than the sum of millions of individual decisions, and it makes absolutely no sense to publicly declare your opposition to something while actively creating that exact thing in your personal life.</p><p>If you are against privilege for some, if you are against the idea of dynasties or inherited riches or 'crony' capitalism or aristocracy or an unlevel playing field or an unjust society or however you might think of the unfairness by which some people start out life with advantages they didn't earn, you can not make a special exception for your own personal family.</p><p>It doesn't matter that you aren't a billionaire - you already have more wealth and security than at least 80% of the world and at least 20% of the country.</p><p>Every one wants what's best for their children. That is just a natural instinct. But just as we who live in a society suppress equally natural instincts of violence and lust when they would manifest in anti social ways, we have a responsibility to society to be aware of the significance of that feeling, understand it, and <i>not </i>act on it.</p><p>This is true no matter what your race, but it is especially true if you or your partner (and <i>especially </i>if it's both you <i>and </i>your partner) are white.</p><p>Because if you are white, then your children are white, which means that "wanting what's best for your kids" is, in practical terms, no different from "wanting what's best for white people".</p><p>One might object that wanting what's best for someone doesn't necessarily mean holding anyone else back, but then one might also remember that this is literally the exact argument made by white nationalists: 'we don't hate anyone, we just want what's best for our own'. Really the only difference is that white liberals define "our own" narrowly as their own directly blood related white children , while the nationalist is generous enough to broaden that concern to cover <i>all </i>white children.</p><p>Whether you want to <i>actively </i>hold anyone back is beside the point. Consider most cheating in sports. One way to cheat would be to injure or somehow sabotage the training of all the competitors. The much more common - and effective - way is to give yourself, or your team, a little boost, something to make you faster and stronger so you can get ahead.</p><p>Ultimately, it doesn't matter, the result is the same.</p><p>In the modern first world, almost everyone has access to at least the basic minimums. Even in homeless encampments you can find luxuries unimaginable to kings and emperors of only a few hundred years ago, like cars and cell phones. As technology and wealth increase, our standards of what we "need" increase along with them, and with that "success" can only be measured relative to everyone else. In other words, unless you are defining "what's best for my kids" as 'not starving the death', then you are referring to a zero sum game.</p><p>By definition, it isn't possible for everyone to get into "the best" schools and universities. Not everyone can have a house at least as good if not better than the average homeowner. Not everyone can have a middle class or better paying job. These are things that are inherently relative, which makes them inherently zero sum, which means that helping your own kids "get ahead" is completely interchangeable with 'holding other people back'. There can be no meaningful difference.</p><p>So, to state the whole thing another way: if you are taking steps to help your kids get ahead, and your kids are white, <u><i>you </i>are the agent of white privilege</u>.</p><p>So what does <i>not </i>being an agent of privilege look like?</p><p>It's simple, really. It doesn't mean doing anything specifically to hold them back; it just means not doing anything to help them get ahead (or at least not anything that isn't accessible to someone in poverty).</p><p>Instilling positive values, a strong work ethic, the concepts of delayed gratification and investment in the future, those are ways everyone can and should help their children to be successful in life.</p><p>Personally teaching them as much as you know, from as young as age as possible, and providing them a safe and supportive home environment is a totally valid way to help one's children.</p><p>Enrolling a child in private school, or moving to a particular neighborhood for the express purpose of ensuring your children entry into "good" schools is something which, by definition, is not an opportunity available to disadvantaged or underprivileged families.</p><p>It's not impossible to help out your own children without further disadvantaging those already behind; in fact, being a legitimate ally would actually close the gaps and improve the lives of the under privileged. For example – after enrolling your own kids in the under-performing school, the next step is to put in the same time and effort volunteering at the school that you would have at the fancy suburban school you considered moving for. Organize bake sales and volunteer in the after school program and tutor classmates. Contribute to real integration, and at the same time, learn and help your children learn about the real experience of the lower classes. Instead of declaring support for non-white people on social media and window signs and bumper stickers and at rallies, spend enough time in the communities you theoretically support to make real friendships. Instead of teaching your kids not to be racist, show them with your actions that you believe people who look different are people, and let them see that for themselves directly. And by your presence and participation, help blend cultures and communities and make integration a reality.</p><p>Of course, you may not yet be in the position to be the one advantaging your own offspring.</p><p><br /></p><p>7) If you are in the younger generation – and you believe in equality – take the even harder step of turning down these kinds of gifts. </p><p>It is not enough to verbally acknowledge that you have privilege. That acknowledgement does not do a single thing to help out someone who is underprivileged. The way to truly be a good ally is to renounce and disavow that privilege. Earn your own way, through your own personal hard work, intelligence and sacrifice. Play on a level playing field with all the others who weren’t lucky enough to be born, not only white, but to parents who don’t have a few excess tens of thousands of dollars to help fund their college, to help with a down payment, or even to buy them a car.</p><p>Everyone likes to think they are just one person, but the economy is a marketplace, and every buyer drives up the price just a little bit. The record home prices, the record tuition, making these things hard for the working class to afford, these things don’t just happen. Prices are the direct result of the cumulative choices of millions of people. Taking a few extra years until you can save up your own money is doing your part to keep prices sane for all the other people who don’t have the luxury of family gifts.</p><p>But don’t just reject the money, leaving that wealth in the hands of other white people. Accept it – and immediately donate it, all of it, to a relevant cause. Your middle class parents offer you down payment money? Donate to a program that offers down payment assistance to low income people. Parents offering to pay half your college tuition? Take it, donate it to a scholarship fund. Then get yourself a part-time job, full-time in summer, and learn what its like for everyone who didn’t have that option.</p><p><br /></p><p>Ghandi never actually said the words “be the change you want to see”,<br />but Mos Def did say “Don’t talk about it. Be about it.”</p><p><br /></p><p>Equality in early childhood education and experience are extremely important in ending inequality and injustice, to ending both the economic, educational, and cultural differences that lead to dramatic differences in life outcomes later in life.</p><p>But its just the beginning, as one of the largest contributors to economic inequalities, (which in turn directly impacts all sorts of secondary and tertiary effects), comes when children are all grown up and should hypothetically be accountable for their success or failure based on their own merit.</p><p><br /></p><p>Half of white college students had at least some of their college tuition paid for by their parents, with almost 20% paying between ½ and all of it.</p><p>Half of young homebuyers get downpayment or closing cost money from family, 20% have parents co-sign loans, and 15% of adults under 34 still live in their parent’s home. </p><p>Given that housing costs are the most expensive part of living for most people, and that <a href="https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/cori-bush-wants-to-defund-the-policehttps://blog.firstam.com/economics/homeownership-remains-strongly-linked-to-wealth-building" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">property ownership is the single biggest part of wealth building</a> for the majority of the middle class, <a href="https://www.epi.org/blog/the-racial-wealth-gap-how-african-americans-have-been-shortchanged-out-of-the-materials-to-build-wealth/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">these facts alone</a> can account for the wealth gap. White families are also twice as likely to receive an inheritance, at nearly 50%, as black families, and that amount of that inheritance varies even more dramatically – a median of $100,000 for whites vs $4000 for blacks – a difference of 25x. </p><p>(<a href="https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/homeownership-inherited-tale-three-millennials">You
don’t</a> <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-11-29/boomers-are-thriving-on-an-unprecedented-9-trillion-inheritance">have
to</a> <a href="https://www.epi.org/publication/receiving-an-inheritance-helps-white-families-more-than-black-families/">take
my</a> <a href="https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/412644-Do-Financial-Support-and-Inheritance-Contribute-to-the-Racial-Wealth-Gap-.PDF">word
for it</a>)</p><p>In fact, around <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/people-like-estate-tax-whole-lot-more-when-they-learn-how-wealth-is-distributed/">60%</a>
of all wealth in <st1:country-region>America</st1:country-region>
is directly inherited. As with college and home buying, this <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/recent-trends-in-wealth-holding-by-race-and-ethnicity-evidence-from-the-survey-of-consumer-finances-20170927.htm">varies
dramatically by race</a>. </p><p>This preserves the status quo of inequality directly, with no need to invoke any form of systemic racism in housing or education or employment or criminal justice. </p><p>Just like with helping your team by giving them a little boost, in any evaluation based on a comparison, helping one person is completely indistinguishable from holding back someone else. </p><p>It is a lot more emotionally gratifying to look for racist boogiemen and vague indefinable “systems” of oppression that can be found easily in anecdotes but fade away if you dig into real statistics. </p><p>One can feel self-righteous anger at cops, and judges, employers and educators who obviously must be discriminating, because, look – different outcomes, disparate impacts!</p><p>As long as the culprit is other, each individual can feel like the good guy. I’m not racist, therefore someone else must be responsible.</p><p>And this worldview very conveniently also means there is no need for any personal sacrifice whatsoever.</p><p>Rejecting privilege – actually rejecting privilege, in a meaningful way – isn’t something you can sum up in a slogan on social media or a window sign, isn’t something anyone is ever going to rally for, and no one person doing it is going to change the world instantly and forever.</p><p>Then again, none of the memes or bumper stickers or marches was ever going to change the world either.</p><p>By giving up privilege, and the desire to privilege your progeny, you can bring the world one small step closer to being one of equality and justice.</p><p><br /></p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-16962116888806413802021-09-24T15:54:00.002-07:002021-09-26T08:44:00.118-07:00Anti-Racists: (The New Racists)<p> </p><p>In 2020, during the world “pandemic” of Novel Coronavirus 2019, I was on an involuntary Coast Guard deployment to GITMO, the infamous prison housing (suspected) 9/11 planners along with a few other (suspected) high level terrorists, who after almost a decade in prison are still awaiting trial.</p><p>Myself, along with maybe about a ¼ of my ~200 person unit, I joined the Coast Guard with the idea of going out to rescue people from drowning, and other similar movie worthy heroics. The Coast Guard is technically part of the military, but it has never been under the Department of Defense. It has participated in some way in every major armed conflict the US has been in, but 5 of its 6 primary roles are peace time domestic missions.</p><p>I and several others were transferred to a more “defense” oriented unit because the Bay Area based Port Security Unit couldn’t find enough volunteers, and after training us to use machine guns and special tactics, we shipped out.</p><p><br /></p><p>I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the most left/liberal/progressive areas in the country (if not the world). Working class, mixed race, LGBT family, vegetarian, even literal communists in the family – I grew up with a lot of the left’s checkboxes just being normal life for me.</p><p>I had a little exposure to religious people, anarchists, libertarians, little tastes of alternative viewpoints here and there, but liberalism was around me like water around a fish.</p><p>Going to GITMO was the first time I was ever fully submersed in an environment where conservatism was the default, liberalism the exception.</p><p>In GITMO it wasn’t just a mix of people who joined the Coast Guard to save lives and those who choose the Port Security Unit. It was people who volunteered specifically for GITMO. People who joined the Army and the Navy and the Marines. People who feel it is literally a moral issue to salute the flag. People who prioritize God, country, and family (in that order). Trump voters. People who continued to support Trump, even after he got in office and chose to manage his own Twitter account.</p><p><br /></p><p> </p><p>This was also the time of the massive “Black Lives Matter” protests.</p><p>Having been quite sick of the hypocrisy of the movement for many years, I tried to pay as little attention to it as possible, but having family back home who believed in the movements rhetoric, I eventually found opting out to be impossible, and ended up doing a good deal of writing about it. It was nationwide news, so of course it was a big topic of discussion at work as well, and I got to overhear a lot of opinions and ideas from the “other side”</p><p>And spending so much time among people with such a different worldview than the one I was used to, I eventually came to realize some things…</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p>One thing that is true of both sides, is that they make assumptions about what the other side “really” means, whenever they say anything. They think they each know the other’s real, but secret, thoughts and beliefs and plans, the things which they never say aloud or in print or on the internet or in any form, but which everyone of a certain mindset supposedly “just knows”. Conservatives “know” that liberals really are secretly all atheist communists who want to allow bisexual orgies in the classroom, with free abortions as birth control. And the left “knows” that conservatives are all secretly white supremacists, most of whom simply hide it better than others.</p><p>Now of course it is true that there are genuine “white supremacists”. And its true that those people are almost always conservative. This of course does not mean that all conservatives are white supremacists; any more than one Muslim hijacker is a reflection of all Muslims.</p><p>The fact that actual terrorists are disproportionately Muslim does not reveal anything at all about what the majority of Muslims think or feel or believe – to claim that all the Muslims who don’t kill people secretly support those who do is obviously a biased and unjustified assumption. It is the exact equivalent to assume that, because a disproportionate amount of white supremacist are conservative, therefore the majority of conservatives are secretly racist.</p><p>Just looking at a random, average conservative, I’ve come to realize that conservatives tend to be way less racist than the majority of progressives.</p><p><br /></p><p>The reason has nothing to do with being color-blind, or self-awareness, or an ability to control sub-conscious mental processes.</p><p>It is simply because the modern left philosophy on race is based on concepts left over from colonialism and slavery - in other words, the anti-racist philosophy itself is inherently racist - and it has been largely accepted by the main stream left.</p><p>The difference in outlook is best summarized by looking at the default characterizations - but we'll come back to that in a moment...</p><p><br /></p><p>One of the assumptions the left makes about the right is that none of the right’s rhetoric is honest: everything they say is supposedly code for something else. They don’t really believe that a fetus has a soul and that therefore abortion is equivalent to murder – they really just want to keep women oppressed, (because patriarchy).</p><p>No one seems to realize what an extreme conspiracy theory this actually is.</p><p>In order for an entire secret coded language to exist, that politicians could put into speeches and all the white conservative followers would know what they “really” mean, somewhere this code would have to be communicated. We’re talking 100s of millions of people, who all know the same secret code, either without anyone ever directly communicating the key, or else with the brochure with the real meanings so well hid that no liberal person, in the history of liberal vs conservative, has ever been able to find a copy. Even with the creation of social media, somehow all of the 100s of millions of conservatives, with varying levels of individual intelligence, no one has spelled out the details of the code that every single one of them knows.</p><p><br /></p><p>What is way more plausible than that level of organized consistent deceit is that different people have different viewpoints and beliefs and assumptions and values, and that those differences cause people to focus on different things and be outraged by different things.</p><p>What is way more plausible is that conservatives really do believe things like that there are secret organizations of communists trying to take over America, that socialism causes impoverished nations, that the Christian God is the One True God, that abortion is murder, and that individual people are responsible for their fate as a result of how talented and/or hardworking they are.</p><p>Never mind whether some or all of these ideas are idiotic. The point is, it is important not to have so much hubris that we assume we know better what someone else believes when they TELL US DIRECTLY EXACTLY WHAT THEY BELIEVE.</p><p><br /></p><p>So, with that in mind, consider for a moment the possibility that when conservatives are talking about “criminals”, they are actually talking about people who commit crimes. </p><p>In other words, that it actually isn’t a secret way to say “non-white-people”, to make their racism seem more palatable.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Back to each groups default characterizations: What is really important to conservatives, in terms of judging individuals, is that individual’s “moral character” (which – I’ve been surprised to learn - in practice seems to not demand Christian values specifically, but can be accepting of basic humanist principals of ethics – i.e. not hurting people), their loyalty to America, and whether they are hard-working and self-sufficient.) </p><p>Conservatives believe in following the rules and respecting authority for it’s own sake. So, for example, they believe that anyone who takes illegal drugs is a terrible person, although it has nothing to do with the effects the drug has on them (quite clearly, because the same people are frequently huge enthusiasts of alcohol), it's just because of the fact that they are "illegal".</p><p><br /></p><p>They are really big on taking care of oneself and ones family. It’s unrespectable, at best, to accept hand-outs. (That probably connects to the issue they have with socialism.) </p><p>In fact, many believe in work for the pure sake of work, independent of whether that work is actually productive or valuable – they see idleness itself as a moral failing.</p><p><br /></p><p>They are not big on unconditional compassion – in fact, that is one of the things they find most ridiculous about liberals. To conservatives, a billionaire deserves their fortune, because they “earned” it, and it’s insane to care about “living conditions” in a prison, because those who commit crimes deserve to be punished – or at the very least, we don’t need to feel bad for them, since it was their own choices that put them there.</p><p><br /></p><p>With both of these things in mind (that people tend to say what they mean, and that conservatives have very different values than liberals), the difference between them that is relevant to this essay can be summarized by looking at two people:</p><p><br /></p><p>Bob is a white guy who skipped high-school to smoke pot, graduated to harder drugs and dropped out without a diploma, briefly tried a couple minimum wage jobs before quitting without notice or getting fired, and finally settled on a life of crime to pay the rent, buy groceries, and fuel the addiction.</p><p>Charles is a black man who was at the top of his class in high school, applied to colleges and scholarships in his junior year, worked while he went to school fulltime to pay tuition at a junior college before transferring to university on scholarship, then used loans to attend law school. Now he wears a suit to work everyday and drives a moderately fancy car while paying off his loans.</p><p><br /></p><p>Conservatives look at these two people, and they see one worthless criminal, and one highly respectable self-made man.</p><p>Liberals look at these two people, and all they see is a white person and a black person.</p><p>In addition, it seems to be inconceivable to liberals that conservatives might look at the two and see anything different than what they see. And all of their ideas about society follow from that.</p><p> </p><p><br /></p><p>In most popular discourse the very term “racist” itself has come to be redefined as “white supremacist”, but of course that isn’t what the word actually means.</p><p>Racism is a “belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities”, that “groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance”.</p><p>Which is to say, the idea that race is ‘the’, or even ‘a’ relevant factor in determining “who someone is”, is literally, fundamentally, racist.</p><p>The idea that race is the most fundamental factor in determining who someone is, is inherent in the very concept of “identity politics”. The term “identity” in this context does not refer to an individual’s personal quirks or habits, preferences or interests, but rather to race, gender, and religion – demographic checkboxes at the end of a survey. </p><p><br /></p><p>In other words, in this world view your “identity” – who you are as a person – is literally <i>defined </i>by your demographic characteristic. </p><p>Under that view – that your race (along with your gender and sexuality) are THE fundamental things that define you as a person – everything else the left says and does around race makes sense. The only problem is that this core belief itself is the basis of all racism; and as a result it has the side of society that once truly was fighting against (real) racism to begin pushing hard to preserve “separate but equal” in every aspect of society under the banner of being anti-racist.</p><p><br /></p><p>Outside of social influence, there is exactly zero evidence of any connection between the external physical traits that make up what we call “race” – things like skin color and hair texture and eye shape – and behavioral characteristics, preferences, intelligence, etc. There does seem to be some correlations with certain physical abilities – certain regions of the world consistently take more medals in particular Olympic events, and this is likely at least partially due to genetic factors – and so it is plausible there could be regional differences in mental ability as well, however, after factoring for socio-economic factors, there just isn’t any science to support it. Given how many have set out looking for it, if it hasn’t been found, chances are it isn’t there.</p><p>When mainstream Western society accepted what we now call racism as obvious, it was widely assumed to be based on the legitimate science of genetics. Anti-racists argued against it, and demonstrated over and again how faulty the science that appeared to support it was. And over time, they succeeded. Scientists may be human and subject to human bias and error, but science itself is self-correcting, and as evidence against it mounted, society itself largely gave up the assumption that the science of genetics supported a natural ranking of humanity by race.</p><p>But that took generations, and in the meantime, society developed a whole racist framework that became the basis of discourse that has lasted to today – only today that framework, finally abandoned by the right, has been embraced and revived by the left.</p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps the most blatant, the most flagrant, is the barely concealed revival of the concept of “colored”.</p><p><br /></p><p>For slightly less than 100 years, codified racism took the form of “Jim crow” laws, the defining feature of which was to divide all of public life into two distinct, clearly defined groups:</p><p><b>1) white people</b></p><p><b>2) everyone else.</b></p><p>They attempted from the very beginning to legitimize the ethicality of this arrangement by maintaining that all facilities, whether for whites, or for “everyone else”, should be equal. Separate, but equal.</p><p><br /></p><p>Europeans, having lighter skin to absorb more sunlight at high latitudes, are obviously not “white” (like the background to this page), but being lighter than people from almost all other places – and because the still relatively new Americans wanted to reject the Europe that had broken away from – it became the term to stick. Every new immigrant group had its turn being discriminated against, Italians, Irish, Jews, but taken together they well outnumbered the slaves (and later descendants of former slaves) and various immigrants from non-European countries combined. Strength in numbers and a human psychology that unites people against perceived common threats eventually had them settle on accepting all Europeans as “in-group” and everyone else from all over the entire rest of the world as “other”.</p><p>If Europeans are all “white”, but the “other” consists of a whole range of skin tones and appearances, well, a one-word summary of every possible color other than white is “colored”.</p><p>Hence, “colored” entrances, “colored” fountains, “colored” neighborhoods.</p><p><br /></p><p>A black person descended from slavery may have absolutely zero in common with a person fresh-off-the-boat, whether from Asia, South America, the Islands, or Africa, but to Jim-Crow America, they are all “colored”.</p><p><b><u>The purpose of the term is to be reductionist – to say, we don’t care who you are, you are not a unique individual to us – all that matters is that you aren’t white.</u></b></p><p><br /></p><p>The very fact of dividing all of humanity into exactly two categories – white, and “everyone else”, is intrinsically white supremacist. </p><p> It is literally saying that white people are the only people who’s culture matters, the only people worth spelling out, the only people worthy of a unique category. As demeaning of true multi-faceted humanity as conflating “race” with “identity” already is, “colored people” denies anyone who isn’t white even that small piece of identity. It says if you aren’t European, you are defined solely by not being European.</p><p><br /></p><p>Flash forward 50 years, and the left has bizarrely and ironically found it appropriate to borrow the exact same term – <i>and use it in the exact same way</i>(!!!!), seemingly oblivious to this simply because the word order is reversed.</p><p><br /></p><p>Colored people.</p><p>People of color.</p><p><br /></p><p>They are literally the exact same words. And, just like it meant for Jim Crow, it means “everyone who isn’t a white person”.</p><p>Because that is what it is intended to mean, it doesn’t matter if the people who use it believe themselves to be anti-racist. It is fundamentally and inherently reductionist. It is intended to be. It automatically sets white people up as special, as a category of their own – as the only people who get a category of their own. And it is no less racist when it is used today than it was then.</p><p><br /></p><p>If “people of color” is only a insignificantly small variation on “colored people”, perhaps this suggests the question of: “What should I use instead?”</p><p>It isn’t about the words. Its about the meaning. You shouldn’t use anything to mean the same thing. There is no legitimate, non-racist circumstance where it is appropriate and necessary to consolidate all non-white people into a single homogeneous group whose sole commonality is not being European in origin. As a society, we do not move forward until we stop pretending “white” people are so special; before we stop thinking in those terms. </p><p><br /></p><p>Aside from the concept that people with European ancestry are somehow unique or special among humans, the other concept handed down to us from the racist and colonial past is that humans who look different in terms of their superficial physical characteristics are in some way fundamentally different types of people.</p><p>This manifests in something as simple and ubiquitous as the phrase “______ people” itself. As any toddler can tell you, there is really no such thing as white people or black people. </p><p>No one is this color: <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV3kbTPl5VZ2pOUNV0WhqCd28qYUr0zjLymV3XY14BcszpKb8tTkwfazkDqj0L8LPKQueEOdARES_8mFzzxDOUmSvgLBEILofMCNsb6Osfq2TDK2ar0Y_jiLiCmrBo_xdqR1yISCCDKZmF/s172/white.jpg" style="clear: left; display: inline; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="154" data-original-width="172" height="154" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV3kbTPl5VZ2pOUNV0WhqCd28qYUr0zjLymV3XY14BcszpKb8tTkwfazkDqj0L8LPKQueEOdARES_8mFzzxDOUmSvgLBEILofMCNsb6Osfq2TDK2ar0Y_jiLiCmrBo_xdqR1yISCCDKZmF/s0/white.jpg" width="172" /></a>Nor is anyone this color: <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfrGTgv86U7grHH0qxvoUJ2w5nsmogDhBrdCqDqvKzdeRfSnEBH_rz8nQnZovGKCsEK80quDRZbw8S6hvm4C4Q9hhPPjtTDotdPbfOxCenZFHUP343wI5BfwKG0qNFkes5Wq9F-4ZzM25n/s146/black.jpg" style="clear: left; display: inline; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="146" data-original-width="146" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfrGTgv86U7grHH0qxvoUJ2w5nsmogDhBrdCqDqvKzdeRfSnEBH_rz8nQnZovGKCsEK80quDRZbw8S6hvm4C4Q9hhPPjtTDotdPbfOxCenZFHUP343wI5BfwKG0qNFkes5Wq9F-4ZzM25n/s0/black.jpg" width="146" /></a><br /><br /></p><p>In fact, no one is remotely close to either of those extremes.</p><p>And there are a lot of inbetweens</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQtrugb5DYnPa7s6wi4GZtUcZ5SYfXxQxIoNoZCq2xD1yvI-2Nb_qa7gK4O80uIPUt_I4M_HHW4P5VrbeuEEp9q_Fw2M7TQoTIz3wTT7Wm-nEyps_kOYT-8p7sBppj3nTVgJYq4WPMWn0D/s308/spectrum.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="164" data-original-width="308" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQtrugb5DYnPa7s6wi4GZtUcZ5SYfXxQxIoNoZCq2xD1yvI-2Nb_qa7gK4O80uIPUt_I4M_HHW4P5VrbeuEEp9q_Fw2M7TQoTIz3wTT7Wm-nEyps_kOYT-8p7sBppj3nTVgJYq4WPMWn0D/s0/spectrum.png" width="308" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>But not only are we all agreeing to pretend that the difference is extreme and absolute (or, “black and white”!), the very idea that there is some fundamental difference is a fiction we all go along with as well. We consistently treat different “races” as though they were made up of different species. A person is supposedly either one race or another, and whichever they are marks an individual as a member of a group, a ‘type of person’ and supposedly tells you all about their language, culture, belief systems, life experiences, and way of relating to society. </p><p>Our view of races as akin to species is visible in the differing levels of horror and outrage we have between the mass killing of civilians and “genocide”. Regardless of the numbers of dead involved, we put any alleged “genocide” in a special category over and above any other mass killing. Even if the same (or even greater) numbers of individual people are killed, survivors losing loved ones and being displaced, if it is perceived that the motivation of the aggressors is based in whole or in part on “race” (or some similar impersonal demographic characteristic) it is somehow viewed as different, as fundamentally worse. While from the victim’s point of view, it makes absolutely no difference at all why someone is trying to murder you, if a third party is looking at the situation and assumes you are a particular “type” of person, then indeed it looks like the difference between an animal being slaughtered (96% of Americans eat animals) and the extinction of an entire specie. If you are a cow or pig, it is not particularly comforting that there are others “of your kind” out there somewhere when it dawns on you that everyone on the conveyor belt ahead of you is being killed and there is no escape for you either. We can have no sympathy for that individual, but we still feel like there is something deeply wrong with causing an entire class of being to cease to exist. </p><p>We likewise seem to view people of different races as fundamentally a different class of being.</p><p>The defining feature of a specie is not just that they look distinct to the eye (differing phenotypes), but that member’s of two closely related but separate species can not successfully breed with each other. A lion and a tiger or a horse and a mule can produce an offspring, but that offspring will always be sterile, because the parents are different species. A boarder collie and a poodle, a beagle and a bulldog, even a Chihuahua and a husky, can all create fertile offspring, because they are all the same specie.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is an important and relevant point, because not only can humans with different external appearances breed in theory, they actually do, and have among most populations that meet and mix, for as long as those populations have had contact.</p><p>In reality, genetic studies show that nearly all of African Americans descended from American slavery have at least some percentage European ancestry.</p><p><br /></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">-An aside: this is nearly always assumed to be almost if not entirely from rape of female slaves by slave owners. This assumption is invalidated by the genetic testing – while European fathers and African mothers is relatively more common, the pattern does not make up an overwhelming majority: for every 4 European male ancestors of African Americans is 1 European female. (“<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">5% of ancestors of African Americans were European females and 19% were European males</a>”). There's a lot to unpack in our modern assumptions, but that will have to be for another time...</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>It was the racists of history that decided that the races represented concrete, non-overlapping boxes into which all individuals could be placed, and more recently the white supremacists of America who decided that anyone who, through genetic mixing, didn’t fit 100% into one box or another would be considered “colored”.</p><p>It was white supremacists who came up with the term “octoroon”, and the phrase “one drop of unpure blood”.</p><p>But today antiracists are as likely as anyone else to unquestioningly place a person who is in reality genetically mixed fully into the “black” box. <b>Calling someone like former president Barak Obama, who has one African parent and one European American parent “Black” is a legacy of white supremacy</b>. But anti-racists don’t call this out, because in order for their entire framework to work, people <i>have </i>to be able to be placed into well defined categories. If you acknowledge that a person can vary in their percentage of genes in a smooth progression from 100% European to 0% European and any percentage in between – and that a majority of Americans are at neither extreme, how can you conclusively determine who is a “person of color” and who isn’t? If people exist who are equal parts African and European, how do you talk meaningfully about privilege or what the “_______” community thinks or wants or does – unless you simply designate anyone with mixed heritage as “of color”? …as long as they meet some arbitrary and undefined threshold. </p><p>The fact that people of different “races” can successfully produce fertile offspring together, who in turn go on to have children of their own, completely undermines the racialized view of human society, so for the most part we simply pretend it isn’t true, and designate anyone who has at least 25% African DNA as “Black” and anyone with at least 80% European DNA as “White”. </p><p>As summarized by<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Bryc Et Al in the American Journal of Human Genetics</a> following a large study of American genetics:</p><p></p><blockquote>"...even a small proportion of this large population [of European Americans] that carry non-European ancestry translates into millions of European Americans who carry African and Native American ancestry. Our results suggest that the early US history, beginning in the 17th century (around 12 generations ago), might have been a time of many population interactions resulting in admixture. <br /><br />The genetic ancestry of present-day individuals recapitulates historical migration events, known settlement patterns, and admixture processes. Perhaps most importantly, however, our results reveal the impact of centuries of admixture in the US, thereby undermining the use of cultural labels that group individuals into discrete nonoverlapping bins in biomedical contexts “which cannot be adequately represented by arbitrary ‘race/color’ categories.”</blockquote><p> </p><p></p><p>The science / biology side of it is clear cut, but perhaps even more fundamental to our way of thinking about race than the assumption that “races” are concrete and definable - is the idea that communities and/or cultures are. Or should be. In fact, many of the same people who embrace and promote a racialzied view of society will readily insist that they don’t believe “race” is real in a biological sense. But speaking of a monolithic “Black community” is just another form of validating race as a real thing. It may take it out of the realm of biology, but it still leaves no room for half-breeds, and it still involves defining for an individual what sort of person they are, or they are supposed to be. It still involves making assumptions and generalizations about the experiences an individual has in life. Whether it’s a question of DNA, or just of speech, dress, customs and food preferences and habits, our way of thinking both assumes and depends on people being definable by type. </p><p>Hence, if “Black” is a type, then going back to original two people being categorized differently by liberals and conservatives, it makes sense that the Harvard educated lawyer who has African ancestors and dark skin goes in the same category with those Black men who are in prison. It makes sense that if a person who committed some crime and got a disproportionate police response, next time it could be “any of us” – even if we don’t commit any crimes – because “black” is the one overarching category that defines us.</p><p><br /></p><p>It’s the same view that categorizes a “hate crime” as something separate – and fundamentally worse – than any other personal crime. Just like civilian massacres vs genocide, as the victim of threat, assault, or murder, having it be directed at you due to a specific personal thing, because of a demographic characteristic, or completely at random, makes absolutely no difference what-so-ever. Regardless of the motivation of the murderer, the victim is equally dead, the family mourns equally as much. Survivors have just as much pain and just as much rehab and therapy to endure no matter why they were targeted. Its only to third-party outsiders, people unconnected to it, who have the luxury to decide that its somehow “better” to be targeted due to something personal about yourself or completely at random, than it is to be targeted because of your demographics. It’s a way of thinking that depends on believing (just as the assailant apparently does) that demographics define people – and its one which in America is so prevalent that it’s been codified into law.</p><p><br /></p><p>In reality, the thing that “hate” is based on is not physical characteristics, but cultural ones. It is a manifestation of one of the most fundamental aspects of human social psychology – tribalism. As unfortunate as it is, applied in today’s populous and mobile world, it was so important to early humanity that it seems to have evolved in a deep part of the human mind way back when we were so few in numbers that aliens watching Earth could have missed us altogether. It manifests in all of us. True racism is an obvious manifestation of it, but it is everywhere, from nationalism to sports teams, high school “clicks”, neighborhood gossip, political partisanship, and family loyalty. The very feeling of love itself, especially for anyone other than a mate and one’s own offspring, is inseparable from tribalism.</p><p>The human instinct for tribalism falling along racial lines seems to make sense on the surface, however early human tribes would have only encountered other tribes that looked exactly like themselves 99.99% of the time. It should be no surprise then that physical appearance is not actually the only, or even primary, criteria humans use to categorize each other.</p><p>It isn’t “race” specifically that is at the root of prejudice (although that is one particularly convenient way for the mind to categorize people, and therefore a common way for it to manifest). Tribalism merely needs anyway to designate some people as “my people”, as “us”, and some other people as “other”. </p><p>Discrimination is a manifestation of tribalism. That it is more fundamental than “racism” per say is apparent when looking at places and times with significant discrimination against some people who shared the same race as the dominate social group: the Hutus and Tutsis, Koreans in Japan, Irish in the Early US. </p><p>On the other side, as soon as people have some other criteria to base groups on, race always diminishes or disappears as a factor in determining who is “us” and who is “them” – military units, religions, sports fans… allegiance to the Country, to the One True God, to Local Sports Team instantly marks you as friend, any dissent as enemy, perhaps even as a fundamentally immoral person.</p><p><br /></p><p>If you look at groups of people who’ve endured discrimination, the most common characteristic is separatism. When you have a group which migrates to a new community, but (whether by choice or not) does not assimilate – they maintain their own language, music, diet, holidays, and most important of all, have rules (whether explicit or implicit) about not marrying people from the surrounding culture, you have a group which will be considered “other” by those around them. Essentially “When in Rome, do the same things you have always done”. (My own Ashkenazi ancestors – I’m looking at you…) </p><p>Those times where a previously rejected group is accepted into the mainstream, it involved a full integration, and a re-prioritizing of identity, of current culture over genetic legacy. </p><p><br /></p><p>Racists, colonialists, slave holders, white supremacists, and everyone who benefited from the status quo have understood this, intuitively if not explicitly, and so a primary tactic has always been to keep people of different races both physically separate and also to emphasize and enhance any cultural differences as much as possible.</p><p><br /></p><p>From the stand point of trying to legitimize race as a way to maintain privilege this totally makes sense. </p><p>Unfortunately for us all, they were so successful in making society believe that this is the “natural” and inevitable way of life, that race and culture are intrinsically linked, that we have all internalized it. So much so, in fact, that the most outspoken anti-racists now have separation as one of their most highly pushed agendas.</p><p><br /></p><p>Of course they don’t call it that.</p><p>They don’t call it “separate but equal”.</p><p>Because that phrase itself is tied to an obviously racist past, an explicit attempt to keep races separate. Of course, the “but equal” part was always meant to acknowledge the humanity of “colored” people, to disavow discrimination and unfair treatment. The whole point was that all humans are valid and important and equally deserving – its just that white people should be with white people and black people should be with black people and miscellaneous other with their own kind. Back then we saw through that as a thinly veiled way to protect privilege and maintain race based social dominance.</p><p><br /></p><p>Today’s advocates of modern “separate but equal” are largely “woke” people, black and white (and ‘other’), who vocally oppose privilege and race based social dominance.</p><p><br /></p><p>When explicit segregation became illegal, more subtle ways of keeping it intact developed, like redlining. When Black people began moving into inner cities, “white flight” created suburbs, while leaving once vibrant city centers with less investment, and making “inner city” almost synonymous with “ghetto”. Yet today, as some progressive people of European ancestry are willing to move into the places their grandparents fled, they are decried as “gentrifiers” – even in cities with rent control, where forced displacement due to rent increases is not a threat. The statistical evidence consistently shows that rent stabilization / just cause for eviction laws do work, and existing residents do not leave so called “gentrifying” areas any more than the constant baseline of people moving from place to place. The real objection behind white people moving to black neighborhoods is that black neighborhoods are supposed to be reserved for colored people only. In practice, the fact that it is the reverse of redlining doesn’t make it any different. The net effect is maintaining the status quo of segregation.</p><p>Even when someone claims to value living in a “diverse” area, what that tends to mean in practice is that on a census count, there are some threshold of minorities within city lines. It means one may drive past people who look differently on a regular basis. It doesn’t necessarily mean living next door to people who look different, and that there are people who look different from either of you across the street, and people who look different from all 3 of you around the corner. In many of <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the most “diverse” cities in the nation people are in practice just as segregated</a> as any city in the Jim Crow south.</p><p><br /></p><p>There has always been some level of separate “black” media, and the trend has been to expand that separation, TV shows, channels, magazines, movies. America has always been a “melting pot”, and cultures everywhere in the world, for all of time, have learned from other cultures when they meet, and blended, adapted, and grown better as new ideas are introduced. The term “cultural appropriation” used have a connotation of someone commercializing and/or making fun of a culture of which they had no part, nothing to do with. Today it can just mean being part of a culture which doesn’t match one’s skin tone. It means “stay in your lane”, which essentially means “black people should do black people things and white people should do white people things” – again, that your physical characteristics define what kind of person you are supposed to be.</p><p>There’s been a trend of people of European origin opting out of conversations around race if there are any colored people speaking. While this may be done with the best of intentions, the “stay in your lane” mentality is in effect another form of promoting segregation. Those same people have opinions, and have conversations about the topic. They just don’t have them in front of anyone except other white people. So now even our conversations about race itself are “separate but equal”! There are even some groups organized with the explicit intent of promoting anti-racism who go so far as to literally segregate people based on skin color, in a horribly ironic attempt to ensure that white people don't take over meetings.</p><p><br /></p><p>Any attempt to say “let them have their own thing”, whether its music or neighborhoods or recreational or political groups is a form of saying the races should be kept separate. This desire for well-defined lines of what who can and can’t do what, who can live where, designated media and neighborhoods, separate conversations and clubs, it all amounts to a promotion of “separate but equal”. A policy which, if you accept the premise that people of African, European, Asian and (aboriginal) American origin are fundamentally different people from each other, does at least seem logical on the surface. </p><p>However,</p><p>1) that premise is flawed: culture comes from ones environment, not from DNA,</p><p>and</p><p>2) separate but equal is never actually equal in practice, which is the whole reason it was struck down by the courts in the first place.</p><p><br /></p><p>Even if everyone agreed to do everything possible to make things equal things would still never be equal, because people today of different backgrounds aren’t starting from the same point. If everyone has a level playing field, but some people have a huge headstart, those people are still always going to win.</p><p>Some people have recognized that leveling the playing field doesn’t do enough if some people have a huge headstart, however the solutions that have been tried so far consist of only two types: give the most disadvantaged a small boost, or give the luckiest and most privileged few who happen to share demographic characteristics with disadvantaged people a huge boost. </p><p><br /></p><p>We can all agree that the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow set up conditions where African American families, on average, are starting out with less wealth and education than European American families have, on average.</p><p>So the “race” to wealth, by race, in America, starts out with people not all lined up on the same starting line:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgT7yMXWbeXlyM_hLtVyz5WWFOoNChc3EnlOek6eZfV-a__Lca2HW76d4M2WyoWkgQLCTR5sTcy1ViyALpmCxIzKVUWgl_bHgis8k6gyLoleqHJClyQdQqVQ9e4mese-dV-HpfN3HUQdYti/s886/Starting+point.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="190" data-original-width="886" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgT7yMXWbeXlyM_hLtVyz5WWFOoNChc3EnlOek6eZfV-a__Lca2HW76d4M2WyoWkgQLCTR5sTcy1ViyALpmCxIzKVUWgl_bHgis8k6gyLoleqHJClyQdQqVQ9e4mese-dV-HpfN3HUQdYti/s16000/Starting+point.jpg" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>Some white people start out poor, some start out excessively wealthy, and most are somewhere in the middle. A few black people start out wealthy, a disproportionate amount start out poor, and most are in the middle, although most of the middle is further back than the white middle.</p><p><br /></p><p>In order to try to correct this imbalance our major programs have been welfare and affirmative action. The former applies only to those people way in the very back, and the latter applies mostly to the people who are already in the middle – the jobs and colleges actively recruiting black people still have minimum standards, and it’s the highest performing black people who are most likely to be eligible for those positions.</p><p><br /></p><p>So the effect of these two things is essentially like this:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBMSzuznwb3mb7nE2ovrpU6-LPexuSfOc5kbmmN73ZWspKNwB4rar8b8s3FOhN55ZPU-BHyqoMUFoK32PdYn7js5R3_DJxYmF_bPUm8oqMb7lV0UlANzXEBTuHWugUXaGhaKx_9d6LGOhn/s886/Race+solutions.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="190" data-original-width="886" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBMSzuznwb3mb7nE2ovrpU6-LPexuSfOc5kbmmN73ZWspKNwB4rar8b8s3FOhN55ZPU-BHyqoMUFoK32PdYn7js5R3_DJxYmF_bPUm8oqMb7lV0UlANzXEBTuHWugUXaGhaKx_9d6LGOhn/s16000/Race+solutions.jpg" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p>Neither of these do much of anything to help the majority in the middle catch up.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>These days the focus is not even on those types of solutions (which, as ineffective as they are, are still better than nothing), but has shifted almost entirely to the effect of "racist police"; which - at best - has the potential to help prevent a subset of the group at the far left end to not be pushed backward even farther. The majority of black people never go to prison, and the majority are never assaulted by police, so no amount of addressing those issues will ever do anything to even begin to close the gap. Those issues are in fact symptoms, not causes, of the wealth gap. Poverty leads to crime, and crime leads to interactions with police which in turn leads to incarceration rates. Deal with the root issue, and you automatically deal with all of them.</p><p><br /></p><p>The left’s single-minded obsession with racism per say is leading to all sorts of similar situations where cause and effect are reversed, which lead to nonsensical “solutions” to the perceived problems. For example, in a recent local election it was proposed that politicians who run for district races show some form of evidence that they actually live in the area they want to represent. This was decried as racist. <br /> The reasoning was that disproportionately more black people rent (vs own) relative to white people, and that procuring a copy of a deed is easier than getting a copy of a lease (why that would be so was never addressed…). <br />Just this morning I received an email claiming explicitly that “austerity is racist”. Austerity is a set of political-economic policies that aim to reduce government budget deficits through spending cuts, tax increases, or a combination of both. The assumption is presumably that some austerity measures may include reducing aid to poor people, and black people are disproportionately poor - therefore the policy will affect them negatively, and therefore it is racist. <br /> In both of these examples, the actual issue is poverty. But instead of addressing that disparity, the reaction takes it for granted that “black” and “poor” are interchangeable, and seeks merely to offer token support to the poor; while assuming that they are, always have been, and always must be, poor. It takes black poverty as a given. But this, quite obviously, is itself a racist position! Nothing comes closer to implying that there is something intrinsic to race that causes the current outcomes without saying it than to give up on changing the economic status quo and instead focus on addressing the secondary effects caused by it.</p><p><br /></p><p>Based on the priorities, focus, and objections of the left, it would seem that the universal understanding that the reason for the unequal social positions of different demographic groups is due to the effects of racist white people doing things directly to individual people for the express purpose of holding them back.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgohCCe0XaimyNCEganvD1EEGiSXu8_PdfpGYwnHKs9pKsiMLWPCZ_pdJApyX2hWlw0PrgI8-ovAcZOgbFmmk1CDRYB5JmZJeYqNidxMIehH7VaAwaRuRiCrS5Mnn5A6mcmVy3TJYVdd62m/s868/race+cycle+simplfied.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="271" data-original-width="868" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgohCCe0XaimyNCEganvD1EEGiSXu8_PdfpGYwnHKs9pKsiMLWPCZ_pdJApyX2hWlw0PrgI8-ovAcZOgbFmmk1CDRYB5JmZJeYqNidxMIehH7VaAwaRuRiCrS5Mnn5A6mcmVy3TJYVdd62m/w640-h200/race+cycle+simplfied.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><p style="text-align: center;">(The anti-racist worldview)</p><p> </p><p>This view amounts to what blogger Tim Urban of “Wait But Why” refers to as “Political DisneyWorld” – society can be summed up the way it is in a Disney movie, with villains who are clearly and incurably evil, helpless victims of the villains dastardly plans, and heroes who are always pure good. </p><p>Perhaps unsurprisingly, the left anti-racists themselves are the “heroes” who are selflessly coming to the aid of the poor colored people who are downtrodden by the top-hat wearing thin curly mustache white supremacists.</p><p><br /></p><p>In the real world, society is a bit more complicated.</p><p>The closest I can come to a summary looks like this:</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjonooDZYKDh98YA5oxpPrZVlB4zSTJ3UboSR09kn50RE0CYv7qLFgjPhjo71JYBc1PFQMdy4w1LLk71XJ67-WbcIuKzdVM2uxjBqFf29Pw1ydAvBJTditEIsDcwnx5igtUqfHeNJcG3yER/s1094/race+cycle.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="541" data-original-width="1094" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjonooDZYKDh98YA5oxpPrZVlB4zSTJ3UboSR09kn50RE0CYv7qLFgjPhjo71JYBc1PFQMdy4w1LLk71XJ67-WbcIuKzdVM2uxjBqFf29Pw1ydAvBJTditEIsDcwnx5igtUqfHeNJcG3yER/w640-h316/race+cycle.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(My – (still oversimplified) - world view)<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: center;"><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The most notable feature of this more in-depth version is that, once the cycle gets started, it is self-perpetuating. </p><p>The first step, slavery, which we all agree is what got all this mess started in the first place, ended long before anyone alive today. The legal and formal forms of oppression that existed after has also ended before (almost) everyone alive today. In the first worldview, that only leaves dramatic anecdotes and conveniently subtle and unproveable trends to explain all disparities, and it implies that if people with power just stopped being racist, all inequality would disappear over night. But a more honest look at the differences in, for example, crime rates, by demographic reveals that would not be enough.</p><p><br /></p><p>Another notable feature is that the message being perpetuated by anti-racists actually<u> contributes to the cycle directly</u> <span style="font-size: 12pt;">(by enhancing the size of the purple box and
it’s accompanying arrow</span><span style="color: blue; font-size: 14pt;">*</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">). They also contribute to the cycle by fighting
<i>for</i> the lower two points in the brown box</span><span style="color: #993300; font-size: 14pt;">*</span>.</p><p><br /></p><p>While at this point I’m still focused on pointing out problems with the solutions currently on the table, here at last it’s at least starting to point at a possible direction for real solutions.</p><p><br /></p><p>And on that note; the next post will be: <u><b><a href="http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2021/09/my-checklist-for-how-to-actually-be.html">My Checklist for How to Actually be a Good Ally</a></b></u></p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-89779049977992771822020-09-30T15:20:00.015-07:002020-09-30T15:20:00.637-07:00Bigger concepts: Why the anti-racism movement isn't helping end race inequality PART 3/3 (Part 5/5 of a series on race based on emails to my family)<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">The final Chapter</p><p class="MsoNormal">(A few notes on specific things from a family member's last response, written
before I got to the larger things I wrote about in the last post, follows):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regarding music of the 90s: I listed a small sample of
musicians who got plenty of airplay, who’s work had zero, or very little
violence or other negative themes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s
not just that they weren’t the “most” violent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I’m not really sure where the idea that radio stations deliberately
promoted it came from, but I think it’s simply not true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact that indie musicians with a specific
message to promote are heard on public radio is a reflection of the pop music
industry as a whole, it is no less true for “white” music.<br />
<br />
Regarding reparations:<br />
My point is that the symbolic reparations Jews got had nothing to do with their
recovery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your response is in terms of “moral right” – <br />
For one I’m not interested in what people feel is “fair”, because that has
little to do with the actual day-to-day conditions of reality and
well-being.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
My point had nothing to do with what anyone does or doesn’t “deserve” – I wrote
in my first reply that I would support it if anyone had any serious proposal –
my point was that the proposal wouldn’t actually solve anything.<br />
<br />
For two, I don’t believe a lineage is interchangeable with a person.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, I believe that belief is THE root of
all related issues, but I’ll come back to that in detail soon… The “heirs” which
sometimes got reparations were the children of people who personally
experienced direct harm, not the great-great-great-grand-children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If generations are all part of the same unit,
then all of us should be going back to Europe and Africa (and Asia, etc)
leaving the remaining “Native” (aboriginal) Americans all of North and South
America, and anything short of that will forever be the greatest injustice,
perpetrated by <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all</i> of us who choose
not to leave.<br />
<br />
I pointed out that the amount of money given by the <st1:country-region><st1:place>US</st1:place></st1:country-region>
government to black people is tens of thousands of times more than <st1:country-region><st1:place>Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region>
gave to holocaust survivors, even if they didn’t restrict it to only black
people or call it “reparations”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You
suggest seed money for black-run businesses should count, and in fact there are
things like the federal MBDA (minority business development) and procurement
guidelines and quotas – which are not available to whites.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, not officially referred to as “reparations”,
but with a total real world impact significantly higher than <st1:country-region><st1:place>Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s
contribution to Jews was.<br />
<br />
Regarding other groups being oppressed, I was never suggesting that no other
group was oppressed, nor that you thought that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I was pointing out that the way groups overcome the negative perceptions
that society (every society, without exception) puts on outsiders that join
them is by cultural integration, not by “movements”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Movements have times and places with value,
but in terms of actually being accepted by the mainstream, that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">can</i> happen without movements, but it <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">can’t</i> happen without integration.<br />
<br />
I never said the primary measure of “oppression” is statistical cause of death
– I think there is an overwhelming obsession with oppression which is both
unwarranted by the facts of modern reality and, regardless of its level of
truth, is counter-productive overall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What I said is that if we are honestly concerned with people’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">well-being</i>, then our efforts should be
proportional to the causes of suffering.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><br />
Even if “oppression” is rampant and everywhere and there is this enormous and
unbridgeable power imbalance that everyone is born into and nearly everyone who
inherits power takes advantage of their privilege to the detriment of those
born powerless, even if that is true, but other factors are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">more</i> significant in causing suffering
among the powerless, those other factors should be the proportionate focus of
anyone who claims to have their best interest in mind.<br />
Note also, I never said it should be the only focus, I said in the original as
I said here, the focus should be <u>proportionate</u>.<br />
<br />
And yes, I agree: “<b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Arial;">there is no
analogous protest movement against </span></b><b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Helvetica;">heart disease or cancer because people are not held
responsible for that</span></b> “ that too is a big part of what I see as being
a problem, not just in this issue but in nearly every issue facing humanity; we
can’t care about anything unless we have a group of humans to identify as the
bad guy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I wrote about this a lot in my
first letter, (which I now remember / realize I never sent to anyone but Ellen
and Becca)<br />
<br />
”’Murica” is short for “<st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region>”,
and is supposed to be the way nationalist redneck hick yokels slur the word.<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your response to my list of things that is attributed to
racism prompted the response “<b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Arial;">Well,
you are convincing me of the serious need for a movement that demands a lot
more</span></b>” followed by an example of how racism affects employment
opportunity.<br />
<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I wrote the list in response to </span>“ in
my whole life, I have never heard anyone claim that "100% of bad things in
the life of every black person is the direct result of the choices of white
people."”<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> But you didn’t
answer my question of</span>:<br />
”<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">What bad thing that happens to
black people doesn't get attributed to white people?” <br />
instead adding to the list of things that are blamed on racism!<br />
So I say still, “There is no room there for any self-determination or
influence over one's life in this narrative.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Arial;"> "Likewise,
it is the experience of racism and disproportionate obstacles to success that
make people feel disempowered,"<br />
</span></b><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Maybe. Or perhaps <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">belief</i> of it is enough.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have seen dramatically from the Stanford
Prison Experiment, Jane Elliott’s blue eyes vs brown eyes, and many smaller
lesser known experiments the degree to which people will embody the
expectations on them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are countless
social experiments that show the degree to which people can be primed, how they
will seek out confirmation of what they believe, of how social acceptance is
the largest factor in beliefs and values, how people see what they expect to
and side with those they consider their “kind”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><br />
If you think my extending this as logically applying to black kids
internalizing what they hear is societies expectations, this specific thing has
been found to be true too:<br />
”</span><span class="lettrine"><span style="background: #FAFAFA; color: #323232;"> E</span></span><span style="background: #FAFAFA; color: #323232;">xtensive research with adults has
demonstrated that the subtle activation of stereotypes can negatively impact
people’s behavior and performance. For example, in a seminal paper, C. M.
