NNick posted:Even if we had a European style welfare state, hell even if we had the best welfare state in the world, that would even begin to solve racism in this country. Racism goes far beyond economics. That seems fairly evident given that European countries with expansive and much more egalitarian welfare states than the United States, and markedly smaller racial problems, still have hit upon diminishing returns with that model. On the other hand, reparations are just another species of economic 'solution', but they're certainly just and certainly can't hurt. A social recognition of their rightness would be a much more difficult achievement to bring off than paying for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:White americans who resent black americans are going to do so no matter what, their feelings are completely irrelevant. Fortunately they have less political power as a group as time passes, such that we can actually start addressing racial economic inequality through proactive government policy without white americans completely freaking out. Why should a poor black man living in the South receive more money than a poor white man living in the south?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What is the difference? One involves giving money to black people, and the other one is called reparations. One does not determine who receives assistance based on their genes, skin or cultural identity. One is not concerned with arcane concepts of justice or moral debt, but rather what is best for everyone now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:How are US welfare programs racist? Many of them leave the qualifications up to the local (usually state) governments, which can make standards that exclude minorities more than whites. Whorelord posted:Why should a poor black man living in the South receive more money than a poor white man living in the south? Because a poor black man doesn't earn as much as a poor white man at his job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:How are US welfare programs racist? There's tons of examples. Two I can think of off the top of my head are the 1932 HOLC and 1996 PRWORA acts. The Home Ownership Loan Corporation was a New Deal era policy that created the long term amortized mortgage - as in, the financial structure which allowed Joe Average to buy a home on a factory salary and pay for it over his working lifetime. Prior to this, home mortgages in America were usually very short and had a huge down payment, and no protracted foreclosure process. The HOLC allowed for millions of Americans to buy government guaranteed mortgages and begin to build wealth in the form of home equity. Except... minorities weren't allowed. Every city in America had maps produced which showed where good, hardworking, honest people lived and where troubled, less credit-worthy people lived. These assessments were made on the basis of housing quality. Here's a map of Philadelphia. I'll give you one guess who lived in the areas where the housing was judged as "Hazardous". People who lived in these areas were extremely unlikely to recieve guaranteed mortgages. The 1996 Personal Responsibility Work Something Recovery? Act also known as 'Welfare Reform' basically put time limits and work requirements on welfare. You could only collect welfare for a few years and, after this point, you were officially regarded as a moocher. This really lit a fire under the asses of people who already had every reason in the world to try to seek full time employment and educational advancement. It was based on the common myth of the Welfare Queen, a person whose stereotypical ethnicity I don't need to describe but who basically lives off the system by having kids. Turns out people like this are exceedingly rare compared to poor individuals and families. Prior to this point one of the whole points of long term welfare was to assist mothers in providing for their families. Turns out raising kids and being a parent is pretty much a full time job! But apparently single moms don't work hard enough so they also had to get jobs. Three guesses how well a part time low skill job pays a single mother. The whole thing was an excuse to stop subsidizing poor families without special needs out of concerns they would be 'dependent' on government aid. Unlike HOLC, PRWORA wasn't explicitly racist but it has had signifcantly harder impact on nonwhite families. One of the specific aims of PRWORA was to end 'out of wedlock births' like these are especially sinful - ignoring the idea that poor mothers may have valid reasons to delay or defer marriage that don't revolve around welfare fraud, and that marital status is not at all an indicator of family structure or the presence of a father in children's lives. But this focus on births to single mothers is certainly racially coded as some kind of horrid underclass, which can only be prevented by starving them out apparently. I mean there's just tons of examples out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
My reparations program. Announce an official government study to examine the long term effects of racism, slavery and the expropriation of wealth from the black community. Make sure everyone understands it's simply an attempt to tally the sins of the nation. Make a list of everyone who still complains about it. Shoot them and take their stuff. The end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:Why should a poor black man living in the South receive more money than a poor white man living in the south? The poor white man has more opportunity. He is far more likely to be hired, even with a criminal record or lower educational attainment. One of the reasons welfare exists is to offset differential opportunity. This presupposes though some kind of litmus test for relative blackness to recieve benefits, which, again, is a racist idea obsessed with blood purity. The better idea is simply to distribute more income based on a census tract or other granular jurisdiction's demographics, which would have the added benefit of encouraging desegregation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:A welfare state that doesn't exclude racial minorities is pretty much reparations, yeah. But we can go further and benefit racial minorities more than the racial majority, if we will it. What's the point of this? I could agree with this argument when it comes to the leftover segregation era communities that are extremely poor with horrible education and infrastructure available to people. Those areas should be invested in more heavily than other places. But if you have two kids in a city, from equal economic backgrounds, one white, one black, why should one get an advantage over the other?