1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Update to Our Content Policy
Ok, I think you have clarified your assumption here—that the current anti-racist thinking is built on the premise that all white people are racist, which in your view is a racist viewpoint (against white people). And that contradiction makes you dismiss this.
This is exactly the issue that the concept of white fragility tries to address: white peoples like us have been taught for years that racism is a moral evil that anytime a person of color engages them in the topic of race, we are immediately defensive—we don’t allow a dialogue to take place. It also stops you from reading what I wrote below—so I will start. I have racial biases; negative ones that haven’t been fair to be the people I interact with. It’s not my fault I ended up this way, it a society of white supremacy that made me this way.
As a thought exercise, consider if you have two candidates for a job, both white, one rich and given all access on their life to all the tools they need to learn the skills required, and the other poor who, while equally skilled, had to work much harder to achieve the same level simply because they didn’t have the same level of access. I think we would be more impressed by the achievement of the person who was born poor, right?
Now instead of a poor person, consider a candidate who is black who grew up in a society built on white supremacy (in everything, educational opportunities, job interviews, interaction with police, interactions with administrators, teachers, etc). If this candidate interviews for a job, would you consider this circumstance in your hiring decision? I think you would. But then, the white candidate sues you and says you made a decision based on race...
I think we agree that we want a fair process, but first you must believe that the scales are overwhelmingly tilted against black people today. The evidence is abundant enough that if you need convincing I am happy to share. So to make it fair you must consider race. Choosing to be race-blind means you aren’t helping to correct racism which makes you complicit in an activity (racism) that you don’t agree with.
Comment by Fikkia at 23/07/2020 at 13:42 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think the issue here is an assumption that someone inherently has less advantages based on race.
For instance, in high school 90% of the students were PoC where I grew up. I got the same education. In college it was 50/50 split for both students and teachers and in university it was about as diverse.
My last job had PoC employees and a trans manager. None of them were given special treatment or negative treatment. They just deserved the positions they had.
My current job has multiple PoC employees in either the same line of work as me or higher up the chain. I've never seen them treated with anything but respect.
So my view that people being treated equally, regardless of color, is based on seeing a society that allows that. We don't have vastly separated neighbourhoods, our schools aren't segregated by their pricing (free), and our higher education is affordable for everyone.
If people need to look at someone and think "we should help them, they're PoC and probably poor and uneducated" then you're country is fucked up and the goal should be making these things available to everyone *equally*. That's not a race issue at that point, it's just a poor issue, of which the majority are PoC due to *past* racism.
I suppose your goal should be being able to look at people as.. well, people, not colors. But your country and government necessitates viewing them as some downtrodden mass. To me, that makes equity seem like a potentially necessary bandaid until actual changes are made. But people view the bandaid as the solution, ignoring the cause.
Lastly, I must assume you live in the US, as this is generally the only country where this is prevalent.