solving racism

[Belinda]

'They' belong under the tem or word 'separatism', and not necessarily under, 'racism'.

'Racism' is in regards to what is considered the 'race' of you human beings.


If you solve 'poverty', then you solve 'poverty'. 'Racism' is some thing completely different.


There is a connection between poverty and racism, Age. The connection is as follows:

* A man is suffering from being poor, He is hungry and poorly educated due to poverty.

*He looks for the cause of his poverty

* He blames a minority group of people whom he distinguishes by their ethnic customs or appearance .As poorly educated he is unable to place blame where blame is due.

*A common result is the man becomes what we call a 'racist'.

Has anyone ever blamed their hunger on a 'minority group?

If yes, then who, where, when, and why, exactly?

In recent years, some leaders in the U.S. have said that people coming from Central American countries — like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador — are the reason Americans are facing poverty and hunger.

But studies have shown this isn’t really true. These migrants often can’t get most government benefits, and many actually pay taxes and help the economy.

Still, blaming them made some people think migrants were the cause of their struggles, which helped push for tougher border rules and stricter immigration laws.

[MikeNovack]

There is a connection between poverty and racism, Age. The connection is as follows:

* A man is suffering from being poor, He is hungry and poorly educated due to poverty.
*He looks for the cause of his poverty
* He blames a minority group of people whom he distinguishes by their ethnic customs or appearance .As poorly educated he is unable to place blame where blame is due.
*A common result is the man becomes what we call a 'racist'.

But we are presumably talking about the phenomenon of racism in all societies.

Belinda, if you can set aside Marxist material realism for a bit and accept a more general definition of poverty, I will agree with you. I believe you are using "poverty" to mean "unequal and unfair distribution of material goods resulting in some people in the society having far less than their fair share". Would you be willing to generalize that "material goods" to just "goods"? (any things valued in the society, whether material or not).

I could give examples of non-material goods if you say you don't know what I am talking about.

[Belinda]

There is a connection between poverty and racism, Age. The connection is as follows:

* A man is suffering from being poor, He is hungry and poorly educated due to poverty.
*He looks for the cause of his poverty
* He blames a minority group of people whom he distinguishes by their ethnic customs or appearance .As poorly educated he is unable to place blame where blame is due.
*A common result is the man becomes what we call a 'racist'.

But we are presumably talking about the phenomenon of racism in all societies.

Belinda, if you can set aside Marxist material realism for a bit and accept a more general definition of poverty, I will agree with you. I believe you are using "poverty" to mean "unequal and unfair distribution of material goods resulting in some people in the society having far less than their fair share". Would you be willing to generalize that "material goods" to just "goods"? (any things valued in the society, whether material or not).

I could give examples of non-material goods if you say you don't know what I am talking about.

I presume you mean transport, open spaces, clean air, entertainment, leisure time, housing, communications technology, good schools , libraries, good universities, good access to early years learning, access to performing arts, and so forth? But those are all material goods. Better tell me what also you are talking about.

[popeye1945]

Personal opinion: Those most comfortable in sameness and fearful of change are on the fast track to being a racist. If you are like me, you're ok; if not, we start to have a problem. The more unlike me you are, the more you do things differently, things change, sameness starts disappearing, and the world I am adapted to tells me I am not so well adapted anymore, and that is disturbing to most people.

[LuckyR]

That's part of what shapes my behavior.

I do not know of a human behaviour that was not partly 'shaped' by previous behaviours and discriminative views or judging.

I've had pretty good success in this area, as it happens.

What is 'good success', here, based upon and relative to, exactly?

Every human behaviour is just, naturally, partly based upon previous behaviour, and others judging and/or discriminating, anyway. Therefore, in a sense, every human being could claim to have so-called 'good success' in having their 'current' behaviour 'shaped'.

But, what even is 'good' or 'bad' behaviour based up and on, exactly, anyway?

I apologize for confusing you. By "good success", I meant that I have been discriminated "for" by others much more frequently than discriminated "against", likely because folks I interact with commonly view my behavior positively and rarely view it as a negative.

[LuckyR]

That is okay for Lucky or any other private person to discriminate for good reason of easing communications, or exercising professional authority to help a client or a patient. However politicians should not institutionalise racism or any other divisive ism.

Very true, but the vast majority of current racism isnt of the overt, legally sanctioned variety. It's at the level of subjective selection (hiring, promotions, loans and housing sales), not objective exclusion, like apartheid.