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:The poor white man has more opportunity. He is far more likely to be hired, even with a criminal record or lower educational attainment. One of the reasons welfare exists is to offset differential opportunity. Is there much research on this? I don't doubt it, but I'd like to see some definitive numbers and case studies that demonstrate scale when it comes to a white person and a black person, or a black person and other minorities, of identical backgrounds, having inequitable opportunities provided.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:But if you have two kids in a city, from equal economic backgrounds, one white, one black, why should one get an advantage over the other? I agree, it's not equitable. Which is why we should eliminate the advantage the white child has by happenstance of birth and bring the black child up to the same level. Volkerball posted:Is there much research on this? I don't doubt it, but I'd like to see some definitive numbers and case studies that demonstrate scale when it comes to a white person and a black person, or a black person and other minorities, of identical backgrounds, having inequitable opportunities provided. Here's one starting point I found: http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/1998/03/spring-education-darling-hammond
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Is there much research on this? I don't doubt it, but I'd like to see some definitive numbers and case studies that demonstrate scale when it comes to a white person and a black person, or a black person and other minorities, of identical backgrounds, having inequitable opportunities provided. for one thing, you're less likely to be hired with a black name than you are with a white name, as your resume is likely to be passed over for your name having Overwhelming Blackness the paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf a politifact thing about it: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:What's the point of this? I could agree with this argument when it comes to the leftover segregation era communities that are extremely poor with horrible education and infrastructure available to people. Those areas should be invested in more heavily than other places. But if you have two kids in a city, from equal economic backgrounds, one white, one black, why should one get an advantage over the other? Because at some point you have to acknowledge the disadvantages that aren't economic in nature that limits mobility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I agree, it's not equitable. Which is why we should eliminate the advantage the white child has by happenstance of birth and bring the black child up to the same level. This seems to based around this being the major problem the paper is addressing. quote:Two-thirds of minority students still attend schools that are predominantly minority, most of them located in central cities and funded well below those in neighboring suburban districts. It goes on to say that minorities outside of those areas tend to perform within the average of everyone else who goes to their school. Obviously a major problem, but it's not one addressed by singling out African Americans and providing them benefits to sort of balance out the discrimination that effects their ability to get a good education. It's by pushing for them to be given a good education just like anyone else in this country. Otherwise you're not addressing the problem. Rodatose posted:for one thing, you're less likely to be hired with a black name than you are with a white name, as your resume is likely to be passed over for your name having Overwhelming Blackness This is more what I was looking for. Obviously, the ideal solution here would be for companies to be dissuaded from doing this. I can see how it's hard to legislate against it, tho. Companies don't exactly write "REJECTED: ghetto rear end name" on the cover sheet and send the resume back to the applicant. But Is there no reform to be had on that front? You have to concede that before you could resort to some sort of off-setting benefit to account for it. Better to treat the disease than to prescribe something for the symptoms so that victims can "live with it." And if not, then I think it's important to look at how all minorities are presented with these issues, because I tend to think some of the smaller ones don't have the influence to submit racism against them as a national issue to be discussed by the left and the right like African Americans can, before coming to some sort of agreement on what should be provided to people to give them a veneer of equality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It goes on to say that minorities outside of those areas tend to perform within the average of everyone else who goes to their school. Obviously a major problem, but it's not one addressed by singling out African Americans and providing them benefits to sort of balance out the discrimination that effects their ability to get a good education. It's by pushing for them to be given a good education just like anyone else in this country. Otherwise you're not addressing the problem. Which is why you increase funding to predominantly minority schools, or schools which are underfunded due to inequitable fund allocation systems. It's weird that you would point to an inequalality between institutions and then ask what the advantage is of funding persons in the institution. Just fund the institution more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Which is why you increase funding to predominantly minority schools, or schools which are underfunded due to inequitable fund allocation systems. It's weird that you would point to an inequalality between institutions and then ask what the advantage is of funding persons in the institution. Just fund the institution more. I don't disagree with that at all, but extra funding for those institutions (provided those institutions then perform on par with the national average) negates the need to also fund the students on that particular front, as that same paper shows that when provided with equal opportunity, African