Steele and Aronson (1995) showed that African-American college students perform
more poorly on a challenging test of verbal ability after being subtly reminded
of their negatively stereotyped racial identity… This initial demonstration has
been replicated and extended in a number of different domains and with a
variety of target groups (see Inzlicht &Schmader, 2012, for a review). Both
theory and research suggest that <em>stereotype threat</em> effects
can occur when people feel at risk of confirming negative self-relevant
stereotypes. This concern can increase arousal and consume and/or deplete
cognitive resources leading to stereotype-consistent behavior, including
decreased test performance ”<br />
</span><a href="https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2014-3-page-161.htm">https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2014-3-page-161.htm#</a><br />
The different experiences of black people who are recent immigrants speaks
significantly to the order of cause and effect between obstacles to success and
a feeling of disempowerment, as explained well by this person from the
Caribbean who moved to the US and experienced, much more than actual racism,
the absolute assurance of the black American community of how absolutely
rampant it is and the degree to which it would permeate their life:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://aidanneal.com/2014/06/29/racism-caribbeans-just-dont-get-it/">http://aidanneal.com/2014/06/29/racism-caribbeans-just-dont-get-it/</a>
<br />
(I don’t excerpt it here because it is all so relevant and fairly short)<br />
<br />
In other words, I think feeling unempowered is itself the single biggest
obstacle, and that it comes at least as much from our <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">insistence</i> of how unempowered black people are than from anything
“society” is actually forcing on every individual with more melanin in their
skin.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: #FAFAFA; color: #323232;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><br />
<br />
Regarding the term “movement”:<br />
I don’t know that it is actually a universally agreed definition that “movement”
refers specifically to law and policy change.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In fact, when you first define it, you wrote “</span><b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Arial;">Movements are about societal and
governmental change.</span></b><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">”
Perhaps I misunderstood the “and” as being “and/or”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What are you considering “society”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only government?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Private business?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only people determined to have “power”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only white people?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All individuals?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
In a capitalist constitutional republic, government may have a significant
amount of power, but it is limited.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Businesses are run by, and represent, individual people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">When Critical
Mass rides bikes in mass, they aren’t demanding government or business do
anything, the goal is awareness and visibility and respect by drivers, by
random individual people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does that not
count as a movement?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Given that this
isn’t a communist country, should “governments” and “employers’ be a single
category?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Government never mandated
weekends.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Governments also have no
direct control over who individual people choose to hire.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
</span><b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Arial;">"I would not
automatically assume that when people point to (especially poor) blacks having
less access to health care, they are necessarily implying that it is due to
deliberate racism, per se… </span></b><b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Helvetica;"> since such a large proportion of black folk are
impoverished, it easily explains why black people are being affected/dying at
greater rates than white people"<br />
</span></b><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">One of the things I’ve
been saying all along is that class and race are not interchangeable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the effects are not caused by “deliberate”
racism, but are secondary effects of poverty which disproportionately affect
people who inherit poverty, then there is no advantage to framing it in racial
terms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we address the wealth
inequality that leads to disparate outcomes, the problems go away.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is something vindictive in the
apparent, usually unspoken, feeling that if we don’t make it racial, efforts to
fix it might accidentally help out some white poor people too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There seems to be an idea that if something
helps everyone, then it “doesn’t count”, because its not “reparations”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the net result is that all individual
people – including black people – are better off, what the hell does it
matter?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How does it make the world a
better place to call the list of effects of poverty on health “systemic racism”
and then focus on making people less racist – rather than focusing on reducing
toxic industries, the distribution of hospitals and supermarkets, public
transportation, etc?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These are all
things that government policy <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">can</i>
directly control!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The “movement” rarely
raises those issues, and if it does it is exclusively in the context of
“institutional racism”, with the implication that racism itself is the thing
that needs to be addressed, that if only “institutions” would stop being so
“racist” all those problems would go away, and the thing I keep saying is that
eliminating “racism” would not end ANY of the things you list as the effects of
wealth inequality on health outcome, whereas addressing wealth inequality <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">would</i> address all of them.<br />
<br />
And again, this framing of issues as issues of race I absolutely do believe has
very significant effects on how young people growing up exposed to them build
their self-identity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course it
does!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m not just talking about BLM,
that’s a tiny part of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m talking
about how literally every issue, every problem facing a black person is
attributed to racism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That seems like an
extreme statement, but what is the exception?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I’m talking about the entire message, the<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>statements that “everyone knows” about police
bias (even when the statistics don’t bear it out), the blaming of employment,
health, representation or lack there of on TV shows, the condition of inner
cities, segregation, every disparity, is attributed to racism, and only racism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">"</span><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Helvetica; font-weight: bold;">conditions in the
black community are that they are a consequence of societal neglect because
people do not care enough"</span><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">
<br />
What does this mean!?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">This is like
when people who want more gender equality make statements like “society doesn’t
value women”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s a nonsensical
statement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Society” doesn’t mean
“government” or “powerful, influential men”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Society means people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
collection of all the individual people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is no single unified monolithic entity with its own independent
thoughts and actions whose name is “society”, there is just a collection of
individuals, with individual lives making individual choices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Women are half of all people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The statement “society doesn’t value women”
is itself a product of deeply ingrained sexism, because the statement implies
that women aren’t people, that they aren’t ½ of what the word “society”
means.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And similarly, “societal neglect”
because “people” don’t care enough doesn’t make any sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which “people”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dichotomy between “black community” and
“people” implies that the black community isn’t made up of people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All individual people prioritize in order of
relatedness - themselves first, their children second, their partner and
immediate family 3<sup>rd</sup>, their community 4<sup>th</sup>, whatever they
consider “their people” 5<sup>th</sup> (by race, culture, religion or nation),
humans 6<sup>th</sup>, mammals 7<sup>th</sup>, vertebrates 8<sup>th</sup>... <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">All the
members of society prioritize their own community over other people’s
community.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This being capitalism first,
and a federal republic second, there is generally no focus on neighborhoods
beyond the city level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no
federal bureau of individual neighborhood welfare.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
The single largest factor in the conditions in any community is the collective
actions of the people that make it up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If you want “people” to care about a neighborhood, where “people” is
code for “white people” you don’t do it by emphasizing how those people over
there are a different people from you, and you shouldn’t hate them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Neglect is not hate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Neglect isn’t even discrimination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Neglect is just prioritization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People will always prioritize themselves
first.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which means the way you get
“people” (white people) to not neglect certain communities is to make them <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">part</i> of those communities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
</span><b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Helvetica;">"Yes, it has as much
to do with class as race, but after several centuries of blatant racist
atrocities, it is no wonder that black people think in racial, not just class
terms."<br />
</span></b><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Yes, I never said I
don’t <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">understand</i> why people (not just
black people, all the self-identified anti-racists and “woke” people and
progressives) put everything in racial terms, I am just saying it is
counter-productive.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">I disagree
with your interpretation of history, that “</span><b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Arial;"> "It has been movements and demands for systemic
changes (along with unions, who likewise make systemic demands) that have given
us so much improvement in the lives of poor and middle-class Americans today” </span></b><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">I think the biggest contributor, by
far, to improved conditions for all classes is simply technology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After that, as much as I don’t think it is
worth it, it is true that capitalism creates wealth much better than any other
system, and while it does not distribute that wealth fairly, it does to an
extent raise up every level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It raises
the rich higher and faster, but it raises the middle class beyond where it
would be without it, and to a small extent even the poor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Great Depression affected such a wide
swath of American’s, at all levels, that it didn’t take massive protests to
push through. The government is made up of people, of citizens, and they don’t
automatically want to make all people suffer just for it’s own sake, so
sometimes they (we) do things to try to support the people. The 40 hour week
was a central demand of organized labor for 150 years, but it was the New Deal
that made it a reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another factor
is our outsized military, and how it helps secure foreign markets and
cooperation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">And we don’t
actually have better pay, when adjusted for inflation, working hours, benefits,
and number of household members working.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The single largest factor in the increase in household income is the
percentage of married women who entered the workforce.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s the combination of inflation making
dollar numbers bigger than their values, plus technology and outsourcing making
stuff cheaper, that makes it seem like we have better pay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ultimately the extent to which pay increases
or decreases is simple economics: number of workers who can do a particular job
vs number of jobs to be filled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
harder a job is to fill, the higher the pay, which is why skills and education
makes a difference.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If a job is terrible
enough, like coal mining or oil drilling, it tends to pay well too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, being capitalism, if you can get a
percentage of money other people earn, like by being a boss or an owner, you
make the most of all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If a job can be
outsources or done by robots or anyone who can walk and talk, it pays very
little.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is essentially nothing a
social movement can do to change that, short of getting shorter working hours
enacted (say, a 20 hour work week), because if the price of labor goes up,
employers just find alternatives, like investing in robots or hiring overseas.<br />
While you draw a distinct line between political movement directed at
government policy and attempts at social change, I don’t think there is such a
clear line.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were abolitionists in
white society and in government hundreds of years before the civil war, never
mind the civil rights movement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Boycotts
are against private industry, not government, and even marches that end at city
hall or the white house are intended to be public, to gain the visibility of
ordinary people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Police oppression may
have been the issue that galvanized gay rights activists, but the pride parade
is not directed at any particular policy, it is a demonstration to random
ordinary people how many there are and that it is not associated with shame or
guilt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As much as the push for marriage
equality way directed toward a government policy, the public push for it itself
helped sway public opinion, with its focus on gay people not being depraved sex
fiends, but rather relatable ordinary family people, and that in turn helped
change the minds of enough people that it influenced government, which is afterall,
more or less a democratic institution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If the goal was just government policy, movements could be entirely
expressed by letters and visits to representatives and get-out-the-vote
efforts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Publicity stunts like café
sit-ins and bus boycotts were always as much about generating public support by
making prejudice obvious and impossible to ignore.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which is as it should be, since, like
“society”, “government” too is just made up of people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While inherited wealth is disproportionately
represented in government (because that’s who society picks), more than half of
presidents do not come from the upper class by birth, and (almost) none of them
inherit the job title the way most societies though history have done it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Elections means that even systemic change
largely follows the will of the people, even if it sometimes acts just slightly
before the majority has changed its mind about a particular issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just in general, I think we tend to frame
everything as though we lived in a world of dynastic kings and nobility,
peasants and slaves, and it just isn’t the reality of the world we are in. <o:p></o:p></span></p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-40745124303500606192020-09-29T13:01:00.001-07:002020-09-29T13:01:00.515-07:00Bigger concepts: Why the anti-racism movement isn't helping end race inequality PART 2 (Part 5 of a series on race based on emails to my family)<p> <b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Helvetica;">“almost
everyone can do something.”</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Helvetica;">
<br />
</span></b><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">I absolutely agree!<br />
Where we disagree is I don’t think going out and demanding <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">other</i> people do something is actually “doing” something.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I believe, strongly, that every activist and
ally MUST “be the change they wish to see” FIRST.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If a person is not willing to actually do
anything in their own personal life that supports what they claim to want to
happen in the world, they are basically full of crap and have no
credibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No one should listen to
them, not policy makers, not people in power, not political rivals; <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">no one <i>should
</i>believe they are sincere, because they aren’t.<br />
The event that disillusioned me from “activism” was going to a protest against </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Iraq</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> war II, the theme of which was “no war
for oil.”<br />
I was literally the ONLY person to show up by bicycle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were no BART commuters or electric car
drivers. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Every single other person</i> went to this “no
war for oil” protest in their gasoline powered cars. And they all shared a
sense of outrage, of self-righteousness, of moral superiority, which none of
them had earned. The war is to ensure <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">they</i>
can keep putting oil in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">their</i> cars!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Standing around holding a sign telling
government to do something is NOT “doing” something.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If every citizen went out to protest, but
kept driving gas powered cars, the oil industry will keep on making money, and
the government will continue supporting it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If zero citizens go out and protest, but also zero of them buy gasoline,
almost overnight the oil industry begins to die, we have no use for </span><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Middle East</span></st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> or Venezuelan or protected Alaskan
oil, and both war and climate change halts in its tracks. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Personally, I
find hypocrisy to be worse than simple inaction – at least the conservatives
who want cheap oil are honest about their priorities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
Similarly, putting up a sign in the window about supporting diversity, or
having a bumper sticker, or even going to a protest, is not “doing”
something.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s telling other people
what type of person you are, it is declaring a team, an identity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At best it is asking <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">other</i> people to change what they do.<br />
<br />
When these same people’s actions in their personal lives all serve to maintain
the status quo, then the symbolic claims of support are not only hollow and
hypocritical, they are as gross as the oil protestors who buy the products they
are protesting. <br />
</span><b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Helvetica;"><br />
</span></b><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Of course it is
“natural” to want what ever is best for one’s own children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just as it is natural to discriminate against
people that are classified as someone not one’s own “tribe”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ensuring what’s best for one’s children could
include bribing their teachers, or murdering their rival students.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a society, we collectively decide what
things (which are completely “natural”) are unacceptable, for the good of
society as a whole.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is natural to
want to harm someone physically because of a verbal insult or disrespect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is natural to discriminate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is natural to want to take things from others,
or to take advantage of those who have less power than you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we thought we should allow everyone to do
whatever they naturally feel like doing, then we wouldn’t have any laws at
all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Murder and theft and rape and violence
are all natural, and all unacceptable. Every society decides collectively the
degree to which individuals are required to forgo their own personal
preferences for the collective good.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Most other developed nations restrict the degree to which a person can
privilege their own children above everyone else more than the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> does, with the predictable result of
us having the most inequality – and consequently the most crime and violence -
of any developed country.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Actions that
are the ideal for one’s own children, like moving to the neighborhoods with the
best schools, paying for private schools, paying for college, leaving property
and cash to heirs, etc, has a much bigger overall negative impact on society as
a whole than the positive impact it has on individual people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most of the developed world does not allow
the amount of privilege we allow.<br />
And yet, the very people who talk the most about privilege and how unfair it is
have literally zero to say about real, tangible ways they could <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">personally</i> give it up.<br />
Helping ones own children is literally the very definition of privilege, and
equality is not possible while some people are privileged.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If an individual isn’t willing to give up
these very tiny things, then they don’t really want equality at all. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It makes no sense to claim to want equality
for all children – except my own, for whom I want the best.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If everyone is going to prioritize what is
best for their own individual children, we may as well all stop pretending to
want equality, because no one else is going to listen to demands to give
something up made by someone who won’t give it up themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If everyone gets to do whatever is best for
their kids, people born into more wealth will always do better on average, and
people born into poverty will always struggle more, and the cycle began by
slavery etc will continue for the rest of time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 157.5pt;"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 157.5pt;"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">-<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 157.5pt;"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">If the goal is
to help people who are at a disadvantage in life, it’s important to be able to
let go of figuring out who to blame and who benefits, and instead focus on what
is actually going to effectively address the root issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Weeds that aren’t dug up by the roots always
grow back.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Illnesses in which only
symptoms are treated don’t go away.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>First we have to understand what the core issue is, and then focus on
addressing that. <br />
The core issues that are blamed on the “symptom” of “racism” are cultural
segregation and intergenerational wealth inequality.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">When I talk
about “integration”, I am not just talking about living in the same
neighborhood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">I am talking
about complete integration, geographic, yes, but more importantly
cultural.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Life integration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only way to combat our natural tendencies
to reject “otherness” is to reject that a particular demographic defines
“other”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, not defining
ourselves by random genetic demographics, whether they be race, or religion, or
national origin in the first place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m
talking about not just having different “races” in the same workplace or
schools, but different people eating the same food, playing the same music,
wearing the same clothes, speaking the same language, and actually <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">interacting</i> with each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
No, this is not something that can be directly legislated, but it is something
that activists can and do influence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Right now much of that influence is directed at enhancing and
encouraging differences and separation, sometimes directly (campaigns against
cultural appropriation, “gentrification” in cities with rent control), other
times indirectly, (emphasizing police shootings to the point where the general
public believes there to be a disproportionality that doesn’t reflect reality,
pushing for “black” media etc. rather than integration into “mainstream” -
legitimizing the false idea that “black” is actually a “type of person”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just like having window signs and bumper
stickers and influencing media presentation is all aimed not at law but at
individual people, so too could we, hypothetically, focus those efforts on
changing society in a way that would actually be meaningful and productive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">No, I’m not
suggesting that government pick a spouse for each individual.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, societies have always placed rules,
some legal and formal, others merely social pressure, on who can and can’t
marry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We as a society decide the degree
of relatedness that is legal to marry: some states first cousin is OK, others
it is not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In some cultures that’s
completely normal, in others, even if it is legal it is looked down on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some cultures have allowed uncle, aunt, and
at times even siblings to marry, while others that is a violation of law,
social norms, or both. There is a reason to avoid not only family, but members
of one’s own community, as over generations the effects of breeding with even <a href="https://theprint.in/science/the-scientific-argument-for-marrying-outside-your-caste/360975/">distant
cousins adds up</a>. In fact, generations of breeding with distant cousins
leads to more negative health outcomes than a single generation of siblings
in-breeding.<br />
Adoptive siblings have no genetic risk factors from having children together,
but are banned from marriage anyway. We decide the age at which people can
marry, with cultures varying widely in both time and location. A 50 year age
gap is perfectly legal, but strongly frowned upon socially. Interracial
marriage was one illegal. The purpose was specifically to prevent integration
by those who felt race was a real thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Before the attempted genocide in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Rwanda</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">, people in intergroup marriages were
labeled as “traitors”. <br />
It is well known that more genetically diverse parents lead to healthier better
offspring<br />
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Bakari/Desktop/Race%20papers/theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/02/diverse-parental-genes-lead-to-taller-smarter-children-says-extensive-study">http/://theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/02/diverse-parental-genes-lead-to-taller-smarter-children-says-extensive-study</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160413135710.htm">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160413135710.htm</a><br />
There is no reason this scientific fact can’t be promoted publicly, whether by
government, activists, or both, along with pointing out the enormous social
benefits –like it being the single most effective (and, I believe, the ONLY)
way to fully end racism.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">
The Indian caste system never had anything to do with race or physical
appearance, it is determined strictly by family lines, and was kept in existence by strict segregation and rules against inter-caste marriage. </span><br /><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">
Today, despite formally abolishing the caste system, in practice it still
remains.</span><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> </span><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Many prominent public figures,
including the supreme court, publicly declared inter-caste marriages to be in
the national interest, and in 2006 state governments started offering cash
incentives - currently between about $3000 and $6000 (about 6 month’s income)
to any bride or groom marrying someone of the lowest caste. </span><br />
<a href="https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/govt-to-give-rs-25-lakh-incentive-to-every-inter-caste-marriage-involving-a-dali/305229">https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/govt-to-give-rs-25-lakh-incentive-to-every-inter-caste-marriage-involving-a-dali/305229</a><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><a href="https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2020/jan/30/in-five-years-three-fold-rise-seen-in-inter-caste-marriages-at-karnataka-2096421.html">https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2020/jan/30/in-five-years-three-fold-rise-seen-in-inter-caste-marriages-at-karnataka-2096421.html</a><br />
<a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/govt-incentive-for-inter-caste-marriage-enhanced-to-rs-2-50-lakh/articleshow/71849880.cms">https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/govt-incentive-for-inter-caste-marriage-enhanced-to-rs-2-50-lakh/articleshow/71849880.cms</a><br />
<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All this to say, it is not at all as
crazy as you make it sound to suggest that law and / or social pressure might
have some influence over who people consider to be within their pool of
marriage candidates. Of course they do! They always have.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">The percentage
of people who are willing to marry someone of a different race than there own
is much smaller than the percentage who are willing to have different race
neighbors…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/17/5-insights-on-the-racial-tolerance-and-ethnicity-maps-from-an-ethnic-conflict-professor/?arc404=true">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/17/5-insights-on-the-racial-tolerance-and-ethnicity-maps-from-an-ethnic-conflict-professor/?arc404=true</a>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(open in incognito / private tab to bypass paywall)<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>… which itself is smaller than the number who specifically
think discrimination is a good thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">And as long as
that is true – that people who claim not be racist still use race as a factor
in determining who they would consider marrying - the support of “allies” is
nothing but words, and the effects of racism will stay alive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Right now
there are all sorts of personal choices that America shames as being racist –
explicit discrimination, of course, as well as more subtle things, using
certain words, flying certain flags, voting for certain politicians, wanting to
be around a certain race, being a little too proud of a heritage that includes
oppressive ancestors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What I’m saying
is, if a person lives in a city where 20 or 40 or 60% of the people look
different than themselves, and they choose to create more purebred children,
they should be added to that list of people and called out for the racists that
they probably are.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">If a white
person has a white partner, and they then choose to “do whatever is best for
their kids”, they are the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">source</i> of
the next generation’s “white privilege”, and they need to be called out for it
- especially when they are among the people decrying that privilege in
self-righteous rallies and petitions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They claim to want equality for all, but in reality they want to
privilege a few white kids above everyone else (their own), which makes them
the very embodiment of systemic racism.<br />
<br />
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/12/egalitarians-be-warned-wealth-begets-wealth</span><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Disparity would
be a very easy issue to fix.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We just
have to figure out what the root issue actually is, and be willing to make the
(small) personal sacrifices it takes to fix it. <br />
Until then, we are treating symptoms, often in a way that makes us feel better
in the short term while letting the disease grow stronger.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-65725716850681575392020-09-28T12:21:00.002-07:002021-07-08T07:51:54.479-07:00Bigger concepts: Why the anti-racism movement isn't helping end race inequality PART 1 (Part 5 of a series on race based on emails to my family)<p> <span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">First and
foremost:</span><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> </span><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">I am beginning to realize that
anti-racists actually believe that “race” is a real thing.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">
It isn’t. <br />
While there are genetic differences between groups of people, they don’t at all
align with what American’s define as “races". In fact, a person from </span><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">East Africa</span></st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> is more genetically similar to a
person from </span><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Europe</span></st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> than they are to someone from West or </span><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Southern Africa</span></st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">.
Biologically speaking, the term “black” person is completely
meaningless. There is actually more genetic diversity within the continent of </span><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Africa</span></st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> than between parts of </span><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Africa</span></st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> and the outside world. People from different parts of the continent
have completely different, completely unrelated languages, culture, and
ancestry. No one in </span><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Africa</span></st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> identifies themselves as “black”, any
more than a person in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Vietnam</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> self-identifies as “yellow”. People on opposite sides of </span><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Africa</span></st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> are literally not even related to each
other.<br />
But genetics is not even what Americans mean when they talk about race. It is used to mean a “type” of person. It is supposed to tell you what “team” someone
is on, who “your” people are.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">The idea that
a few random physical traits is what <i>defines</i>
a person is not universal - you don’t find the term in ancient texts, even
though Europe, the Mid-east, Asia and Africa all had knowledge of each other
and trade with each other for tens of thousands of years.<br />
In fact, the concept of “different races”, as we think of it today, was <i>invented</i> by racists, for the purpose of
justifying colonization and slavery. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">People used to
pretend it was possible for science to determine whether someone was a criminal
based on the shape of their skull or the bumps on their head. But it was false. The physical body tells you nothing about the
mind. Physical traits are determined by
nature. But culture is determined 100%
by nurture. A person adopted from
infancy by foreigners will have zero accents from their parent’s country of
origin. Nothing in one’s DNA determines
what name they have.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><br />
But that means doing a study in which you make the <i>names </i>on applications
stereotypically “black” isn’t really testing for prejudice based on skin tone
at all. It’s not testing for prejudice
against people with African origins. It
isn’t looking at a characteristic which is a fundamental and unchangeable part
of who a person is. Its looking at prejudice based on <i>culture. </i>It is the equivalent to submitting applications with names like Bubba or Jed or Billy-Bob and then saying it demonstrates racism against white people. People of any race
can choose to be a part of any specific sub-culture – suggesting otherwise is
itself racism, quite literally.<br />
Choosing to not make a <i>point</i> to
mention one’s race on an application is absolutely not “whitening” it! That phrase itself assumes that white is the
default; that white people have no need to specify their race, but everyone
else should make a point of listing it.
It would be like someone with a gender neutral name not specifying their
sex on a resume and claiming by not writing “female” on the resume they were
“maleing” it up.<br />
The idea of “people” in the sentence</span><i><span style="background: white; color: #500050; font-family: Arial;"> “Black people who were <span class="il">brought</span> to the United States <span class="il">by</span> <span class="il">force</span> (ie in the cargo holds of slave ships)”, </span></i><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">in the context of what people alive
today should do in order to maximize their individual chances of success
suggests that everyone of a particular race is “one people”, a distinct “type”
of human with characteristics so identical that individuals are all
interchangeable. Not a single black
person in the country was born into slavery, never mind taken from </span><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Africa</span></st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> by force. We’re not all one single rhizome soul that
spans infinite generations, all basically the same person. People are individuals, and they only
experience what they experience.<br />
We seem to think about race the way we think of (non-pet) species, as all
basically interchangeable – such that it is not a big deal for any individual
to die, but it is a tragedy for a specie to go extinct. While war and murder may be terrible, we
consider “genocide” to be a completely different level, as though it were for
some reason worse, or in fact at all different, to kill millions of people who
happen to have a few more sections of DNA in common than it is to kill millions
of random people. Hate crimes are given
special weight and attention, as though the reason for being murdered randomly
makes it more or less ok to be murdered, as if being murdered after being
picked out of a phone book is somehow better for the victim than being murdered
for your external appearance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Why?<br />
There is absolutely nothing about skin tone or hair texture or eyelid shape
that makes a person a particular “kind” of person; that determines who they are
or what they like.<br />
Nobody collects and reports on data regarding how all people who are
left–handed vote, or on the average education or income of people with attached
earlobes vs. unattached earlobes.<br />
Nobody suggests that ‘of course people who wear glasses would prefer to
interact with other people who wear glasses’ or that short women would prefer
to marry short men.<br />
Grouping people by handedness or earlobes is totally ridiculous, but it is
exactly as ridiculous as grouping people by skin tone. And this is something “anti-racists” do as
much, if not more than, the people they wish to make less racist.<br />
<br />
I suspect that most, if not all, of the race activists would feel that if every
child in the next generation was mixed, and after just a few generations it was
impossible to distinguish clear “races”, this would be a bad thing. Instead of considering it an end to racism,
it would be called “genocide”, to breed “minorities” out of existence. (Never mind that this would also mean an eventual
end to “white” people.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">For example,
there is an implication in “</span><b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Arial;">now blacks in San Francisco make up only 5.22% of the population
(less than those answering "mixed" and less than "other")</span></b><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">“ that having more of the population
identify as “mixed” than black is somehow an inherently bad thing. I see it as a sign of society beginning to
move past the racist concept that anything other than purebred European is
automatically “black”. Up until very
recently, all official forms and documents listed a few options, of which mixed
was not one, and you had to pick one and only one. All of those mixed people would have selected
black (or Asian) before, and made the number look higher. If every person in
the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> picked a partner who didn’t look like
they could be from the same family as themselves, after a single generation
every survey would have 100% “mixed” people, which would mean there was 0% “black”
people. But no one would have been murdered or displaced. Explain why this
would be negative for any specific individual?<br />
<br />
Of course the majority of so called
“African-Americans” who are descended from slavery are at least slightly mixed
race already. Just like how our whole concept of race was created by racists to
justify colonization and slavery, the idea that everyone can be categorized as <i>one</i> specific race - and that anything
other than pure-breed European is “colored” - is from the same people and the
same era. Obama is not black! Obama has equally as many genes from </span><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Europe</span></st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> as from </span><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Africa</span></st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">.
Every time someone refers to him as “the first black president”, they
are keeping the traditional concepts such as “octoroon” and “one drop of unpure
blood” alive. If he is black for being
half African, then he is also white. Why aren’t we calling him the 44<sup>th</sup>
white president? The reality is neither; he is mixed. Just like most African-Americans whose family
didn’t emigrate here from </span><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Africa</span></st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> within the last generation or two is (at least a little bit). There is no such thing as a “light-skinned
black person”. There are mixed race people,
who are only forced into the category “black” because we’ve all collectively
agreed to accept the rules made up by slave-owners, and we have been accepting
it so long we are blind to how racist it actually is. Our acceptance of the concept as real is what
leads to “solutions” as ridiculous as the ones from the “Radical Imagination”
article on banking, in which all (undefined) “black people” get all debt
forgiven and zero interest rate loans being taken seriously enough to be
published in a mainstream nationwide publication <a href="https://nyti.ms/3iCxFxt">https://nyti.ms/3iCxFxt</a><br />
<br />
It was dominate people of European origin who first divided the population into
only two meaningful groups, themselves, and {everyone else}, and used skin tone
to make the distinction. So while people
of African origin were the only ones formerly enslaved, people from </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">India</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> or </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">China</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> or Aboriginal Americans all had to use
“colored” fountains and doorways as well.