That is my impression too ,now you point it out. Can we quantify that and correlate it with other variables such as crime, social class, institutionalised racism ,or poverty.
My guess is that poverty leads to fear of strangers or any perceived other ,which is reflected in subjective selection such as you mention. Not only poverty, but also other vulnerabilities such as clinical or mild paranoia, and lack of autonomy because of bad health or inferior education cause social divisions such as racist divisions.

Other aspects of personal appearance such as fat, outre apparel, old age, signs of poverty such as poor dentition, tallness, shortness, accent, ethnic minority, can be targets for people who have hypo-paranoia.

"Solve poverty and and you solve racism." wrote Martin Peter Clarke. Poverty is part of the complex. Capitalism is invested in social imbalance.

I agree that much of institutionalized racism is in reality economic class discrimination but since certain races are over represented within the class, it looks like racism. Most true racism, in my experience is practiced by individuals, not institutions.

[Belinda]

Very true, but the vast majority of current racism isnt of the overt, legally sanctioned variety. It's at the level of subjective selection (hiring, promotions, loans and housing sales), not objective exclusion, like apartheid.

That is my impression too ,now you point it out. Can we quantify that and correlate it with other variables such as crime, social class, institutionalised racism ,or poverty.
My guess is that poverty leads to fear of strangers or any perceived other ,which is reflected in subjective selection such as you mention. Not only poverty, but also other vulnerabilities such as clinical or mild paranoia, and lack of autonomy because of bad health or inferior education cause social divisions such as racist divisions.

Other aspects of personal appearance such as fat, outre apparel, old age, signs of poverty such as poor dentition, tallness, shortness, accent, ethnic minority, can be targets for people who have hypo-paranoia.

"Solve poverty and and you solve racism." wrote Martin Peter Clarke. Poverty is part of the complex. Capitalism is invested in social imbalance.

I agree that much of institutionalized racism is in reality economic class discrimination but since certain races are over represented within the class, it looks like racism. Most true racism, in my experience is practiced by individuals, not institutions.

Am I a racist because I mildly prefer that my GP does not flaunt religious insignia of any sort?

In the UK at present doctor assisted dying is illegal. The one advantage is that the consultant has extraordinary power over the manner of my death. That there is no legal definition of assisted dying tends to enable the consultant to help me to die. A consultant who looks as if she observes ethnic/religious customs is likely to believe in sanctity of life as God-given.

In the earlier half of the 20th century medical doctors were deferred to, and sometimes assumed de facto power to end a life (Personal anecdotal evidence). The days of deference are over now and we need legislation. In the interim racist attitudes flourish .

[MikeNovack]

Am I a racist because I mildly prefer that my GP does not flaunt religious insignia of any sort?

I would not use the term "racist" because this person of different religion might be the same race. It's religious bigotry, intolerance.

I want you to consider Belinda, many religions REQUIRE certain "signs" of belonging to that religion be displayed. I suspect you know that. At the same time, by postings else were on this site clear that you belong to a religion that just happens to have no such requirement. For example, you aren't REQUIRED "to wear a cross visibly displayed so all who see you will know you believe in ME". For you to do or not do purely optional.

"‘The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France

Well people of religions not requiring visibly displayed signs and the anti-religious are like the rich in that famous quote. Their claim of equality rings false, it's religious prejudice.

We can almost always find ways to impose burdens on the despised by adopting measures that while on the face, appear to be imposing the same burden on all (and thus fair) but which in fact are unfair, because that burden doesn't affect the favored, or does so only lightly.

[Belinda]

Am I a racist because I mildly prefer that my GP does not flaunt religious insignia of any sort?

I would not use the term "racist" because this person of different religion might be the same race. It's religious bigotry, intolerance.

I want you to consider Belinda, many religions REQUIRE certain "signs" of belonging to that religion be displayed. I suspect you know that. At the same time, by postings else were on this site clear that you belong to a religion that just happens to have no such requirement. For example, you aren't REQUIRED "to wear a cross visibly displayed so all who see you will know you believe in ME". For you to do or not do purely optional.

"‘The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France

Well people of religions not requiring visibly displayed signs and the anti-religious are like the rich in that famous quote. Their claim of equality rings false, it's religious prejudice.

We can almost always find ways to impose burdens on the despised by adopting measures that while on the face, appear to be imposing the same burden on all (and thus fair) but which in fact are unfair, because that burden doesn't affect the favored, or does so only lightly.