Americans become of equal academic capability. That's what I was getting at with the whole "what's the point of providing students with added benefits to circumvent the effects from only being provided opportunity to poo poo education" thing. While this is obviously a race based thing and leftover legacy from segregation, you could apply this same situation to underfunded schools that aren't predominantly minority. All public schools should held to a standard, and schools below it should get additional focus and funds until their issues are addressed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Texas has what's known as the "Robin Hood Plan" where tax revenue from richer areas were redistributed to poorer areas, specifically for the purpose of school funding. This has not resulted in equality of education between those rich and poor areas. Part of the reason why it failed is due to existing racial biases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
I have a little more faith in the federal government than I do loving Texas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I don't disagree with that at all, but extra funding for those institutions (provided those institutions then perform on par with the national average) negates the need to also fund the students on that particular front, as that same paper shows that when provided with equal opportunity, African Americans become of equal academic capability. That's what I was getting at with the whole "what's the point of providing students with added benefits to circumvent the effects from only being provided opportunity to poo poo education" thing. While this is obviously a race based thing and leftover legacy from segregation, you could apply this same situation to underfunded schools that aren't predominantly minority. All public schools should held to a standard, and schools below it should get additional focus and funds until their issues are addressed. Sure, but we could provide baseline funding + 10% for majority-minority schools to hasten closing the inequality gap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Sure, but we could provide baseline funding + 10% for majority-minority schools to hasten closing the inequality gap. Volkerball posted:All public schools should held to a standard, and schools below it should get additional focus and funds until their issues are addressed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It's super weird that acknowledging and seeking to correct the predatory system of labor exploitation inherent in American capitalism is an essential part of the socialist platform but we're not even going to talk about the predatory system of racial exploitation that is inherent in American capitalism, that would just be a little too much and too alienating to be electable. Surely the two are pretty much linked? Race is just another part of the problem of people looking for an excuse as to why other people are less valuable than themselves and deserve to be less happy. It's stupid for the same reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Surely the two are pretty much linked? Race is just another part of the problem of people looking for an excuse as to why other people are less valuable than themselves and deserve to be less happy. They're related but not interchangeable. You can fix your economic issues on paper while still having severe racial bias. You can also (in theory) solve your racial issue while keeping economic conditions bad but that would require massive transfers of wealth to minorities from non-rich people and/or deliberately avoiding transferring wealth from minorities to rich people, so it's not as likely. If your hiring manager rejects people based on (perceived) race of the applicant, there's nothing you can really do about it without looking at race.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
True, but I would hope that when people try to address inequality they would consider both of those. Or even compensate for both. The goal of "everyone should be able to live well" should be to ensure that everyone lives well, regardless of why they currently aren't. Essentially I would hope that economic support, on the basis of economic poverty, would also address many practical aspects of racial inequality, because if you can't get a job because of your race, then you would get support because of the economic situation that puts you in. It might not change attitudes much which does suck, but changing attitudes is difficult in general, not really sure how you best go about doing that. But certainly in the short term you can hamstring a lot of the practical effects of racism with economic aid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:All public schools should held to a standard, and schools below it should get additional focus and funds until their issues are addressed. Opposite of our hyper capitalistic school systems which punished problems, and addresses them by destroying them. Also good luck changing opinions and attitudes. People suck. The goal is making them accept a result without them taking up arms. BlueBlazer fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:True, but I would hope that when people try to address inequality they would consider both of those. Or even compensate for both. The goal of "everyone should be able to live well" should be to ensure that everyone lives well, regardless of why they currently aren't. The problem is that "well" is a subjective analysis. Like the federal standard of poverty right now is probably too low, but if you use that as you minimum for wellness then you can still have minorities occupying the bottom of society. And even beyond that, there's an idea that minorities shouldn't just be cared for, but should be equal members of society. What this means is that it's still an issue if they're predominantly in the bottom 20%, even if that bottom 20% is reasonably comfortable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