The use of the term “colored” as a catch-all for every single
non-“white” person, regardless of language, genetics, culture, national origin,
or citizenship, was one of the most significant manifestations of post-slavery
racist America, implying merely from the existence of the term the special
status of “white” people.<br />
And yet today it is actually anti-racists that have revived the term, barely
hiding its conceptual origin by reversing the word order: “people of color”
instead of “colored people”.<br />
If the racist history of the term leaves one wondering what term would be
better – there is none! It is the
concept that is racist. There doesn’t
need to be any way to group all of humanity into “white” and “everyone else”,
because there is no non-racist circumstances where such a concept is useful.</span><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><br />
For generations we (Americans) have all agreed to pretend that there are
actually meaningful categories called “race”, by which you can determine something
meaningful about an individual person based solely on the about of melanin in
their skin; so much so that everyone has internalized it and believes it is
actually true - and now we are clinging to our wrong beliefs, treating it as an
unquestionable given<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">The idea that
it is “natural to want to be around your own kind” is literally exactly the
reasoning used by white nationalists who insist that they are not white
supremacists. They say they don’t “hate”
anyone, and that they aren’t racist, they just think people should be around
people who are similar, share similar values and culture, they want what is
best for their family and their people, they want to remember and celebrate and
honor their heritage and history. This
is the central argument of segregationists and people who fly the confederate
flag and even members of the KKK. We
identify them, correctly, as racists, but those exact same claims and arguments
are no less racist ideas just because they happen to be held by members of an oppressed
group, or their supporters.<br />
Wanting to be "around your own kind" is exactly the reasoning of the
racist whites who resisted integration and whose "flight" created
inner city ghettos. “</span><b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Arial;">…
attempts toward integration in particular was tried in the past, with furious
resistance from whites, as well as "white-flight."</span></b><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">”
This was a problem, rightly decried. </span><b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Helvetica;"><br />
…<br />
The other concern has been the changing character of a neighborhood that
residents were comfortable in, with neighbors they were happy with, and small
businesses that they counted on</span></b><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">” "Changing character" is code for "white people moving in". The fact that segregation has been forced on a community for
so many generations that it is now embraced doesn’t make it any better. Separate but equal has always been an invalid
concept. It is invalid when white people propose it as a solution, and it is
just as invalid if it’s black people embracing it. Separate is not, has never been, and will
never be, equal, which is the whole reason our highest court struck its formal
legalization down. As long as it is anti-racists supporting segregation, I
don’t have high hopes we can ever move past it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><br />
“</span><b><span style="color: #652191; font-family: Helvetica;">most humans have
some tendency to prefer association with their "own tribe" with
whom they are most familiar, have the most similar experiences and beliefs, and
with whom they most identify. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">The degree to
which humans are separated within a country varies throughout the world, and
consistently, the more separate they are, the more racism and conflict there
is:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">”</span><span style="color: #111111; font-family: Georgia;">
where ethnic groups have distinct areas apart from each other within a
country, there is more conflict. Why? Well, partly because it facilitates
separatism”<br />
</span><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/17/5-insights-on-the-racial-tolerance-and-ethnicity-maps-from-an-ethnic-conflict-professor/?arc404=true">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/17/5-insights-on-the-racial-tolerance-and-ethnicity-maps-from-an-ethnic-conflict-professor/?arc404=true</a>
(open in private tab to bypass paywall)</span><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Going back to
“with whom they most identify” – we collectively decide what characteristics
individuals identify with; identity is not any more a real thing than race is.<br />
This is not just my opinion, its been shown experimentally time and again. People will identify with whatever entirely
arbitrary grouping you put them into. <br />
Literally, even <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2420030103">when
people are assigned a random group</a> based on a flip of a coin or roll of a
dice, group orange will show more affinity, trust, concern, and generosity to
another group orange than they will to a group blue. This tribalism is so
deeply a part of the human brain that this effect shows up even when the people
<i>know</i> that their assignment was
random. <br />
A person’s “identity” is what society tells them it is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><br />
As I opened with, there is no biological basis for the American concept of
“race”. But there is no ethnic or
cultural basis either, the people who self-identify and/or are identified as
“black” by others in the US have as widely varying a genome as they do from
“white people”, they have as broad a range of local accents as white
southerners, Midwesterners, new Englanders, etc, a wide range of dissimilar
cuisine, music ranging from rap to jazz, a wide range of skin tones and features,
varied levels of education and class… literally the only characteristic that
can be said to encompass all people designated “black” in America is that
designation itself. And in turn, the
only reason our “tribe” is considered to be those other people so designated,
as opposed to people who specifically share our DNA (which is a specific subset
of all people with African heritage), or people who share our nation of birth
(ie all Americans) or language, or religion, or any of the other dozens of characteristics
one can use to designate a group, is because all of America has bought so
deeply into the colonial pseudoscientific concept of race that we have all
internalized it and made it the single primary source of identity. Other people who were born here, whose
parents and grandparents were born here, who have no remaining accent from
their families nation of origin, no known family in that foreign nation, don’t
always think of themselves as first and foremost their assigned “race”. They
think of themselves as Americans. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><br />
Whatever characteristic society deems one which can make a nice dividing line
between groups of people, people will choose a side. You can identify as republican or democrat,
Christian or Jew or Muslim (or even Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist!), masculine or
feminine (that’s a whole can of worms for another day), military or civilian,
by race or by local sports team. People
choose which categories are most significant, and it’s really only for recent
immigrants and black American’s that it is just assumed that race will be the
single dominant trait that defines identity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">This idea we
have all bought into, that “black” and “white” are real categories that
represent some fundamental truth about who a person is and neatly divides all
people into one of two clearly defined binary “types” which happen to
correspond to a clearly visible physical trait is what allows us to pretend
that the average inequality between different cultural subgroups is a product
of “racism”.<br />
But if we look past modern </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">, it’s easy to see that isn’t
true. There is the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> history of the early Irish and Italian
settlers, but perhaps even more illustrative is a much more recent example,
from a culture independent of the West and European colonization: </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Japan</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Specifically,
Korean-Japanese.<br />
</span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Japan</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> annexed / colonized </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Korea</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> at the very beginning of the 20<sup>th</sup>
century. The military took farms and
other property from Koreans and gave it to Japanese settlers. Many Koreans, without restitution and now
landless, moved to </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Japan</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> where they could get factory jobs or
other menial labor jobs, which they could get because they would work for less
than the Japanese. Then WWII happened,
Japan lost and was forced to give up Korea, then Korea had a civil war over
communism vs capitalism, the US got involved, it was settled with a 2 state
solution… meanwhile multiple generations of Koreans, people who had been born
in Japan, lived their whole lives in Japan, spoke mostly or only Japanese, had
no known relatives in Korea, are still officially considered foreigners. Your parents and grandparents may have all
been born in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Japan</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> and lived their whole lives
there. You could even have a
great-grandparent who was Japanese.
Officially, you are a foreigner.
You have to register with the government, get fingerprinted, choose to
affiliate with either North or </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">South Korea</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">, check in every 3 years. Not only can you not vote, but it is entirely
legal to be discriminated against in housing and employment. You are not eligible for government jobs. On the social side, Korean Japanese are
generally considered to be lazy, dirty, simple-minded, sneaky, and criminal
(although if they do commit a crime, they can be deported, to a country they
have never been to). They have a strong
association with technically legal gambling, as well as to yakuza (the mafia).<br />
Today, if you have the right resources and connections it is possible to obtain
citizenship, although you risk being ostracized as a sell out to the enemy by other
Koreans and still won’t be accepted as one of the Japanese. Nearly every statement you can make about
black people in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> you can substitute Koreans in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Japan</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> and it remains an accurate statement.<br />
What makes this most illustrative for the plight of race relations in the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> isn’t the similarities – it’s the big
dramatic difference: Japanese and Korean people look so similar that without
language and other cultural cues, they can’t be told apart. Not just by ignorant westerners like us, but
by each other. This is best illustrated
by the fact that it’s relatively common, if a person has the opportunity and resources
and is willing to give up all ties to friends and family, for Koreans to move
somewhere, forge papers, and start over pretending to be Japanese. As long as
they never come across anyone from their old life and no one tries to trace
their paperwork too far, they can live a lifetime with no one finding out.<br />
</span><a href="https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/asia/japanese-political-geography/koreans-japan">https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/asia/japanese-political-geography/koreans-japan</a><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><br />
<br />
Another example is the Tutsi and Hutu of Rwanda, a sometimes violent tribal
conflict between two ethnically identical but culturally distinct groups that went
back 1000s of years before a brief European colonization led to an independent
democracy which in turn led to a reversal of power between the two groups (as
the historically dominate Tutsi were outnumbered by the Hutu), which also
reversed the direction of social power and discrimination. Perhaps the biggest contribution of the
colonizers to the conflict, though, was introducing the idea that the tribes
were not just lineages or social statuses, but actual “races”: two entirely
different “types” of person. Since they
are in actuality not distinct ethnicities, the information was written on
official ID cards, making it easy to distinguish people and prevent anyone
moving from one team to another. Now
oppressed became oppressor, and government stoking of prejudice led to so much
violence that many members of the once dominate Tutsi fled the country as
refugees. And then formed an army, began
a civil war, and (presumably) assassinated the moderate president, sparking off
the famous genocide of civilian Tutsi.
The rebel army indiscriminately killed civilians too, but there were
many fewer of them, so civilian Tutsi’s ended up being killed around 10 times
more than civilian Hutu – in the west the conflict gets presented in the
standard oppression narrative with clearly identifiable good guys and bad guys,
powerful and victims, but the reality was never so simple. The best analogy would be if white South
African’s (a once powerful minority) had fled the country due to citizen
violence against them, formed militia, started attacking civilian towns, and
murdered the president, and then black South African’s, egged on by media,
started trying to eliminate all remaining white people in the country, whether
they were involved in the “resistance” or not. Of course, in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Rwanda</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> the displaced former powerful minority
had no physical distinction nor history of outright explicit colonization, but
the analogy may help picture the complexity of the situation. In that situation, it’s hard to designate a
“good guy” or even a victim.<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">What these
examples show is that it really isn’t about skin tone at all. It isn’t about an
instinct to favor people who look like oneself, it isn’t about a history of
slavery, or even historical power, and it has nothing to do with “white
supremacy” specifically. All of these
are just how it happened to manifest because of the particular random
historical events of </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><br />
The fundamental similarity in all cases isn’t a difference in “race” - it is a
sense of “otherness” held by two groups of people, one of which has more
resources than the other. In both of these examples that otherness was so
artificial that it had to be codified on paper just so the dominate group could
know who to discriminate against. It's
an issue of being outsiders; plus the intergenerational inheritance of wealth
inequality, as much a factor in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">Japan</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"> as it is in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial;"><br />
We can not end the fundamental human brain need for tribalism. It is one of the most <a href="https://amodiolab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Ratner-Amodio-2013-JESP.pdf">deeply
rooted </a>aspects of our mind’s evolution.
We will not make people stop favoring who they think of as “their”
people by telling some specific people that they shouldn’t do it. However, we <i>can</i> change the criteria people make for deciding who is part of their
tribe. We can decide to group all
glasses wearers in one group, and they will develop their own culture and be
discriminated against, or we can decide that all the humans in our nation are
part of the same tribe, treat each other that way and talk that way and it will
begin to manifest.<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span style="color: #26282a; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Unless we understand the real fundamental root of the issue – the
tendency of humans to group each other into “us” and “them” categories and
assume “us” is good and “them” is bad, we have no real hope of improving the
situation for any particular specific example of it’s manifestation. We will forever be chasing tiny specific
symptoms of the real issue, while failing to in any way address the root level
changes that could actually make a difference.<br />
Any factors which tend to enhance the feeling of otherness will ultimately
strengthen the conflict. Any factors
that reduce it will ultimately reduce the conflict.</span>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-50092104494949390152020-09-27T12:15:00.003-07:002021-05-19T12:47:54.435-07:00Response to a response 3 (Part 4 of a series on race based on emails to my family)<p> After a few back and forths, the previous posts (which were originally emails to family members regarding the recent race protests and their implications), I started getting longer, more in-depth, and more nuanced responses. This (and the last two posts) are responses to those responses.</p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span></i></p><blockquote><i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I see now why you argued with my saying that
your last letter (the one about your childhood & teens) made your position
(or the reasons for your position) more clear. You certainly do spell out
your perspective more fully and clearly here. </i></blockquote><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks. <br />
I think a lot of what I wrote before assumed the reader had read (and
remembered) everything I had written before that. I didn't want to make
already long posts even longer by going over old stuff, so I usually just
have hyperlinks to older posts when I think they are relevant. I was
trying to focus on the most pertinent points and put them all together
here.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">I
want to say here that one of your most clarifying points is your analogy
between the percentage of convictions and incarcerations by race, and the <span style="color: black;">percentage of convictions and incarcerations by
gender. You provide interesting information and make an excellent
point. Likewise, you provide interesting information about the study
showing that cops generally display less race bias than the general population.</span></span></i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">Before I go on towards what I agree with and what I don't, I want
to pause here to point out that police absolutely should be trained to react,
as much as possible, without bias, because 1) it is their job; their
profession. Just like a therapist has to follow a code of ethics that
regular people are not subject to, police absolutely should meet a higher
standard of objectivity and restraint than your everyday citizen. 2)
Being armed with the ability to physically injure or even kill, as well as the
power to jail someone, they have a great responsibility to ensure that their
power is not abused. 3) They are agents of the government, supposedly
acting to ensure safety and justice, and as such have a duty to serve ethically
and justly; a duty that far exceeds that of the average Joe. I hope you
agree with this.</span></i></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
I do agree with you and Rachel on that point. I just don't think it is
realistic to have the only acceptable rate of mistakes to be exactly 0,
ever. I think the rate of police killing unarmed and non violent black
people, up to several a year, compared to almost 10,000 civilian murders of
black people, demonstrates that cops are already performing at a <i>much</i>
higher standard. I think given the public perception, any number above
zero, no matter how rare, will always be viewed as "rampant" and a
priority issue, and that is a problem.<br />
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i>That
being said, I agree that far too many (mostly young and poor) black men commit
violent crime (usually upon other young black men or women) and that there is
some correlation between who is getting arrested and who is committing
crimes. I won't go into how much is violent crime, and how much is
"victimless" crime like drug abuse and prostitution,</i></blockquote><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Actually, that is a very significant factor in all this, as
the statistics show significantly more bias in drug crimes than in violent
crimes, for both arrest and incarceration. Fortunately the majority of
states and cities have begun to recognize this. <br />
(Incidentally, small town middle America is both where the most "tough on
crime" mindsets remain, and where the opioid epidemic hit hardest, leading
to white women being the group with the highest percentage increase in
incarceration "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2019/12/04/states-imprison-black-people-five-times-rate-whites-sign-narrowing-yet-still-wide-gap/" target="_blank">Over the 16 years that were studied</a>, the number of black
men in state prison declined by more than 48,000, while the number of white men
increased by more than 59,000. Similarly, the number of incarcerated black
women fell by more than 12,000, and the number of white women in prison grew by
nearly 25,000."</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">or
how black crime is (as you've noted in the past) more visible due to being out
on the street, while similar white crimes more often are hidden indoors, nor
will I dwell on racial inequities in sentencing (or bail) when the crime is
identical, since you are talking here just about police bias and not the other
issues. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">But
the kind of street crime that you refer to happens mostly in poor black
ghettos, whereas much of what I have read of black men's frustration and anger
about being stopped repeatedly and without good cause by police is written by
educated middle-class black men, often living in middle-class (integrated or
mostly white) neighborhoods. I can't assume that they all responded
inappropriately every time that they were stopped by police, and that that is
because they were taught to fear or hate police from childhood. But I
would not be surprised that if it happened to someone too many times, and they
noticed that it never happened to their white friends, after a while they may
accummulate a lot of resentment and eventually anger about it. I have no
reason to believe that every one of the many educated middle-class black men
over 30 who complain of excessive police harrassment in their own or other
middle-class neighborhoods are either lying, or have been responding inappropriately
every time they see a police officer. </span></i></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don't think any of them are lying, and I'm sure many
aren't always being disrespectful. But pretty much all of us are primed
to expect to be stopped for no reason, and to be harrassed when we are, and
that leads to someone being completely sincere when they claim that being
stopped for speeding, or an expired license plate, or not coming to a full
stop, was really just because they are black. That is something I have
witnessed many times, an ordinary police stop being (sincerely) attributed to
race without any specific basis. I even hear white people saying "if I had
been black, I wouldn't have been let go with a warning". No one
person lives a lifetime being both white and black in order to actually
experience a lifetime of police interactions, but I know from times being
stopped on my motorcycle (with no skin exposed) or in a station wagon with
tinted windows at night, or driving a vehicle that looks like it would be owned
by some hippy (again, with tinted windows) that cops don't only stop black
people. I know also that discovering a driver is black, they don't
necessarily always give them a ticket, never mind do an automatic search.
Certainly things may be worse some places than others, but I've also personally
heard plenty of people in the Bay Area say with confidence how they were only
stopped because they were black, or that they wouldn't have been let off with a
warning if they hadn't been white, or other hypotheticals based on nothing
other than their assumptions of what the cops thinking was based on the
predetermined narrative of racist cops.<br />
I'm not aware of objective data that finds these significant disparities in
middle or high income neighborhoods. I've searched, and I can only find
studies that look at average<i> perceptions</i> of police
interactions by race including middle class or above neighborhoods. Not
surprisingly, studies based on self reports find disparities in those
perceptions. <br />
There are certainly more total stops and more use of force in poorer
neighborhoods and more high crime neighborhoods, (for both white and black
people) and an unfortunate number of black people live in those neighborhoods -
including individuals with higher income than the neighborhood average, which
makes it impossible to parse meaningful conclusions from any statistics that
isn't specifically divided that way.<br />
According to <a href="https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Color-of-Justice-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparity-in-State-Prisons.pdf" target="_blank">this report</a> by the sentencing project "In fact, 62% of
African Americans reside in highly segregated, inner city neighborhoods that
experience a high degree of violent crime, while the majority of whites live in
“highly advantaged” neighborhoods that experience little violent
crime." and "juvenile delinquents who live within areas that
have high minority populations (more heterogeneous) will more often be
detained, regardless of their individual race or ethnicity."</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
The reason I commented on each of the examples in the editorial by Ishmael is
because the majority of the basis for believing that police bias is driven
specifically by skin color rather than factors related to culture, poverty,
anti-authoriatiness,etc is anecdotes by individual middle class black people
who <i>believe </i>they were stopped and/or treated unfairly based solely on
the basis of their skin color. All the reports that come out finding
significant bias don't look at high-income, low crime neighborhoods, or if they
do, they don't distinguish the data. If only a very small percentage of
those neighborhoods is black, their lesser rate of police stops will get lost
in the larger data set. The problem with relying on notable and outrage
inducing anecdotes can be seen when people believe that (for example) only
black people are ever shot by police (whites are actually shot by police more
often) or that black people make up the majority of the
prison population. You can't draw meaningful comparative conclusions
from any number of anecdotes, because there is no basis for
comparison. Overall, poverty and urban density are
correlated with arrest rates, especially for young black males.<br />
<br />
I think this is similar to how the pre-existing belief that police murder
of black people happens at a significant rate allows any one example to be
taken as proof, the pre-existing expectation regarding stops allows individual
anecdotes to serve as evidence of rampant bias in middle class police
interactions without any particular objective evidence.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i>What
I disagree with the most is your apparent belief that everyone who supports the
"Black Lives Matter" movement believes all the things that you list
as "the basic premise of every protest, every article, every
proposal." The reality is that (as with many movements), there are
many different people within the movement who disagree with each other. </i></blockquote><i><o:p></o:p></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don't mean to imply that every individual involved
believes those specific things. I am saying the actual specific things
articulated in writing, and the specific incidents which garner widespread
attention (and the ones that don't) inherently implies those premises.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">A
prime (and quite relevant) example is the proposal to "defund the
police." ...<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">Just
because extreme proposals get more media attention (as it is the media's intent
to attract attention, so the more sensational, the better), does not mean that
those who want to completely defund the police, speak for the whole
movement. They do not. Unfortunately, the media attention makes it seem
that way, and then a lot of other people fall into step with the concept for
fear they will seem against BLM if they argue that we do need police.
(But some have argued such anyway.)</span></i></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Granted, literally every message that can be accessed in any
form other than direct word of mouth is filtered by some form of
"media". A picture or video of protestors holding signs can be
focused on specific signs, newspapers magazines and websites can choose which
editorials and letters they publish, even social media algorithms can
favor some individual posts to show up in a feed than others. I think it
is reasonable to say that the trigger for each major protest has been an
incident of police violence. That alone is the biggest part of what I think is
an implied subtext. The fact that those incidents are the spark for
protests, and nothing else is, itself implies that white police are the biggest
negative factor to be addressed in black people's lives.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And I do suspect that at least some of the
messages that make it through various forms of media have some
reasonable degree of representation of at least a plurality of the people
involved.<br />
Media absolutely sensationalizes, but it is a bit of a chicken and egg
situation - they hype what sells, and what people care about is when white
people kill black people. Just the same way we object when conservative
papers or news programs supposedly make a point of showing black criminals
(which is theorized to be the primary or only source of
subconscious racism), "our" papers and other media make a point
of stating the race of officer and victim every time a white person kills a
black person. They are not in the least subtle about it, and they do not
make a point of specifying race in any other combination. They do this
because it's what gets people riled up and buying papers, but it sells papers
because it fits the conclusion people already have.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">I am
aware that many white people do feel so bad about racism and/or fearful of
offending black people, that they defer to whatever one or more black people
say about reality or goals, or, if they disagree, remain quiet about what they
really think. This may be a temporary reactive swing in the opposite
direction from when whites did all the talking and blacks kept quiet. Be
patient with the process; there is so much to process.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><i>Still,
in my whole life, I have never heard anyone claim that </i>"</span>100% of bad
things in the life of every black person is the direct result of the choices of
white people.<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">" </span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, of course, I'm not saying anyone says those words.
I'm saying that is the implication when people give example after example of
what they feel constitutes systemic racism and institutional racism and
implicit bias and white privilege and oppression and inequality, and when the
rare acknowledgment of crime is invariably coupled to a reminder of the
factors of trauma and poverty and historical oppression. Being arrested is
because of police bias. Prison is due to judicial bias. Education and
employment is limited by white administrators and employers. Poverty and
crime are indirect factors of oppression. Disparate health outcomes are
because of racism in medicine. Dietary choices are a result of marketers
and city planners. Tobacco and alcohol is a result of targeted advertising.
What bad thing that happens to black people doesn't get attributed to white
people? There is no room there for any self-determination or
influence over one's life in this narrative.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">Nor
have I heard anyone express most of the other over-simplified, over-generalized
statements ending with</span></i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">, </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 7.5pt;">"</span><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;">If white people would just stop Oppressing black
people, all problems faced by every black person in America would instantly go
away, they would all join the upper 1%, and we would live in a (separate, but
equal) utopia.</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 7.5pt;">" </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"> <i>These may be your
assumptions about what you think is implied in what others say and do, but it
is not my impression that that is what people are thinking.</i></span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><i></i><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
If that is not the subconscious belief, then there should be some amount
of wide-spread attention to any issue that is in no way connected to
oppression. There are plenty of public service type messages
geared toward helping people to help themselves that are race
neutral. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If every individual message to or about black people is that
every problem worth mentioning is caused by oppression, if oppression is the
only thing worth addressing, if all inequalities are caused by oppression, then
does it not stand to reason that the purpose of fighting oppression is because
there is nothing else worth addressing?<br />
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i>That
last one in particular leaves me wondering who you think has these thoughts,
black people or white people? </i></blockquote><i><o:p></o:p></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Both. Not every individual, of course, but the most
vocal, the ones who write and speak on the topic, and a significant number who
read and listen to them, and many who participate in activism or talk regularly
about oppression and privilege and racism.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i>Or
are you referring quite specifically to young, uneducated, alienated, and angry
young black men from the ghetto? To be clear, that is neither who started
the Black Lives Matter movement, nor are they who it is mostly made up of,
though presumably many have joined the movement now, as have many white youth
all around the world. It started as, and has become again, a cry against
racism of all kinds, not just police. </i></blockquote><i><o:p></o:p></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
Correct, not just police. Also white "vigilantes". <br />
" Black Lives Matter ... started out as a ... organization whose mission
was to build local power and to intervene when violence was inflicted on Black
communities by the state and vigilantes"<br />
<a href="https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/" target="_blank">https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/</a> <br />
"In 2013, three radical Black organizers — Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors,
and Opal Tometi — created ... #BlackLivesMatter. It was in response to the
acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer"<br />
Our members organize and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted
on Black communities by the state and vigilantes. Black Lives Matter is
an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are
systematically and intentionally targeted for demise."<br />
<a href="https://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/" target="_blank">https://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/</a> <br />
<br />
They are very clear and consistent that they are focused specifically on
"the rampant and deliberate violence inflicted on us by the
state." There is nothing in their own writing that supports the idea
that they are equally concerned with black lives lost that aren't directly
attributable to either cops or white people.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">The
unjustified killings by police caught on film and circulated have made the
movement very visible, and of late, extremely widespread. The fact that
so many white people all over the country and all over the world have joined
these protests against racism is a wonderful thing that can act against
anyone's belief that, "</span>White people believe that black lives don't
matter, and are filled with Hate.</i><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">"<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">But
knowing that almost half of the U.S. voting public voted for Donald Trump who
panders to white supremacists, how can you not tell that racism is "alive
and well" in the U.S., and not just a figment of imagination or delusion
of black people?</span></i></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
I realize how obvious it seems to democrats and liberals and bay area people,
but not every Trump voter sees him as "pandering to white
supremacists." He says plenty of stuff that can reasonably be
interpreted as racist, and certainly that are compatible with white supremacist
beliefs, but he also doesn't say anything that couldn't be interpreted another
way. He generally claims after each scandalous remark that he meant it in
the not racist interpretation - that shit-hole countries is a matter of poverty
vs high tech job skills, that he wasn't advocating shooting looters, merely
saying that is what tends to happen (and, in fact, more people were killed by
rioters or people defending themselves from rioters than were killed by
police). <br />
Evangelicals (the largest part of his support, by far) picked him over <st1:city><st1:place>Clinton</st1:place></st1:city>
because of abortion. Wealthy whites picked him for tax cuts. Poor
whites picked him for his anti-immigrant nationalism.<br />
13% of people who voted for Trump <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters" target="_blank">also
voted for Obama</a>. 8% of black voters voted for Trump.<br />
His strongest "base" - the people who didn't just vote for him over
Clinton, but who support him fully, no matter what, are known to skew not only
white and male, but uneducated, poor, rural, and feeling politically
powerless. Those are not the whites with the power to influence life
outcomes of other people.<br />
This article <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/opinion/trump-white-voters.html" target="_blank">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/opinion/trump-white-voters.html</a> goes
into great depth, and makes a strong case for his supporters not being racist
specifically, but "otherist", for example showing exactly equal
prejudice against Lithuanians as against blacks. They are particularly
afraid of Islamic terrorists. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/" target="_blank">https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/</a> They
are, more than any other one thing, authoritarian: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/01/how-your-parenting-style-predicts-whether-you-support-donald-trump/" target="_blank">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/01/how-your-parenting-style-predicts-whether-you-support-donald-trump/</a><br />
Not everyone saw the election in terms of "the racist candidate" and
the "not racist candidate", so having half of voters choose him over
the one other available choice doesn't imply that half of voters are racist.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i>To use your example about rates of violence by gender, it occurs
to me that, despite the fact that the violence disparity is much greater by
gender than it is by race, many more white women, fear and/or discriminate
against black people, than fear and.or discriminate against men. This
despite the fact that most black violence is toward other blacks. </i></blockquote><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
This is exactly like how black people report greater fear of police than of
crime, even though the murder rate by (non-police) crime is literally thousands
of times higher than the rate of police shooting unarmed suspects. Human
psychology focuses on the threat of "other".</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However I don't really believe it is true that a majority of
white women would feel more afraid alone in an elevator or on a empty street at
night around a black female stranger than a white male stranger. Fear,
discrimination, and wanting to spend time around, are 3 completely separate
things. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
And while the basic drive to have a partner stems from the reality of how
animals reproduce explains women's tendency to marry men, I do think that the
level of interracial marriage is part of the problem. <br />
Notably, while 60% of white Americans explicitly support BLM specifically,
only 9% of white Americans marry someone of any other race and less than 1%
marry a black person. That means nearly all of the white
"supporters" who are willing to attend a rally, put a sign in their
window, or post something anti-racist on social media, are not willing to
actually make the "sacrifice" of actually their integrating
their own family. They are still breeding purebreds, and nearly all of
them will pass down their wealth to their own children, keeping white people privileged.<br />
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">I have not heard or read anyone claiming that life would be a
perfect utopia without racism, just as I have not heard or read anyone
claiming that life would be a perfect utopia without homophobia or war or
domestic violence or environmental destruction. But things would be a lot
better without any one of those things. Surely you agree with that, no?
You may disagree about how much racism there is in the </span></i><st1:country-region><st1:place><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">U.S.</span></i></st1:place></st1:country-region><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"> or in the world,
but no matter how much there is, wouldn't it be better without it?</span></i></blockquote><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, I do agree. What I disagree with is the tactics
for achieving it, as well as the prioritization and focus on it relative to
other issues. I believe that focusing on integration, education, and
income inequality would not only do more to improve conditions for black
people, but also do more for actually decreasing racism, both explicit and
implicit, in the long run.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i>I agree with you that violent crime in black ghettos (and in
Oakland, the crime spreads out of the ghetto), is a very serious problem that
is very harmful to black people, in very concrete terms, not just reputation or
making the race "look bad." (Again, why is it that male
violence doesn't make men "look bad" in the same way, doesn't make
the majority think that most men are criminal, in the way that white society
thinks most blacks are criminal?)</i></blockquote><i><o:p></o:p></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><br />
First of all, on what are you basing that: "white society thinks most
blacks are criminals"? What exactly is "white
society"? You just pointed out "so many white people all over
the country and all over the world have joined these protests against
racism". In fact,<a href="https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/06/12/amid-protests-majorities-across-racial-and-ethnic-groups-express-support-for-the-black-lives-matter-movement/">
60% of white Americans</a> explicitly say they support the BLM movement
specifically.<br />
And are the only options that a white person either joins a specific protest
movement, or believes <b>most</b> blacks are criminals? Who is
actually espousing that belief? I don't know that even most actual white
supremacists make such a claim. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Second of all, male violence absolutely does reflect on all
of us! Consider the "alone with a male stranger" scenario, and
the resistance to unisex restrooms. The whole "not all men"
response to "me too". The nearly 100% focus of domestic
violence as being male perpetrated when the <a href="http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2014/08/women-are-only-as-weak-as-they-choose.html" target="_blank">actual numbers are close to even</a> or even slightly more
often initiated by women.<br />
And as I pointed out initially, men are given on average 63% longer sentences <i>for
the same crime</i> as women are, which is 3 to 6 times larger than the
sentencing disparity for the same crime between black people and white people
(10 to 20%) which is one of the facts that most shows racial bias is in fact in
play. In implicit bias simulators, police show significantly higher bias
to males than to black people "The participants shot armed White males
more quickly than armed Black males, and the participants took significantly
longer to shoot an armed White female than an armed Black or White male" <a href="https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1419&context=education_etd" target="_blank">https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1419&context=education_etd</a>
which is likely why though females commit <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Characteristics%20of%20offenders%20vary%20from,%2C%20while%20females%20were%2011.8%25." target="_blank">20% of violent crime</a> and 12% of murder, they make up only<a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/585149/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-gender/" target="_blank"> 5% of police shootings</a>. Given a police stop
"the race of the suspect did not affect the measured outcome of stops.
Gender was related to the likelihood of being frisked... There was a five times
greater likelihood of males being frisked" <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/213004.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/213004.pdf</a> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">In concrete terms, more black people are killed by other black
people than by police. And for this reason in particular, I agree with
you that there needs to be more focus on this critical problem.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">But I don't see it as either/or. I think that </span></i><i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica;">Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi</span></i><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"> could not have
come up with a better slogan than "Black Lives Matter." It
speaks to both issues, and more. It speaks to white racism and black
internalized racism. It speaks to cops killing unarmed blacks as well as
blacks killing blacks. It speaks to both deliberate racism, and neglect
of poor black neighborhoods and schools, whether intentional or just
neglectful. It is such a fabulous slogan (for blacks without being
against whites; simply asserting the importance of black people's lives that
have been so oppressed and neglected for so long), such a fabulous
slogan, that millions of white people have joined the movement, even
risking their lives and health marching too close together (often unmasked,
sadly) all around the world to announce that they too want an end to racism in
all its forms.</span></i></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I appreciate your positive outlook, and I wish the founders,
movement leaders, and tens of thousands of supporters all recognized what
you're saying and agreed with it (or that those who did, actually said it out
loud). But based on the website maintained by the founders themselves,
what you are saying is not really their intention, and based on what every
large scale protest is actually about, and what activists actually talk about
and have as their agenda, both large scale and small, both black and white, I
don't see evidence that your view represents them. I'm sure you are not
the only individual supporter to see some extra nuance and complexity and to
interpret the slogan to mean something more broad, but as long as that message is
not being widely circulated, most people will continue to interpret it the way
it is actually intended - a message to white people and a movement very
specifically against police violence.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i>In my opinion, people's behavior is highly influenced by their
outer as well as inner environment. Likewise, change is facilitated by
outer conditions, not just from within. </i></blockquote><i><o:p></o:p></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Agreed. I do not think changing the narrative is
enough by itself. I also think we need to make significant changes to the
economic system, one which allows wealth to stay along genetic lines
indefinitely, there by automatically perpetuating the inequities of slavery
indefinitely. Of course that too is not the only thing that needs to
change, but I think it is the single largest thing, and one which receives
essentially zero attention as being a major race issue.<br />
<br />
But the narrative itself is a major issue, and one that is completely obscured
by a focus on oppression. For example, many articles have come out
pointing out the rates of covid infection as yet another example of black
suffering at the hands of white society.<br />
Yet the differing rates might also be explained by differing perceptions and
beliefs, and resulting behaviors, similar to how the infection rate in men is
higher than in women, and this is largely attributable to male resistance to
wearing masks or following social distancing guidelines. Men are infected
much more than women, and the surge in cases recently is largely increased
rates of new infections among republicans, both trends connected with the
groups relative resistance to wearing masks and social distancing compared to
women and democrats<br />
<a href="https://www.q13fox.com/news/study-men-less-likely-to-wear-masks-in-public-because-it-is-not-cool-and-a-sign-of-weakness">link
1 </a>, <a href="https://www.vogue.com/article/why-dont-men-wear-face-masks-when-their-female-partners-do">link
2</a>, <a href="https://www.theatlantavoice.com/articles/explained-coronavirus-spread-in-gop-territories/">link
3</a>, <a href="https://buffalonews.com/news/national/coronavirus-update-record-new-daily-infections-in-us-the-science-behind-bar-closures-and-more/article_6835ea27-e6af-5178-b0d5-f48dc117372e.html">link
4 </a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZWE-weBhNBwhO00YHupDt10MU4ruSV5Dg1GY_ufymubEKYZT02zgkEoHcfKdysw49uE7fsdwMFW6-Z8fZblMk15oxh5uD0VweUNKefvmc9dQQFB2IvImoHOPZXzrtp50eU_QQZDZYcLHT/s1080/vaccine+race.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1080" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZWE-weBhNBwhO00YHupDt10MU4ruSV5Dg1GY_ufymubEKYZT02zgkEoHcfKdysw49uE7fsdwMFW6-Z8fZblMk15oxh5uD0VweUNKefvmc9dQQFB2IvImoHOPZXzrtp50eU_QQZDZYcLHT/s320/vaccine+race.png" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.popsci.com/story/health/covid-19-vaccine-poll/" target="_blank">https://www.popsci.com/story/health/covid-19-vaccine-poll/</a> <br />
<a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/06/opinions/african-americans-covid-19-risk-jones/index.html">https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/06/opinions/african-americans-covid-19-risk-jones/index.html</a> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a sub component of a general difference in feelings
toward the healthcare system in general.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10701087_Race_and_Trust_in_the_Health_Care_System">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10701087_Race_and_Trust_in_the_Health_Care_System</a> <br />
<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913079/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913079/</a> <br />
A strong feeling of being separate from society, of not trusting not just
government, but "the system", has real impacts on behavior.
When that extends even to the point of health care advice, it will be
self-destructive. When media and activists then report disparities of
outcome as being a product of oppression, it reinforces the idea that you
shouldn't trust the system, closing the circle and increasing the negative
effect.<br />
<br />
Note also, that while there are plenty of articles pointing out the link
between behaviors and outcomes for men vs women and democrats vs republicans,
every article that discusses covid in the context of race attributes it
entirely to systemic racism</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i>As I alluded to earlier, black people have been trying to rise up
since slavery ended, and have been blocked and smashed down in so many ways,
and yet and still, more than half were able to reach the middle class after the
1960s (interestingly, after much black protest and clamor), though there has
been some regression with various economic events which, as always, hit harder
at those who have less. (See: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_middle_class" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_middle_class</a>,
<a href="https://blackdemographics.com/households/middle-class/" target="_blank">https://blackdemographics.com/households/middle-class/</a>,
and <a href="https://today.duke.edu/2020/05/middle-class-not-level-playing-field-blacks-new-duke-research-finds" target="_blank">https://today.duke.edu/2020/05/middle-class-not-level-playing-field-blacks-new-duke-research-finds</a>.</i></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i>Just as you acknowledge (and I agree) that teaching black children
that the police are their enemy will likely exacerbate the conflict and
endanger their lives, likewise other conditions of black children influence how
they think of themselves, how they think of others, and how prepared they are
to achieve. (By the way, most parents who "have the talk" with
black children about encounters with the police, stress the importance of
behaving very respectfully towards the police so that they don't get arrested
or killed. So I highly doubt such talks are what is causing the
problems.) </i></blockquote><i><o:p></o:p></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course the Talk isn't explicitly telling kids to be
resentful or antagonistic!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But you have to consider the kid's world. Teens are
more influenced by peers than parents. In many cultures honor and respect
are the most important things especially for a male. If you live in a
world where someone disrespecting you verbally obligates you assault them
physically, if you believe no external authority is legitimate, and of course
if everyone you know agrees that cops are the worst of the worst, being told to
kowtow to a cop by your parents is perhaps the best way to tip them over the
edge and have them react negatively to any police interaction.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sort of how areas with abstinence only education have the
highest teen pregnancy rates, telling kids not to do something is not known to
be the most effective way to get them not to do it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i>But can't just tell some teen parents in the ghetto to "get
it together, raise your kids well, and give them a better education than you
had." If the parents don't know what to do and have no support or
guidance, they will make do with whatever they have or know. There needs
to be social workers and educators and good schools for the kids and parks to
play in and decent housing that they can afford and transportation and jobs
that they can do and job-training and childcare and etc etc etc. ....
If the BLM movement inspires more government (and private) attention on
improving conditions in poor neighborhoods, that would be great and would
contribute to turning around black self-esteem and behavior in the ghetto.</i></blockquote><i><o:p></o:p></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Absolutely! Which is exactly why it bothers me to see all of
the attention being on what police do or don't do, and no nationwide protests
with thousands of people or NYT editorials regarding real meaningful
neighborhood or school integration in the North. In fact, we get the
opposite, people objecting to integration on the grounds of it being
gentrification, even in cities with rent control where forced displacement is
not an issue. The movement isn't focused on improving conditions, it is
focused on police brutality, which itself is a product, not the primary cause,
of conditions.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i>Do we need to eventually shine more attention on blacks killing
blacks,</i></blockquote><i><o:p></o:p></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, not necessarily. If we address the root causes -
wealth inequality and segregation, it will subside on its own.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">and do everything possible to address the many causes and try to
turn that around? Absolutely. Is it important for improved 2 way
communication to take place between blacks and police? For certain. Do
many black people today segregate themselves from whites thinking that whitey
is the enemy, or that they have to prove their blackness through separation, or
because they have been hurt by racist comments or slights too many times or
because they are just more comfortable with people who look and think like they
do? Sure. (Just like lesbian separatists segregate themselves from
men, even though most lesbians don't.) Do people in movements make
mistakes (like everyone else), and do some say and do misguided things, and
some even advocate absolute crazy stuff? Sure, of course, every group of
people makes mistakes, and has a few nutty members that get an unfair share of
attention.</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">But I believe what is happening now with the BLM movement is a
fabulous thing that has never happened before at this scale (at least not since
the civil war.) And the very fact that so many whites have shown such
support, will really help towards many of the attitudes among blacks toward
whites which you complain of, (especially if the support is lasting, and backed
up with concrete changes.)</span></i></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am skeptical, because that support is limited to a
statement of principle. There is no movement for middle class white
people to stop picking neighborhoods on the basis of getting their kids into
the "best schools". There is no call to send white kids to low
performing public school and donate funds to send urban black kids to private
school. There is no movement to leave white houses and inheritances to
random poor black families. There is no discussion about how to
deliberately, systematically encourage cultural and geographical
integration. There is not even any call to personally get to know and
befriend a black person, never mind promoting interracial marriage.