I was talking about my GP if you remember. A qualified doctor is free to choose whether or not to belong to an authoritarian, or any, religion. Do you seriously think I would condescend "Poor thing, I must make allowances for him"?
Professional workers serve needs of clients or patients before the requirements of priests.

In a different scenario when I was an invited guest of a mosque I covered my head, arms , and legs as required .

[MikeNovack]

I was talking about my GP if you remember. A qualified doctor is free to choose whether or not to belong to an authoritarian, or any, religion. Do you seriously think I would condescend "Poor thing, I must make allowances for him"?
Professional workers serve needs of clients or patients before the requirements of priests.

In a different scenario when I was an invited guest of a mosque I covered my head, arms , and legs as required .

I will continue to hold the opinion "religious bigotry". And use the same "under the cover of" argument.

It is untrue that their religion is authoritarian and yours is not. You have simply selected a particular in which theirs (some of theirs) has a requirement and yours does not. And even THIS matter (regulation of dress) is something only true about Christianity in this place and time in history. I am writing this from the state of Massachusetts in the USA where in the 17th Century would at least be run out of town for appearing in a bright colored garment. Heck, the Puritans of Boston HANGED four people for being of the wrong Puritan sect (they were Quakers).

And NOT just in ancient history. In my lifetime, "blue laws" were common most places (and some persist to this day). Those are secular laws forbidding some activity supposedly fairly applied to all. But an activity forbidden by Christianity. Like requiring closure on the Christian sabbath. Too bad YOUR religion would require you to also close some other day of the week. You don't have to adhere to that (other) authoritarian religion. Christianity is an authoritarian religion, but you cherry picked a way in which it currently is not. << and sorry, my apologies to UUs and those of other Christian sects might not be authoritarian >>

Look at Quebec and its "secularization laws" about dress when in any public institution. SHAM, under color of secularization. The overwhelming majority of the Quebecois are Christian, and majority in fact Catholic. See, fair, applies to all (except not really). Now suppose instead secularized the laws of subpoena for testimony (removed the immunity for confession to clergy). Now it is the other way around, isn't it. Those other religions do not make the same claim of immunity, and even though they might have "confession" it might be useless as testimony << in the confessional, at Yom Kippur and at death, its recited out loud, but to everything << you and god would know really meant and which just because in the list>> and there are two lists, one in which you say "we have" (communal responsibility) and one "for the sin which I have done by ......" (personal)

[Age]

Has anyone ever blamed their hunger on a 'minority group?

If yes, then who, where, when, and why, exactly?

In recent years, some leaders in the U.S. have said that people coming from Central American countries — like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador — are the reason Americans are facing poverty and hunger.

But studies have shown this isn’t really true. These migrants often can’t get most government benefits, and many actually pay taxes and help the economy.

Still, blaming them made some people think migrants were the cause of their struggles, which helped push for tougher border rules and stricter immigration laws.

Relying on 'the words', from so-called "the leaders", in the so-called "united states of america", especially in the days when this is being written, for guidance or leadership, I will suggest to you is about one of the most stupid things a human being in any time in humans' existence could do. Full stop.

[MikeNovack]

I presume you mean transport, open spaces, clean air, entertainment, leisure time, housing, communications technology, good schools , libraries, good universities, good access to early years learning, access to performing arts, and so forth? But those are all material goods. Better tell me what also you are talking about.

Sorry I missed getting back to you earlier. Those examples you just gave apply only to OUR society. Though I would disagree with your classing all of those examples as "material" not what I meant. Again, I was thinking we were talking about causes of "racism" IN GENERAL (all societies). I thought your statement of it being based on "poverty" was for all societies.

But on second thought, maybe you'll get it if I address why I don't consider things like your examples NECESSARILY material. I suspect you mean disability in transport, disability in access to open spaces, entertainment, housing, good universities, etc. because of economic causes. Rosa Parks was not suffering a transport disability because unable to afford a seat up front (same bus fare). That part of my mother's family still alive in Europe of the late 30's to mid 40's (by which time all but one was dead) didn't lose the right to walk in the park, attend performing arts, go into libraries, etc. because couldn't afford entrance. My father and uncle attended a good city college. They were good enough students to have won scholarships at an "ivy" if they could have gotten past the "quota". I grew up in a middle class township. The families of the black kids of LaMott (much of my township had been Lucretia Mott's land) were not poorer but still lived in the tiny mid 19th Century houses she had built for them, not new houses. I was little when my dad explained that they drove such fancy cars and lived in such tiny houses because not allowed to buy better houses.