It is subjective but that's a problem you need to solve regardless, any policy is going to be subjective and run the risk of being insufficient, just have to try to avoid that. I guess my thinking is that a proper social support program would be one that greatly reduces the gap between upper and lower percentiles, so that being in the bottom 20%, while not ideal, is not a bad way to be. And that from there, your best efforts might be devoted to tackling the actual social motivations for prejudice rather than trying to patch over it with money. I guess I feel like a more universal economic solution would be good for everyone, and be good in the longer term, and also that social segregation probably won't be hugely helped by economic support. I worry that targeted economic support might make the social resentment worse, and create public backlash which would hamstring any such program in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I guess my thinking is that a proper social support program would be one that greatly reduces the gap between upper and lower percentiles, so that being in the bottom 20%, while not ideal, is not a bad way to be. And that from there, your best efforts might be devoted to tackling the actual social motivations for prejudice rather than trying to patch over it with money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
I feel like the people in this thread are largely tip toeing around the issue of race which ultimately makes a lot of these suggestions junk and unhelpful in the long run. From what i have seen, all of these economic aid things never really seem to help minorities at all and i think it speaks to a bigger problem in that we are so afraid to confront our race problem that we have to play all kinds of rope a dope games to attempt tp edge our way around it instead of addressing them head on. Most of the discussion in this thread has been about poverty, which is nice and good, but there are many things that are not related to poverty such as wells fargo discriminating on loans for example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Most of the discussion in this thread has been about poverty, which is nice and good, but there are many things that are not related to poverty such as wells fargo discriminating on loans for example. Investigate it, figure out who is doing it, lock em up. I don't know how to deal with that kind of poo poo except in a reactionary fashion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I feel like the people in this thread are largely tip toeing around the issue of race which ultimately makes a lot of these suggestions junk and unhelpful in the long run. From what i have seen, all of these economic aid things never really seem to help minorities at all and i think it speaks to a bigger problem in that we are so afraid to confront our race problem that we have to play all kinds of rope a dope games to attempt tp edge our way around it instead of addressing them head on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
No one's tip toeing around race, but if you think welfare-but-only-for-minorities isn't going to create resentment and actually increase the race problem in the US, you are delusional & naive. You're better off just helping 'poor' or 'disadvantaged', then swatting down discrimination as it happens and hey, turns out that'll actually be helping minorities the most, because they're the victims, how did that happen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No one's tip toeing around race, but if you think welfare-but-only-for-minorities isn't going to create resentment and actually increase the race problem in the US, you are delusional & naive. You're better off just helping 'poor' or 'disadvantaged', then swatting down discrimination as it happens and hey, turns out that'll actually be helping minorities the most, because they're the victims, how did that happen? So basically, we need to sneakily help out black people because racism is so huge in this country that if we do it directly, racists will react badly to it? And again, the problem is inequity between the black and white population.Would your suggestion do anything to address that at all--except for the magical step where you somehow combat all discrimination in these programs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
It's not about being sneaky, but granting legitimacy. Experiments with chimps & human shows that spite is a very powerful and uniquely human motivator, and that this motivator actually serves a positive social function - it aids cooperation. Rightly or wrongly, that kind of policy will generate spite, and it absolutely will give more power to racists, by increasing the number of racists. If you do not take this fact into account, you are going to set yourself up for failure. Remember, human beings aren't rational, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a fact you need to accept. About inequity: you'll never solve the inequity problem without abolishing private ownership of the means of production. But the idea that you will somehow have the power to redistribute them along racial lines, and you then refuse to create a society without class in the process, is just absurd. If you have the power to solve racial inequity, you can just solve class inequity and call it a day. That and, honestly, I'm not seeing the point in creating a society where the oppressor class is multiracial and gender equal. Why should I care? edit: but, of course, that's the marxist view of capital ownership. If you honestly believe that Anyone Can Make It, then simply presenting all minorities with the same opportunity will give you your society. If, when presented with the same opportunity, that still doesn't happen, well that's just disproven the meritocracy view of wealth hasn't it? rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's not about being sneaky, but granting legitimacy. Experiments with chimps & human shows that spite is a very powerful and uniquely human motivator, and that this motivator actually serves a positive social function - it aids cooperation. Making blithe reference to social psychology research is silly; those sorts of experiments are incredibly difficult to do and stating that as a fact is ridiculous. quote:Rightly or wrongly, that kind of policy will generate spite, and it absolutely will give more power to racists, by increasing the number of racists. If you do not take this fact into account, you are going to set yourself up for failure. Remember, human beings aren't rational, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a fact you need to accept. Again, you're stating a hypothesis as fact--do you understand you're doing this, or do you really believe what you just said to be a fact? quote:About inequity: you'll never solve the inequity problem without abolishing private ownership of the means of production. But the idea that you will somehow have