There is nothing any white supporter is actually giving up or sacrificing, no real
changes for them to make. It is all about having someone else make
changes, the police, the government, the racists. But it is the actions
of random ordinary not-racist middle class people that contribute the most
volume to the status quo.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></p><blockquote> <i> And it gives me a lot of hope for change. Will
positive change occur in time before we all burn up from climate change? </i></blockquote><i><o:p></o:p></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don't know if positive change ever occurs, or if we just
endlessly cycle social arrangements, however, "burning up" is not a
scenario any climate scientist is predicting, at least not for another 4
billion years, when the sun expands so much it engulfs all the inner planets
including the Earth.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i>I hope so. Will you and I come closer in our understanding
of each other's perspective? </i></blockquote><i><o:p></o:p></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think we might be getting closer?</p><br /><p></p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-44008903797530700372020-09-26T12:10:00.019-07:002021-05-19T12:57:38.492-07:00Response to a response 2 (Part 4 of a series on race based on emails to my family)<p> After a few back and forths, the previous posts (which were originally emails to family members regarding the recent race protests and their implications), I started getting longer, more in-depth, and more nuanced responses. This (and the last and next posts) are responses to those responses.</p><p><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i></i></p><blockquote><i>I'm too tired to write more but these are my initial
thoughts:</i></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wasn't expecting you to even read it so fast! Thank
you, though, I appreciate you responding.<br />
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i></i></p><blockquote><i>1. Are you saying that poor Black people are inherently
more violent than the other types of people we have in this country?</i></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course not! That was one of the points in my first
letter, where my stronger and earlier influences were my family and
friends. I take it that we all know that we are all in agreement about
how the history has created the conditions we see today, which I
explicitly acknowledged in the last letter "It was 250 years of
slavery, followed by nearly a century of legal, formalized racism, followed
by decades of subtle sneaky racism, that set up the conditions we see
today."<br />
Even the mildly racist white conservatives who use the phrase "one of the
good ones" are acknowledging that it isn't something inherent in our genes
that makes all black people act a certain way. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i></i></p><blockquote><i>That is what you seem to be saying .... If that is what
you are saying, why do you think that is? And if you think it's true, what do
you propose to do about it?</i> </blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I propose several big things (which I've mentioned various
times, but go into more detail about in the longer essay). The big one
from "Try #3" is to stop promoting the idea that America Hates Black
People, that cops are all fundamentally biased and out to get black people and
are constantly killing them every chance they get, that white people have all
the power and therefore are the only ones who can save black people -
basically, I think the subtext and implications of the protest movement, which
are heard by everyone, has such potential to affect the beliefs and mindset of
individuals as to be overall counterproductive. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some other big things I think should be done is the ending
of inheritance, especially of property (which privileges people who's parents
have more wealth, which, due to the legacy of slavery and JimCrow etc is
disproportionately white people), actually integrating schools and
neighborhoods, making preschool and kindergarten free and mandatory and making
college free. <br />
This is how I see it:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6ENMcWRhvXRciKMJuRk4GnzGvVSy6kRcwoY8PY50ogZ96AWe2oZPxTJcBj9JZ5jzcMD2ydcBwG_FjwUTE11s-m3324IGUNFHxhp-WK6j4ErdHr_KWbTbxu-G6b7pxAOeVHIZ2RKGOJSyc/s1094/race+cycle.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="541" data-original-width="1094" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6ENMcWRhvXRciKMJuRk4GnzGvVSy6kRcwoY8PY50ogZ96AWe2oZPxTJcBj9JZ5jzcMD2ydcBwG_FjwUTE11s-m3324IGUNFHxhp-WK6j4ErdHr_KWbTbxu-G6b7pxAOeVHIZ2RKGOJSyc/s16000/race+cycle.jpg" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br />
We are all in total agreement that it is the red box in the upper left corner
that started this all off.<br />
We are all in agreement that the yellow box still has some degree of
contribution to the green box, though we disagree on the extent.<br />
We all agree that both the green and purple boxes are true, and that they are
both a negative issue to be resolved.<br />
It seems to me that the only factors that the left believes are relevant or
wants to address is the long bumpy yellow arrow. I do not believe it will
ever be possible to eliminate the yellow arrows, so long as the orange and
maroon arrows still exist.<br />
<br />
What I propose we do is break the cycle by working to reduce or eliminate both
the tan and the blue boxes. I believe it is within the middle class
direct sphere of personal influence to change those things by personal direct
action: not by demanding other people change, but by actually living, being,
the change.<br />
I believe that what we are actually doing is in fact the polar opposite: we are
strengthening and enhancing the blue box as much as we possibly can at every
opportunity, and we either ignore or work to support the tan box items as well.<br />
<br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i></i></p><blockquote><i>You talk a lot about how bad poor Black people are but I
have not heard what solutions you propose to make things better besides holding
every single poor Black person accountable for each and every bad decision and
action that they make which is not the standard any other racial or economic
group in this country has to deal with. </i></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don't understand what you are saying. Every person
of every background is generally expected to be accountable for
their own bad actions. It isn't a group thing - I'm not proposing
that individuals be held accountable for other people's actions because they
share demographics, but by the same token I don't think any one gets a free
pass because of their demographics either.<br />
I don't think people should be judged based on their color. That means
not being more harshly, and not being judged more leniently either.
We as a society need to do more than make the ability to gain wealth equally
accessible to all, AND all individuals are responsible for their own
actions.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i></i></p><blockquote><i>2. Why do Black people who were brought to the United
States by force (ie in the cargo holds of slave ships) and then enslaved and
tortured for hundreds of years have to act like recent immigrants (who by
definition came to this country by choice) in order to get White people to
treat them better?</i></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">a) There are no black people who were brought to the <st1:country-region><st1:place>US</st1:place></st1:country-region>
as slaves. They would have to be 213 years old. There is no one who
is the child or grandchild of anyone who was brought here as a slave.
Anyone who is here alive today is here for the same reason everyone else is:
their parents live here, and they were born here.<br />
b) The reason we need to abide by the standards of the social contract in order
to be treated well is the same reason as for everyone else. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">c) The reason I bring up recent immigrants is because, while
in every society people form in-groups and out-groups and outsiders are always
viewed with suspicion, the success of immigrants shows it is possible to
overcome mainstream society's initial natural prejudice. Notably, the
outcomes in terms of education and wealth for recent Africans and Carribeans is
significantly better than for native born blacks, which means failure and
success is not purely a factor of skin color or features.<br />
<a href="http://aidanneal.com/2014/06/29/racism-caribbeans-just-dont-get-it/" target="_blank">http://aidanneal.com/2014/06/29/racism-caribbeans-just-dont-get-it/</a> <br />
c) I'm not just talking about how white people treat them. That's part of
my point, that way too much emphasis is being placed on white people. In
the absence of a truly systematic racism - i.e. legal, official, explicit,
enforced - there is room to influence one's own destiny. I think
this focus on how white people treat black people implies that the outcome of
every individual's life is purely a product of whether other people either
privilege or oppress you, which leaves no room for anyone to have any influence
of their own.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i></i></p><blockquote><i> Why do Black people have to stay "low
profile" in order to succeed? </i></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What I mean by that is just being an ordinary person, being
generally polite and friendly to everyone. There are plenty of white
people who don't abide by the social contract and end up in prison too, or just
fired and poor or whatever. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i></i></p><blockquote><i>Why can't the </i><st1:country-region><st1:place><i>US</i></st1:place></st1:country-region><i>
go through what happened in </i><st1:country-region><st1:place><i>Germany</i></st1:place></st1:country-region><i>
after the Holocaust? Why can't there be an official acknowledgement of slavery
and financial reparations like there has been in </i><st1:country-region><st1:place><i>Germany</i></st1:place></st1:country-region><i>?</i></blockquote><i></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It's not quite directly equivalent: what happened after the
war is the nation paid reparations to the <i>nation </i>of <st1:country-region><st1:place>Israel</st1:place></st1:country-region>,
(as it did to all of the countries that won the war, which is often a mandatory
part of surrender treaties.) The cash that went to Israel no doubt
had a significant contribution to the establishment of the country, and I
suppose if there were a proposal that American black people should move out of
the US and found a new country it would stand to reason that the US should
support it, but note the billions of marks only came out to around $2,800
(in today, US, dollars) per person. <br />
Some 55 years later, they made payments to individuals who had personally
survived concentration camps, or in some cases to their children if they were
no longer alive. There were about 20 thousand Jews still in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region>,
(in a nation of 50 million, making them 0.04% of the population.) however
payments went to Jews living elsewhere as well. Those payments came out
to around $3000 per person. <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-germany-atoned-for-the-holocaust-the-us-can-pay-reparations-for-slavery-119505" target="_blank">https://theconversation.com/if-germany-atoned-for-the-holocaust-the-us-can-pay-reparations-for-slavery-119505</a> <br />
<br />
That being said, I would not be opposed to it, were there any such proposal
being made on a serious level. If there were nationwide protests calling
for figuring out some form of reparations, I would support it. There is
of course official recognition that slavery was wrong, from the civil war to
things like the constitution museum we went to. It's a fringe
minority who would claim slavery was morally right, (and fewer who would claim
it never happened)<br />
However, while it isn't doled out explicitly as compensation for slavery, our
country does make payments to people on the basis of poverty, and because
poverty is spread unevenly by race, government assistance is disproportionate
by race as well, with black people (who make up 13% of the country) recieving
25.7% of assistance <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-welfare-black-white-780252" target="_blank">https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-welfare-black-white-780252</a>
which, on average, works out to roughly $20,000 per year <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/05/grothman-single-parents-welfare/" target="_blank">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/05/grothman-single-parents-welfare/</a> <br />
<br />
Granted, there would be some catharsis from the principle of the matter,
however a one time payment of $3,000 when compared to $20k annually means the
difference in outcomes is clearly not an issue of money. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">Another difference between the
two examples is that the extreme oppression of Nazi Germany lasted a decade,
and did not involve survivors being removed from their country of origin,
community, and language. They were able to maintain cultural traditions -
cultural traditions which (while xenophobic) placed strong emphasis on scholarship
and being financially savvy.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i></i></p><blockquote><i>Instead in the </i><st1:country-region><st1:place><i>United
States</i></st1:place></st1:country-region><i> we have a president who just
issued an executive order declaring how people who tear down monuments to
Confederate leaders should be punished. That is like if </i><st1:country-region><st1:place><i>Germany</i></st1:place></st1:country-region><i>
after WWII erected monuments to Hitler and then doubled down when people tried
to take them down. </i></blockquote><i></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course I agree with you 100% that our current president
is a literally narcissistic, idiotic, nationalist (which, ethically, is no
better than racist). And he has an unfortunate amount of people who still
support him, (though he does have the lowest average approval rating of all
time, and he is starting to lose even his base) <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/09/the-trump-supporters-who-regret-their-vote" target="_blank">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/09/the-trump-supporters-who-regret-their-vote</a><br />
But in a market based capitalist democratic republic the top guy only has so
much influence over day to day reality of most citizens. If it weren't
so, we should have expected the election of a (half) black president to fix
everything. But poverty and segregation, and the results of them, don't go away
just because the government makes a certain law or policy, makes a formal
apology or writes a few checks.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i></i></p><blockquote><i>3. I have read what you wrote several times and I don't
get how you arrived at this number: "That leaves maybe 5%, give or take,
of the disparity in criminal justice being caused by actual "racism"
per say, the kind that is believed in and deliberate." You also say
this but I have no idea where it comes from: "According to all actual
data, somewhere on the order of 75 to 90% of disparities throughout the
criminal justice system, from arrests to incarceration as well as police shootings,
are a direct result of behavioral choices of black people." Where is
this data you refer to?</i></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/" target="_blank">https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/</a> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">"approximately 80% of prison disparity among state
prisoners in 1979 was explained by differential offending by race, leaving 20%
unexplained" <br />
"research that relies on incident reporting (i.e., self-report data rather
than police data) to circumvent these potential problems [of bias in
arrests]... estimated unexplained disparity to be in the range of
15-16%"<br />
I propose that a significant portion of the bias that is found among cops, prosecutors,
judges and juries, is not due purely to "media", but to an awareness
on some level of the disparate crime rates, and, whether conscious or not,
extrapolating that statistical knowledge onto individual cases and
individual people, in the same way that the criminal justice system shows even
more bias toward men relative to women, not because of media, but because the
actual rate of offending is so different that we carry mental beliefs that
affect how we see individuals. I propose that if, on average, people of
different races all committed violent crime at the exact same rate, a
significant portion of the unconscious bias of individual cops, jurors,
(teachers, employers, loan officers, etc) would go away as well, leaving a much
smaller percentage of disparity left to be perpetrated by the explicit racists
who find their way into positions of power.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, I am not claiming that these numbers are exact
(hence saying give or take)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i></i></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i>4. I understand your points about taking responsibility
for the things within your control and how violence committed by Black people
against other Black people is a real problem that is not taken very seriously
by very many people. I disagree with you completely where you veer off and seem
to say that there is an inherent violence and criminality within poor Black
people and that the police and White society are blameless because they are
just acting on their "implicit bias itself [which] is an
indirect result of the actions of black people." </i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>5. I guess the summary of my viewpoint is:
Bakari, stop only blaming poor Black people. And I disagree with you about
the causation of the implicit bias a lot of non-Black people have about Black
people.</i></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I guess maybe one point of difference is I don't think
"blame" is relevant or helpful.<br />
If you are in a car crash, and the other person is clearly 100% at fault, it
makes no sense to refuse to go to physical therapy on those grounds, and say
"well, they hit me, <i>they </i>should have to go to physical
therapy!" That won't help you walk again. <br />
If you have one teacher who gives you worse grades than you deserve, you can
focus all your time and effort on proving that that teacher doesn't like you
and getting support to force them to give you better grades, but overall you
will do better by focusing on learning the material as well as possible
and turning in the best work you can, in that and all other classes.<br />
It isn't about figuring out who to blame. All people, as individuals,
have better life outcomes if they have a view of the world and of their life
that<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319760/" target="_blank"> they have control</a> of and responsibility over their
own life. Despite the bias that exists, we don't have the form of
literally institutionalized or systemic racism that we had for half a
millennia, and it is <i>possible</i> to be successful, but one has to
actually believe it is possible to even try. Outside of the context of
race, this isn't that controversial an idea.<br />
<br />
Correct me if I'm wrong, it seems like a big point of contention with what I'm
saying is it isn't "fair" to put the burden of success on black
people when the reasons for the initial disparity are outside of the
control of any individual, when historically white people directly benefited
from slavery and due to inheritance and social policy white people who's
families have been in this country since those days indirectly benefit to this
day. No argument from me there. I just don't think "fair"
is a meaningful term or concept to apply on a national and half a
millennium scale. Really, I don't think it is so useful of a
concept even on an individual scale. If your sibling did or did not
get cake has nothing to do with you and whether you should get cake.<br />
Focusing on what is fair isn't productive. What I'm interested in is the
actual outcome.<br />
So, if by changing police policy, we cut unjustified police killings by half,
reducing the number from a dozen a year to just a handful, yet as an unintended
consequence of reducing police to the point where gangs etc feel emboldened and
the murder rate of black people increases just 5% - we will have saved 3 or 4
lives while indirectly contributing to another 450 deaths a year.<br />
That might feel more fair, since it isn't some outside, privileged, government
sanctioned person doing the killing, but the net result is 446 more deaths.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think there is a huge problem in that people feel like the
only possibilities are: </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1) acknowledge the crime rate; extrapolate from that that
black people are inferior based on their genes, </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">OR </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2) acknowledge the history of slavery and oppression; extrapolate
from that that all disparities from wealth to incarceration are proof of
continuation of oppression.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pick a side. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Reality isn't that simplistic. The first half of both
of those claims are correct, and the second half of both claims is false.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.biodieselhauling.org/" target="_blank"></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In regards to our talking conversation:<br />
I find it interesting, somewhat odd, how much more we seem to agree when we
speak than when we write.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
The one thing I did want to address is about the feelings of police in
general: I don't especially “like” them. 1/2 the people here are in
law enforcement. Many of them I'm fairly neutral about, but many of the people
I don't especially care to hang out with or work with happen to be cops.
They tend to be conservative, yay 'Murica, follow the rules, respect authority
just because, don't ask questions, don't be different, work for the sake of
work, all mistakes are excuses... The people I tend to like best, most of them
are not in law enforcement.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
However, that being said, I don't think "cop" is a "type of
person". I think it is a profession. While the concept
of enforcing laws may tend to attract those who prioritize law and order as a
moral value, I think the tendency to condemn them all generally falls into
the standard thinking about a bipolar grouping of humanity into good and
bad. Just like the actions of a few black criminals does not reflect on
all black people and the actions of a few terrorists does not condemn all Muslims,
horrible examples of brutality does not condemn all cops. The law
enforcement people here also include Chief R****, L*** R*******, B****, E*****
and Z******.</p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-53440343785120216992020-09-25T11:54:00.007-07:002020-09-25T11:54:00.179-07:00Response to a response 1 (Part 4 of a series on race based on emails to my family)<p> After a few back and forths, the previous posts (which were originally emails to family members regarding the recent race protests and their implications), I started getting longer, more in-depth, and more nuanced responses. This (and the next couple posts) are responses to those responses.<br /><br /></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 14.2667px;"></span></p><blockquote><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></p></blockquote><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 14.2667px;"></span></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"></div><blockquote><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">"There was/is a black group that is very focused on inner change and behavioral change of blacks in the ghetto, and focuses particularly on blacks who are incarcerated or are acting criminally out on the streets. They advocate a sober lifestyle, self respect, respect of women (in a patriarchal fashion), and have turned around the lives of many former convicts and gangsters. They are called Black Muslims and they think whites are the devil.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">In the 60s, after the non-violent civil rights movement (as well as so many blacks that were not even in the movement), suffered so much violence and killing at the hands of white racists, some young people in the movement got tired of non-violence and decided to fight back. The 60s were a time of very frequent police brutality. Aside from anything from harassment to rampant brutality towards black men on the street who were doing nothing wrong, it was also a time when you risked severe injury as well as arrest when you participated in a demonstration. I am not just referring to the famous scenes of cops beating, and firemen shooting water hoses on non-violent civil-rights marchers in the south. In NYC cops came plowing into marches on horseback swinging their billy clubs and cracking heads right and left of demonstrators peacefully marching down the street protesting the war or other injustices.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">So some youth got tired of not fighting back. One group in particular focused a lot on inner change in black people. They focused especially on raising self-esteem and black pride among ghetto folks with a lot of internalized racism and self-hate (something which contributes to black-on-black crime.). They created schools and taught black <span class="il">history</span> to both children and adults. They made breakfast programs and fed children healthy food. They made very reasonable demands of society in well thought out lists of concrete changes that needed to be made. Unlike Black Muslims, they did not think whites were the devil, and they supported (in theory at least) the rights and self-determination of black women. They made alliances with many white or integrated movements for social change, including mutual alliance with the Gay Liberation Front. And they believed in self-defense from what was the rampant abuses by the police against blacks. They armed themselves and chanted, “No more brothers in jail - - Off the pig! - - Pigs are gonna catch hell - - Off the pig!” They were the black panthers, (one of whom was your uncle D****), and were so admired for their accomplishments and idealism and pride and determination, that many other groups formed for various cause using a variant of their name from the white panthers (a white anti-racist group), to the grey panthers (seniors who fought for the rights of the elderly). </div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">And despite the eventual demise of the Black Panther Party, as well as of the general civil rights movement of the 60s, many positive changes in law, government, police and society in general <i>did</i> result from the actions of both movements.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Fast forward to today. Much has changed and much has stayed they same. There have been forward movements toward equality, and backward movements too. Almost 2/3 of black people were able to achieve middle class lifestyles and many owned their own homes until recessions and other events caused many to slide back into poverty. The introduction of cheap crack cocaine into black neighborhoods in the 1980s had a devastating effect on black communities, including in Richmond. It is not such a big problem now, but the ghetto is still reeling from the problems that it caused. Many of the tough, undereducated, poorly behaved youngsters shouting and cursing on the bus were raised ( or raised themselves) by single teenage moms or serious drug addicts. Other youth (like your brother) fell in step for fear of being bullied. Eventually a whole culture of black youth and even white youth grew around admiration of the supposed toughness of black prisoners, drug dealers and pimps, and the radio and music industry greatly encouraged and spread this movement, playing only the most violent and sexist and/or criminal rap music, and only the public stations would air rap with any political or even reasonable or productive content."</div></blockquote><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"></div><p><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">Regarding the "Historical Perspective" email:</p><p class="MsoNormal">
-I am in complete agreement with your summary of the history.<br />
-I am a fan of the Panther's, and appreciate the degree to which they were
focused on positive action, providing meals to children and health
clinics. They were fundamentally and explicitly against capitalism.
It's an interesting side note that gun control was developed specifically in
response to them.<br />
-I agree with your assessment of the linear progression of the
cumulative effects of oppression and inequality on the rise of crime <br />
-minor aside, I disagree with your assessment of the music industry, over
the air radio stations actually censored the most violent etc music, the
parental advisory system of censorship having been begun by Tipper Gore in 1990
- the first album being a rap album. It isn't legally binding, but
radiostations and MTV do risk FTC violations from airing uncensored music
deemed inappropriate. You could hear MC Hammer, LL Cool Jay, and Will
Smith on the radio, but you hear NWA on people's car stereos and
boomboxes. The suggestion that white controlled
media deliberately promoted violent material seems like
conspiratorial thinking to me, and an example of trying to fit stuff to
the narrative of white people dictating every facet of black life.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your analysis of the literal implications of the slogan
itself, devoid of context, I think is spot on. The problem is with the
explicit intent and focus of both the founders as individuals and, more
importantly, the tens of thousands of participants. The actual wording of
the slogan itself has nothing to do with police, however 100% of the large
scale protests are in direct response to incidents involving either police or
white "vigilantes". The subtext of implications I am saying are
there isn't in the slogan, it's in the context. It isn't in what is said,
it is in what isn't said, and the context not clarified. <br />
<br />
<br /></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 14.2667px;"><i></i></span></p><blockquote><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 14.2667px;"><i>"Please imagine a mother, father and baby. Imagine the alcoholic or drug-addicted father becomes controlling of and violent towards the mom, and repeatedly injures her and does many extremely cruel things. Eventually, fearing for her life (and that of her child), she leaves him, taking her child with her. </i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 14.2667px;"><i>The child was so young at the time that she/he remembers nothing of the father. But whenever he/she asks her mom about the father, mom tells her all the horror stories of the past, and warns the child to stay away from his/her father.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 14.2667px;"><i>The father, meanwhile, becomes clean and sober, gets into therapy about his underlying issues and takes anger-management classes. One day he decides he wants to make contact with his now-grown-up child, only to discover the child wants nothing to do with him. He doesn't understand why the child hates or fears him, because he was never violent directly towards the child, and besides, he has changed.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 14.2667px;"><i>Can you understand the (grown-up) child's reaction?</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 14.2667px;"><i>Now picture that the mother is the black community of yesteryear. The father is white society in the U.S. The child is (some of) the black youth of today. Can you understand why blacks who have been severely abused and watched their family members raped and lynched and killed by whites in a very racist society might warn their children to be careful around white people? Can you see why this may result in many black people self-segregating even when they have opportunities to integrate (like at school)? "</i></span></p></blockquote><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 14.2667px;"><i></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br />
Regarding the analogy:<br />
I find that analogy to be a perfect one for one of my primary assertions!
Yes, absolutely I agree that it is the expected outcome, and that it is
entirely understandable. My objections never had anything to do with not
understanding why people feel the way they do or make the assumptions they do
or have the focus they do, my objection is to the net result of our acting on
those ideas.<br />
I think you can take that analogy further.<br />
First off, I would say that the once abusive father has not become a
saint. You can still see how he thinks about women in the way he talks,
even if he isn't physically abusive, and every once in a while he has the
occasional drinking relapse which may even end in some degree of violence.
He has come a long way, but has a bit further to go.<br />
Second, there's a correlation between both abusive and absent fathers and the
likelihood of delinquency, and to some extent long-term life outcomes, notably
the chances of being involved in crime or domestic violence themselves.
Having a positive relationship with one's father has a positive association
with less juvenile issues, from crime to schooling, and with positive life
outcomes, and even if this person wasn't directly harmed, they obviously lacked
that.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
You know therapy better than me, so correct me if I am wrong, but my
understanding is if that person has trouble later in life, with jobs or
relationships or drugs or whatever, it might be helpful to look backwards and
acknowledge the impact their parents relationship indirectly had on them - and
once that is understood as a baseline, it is equally important NOT to then fall
back on that knowledge as a rationalization for every self-destructive
behavior. The childhood context is important for self-understanding, but
actually taking concrete positive steps requires taking full responsibility for
one's life. A therapist isn't going to suggest that the way forward is
for an adult to track down their once abusive father and demand all those back
child-support payments. Whether he has cleaned up 100%, mostly but not
entirely, or not at all, conditions have changed such that the father no longer
has direct control over every aspect of the now adult child's life, and
dwelling on him as the source of all <i>current</i> problems, as natural and
understandable as it may be, is not productive.<br />
<br />
Now say that when mostly-reformed dad comes to try to visit, he is intercepted
by a neighbor who remembers him. The next time the neighbor sees now
grown child, they launch into a diatribe about how truly awful dad was, and how
he no doubt only came by to beg for drug money. No one in this person's
life is talking about the opportunities they have or the potential for success,
instead all of this person's family, friends, and neighbors make a point to
remind them regularly how a terrible person their father was, and how much that
has held them back, and continues to hold them back.<br />
<br />
What I am saying is at that point the friends and neighbors bear some
responsibility for the person's continued feelings of helplessness,
hopelessness, and victimization.<br />
If in the past those people were involved in helping mom to escape and keep him
away, or were involved in getting dad into a recovery program, then that was an
important and significant thing they did to help. If they keep bringing
it up daily 30 years later, however good the intention, they are now a negative
influence in the person's life.<br />
<br /></p><blockquote>
" <span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">One thing that has
long angered many blacks and added to the friction between them and other
people of color, (particularly Asians), is the way that Asians have been much
less discriminated against, and been given so much more opportunity for
advancement.... It is primarily due to many racist barriers to
advancement.</span>" </blockquote><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chinese_Americans#Anti-Chinese_movement" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chinese_Americans#Anti-Chinese_movement</a> <br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_the_United_States" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_the_United_States</a> <br />
On a somewhat related note: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_United_States" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_United_States</a> and
even <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment</a><br />
more generally <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States</a> <br />
US discrimination has not been limited to dark skin. <br />
In fact, surveys of random Americans find that in terms of acceptance, black
people outrank atheists, homosexuals, and muslims; the relative success of
those groups might call into question the degree of power the average
intolerant American has over the people they dislike.<p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>"<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"> you
can't ignore history, or the on-going racism today, and only focus on the bad
criminal behavior of a minority of black people (mostly poor male black youth
from the ghetto in their teens and twenties) without any context."</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span> The only reason I bring up crime specifically is in response to
the attention to police violence. I keep saying that the major issues to
address are income inequality and segregation. Crime is a <i>symptom </i>of
those two issues, not a cause. Nothing in the modern civil rights
movement is working in the direction of reducing those issues.<br />
My statistics on crime are not meant to show how crime is the issue holding
black people back, but rather to show how rare police killings actually are,
and how as far as the scale of impact on people's lives goes, it isn't worthy
of the amount of attention it gets. My point in making the comparison is
that if the honest intention is saving lives, the effort should be
proportionate to the relative risk. Otherwise it is just another form of
the universal "us vs them" war that every society seems to need some
version of.<p></p><p></p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-62437984360669256502020-09-24T11:47:00.001-07:002020-09-24T11:47:01.251-07:00It's a lot more complex than "Racism" (Part 3 of a series on race based on emails to my family)<p> In response to my previous posts (which were originally emails to various family members), I received an email which was just a link to an article about (perceived?) racism from a first hand perspective.</p><p>https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/20/opinion/police-racism-miconduct.html</p><p class="MsoNormal">It opens with him very explicitly stating that the classic
narrative of racist police targeting him was not merely a background component
of the cultural environment in which he was raised, but a central focus of his
own family tradition specifically.<br />
<br />
His first example is an incident about which we are given zero context (unclear
if he knows the context) including extremely relevant questions such as the
circumstances, who started the conflict, how it escalated, if there was
witnesses or physical evidence. It's left as just: white man kills black man,
doesn't go to jail; and we are to infer from that the conclusion that this
happens constantly and disproportionately and that racism is the one and only
explanation. There's no need for context (nor entities beyond anecdote) because
this is something that "everyone knows".<br />
<br />
His second example, even more so, is one that only works because "everyone
knows" that <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region>
is racist, and that is what explains every bad thing that happens to black
people. It is removed from the context that roughly 6000 pedestrians are killed
by drivers every year, and accidents almost never result in arrest or charges
(unless the driver was legally drunk - Reed claims they were
"probably" drunk but given zero indication of what that is based on).
Even if they were, negligent vehicular manslaughter is not considered "murder".
Not unless you have a point to make, an agenda, and a vendetta.<br />
<br />
His first specific personal example is of a case of mistaken identity. The fact
that the story doesn't include an arrest suggests that as soon as the cops
realized they had the wrong people, they let them go. The implication is that
it is always better to let all criminals get away, (even violent ones), that to
risk temporarily inconveniencing an innocent person.<br />
<br />
The next story is a little unclear. Did they leave their front door wide open,
and the cop walked in without knocking or announcing their presence? What has
it mean that he "left without further discussion"? He walked in, said
the words "I am investigating a homicide", turned around and walked
out? Red is clearly leaving something out. He's just listing incidents, context
free, in an attempt to overwhelm any questioning with sheer number of examples.
It works only because both reader and writer have already agreed on the
underlying narrative.<br />
This article is a most perfect sample of "confirmation bias", and of
"begging the question".<br />
There is no actual evidence in it, and without already having the conclusion in
mind, it would not imply the conclusion.<br />
<br />
In the next paragraph, he finally gets into the part that supports one of the
main points I've tried to make. He suggests that when he started reporting
negatively on police, that may have been a factor in police watching him more
closely. Of course, there's nothing other than his hunch to say that it's even
true, but if it is, bias against people who write negative articles about the
police is Not "racial" bias. It's very specific and focused.<br />
<br />
His next story implies a very complex conspiracy theory, in which the poetry
department at the University of Colorado was working with Airport security (which,
pre 9/11 were generally not sworn law enforcement officers, but security guards
hired by individual airports)<br />
This is what an all consuming belief is the Narrative causes. Everything that
happens is framed in the already formed conclusion, no matter how ridiculous a
stretch needs to be made.<br />
<br />
The next one, the "scariest" goes even further:<br />
The story begins with, by his own admission, him /Deliberately/ insulting and
antagonizing random cops he sees. He makes a point to say something derogatory
about police officers loud enough for them to "overhear" just because
he happens to see some. Again, this can't be used as evidence of /racial/ bias,
because he wasn't just standing around being black. He went out of his way to
initiate a conflict that would not have existed if his own opinion toward
police was neutral.<br />
<br />
He goes on to imply that "failure to come to a complete stop at a stop
sign" is a fake charge that the police use just to stop black people.<br />
While it's true that police consider tragic stops to be a tool used to find
people with warrants, as a bicyclist who has had several classes with cars due
to drivers not stopping at the line (as well as a trip to the hospital with
Aileen when it happened to her) and numerous close calls as a pedestrians (which
would have been impacts if I were young, old, disabled, or just not paying
attention) and will atheist that not fully stopping at intersections is
actually a significant driving violation. Recall from the first paragraph, 6000
pedestrian hit and killed by drivers each year.<br />
<br />
Somewhat ironically, the does offer space for the counter argument, quoting
"The legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has written that racism in law
enforcement, which he admits has “persisted for many decades of American life,”
has “led to a tradition of black hostility to officialdom,” and “fostered a
mode of conspiratorial thinking that outstrips reality""<br />
But couples it with an ad hominum attack that this argument is made by
"privileged white males" which of course automatically invalidates
the suggestion.<br />
<br />
The preexisting antagonism black males have for the police, the ways it
manifests in police interactions, the ways in which it creates interactions
that would never have happened and escalates what would otherwise be minor and
brief tragic shots or mistakes identity cases is rarely so explicit, and rarely
see openly admitted.<br />
It's presence is constant, but it is normally difficult to quantify or explain.
But Reed has a great job of showing the consequence of teaching the Narrative
at a young age, the way it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.<br />
<br />
The second article's bias is relatively more subtle.<br />
The findings are sound.<br />
<br />
It's the phrasing of the questions themselves - and the questions left unasked,
that make these kind of studies and articles part of the Narrative of
Oppression which is so pervasive, and which contributes to the sort of self
fulfilling prophecy which caused Ismael Reed to have more police interactions,
and have those interactions be more negative, than the world have otherwise
been.<br />
<br />
Of course police officers are subject to the same biases as all human beings,
because they are also human.<br />
All Americans now the exact same implicit bias as is found in this study:<br />
https://www.popsci.com/story/science/getting-rid-of-implicit-bias-racism/<br />
That article starts on by pointing out how making associations is entirely
normal, and impossible to prevent<br />
"Humans begin forming simple mental links in infancy: We learn to
associate highchairs with mealtime, parents with comfort, and cribs with naps.
Data streams at us from all directions—news reports, television shows, family
chats, friendly gossip—and we absorb it all."<br />
It would in fact be completely impossible to function in a complex world if we
didn't take any form of mental shortcuts or make any assumptions.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">However the reality is, when
police are subjected to "shoot/ don't shoot" simulations<a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0ff0/f0442048d1a372a5c7e51b5aa69fc3953a32.pdf?_ga=2.35230497.1631003891.1592951114-1444382384.1592951114">
<i>and compared to the general public</i></a>, police actually show <i>less </i>racial
bias, as well as dramatically less tendency to shoot in general, most likely
due to the amount of training they receive in similar scenarios.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All of us ordinary people, including black
people and anti-racists and activists, would be more likely to mistake a Black
man for a threat, and would be quicker to shoot, than police officers. <br />
(Incidentally, I have done those trainings both for security jobs past and
annually in the coast guard, they are pretty standard.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">" In 2009, Correll et al. conducted a ... study on
shooter bias... Like community members, police were slower to make
correct decisions when faced with an unarmed black man or an armed white man.
It is important to note, however, that the officers differed dramatically from
civilians in terms of the decisions they ultimately made. Community members
showed a clear tendency to favor the shoot response for black targets ....
Police, however, showed no bias in their criteria. Moreover, they showed
greater discriminability and a less trigger-happy orientation in general (i.e.,
for both black and white targets). When the target was white, all of the
samples (police and civilian) ... set a relatively high criterion .... But when
the target was black, the community set a significantly lower (more
trigger-happy) criterion than officers. "</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6290059_Across_the_Thin_Blue_Line_Police_Officers_and_Racial_Bias_in_the_Decision_to_Shoot">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6290059_Across_the_Thin_Blue_Line_Police_Officers_and_Racial_Bias_in_the_Decision_to_Shoot</a> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
<br />
Instead of bothering to ask the all important question: "WHY do people
make the particular connection between race and crime or threat?" every
study, article, and commentary on the subject, (like the 2nd emailed article),
and pretty much all contemporary writing on the subject, simply adopts the
Narrative and assumes that the only possible explanation is racism learned from
culture:<br />
"Because many of the world’s sources of stimuli, especially television
news reports, present Black people as criminals or threatening characters, our
brains naturally begin to make an all-too-common connection"<br />
That "because" has no references, no evidence, no explanation. We are
expected to just take it as a given that it's the only possible
explanation. Both reader and writer both know that the conclusions are
already known. The entire point of the article is not to find new
information or new ways of looking at anything, it is just to reaffirm what
everyone already knows.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The most overtly and unashamedly racist people I've come
across are, without exception, recent immigrants to the <st1:country-region><st1:place>US</st1:place></st1:country-region>.
They have broken English, and not a lot of money. They end up in poor
neighborhoods. They come from countries without any black people.
