In Defense of Intent

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

explain to me how this is wrong:

especially since she says "descendants".  

For one, do you really think 90% percent of the population got rich off 10% of the population? In addition, if talented people are being put into low wage jobs, when they could be in higher productive jobs, matching their skills, that seems to me an economic loss. Its not an effective use of resources.

And finally, the long term growth effects of slavery seem to be largely negative. Here (by Nathan Nunn):

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nunn/files/domestic_slavery.pdf

[DMC]

Yep, it's "leftist hipsterism" to point out I don't give a shit what Immanuel Kant has to say when it comes to dealing with systemic and institutional racism.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

42 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

also kind of hilarious that you use the Smith college example because from what I've seen most leftists don't support what happened at Smith at all.  

From the NYT article:

Rahsaan Hall, racial justice director for the A.C.L.U. of Massachusetts and Ms. Kanoute’s lawyer, cautioned against drawing too much from the investigative report, as subconscious bias is difficult to prove. Nor was he particularly sympathetic to the accused workers.

“It’s troubling that people are more offended by being called racist than by the actual racism in our society,” he said. “Allegations of being racist, even getting direct mailers in their mailbox, is not on par with the consequences of actual racism.

How should that comment be parsed?

 

[DMC]

So there's some progress on "studying" reparations and confronting institutional racism within the Biden administration:

Quote

"We have to start breaking down systemic racism and barriers that have held people of color back and especially African-Americans," he said. "[W]e have to do stuff now."

What's next: Richmond pointed to a Biden executive action "breaking down barriers in housing, making sure that African-Americans can pass down wealth through homeownership, that their homes are not valued less than homes in different communities just because of the neighborhood it's in."

"We don't want to wait on a study," he said. "We're going to start acting now."

I post this here because - clearly - the focus should not be on the impact of slavery upon its descendants, but rather the intent of the government that profited from it.  I mean, c'mon, obviously no one alive "intends" to enslave anybody, so such a focus on "impact" is just leftist hipsterism.  Our attention must be directed towards the victimization of white people that may occasionally receive unfair treatment as "racists" - certainly not this little bump in history.  Because that's what's fair.

[Larry of the Lawn]

On 2/27/2021 at 11:43 AM, OldGimletEye said:

For one, do you really think 90% percent of the population got rich off 10% of the population? In addition, if talented people are being put into low wage jobs, when they could be in higher productive jobs, matching their skills, that seems to me an economic loss. Its not an effective use of resources.

And finally, the long term growth effects of slavery seem to be largely negative. Here (by Nathan Nunn):

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nunn/files/domestic_slavery.pdf

For one thing, I think it's a reach to interpret or need to interpret her statement as "the only source of".  Secondly, black people have probably only started to see fair compensation for their labor in the last 20 years or so.  If their white counterparts have been paid more, then American wealth has literally been being built on the unpaid labor of black people. 

If the long term growth effects of slavery seem to be mostly negative, would you care to speculate as the whether or not those effects have been relatively worse for black people than white people?  Come on.  

On 2/27/2021 at 12:27 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

From the NYT article:

 

 

Cool, that's one guy at the ACLU.  Everywhere I've looked for reactions on this "the left" has been highly critical of Smith's handling of this situation.  Especially two and a half years later.  

That sucks that Blair got nasty messages and was harassed as a racist.  It's shitty that Kanoute seems to have exaggerated what happened and misidentified the janitor.

It also kind of sucks, I'd imagine, to be a black student / instructor at a rich white college and have security called on you for eating lunch and studying in one of the dorm lounges.  Especially, when, you know black people get murdered by the police over stuff like that.  

Smith fucked up by telling their employees to call security on a student studying and eating lunch in the wrong area, and then acting like the employees did something wrong when they did what they were told to do.

This thread should probably just be called White Fragility: a few times that trying to be aware of racism has gone wrong, and employers have thrown employees under the bus to save face.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

It also kind of sucks, I'd imagine, to be a black student / instructor at a rich white college and have security called on you for eating lunch and studying in one of the dorm lounges.  Especially, when, you know black people get murdered by the police over stuff like that.  

It sucks but it ignores the fundamental fact that she was told college age students weren’t supposed to be in that cafeteria for rational reasons.  And after being told kept going to that cafeteria then exaggerated her experience... why?

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It sucks but it ignores the fundamental fact that she was told college age students weren’t supposed to be in that cafeteria for rational reasons.  And after being told kept going to that cafeteria then exaggerated her experience... why?