But those things you listed also COULD be material/economic and what I had in mind were things societies might have that could not. Some societies have sumptuary laws (only certain classes allowed to dress certain ways). A nomad tribe, they have clans of various status. When on the move, the high status clans lead the way on unbroken ground; the low status ones relegated to the rear move on churned up ground and eat the dust. BTW, that societies valued such non-material goods is sometimes used creatively for social good. The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy) was formed using the Great Law of Peace. The tribes, previously fighting with each other, were of unequal strength. How to get the stronger tribe to agree to accept only an equal say in the (new) government? Dekanawida and Hiawatha's law cleverly created and gave them valued CEREMONIAL honors in compensation.

[Belinda]

I presume you mean transport, open spaces, clean air, entertainment, leisure time, housing, communications technology, good schools , libraries, good universities, good access to early years learning, access to performing arts, and so forth? But those are all material goods. Better tell me what also you are talking about.

Sorry I missed getting back to you earlier. Those examples you just gave apply only to OUR society. Though I would disagree with your classing all of those examples as "material" not what I meant. Again, I was thinking we were talking about causes of "racism" IN GENERAL (all societies). I thought your statement of it being based on "poverty" was for all societies.

But on second thought, maybe you'll get it if I address why I don't consider things like your examples NECESSARILY material. I suspect you mean disability in transport, disability in access to open spaces, entertainment, housing, good universities, etc. because of economic causes. Rosa Parks was not suffering a transport disability because unable to afford a seat up front (same bus fare). That part of my mother's family still alive in Europe of the late 30's to mid 40's (by which time all but one was dead) didn't lose the right to walk in the park, attend performing arts, go into libraries, etc. because couldn't afford entrance. My father and uncle attended a good city college. They were good enough students to have won scholarships at an "ivy" if they could have gotten past the "quota". I grew up in a middle class township. The families of the black kids of LaMott (much of my township had been Lucretia Mott's land) were not poorer but still lived in the tiny mid 19th Century houses she had built for them, not new houses. I was little when my dad explained that they drove such fancy cars and lived in such tiny houses because not allowed to buy better houses.

But those things you listed also COULD be material/economic and what I had in mind were things societies might have that could not. Some societies have sumptuary laws (only certain classes allowed to dress certain ways). A nomad tribe, they have clans of various status. When on the move, the high status clans lead the way on unbroken ground; the low status ones relegated to the rear move on churned up ground and eat the dust. BTW, that societies valued such non-material goods is sometimes used creatively for social good. The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy) was formed using the Great Law of Peace. The tribes, previously fighting with each other, were of unequal strength. How to get the stronger tribe to agree to accept only an equal say in the (new) government? Dekanawida and Hiawatha's law cleverly created and gave them valued CEREMONIAL honors in compensation.

But medical institutions such as hospitals and doctors' medical centres are not tribes The decor of the hospital and medical premises is or should be therapeutic and symbolise the otherness of the therapeutic space. Tribes' mores, decor, and rituals are for solidarity the obverse of which is division: hospitals' mores , decor and rituals are for therapy which is not divisive but is a need common to all people.

Religious decor, rituals, and mores are for solidarity and are divisive so don't support common humanity. The bravery of Rosa Parks was she defied the politically powerful group ; her action was not to advertise her religion, herself, or her ethnicity but to endorse common humanity.

Social class including the separation of Americans into black, brown, or white, is an effect of capitalism which needs a permanent working class and is opposed to social mobility.

[LuckyR]

That is my impression too ,now you point it out. Can we quantify that and correlate it with other variables such as crime, social class, institutionalised racism ,or poverty.
My guess is that poverty leads to fear of strangers or any perceived other ,which is reflected in subjective selection such as you mention. Not only poverty, but also other vulnerabilities such as clinical or mild paranoia, and lack of autonomy because of bad health or inferior education cause social divisions such as racist divisions.

Other aspects of personal appearance such as fat, outre apparel, old age, signs of poverty such as poor dentition, tallness, shortness, accent, ethnic minority, can be targets for people who have hypo-paranoia.