They don't have particularly strong opinions or feelings about people
with roots in <st1:place>Africa</st1:place> either way. Until they
have lived in a poor neighborhood for a few years.<br />
They haven't had the countering forces of after-school specials and public
service announcements and marches and rallies to tell them that they should
make a deliberate point to be anti-racist, or that making generalities is
bad. All the context they have is what they see in front of them
everyday. They see more people with certain characteristics doing most of
the drinking and smoking marijuana publicly, most of the obnoxiously loud music
playing, most of the cat calling of women on the street, most of the drug sales
and drug use in public. They witness it first hand, and each individual
person makes their own generalities, because that is something the human
mind does. It looks for patterns, and categorizes things, in order
to facilitate navigating an infinitely complex world. We are bad at
formal statistics, but we have an internal set of intuitive statistics.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When we think about criminal justice in gender terms, no one
questions why men make up 93% of the prison population. You want to talk
about disproportionate! Men are only 50% of the population, yet make up
93% of inmates! 73% of those arrested are male. Using the
reasoning of every single article that comes out on race and the criminal
justice system, this is proof of even more rampant and horrifying prejudice
against men then there is against black people. But nobody would for a
moment actually think such a thing. We don't hesitate to answer with
the obvious answer in this case: men commit significantly more crime, and
particularly more violent crime, than women do, so it stands to reason they
would be arrested and incarcerated disproportionately.<br />
But not so fast!<br />
In fact, studies find that <i>men receive, on average, 64% longer
sentences <b><u>for the same crime</u></b><u><br />
</u></i><a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742">https://www.huffpost.com/entry/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742</a> <br />
<a href="https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx">https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx</a> <br />
64% is actually pretty significant, and most likely explains the gap between
arrest rates and incarceration rates. <br />
Especially since the disparity that gets so much attention, between blacks and
whites being sentenced for the same crime, is only 10-20% (depending on the
study)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Stop reading a moment, and really reflect on
this. Seriously. <br />
The disparity in sentences for committing the same crime is over 3 to 6 times
larger by gender than the same disparity by race.<br />
<br />
The reasons nobody finds this an issue worth caring about or even noticing is
twofold:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1) Having men be at a disadvantage in any context does not
fit the Narrative of Oppression.<br />
2) We all know, both from personal observation as well as statistics, that men
are on average more violet, and more prone to commit crime, and because of that
generality, it feels reasonable that men should be arrested more and be
incarcerated more - so much so that even with the knowledge that statistically there
is a disparity above and beyond the actual difference in offending rates, it
just doesn't <i>feel</i> like a bias or a problem.<br />
<br />
We also know, both from statistics, and (if you live around poor Black people)
that Black people also do in fact commit more crime, and more violent crime,
than white people.<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Even according to The Sentencing Project, an
organization whose entire reason for existence is to address the disparity in
incarceration rates, 75-85% of the disparity is due to differences in offending
rates.</span> <br />
<br />
Police officers shoot and kill men 20 times more often than they shoot and kill
women, approximately 40-50 women a year, vs nearly 1000 men. Some of
those 1000 men turn out not to have been armed. Yet not a single study
looks into, nor does any reporters even question, whether police suffer from
implicit bias against men, if they are more likely to see a man as a
threat, or as having a weapon.<br />
<br />
Of course they do! And the reason for that isn't because they learned to
be biased against men from their family or friends or neighbors or the news or
movies or social media. Its because men, on average, really are more
prone to violence, and human brains make generalizations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The ONLY way we could get rid of that 64% bias in sentencing
or the implicit bias that makes cops quicker to shoot at men than women in the
exact same circumstances is if men <i>stopped</i> being dramatically more
violent.<br />
<br />
Yet somehow all these articles and studies come out in which it isn't even
mentioned in passing as a possible contributing factor that people, both cop
and civilian, have bias (both explicit and implicit) against black people
because black people actually do, on average, commit
disproportionately more crime. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The one and only explanation is, has always been, and can
only ever be, "racism", which apparently develops purely due to other
people's racism, who control media and therefore everyone else's minds.<br />
<br />
The only time black crime is even acknowledged is in the context of making
excuses for it: the history of slavery and oppression, the conditions of
poverty and violence, the labeling by teachers, the brutality of cops.<br />
<br />
Apparently, white people, and only white people, have free will. If
nobody has free will, than that includes all the white politicians and
cops and all the other racists. Everyone has some conditions they were
raised in that contributed to who they become as a person, and every action
they take is based on their personal history, so no one can hold a
racist cop accountable for his actions. He is just a product of his
environment. <br />
Either that, or, <i>everyone </i>is responsible for their actions, and having a
shitty environment is in no way an excuse for unacceptable
behavior. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Obviously it is true that there are conscious explicit
racists out there. No one is seriously disputing that. Some of
them are in positions of power. <br />
According to all actual data, somewhere on the order of 75 to 90% of
disparities throughout the criminal justice system, from arrests to
incarceration as well as police shootings, are a direct result of behavioral
choices of black people. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The majority of the effects of bias are subconscious, the
result of actions taken by people with implicit bias, and that implicit bias
itself is an indirect result of people observing actual trends and making
generalizations based on those trends. In other words,<i> implicit bias
itself </i>is an indirect result of the actions of black people. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That leaves maybe 5%, give or take, of the disparity in
criminal justice being caused by actual "racism" per say, the kind
that is believed in and deliberate.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">The problem with every single
protest and activist and article and book and political proposal is every
single one is focusing exclusively on that 5%, while pretending that the
other 95% doesn't exist.<br />
<br />
As a result, the best the movement can hope for is making things 5%
better. <br />
Of course the push will result in better police policies and a shift in some
people's attitudes (but not the consciously racist people). </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But the problem with the modern movement is not just that it
fails to address (or even acknowledge) the 95% which makes up the vast majority
of the problem, but that it actively exacerbates it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The basic premise of every protest, every article, every
proposal, can all be summarized as such:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">1) 100% of bad things in the life
of every black person is the direct result of the choices of white people.<br />
2) White people, and only white people, have any control over anything<br />
2a) This extends not only to circumstances, but also behavior. White
people are entirely responsible for the behavior of black people.<br />
3) White people, as a result of unjustified biases, choose to make life bad for
black people. White people believe that black lives don't matter, and are
filled with Hate.<br />
4) If white people would just stop being filled with Hate, and realize that
black lives do matter, then they would stop Oppressing black people.<br />
5) If white people would just stop Oppressing black people, all problems faced
by every black person in America would instantly go away, they would all join
the upper 1%, and we would live in a (separate, but equal) utopia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Further embedded within that message is an implied subtext
directed at black youth:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">1) You are first and foremost
defined by your skin color. You are a black person before you are a
citizen, or even a human.<br />
2) White people, especially in any form of power, are prejudiced against you,
and do not accept you<br />
3) Cops are your mortal enemy, and are looking for any excuse to GET you<br />
4) America both wants and expects you to fail. It expects you to be poor
and/or a criminal<br />
5) There is nothing you can do about any of this - every bad thing that happens
in your life is a result of factors outside your control, and are in fact
perpetrated against you deliberately by white people.<br />
6) Your own personal actions and choices are a product of the environment They
have forced upon you, and are therefore justified and/or excusable.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
The narrative of oppression teaches people that there is no point to trying to
save money, or get a good education, or adhere to the "social
contract", because no matter what you do, the Man, who has absolute power
over everything, is going to stomp you down.<br />
The one and only way you can influence your own life is to fight against the
Man, whether that means protesting or violating the Man's laws. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Either you can convince the white man to give you things, or
you can take them form him by force, but he will never allow you to earn
anything.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These are the messages we tell every young black person
every time we discuss racial disparities, and every time we protest or
editorialize. And we do that constantly. There are entire schools
of thought on when and how to best teach that message to young children.<br />
<br />
In absolutely any circumstances, no matter if it had any truth to it at all or
not, if you raise a person where literally everyone around them is all telling
them that same message constantly for their entire childhood, they will
believe it, and internalize it.<br />
"I am not a part of society, because society rejects me."<br />
That is what makes it ok to engage in "antisocial" behavior, like the
excessive stereo volume on public transit. If you aren't a part of
society, you can't be antisocial. You don't have to feel bad about doing
anything annoying, or even immoral, to white people, because they are the
enemy. There is no reason to do well in school, because for one thing the
school is part of society and is biased and besides, even if you do well in
school They aren't going to let you be successful.<br />
And the very first time you encounter a cop, its a moment that you have
been preparing for your entire life; no matter what the circumstances, no
matter how the cop actually acts, your heart is racing because this is finally
your first encounter with The Enemy, with those people whose only purpose for
existing is to make life worse for you and everyone you care about. For a
male adolescent, raised in a culture where the fists make the man, that is an
opportunity to prove yourself, to prove your manhood: "I might leave in a
bodybag, but never in cuffs".</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">And in that way, the movement inspired
by police shootings has the effect of indirectly <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">causing</i> more police shootings.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The modern civil rights movement makes small positive
changes to small lingering problems, (like police bias and brutality) while at
the same time supporting and reinforcing cultural segregation and fostering a
deeply internalized collective "learned helplessness" on one
generation after another.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
Which in turn directly contributes to the individual choices and behaviors that
is actually directly responsible for 95% of the inequalities that the
movement is objecting to.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In contrast to the mainstream idea that only white people
can fix all of black people's problems, I posit the opposite: that only black
people can solve black people's problems. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What is true for individuals is true for groups as well: you
can not force people to change, you can not help someone who does not want to
be helped. Real change can only come from within.<br />
Unfortunately, (just like with individuals) the tactic of blaming external
factors exclusively for all problems has the effect of making the people who
need to make a change feel powerless while directing all energy at some
external enemy; which human nature is prone to do anyway, making a convenient
excuse to take the easiest short term path - which inevitably leads to
maintaining the status quo.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
In other words, as long as we keep focusing on the 5% of disparities caused by
white people's choices, there is little to no hope of making meaningful
progress on the 95% of disparity that is within the control of black people.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If all white people disappeared tomorrow, the problems of
black American's would continue exactly the same. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If poor urban black people collectively adopted the tactics
of recent immigrants, staying low profile, being frugal, and pushing education
hard for their children, within just a couple generations, the majority f
implicit bias in white Americans would fade away naturally, because the
stereotypes those biases are caused by would stop being, statistically, true.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It was 250 years of slavery, followed by nearly a century of
legal, formalized racism, followed by decades of subtle sneaky racism,
that set up the conditions we see today.<br />
But after nearly half a millennium, almost a dozen generations, of being
rejected from mainstream society the culture of poor urban black people has
internalized that status to the point where it doesn't take any external forces
to maintain the status quo. Too many have been born into a culture, and
have accepted as a fundamental given, that mainstream society is the enemy, and
are opposed to assimilation on principle.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What I find frustrating, distressing, and most of all just
plain sad, is that the tactics used by the very people who most want to lift
black people up are actually serving to reinforce and strengthen that mindset,
which itself is the single biggest obstacle to progress.</p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-87776485537227397602020-09-23T11:44:00.002-07:002020-09-23T11:44:00.303-07:00A letter to my wife, on Race, my childhood, and picking a neighborhood (Part 2 of a series on race based on emails to my family)<p> … it is definitely a hard time, for the family, and for the
world. It's a long freggin deployment, and it's single parenting at a very
needy and energetic age, and it's <st1:city><st1:place>Corona</st1:place></st1:city>
virus, and it's a world gone insane to the point of killing people in the name
of not killing people. It's depressing and horrifying. How it looks to me is at
least as bad, at least as depressing, I believe much more so, than how it looks
to you. The difference isn't in the feeling, or the strength of that feeling.</p><p class="MsoNormal">
<br />
There's so much I want to say to you, to try to explain to you, but every time
I even think about starting, about where to start, it makes my head hurt and
makes me feel like I might cry. I don't know how much of the feeling is from
being tired, and how much being tired is because of the feeling.<br />
<br />
I believed I had explained this before, but the things you are saying, the
relation to raising our kids, calling my arguments "academic", makes
me realize either I haven't, or I did a very bad job of it.<br />
<br />
What you describe, in terms of not being able to sleep, that's why I spend all
of my free time, sleep time if I have to, (occasionally missing work), reading
and writing. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have to. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The last time one of these world events with personal
significance happened, I tried to ignore it, I tried to tell myself ‘nothing I
say will change anything, I’ve already said everything, just let it go’, and I
couldn't let it go. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For days I slept bad, worse and worse, it was all I thought
about all day, while I worked, at night in bed, until at last I gave in, and I
took the time to look up facts and figures and write down my thoughts. It's
happened multiple times. I know better now. Either I put everything else in
life aside and do my research and write my conclusions, or the feeling that
keeps me up at night won't go away, I’ll be preoccupied with it all day every
day forever.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So now for the past 3 days
I’ve spent just about every free moment on reading and writing, including this.<br />
<br />
Being a black male who grew up in a poor, high crime neighborhood, the topic is
personal for me in a way you, your parents, my mother and Lois, not to mention
black people who didn't grow up in Richmond or Oakland in the 80s and 90s can
not and will not ever really understand.<br />
While I don't expect you to be able to actually fully understand, I am having
trouble understanding how you don't even remember or acknowledge that I have
lived through the significance of the stuff I say, that it was a constant
throughout my childhood, that it was things that happened to me, that I saw,
that were traumatic. It is the rest of you for whom all this is theory, it is
principle, it is an understanding gained from things you heard from other
people. I don't fault you for that, but I do fault you for claiming, still,
that my interest is "academic", or “debate”.<br />
<br />
I'll try to explain myself better<br />
<br />
Elementary school race wasn't really an issue. We had the usual black history
month lessons, learned about slavery and the Civil War and the Civil rights
movement and Dr. King of course. My parents taught us a little about American
history, though not too too in depth yet, at that age.<br />
I had black classmates and friends and neighbors and I was aware that it was a
fact that different people look different, but that's really about as far as it
went. In elementary school people really didn't form into clicks, the
playground was integrated.<br />
<br />
Then I went to junior high school.<br />
It was a shock, one I wasn't prepared for. Not only did kids start grouping
themselves, but there already started to be obvious differences in culture -
those differences that some liberal white people like to pretend aren't there,
and other whites focus on exclusively, (forming the two polar groups of thought
on Black people…)<br />
In elementary school on a very rare occasion a fight might break out on the
playground. In middle school it was every week, often several a week. Almost
always at least one of the kids was black, and at least half the time both
were, and they all acted like this was normal, like it was expected, and like
there wasn't anything wrong with it.<br />
They were the ones who would make noise in class, then be disrespectful to
teachers when the teachers called them out. (and inevitably call it racism when
they get in trouble). They were the group that would make fun of you for not
wearing the right brand of shoe, or for being too smart.<br />
It wasn't everyone, there was my friend who was in chess club, there was C****
T****** who was ½ black, there was the D********'s (though I never actually met
them then), there were enough exceptions to avoid generalizing. But they were -
WE were just that; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">exceptions</i>- so it
was a challenge, a constant conscious challenge. After school it was the black
kids you mostly had to worry about. Venturing into the iron triangle it was
definitely the black kids you had to be on guard about. Almost all of the drug
dealers <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and users, gang members and car
jackers and people who would jump you on the street, rob you, break into your
house, not 100%, but disproportionately black, by a wide margin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was like living in The Wire, (except no
police were investing so much time and effort and money into stopping it.)<br />
<br />
This was my daily experience, for years, even as at school, at home, on tv, at
demonstrations, I was told over and over that there was no difference between
people, that only racists thought there was, that the police and justice system
were filled with racists and this was the only reason for the disparities in
arrest and incarceration.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
I would be in these other places, around my mom's LGBT people, or just places
away from <st1:city><st1:place>Richmond</st1:place></st1:city>, out in the
world, and outside the ghetto everyone was so civilized, everyone was peaceful,
you didn't have to prove yourself constantly, you didn't have to be afraid. And
in those spaces good people didn't acknowledge black crime existed; all
disparities were caused purely by racism.<br />
And then I had to go to school the next day, and navigate the real world.<br />
It was black men who would be disrespectful to women on the street, black
people who played music excessively loud on public transit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
Whenever I saw any of these things, fights, anti-social stuff, disrespecting
teachers, even though I didn't identify as part of that group, I knew that in
one way I was, that everyone else would, at least at first glance, associate me
with that, and it made me ashamed. Probably the only way to get even close to
understanding the significance and strength of that feeling of impersonal shame
would be as a Jew watching the treatment of Palestinians - but not just hearing
about it here in America, removed from it, but if you were actually there in
Israel in person, watching it happen, and then having to interact with all your
Palestinian friends and neighbors right after it happened.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The bus was the worst. It was so crowded, and all the black
kids would sit in the very back, and they would yell and be crazy and sometimes
get into fist fights on the actual bus, while it was moving.<br />
I always stayed at the very front of the bus, as far forward as possible. I
didn't want to be involved, to get caught up in anything, and I didn't want to
be associated with them.<br />
I'm not exactly sure why the bus was the worst, maybe because it was so
concentrated, no school yard to spread out in, everyone together, with no
teachers to control things, no lessons to distract, the only adult busy
driving. All I know is the feelings it triggered were so bad I literally
started wearing sunglasses on the bus everyday so no one could see when my eyes
started to water.<br />
Avoiding having to be in that environment is the whole reason I started riding
my bike to school. On days it rained I opted to walk rather than go back to
that bus.<br />
Although I knew it was a select specific subculture, that they didn't really
represent me, there was a limit to how much I could compartmentalize and it
took a toll on my self esteem.<br />
<br />
High school was a lot better. The selection process tended to filter out anyone
with a culture hostile to education. It was high performers who got in, involved
parents who got them in. We had Shannon Matthewson (who I went to kindergarten
with), T*******, M*** D****, G*** B***, the D******'s (who I actually knew this
time), all of us black without being ghetto, but the college still had it's
share of urban black culture, it was still black people I was robbed and assaulted
by, who assaulted my friends, who flashed a gun at me, who did a driveby
killing in the crowded campus entryway a few dozen feet from where I and
friends were hanging out (and so close to A*** he had to run and hide to avoid
getting hit with stray bullets)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
I would hear rap music - it was the 90s and the height of gangsta rap, glorifying
crime and assault and murder; not just talking about them like it was a tragedy
to deal with, but boasting about it, treating it like it was normal, like it
was OK. It told me that what I was seeing and experiencing wasn't just a local
thing, it wasn't just a fluke, it was a cultural trend that spanned the entire
country. The shamelessness of evil was what made me most ashamed of all, and
for years I couldn’t listen to any rap at all because of the association I
first made.<br />
My first taste of an alternative was the movie Do The Right Thing, by Spike
Lee, (in which really no one does the right thing… it's all about race
relations in a poor neighborhood, tensions mounting, until a black man gets
killed by police, triggering a riot) where I first heard the political rap
group Public Enemy, and then I started listening to Digital Underground, who
were focused on pleasure and fun and silliness and the good things in life in a
way reminiscent of Parliament, and it reassured me that we weren't so rare;
young black men who explicitly rejected the culture of violence that had become
so prevalent.<br />
<br />
All this time, from the very beginning, I never mistook the culture I saw
around me for a universal truth.<br />
I always had friends, always had neighbors, obviously always had family, that
weren't like that, so I never had any feeling that it was anything inherent or
intrinsic to blackness, I never mistook it for genetic or inevitable. More than
anything, I had my dad as a role model.<br />
<br />
My dad had dark skin and an African name, he wore a kanga hat and he listened
to motown and funk and jazz and crazy experimental black musicians like Sun Ra.
He had African instruments and wore his hair long and natural and he and his
siblings had all been part of the struggle, part of the movement, growing up in
the 60s. There was no ambiguity, he wasn’t mixed, wasn’t trying to "act
white". And at the same time, he never felt the need to try to act
"black" either. He had nothing to prove. He grew up in <st1:city><st1:place>San
Francisco</st1:place></st1:city>, his father was a cop in a time when most
black people considered cops the enemy. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">He joined a religion that was an offshoot of Hinduism and
became a vegetarian. He was an enthusiast of martial arts, and we used to watch
Bruce Lee movies and badly overdubbed Chinese martial arts movies. He played
chess and read comic books.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Instead of avoiding everything too "white" on
principle, he went to the maritime academy, one of the first ever blacks to do
so - resisting the status quo by being the one to trailblaze, to integrate, to
break into the all-white space and make it no longer all white, getting himself
in a position where he was in charge of white people, a whole ship full of
white sailors who had to follow his orders. I believe that took far more
courage, and had a far bigger positive impact, then becoming one more in a
crowd of angry people making demands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>His life was the change.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
He didn't teach me to hate cops or that white people were the enemy. He didn't
hide that racism existed or that he had experienced it, he told me his
experiences, but he never made them extra dramatic, and he never used it as an
excuse for anything. He pointed out racism in media, and in news reports, but
he never claimed or implied it somehow made up for black violence or excused crime
or rioting. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Two wrongs don't make a right, he would say.<br />
He told me about how he had bought into that narrative as a youth, how he used
to use it as an excuse, how he didn't see white people as real people, and he
had done crimes and had hurt some random old white guy once and suddenly he
realized it was wrong, and ever after that realization turned himself around. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">By the time I knew him he had friends of all different
races.<br />
He taught me that you don’t have to be or do anything in particular to be
black, or to be around certain people.<br />
<br />
I knew him first, obviously, and I knew my family (his side was local), before
I started to learn all that other stuff, long before junior high, so that was always
my baseline, and it's why my later experiences didn't turn me racist. I always
knew it was a specific subculture - a really rampant one, but still nothing
genetic, and I learned enough about history, both in school and from my
parents, to understand how it got to be this way, to understand that it was the
ongoing legacy of slavery, and Jim Crow, and poverty. But understanding it
didn't stop it from being traumatic and depressing in real time when I was
seeing it in front of me.<br />
<br />
What I've seen, consistently, in every context, is that black people who are
integrated are people who are black. Even if they verbally "identify"
as first and foremost "black", and consciously adopt certain cultural
aspects, they act like normal civilized people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They don’t claim police brutality or capitalism or government or white
people as an excuse for their own immoral behavior.<br />
Whether it's in a school, or mixed into a neighborhood or job, in the military
(where military culture dominates everyone), wherever we are evenly
distributed, we are regular happy healthy smart successful people. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But for some reason, once a certain threshold of
concentration occurs - especially if there’s a certain level of poverty compared
to surrounding regions - people start dropping to the lowest common
denominator, and we become the people with a legacy of slavery again, we start
acting out the worst stereotypes we have.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not everyone, of course, but it starts to get
disproportionate enough to be noticeable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It has something to do with the narrative itself: it starts having a
self-reinforcing affect proportionate to the concentration of people who
believe the narrative applies to them, that they start acting in ways that
makes true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Narrative is
self-fulfilling<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I completely understand – and share – your desire to raise our son in a neighborhood where we are surrounded by diversity, neighbors of multiple
shades and hues within the same block, which is at least 20% black, and which
is nicer than our current one: lower crime, more home ownership, higher
standard of living; where everyone is respectful of each other and takes care
of their property, and everything is affordable enough for us to actually live
there.<br />
Of course I’d want that as much as you!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Unfortunately, it doesn’t exist.<br />
If you look at the list of best places for Black people my mother sent, notice
that it almost exactly mirrors the “most segregated cities in <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region>”
list. From my experience, living in the most segregated city in <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region>
will not be a positive experience for a mixed person, or a mixed family.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Black people who live in 100% Black
neighborhoods are just as racist as white people who don’t want to live near
any blacks. <br />
Note that the majority on the list have between higher to much higher violent
crime rates than average.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You’ve lived
in both Florida and the DC area, so you would perhaps know better than me how
good race relations are in those cities that are at the top of the lists, but
for the number two spot for black women, Baltimore, they concede that it has “extraordinarily
high rates of <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/features/women-to-watch/bs-fe-women-health-20191004-a57lprfcpnbx7kufnldxvf7y7q-story.html">maternal
and infant mortality</a>, <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/carroll/news/cc-breast-cancer-disparities-20191027-n64bkbmk4faidmhx5bfjyx5l7e-story.html">cancer</a>, <a href="https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/08/why-arent-us-police-departments-recruiting-more-women/498026/">domestic
violence</a>, <a href="https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/07/trump-tweets-baltimore-police-corruption-consent-decree/595003/">police
violence</a>, and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/being-black-in-america-can-be-hazardous-to-your-health/561740/">poverty</a>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But they are only looking at the biggest cities, and looking
specifically for a certain threshold of Black people to even consider it for
the lists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
In Marin county, there aren’t a lot of Black people, but those that are there
have much higher average incomes than the ones in <st1:city><st1:place>Atlanta</st1:place></st1:city>,
or <st1:city><st1:place>Boston</st1:place></st1:city>, or <st1:place><st1:city>Columbus</st1:city>
<st1:state>Ohio</st1:state></st1:place>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They live among less crime, less police brutality, higher standard of
living.<br />
<br />
We could live in the Iron Triangle, and be surrounded by lots of Black people –
½ of whom would be like the people the boy and I saw in the park that day when I
made the mistake of trying to go down into that neighborhood for diversity – or
we could move to Pt. Richmond, where there is a much smaller percentage of
Black people, but those few include R***** and her husband.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
I think it matters way more to have <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">positive</i>
role models, than just having high numbers of colored people around.<br />
I don’t want him to grow up seeing Black people commit proportionately more
crime, or doing non-criminal but anti-social things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don’t want to start him off early teaching him the
narrative that most cops are racist and they are all out to get him, that the
deck is stacked against him and America wants him to fail, and have him
internalize it, as so so so many black youth do,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Because:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1) its just not backed up by the data, </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2) believing it often turns into self-fulfilling prophesy,
and </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3) regardless of outcome, hearing that message in the first
place is emotionally traumatic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It affects self-esteem, it affects the ability to trust and
to connect with people, it affects belief in what you can do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nothing positive comes from telling people that
message.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It would be worth not telling kids that narrative even if it
were true, but the statistics just don’t back it up, its not even factually
accurate, so you end up hurting a person both psychologically and affecting
their potential life outcomes for the worse, for no real reason.<br />
I don’t want him to ever learn to fear black people, to learn to be extra
cautious around them, or that he has to talk or act or dress a certain way to
be accepted (or just not get beat-up after school).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the reality of being a young black
male in a predominately black neighborhood, all around the country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It isn’t just my experience, you can see it
in every first hand account.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fighting is
just considered a normal, expected, inevitable part of the culture.<br />
I don’t want him to have to have the long way around to understanding all this
crap that I had.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
If that means having to prioritize things about where we live other than just
the raw numbers of demographics, I feel like that is a worthwhile trade off.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
The percentage of Black people in the Bay Area, this liberal bastion, <st1:city><st1:place>Mecca</st1:place></st1:city>
of diversity, is almost exactly the same as the percentage in <st1:city><st1:place>Portland</st1:place></st1:city>,
formerly known as the “whitest city in <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region>”.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If the goal is to be around large numbers of black people,
most of them in the East Bay are concentrated in just two spots: south west
Richmond, and East Oakland (outside the East Bay, also a lot in Vallejo).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The same two places with the highest crime rates and the
lowest incomes - and consequently, the most affordable housing. I know it feels
racist to acknowledge this, but those facts are all related. The places with
lots of Black people are the places we want to upgrade away from. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moving to a “nicer neighborhood” means moving
to a neighborhood with relatively fewer black people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it doesn’t mean no black people at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ones there are will likely be much better
role models.</p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-19373302656496506162020-09-22T11:40:00.001-07:002020-09-22T11:40:00.196-07:00Focusing on the wrong issue (PART 4/4) (Part 1 of a series on race based on emails to my family)<p> <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">In the modern world, where technology has created wealth
and comfort beyond what anyone could even imagine for 99% of human existence,
close to 100% of human problems can be traced to our inability to let go of our
prehistoric propensity to group other humans into categories of “us” and
“them”.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">The
driver of all outrage, without exception, comes down to grouping people into
broad dichotomies. No one feels outrage at earthquakes, or diseases, or
even single individuals that can’t be categorized with other people – we look
on sole psychopathic sadistic murderers with fear, horror, anger, disgust, and
often morbid curiosity, but as long as their victims are entirely random, we do
not feel outrage. That feeling is inherently reserved for groups, for
groups who are not ourselves, who we can point to as a fundamentally “bad
people”.<br />
<br />
Historically people needed absolutely no rationalization to make that
distinction. We hate the people on the other side of the river because
they are them over there, and we are us. Children need make no grand
explanations for it, nor do sports fans. People will make these in-group
/ out-group loyalties in psychological experiments <i>even when they know</i> their
association with a group is 100% arbitrary and random, being kind to and trusting
the “green” stranger and distrusting and being unfair to the “purple” stranger
if the coin toss put them on the green side. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">One of
the most significant differences between the political left and right is that
the right continues to deliberately, consciously, expressly, <i>embrace</i> this
worldview, without any shame. They believe nationalism to be entirely
valid, to in fact be a virtue. They find the ideas of “one world one
people”, multiculturalism, global prosperity, to not only be unrealistic, but
not even desirable. In that worldview, one’s moral priorities should be
to one’s God, one’s family, and one’s country, (in that order) – and fuck
everybody else if it helps you and yours.<br />
This lines up perfectly with our instinctual <i>feeling</i> of
morality, which was designed not to make us actually good people, but merely to
facilitate group living. It is why so many people easily rationalize
doing evil things in so many contexts, war crimes and slavery and prison
abuses, gang members and terrorism – and its why no one should ever trust their
gut instinct to be an ethical guide. Our feelings line up with (so
called) “morality”, but not with true ethics.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
The key ingredient in creating in-group loyalty is indoctrination.
Propaganda doesn’t have much effect on people who have already accepted a
competing ideology. The best way to ensure indoctrination is to get
people while they are young. And you don’t convince that young person with
direct and clear factual statements, explanations and evidence of the superiority
of the group’s way of thinking, but by making them FEEL like the group is all
one “us”, and that they are “one of us”.<br />
One of the ways we identify us vs them is common language, another big one is
food: family dinners, dinner with friends, we celebrate milestones and holidays
with feasts – the term “breaking bread” means people, possibly disparate
people, coming together peacefully. This is why so many religions have
seemingly random dietary prohibitions: if someone from the wrong group invites
you to dinner, there is sure to be someone offended, and your loyalty to “us”
is retained.<br />
<br />
Another big one, used by nearly every group, is some form of group vocalization
or music: prayers, chants, slogans, anthems, songs. There is something
hypnotic and engulfing about a group in song, your own voice lost in a sea of
many who make up your people.<br />
<br />
I remember a moment when the significance of this fully came together to me: I
was walking along the sidewalk, to or from a job I believe, when I was passed
by a line of children, preschool or kindergarten age, all holding a string to
keep them together, with adults at the front and back, and they were all
singing Jewish songs I recognized from various Jewish functions, in their tiny
preschooler voices, all as one. I thought about how I don’t know what all
the words mean, but I remember enough of the translations to know they are all
various prayers and bits of historical culture and religiosity. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">I heard
the same songs when I worked at a Jewish summer camp, with the junior high and
high school kids, English speaking American kids, but they all knew all the
words, all joyous and cohesive – there was daily singing, but one night in
particular, outdoors, in a tight group, stood out to me particularly strongly –
these were kids who knew who their “us” group was.<br />
At bootcamp they don’t let you sleep enough. As a result, people fall
asleep in class fairly often. You’re supposed to stand up in the back of the
class if you can’t quite keep awake. Not everyone always makes it.
In two months, the only time I saw the company commander truly angry was from
offense that several people fell asleep during the class on the significance of
the American Flag and the National Anthem. On military bases it is
expected that everyone will stand and face the flag twice a day, at </span><st1:time hour="8" minute="0"><span style="color: #222222;">8am</span></st1:time><span style="color: #222222;"> and again at sundown, as the national anthem (or another
patriotic song) plays over loudspeakers that can be heard from everywhere.<br />
The same phenomenon is behind sports chants, war cries, the chants at marches
and rallies: you are one of us.<br />
<br />
That primal feeling of togetherness, that makes people feel accepted and safe –
and righteous, can’t exist without an “other”; other religion, other team,
other country, other political beliefs. <br />
<br />
As the most basic form of indoctrination, it predates verbal explanations –
once established, loyalty to it can convince people of all sorts of insane
things, talking plants on fire providing the meaning of life to one,
(definitely not just insane), person, of one random tribe of all the groups of
people on the planet…<br />
<br />
I remember very distinctly being aware that this is what was happening at
rallies and marches since I was a child, and of being uncomfortable with it. I
almost always opted not to participate in song or chant, but it took many years
before I figured out exactly what it was that bothered me and learned how to
articulate it. There is a phenomenon known in psychology as
deindividualization, which basically just means “group-think”, where otherwise
independent minds get lost in the crowd. By chanting, the group is asking each
individual to pledge loyalty, just the same as it is implied in an anthem or
spelled out in a pledge of allegiance – it is just a much more subtle, and
therefore insidious, way of doing it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">This is
why I am wary of promoting speaking out as a “tradition”. I don’t believe
it should be a standard, an expectation, or a cultural thing. It <i>can</i> be
important, there are times when protests and rallies are warranted, are
necessary to break a negative status quo. It can be a necessary means to
overrule a powerful entity, government or corporate, that is taking advantage
of their strength, by consolidating the weaker masses into a larger, stronger,
unified mass. I see the value in that - I have participated in it and I
would again if I believed it to be for a good reason. But I think there
is a real risk, as soon as there is any feeling of it being a tradition, of
having it be important for it’s own sake instead of just on an individual,
case-by-case basis. If the point is the rebellion, more than the cause, then it
just degrades into another form of group-think, of drawing lines of in-group
and out.<br />
Group-think is the sort of thing that can convince people to ignore their own
lived daily experiences in favor of belief in a political narrative.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
At the end of this moment 20 more people will have died, with all the ensuing
grief to their loved ones, as a direct result of the riots, twice as many as
all the high-profile unjustified <span class="il">police</span> killings
over a decade put together. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">A bunch
of <span class="il">police</span> policies will be changed - most
likely for the better, true!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
But the next year over 9,000 black people will be <span class="il">murdered</span> every
year by people who <i>aren’t</i> cops, which will be ignored, because
it happens in all those “diverse” but segregated cities, where (other than
cops) middle class white people don’t have to see it and can pretend it doesn’t
exist. <br />
We can’t be outraged for those 92,750 young men and women, they can remain an
anonymous statistic, because they are mostly killed by Black people which means
the perpetrators aren’t “other” enough. Without an “other” there is no
accompanying feeling of self-righteous outrage.<br />
Instead we will have reinforced the Narrative yet again while leaving the
status quo of poverty and violence remaining along <span class="il">racial</span> lines
for a new generation of people, ensuring the anger and fear, the
self-righteousness and otherization continue, no matter what policies are put
in place, no matter the outcome of the trials, no matter how rare events like
these become.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-4865638421017563342020-09-21T11:39:00.002-07:002020-09-21T11:39:02.277-07:00Focusing on the wrong issue (PART 3) (Part 1 of a series on race based on emails to my family)<p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">In
cases of child abduction, terrorism, serial killers, plane crashes, because any
one event is shocking, horrifying, and overwhelmingly covered by news media,
extreme rare events are given the impression of being a significant threat.
Fear and outrage don't care at all about facts or statistics or data, and once
people have settled on a narrative, they will tend to find ways to hold onto it
the same way someone who has picked a religion can rationalize away all
contradictory evidence.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
When the issue is polarizing, it becomes a matter of which of the people are
you: the good guys (us) or the bad guys (them)?<br />
Plane crashes, while dramatic, don't have a clearly identifiable "bad
guy", and so aren't polarizing. They can cause fear, but not outrage.
Because we are social, we tend to focus disproportionately on things which some
other human does deliberately. We <i>need</i> a “bad guy” in order to
have strong feelings, and that bad guy has to be someone we can consider
"them".<br />
<br />
If you subscribe to one political narrative, you see a tiny handful of
antifascists commit violence, and label the entire movement as terrorists.<br />
If you subscribe to the opposite political narrative, a few individual examples
of <span class="il">police</span> brutality is sufficient to condemn
the entire profession.<br />
<br />
Black people also support the narrative because it makes them blameless
victims, and doesn't require any self reflection or correction within the
community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">White
people support the narrative for basically the same reason: focusing on cops
takes all the attention away from the real root of the disparity: the
distribution of wealth, particularly between the lower and middle classes, (and
education, which is a consequence thereof) - and that the reason for that
disparity is overwhelmingly due to the personal choices made by individual
white middle class people – in other words, themselves.<br />
<br />
Every white person who picks a neighborhood to live in based on getting their
kids into the best schools, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/07/black-white-wealth-gap-inheritance/565640/" target="_blank">every white person</a> who pays for some or all of a
child's education including college, every white person who provides a down
payment for a house for an adult child, <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/" target="_blank">gives thousands or tens of thousands</a> to help their
adult children get started, or leaves an <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-americas-low-estate-tax-to-blame-for-wealth-inequality/" target="_blank">inheritance </a>of property, cash, or a business, and
every adult who accepts these privileges, is directly keeping the status quo
intact for another generation. Those transfers of wealth, whose whole
purpose is to give certain individuals a head start in life, are the primary
defining feature of “privilege”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
There is no level playing field as long as people who are born to parents who
have more get a head start. As long as every individual parent
rationalizes themselves as “just one individual”, not “rich”, and says “of
course, I just want what’s best for my child”, the wealth gap that started 400
years ago will continue to play out as is from generation to generation
indefinitely.<br />
<br />
But how much easier is it to go out and protest the <span class="il">police</span> than
to say "my child is no more deserving than any other, so I'm <i>not</i> going
to give them any privilege other than a good upbringing"? How much
easier to make the “bad guy” someone you can compartmentalize as “other”, like
a cop or a politician, than to donate that college savings plan investment to a
public scholarship fund, or leave the <a href="https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/homeownership-inherited-tale-three-millennials" target="_blank">house </a>to charity in your will, to <i>deliberately</i> move
into the <i>worst</i> neighborhood and then become an active parent
at the bad school to help make it better?<br />
It isn’t enough to talk about or be conscious of privilege. In order to
actually change anything, you have to actually<b> <i>give up</i> </b>that
privilege!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">There
is enough evidence, from history and from country comparisons, to say
conclusively that high relative crime and violence rates are due to exactly two
things:<br />
<br />
1) <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/your-money/race-income-equality.html" target="_blank">Wealth inequality</a> within a society – it is not the
absolute levels of poverty that matters. Poor countries do not
necessarily have especially high crime rates. It is the level of <i><a href="https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/07/the-stark-relationship-between-income-inequality-and-crime" target="_blank">inequality<span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></a></i>that
is the key factor. What this means is that no measure to address
“poverty” will actually help change things. The reality is that </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #222222;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #222222;"> is such a wealthy country that even the poor have
incredible luxuries. People with no income live in houses with running
water and heat and cooking and refrigerators. People below the poverty line own
cars; even homeless encampments have solar panels to charge internet enabled
phones because the absolute poorest of us can still afford computers that fit
in a pocket! Someone living at the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #222222;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #222222;"> “poverty” line has 4.4 times more income than half the
people of the entire world. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">Our
problem is not poverty per say; it is <a href="https://wp.nyu.edu/dispatch/2018/05/23/how-big-is-income-inequality-as-a-determinant-of-crime-rates/" target="_blank">disparity</a>, which is to say, distribution. It’s easy
to point at the super rich and blame them for their greed (and of course that
is totally valid as well), but there are only a few billionaires; the middle
class collectively holds more wealth than the top 1%.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
2) Cultural <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088767997001003004" target="_blank">segregation </a>(whether on lines of <span class="il">race</span>,
religion, tribe, or other). People who can be defined by a particular
demographic, living concentrated together and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10680-018-9477-1" target="_blank">separately </a>from other people, with their own set of
cultural features, from language to collective self-identities. All forms
of cultural separation, for example the very concept of “cultural
appropriation”, is essentially saying two things: different people shouldn’t
mix, and people should be defined by their demographics. It’s the new
form of “separate but equal”.<br />
<br />
</span>Throughout history and throughout the world, the degree to which an
outsider group has overcome prejudice and poverty is directly
proportional to the degree it is willing and able to integrate, from the
Roma of Europe and Koreans in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region>
to the Irish, Italians, and Chinese in <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region>.
A movement that calls attention to and encourages differences and separateness,
which calls for identity along those cultural lines, a movement which not only
insists the world is not in fact colorblind, but also that virtual
colorblindness is a deplorable goal, is one that is actively discouraging the
one thing which effectively reduces the problems of segregation, which is
integration.<span style="color: #222222;"><br />
<br />
Addressing these issues, the real roots of inequality, would require changes
that no one in this country, conservative or liberal, black or white, actually
wants to do.<br />
<br />
It would require a complete end to all forms of <a href="https://time.com/4154815/rich-kids-working-class-middle-property-real-estate/" target="_blank">inheritance</a>, as well as significant financial, <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/trend-of-parents-helping-millennial-children-buy-first-home-is-on-the-rise-300054767.html" target="_blank">property</a>, (including educational) gifts, within families,
with any significant transfer of wealth being taxed into insignificance.<br />
It would require not just prohibiting enforced segregation, but <b>mandatory</b> integration.<br />
That means of course an end to fighting against so called "<a href="http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2014/10/gentrification-is-myth.html" target="_blank">gentrification</a>" (which is already really a code word
for "<a href="https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3563&context=penn_law_review" target="_blank">integration</a>"), nor even merely encouraging
gentrification, but <i>requiring</i> neighborhoods to
integrate, probably via a quota, affirmative action style, just like some
schools and workplaces once were.<br />
”Separate but equal” is not a valid concept; it wasn’t during Jim Crow, and it
isn’t today.<br />
<br />
Throughout history marriage has been the primary means of bringing together
rival communities. It would perhaps be going too far too start having
government arrange marriages, but a social campaign of shaming all monoracial
couples as consisting of probable racists and labeling same-<span class="il">race</span> relationships
as borderline incestuous might go a long way…<br />
<br />
Obviously all schools need to be <i>fully</i> integrated, with as
much bussing as necessary (although with mandatory neighborhood integration
much fewer buses will be necessary). Private schools eliminated, turned into
charter schools, or covered 100% with vouchers. Preschool made free and
mandatory, junior college made free, private tuition capped at public school
levels and scholarship grants that will cover advanced education available to
all - and parental support and gifts banned for those over 18 above a nominal
level, so that money does not factor into the quality of school anyone goes to.
This needs to apply not just the rich, or the top 1%, but to everyone, all the
time. A level playing field means every single person has an equal shot,
which means no one person has any advantage that they didn’t directly earn for
themselves. The playing field has to be <i>actually</i> level to have
equality, and giving up privilege isn't about protesting or gestures or
acknowledgement; it is about making actual, tangible, personal and financial
sacrifices, including letting go of the universal desire to ensure what's best
for your own child.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
Whoever you are, and especially if your partner shares your <span class="il">race</span>, your child shares your <span class="il">race</span>.