This didn't happen, as far as I can tell. The NYT article makes it sound like this all happened at once, so, the cafeteria worker tells her she isn't technically supposed to use that building, but then served her anyway, then she goes into the adjoining lounge to eat and security shows up sometime later, after a janitor called them.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This didn't happen, as far as I can tell. The NYT article makes it sound like this all happened at once, so, the cafeteria worker tells her she isn't technically supposed to use that building, but then served her anyway, then she goes into the adjoining lounge to eat and security shows up sometime later, after a janitor called them.

 

Why did she exaggerate her experience?

(apologies for misreading the facts)

[Larry of the Lawn]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why did she exaggerate her experience?

To be clear, I'm not even sure she did, I wrote that to qualify that the report for the investigation (which Smith paid for) didn't find any evidence of a "year long pattern of discrimination" towards black students at the school.

This whole thing sounds like a pretty shitty misunderstanding.

An employee tells her she isn't supposed to be there (in that cafeteria), so she leaves and goes into an adjoining lounge, and then when security shows up she assumes that employee was involved in the security call?  It's not that big a leap, it's a pretty reasonable assumption.  Or when she hears it was a janitor and assumes it was the janitor she saw there earlier?  Probably not great to make those accusations on facebook, without verifying who called security.  The school fucked up by not defending its employees, and explaining what happened, which likely would have cleared up a lot of this.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

To be clear, I'm not even sure she did, I wrote that to qualify that the report for the investigation (which Smith paid for) didn't find any evidence of a "year long pattern of discrimination" towards black students at the school.

This whole thing sounds like a pretty shitty misunderstanding.

An employee tells her she isn't supposed to be there (in that cafeteria), so she leaves and goes into an adjoining lounge, and then when security shows up she assumes that employee was involved in the security call?  It's not that big a leap.  Or when she hears it was a janitor and assumes it was the janitor she saw there earlier?  Probably not great to make those accusations on facebook, without verifying who called security.  The school fucked up by not defending its employees, and explaining what happened, which likely would cleared up a lot of this.

 

Yes.  The school fucked up.  Does this student bear no responsibility?

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes.  The school fucked up.  Does this student bear no responsibility?

For what?  Eating in an empty lounge?  For the employees quitting their jobs?  For not apologizing to the cafeteria worker and janitor?  It's not even clear when she even found out the cafeteria worker wasn't involved.  Maybe it would have come out if the cafeteria worker had attended the mediation she was invited to, but she declined because she thought it would be admitting guilt.

[Larry of the Lawn]

FYI, you can read the investigative Smith commissioned here:

https://www.smith.edu/news/campus-police-call

 

there's a pdf of the report and then another of exhibits, including the social media posts.  Kanoute did NOT immediately identify who the caller was, and then after she mistakenly ID'd the one janitor she took down the picture and immediately apologized.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

FYI, you can read the investigative Smith commissioned here:

https://www.smith.edu/news/campus-police-call

 

there's a pdf of the report and then another of exhibits, including the social media posts.  Kanoute did NOT immediately identify who the caller was, and then after she mistakenly ID'd the one janitor she took down the picture and immediately apologized.  

 

 

 

 

 

Glad to hear it.

[OldGimletEye]

On 3/1/2021 at 8:30 AM, larrytheimp said:

For one thing, I think it's a reach to interpret or need to interpret her statement as "the only source of".  Secondly, black people have probably only started to see fair compensation for their labor in the last 20 years or so.  If their white counterparts have been paid more, then American wealth has literally been being built on the unpaid labor of black people. 

If the long term growth effects of slavery seem to be mostly negative, would you care to speculate as the whether or not those effects have been relatively worse for black people than white people?  Come on. 

You come one. I think you are reaching here.

1. DiAngelo is a big girl. She doesn't need your help to interpret her comments. She didn't qualify her statement, one bit.

2.Your argument seems to be that all the economic losses due to slavery were simply absorbed by the descendant's of slaves and didn't affect others. I think that is highly unlikely to be the case. There are good reasons to think that one of the long term negative consequences of slavery is it impedes investment in public goods(both physical and human), which likely harms everybody. Furthermore slavery probably impedes private capital investment. Surely it's true that the descendants of the enslaved were harmed the most. But that doesn't mean that slavery made everyone else wealthier. If the US had outlawed slavery in 1776, there aren't strong reasons to think it would be poorer as a country.
 

3. DiAngelos views are quite common on the left. Several left wing pundits have made similar claims, like for instance Jake Silverstein of the NYT and others. Their claims don't stand up when scrutinized. Karl Smith explains further:

https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/how-slavery-hurt-the-u-s-economy

Quote

The economics of slavery were probably detrimental to the rise of U.S. manufacturing and almost certainly toxic to the economy of the South. In short: The U.S. succeeded in spite of slavery, not because of it.

 

Quote

Slave labor was no match for canals, railroads, steel mills and shipyards.

