According to "Anti-racists", MLK's dream of "judging people by the content of their character" is now a racist dog-whistle.

Not sure when, but eventually the shoe must drop and people realize this so-called "Anti-racism" is an incredibly racist ideology. This is not progress.

Relevant YouTube video. https://youtu.be/Ev373c7wSRg

Sadly that seems we are at the peak of fake news era. Where there is no reason, no logic, only facades of 'good intentions'.

Its the ultimate divide and conquer.

Let the poor fight amongst themselves while the corporations get even stronger grip over democracy's neck.

That’s a glib interpretation. And you’re pushing the same anti- affirmative action viewpoint that has maintained racial inequities.

Certainly the effectiveness of affirmative action is independent of a consensus around affirmative action's effectiveness.

Affirmative action is a widespread policy and has been for decades. Is its effectiveness now conditioned on consensus that the policy is effective? That is a ridiculous rhetorical trap: If anyone expresses mere skepticism that affirmative action has not been effective, then that person is by construction the cause of its failure; conversely, if everyone does agree that affirmative action is effective, yet disparities have persisted (by just about any measure), then everyone is lying to themselves and one another in order to achieve a political consensus that perpetuates the struggles of black Americans (note a parallel to the rhetoric from supporters of Jim Crow, "the peculiar institution" and various progressive "scientific racism" programs like eugenics). I'd consider the latter scenario downright evil.

Affirmative action as currently implemented based primarily on race is just as bad, shifting the inequality of opportunity at best. White people of low socioeconomic status are disadvantaged while people of color with high socioeconomic status unfairly benefit. The idea of affirmative action and “anti-racist” policies are fundamentally fine, but it’s almost completely socially unacceptable to disagree with the popular strategies.

Plus it can pit those low income groups against each other in favor of self-degrading white people in higher academia that do indeed seem to be there without too much merit.

Racial inequity is socially unacceptable. That’s the whole damn point.

The question is how you fix it though, and not all answers to that question are acceptable either.

Where is the evidence that being against affirmative action is responsible for maintaining racial inequities? Because that is quite a extraordinary claim, given that we have maintained racial inequities far longer than affirmative action has been popular.

How can we provide economic remedy for the centuries of economic warfare against Black Americans if any remedy specifically addressed to Black people is considered 'racist'? How else do we close the black-white wealth gap legacy of legal racism in America if we're not allowed to do anything to help Black people specifically out of fear of "reverse racism"?

Can we worry about getting Black America the economic remedies they deserve after being shut out of wealth for centuries before we pretend we're worried about "black supremacy"?

https://qz.com/1368251/black-income-is-half-that-of-white-ho...

This is a good question. I would argue you do it by creating policies to help all low-income families, irregardless of identity.

Many government policies aren't just systemically racist (some indeed are), but are also systemically "class-ist". Meaning they are designed to keep poor people poor and rich people rich. If you segment a population (say Black communities), they will become disproportionately more poor over time, and if you segment your stats by race it then appears to be specifically targeting that group. In fact you can find similar stats for Mexican/Latino-americans, who are also victim to the same policies.

So if we focus on just fixing Black issues specifically, we are now ignoring another minority group. Why doesn't Google show "Mexican-owned" businesses, or "Asian-owned", or "Female-owned" businesses? This isn't progress, nor is it useful. Perhaps more useful identifier would be "Community-owned" or "Low-income-family-run establishment", so if people are really interested in helping these poor communities, they can do so universally. Segmenting ourselves by racial or gender identity does not solve the problem, and is in fact guaranteed to make things worse in the long run.

As a progressive I am frustrated that people who call themselves progressive are now promoting regressive racially charged policies. This is not what progress should look like.

I should think, perhaps by helping individual people instead. If someone is poor then someone might help them, I suppose. Then it won't be racist, it will be individualistic, it would seem.

Hiring someone for the job should be decided on if they are competent at that job, not on other criteria such as black, white, men, women, taller, religious, etc, unless that is relevant for this kind of job (such as acting in a movie, perhaps).