Therefore, helping your own child get ahead, doing what's best for them, is an
inherently racist act.<br />
It is tiny, and not deliberate, but it is still a racist act, and hundreds of
millions of those tiny individual acts are what results in the status quo
of <span class="il">racial</span> inequality that has persisted for
half a century after explicit formalized racism became a crime.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-90605514904529600032020-09-20T11:38:00.003-07:002020-09-23T12:13:49.760-07:00Focusing on the wrong issue (PART 2) (Part 1 of a series on race based on emails to my family)<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">What is
the goal of a protest?<br />
Why is the ultimate purpose behind that goal, beyond the immediate demands?<br />
What is the world envisioned as an end goal?<br />
Is it attainable?<br />
What impact would it actually have for the short term goals to be realized?<br />
Not just directly, but indirectly. If intercommunity violence <span class="il">murders</span> black men at a rate between 1500 to 9000 times
more than cops do, what would the realistic outcome of removing all <span class="il">police</span> from those communities be? What does
the <span class="il">murder</span> rate look like in countries where
the government has completely lost control and gangs and warlords are the
defacto rulers?<br />
<br />
What impact does the method of <i>attempting</i> change actually
have?<br />
How much of the conflict between black people and <span class="il">police</span> is
a result of the expectations each hold, the assumptions and prejudices on both
sides, the narratives that outweigh direct experience and cause people to
believe the other to be “other”? <br />
How much is that narrative <i>reinforced</i>, for both sides, by the
publicizing of these rare events and the riots that follow? How much more
likely is a random interaction to turn into a bad situation, a dangerous
confrontation, as a <i>result</i> of reinforcing that narrative?<br />
<br />
What alternatives might do a better job of reaching the end goal?<br />
<br />
In the past the desired immediate outcome in these sorts of protests was
"justice".<br />
In this situation we accept the definition of “justice” most often used by
conservatives: punishment.<br />
<br />
In a conversation at work about the protests, and <span class="il">police</span> procedures,
and related things, I mentioned some people argue for the abolition of prisons
and defunding of all <span class="il">police</span>. One of my boat crew
mates, a (large, dark skinned, thick bearded) black man who works both as a cop
and a prison guard said that his reply to people who say things like that is:<br />
“Cops who <span class="il">murder</span> black people committed a
crime, right? What do you want to do with them?”<br />
<br />
The usual reason for protests is because a particular instance of a <span class="il">police</span> killing was clearly (or likely) unjustified - <i>and</i> the
officer either was not arrested, or was acquitted. The issue was officers who
are out of control or cross a line being able to <i>get away</i> with
it, consequence free, and the implicit sanctioning by the system if they aren't
held accountable.<br />
That is not at all what happened in this case. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: #222222;">The actual details of what happened are
unquestionably <span class="il">murder</span>, unquestionably a completely
unjustifiable use of force, against a completely non-violent suspect, for no
apparent reason. But the officer was not granted the usual immunity. He
wasn’t put on paid leave pending an investigation. The officer was fired the
next day, and was arrested and charged with <span class="il">murder</span> 3
days later. While local (peaceful) protests began the next day (after the
firing, but before the arrest), the riots and violence (as well as the spread
of protests nationwide and to other countries) didn’t begin until <i>after</i> the
officer was arrested and charged, and continued even after the other 3 officers
present were arrested and charged as accomplices.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">Black
people are killed in violent crime on the order of 4600 times more often than
by cops. If the honest concern is that black lives matter, the proportion of
outrage and action HAS to be <b><u>4600</u></b> times larger in
attempting to enact social change in ways to reduce violent crime than the
level of outrage and action to reduce <span class="il">police</span> brutality.<br />
If it is not an a rate of 4600 times as high, if there aren’t 4600 marches
against civilian <span class="il">murder</span> for each one against
the <span class="il">police</span>, then the claimed reason for the effort
is a dishonest rationalization.<br />
The rationalization is that cops should be held to a higher standard. But
that 4600 ratio means they ARE held to a higher standard. They are
already <span class="il">murdering</span> 4,600 times less than
everyone else, even though they walk around with guns all day, deliberately
approaching potentially violent people, despite interacting with people who
hate them and assume they are the enemy before a word is spoken.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">Goals
should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely.<br />
Is the intent of the protest to ensure that the number of incidents becomes
zero, ever?<br />
Since the arrest of the bad cop did not end the protests, apparently the
protest must be that any cop ever is a bad cop, which means there will not ever
be an outcome that people are happy with. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
Now that the narrative is established, any incident, however rare, is going to
be portrayed as, and believed to be, a trend. Because the narrative is accepted
as a given, it doesn’t matter if a shooting is an accident, or if equal more
white people get shot by <span class="il">police</span> than black, or
if the “unarmed” victim punched the officer repeatedly in the face and tried to
grab the officer’s gun, or if <span class="il">police</span> shootings
of unarmed black people only happens once every several years. Every
instance of an officer shooting an unarmed black person, however rare and in
whatever circumstances, will be “proof” that it’s still a rampant epidemic and
that cops believe they can <span class="il">murder</span> Black people
because society thinks their lives don’t matter. <br />
<br />
As soon as we are no longer focused on the consequences for the officer nor the
policies in place, but instead are focused on whether any individual breaks
those policies, we are no longer talking about systemic or institutional
issues; we're just looking at individual actions, indivisible psychology,
individual people.<br />
<br />
You are not going to eliminate all individual bias, not ever. People will be
biased against immigrants, people with tattoos, the mentally ill, ugly people,
asocial people, people who drive souped up home modded <span class="il">race</span> cars,
drug addicts, anyone who can be categorized as different or other - not to
mention anyone associated in some way with a demographic that tends to commit
more crime than the average.<br />
<br />
However, there's nothing inherent in having more pigment in the skin that puts
people within any of those categories. It’s only a combination of culture
and poverty that makes it true at this moment in history, in this country, that
dark skin and African roots has a statistical correlation with crime.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
It would be absolutely possible to virtually eliminate the majority of <span class="il">racial</span> bias. It has happened plenty of times in the past,
with overtly discriminated against groups fully integrating into society to the
point where they no longer seem like a minority group in the first place.
This has occurred many places and many times in history, including in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #222222;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #222222;"> - but it has never happened because people rallied and
protested and demanded that humans stop thinking in generalities and making
associations. <br />
In every case a formerly discriminated-against group became accepted, it was
because the outsiders assimilated over time, and the statistics that the
negative stereotypes were based on stopped being true. Eventually the dominant
culture caught up it's assumptions to match the new reality. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">The
statistical disproportionality in whatever negative trait gets turned into a
stereotype and then a prejudice has to stop being true <i>first</i>. <br />
And once that happens, the change in attitudes will happen without any
protests.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-10849756407101049102020-09-19T11:38:00.004-07:002020-09-19T11:38:50.525-07:00Focusing on the wrong issue (PART 1) (Part 1 of a series on race based on emails to my family)<p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">I
personally don't have especially dark skin, nor the accent or clothing or other
cultural signifiers that not only mark a young man as of African descent, but
more specifically as an American Black, “African American”, (as opposed to an
American from Africa). However, I grew up in an area with plenty of
people who did, and a poor, high crime neighborhood at that, so I was
absolutely exposed to interactions between stereotypically urban young black
males and </span><span class="il" style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">police</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">. Having the opportunity
to witness it, but as an outside observer, gave me a more useful view than if I
had been either party, or had any particular stake in either party. I
didn’t identify with either, so I didn’t start out picking sides. And I
saw first hand the contrast between what I was watching directly, and how it
was categorized later.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
Just a few months before deployment I took my son to what looked like an
amazing little community built playground in the Iron Triangle. It looked
like it had some unique play structures, I liked that it had been designed and
built by people who lived in the neighborhood, and I thought it might offer a
chance to expose him to some diversity in skin tones and cultures. I
thought, “this is 2020, the crime rate in </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="color: #222222;">Richmond</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="color: #222222;"> is way down, I’m sure the Iron Triangle is at least
relatively better than I remember”.<br />
As we arrived, there was a large group of kids around 7 to 12 years old, some
Black and some Latinx, each arguing their case to an adult </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="color: #222222;">Latina</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="color: #222222;"> woman who was listening to each but seemed she preferred
not to get involved and just wanted them to move on and play nicely.
Apparently several days before two kids, one from each group (but one of whom
seemed not to be present) had gotten into an argument, and one of them may or
may not have threatened the other, possibly threatened to kill them, (but not
in any sort of immediate or credible way). It was unclear what resolution
any of them wanted, they just seemed to each want acknowledgement from an adult
that the other had “started it” and was the guiltier party.<br />
One kid (of each color) played in a sandbox together, ignoring the commotion.<br />
The adult eventually left, and most of the kids started playing again – many of
them mixing - but a couple kids couldn’t let it go. One of the Black
girls said she was going to call the <span class="il">police</span>.
Some time later the <span class="il">police</span> show up. They
come up to the kids, ask what the problem is. The cops let one kid talk
at a time. The cops listen patiently while these 7 to 12 year old children air
their grievances from last week about some playground dispute. The cops
reassure each side that the other isn’t going to harm them, gets them to
verbally agree to get along. They all go back to playing, while the cops
go back to their car. The girl apparently had also called her mother, who
shows up after it's all over…<br />
She walks up, already visibly angry and belligerent before anyone has a chance
to say anything. She starts with shouting at the cops, what are you doing
here? Why are you threatening my children? What makes you think
they did anything wrong? They are just children!? They try to talk
to her but it doesn’t matter what they say, she isn’t even listening, she
shouts over them.<br />
A child dispute including death threats was bad enough, but now I really regret
having ventured back into the Triangle. Another woman comes out, followed
by a man, I think they may have also been parents, or relatives. Neither
are belligerent, but they support the first woman and make no effort to calm
her down. Now with 3 angry people, one shouting and crazy, surrounding
the two officers… they continue to be quiet voiced, calm, patient,
respectful. Regardless of what they say, or how they say it, the mother
is offended by it. If they contradict her claim that they threatened to
arrest her child, she says they are calling her a liar. She says the fact
that they are even there is racist. I’m expecting at any moment for them
to lose patience, to yell back or warn her against doing something which would
lead to her doing that thing and it escalating to an arrest. I’m
wondering how it would look to Seku if I suddenly interrupted his playing and
we left, but he seems mostly oblivious to the commotion and is focused on his
play – plus if it does escalate I want to be available as an independent witness
– so we wait it out. Eventually the cops have other things to do, and
since no one is actually asking for anything in particular, and there is no
crime afoot, they extricate themselves from the interaction and leave, while
the parents stay behind and speak to each other from far enough away that its
easy to hear their entire conversation. Of course, they talk about how this is
part of a pattern and how bad the cops are and how racist everyone is and how
everything that happened is the Latino kids’ fault. At some point the
other woman asks me if I was there for the whole thing, and I tell them how
both groups of kids were arguing about something that happened last week and it
seemed like nothing really and no one more at fault, that it was about an idle
threat, but that I think it was one of their kids who called the <span class="il">police</span> – and they listen to me, and they acknowledge that
they heard me and then go right back into the conversation as though they
hadn’t learned any new information.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">This
specific story comes readily to mind, with lots of detail, because it happened
so recently, while I was an adult, close by, paying attention. But it is
by no means unique, or even unusual, in terms of interactions between <span class="il">police</span> and residents of </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="color: #222222;">Richmond</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="color: #222222;"> and </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="color: #222222;">Oakland</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="color: #222222;"> that I have personally witnessed. I have seen a
decent number of examples of what some people later recall as racism. I
have also seen cops be less patient and forgiving, with less provocation – with
people of a range of colors, including whites (usually “punk” styled people)
and seen situations escalate in a way that each side would claim the other
entirely at fault. I’ve seen people express fear who had absolutely no
personal experiences on which to base it<br />
(come to think of it, I’ve experienced it, for example when I tried to hide
from a cop after having tied my own hands together with a zip tie I found at a
construction site, to fear he would assume I was an escaped suspect. He
found me, asked what I was doing, I answered with what sounded like a really
stupid excuse, and he cut the zip tie off – I hadn’t realized that if a suspect
had escaped he’d have heard about it by radio. Also, every time I saw a
cop, nervousness, even when I was doing absolutely nothing wrong).<br />
<br />
I am not claiming that because of these things I have seen first hand I think
that there are no racist cops or <span class="il">police</span> brutality
or profiling. I don’t doubt those things are real.<br />
<br />
What I can say with absolute 100% certainty, from having seen it personally
dozens of times in my life, is that no individual’s self-report is at all a
reliable source of information; to the point where they aren’t even
useful. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">Perspective
and expectation affect perception, interpretation, attention, and recall to a
significant degree in ordinary life, but they get enhanced enormously when it’s
a topic that generates strong emotions, and/or a topic which relates to
identity and especially group identity. We all know better than to trust
people’s recall of how big a fish they caught. 90% of people believe they are
better than average drivers, (while the other 10% concede to just being
average) which is why accidents are almost always “the other guy’s”
fault. People watching the same sports game will see their team getting
bad calls by the ref and the other team cheating. People don’t experience
things that happen to them objectively, and they report them after the fact
even more inaccurately.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">Just
like people choose between faith and science, a world view can be based on
personal experience, other people’s opinion, conjecture, media reports, OR
statistics and verifiable facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">The
first 4 are all forms of faith. All are filtered by expectation and belief –
with in-group loyalty often being the single largest factor in perception.<br />
The last is the closest one can get to science. Basing beliefs on anything
other than data is religion.<br />
<br />
Yes, my own personal experiences provided somewhat more varied perspectives
than average: growing up a mixed person in a mixed community allowed me to see
different perspectives, different worlds, all from up close, but never from the
inside. I was allowed to hang out in every group in junior high (in elementary
school the kids didn’t self segregate yet) but none really considered me (nor
did I consider myself) “one of them”. People of different <span class="il">races</span> don’t
self-censor around me the way they do people they consider full outsiders (I
can tell, because of how it changes when full outsiders are around). <br />
I got in (minor) trouble my fair share of times, and interacted with cops
myself, I watched my friends and acquaintances (of various <span class="il">races</span>)
interacting with <span class="il">police</span>, watched strangers interact
from across the street. Of course I witnessed street fights and drug
deals and non-criminal but generally antisocial behavior. I saw that
white and black people both love doing drugs - and specifically that white
people tend to do both their drug trades and consumption indoors, while black
people often do them on the street or other public places.<br />
As a child I went to rallies for various causes, as I grew older I had
political and philosophical conversations with friends and acquaintances
ranging from communist to anarchist to libertarian, (and even the occasional
Christian mixed in for good measure). I eventually worked as a security guard
and for the Coast Guard, which not only provided a few more first hand
experiences from a different role, but also exposed me to more different
people’s perspectives, law-and-order types, words unfiltered and relatively
honest because they feel that they’re speaking with peers – there are a lot of
current and former and aspiring cops in both security and the military reserve.<br />
<br />
I believe the effect those various experiences had was not to <i>create</i> my
understanding of the world. The effect was, by exposing me to different
sides of the same question, to allow me to realize that <i>everyone</i> was
fitting information to their own narrative. It made it easier for me to
question everyone’s narrative. It’s what gave me the chance to even
realize there <i>was</i> a narrative filtering everyone’s experience
in the first place, rather than just choosing one and fully internalizing it to
the point I’d have ceased to be aware I had one.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">The
effect of that exposure was to allow me to look critically at all claims, to
question what was really going on, and inspire me to look deeper. But the
specific conclusions I have finally come to come from ignoring <i>all</i> the
anecdotes, including my own, and focusing on the statistics.<br />
Human brains don’t tend to spontaneously parse statistics accurately,
especially when it comes to risk. As a result of being social, we
overemphasis risks that some other person could do to us “on purpose” while
downplaying risks that are caused by non-human forces or that another person or
ourselves might do “by accident”. We are less focused on the actual
result than on the intentionality. <br />
<br />
The rate of stranger child abduction and <span class="il">murder</span> is
literally 1 in a million (actually less, at about 50 per year, it works out to
1 in 1.47 million).<br />
Because of just two random, highly publicized and shocking cases - and the
human psychological need to “do something” to control bad outcomes that are the
result of someone else’s intentional action - we have<br />
1) the California 3 strikes law - the first and most extreme of it’s kind -
which was followed by versions in 27 other states, and is a significant
contributor to the US having the highest rate of incarceration in the world,
and<br />
2) 28 states “Megan’s Laws” (which I’ve written about previously how awfully it
is implemented: <a href="http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2015/04/sex-offender-registry.html" target="_blank">http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2015/04/sex-offender-registry.html</a> ).<br />
<br />
A survey found that 75% of parents said they feared their children might be
abducted, and one-third said this was a frequent worry -- a degree of fear
greater than for any other concern.<br />
Compared to the 50 kids killed each year by strangers, around 4000 die each
year as passengers in motor vehicles, making it an 80 times higher risk – but
of course car accidents don’t register the same emotional impact, because they
aren’t done “on purpose”.<br />
Largely as a result of this fear, the rate at which children walk to school
dropped from almost 50% to just over 10% over the past few decades, with
concern about child predators being the most often cited justification.
Instead, concerned parents drive their kids to school, <i>increasing</i> their
chances of a premature death by a factor of 80, as a way to “protect”
them. There is exactly zero correlation between statistical risk and
fear. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">Over
the past 20 years, there have been <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2000%E2%80%9309" target="_blank">85 acts of terrorism in the United States</a>.<br />
In total they resulted in 3346 deaths (of which 3008 were on Sept 2011 alone,
with the other 84 causing an average of 4 deaths each). That is in
relation to around 53 million total deaths, so around 0.006% of all deaths are
caused by terrorism – only 0.0006% not counting 9/11.<br />
The risk of any one random American personally, directly, experiencing a
terrorist attack is <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023119856825" target="_blank">one in 75,000</a>.<br />
Despite how rare it is, and how unlikely any given person is to ever experience
it, it is cited as the 2<sup>nd</sup> highest concern of Americans.
That fear, however, is not uniform across everyone – it is significantly higher
among political conservatives, with them rating it as the single top
fear. Having some outsider, some Muslim extremist terrorist, come and try
to kill good decent (Christian) American’s because they hate our way of life,
our freedom, fits perfectly with their narrative, and so any time an incident
actually does occur, it resonates. It fits with the preconceived conclusion,
and becomes further evidence and reinforcement that they were right all along:
“See, I knew this would happen, those evil people are just waiting for the
chance”. <br />
The numerical facts about how rare it actually is, or how small a percentage of
Muslims actually are responsible is irrelevant, because the belief comes from
both a desire to fit in with others who believe the same things and a fear of
someone considered “other”.<br />
The imaginary huge risk presented by this particular possibility that is caused
by something someone does “on purpose” – which caused 0.006% of deaths over the
past 20 years - has resulted in our society feeling like we have to “do
something!” and collectively agreeing to several wars, as well as creating the
DHS and TSA, body scanners, indefinite detention sometimes without charges,
indiscriminate secret surveillance of US citizens, the PATRIOT act (1 and 2),
the Gitmo detention center, and two actual <i>wars</i> (repeated for
emphasis, cause it's a big deal) costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, though terrorist attacks are done deliberately, political
liberals and the left rate stopping it as less high of a priority, and less
scary of a personal threat. The idea that Muslims are fundamentally evil
people who hate us for no good reason doesn’t fit their narrative, and so the
threat doesn’t hold the same emotional saliency – believing the narrative isn’t
a requirement for social acceptance.<br />
Unless of course the attacker uses a gun…<br />
This is a rather bizarre dichotomy that somehow avoids producing any cognitive
dissonance what-so-ever on either side of the political spectrum. <br />
When it comes to mass shootings, liberals are the ones who feel they are a
really big deal, and are more afraid it might happen to them personally, while conservatives
are relatively nonchalant.<br />
But this makes absolutely no sense, on either side, because mass shooting <i>fall
within the definition of terrorism! </i> One is a subset of the
other, you can not distinguish them. Of all the Islamic terrorist attacks
in the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #222222;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #222222;"> since 9/11, almost half were mass shootings. Of
all mass shootings, just under half were by Muslim extremists (along with 6
more attempts that don’t technically count as “mass” shootings because not
enough people died).<br />
They are both parts of the same thing, but different aspects get played up or
played down to match the narrative of the speakers and listeners.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">There
was a study a few years ago that has become very popular with the political
left and liberals, suggesting that conservatism was related to brain chemistry,
that an overactive amygdala made them prone to be afraid of everything, and
suggesting conservatism might be a response to that fear.<br />
More recently, the methodology of that study has been called into question: the
questions they used to gauge fear were not politically neutral. The
questions were about things like terrorism, or immigrants’ effect on the
economy, that had to do with people’s accepted narrative and self-identity as a
conservative person.<br />
When different questions are used – for example, fear of mass shootings,
concern that Trump will refuse to leave office essentially declaring himself
dictator, sea levels rising 10ft over the next decade, COVID killing ¼ of the
population, or </span><st1:place><span style="color: #222222;">Gilead</span></st1:place><span style="color: #222222;"> taking over </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #222222;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #222222;"> and turning it into a Evangelical theocracy, liberals
show the higher levels of irrational fears.<br />
<br />
Along with Islamic jihadists, White nationalists, racists, and neo-nazis make
up the majority of US terrorists. A much smaller portion (around 10%) is
made up of left-wing extremists, and every once in a while it’s an independent
nutjob with no particular known agenda.<br />
Muslims make up 1% of the population. They are responsible for nearly
half of all terror attacks. White people make up most of the rest – but
they also make up 60% of the population. That’s a dramatic difference in
relative proportion: Muslim Americans commit (or attempt) acts of terrorism at
a rate 8.9 times higher per person than White Americans.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">However,
that 9 times higher rate is still only 44 terrorists out of 30 million people,
for a percentage of 0.000146%<br />
<br />
Its unconfirmed whether it was really Stalin who said it, but the psychology of
his statement is true:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">“If
only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only
statistics.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
It’s hard to conceptualize big numbers and still feel human empathy for the
victims. If 175,000 people are <span class="il">murdered</span>, that
is 175 thousand tragedies, that many lives cut short, hundreds of thousands of
surviving family members and loved ones suffering, each one as personal and
poignant as any one instance we hear about in detail.<br />
Between 2009 and 2019, there were roughly 175,000 <span class="il">murders</span> in
the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="color: #222222;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="color: #222222;">. This does not count accidental homicide, killing
in self-defense, or most <span class="il">police</span> officer
homicides. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">175,000
cases of one person deliberately ending the life of another person over a
decade, or 17,000 per year, <i>46 per day</i> on average.<br />
<br />
Of those, 53% of victims are black (77% are male). When you think about how
tragic a death you hear about is, think about the 174,999 others you don’t hear
about, too.<br />
<br />
For reference, there are roughly 400 “justifiable” homicides by <span class="il">police</span> officers every year (according to official
sources), of which roughly 24% are black. Granted, an unknowable number of
those may have not been truly “justified” but merely “gotten away with”, though
the majority of cases have relatively clear cut circumstances, such as a victim
who was actively shooting at officers or others.<br />
Even if we consider 100% of <span class="il">police</span> shootings to
be <span class="il">murder</span>, regardless of the circumstances and
actions of the victim/suspect, that’s 96 Black people killed (24% of 400) as
the (unrealistically high) worst case scenario - compared to 9,275 black
people <span class="il">murdered</span> by non-cops each year.
That’s including “victims” who were actively shooting at cops after having been
caught committing a felony.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
In reality, while there are probably still some cases which are successfully
covered up, we are in an age where everyone carries a video camera from age 15
and up, and official news media is supplanted with the universal access of
social media, so cover-ups have become increasingly hard to pull off.
Everyone who has a message has access to an audience, and if the topic is one
which people have a strong emotional response to, it is likely to spread.
Because this is an issue that so many have strong feelings about, it shouldn’t
be surprising to find non-official sources keeping tabs, and we can get a
reasonable estimate for<a href="https://newsone.com/playlist/black-men-boy-who-were-killed-by-police" target="_blank"> cases that don’t get nationwide attention</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">There
have been about ten highly publicized cases of Black men (and youth) that were
killed by <span class="il">police</span> while unarmed since 2009.<br />
<br />
Not counting people armed with knives, bats etc or realistic looking pellet
guns, or unarmed but physically assaulting officers; the actual numbers of
unarmed, nonviolent, black people killed by <span class="il">police</span> without
reasonable justification may be somewhere in the range of 15-60, (with the
large range being due to conflicting reports, unclear circumstances and lack of
evidence - for example when an officer claims a gun grab, and there were no
witnesses or video, and family files a suit because they insist the person
would have never done such a thing).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">The
most clear cut examples with strong evidence always get nationwide attention,
(although in some cases there is a nation wide response even though eye
witnesses agree the victim was a violent aggressor – those cases result in
protests nonetheless.)<br />
Assuming 100% of questionable cases were unjustified, this puts the high end of
unjustified killings at around 60. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">Not per
year, 60 <i>total</i> cases, from 2009 to 2019. <br />
That is the number to compare to the 92,750 (civilian perpetrated) <span class="il">murders</span> over that same span.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
That’s a <span class="il">murder</span> rate by other private citizens
1545 times higher than the rate of being <span class="il">murdered</span> by <span class="il">police</span>, assuming every questionable case counts as <span class="il">murder</span>. It is 9,275 times higher if all the questionable
cases were actually justified by the circumstances. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: #222222;">Let’s assume some but not all unknown cases were
essentially <span class="il">murders</span>, and say there are twice as many
actual cases as ones that get major social attention. That puts the rate
of <span class="il">murder</span> by citizens at 4,600 times higher
than the rate of <span class="il">murder</span> by <span class="il">police</span>.<br />
For a movement which focuses <i>exclusively</i> on <span class="il">police</span> misconduct to claim its primary interest is in
protecting black people is clearly either dishonest or delusional.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">There
are approximately 1 million sworn <span class="il">police</span> officers
in the country, which puts the percentage of cops who <span class="il">murder</span> black
people at between 0.0001% and 0.0006% (depending which cases you consider <span class="il">murder</span>)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
In other words: <i>to make a conclusion about <span class="il">police</span> officers
generally based on a few high-profile bad examples is, statistically, exactly
the same as drawing conclusions about all Muslims based on a few terrorist
attacks</i>.<br />
<br />
6 black men a year, out of 9,137,433 Black males between 15 and 44, makes a
rate of 1 in 1.5 million; which means if the <span class="il">police</span> shoot
at unarmed Black men completely at random and every Black man has an exactly
equal chance of being <span class="il">murdered</span> by <span class="il">police</span>, his chances of being <span class="il">murdered</span> by <span class="il">police</span> are still 20 times <i>less</i> than the
chance of being killed in a terrorist attack. In reality it isn’t random
– nearly every case involves a victim who had just recently committed at least
a minor crime. The majority of Black men don’t commit crimes the majority
of the time, which puts their risk of being killed in a terrorist attack at
hundreds of times higher than being <span class="il">murdered</span> by
a <span class="il">police</span> officer.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, almost as many people have died in riots triggered by <span class="il">police</span> brutality cases, 53 killed by rioters alone after
the Rodney King verdict (plus 10 killed by law enforcement) and at least 17
killed in the most recent rioting (plus 2 shot by law enforcement both of whom
were armed themselves, and 1 who apparently died of tear gas).<br />
<br />
This is what the data, plus a little mathematics, says.<br />
If you ask people to give their subjective beliefs, you will get emotion and
narrative driven answers, which will lead to entirely different conclusions
than the data leads to.<br />
<br />
We derided conservatives for fearing terrorism when the chances of experiencing
it first hand are only 1 in 75,000. We see easily that their fear is based not
on a realistic threat, but on how dramatic the (rare) events are, how much they
are reported, how often friends and family talk about it. Almost none of the
conservatives who rate terrorism as a significant personal concern have ever
personally, directly experienced it, but they don’t have to experience it to be
convinced it’s real. The fear is based on the narrative they hold, about who
they are as a people and who their enemies are; the bad people who want to hurt
them. Having been exposed to that narrative their entire lives, any act of
terrorism they hear about is already primed to resonate deeply, to generate an
intense emotional response.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">When <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/03/15/black-americans-police" target="_blank">surveyed</a>, a majority of black people report fear of being
killed by <span class="il">police</span> as higher, by a wide margin,
than fear of being <span class="il">murdered</span> in a violent crime.<br />
<br />
This one statement, in light of an actual risk over<i> 4,600</i> times
higher, should be enough to make anyone stop relying on any self-reported
assessments. It shows conclusively how much emotion, expectation, and
accepting the socially accepted narrative, influences thoughts and beliefs even
to the point of overriding direct personal observation and experience. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
If you live in a high crime neighborhood, you have seen fights in the street.
You probably know someone who has been robbed, or assaulted. You’ve heard
gun shots, seen bullet holes in windows, you probably know of someone who has
been shot. You may likely have been a victim yourself, or it may have
been a friend or relative, a neighbor, or just someone walking down the street.
You perhaps are even neighbors or acquaintances of the people who commit the
crimes. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">There
is relatively less chance that you personally have ever witnessed or been the
victim of a completely unjustified <span class="il">police</span> beating
of someone non-violent and not resisting, never mind a <span class="il">police</span> <span class="il">murder</span>. Even if you have, it has been a whole lot less
often. If one happened to have witnessed it, for every one time they saw
that, they’ve seen a dozen assaults by civilian citizens. For the most
part <span class="il">police</span> brutality is learned about from
conversations with others who themselves heard about it second hand, and from
TV and social media. Yet those stories take precedence over the day-to-day
direct personal experience in coloring assessment of risk - in exactly the same
way that news reports of bombings and child abductions overtake the reality of
driving past a fatal car accident which only registers as the source of an
annoying traffic jam.<br />
<br />
That someone is more afraid of being killed by cops than from violent crime
should completely invalidate that person as a source of information.
Every experience that person has with cops is going to be framed with the
preexisting narrative; exactly like that woman at the playground did.<br />
<br />
Black people prefer to believe that cops are a bigger problem than
violent crime because it makes the enemy an “other”, a “them”. White
(left and liberal) people prefer to believe the same narrative because of a
fear that acknowledging the extent and significance of black crime is
“racist”. Calling out the <span class="il">police</span> for
being racist instead confirms that they are “one of the good ones”, an
anti-racist white who will accept black claims at face value (even if they are
factually incorrect, by a factor of 4600).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">Using a
tiny handful of dramatic examples, activists will take an instance of a white
person killing a black person, and claim it is part of a trend, an epidemic
even, that racists are everywhere and it isn’t safe for a black person to just
be minding their own business in public.<br />
Many of the same people who say things like that will also claim that if a
white person crosses the street to avoid walking past a black man, it means
they are racist.<br />
You can’t have it both ways – holding both views is not compatible with
reality. You can’t claim that blacks fearing whites is justified, but
whites fearing blacks is racism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">While
the majority of <span class="il">murders</span> involve both a
perpetrator and victim of the same <span class="il">race</span> (usually
known to each other personally), of those where the <span class="il">race</span> of
victim and perpetrator differ, there are over twice as many black <span class="il">murders</span> of white people (514 in 2018) than white <span class="il">murders</span> of black people (234 in 2018).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"> <br />
Anyone who holds both beliefs, in the face of very easily verified data, is
basing belief on political ideology, not reality.<br />
<br />
The perception of an experience is dependent on expectations, preexisting
beliefs, and social demands. If being accepted means believing that God came to
earth in the form of his son with a human woman at one arbitrary point in
history, performed a bunch of magic tricks, deliberation let himself be
executed (despite having magic powers) in order to make a point, then came back
to life and levitated into the sky, (which is why you can go to a magic
fairyland when you die even though you to do bad things) - then people will
believe it. It won't matter how many holes there are in the story, how many
internal contradictions, how many details shown to be wrong by modern science -
nor how much the story fails to fit in with directly observed day to day
reality.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br />
If fitting in means ignoring intercommunity violence, while hyping
intracommunity violence, despite the physical danger of an inaccurate risk
assessment, people will almost always go with the socially acceptable belief.