 

[OldGimletEye]

On 3/1/2021 at 6:42 AM, DMC said:

So there's some progress on "studying" reparations and confronting institutional racism within the Biden administration:

I post this here because - clearly - the focus should not be on the impact of slavery upon its descendants, but rather the intent of the government that profited from it.  I mean, c'mon, obviously no one alive "intends" to enslave anybody, so such a focus on "impact" is just leftist hipsterism.  Our attention must be directed towards the victimization of white people that may occasionally receive unfair treatment as "racists" - certainly not this little bump in history.  Because that's what's fair.

Yes, I now see the the light. Because clearly, in order to fix these issues, it's quite necessary to fuck over people like Jackie Blair.
What a profound insight.
And you still haven't told us how you would have handled Blair's case. But, at this point, I think we can hazard a guess. You would have thrown her under the bus. But, it would be okay, because you would have used all the right buzzwords, like "reconciliation and healing".

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And you still haven't told us how you would have handled Blair's case.

I haven't addressed how I'd "handle" any of your cases because my entire point in responding to this thread is that the OP and subsequent examples are distractions of over-defensive white grievances/victimizations employed to drown out actually addressing systemic and institutional racism.  Which, of course, is exactly what DiAngelo's thesis says fragile white people do - making it pretty hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

[Ephraim'sFruit]

ive personally witnessed people who showed no signs at all of racism be violently attacked by merely being called racist. Without any sort of trial or questions asked such as "is this person really racist?" or "what did they do that was racist?"

So Id argue that having the label of racist isnt merely just a case of unnecessary fragility.

And then there are lesser things that can happen by being called racist like losing jobs, social media access etc etc. 

No its not as bad as being a literal slave but its not just nothing.

I might be more supportive if there was actually an effort or some sort of trial where people can mount a defense or something at least.

 

But then it just gets into like the witch trials of the old days. Theres no way to prove or disprove that someone is racist. 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

You come one. I think you are reaching here.

1. DiAngelo is a big girl. She doesn't need your help to interpret her comments. She didn't qualify her statement, one bit.

2.Your argument seems to be that all the economic losses due to slavery were simply absorbed by the descendant's of slaves and didn't affect others. I think that is highly unlikely to be the case. There are good reasons to think that one of the long term negative consequences of slavery is it impedes investment in public goods(both physical and human), which likely harms everybody. Furthermore slavery probably impedes private capital investment. Surely it's true that the descendants of the enslaved were harmed the most. But that doesn't mean that slavery made everyone else wealthier. If the US had outlawed slavery in 1776, there aren't strong reasons to think it would be poorer as a country.
 

3. DiAngelos views are quite common on the left. Several left wing pundits have made similar claims, like for instance Jake Silverstein of the NYT and others. Their claims don't stand up when scrutinized. Karl Smith explains further:

https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/how-slavery-hurt-the-u-s-economy

 

 

Just because the US economy as a whole may have grown faster without slavery doesn't mean that white wealth wasn't built on the labor of the enslaved and their descendants.  You're using a very narrow interpretation of that statement.  How about black labor in the US post civil war?  Just because 100% of white wealth wasn't stolen from black people doesn't make that statement wrong, all you've demonstrated is that slavery held back the southern economy.  

The link you provided also says this : 

Quote

That said, there is no doubt that slavery made many Southern plantation owners rich and propelled the U.S. cotton industry.
 

Re: Smith

How would you have handled Jackie Blair's situation?  I am genuinely curious.  It's pretty easy to see what Smith did poorly.  What should have happened?

 

 

[polishgenius]

9 hours ago, Ephraim'sFruit said:

Theres no way to prove or disprove that someone is racist. 

That's why, even though intent does matter fucking obviously, it isn't the be all and end all and people should be able to take being told 'what you said was racist' or 'that figure/concept has racist connotations best reconsider the way you're using that' without flipping out that they're being called racist. It's an infuriating feature of the public discourse- and I've seen it in private argument too of course as I'm sure many have- around the removal from society of racist historical figures or racist tropes that so many defenders of those things aren't defending them for any particular reason but because, it seems like, acknowledging they were wrong would amount to admitting that they had at some point contributed to or enjoyed something racist and they can't handle it.

What happened in the cafeteria thing was obviously fucked up and should have been handled very differently by just about everyone involved. That some people have apparently taken that to mean 'we shouldn't call out racism ever just in case the person in question isn't a literal slave owner' is both bizarre and frankly quite angering.


 

[Ephraim'sFruit]

It is a bad thing to be called racist. You can get a mob angry very quickly if it suspects racism. Of course people are going to not want to be publicly known as that.

Its like a modern day Scarlett Letter or something.