The challenge to the idea of hiring the most competent person (I know you didn't specify "most"), is that people from disadvantaged backgrounds may not have had the opportunity to become competent at them due to systemic oppression.

What I generally don't see discussed is the hard part of the problem. A business should do their best to hire the best person to complete a job, but how do you do that while bringing up disadvantaged people so they have a fair chance to compete?

I think since America's centuries of legalized racism affects every Black American living today, every Black American deserves some form of remedy. I also think it's best for America long term (in terms of stability and growth) to make things right with Black America including economically. It's not good for America's stability to let the racial wealth gap stay the same as it was in the 1950s days of legal racism.

Why don't you just say it in plain English: You want cash reparations. At least you did in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24005344

> It's not good for America's stability to let the racial wealth gap stay the same as it was in the 1950s days of legal racism.

I think there are few policies more likely to (further) destabilize American politics than cash payments to people with a certain skin color.

I'm in favor of cash payments and other investment for Black Americans to correct the centuries of extensive, targeted legalized racism against Black America. We need a Marshall Plan for Black America badly. Build up Black America after centuries of war against them like we rebuilt Japan and Europe after World War 2.

I agree with you that there would be a severe political backlash, especially among members of Trump's base. I still think significant investment into Black communities is badly needed regardless of the backlash and is in the best interest of the US in terms of social stability and economic growth. It's not good strategically to let wealth gaps stay the same or grow, it seems to increase the risk of conflict to let such massive inequality remain.

It is vexing. We were supposed to progress to the point that a person’s skin color was a matter of complete indifference. Now it is in the forefront of even the most petty and insignificant matters. This is not going to end well.

I don't think black America's economic situation is insignificant though. The racial wealth gap is still huge and hasn't changed much since racism was legal. It will take a lot of conscious, directed action in favor of black people to provide economic remedy for slavery/Jim Crow/redlining and other systemic racism.

https://qz.com/1368251/black-income-is-half-that-of-white-ho...

the whole point is for us to fight amongst ourselves and to sow division.

I don't see how Google adding a black-owned business label might encourage a previously non-racist person to now want to 'fight' black people or feel ill will towards black people.

Well, it might be unintentional. Hiding those labels by default will make it better to avoid such an unintentional bias, I think. I don't care if they are black or not, but I don't want to be unintentionally biased.

The white racists are going to avoid the black-owned businesses, and vice-versa, encouraging further self-segregation.

You really don’t see how elevating a single race over others might be an issue?

I think it's acceptable to elevate Black people to be on the same level as other races in America as opposed to disadvantaged. I actually think Black America is owed a lot more than what Google is doing here after centuries of legalized racism and being shut out of building wealth, but that's the US government that owes them.

"Other races" don't get special labels on their businesses.

Putting tags like "Women Owned" de-legitimizes the owner. It makes women owned business seem stigmatized, as if it's unusual or especially notable. It strips them of their dignity.

And native peoples don’t get labels on their businesses, despite centuries of mistreatment. Growth of Hispanic-owned businesses has been slow In the US, and it’s likely caused by socioeconomic conditions. Should these groups get a special label? Who gets to decide which groups get a label?

I'm strongly in favor of remedies for the harm caused to Native Americans as well, I was happy to see half of Oklahoma declared a reservation legally recently. They are definitely also a group who was unfairly targeted and deserves specific remedy too.

So to answer the original question, you think that you should be the one to decide?

Can you clarify what "elevating" looks like from your perspective?

And considering how many immigrants there starting out with literally nothing (one example) how we should pick one race to help but not all terribly disadvantaged people?

The only way they can be on the same level is if they are not labeled based on the race of the owner. Emphasizing black ownership or any other attribute can only either add advantage over other groups or be a disadvantage. There is no good outcome possible other than it doesn’t affect anything, at which point what’s the point?

I think this can happen indirectly and unintentionally as people increasingly segregate into tribes.

> Am I now supposed to consider the skin color of the business owner before shopping there?

Yes! You’re getting it!

Why though? Wouldn't that be racist?

"Not seeing" race denies systemic racism.

https://www.oprahmag.com/life/relationships-love/a32824297/c...