To avoid cognitive dissonance they will latch onto the narrative so completely
that it will completely overrule all personal experience - without them even
being aware they are doing it.<br /><br />(Part 2 will link here once it posts)<o:p></o:p></span></p>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-8915911851466970482019-08-05T18:00:00.001-07:002019-08-05T18:00:15.179-07:00Tariffs - the one (and possibly only) thing Trump has right (even if it's for the wrong reason)Lets be clear on one thing up front:<br />Trump is a joke who somehow got himself elected. He is an egotistical, narcissistic blow hard who was given a company, bankrupted it, was bailed out by his rich family, went bankrupt a second time, and was bailed out by family money again. He is a hypocrite, a xenophobic nationalist, a chronic liar, and a reality TV star, who is really only good at one thing, which is self-promotion (although he has been so good at that that he has gotten many many people to give him money, and ultimately, to vote for him.) <br />
But even the most idiotic of people can accidentally do something right.<br /><br />It was so-called "neoliberals", pro-business and pro-capitalism, essentially conservative in economic principals, who in recent years pushed "free trade" on us.<br />Really, it goes back even further, with imperialist countries using every means possible, up to military force in some cases, to "open markets" in foreign countries, whether the locals wanted it or not.<br />More recently the US has staged coops and rigged elections in order to get foreign governments willing to do business with US corporations.<br />And while this had obvious benefits for those corporations themselves, it has always been coupled with local jobs dissolving, which in turn has been one of the primary driving forces behind stagnating wages, especially for what was once the middle class.<br />
<br />Progressives, socialists, unions, the working class and those who support global human rights and economic stability for the developing world were all once united in opposition to so-called free-trade, globalism, the WTO and NAFTA, the opening of foreign markets by any means necessary, outsourcing and overseas manufacturing.<br /><br />
The whole reason overseas manufacturing is appealing to corporations, why its cost effective despite the enormous cost of shipping something literally around the world, is because other places have few or no minimum wage laws, worker protection laws, or environmental laws.<br />
<br />Not only does it cost US jobs, (and in the process reduce wages for everyone who does still have a job, as wages in a free market economy are supply and demand based just like goods), but it also means more environmental damage (and injured workers with no recourse) for the nation building us all our cheap crap. Factories move in not because it is what the citizens want, or because it is good for them, but because corporations make deals with the countries' governments.<br /><br />Analysts and newscasters warn that not having access to cheap chinese goods mean prices will go up for US consumers.<br />
<br />1) That's not necessarily true. When outsourcing manufacturing first began, prices dropped slightly, but much of the corporate cost savings went to profits and shareholder dividends. Corporate profits have been high for decades, which means there is margin there for manufacturing costs to increase without retail prices increasing, and without businesses going bankrupt.<br />
<br />
2) If prices go up for US consumers... GOOD! We don't need so much cheap crap! We don't need iphones for every man woman and child, and cheap big screen TVs and trinkets of every imaginable variety at bargain basement prices. The US has one of the highest standards of living in the world, not only the rich, but the working class and even most of the poor in the US have access to things much of the people of the world don't dream of. <br />We should absolutely be paying the real cost of all our stuff!<br />That means paying the cost of environmental protection laws, worker protection laws, and reasonable living wages. If those things were all equivalent in China as they are here, it wouldn't be cheaper to ship goods 8000 miles or so - mostly by ships which use <a href="https://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/" target="_blank">16 tons of fuel per hour</a>, or 3200 tons (of the dirtiest petroleum fuel there is) for a single trip - than it would be to just build factories in the US and ship no further than from one coast to the other by land. The only reason it is cost effective to spend several thousand extra per container is precisely because in China minimum wage averages $2.84 per hour, and we can pawn all our pollution off on Beijing. We are not exactly doing any favors to the workers in China by exporting our low skill jobs there (never mind the human rights record of the Chinese government, which we happily overlook for the sake of trade agreements).<br /><br />Another way to say "trade war", is countries on opposite sides of the world produce their own stuff to the extent they are able, and only ship things thousands of miles if there are things people need in one place that they are completely incapable of sourcing locally.<br /><br />If we can agree that buying food local is best, it shouldn't be so hard to agree that the exact same principal applies to everything else as well.<br /><br />Lets not get so bogged down in our hatred for the personality that we blanket condemn every thing he does, regardless of what it is. Lets support him in undoing decades of outsourcing, and stop prioritizing corporations (whether Chinese or American) over workers and the environment.<br />Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-54721139436789960462018-02-22T09:35:00.001-08:002018-02-22T09:36:33.689-08:00Guns. And inequality. OR; Lets focus on the root of the problem<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
Apparently now the topic is guns here. I guess I'll bite too.<br />
Inspired by a Facebook theory on how race relates to the public reaction to gun violence, I did a little (internet) research, and a little thinking, and I think I've got something...<br />
<br />
First a bunch of background:<br />
<br />
- Gun violence IS very high in this country compared to other wealthy nations. So is violence, generally. Gun violence is a subset of, and proportionate to, violence generally.<br />
<br />
- While comparing the US to wealthy nations makes us seem particularly violent, comparing us to the world puts us on the gentler side of average.<br />
<br />
- It turns out wealth is the wrong metric to use to compare. There is little to no correlation with wealth vs poverty and rates of violence.<br />
<br />
- The relevant metric is actually wealth equality. Across all countries, the more inequality there is, the more violence there is. <a data-ft="{"tn":"-U"}" data-lynx-mode="async" href="https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003465300559028#.VEa2xNTF9D5" rel="noopener nofollow" style="color: #365899; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003465300559028#.VEa2xNTF9D5</a><br />
<a data-ft="{"tn":"-U"}" data-lynx-mode="async" href="http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf" rel="noopener nofollow" style="color: #365899; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf</a><br />
<a data-ft="{"tn":"-U"}" data-lynx-mode="async" href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/08/mexico-study-income-inequality-crime/" rel="noopener nofollow" style="color: #365899; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/08/mexico-study-income-inequality-crime/</a><br />
<a data-ft="{"tn":"-U"}" data-lynx-mode="async" href="https://academic.oup.com/oep/article-abstract/66/4/1090/2912941" rel="noopener nofollow" style="color: #365899; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">https://academic.oup.com/oep/article-abstract/66/4/1090/2912941</a><br />
<br />
- When measuring inequality, the US is actually closer to some "third-world" dictatorships than it is to Western Europe, Canada, or Japan. According to the CIA, there are 110 nations with more equality than the US, and only 39 with less.<br />
<a data-ft="{"tn":"-U"}" data-lynx-mode="async" href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html" rel="noopener nofollow" style="color: #365899; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html</a><br />
<a data-ft="{"tn":"-U"}" data-lynx-mode="async" href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/map-us-ranks-near-bottom-on-income-inequality/245315/" rel="noopener nofollow" style="color: #365899; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/map-us-ranks-near-bottom-on-income-inequality/245315/</a><br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
- Whenever a high profile, dramatic incident involving guns occurs, 1/2 the country is extremely interested in guns for a few weeks. This could be a person shooting indiscriminately at other people, or a stand off between law enforcement and some cult or militia.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
- When some such incident has occurred recently, and people are talking about it, some gun control advocates will point out the extremely high rate of gun homicides in general<br />
<br />
- Some will make claims about the frequency of indiscriminate shooters or gun stockpiles, however these claims are statistically false: they are not common, and they are not increasing. In the big picture they are rare enough to be negligible.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Why is it that we care about this issue only when there is a "mass" shooting, when those are so rare, while regular shootings happen all the time?<br />
This is where the general idea of selective attention may have some sort of merit.<br />
<br />
This is certainly not the only factor, but one thing that is true is that the victims of "mass" shootings are overwhelmingly white. No matter what color the shooter is (and they are in fact distributed pretty equally), the victims tend to be white. The victims of regular one-or-two-at-a-time shootings are disproportionately Black, and (to a lesser extent), some other non-white ethnicity. Its not that gun control advocates are necessarily "racist", per say, but they are usually White, middle class, liberals, who most likely live on one of the coasts - they don't live where violence is a daily phenomenon.<br />
Out of sight, out of mind.<br />
<br />
They have probably never been robbed by someone who flashed a gun at them. They have probably never had to repair a window with a bullet hole in it from crossfire. They didn't get called in from playing outside as a child only when the gunshots or police helicopters sounded like they were within a few blocks of home because hearing them off in the distance was just business as usual.<br />
(If you were wondering, yes, these are all examples from my life. Our local high school installed metal detectors years before the incident at Columbine made "school shooting" a household term among middle class America. When that happened' I had no idea what the big deal was, because shooting happen at school all the time!)<br />
<br />
Of course, another factor is a combination of news media being concerned first and foremost with ratings and the nature of human psychology. There is no race component to the fact that there is far more attention paid to commercial plane crashes. A total of 1600 people died in commercial plane crashes over the past 4 years *worldwide*. In the same time period, roughly 5 MILLION deaths due to automobiles, 1 million of those in the US alone. Compared by the mile, there is over 100 times greater risk in traveling by car.<br />
<br />
But when a plane does crash, it is on the news for a week. If a car crashes, the only way you hear about it is in the context of a traffic delay on your daily commute.<br />
It is the very fact that it is rare, therefor unexpected, that makes us pay attention.<br />
When a plane crashes, there are also always some accompanying calls that somebody DO SOMETHING to make air travel safer. Yet common sense ways that would make driving safer - speed limiters that make speeding impossible, electronic systems that make it impossible to use communication devices while driving, requirements for real driver's training (more equivalent to that required of pilots) - are not even a consideration or discussion topic.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
All of the attention to "do something" goes to the dramatic, and none to the actual problem.<br />
This is exactly the equivalent to calls to ban AR15s and bubp stocks. They are attempts to solve what isn't really a significant problem in the first place ("mass" shootings), which would do exactly nothing to solve what is actually a very significant problem (the overall homicide rate, of which almost none is committed by rifle of any kind).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
All that background to get to this: the real root of the problem is actually inequality.<br />
While the biggest gulf is between the top 0.01% and everyone else, with a significant gulf between the top 0.1% and everyone else, the middle class in this country is still extremely well off and comfortable compared to the world average, and even compared to the poorest in the US.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
So perhaps there is some self-benefit to focusing the problem on "guns", and especially on those guns that are involved in "mass" shootings, the ones that middle class white America can envision themselves being caught up in.<br />
Because "equality" just might mean you have to give up something.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-top: 6px;">
Here is my question:<br />
What if, instead of forcing other people to give up their guns, making the world safer meant you had to give up your car, your smart phone, and your 2000 square foot house?<br />
Would preventing deaths still rank as the highest priority?</div>
Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-64703723760126897662017-11-12T06:08:00.000-08:002017-11-17T12:01:02.077-08:00In defense of Louie CKFirst off, note that some details of what was written in the original report released by the NYT has been changed in subsequent media accounts. <br />I am not sure who changed the story, when, or why, but I am taking the initial story as the most likely to be accurate one. It was the NYT reporter that actually talked to the accusers.<br />It was my post in response to that article that led to me being invited to join this group.<br /><br />Read the original story here:<br />https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html<br />
<br />In particular, there are reports circulating that he at some point physically blocked an exit, preventing Goodman and Wolov from leaving the room. The original report says that by their own account, he was sitting in a chair the entire time, and that they made no attempt to leave until after he was finished, at which point he made no attempt to stop them.<br /><br />With this is mind, comparing that CK did to what Wienstien or Roy Moore did is a slippery slope that leads to significant sexual repression, and that will be bad for everyone. I find it painful to watch this happen.<br />
<br />
I want to live in a world where nudity and sexuality are not such a big deal. I also want the standards of consent around sexuality to not be an entire order of magnitude higher than for anything else. <br />
Specific to this case, I would want these examples of behavior that may have made someone briefly uncomfortable to not be lumped together in the media with rapists and child molesters. I think in general conflating rape and assault with harassment is an insult and disservice to rape victims, and CKs actions don't even constitute harassment (which is why its being called "misconduct").<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
The one big thing that has, rightly, been the defining distinguishing feature of unacceptable behavior has long been lack of consent.<br />
<br />
If that is going to be thrown out, then we are taking an enormous step backwards, defaulting back to what used to be religious conservative territory of just being anti-sex for its own sake.<br />
<br />
In every "allegation" "against" Louie of actions that occurred in person, <i>he either obtained consent, or he didn't do anything.</i><br />
<i></i><br />
<a name='more'></a><i><br /></i>
Lets come back to that in a second, and acknowledge the exception first. <br />
<i>It was over the phone! </i>Think for a second how, if a person did not want to participate in a conversation on the phone, might deal with the situation. I'm thinking, maybe hang up? He wasn't her boss. There were no threats involved. It wasn't some sort of vital, time-sensitive business call. There would have been no negative repercussions what-so-ever to hanging up. While the trend of saying that women have zero responsibility in any interaction which in any way relates to sexuality isn't exactly new, this has to be the most extreme example yet. She chose to continue the conversation, she chose not to ask him not to do what she suspected he was doing, and many years after the fact society is willing to go along with the idea that she was a victim.<br />
<br />
In the other cases, he did exactly that thing that we expect people to do. He asked for consent first. He didn't 'Weinstein' the women, walking in on them or inviting them over with him already naked. He asked. In one case the woman said no, <i>and so he didn't do it</i>. The fact that he asked at all is being publicized in the media. This wasn't a case of asking repeatedly, or with some implied threat of reprisal for declining. The issue was the very fact that he suggested it at all, ever. It is now not ok to attempt to obtain consent in the first place.<br />
<br />
In the other "allegations", the "victims" have acknowledged all along that they<i> <u>did</u></i><i> </i>consent! Again, no persistence "wearing them down", he wasn't their boss, or the big name star on a joint project, there was no power dynamic involved. They weren't drunk or minors. They gave explicit verbal consent, and have never claimed otherwise.<br />
<br />
Much of the focus in commentary is that, since he was a better known comedian than them, that gave him a hypothetical "power" over their career.<br />
There are certainly some situations where a genuine and significant differential of power exists, and in those cases consent becomes more complex - cop and suspect, boss or supervisor and employee, adult and child, therapist and client. <br />
<br />
Consider the actual relationships in these cases though:<br />
In one case they were both stand up comedians at the same club. In another, she was a producer and performer on a show where he was a guest star. In another, she was a producer, while he was a writer.<br />
None of those is a particularly higher position, and one of them is certainly lower. There is no particular career control in any of those relations. <br />
<br />
If the mere fact of being more famous makes a power deferential, then no one in Hollywood should ever be allowed to date anyone else in Hollywood. For that matter, no two people should ever have sex unless they are exactly equal in fame, income, education, physical strength, and anything else that could possibly be considered a power differential. <br />
That is not a reasonable standard.<br />
At some point we need to hold people accountable for making their own desires known. When they are asked point blank seems like a pretty reasonable point.<br />
But society is still willing to claim they are victims and he is a perpetrator.<br />
<br />
The various details of the various cases (especially when he accepted a "no", and that is included as an example of misconduct), lead me to suspect that the media reaction would have been exactly the same regardless of the standard of consent; just like with Paul Rubens ("Pee-Wee Herman") who was alone in a dark adult theater, and was not directing his activity "at" anyone.<br />
<br />
This is no longer just about protecting women.<br />
This has become a sexual witch-hunt, the male version of slut shaming.<br />
Louie CK is in the media because he has an unusual fetish that most of us can't sympathize with.<br />
<br />
It has taken 100s of years for us to get to the point where a majority in society support the rights of other people to have sex related interests that they personally don't share, that are relatively uncommon. In the not-so-distant past we collectively said it was not ok to be gay, or to stray outside of prescribed biology-based gender roles in sex or relationships, to engage in poly-amory or swinging or even casual sex during dating. Until recently anal and oral sex - even for a married heterosexual couple - was a crime in many places in the US. Actually, technically it is still on the books in some states, even after the supreme court struck similar laws down in some places.<br />
In all those examples, consent was irrelevant. <br />
People felt comfortable saying "you just shouldn't want to do those things in the first place". We were self-righteous enough to say "I don't have that desire, so you shouldn't either - and if you do, well, keep it to yourself and never act on it".<br />
Except it used to be social conservatives that said it.<br />
In publicly shaming a guy for acting on a weird fetish <i>with consent, </i>as well as for even <i>asking</i> for consent in the first place, the traditionally liberal New York Times and the other media outlets and commentators and bloggers are all now taking up that self-righteous demand that no one should have sexual interests that we don't happen to share.<br />
<br />
Not convinced? There's more here: <a href="http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2017/11/in-defense-of-louie-ck-park-2.html">http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2017/11/in-defense-of-louie-ck-park-2.html</a><br />
<br />Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-20434721989459681482017-07-31T09:49:00.000-07:002017-08-26T19:38:14.210-07:00The American Left's strategy for racial equality is self-defeating<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The following was written to some close friends and family, after I opted out of a discussion of race issues in America inspired by a book club meeting. <br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
To begin with, let me make clear some things I am in agreement about.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
I agree entirely that racial disparities exist, in incarceration, in income, in health and longevity, and many other metrics, and I agree that it is a problem</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
I agree entirely that the root causes of these disparities,histrionically, are slavery, Jim Crow, racism, etc, which continue to have effects today</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
I agree also that racism exists, and that some portion of disparities are likely a result of racism. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
While I disagree, I do understand the reasons for the focus on racism and oppression- it really was about 100% of the reason for disparities for 100s of years, and up until very recently. Most of the people involved in our discussion are actually old enough to have been alive as it was happening in real time (even if not in the actual places it was most prevalent)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
But the thing so many of today's Social Justice Warriors and activists and protesters and reporters and authors and commentators haven't seemed to consider is that society actually can, does, and has changed. Slowly, to be sure, but it does, and like the lobster in the pot, the change may be too gradual to notice in real time, but there is a threshold past where the change is significant. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Racism is explicitly illegal. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
We have black cops and judges and CEOs. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
And yes, even a president (well, 1/2 is close enough). </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Activists and others who counter the "post-racial" claims, that having a black president does not end the conversation are correct: this fact, these facts, they do <i>not </i>end the conversation on race. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
But they sure as hell should <i>change</i> the conversation! They should change it a whole heck of a lot. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Yet the talking points today remain largely the exact same ones heard during a time when a (half) black president was completely inconceivable.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The power structers, the laws, the cultural norms, the dynamics of everything about society have changed. Its time for the social justice activists to catch up.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
While I agree that racism plays some role in todays inequality, we disagree on how big an effect that is. Where we diverge is in how much of today's disparities are actually a result of racism. The implication of nearly every opinion and discussion on the topic is that all or nearly all is explained by racism in one form or another. I would suggest that the real percentage of disparities explained by racism is closer to 1-10%; and as such is not worthy of consideration if the goal is to reduce those disparities.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
There is today still blatant literal racism. There are "Bubba"s of the world who have no shame in proclaiming the racism publicly. The only thing is, they have no power, no influence what-so-ever on what goes on in the inner city.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Subconscious racism is much more prevalent - but it is not created by parents or media stereotypes, it is created by living in the world, and observing real trends</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Acknowledging reality is not racist. Acknowledging reality is an absolutely necessary first step in solving any real world problem. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
There was a time when "Black on Black crime" was a term. It was something you would hear in articles and conversations about race.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
At some point someone decided that acknowledging this problem out loud was itself racist (the "PC" movement, like that which believes it is the actual <i>word</i> which makes something offensive, and therefor keeps picking new words to mean "retarded", as though schoolkids won't just immediately start using the new term to make fun of each other)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The black community lost something very important when people stopped talking about it. When people decided talking about it out loud was a form of (or contributed to) racism, everyone forgot it was happening.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It would be racist to assume that, because the black crime rate is higher than average, therefor any given black individual is probably a criminal.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It would also be racist to claim that the reason for black crime rates was something inherent to black people. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
But of course those claims are simply not scientifically valid, while the underling reality of differential crime rates is still a thing.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
In fact, history and psychology show it is common for any group which meets 2 criteria: </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
1) poor relative to the main society they are in, </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
and </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
2) culturally isolated from that main group; is consistently higher in crime than the mainstream society.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
See the Romani ("gypsies") in Europe, or early Irish in America (the Gangs of New York - prior to the civil war Irish made up <a href="http://immigrationtounitedstates.org/451-crime.html" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">60%</a> of New York City jail population), Chinese <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tong_Wars" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">Tongs</a> - (something you never hear about when people talk about the Chinese Exclusion Act, but it was not by coincidence that it came immediately after the Tong Wars), and later Italians (to the extent of an entire mafia during prohibition).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
These groups all no longer have particularly high crime rates, and therefor no longer carry the stereotype of such. The reason is self-evident: cultural integration.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Owing in large part to the history and circumstances of African immigration into the country, to how long slavery lasted, how long legal discrimination lasted after that, the length of time and degree of struggle it took to end that, and therefore how deeply ingrained a sense of separatism and how entirely separate a culture has developed, it has been much more slow for full cultural integration to take place.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
As a result, the problems of poverty, crime, and lack of education have been locked into a cultural pattern which is self-perpetuating.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This is the big thing I'd hoped was self-evident in the book, which most people might have little to no idea about without any direct exposure: the cultural norms themselves are the biggest single factor in preserving the status-quo.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
You don't have to trust the statistics; spend time in East Oakland. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
One counter-argument of the suggestion that crime rates play the biggest role in incarceration rates focuses on similar levels of drug use by race - but actually go into the streets and look around. Both as a peer of users, an ex of a dealer, a private security patrol driver, and a resident of E. Oakland, anecdotally that is easy to explain: white drug transactions occur indoors. Either buyer or seller drives (or bikes, or whatever) to the home of the other, knocks, goes inside, before money changes hands. Black urban culture dictates that drug sales occur on the street. The dealers are fairly obvious. So you don't have to look to prejudice to explain why more black low-level dealers get caught. Of course the low vs high level dealers caught can be explained the same way. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
And murder statistics can't be easily faked. There's a body. Cops aren't "just looking the other way" when a young white guy commits a murder. The statistics show young adult black males murder other people at around 20-40 times the rate of the rest of America (90 per 100,000 vs 2.5 per 100,000)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
That makes America (minus young black males) as safe as wealthy western European nations, while looking only at that demographic gives a rate slightly higher than Honduras (modern murder capital by country)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/12/15/guns-and-race-the-different-worlds-of-black-and-white-americans/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.brookings.edu/<wbr></wbr>blog/social-mobility-memos/<wbr></wbr>2015/12/15/guns-and-race-the-<wbr></wbr>different-worlds-of-black-and-<wbr></wbr>white-americans/</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The ironic tragedy of the left abandoning the term and concept of "black on black crime" with the PC notion that it is racist to acknowledge this reality, is that the overwhelming majority of the victims of these murders are also black.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/black-americans-are-killed-at-12-times-the-rate-of-people-in-other-developed-countries/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://fivethirtyeight.com/<wbr></wbr>datalab/black-americans-are-<wbr></wbr>killed-at-12-times-the-rate-<wbr></wbr>of-people-in-other-developed-<wbr></wbr>countries/</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
By choosing not to call out black murderers for fear of reinforcing negative stereotypes, the real victim is the black community itself.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Instead of calling out those who are actually killing black people in large numbers, the Black Lives Matter movement focuses exclusively on cops and white people.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
An unarmed black man has a several <i>thousand </i>higher chance of being murdered by a (civilian) black man than by a cop.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
While the words themselves in the slogan "Black Lives Matter" could hypothetically be applied to all of those civilian murders, the reality is they aren't. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
There has not been one single march, one protest, one vigil, not even an editorial or a blog post or a social media blurb circulating that calls attention to even one of the several thousand civilian murders of black people by black people every single year.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
What message does that really send to the people committing these murders?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Imagine an elementary school with a mixed population.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
At midday recess, several fights break out. Many of the fights are fairly one-sided, with one kid clearly dominating and another clearly the victim.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
There are about 20 black kids beating up other black kids. There are a small handful of white kids beating up other white kids. There are about 4 black kids beating up white kids. And there is exactly one white kid beating up a black kid.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
All of the teachers and staff members come running out to the yard - and all of them go directly to that one white kid winning a fight against a black kid, and they grab him, pick him up, yell at him, remove him from the playground. He goes to the principal's office, and after detention is over he is suspended. A week later, when he comes back, he has to go in front of the school during a special assembly on tolerance, and publicly apologize.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Meanwhile, no one reacts at all to any of the other fights going on. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
And this pattern is repeated, day after day fights within a race are ignored, and the relatively few black on white bullying is ignored, but anytime a white kid hits a black kid - no matter what the circumstances - he is both punished and publicly shamed.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
What message does this send to the black bullies? Even if every time you frame the resulting assembly as being about peace and love and tolerance <i>for all</i>, the real take-away they learn is that no one cares what they do. No one cares about their victims.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It sends a message of implicit approval by the American left.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Given that black people murder white people at twice the rate that white people murder black people, yet only the latter gets national outcrys and attention, is it really so surprising that so many middle America conservative white people are reactionary against the movement? Is it really so unreasonable of them, given that statistical reality, to modify the slogan to "All Lives Matter"?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
In contrast to all this, was the response to the 80/90s crime wave of "tough on crime". Yes, it is true that a disproportionate number of Black men, relative to the demographic population ratio, were arrested under those policies.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It is also true that a disproportionate amount of crime <i>victims</i> of that time were black.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Now, don't misunderstand me. I am not defending the "tough on crime" policies. I disagree with the fundamental premise that the purpose of the justice system is to punish, and plenty of research shows that prison is far from the most effective way to deal with most crime, and most especially drug related ones.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
But it is important to remember - when judging the motivation of the people coming up with the policies - that a disproportionate amount of the victims of the crime wave were black.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The left often differentiates themselves from the right as being more compassionate or empathetic. Many cases it is fair to say that the right just puts their sympathy elsewhere. While the left holds compassion for a woman with an unintended pregnancy, the right holds compassion for (what they believe to be) an unborn "baby".</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The left holds out the conflict to be about women's rights, when obviously the underling fundamental question is "what constitutes human life?" or "at exactly what point is an embryo or fetus human?". This question is part science, part philosophy, and part religious. While we can all agree that women are people, and deserve the same rights and protection and access to healthcare as any person, none of those things are even relevant to the question at hand. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This may seem like a big tangent, but its a really important example of how the left makes up motivations to ascribe to the opposition, even in a case where the opposition is extremely clear and consistent about what they believe.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It is easier to vilify anyone who disagrees with a viewpoint on a complex and nuanced topic with no clear or definite answer. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
(If there's any doubt of the sincerity of anti-abortionists,<a href="https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortion-vs-adoption-why-so-many-choose-the-first-and-what-we-can-do/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank"> read something</a> written from within the circle meant for an audience of like-minded people; something I stumbled upon looking up adoption info) </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Its this same sort of "anyone who disagrees with me must have evil intentions" mindset that leads to equating "tough on crime" with "racist", even though the people who are most being protected from violent crime are in fact black.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
In the discussion there was a claim that prosecutors are not reacting the same way to the current - mostly white - drug crises.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This is simply false:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/upshot/new-geography-of-prisons.html" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.nytimes.com/2016/<wbr></wbr>09/02/upshot/new-geography-of-<wbr></wbr>prisons.html</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The rate of black (and Hispanic) incarceration is plummeting nation wide. The rate of white incarceration is decreasing slightly - but in the small population (rural), mostly middle-America, conservative, and over-overwhelmingly white, areas of the country, where the modern drug crises is mostly centered, the "tough on crime" mentality is alive and well and that population is the fastest growing in prisons (specifically<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/24/white-women-are-going-to-prison-at-a-higher-rate-than-ever-before/?utm_term=.196dd48428d9" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank"> white women</a>)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Like with conservatives placing their empathy with fetuses, on the issue of crime all of their empathy goes to victims, while up to a slight majority of left empathy goes to perpetrators (and the accused). Like with the abortion question, its hard to find any single objectively "correct" answer to something like that. And, just like with abortion, our side consistently assumes the most negative possible interpretation of the motivation of those with an opposing view point.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Which - not surprisingly - does less than nothing to foster dialogue about the most effective ways to deal with what we all can agree is an actual problem: the crime rate itself.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Calls to, for example, simply open all the prisons, are worse than just idealistic. The people who would most suffer from something like that actually happening are those living in the communities with the highest violent crime - i.e. the poor black urban communities. But this is exactly the sort of solution we should expect to hear called for when the entire issue is framed as "institutionalized racism" in the "justice system".</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Looking into that phrase deeper: what exactly is it even supposed to mean?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The "justice system", of course, is not any single intensity. Its millions of people in completely different roles most of whom have no contact with each other.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
So, breaking it down: the common / conventional wisdom about cops stopping black people disproportionately doesn't stand up to scrutiny after adjusting for the differing crime rates. For all the attention shootings of unarmed black men gets in the press, the statistics show no significant difference in the rate of getting shot at by cops by race. What makes a significant difference is actually having a gun, and/or committing a crime, and/or fighting the cops. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2013/07/cops-shooting-unarmed-black-men.html" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/<wbr></wbr>2013/07/cops-shooting-unarmed-<wbr></wbr>black-men.html</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2014/08/it-has-to-be-disproportionate-to-be.html" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/<wbr></wbr>2014/08/it-has-to-be-<wbr></wbr>disproportionate-to-be.html</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2014/12/i-cant-stand-it-anymore-or-no-actually.html" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/<wbr></wbr>2014/12/i-cant-stand-it-<wbr></wbr>anymore-or-no-actually.html</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Unfortunately, the present reality is black men do all 3 things significantly more often than white men do, which automatically means cops - even completely color blind cops - would arrest (and occasionally shoot at) black men more often.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
So then there's the whole trial. In the US guilt in a criminal trial is determined by a jury, made up of 12 randomly selected private citizens who live in the general area. They are no part of any "system". They are ordinary random people who got a jury duty notice and didn't have a good enough of an excuse to get out of it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This system was a deliberate and conscious move on the part of those wacky "founding fathers" specifically to ensure there wasn't unchecked government power, and to avoid any kind of institutionalized or systemic bias. They were not likely thinking about race, per say, but none-the-less, in the absence of super intelligent completely objective computers, a jury of randomly selected people, manged by a judge who is knowledgeable on the technicality of laws but not given a vote in deciding the verdict, who is constrained by various laws of evidence, is about the most fair and impartial way to determine guilt that could be.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Which means that if any racial bias shows up in the outcomes of trials</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
(and, of course, we know from the statistics that they in fact do), that bias is not coming from the "justice system" itself, it is coming from the minds of random ordinary civilians.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Touch briefly on the fact that the prison its-elf has very little say in who ends up there, their job is just to house the people that a jury found guilty. While on the topic, one brief aside to point out how little for-profit prisons have to do with anything:<br />
<a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/8961463/private-prisons-mass-incarceration" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/<wbr></wbr>8961463/private-prisons-mass-<wbr></wbr>incarceration</a><br />
the link also shows the crime waves - the last peaked 1984-1993, basically right in the bulk of my childhood :)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
And now back to the (mostly subconscious, but sometimes overt) racism of the jury - and, for that matter, back to Bubba, from the very beginning.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
I assume everyone is familiar with the various psychology experiments that show random ordinary people's implicit bias - easier to associate a dark color with evil, easier to expect to see a dark person as having a gun, etc.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
What those studies don't tell you, don't even attempt to explore, is why that is true.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
In the absence of an answer, it leaves people to fill in their own assumed answers. And in today's political climate, the PC answer has something to do with culture norms, media portrayals, prejudices passed on from parent to child.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
In my personal experience, I've had overt racism directed at me twice.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Both were from with drug addicts who were so low on the totem pole of life that they were disowned by family members and evicted from trailer parks. (just by coincidence, the two were completely unrelated to each other and in entirely different locations and circumstances). More often I've heard comments spoken to me, about others, from people who assumed I was different than the people the comments were directed to. Those comments have uniformly been from one group: recent immigrants. Not from any one place, though. Recent immigrants from countries all over the world, to the Bay Area, have a negative view about black people.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
They haven't been here for the cultural legacy of slavery, or for our media portrayals. The weren't here to hear subtle things from their parents. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
All they have to go on is their own experience, what they see in front of them. And, being recent arrivals, they also missed all the after-school specials, all the unity rallies and black history months and MLK days. They missed all the messages that the native born Americans have gotten about making a point to be anti-racist. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
So that leaves them to just witness who is smoking pot or drinking alcohol in public, who is playing car stereos at excessive volume or playing moderately loud music on a crowded commuter train or bus. They can draw their own conclusions upon actually being threatened or mugged or having a car broken into and seeing the person who did it fleeing, or watching drugs being sold. No one has to teach them to be racist. You just live in a poor, high crime, mixed race neighborhood, and pay attention, and without a strong message coming in from somewhere reminding them constantly that not everyone of the same color is the same, the human mind will do what the human mind does.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Consider:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Roughly 50% of all people are male. Another 50% are female. This is not strictly accurate, there are some people who don't fall neatly into either category (although, biologically, a lot fewer than one might think...) and the distribution varies by age, and location, but rounded to the nearest whole number, its 50%</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
over <a href="https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">93%</a> of all US prisoners are male.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
While I pointed out earlier white women are the fastest <i>growing</i> prison demographic, that is growing from less than 7% up to its current record of 7%. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
If we just looked at that statistic in isolation, obviously men are being incarcerated at a grossly disproportionate rate. And if we were to make a direct analogy to race, we would conclude that the entire justice system was biased on the basis of gender, that it contained a systemic sexism.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Of course nobody makes that claim, for two reasons: 1) the standard Narrative of Oppression only allows for one oppressor and one victim in any given demographic, and it is already understood that bias is in favor of males, and (hopefully) more importantly: 2) we all know that men are more prone to crime and more violent in particular on average.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Men aren't much more likely to do drugs, but in great contrast to popular belife, most prisoners are in jail for violent offenses.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2017.html" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.prisonpolicy.org/<wbr></wbr>reports/pie2017.html</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
In fact violent offenses are a plurality by a pretty large margin (i.e. more than any other crime category) at over 40%. All in all, crimes with a victim (violent and property), or a potential victim (DUI and illegal weapons possession), make up the vast majority of prisoners, at almost 80%.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Non-violent drug offenders only make up 20%, (half the rate of violent offenders).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Now we all know males who are not violent, nor any other kind of criminal.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
In fact, the vast majority of men are decent people.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
We seem to have no problem holding these two facts in our mind at once: most men are good people, AND, men are overwhelmingly more likely to be violent criminals.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
We can encounter some random guy we haven't met before at a party and interact without any apprehension - not even subconsciously.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
And at the same time, I think it is a fair assumption that almost anyone, no matter their own gender, will feel differently encountering a group of unfamiliar young men when alone at night on the street, then when encountering a group of unfamiliar women.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
We wouldn't fault a woman for feeling differently when she finds herself alone with a strange man in an elevator or a subway car than with a woman. No one would call that sexism, or worry about what people's reaction to him might do to his self-image or psychology. We would just call that normal, call it awareness, and any small thing she might do, (say, crossing the street to avoid a male stranger at night), would be considered caution. Because we know (and have no problem admitting) that a given random man is 10 times as likely to murder you (90% of murders of strangers or non-related acquaintances are committed by men).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Men are also <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#In_the_United_States" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">more likely</a> to commit pretty much all other crimes as well. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
And the human mind, as part of its job of helping us navigate the world, seeks out patterns and rules that can help simplify this very complex reality.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
These two things naturally create a bias. If men are 10 times more likely to commit crime, chances are, if you are a cop, you are going to suspect any given man faster than you suspect a woman when looking for a suspect. If you are a juror, you are more than likely going to have a different view of a male on trial than a female. Even if every other factor in the case is the same. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
And this bias explains why women receive lighter sentences for the same crime, and why, even accounting for the difference in rates of committing crimes (and especially drug crimes, for which the difference is very small), males are incarcerated disproportionately. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Specifically, men commit<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#In_the_United_States" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank"> 75%</a> of all felonies, yet make up 93% of the prison population. This actually reflects a much higher bias in conviction rates after correcting for crime rates than the difference by race.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/<wbr></wbr>2012/09/11/men-women-prison-<wbr></wbr>sentence-length-gender-gap_n_<wbr></wbr>1874742.html</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.law.umich.edu/<wbr></wbr>newsandinfo/features/Pages/<wbr></wbr>starr_gender_disparities.aspx</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/courts-lenient-sentencing-bond-women" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://journalistsresource.<wbr></wbr>org/studies/government/<wbr></wbr>criminal-justice/courts-<wbr></wbr>lenient-sentencing-bond-women</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Emotionally, though, this just doesn't <i>feel</i> like all that big a deal. Hence the absolute lack of attention it gets.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
My point here is not to lament male criminals who have it so tough.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It is just to point out the contrast in how we look at the issue. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Its easy to see how individual juries might have sympathy for individual women, and how preconceptions about femininity might make people make assumptions about an individual's guilty, and how these individual assumptions can build up to a wide-scale national trend, without it being evidence of anything "systemic" or "institutional".</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Its just the natural consequence of having humans, who naturally see actual patterns that really do exist (males on average are more violent, etc) making decisions about individual cases (a particular man or woman who was violent).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Now lets go all the way back to Bubba again.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
He's actually a real person.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
He has a little tattoo parlor in Alabama. It has a secret door, which purportedly is there so that any black person who happens to wonder in will only be aware of the front of the shop, and not even know to want to venture into the larger back area where the bar and pool tables and other entertainment are.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
He lives in a rural town that's almost all white, and where one of the largest local employers unashamedly named the business "K3".</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
He made a comment, while knowing he was being recorded for national radio, about how paying taxes goes to paying for the family of some black guy who is in jail.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
He didn't use those exact words though...</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Unquestionably, undeniably racist.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
And just generally not someone I'd want to spend time with, even if I happened to be white.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
But can we just write him off completely as ignorant and backwards? Because we know that black males have the highest incarceration rate per capita, with some age groups and communities as high as 1 in 10. That's actually true. Its a fact that people on the left point out regularly, in criticizing the system. So, while he may be a racist lowlife scum bag, and he almost certainly makes the prejudiced assumption that <i>all</i> black people fit his stereotype, and the racist assumption that there is something inherent to race that makes people behave differently, the actual facts that support his view aren't entirely wrong. There is some truth to it. Just like with the racist immigrants, all he has to do to hold his view point is <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/intelligent-people-are-more-likely-to-stereotype/535158/" target="_blank">pay attention</a>.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
And so, if we actually want to change people's views, we maybe need to reevaluate the public relations strategy. Pretending it isn't happening isn't fooling anyone (well, except middle class white people on the left who aren't exposed to the crime in largely black urban poor communities). Pretending that it is all some big conspiracy perpetrated by the government isn't fooling anyone either.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
We need to start by being honest, because if we can't do that, its pretty understandable why Bubba and the recent immigrants are going to write-off anything we say after that.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Only after we admit, first to ourselves, and then to the world, that cops are not the problem, is there any chance of anyone listening to us as we try to find solutions to the actual problems. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Certainly bias accounts for some percentage in the disparity in prison rates by race. But that bias is a <i>result</i> of the differences in crime rates by race, not the cause of it. And, just as importantly, the percentage of the disparity caused by bias pales in comparison to the disparity caused by actual differences in crime rates. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
If the differences in crime rate disappeared tomorrow, in a few years the bias would start to disappear, just like it did with the Irish and the Italians and the Chinese. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
In a few decades, as sentences ran their courses, the disparities themselves would disappear.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Yet on the other hand, if everyone in America became color-blind tomorrow, nothing would change. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This is the big thing that activists and commentators on the left will not recognize. The conditions of today have already been set in motion.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
They are self-perpetuating now.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
"The Beautiful Struggle" detailed how, now that we are where we are, the culture itself is what is holding people down. It is hard to advance when the expectations of those around you is anti-education and pro-violence. The author himself had a strong counter-influence at home, at school, from himself, but most of the neighborhood peers didn't even have a father at home in the first place, never mind an ex-revolutionary-history-and-<wbr></wbr>literature-buff who promoted and was involved in education.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The struggle was all within the community. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Just about the only references to cops or courts in the system were an arrest for auto theft which resulted in nothing beyond the arrest, and an acquaintance going to jail for robbing a church. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Yet, somehow, that's where the conversation about the book went...</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The US government, the CIA (and sometimes FBI) have had a lot of wacky schemes over the years. They tried to give Castro an exploding cigar. They gave LSD to prisoners. They thought they could convince the Vietnamese not to become communist. But the fact that they try something is a far cry from saying it actually had any significant effect on the real world. In the case of introducing crack into Black communities, well that one isn't even a crackpot scheme of theirs. It never happened in the first place. That idea is a "telephone" game rumor blown out of proportion of a claim by a reporter which itself was never substantiated. The involvement alleged was that they helped to launder drug money made by drug rings, which sold to gangs, back to the Contra rebels. There is a big difference between funneling money from drugs that have already been imported and sold to a particular place, and actually importing and selling those drugs. Even that link was found in numerous investigations to be overblown. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/<wbr></wbr>wiki/CIA_involvement_in_<wbr></wbr>Contra_cocaine_trafficking</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
But the idea that they would have, it fits so perfectly the Narrative of Oppression, it seems almost inevitable that the story would mutate from "CIA helps funnel drug money to Contras" to "CIA imports drugs to the US and sells it to gangs".</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Similarly, the comment / rhetorical question "where did all the guns come from?" implies a conspiracy, dependent on the assumption of the Narrative of Oppression which simply has no evidence: the areas of the country with the highest rates of gun ownership are - unsurprisingly - the white conservative areas that one tends to associate with the NRA</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="http://www.city-data.com/top2/co8.html" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">http://www.city-data.com/top2/<wbr></wbr>co8.html</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The areas with the lowest gun ownership are the coastal cities</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="http://www.city-data.com/top2/co9.html" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">http://www.city-data.com/top2/<wbr></wbr>co9.html</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
including areas with some of the highest homicide rates, like New York and LA.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Personally, I'm in favor of most control measures, but this, like many arguments made by the pro-gun lobby, is factually accurate. The amount of guns has virtually zero effect on homicide rates. It is entirely a question of how they are used. The answer to why there are so many guns on the streets is "the second amendment". Like it or hate it, it is the reality, and so there is no need to look for a conspiracy.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The Narrative of Oppression seems to be perhaps the single largest focus of every political and social movement on the left. It - we - seem to be completely obsessed with oppression. Every issue gets framed somehow as being a part of it. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
But really, its more just a manifestation of normal human psychology. We're primed for social interactions, specifically in tribes of about 100 people, give or take, as we would have lived for the majority of human existence.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