"Solve poverty and and you solve racism." wrote Martin Peter Clarke. Poverty is part of the complex. Capitalism is invested in social imbalance.

I agree that much of institutionalized racism is in reality economic class discrimination but since certain races are over represented within the class, it looks like racism. Most true racism, in my experience is practiced by individuals, not institutions.

Am I a racist because I mildly prefer that my GP does not flaunt religious insignia of any sort?

In the UK at present doctor assisted dying is illegal. The one advantage is that the consultant has extraordinary power over the manner of my death. That there is no legal definition of assisted dying tends to enable the consultant to help me to die. A consultant who looks as if she observes ethnic/religious customs is likely to believe in sanctity of life as God-given.

In the earlier half of the 20th century medical doctors were deferred to, and sometimes assumed de facto power to end a life (Personal anecdotal evidence). The days of deference are over now and we need legislation. In the interim racist attitudes flourish .

There is a big difference between interacting with 20 clients of various races better or worse depending on their race and selecting a hire among 20 equally qualified candidates based on race. In the former case all 20 "deserve" adequate (at minimum) service 100% yet many receive 0%, in the latter 19 of 20 weren't going to be selected regardless of how the hire is chosen, that is they only had a 5% chance of being hired, which is similar to the 0% they received. Taking that statistical reality to the next step, just as the effect of using race as a negative criteria in the second case is watered down by the tiny native chance of being hired, using race as a positive criteria for hiring has an equally watered down effect on the community.

[Belinda]

I agree that much of institutionalized racism is in reality economic class discrimination but since certain races are over represented within the class, it looks like racism. Most true racism, in my experience is practiced by individuals, not institutions.

Am I a racist because I mildly prefer that my GP does not flaunt religious insignia of any sort?

In the UK at present doctor assisted dying is illegal. The one advantage is that the consultant has extraordinary power over the manner of my death. That there is no legal definition of assisted dying tends to enable the consultant to help me to die. A consultant who looks as if she observes ethnic/religious customs is likely to believe in sanctity of life as God-given.

In the earlier half of the 20th century medical doctors were deferred to, and sometimes assumed de facto power to end a life (Personal anecdotal evidence). The days of deference are over now and we need legislation. In the interim racist attitudes flourish .

There is a big difference between interacting with 20 clients of various races better or worse depending on their race and selecting a hire among 20 equally qualified candidates based on race. In the former case all 20 "deserve" adequate (at minimum) service 100% yet many receive 0%, in the latter 19 of 20 weren't going to be selected regardless of how the hire is chosen, that is they only had a 5% chance of being hired, which is similar to the 0% they received. Taking that statistical reality to the next step, just as the effect of using race as a negative criteria in the second case is watered down by the tiny native chance of being hired, using race as a positive criteria for hiring has an equally watered down effect on the community.

ChatGPT:-
United States

Broad compliance in large organizations – Especially those with HR departments and legal teams, because lawsuits and EEOC investigations can be costly.

Persistent disparities – Hiring discrimination studies using “resume testing” (identical CVs, different racialized names) still find significant bias.

Public services – Explicit racial discrimination is rare, but unequal treatment often persists in subtler forms (e.g., policing practices, healthcare access, housing services). Enforcement is uneven across states.

United Kingdom

Generally well-observed by government and large employers – Most public bodies have formal equality policies.

Problem areas – Disproportionate police stop-and-search rates, disparities in school discipline, and evidence from field experiments showing bias in private-sector hiring.

Public Sector Equality Duty gives a framework, but critics say it’s often a “tick-box” exercise with little real accountability.

Elsewhere (EU and other developed economies)

Nordic countries – Strong laws, relatively high compliance, but still measurable discrimination in hiring for immigrant and minority groups.

France – Equality laws exist but are less aggressively enforced than in the UK; state policy avoids collecting racial data, making monitoring harder.

Germany – Anti-discrimination office exists, but enforcement is often complaint-driven, and many victims don’t file cases.

Overall trend:

The laws are on the books in most democracies and are mostly respected in formal processes.

Discrimination often shifts from overt to covert, making it harder to detect and prosecute.

Compliance is highest where there’s a strong enforcement agency, a culture of litigation or oversight, and where data is collected to measure outcomes.

If you’d like, I can walk you through the gap between law and practice with examples from hiring and public services in the US and UK over the last decade. That would show exactly where compliance breaks down.

ChatGPT bears you out Lucky.










Ask ChatGPT