the power to redistribute them along racial lines, and you then refuse to create a society without class in the process, is just absurd. If you have the power to solve racial inequity, you can just solve class inequity and call it a day. That and, honestly, I'm not seeing the point in creating a society where the oppressor class is multiracial and gender equal. Why should I care? You do not actually see why a society free of racism would be, all other things being equal, be superior to one with racism? We are also not talking about redistributing the means of production. Did you read the Coates piece? quote:edit: but, of course, that's the marxist view of capital ownership. If you honestly believe that Anyone Can Make It, then simply presenting all minorities with the same opportunity will give you your society. If, when presented with the same opportunity, that still doesn't happen, well that's just disproven the meritocracy view of wealth hasn't it? No clue what you're talking about here, sorry. Can you restate it? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So basically, we need to sneakily help out black people because racism is so huge in this country that if we do it directly, racists will react badly to it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
A society free of racism is perfectly capable of perpetuating racial inequity because ~social mobility is a myth~, especially these days. How rich you are strongly depends on how rich your parents were, ergo, past exploitation continues into the present. If you have the personal power to reverse that kind of exploitation, you have the personal power to create Full Communism.Obdicut posted:Again, you're stating a hypothesis as fact--do you understand you're doing this, or do you really believe what you just said to be a fact?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If the assumption is that a universal program can't be instituted in a manner in which racial discrimination can be (mostly) avoided, then why would you expect a program directly targeted at minorities to be successful? Did you read the Coates piece? Part of the point of it is that the program directly targeting minorities is an acknowledgement of wrongs. rudatron posted:
I'm disputing that you have offered any real evidence that the program would cause spite, I'm disputing that spite has the social purpose that you did. You know, your whole argument. quote:Or are you disputing that, somehow, lashing out against an explicitly racial policy won't result in people becoming more racist? Present your argument. You are the one making a positive claim, that people would lash out. quote:A society free of racism is perfectly capable of perpetuating racial inequity because ~social mobility is a myth~, especially these days. How rich you are strongly depends on how rich your parents were, ergo, past exploitation continues into the present. I wonder if that is possibly part of why we are proposing to address that wealth inequity through reparations. You didn't answer if you read the Coates piece, did you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
It would cause spite and if you truly need evidence of that (really?) well I refer you to any civil rights progress in America's history and the fact that reparations polls in like the teens or twenties and also common sense. Doesn't suffice as a reason not to do it of course but reasonable people should agree on that part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:It would cause spite and if you truly need evidence of that (really?) well I refer you to any civil rights progress in America's history and the fact that reparations polls in like the teens or twenties and also common sense. Doesn't suffice as a reason not to do it of course but reasonable people should agree on that part. Did you read the Coates article? The idea is not simply "Suddenly, overnight, give money to black people". Also I'd like to note this logic says that every single thing that is targeted to help minorities will only increase racism. So I guess racism is just permanent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Did you read the Coates article? *edit: Actually, I don't really want this, I just wanted to get you past the retarded foot-dragging scorched earth "it will cause spite? PROVE IT?" stance that fucks threads up. pangstrom fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:So basically, we need to sneakily help out black people because racism is so huge in this country that if we do it directly, racists will react badly to it? You may have more success, politically, getting and maintaining a program that is colourblind and also helps black people, than a program solely designed to help black people. If you can get white people to support a program that helps black people because it also helps out white people, that's still a net benefit. Getting white people to support help for black people because it's the right thing to do is something I don't know how you will achieve, but I don't think it's going to be through trying to push handouts for black people, because that will only give racists/very ignorant people more ammunition and become politically untenable quickly. Yes systemic racism needs addressing, but I don't think you can practically address its effects with targeted welfare, because any such attempt will probably go down in flames and poison the well rather thoroughly. It would have to be a government-wide effort targeted against the people perpetuating systemic racism, possibly with greater enfranchisement of black people to get government support against people in breach of anti-discrimination laws. It's harder to attack catching out people who are demonstrably, statistically, provably denying loans to black people, than it is to attack the nebulous concept of giving handouts to the "undeserving" so I think that might be a better route to go down. Basically I'm saying racism is a social problem that creates economic consequences, and addressing the economic consequences directly without being able to address the social problem first, is going to lead to the social problem beating out any attempt to address it economically. If you can address the economic problem as part of something that has popular support, you can do some good, while trying to tackle the social problem with changes to laws and education and oversight of government. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 14:02
|
|