As a result, one of the big things we're sensitive, something we innately have very strong feelings about, is a sense of "fairness".</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
We all intuitively feel that fairness is one of the most important parts of morality - even though, logically it is hard to find an argument that ties it to ethics at all; in many cases a less fair outcome may actually be the best option for everyone involved.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This manifests differently on the ends of the political spectrum, with the left relatively more focused on equality (especially of outcome), and the right focused more on individuals "reaping what they sow", but both come down ultimately to a feeling that fairness is intrinsically important.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It also manifests as an near obsession over things that some other person does on purpose. What matters rationally is outcome, but people are far more interested in bad outcomes that were the result of an intentional action than a bad outcome due to negligence.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
So, for example: the rate at which children (2-14) are killed in <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/safechild/pdf/cdc-childhoodinjury.pdf" style="color: #1155cc;">auto accidents</a> is (depending on the year and who and how <a href="http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/child-safety/fatalityfacts/child-safety" style="color: #1155cc;">data </a>gets complied) somewhere in the range of 4,000% to over 10,000% higher than the <a href="http://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/" style="color: #1155cc;">rate of abduction</a> and murder by strangers.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
That means that choosing to drive a child to school in order to avoid the "risk" of walking alone actually puts them in 40 to 100 times higher risk of death.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This trade-off feels worthwhile, though, because a person deliberately kidnapping just feels worse than an "accident" (even though close to 100% of so-called auto accidents are really cases of negligence)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Similarly, there is lots and lots of attention in the press recently about random shootings, esp. "mass" ones. Even though violent crime and murder rates have been dropping for decades and are at the lowest they've been in a very long time, and a tiny fraction of what they've been for most of history, and even though mass shootings are no more common now than they have ever been.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Meanwhile, auto accidents claim many more victims before their time than firearm related homicide, yet there is zero attention given to the issue, zero calls for any of the simple ways these deaths could be reduced to negligible numbers almost overnight if anyone cared enough to do it (for example, mandating speed governors set to 65 mph or less on all new cars; putting in automated radar camera speed traps along all major highways that mail tickets based on license plate number; making all undivided highways or those with intersections have a limit of 50 or less; treating the use of any portable electronic device while driving as exactly equivalent to a DUI)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Its the same instinct that makes us angry if a person bumps us or gets in our way, but merely annoyed if the wind or a fallen tree does the same, or makes us want revenge or punishment on a person who does harm, but if an animal does it, its just one of those things.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Of course the Narrative of Oppression is not limited to the modern American left, not by a long shot. Its pretty much ubiquitous among human populations.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Just about every culture, ever society, has its share of stories of how it is, or once was, oppressed, by <i>someone. </i>Americans oppressed by the King of England, Irish oppressed by the English, Republicans oppressed by taxes, religious oppressed by atheists and vice versa, the Germans were oppressed by the rest of Europe and the Jews by everyone all through-out history. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This isn't to say there isn't often an enormous element of truth to the Narrative - certainly many events in history unquestionably qualify. But the idea of it alone goes deeper then any actual event or circumstance, so that, for example, the Jewish Narrative of Oppression is strong enough to blind Israelis to the fact that they are not actually being oppressed anymore, and in fact have become oppressors themselves.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
In every conflict, whether the winner or the loser, the aggressor or the defender, both sides frame the conflict as a response to oppression by the other side. Even in the nation with the most military power in the world, citizens manage to feel they are the victimized side, being oppressed by terrorists. The Left is oppressed by The Man, and the Right is oppressed by Big Government (which I'm pretty sure are both the same thing...), as well as, of course, each other. The labor class is oppressed by those who own the means of production, while owners feel no less unfairly oppressed by the greedy corrupt unions. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Everybody feels oppressed by someone, but I think few groups have taken the Narrative of Oppression to be so all-encompassing, to explain every aspect of every part of history, as the modern left. It is seen as the <i>one and only </i>explanation for <i>every</i> perceived injustice, every inequality of outcome, the motivation behind every political and social and philosophical decision or viewpoint that doesn't line up with how they want the world to be.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
So, for example: all throughout history, for tens of thousands of years, humans have had conflicts with neighboring groups of humans over resources and the land on which they were found. Archaeologists have found that early hominids left Africa, populated Europe, and over hundreds of thousands of years evolved into Neanderthals, and at some point a 2nd wave of (now homo-sapien) hominids left Africa, encountered the first wave of immigrants to Europe, and killed them all.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The history of Europe is basically non-stop churning of land-ownership by various groups, with any given point of geography being claimed by dozens of different cultures originating from every corner at one point or another. The concept of a "nation", with its precisely established, stable, and respected by surrounding nations, borders is incredibly recent. Just a hundred or two years ago (out of hundreds of thousands) one civilization being taken over by another - possibly assimilating, and possibly just being wiped out - was pretty much just an expected part of life.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Meanwhile, back in the Americas - the situation was basically exactly the same. The stereotype of peaceful Aboriginal Americans who lived in harmony with nature is just the modern version of the "Noble Savage", and is no more accurate now than it was then. In reality they caused the extinction of pretty much just as many species as they did back in Europe, including many large mammals by deliberate hunting. Meanwhile, conflict and warfare was a constant in North America, with the best areas of land (and sometimes the not-as-good areas) turning over hands, frequently with the extermination of the first group of settlers (as, for example, the Caribs did to the Arawaks in islands in the Caribbean - except where the Arawaks prevailed, and killed all the Caribs...)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
But wars and land take-overs all within a single race, where conflict has gone on so long it is impossible to work out who was there first, are difficult to fit into a Narrative, and so all of these conflicts are written off and ignored, and only when the two groups meet is it considered a relevant historical event, one which can be neatly summarized as "colonization".</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Coming back (finally!) to the original issue:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The actual, numerical, disparity of the oft noted difference in sentencing for equivalent crimes by race?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fsd0512.pdf" style="color: #1155cc;">4%</a> - <a href="http://economics.ubc.ca/files/2013/05/pdf_paper_marit-rehavi-racial-disparity-federal-criminal.pdf" style="color: #1155cc;">10%</a> (depending on the study)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The difference in likely hood that any given person is in prison, by race?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/#II. Overall Findings" style="color: #1155cc;">510%</a> ("blacks are incarcerated at a rate that is 5.1 times that of whites.")</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
What this means is if we could somehow eliminate that 10% which presumably stems from bias among prosecutors, judges, and juries, it would still leave the disparity at 500%.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Even according to The Sentencing Project, an organization whose entire reason for existence is to address this disparity, 75-85% of the disparity is due to differences in offending rates.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
After stating this number matter-of-fact-ly, the article then goes on to to focus exclusively on the problem of bias and ways to address it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Instead of focusing on that whopping big 500% number, and trying to find ways to address that.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Because that number reflects a part of reality that simply does not fit into the Narrative of Oppression, while the 4-20% of disparity due to bias most easily does.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
No one seems to notice or care that solving the much larger issue would in itself eliminate most or all of the bias...</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This may seem false, but consider: Racial bias is based on, what else? race.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
If, as the Narrative goes, bias were the most significant factor in inequality, then anyone of the same race should fare about equally, on average, in our society.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This is not remotely true though.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/06/26/survey-shows-black-immigrants-educated-make-money-african-americans/</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Black immigrants from Africa are <i>more</i> likely to be educated than the general (native born) population (including whites), and in fact even more than Asian immigrants.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
http://www.atlnightspots.com/african-immigrants-have-the-highest-academic-achievement-in-the-us/</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Black immigrants from Latin America make, on average, significantly more income than the US (native born, including white people) average.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/04/09/chapter-1-statistical-portrait-of-the-u-s-black-immigrant-population/</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Black immigrants (from anywhere) are the most likely immigrants to gain citizenship.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The children of black immigrants, born in the US, are still more likely to get a degree, and make more income than average - unless, that is, they assimilate too much into (native) black American culture</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
https://qz.com/198512/america-still-is-the-land-of-opportunities-for-black-immigrants-but-not-their-kids/</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Culture, then, not race, would appear to be the driving factor in disparities.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The two are frequently treated as interchangeable, but they are not</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2013/08/culture-and-race-are-not-interchangeable.html</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
What better a way to foster cultural assimilation than full integration? This was once a goal. The creation of the inner city ghetto was blamed in large part (and accurately, I believe), on "white flight" to the suburbs, as "red lining" failed to prevent integration.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Flash forward a few decades, though, and the successors of those who decried white flight, are now instead decrying the opposite (but calling it "<a href="http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2014/10/gentrification-is-myth.html" style="color: #1155cc;">gentrification</a>", even in cities with rent control and just-cause for eviction laws)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Because once you have bought into the Narrative of Oppression, everything which the group designated as "oppressor" does has to be villianized, has to be the root of all problems. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Meanwhile, a culture of anti-socialness has no role to play in the Narrative, so it gets completely ignored - and anyone who dares mention it at all is, at best, discredited, more likely labeled as racist and demonized, and permanently written off on all topics forever after. We have an entire sub-genre of music specifically defined by its focus on violent criminal behavior ("gansta-rap"), and activists and Social Justice Warriors can only focus on society's bias as a (or rather, <i>the</i>) cause of disparate prison rates.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
And as long as that's true, as long as no one is willing to call it out, as long as we loudly protest a cop shooting a person who only seconds before was punching said cop in the face unprovoked, yet a black man can shoot his ex-girlfriend in the face in front of her children without a single social media post being circulated, as long as people protest racial and economic integration, as long as anyone argues for officially giving poor black people a separate independent language from the rest of America rather than raising educational standards, as long as well meaning people can read a book about poor urban black youth culture and see a book about police, the justice system, and the CIA, I just don't see how we are going to make any significant progress.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
At best, I see all of the efforts of well-meaning Social Justice Warriors and activists and bloggers and pundits and protesters as a distraction.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
But really, the messages being sent (along with, "if you are black, go ahead and kill black people, that doesn't count"), to young black men is "the cops are out to get you, the cops are out to get you, the cops are out to get you".</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Teach anyone that anyone is out to get them, their entire life, and they are going to fear and resent that person, no matter who it is.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Teach that to someone all their life, and then have them grow into a testosterone filled teenage boy, and when, someday, the inevitable interaction occurs, and the likely hood of him behaving in a way that escalates the situation increases dramatically.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
In other words, I believe it is very possible, even likely, that the protests over cops shooting unarmed black men INCREASES the likely hood that young black men will either flee from or attack cops, which in turn increases the chances that they end up getting shot. Each new round of public attention reinforces that cops are the enemy, and makes the actions of the young men in the news and on the signs more likely. Would <a href="http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2014/12/i-cant-stand-it-anymore-or-no-actually.html" style="color: #1155cc;">Brown</a> have gone up to a cop and punched him in the face through the open window of his cop car in response to being told to walk on the sidewalk if this request had not been in the aftermath of 3 widely publicized cases of black men being shot by white cops in the past 5 years? Who knows? Maybe - he had apparently just robbed a store minutes before, but that would lead most people to actively avoid more attention from cops. Maybe it was "suicide by cop". Or maybe he was just being the martyr that the Narrative had taught him he should be.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This is the effect I see the standard Narrative of Oppression having today.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It makes young black males more likely to fight cops, and therefor get shot, (which in turn fuels more protests, which creates more anger, and so on).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It prevents people from seeing the opportunities that are actually available, and reclaiming any sense of autonomy or agency.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It prevents any assignment of responsibility for the consequences of one's actions - and psychology is pretty consistent in showing that people tend to live up (or down) to the expectations people have for them.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It prevents real dialogue, and prevents anyone who sees any of this from saying anything, for fear of being labeled racist.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It discourages law enforcement from doing their jobs - risking their own life to protect innocent members of the community - because they find the risk of a public trial to be worse than the risk of being shot at (a sentiment I've overheard from a number of unrelated police officers that are also in the Coast Guard Reserve).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It encourages criminals to pass off responsibility for their own actions to "the system", and justify their own mistakes to themselves - to even see themselves as somehow rebels against the system (despite the fact that the majority of their victims were their own color).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It actively discourages integration.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
And of course it just takes up a lot of time and attention, leaving little to none left over for things that might actually make a positive difference.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Things like universal preschool and kindergarten, public education on the (already existing) Pell Grant which is essentially free college education for everyone, regardless of highschool grades, free on-demand birth control and abortions (the rate of unwanted pregnancies among black women is <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states" style="color: #1155cc;">more than double</a> that of white women, and the children of unwanted pregnancies, upon growing up, are the most likely individuals to commit crime - it is <a href="http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/" style="color: #1155cc;">not by coincidence</a> that the end of the giant crime wave coincided with the 20th anniversary of Roe v Wade!) , redistribution of wealth upon death, and publicly calling out black-on-black crime as well as generally anti-social behavior.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
But this is all just so very very far from today's reality, I don't see this change in Narrative or focus as even feasible. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
That is what is depressing to me.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
There is nothing I can do about it, and I seem to be just about the only person with this particular perspective, so I find it best to just avoid talking to people about it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-88111777464509197162016-11-26T09:49:00.000-08:002017-05-18T07:14:51.987-07:00Make Love, Not Babies; reframing "trying" to conceive I should start with a disclaimer:<br />
The opinions and experiences expressed in this post are purely that of the author.<br />
This is not meant in any way to be directed at any particular person or be in response to any particular comment.<br />
I fully acknowledge that my own personal experience is nothing more than an anecdote, and a data set of one (1) generally proves nothing.<br />
<br />
<br />
My wife was (is!) really excited about starting a family. I've been looking forward to it too. <br />
I convinced her to agree to wait just a couple more months after we got married to save up some money so we can both take 6 months to a year off to be full time parents.<br />
<br />
And I also asked for one critical thing:<br />
<br />
Can we please not "try" to have a baby? <br />
<br />
<br />
Can we instead just make conditions such that it is possible, and then "allow" it to happen?<br />
She agreed to this.<br />
No testing kits, no books, no thermometers, no fancy expensive lubes, and no pills of any kind.<br />
<br />
Of course she took vitamins with folic acid and DHA, and she has a free app where if you put in the dates of each period it will predict the next one as well as likely fertile days based on the historical pattern. But she was doing both of those things for the past year anyway.<br />
The app has the option to add temperatures to improve accuracy of fertility prediction, but we just took the calendar based prediction as a good enough rough guide. Fertile days start several days - up to 5 days - before ovulation anyway, and only last about a day after, so knowing the exact day is of limited usefulness anyway - once you know for sure its basically too late.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Here's what we did:<br />
We had sex often.<br />
At least once every day (with possible exceptions during her period), usually twice (or more) on suspected fertile days.<br />
<br />
The conventional wisdom, and what "everyone" recommends, is to avoid having sex every day, however it isn't backed up by science. If you read the studies (not just "expert opinions"), people who mate every day tend to be more successful than those who only do it every other day.People who mate every other day are more successful than those who try to "time" it.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/12/will-having-sex-every-day-increase-my-fertility">https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/12/will-having-sex-every-day-increase-my-fertility</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090630075311.htm">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090630075311.htm</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.kidspot.com.au/birth/conception/fertility/7-surprising-fertility-facts">http://www.kidspot.com.au/birth/conception/fertility/7-surprising-fertility-facts</a><br />
<br />
As far as "depleting" sperm outside of the fertile window, that simply doesn't matter one way or the other, it just doesn't work that way - there is no reserve. Each time all sperm available are used, and the count is reset to zero. So it wouldn't make any difference if he had sex twice a day, every other day, or just once the day before, the first time during the fertility window will only consist of what built up since that most recent time, in this example 24 hours ago.<br />
<div>
<br />
Meanwhile, ovulation testing will tell you when, or more likely the next day after, ovulation occurs. But the fertility window is the 5 days leading UP TO ovulation. If you wait until testing says it is the right time, its actually just about too late. You want (healthy) sperm already waiting in the fallopian tube by the time the egg gets there.<br />
<br />
The egg has no way to distinguish the number of sperm in it's general vicinity that come from any particular ejaculation. Sperm live as much as 5-6 days (hence the 5 day window). So even if the sperm count per sex instance were half as much, the total sperm available for conception is the exact same amount. In other words, 2 consecutive days with 30 million sperm counts leads to the same total sperm in her reproductive tract as 60 million once. Except that his body will more likely ramp up production to the maximum it can with more frequent sex (though it would take 1-2 months to make a difference, since that's how long sperm production takes), so it is likely slightly more total, (for example maybe instead of halving with doubled frequency, the sperm count drops to 31 million per time as it tries to keep up, resulting in a slightly higher total of 62 million). <br />
Ultimately, the "minimum" sperm count thing is just a probability/statistic thing, not an actual reproductive biology rule. Ultimately, it only takes a few dozen sperm. </div>
<div>
There is evidence that production rate in several species of animal (the ones that have been tested) matters more than absolute count, and it's documented that production rates vary in humans based on a number of factors including environment, diet, drugs, possibly age (conflicting reports) and notably testosterone - which in turn is known to increase with more sexual frequency. </div>
<div>
Unfortunately, the study that would give a more direct answer to the question of why is daily sex more effective than every 2nd day has never been done, but the bottom line is that couples who have actually had sex every day tend to get pregnant faster than ones who do every other day. What ever the reason(s) turn out to be, whenever real world results conflict with "expert opinion", reality wins.</div>
<div>
<br />
But of course all suggestions of frequent sex are always reported with the caveat that if you feel like its a chore, it can backfire.<br />
<br />
And that last bit is what brings us back to that very important thing we agreed to:<br />
not "trying" to get pregnant.<br />
<br />
It's sort of how work is better when you don't need the money.<br />
Or if you reward a child for playing their favorite game, they stop playing it spontaneously.<br />
Why volunteering feels so much more rewarding than employment.<br />
Or why monetizing a hobby makes it less fun.<br />
<br />
Anytime you do something for some other external reward, it takes away from any intrinsic value that activity might have. Its just human nature.<br />
So we didn't have sex "to get pregnant".<br />
We stopped using birth control, and we had sex because sex is fun, and it feels good, and we are attracted to each other, and it makes us feel closer to each other and strengthens our relationship.<br />
All the same reasons we did before.<br />
<br />
And, if we end up with a baby, well that's a great bonus for an activity we would have wanted to do anyway, because we would both love to be parents!<br />
<br />
Instead of looking at it as we "have to" have sex, we looked at the whole baby situation from a different perspective - the fact that we want this outcome is a great excuse that ALLOWS us license to have sex all the time.<br />
Well, not that we couldn't have anyway, but maybe "reminds" or "inspires" us, would be the better term.<br />
<div>
<br />
<div class="quoteheader" style="background-color: #f0f4f7; color: #666666; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; font-weight: bold; line-height: 17.472px; padding: 0px 0.3em;">
<div class="topslice_quote">
<a href="http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mini-money-mustaches/trying-to-conceive-the-mustachian-way/msg784146/#msg784146" style="color: #334466; text-decoration: none;">Quote from: sheepstache on August 26, 2015, 06:45:37 PM</a></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote" style="background: url("../images/theme/quote.png") 0.1em 0.1em no-repeat rgb(215, 218, 236); border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 170); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 2px; border-top-color: rgb(153, 153, 170); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 2px; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0.1em 0px 0.3em; overflow: auto; padding: 1.1em 1.4em;">
<div class="quoteheader" style="color: #666666; font-weight: bold; padding: 0px 0.3em;">
<div class="topslice_quote">
<a href="http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mini-money-mustaches/trying-to-conceive-the-mustachian-way/msg784094/#msg784094" style="color: #334466; text-decoration: none;">Quote from: Bakari on August 26, 2015, 06:01:16 PM</a></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="bbc_alternate_quote" style="background: url("../images/theme/quote.png") 0.1em 0.1em no-repeat rgb(231, 234, 252); border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 170); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 2px; border-top-color: rgb(153, 153, 170); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 2px; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0.1em 0px 0.3em; overflow: auto; padding: 1.1em 1.4em;">
But if you aren't timing sex, I don't really see what the point of knowing when ovulation occurs is.<span class="bbc_font" style="font-family: "verdana";"><span class="bbc_color"><span class="bbc_size" style="font-size: 2px; line-height: 1.4em;">.. </span></span></span><span class="bbc_color" style="color: #222222;">I don't think there is any good reason to do much special besides have lots of sex (and take enough folic acid)</span></blockquote>
<div class="quotefooter">
<div class="botslice_quote">
</div>
</div>
...Finally, some women can conceive perfectly fine but have something funny about their cycle that makes the 'just have sex a lot' advice not effective. Like super short fertility windows, or maybe way early ovulation that happens closer to their period than they realized (in which case maybe they weren't in the mood then).</blockquote>
<div class="quotefooter" style="background-color: #f0f4f7; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.48px; line-height: 17.472px;">
<div class="botslice_quote">
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
True, there are times one or both of us feel like it more than others.<br />
<br />
Though, notice, I didn't say "have lots of sex - if and when you feel like it". I just said "have lots of sex". That would include even when one or even both don't feel like it.<br />
<br />
Now, granted, at first that seems to contradict everything I said earlier about doing it for fun instead of the reward of a baby, but it actually fits with my (and my wife's) general philosophy on the subject...<br />
See, even when we don't already spontaneously happen to feel particularly horny, if either of us allows ourselves to be seduced by the other, we always, 100% of the time, end up getting into it and enjoying it. Knowing that from past experience, we are both in the habit of saying "yes". We believe this is good relationship policy, regardless of whether you are trying to get pregnant or not. <br />
<br />
Obviously there are exceptions; cases like injury, illness, running late or needing sleep. But mostly its a shift in mindset. <br />
Its kind of like a yummy treat. You can feel hunger, and then you make a point to find food. But if someone offers you a bite of something delicious, you are likely to accept even if you aren't at all hungry, because you know it will taste good. Similarly, when you "feel like it" you may seek out sex, but even when you don't, it will still end up feeling good, so why not accept - or even make! - the offer anyway?<br />
<br />
So, anyway, this is what we did.<br />
and, if that free app is actually accurate, then, based on when we stopped using birth control, it took exactly one day(!) to conceive...<br />
...well, that would have been a little too easy. <br />
Turned out to be a "chemical pregnancy" (an odd choice of term to mean "very early miscarriage"), only 2 1/2 weeks later, basically immediately after implantation.<br />
<br />
<br />
And here our methods served us in an unexpected way: We had a couple of days of suspecting it might be possible from how she felt, but we didn't actually have any confirmation there had ever been conception until after we knew there wasn't any anymore - the advice nurse had her come in the the doctor's office because her symptoms could possibly have indicated an ectopic pregnancy and her HCG levels indicated she had been pregnant, briefly, but wasn't currently. <br />
That meant a situation that for many is mildly traumatic was more of just a mild disappointment. <br />
It turns out likely somewhere in the range of 50-70% of all conceptions end in either "chemical pregnancy" or official miscarriage. <br />
(You see the range 20-25% a lot online, but that is only counting "medically confirmed" cases. The likelihood of being confirmed by a doctor goes up with each passing week, but the likelihood of losing it goes down, which means the majority of cases are unlikely to ever be medically confirmed in the first place. The earliest ones - those that occur in the first 1-3 weeks - often won't produce any symptoms at all and a period may not even be late, so no one ever even suspects it happened.)<br />
<br />
<br />
So this wasn't necessarily a sign of any real problems, and it let us know we are both fertile.<br />
In fact, supposedly fertility increases after a miscarriage, so, statistically speaking, this put us "ahead of schedule" so to speak, since its expected to take 6-12 cycles, and we were only at number 2.<br />
<br />
<br />Then a few months later, similar circumstances: 5 days after the soonest she might have ovulated again she started feeling nausea and sore breasts, which increased a couple days, but upon testing learned it was a chemical pregnancy.<br /><br />So then we had to make a choice - statistically this is still not particularly abnormal, and could easily just be coincidence. So we could do nothing.<br /><br />Then again, there was some reason to suspect (from some completely unrelated things a long time ago) that there may be a mild hormone balance issue. We could wait a month or two and run a bunch of tests and possibly have a better idea what, if any, issues there may be (but still not a conclusive answer, because medical science rarely gives conclusive answers to anything. <br />Or we could just keep doing what we are doing, and see what happens next time around. <br />For now at least, we are going with this last option.<br />
<br />
And here's the most significant part: despite the complications we ran into so far, there is still no reason we should have done anything differently before hand. It wouldn't have changed anything. We would still be at exactly the same place we are right now. The only difference is the process would have been a lot more stressful (and we probably would have had much less sex - and the sex we had would have been less fun!)<br />
<br />
<br />
Guess now I'll have to check back in in a few months with updates...<br />
<br />
I started with a disclaimer acknowledging that this story is an anecdote, a sample size of one.<br />
But that isn't entirely true.<br />
<br />
In the US 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned.<br />
50%!<br />
That's about 3 million people every year who get pregnant without having done anything special to "try".<br />
In fact, most of them were probably trying NOT to!<br />
They definitely weren't charting, or timing sex to ovulation, or using special pro-sperm lubes <br />
(which, by the way, have not been found any more effective than regular commercial ones in practice, in real life studies of actual people trying to conceive. The lab tests that supposedly confirm it's superiority were done in grossly unrealistic conditions that don't simulate real sex. Also, the lab tests that have purported to compare special lube to "regular" lube have used weird stuff like "warming" and "tingling" and thick gels. The ingredient lists of ordinary, inexpensive, no frills lubes is nearly identical to the specialty stuff)<br />
<br />
So, my point in all this is this: try not to worry so much!<br />
People have been having babies for hundreds of thousands of years. Millions, if you count all the living things that aren't quite "people" per say.<br />
It seems entirely possible (and there is even some evidence to support this), that the mere fact of stressing about it makes it a little bit harder to actually succeed.<br />
<br />
I'm not suggesting anyone actually change any behaviors or do or not do any particular thing.<br />
But what I am suggesting is <a href="https://youarenotsosmart.com/2015/10/14/yanss-60-how-to-turn-your-fears-and-anxieties-into-positivity-and-productivity-with-cognitive-reframing/">reframing</a> the process, mentally, emotionally.<br />
You probably won't get pregnant any sooner (or later) by reframing. But you are very likely to have a more pleasant experience in the meantime if you do.</div>
</div>
Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-77570677928577598062016-09-23T13:38:00.000-07:002017-02-06T15:03:10.082-08:00Landlord Who Supports Rent Control<span style="font-size: x-small;">[Background - the city council of my town, Richmond CA, has had a very heated political debate for a couple years now over whether or not to institute rent control.<br />Richmond is currently one of the more affordable pockets in the San Francisco Bay Area, especially for being close enough to the center to have its own BART stop, but like rents everywhere in this popular and rapidly growing area, they are climbing fast. <br />With rent control measures, landlords would only be able to raise rents they charge by a certain percentage (generally close to inflation levels) each year, and could only evict tenants if those tenants actually did something wrong (or if the landlord wants to move in), not just as a way to get new tenants to pay higher rent (rents can be increased between tenants, assuming they move out voluntarily or are evicted for a legitimate reason).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">In the public discourse around the issue, those against it are constantly making the claim that it would "hurt small-time landlords".<br />I posted the following to a couple neighborhood discussion groups on the topic:</span><br />
<br />
<span class="notranslate" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">Not that any one cares about one random individual's opinion, nor that they should... </span><span class="notranslate" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span><span class="notranslate" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">...but since so many who talk about the subject feel entitled to speak on my behalf, I just wanted to set the record straight. </span><span class="notranslate" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span><span class="notranslate" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">I grew up in Richmond, and I live here now. I worked for the downpayment money for our triplex home from scratch, on an ordinary working class salary (averaging around 20k a year).</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">I was able to save money by living in trailer parks most of my adult life.<br /><br />Today I am a "small time" landlord. I own just a couple of units, which share the same land as my own home is on. I put a lot of money and time and work into upgrading it and making it a nice place for my tenants to live, and I still have a giant mortgage on it.<br /><br />And there is absolutely no way I could honestly claim that rent control would "hurt" me.</span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate"><br />My mortgage is a fixed amount, and repairs and vacancies are reasonably predictable. I make a profit on my rentals - that's why I got them - even though I charge my tenants below "market" rent.<br /><br />There is no specific dollar amount or percentage of profit that I am "entitled" to. While being a landlord does require more than zero work, so does managing a stock portfolio. The fact is I am making unearned income. No one has any right to claim to be entitled to unearned income.<br /><br />Further, rent control does not require me to LOWER my existing rents.<br />All it does is prevent us from arbitrarily raising rents to whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay.<br />Not getting MORE money is not the equivalent of having money taken away.<br /><br />As land holders, we are controlling a basic human necessity.<br />In other human necessities, for example, clean water and other utilities, the companies that control the supply are not allowed to make up whatever prices they think some people will pay. The government steps in in the form of the public utility commission, and caps what they can charge.<br />With the affordable care act, there are limits to how much individuals can be charged for access to basic and emergency health care. That's a human rights issue.<br /><br />Living on the street, or in a park, or in a doorway, is considered a crime, so even if we wanted to pretend that was a reasonable way to live, it isn't a legitimate option in our society. That means every individual HAS to have housing. We don't need to make unlimited profit from having control over a basic human necessity.<br /><br />It is entirely possible that some, or even all, of my tenants make more money than I do. I actually wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. That is irrelevant. Nobody proposes that people who make more money should have to pay more than everyone else for food or furniture or computers or anything else. If someone who can afford a bigger place or one in a better location, and chooses not to (to save money to buy their own place, or any other reason), that's their choice.<br /><br />All rent control does is say that I can't arbitrarily kick people out of their home just so I can make more profit than I am already making, nor arbitrarily jack up the price from what we originally agreed to, just because silicon valley hired a bunch of people from out of state.<br /><br />One last thing: I am opposed to building more housing too.<br />There is a reason I have never lived in San Francisco, and it isn't just the cost of housing. There are 17,000 humans per square foot there (10 times the density of Richmond). As a result the city has 24 hour gridlock, $50 per day parking garages, and an ocean of garbage is cleaned off the street every day. For all the negative reputation Richmond has, San Francisco's crime rate is higher.<br />It has been found by researchers that the single biggest variable in crime rate is population density. The more people, the worse life.<br />Instead of trying to accommodate every single person from out of the area who wants to live here - either by pricing out existing residents or building infinitely more housing, what if we simply *don't* accommodate all the new people who want to move in? Demand will be high - and go partially unfulfilled - and that's ok.</span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate"><br /></span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">T<span style="font-size: 14px;">oday I am a "small time" landlord. I own just a couple of units, which share the same land as my own home is on. I put a lot of money and time and work into upgrading it and making it a nice place for my tenants to live, and I still have a giant mortgage on it.</span></span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate"><br /></span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">And there is absolutely no way I could honestly claim that rent control would "hurt" me. </span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate"><br /></span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">My mortgage is a fixed amount, and repairs and vacancies are reasonably predictable. I make a profit on my rentals - that's why I got them - even though I charge my tenants below "market" rent. </span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate"><br /></span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">There is no specific dollar amount or percentage of profit that I am "entitled" to. While being a landlord does require more than zero work, so does managing a stock portfolio. The fact is I am making unearned income. No one has any right to claim to be entitled to unearned income. </span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate"><br /></span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">Further, rent control does not require me to LOWER my existing rents. </span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">All it does is prevent us from arbitrarily raising rents to whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay. </span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">Not getting MORE money is not the equivalent of having money taken away. </span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate"><br /></span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">As land holders, we are controlling a basic human necessity. </span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">In other human necessities, for example, clean water and other utilities, the companies that control the supply are not allowed to make up whatever prices they think some people will pay. The government steps in in the form of the public utility commission, and caps what they can charge. </span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">With the affordable care act, there are limits to how much individuals can be charged for access to basic and emergency health care. That's a human rights issue. </span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate"><br /></span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">Living on the street, or in a park, or in a doorway, is considered a crime, so even if we wanted to pretend that was a reasonable way to live, it isn't a legitimate option in our society. That means every individual HAS to have housing. We don't need to make unlimited profit from having control over a basic human necessity. </span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate"><br /></span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">It is entirely possible that some, or even all, of my tenants make more money than I do. I actually wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. That is irrelevant. Nobody proposes that people who make more money should have to pay more than everyone else for food or furniture or computers or anything else. If someone who can afford a bigger place or one in a better location, and chooses not to (to save money to buy their own place, or any other reason), that's their choice. </span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate"><br /></span></span><span class="hide" id="body_extra_announce_32570556" style="background-color: white; color: #1e1c1c; display: inline; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="notranslate">All rent control does is say that I can't arbitrarily kick people out of their home just so I can make more profit than I am already making, nor arbitrarily jack up the price from what we originally agreed to, just because silicon valley hired a bunch of people from out of state. </span></span>Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-82151086441435927202016-08-31T11:46:00.002-07:002016-08-31T11:46:35.464-07:00Bakari Willsky Kafele*I had no expectation that my partner would take on my last name.<br />
<br />
My intention was to do like one of my clients when they got married: he took her last name as his middle name, and she took his last name as her middle.<br />
<br />
But my partner wanted everyone in the family to have the same last name, which certainly seems reasonable. <br />She also wanted to keep both of her parent's last names, in honor of them. But she didn't want to have 4 names. Also reasonable.<br />
So she decided to hybridize her maiden middle and last names (one of each of which were her parent's last names) and make that her middle name, and then take mine for a last name.<br />
<br />
Brotsky Williams becomes Willsky.<br />
<br />
Me, being all egalitarian and such, found it acceptable for her to take on some of my name only if I was doing the same. And, conveniently, I had no middle name. So I'll take her new middle name as my own as well.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
*Or, at least - that's the plan. It turns out the state of CA has some very arbitrary, but strictly followed, rules on what names you are allowed to have when you get married.<br />
<br />
You can change your name to whatever you want, so long as it isn't fraudulent (like someone else's name) or offensive. Moonbeam Unicorn Rainbow is totally ok.<br />But it can't be done as part of the marriage process. <br />
For that, you are limited to exactly:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As a last name:<br /> -The current last name of either spouse<br />-The last name of either spouse given at birth<br />-A name combining into a single last name all or a segment of the current last name or the last name of either spouse given at birth<br />And for the middle:<br />-The current or birth last name of either spouse<br />-A hyphenated version of the current middle name and current or birth last name of the person or spouse</blockquote>
<br />
<div>
For the last name, making a new hybrid name is just fine.</div>
<div>
For the middle, it <i>has to be</i> the full name, hyphenated.<br /></div>
<div>
What possible purpose could this distinction serve?</div>
<div>
This is just one more thing adding to the growing list of pointless government rules which is making me understand more and more the perspective of libertarians and anarchists.</div>
<div>
But I'll come back and write about that some other time...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In case it wasn't clear from everything above:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>I just got married!!</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b><br /></b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
We did a whole big ceremony / reception thing. Spent an amount I'd be ashamed to admit on the Mr Money Mustache forums (though 1/5 the average in 2015, and about 1/2 the median).</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />On the plus side, it was almost all inheritance money, which is actually kind of great, because it solves the problem of getting lasting tangible value or even dividends from unearned money (which matters to me on ethical grounds). And we got a great party, and to see a bunch of family and friends we rarely see at the same time. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaw72CnKTV-3sRBsTxsxSLAv5XYoM0njtjitv_nohnRIYag6lxnUbR9lfEb4AyujFZqAD0WdsRVAEkxzxqCe3MCHP_9vkNS3I3MEWjMhZ6vyiD91Eq-O_-G32yff6N4c06W1BXVTliftMT/s1600/Ceremony+%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="361" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaw72CnKTV-3sRBsTxsxSLAv5XYoM0njtjitv_nohnRIYag6lxnUbR9lfEb4AyujFZqAD0WdsRVAEkxzxqCe3MCHP_9vkNS3I3MEWjMhZ6vyiD91Eq-O_-G32yff6N4c06W1BXVTliftMT/s640/Ceremony+%25281%2529.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
We combined traditions from both of our heritages, and jumped from under the huppa, over a broom, landing on a glass.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggkjut5kIWsx5HaCGHh6AFeKk9KgoH65-rLOT8MoSwGGLJU8Y9Xk0LCFb0A-mS4IFYXAxtuAPo27BEXpY-oQ1atS3n8z_aRsCD9YdlYNhWBZVEPOY0R2rkpN39EITy5-NVYqFXpbVlBbxI/s1600/14080033_10210687739898766_3039711709248594922_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggkjut5kIWsx5HaCGHh6AFeKk9KgoH65-rLOT8MoSwGGLJU8Y9Xk0LCFb0A-mS4IFYXAxtuAPo27BEXpY-oQ1atS3n8z_aRsCD9YdlYNhWBZVEPOY0R2rkpN39EITy5-NVYqFXpbVlBbxI/s640/14080033_10210687739898766_3039711709248594922_n.jpg" width="480" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: left;">We had a 3 layer cake, with appropriately skin toned figurines.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0RgAJuMGCvd6H3VsCLxUHzC-Hkyuftd9TYuLEHMtToEuftZvmKxQ_n3AGTdyYVId_AQJq2NkQyT2kmgSfVBv7vgN-2FkgC2tqDteZrhFBb0LGfYha5ykHAErV9A_FcRCJzfOhgaECOsC5/s1600/14095782_10210687737218699_4733040509947963973_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0RgAJuMGCvd6H3VsCLxUHzC-Hkyuftd9TYuLEHMtToEuftZvmKxQ_n3AGTdyYVId_AQJq2NkQyT2kmgSfVBv7vgN-2FkgC2tqDteZrhFBb0LGfYha5ykHAErV9A_FcRCJzfOhgaECOsC5/s320/14095782_10210687737218699_4733040509947963973_n.jpg" width="240" /></a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS_y8swMzQhHnBHcMNZan34dS-5ziqeOWvx_2RqSe_lPWAcLoIwf2erNjEgAveBDOYFikz1y27HSLKJOyTNNOdRMmauruoRKy_XAm5z3i-e0w9R4iOdUHyc_yz2uKtrjqYOPXB4lAgF-Zp/s1600/14095795_10210687738098721_7411380047763348414_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS_y8swMzQhHnBHcMNZan34dS-5ziqeOWvx_2RqSe_lPWAcLoIwf2erNjEgAveBDOYFikz1y27HSLKJOyTNNOdRMmauruoRKy_XAm5z3i-e0w9R4iOdUHyc_yz2uKtrjqYOPXB4lAgF-Zp/s320/14095795_10210687738098721_7411380047763348414_n.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And while its nearly impossible to find a set where the bride is slightly taller than the groom, the position of the figurines sort of gives the same effect.<br /><br />Also included on the cake were our pets, Didi and Franklin, and also a very detailed representation of my biodiesel powered work truck, hand-modified by my mom</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHxfeI_kWy94ivU5LKGnpIPBlHprary_RlWS1qfG5CZffRP5G7maSxgJy5w-V0KsLS4E7XDXD1Z-mx3pTSwCCQ95ZyiSV10hCvocb_hGEWeS8BC1taZADf2X-o9dhaw37tkAg56jnPUJZ2/s1600/14141656_10210687738498731_3767647264515778694_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHxfeI_kWy94ivU5LKGnpIPBlHprary_RlWS1qfG5CZffRP5G7maSxgJy5w-V0KsLS4E7XDXD1Z-mx3pTSwCCQ95ZyiSV10hCvocb_hGEWeS8BC1taZADf2X-o9dhaw37tkAg56jnPUJZ2/s400/14141656_10210687738498731_3767647264515778694_n.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
We had a delightfully flamboyant photographer, who had an amazing ability to demand exacting perfection from his subjects while still seeming entirely personable and friendly and relaxed, an expert with extensive knowledge of the ins and outs of weddings, both traditional and Jewish, and took it in stride when what we had in mind was far from any tradition at all.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8ZjPdMhN5pE6G4XzgvFJWah219OIm-3OMTHWW7D1jllW9Iy6MZVwZGsB3MiKCLrLnpgJwdY5zslgBTyTSJzv4HOU9nxIPQUzc9otynGg30Whxu2Npe5YwoGxBZEdg5lzXwSl5a3bpLbeG/s1600/IMG_0892.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8ZjPdMhN5pE6G4XzgvFJWah219OIm-3OMTHWW7D1jllW9Iy6MZVwZGsB3MiKCLrLnpgJwdY5zslgBTyTSJzv4HOU9nxIPQUzc9otynGg30Whxu2Npe5YwoGxBZEdg5lzXwSl5a3bpLbeG/s320/IMG_0892.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
A pre-paid burrito truck for lunch<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivQrLjq4hkdvM-345qS1puMbnYw8E0R2-ZJSaJJTPsNrZIKbys0v-J3mqO2pNuMUoOnyLpFOa1-LPHJusU-Yi8-ER5Ei3f7w_swMxWruet9A24iuWIlKwsRUW9rWYzjCAzfDHrRXok7WWZ/s1600/IMG_0897.JPG" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivQrLjq4hkdvM-345qS1puMbnYw8E0R2-ZJSaJJTPsNrZIKbys0v-J3mqO2pNuMUoOnyLpFOa1-LPHJusU-Yi8-ER5Ei3f7w_swMxWruet9A24iuWIlKwsRUW9rWYzjCAzfDHrRXok7WWZ/s320/IMG_0897.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Rachel's fathers band supplied live music</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheFkDshi2Tf7ZSooQAVWCnDGvlCA7jBW4WM-sSQNpFtxihGmY71r8IgS78erE11_au5fGwN8d7GZsTMb7Jsl5fKB6PXy32ba1r_D_XUnW1eP1rQDGwD-kfE5IHsg-yG88aj6UyzcL2xlpf/s1600/IMG_0898.JPG" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheFkDshi2Tf7ZSooQAVWCnDGvlCA7jBW4WM-sSQNpFtxihGmY71r8IgS78erE11_au5fGwN8d7GZsTMb7Jsl5fKB6PXy32ba1r_D_XUnW1eP1rQDGwD-kfE5IHsg-yG88aj6UyzcL2xlpf/s320/IMG_0898.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Her family's cabin in the woods of Occidental supplied the venu<br /><br /> <img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAZv4RS0oCTdgC8BxcsHuqnyTXNNcqu9xtWv-xM7FuhVnYTo2d1RA0XByzcKeQVeVOi7nukRspj-VKcdpdVUpLRTgGOW8UUXrz-YiMiH2bKwtYKXTSOELdgs0m9V-jd5HBn8YiVWiQcuYM/s320/14203192_10210687748738987_9188508602102902124_n.jpg" width="240" /> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_C331hrKWeXwPHOauwIyvU0bLvW2w6ga6WHASS82uJUafG9egwjcFQSnbUZWcM2KmRD9dBQmiGrxSChToFV5uvhO6Y4a6a4ZBVDhgZ0nCNWNLTjP5RiIWewaulduLyTgcS1G_r3lWaSPa/s1600/IMG_0917.JPG" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_C331hrKWeXwPHOauwIyvU0bLvW2w6ga6WHASS82uJUafG9egwjcFQSnbUZWcM2KmRD9dBQmiGrxSChToFV5uvhO6Y4a6a4ZBVDhgZ0nCNWNLTjP5RiIWewaulduLyTgcS1G_r3lWaSPa/s320/IMG_0917.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And Amtgard / LARP foam swords and badminton provided entertainment, for both players and spectators</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy0pKCl18a8Ia910mq9s8XYD-gPyZoKei7qjr3zgo6_7n5sEkjR2FVcU2nAiHgdIAuUTHr1hCk6Zjx_5A__iEJAH_P0Gm82Yfht93Lf0Qf29Cz5FJYE-MYmZu1kCjSEGuVQFn7aLqMv3K8/s1600/IMG_0911.JPG" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy0pKCl18a8Ia910mq9s8XYD-gPyZoKei7qjr3zgo6_7n5sEkjR2FVcU2nAiHgdIAuUTHr1hCk6Zjx_5A__iEJAH_P0Gm82Yfht93Lf0Qf29Cz5FJYE-MYmZu1kCjSEGuVQFn7aLqMv3K8/s320/IMG_0911.JPG" width="320" /></a><br /><br /><br />We exchanged sparkly color changing glow rings<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKDXymPhxzcxskZlqqMCQU6_2pEss8lMhnli-FXazaU41CbkGy_rQpXrzJop5IxASls3bydDlMrdFKX0OG1xusYH4quWe5Ew7eRjd38hfz5-xCQW4bZougXPG_MYDOHnpGmeFrn0ZoeuFZ/s1600/14102435_10210687736978693_4963903705715084125_n.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKDXymPhxzcxskZlqqMCQU6_2pEss8lMhnli-FXazaU41CbkGy_rQpXrzJop5IxASls3bydDlMrdFKX0OG1xusYH4quWe5Ew7eRjd38hfz5-xCQW4bZougXPG_MYDOHnpGmeFrn0ZoeuFZ/s320/14102435_10210687736978693_4963903705715084125_n.jpg" width="240" /></a><br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But we saved the "real" rings, as well as our vows, for the legal transaction at city hall, where we had another ceremony, just the two of us, to make it official.<br />I meant to get video of that, but I accidentally put the camera on photo mode instead of video, so we will just have to remember what is was like in our memories!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are many more pictures here:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.yogile.com/wilksykafele#11m">https://www.yogile.com/wilksykafele#11m</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you happen to be interested in that sort of thing.<br />(Also, if you were there, and would like to add to that album, just let me know and I'll send you the upload link)</div>
<div>
<br /><br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399966929964838853.post-52279038133595678202016-08-25T07:40:00.000-07:002016-08-25T07:40:14.280-07:00I'm So Fancy: On the Consept of Cultural AppropriationI used to have <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-zpOMYRi0w">I'm So Fancy</a>, by Iggy Azalea, as my phone's ringtone, for the express purpose of annoying Social Justice Warriors.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O-zpOMYRi0w" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
Because she is white (so say the SJW), she has no business making rap music.<br />
Black people invented hip-hop, therefore only they have the right to produce it.<br />
White people can listen and enjoy it, perhaps, but they should not be able to make any money off of it.<br />
<br />
<br />
As counter-point, allow me to introduce "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3ZdI2YxZxI">Unlocking the Truth</a>"<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HYH7BkV1BPQ" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
Three Black kids playing (some pretty damn good!) metal music. Do these boys not have the right to play it? Are they "appropriating" a music style which should be reserved for people who grew up in trailer parks? It doesn't get much more white then metal. <br />
<br />
I suppose one could make the argument that metal developed from rock, which in turn developed from blues, and claim African American roots...<br />
So, fine, we'll use <a href="https://youtu.be/dq8Flm8ePfo">George Walker</a>, a pulitzer prize winning composer, as our example instead<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_ScgQUzMqhg" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
It used to be mainly racists who wanted to keep everyone "in their place".<br />
Now it is the self-proclaimed "anti-racists" who want to do the same thing - the same one's who protest "gentrification" - which is really code for "white people moving (back) into traditionally black neighborhoods (ones which primarily got that way because of "white flight" a few decades ago); or, in other words "re-integration".<br />
<br />
Faced with Unlocking the Truth, a supporter of the idea of "cultural appropriation" may claim there is a qualitative difference between white kids playing hip hop and black kids playing metal, due to the fact of the history of slavery and exploitation which was very much one-sided in this country.<br />
<br />
But that rational doesn't work either: Iggy Azalea, who we opened with,<i> isn't from</i> this country.<br />
She is Australian. There is no history of Europeans bringing African slaves to Australia, followed by decades of Jim Crow. That argument would only work if Iggy was playing the didgeridoo.<br />
Which she isn't.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/08/culture-and-race-are-not-interchangeable.html">Race and culture are not interchangeable</a>.<br />
<br />
What is culture, really?<br />
<br />
In essence, it is geographic conformity. Everyone in a particular region, or an isolated subset of people in a region, all speak not only the same language, but the same idioms and slang and accents. They produce and listen to the same music, dress the same, eat the same food.<br />
That's what culture means. The extent to which it follows ethnic lines is proportional to the extent to which ethnicities are isolated.<br />
<br />
Marshal Mathers (a.k.a. Eminem, a.k.a. Slim Shady) grew up in 8-Mile Detroit. The poor urban inner-city, predominately Black, was his home. Hip-hop IS his native culture.<br />
<br />
This is always how culture has worked: any two populations which are near each other or overlap borrow ideas from each other. English has words from dozens of different languages, and dozens of different languages use a few originally English words. While we think of potatoes as Irish and Tomato sauce as Italian, both of these foods came from the Americas, and didn't exist in Europe pre-Columbus. A technology developed anywhere soon becomes the norm worldwide. The olympics shows that people enjoy the same wide variety of sports in every nation. <br />
<br />
And all this blending and melding and overlapping and sharing is a very GOOD thing!<br />
It is the primary force countering a natural human tendency toward tribalism and xenophobia. <br />
It is theorized by social scientists that the reason so many religions have strict food guidelines is to control and restrict their subjects interactions with other populations - if those in the neighboring village eat unholy food, how can you possibly accept them as friend or spouse?<br />
<br />
If what we want is more integration, more racial harmony, more cross cultural respect and understanding, we should be <i>encouraging</i> cultural mixing in all of its varied and wonderful forms, from the Japanese Italian fusion restaurant in San Francisco's Japan town, to Unlocking the Truth, George Walker, and, yes, even Iggy Azalea.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong - there are some circumstances which definitely count as legitimate cultural appropriation. The cigar store indian, or indian themed sports teams, complete with "savage" mascots comes to mind. Or the minstrel shows, and old black and white movies with white actors playing highly stereotyped Chinese. <br />
<br />
But this really isn't the same thing. Those examples are deliberately exploitative. The people using other cultural symbology in those examples is not really trying to live that culture first-hand, they are not embedding themselves within it or adopting it, they are merely using it, even making fun of it, as an "other".<br />
<br />
The musician examples above, in contrast, actually identify with the culture they are now a part of.<br />
The say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Bakarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04002145755975841287noreply@blogger.com0