Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

In Defense of Racism

My defense of racism is quite narrow.  I'm not going to try to defend any sort of institutional racism enforced by national or regional governments like slavery or Jim Crow laws.  That level of racism is unconscionable. Instead, I'm going to focus on the individual, and argue that the primary person the individual racist hurts is himself; and groups of racist individuals, themselves.

In the past I've pointed out that I'm a "romantic racist."  That is, I find Caucasian women more attractive than women of other races.  I call this racism where it counts the most and statistically, it seems that a lot of people of all races suffer from this particular variant of racism. This puts me clearly at level 6 in Bret's Hierarchy of Racism (BHR)tm. Because of my racism, I've reduced my range of opportunities by billions of women. Bummer! On the other hand, what have these billions of women lost? At worst, access to 1 decrepit old guy. In other words, nothing at all. Certainly in this case, racism hurt the racist and nobody else.

Let's say I move up the BHR from level 6 to level 4 and I discriminate, based on race, as either a prospective employee or a prospective employer.  It's the same thing as in the romantic version.  I've substantially reduced the pool of prospective companies or employees and have therefore damaged my prospects as an employee or my company's staff.  Nobody else has really lost anything at all, just access to one employee out of billions or one position at one company out of millions. The impact nearly completely only hurts the racist.

One thing that I find interesting in the racism debate is that in Japan, racism is perfectly legal (note the "JAPANESE People ONLY" in the sign below) and moderately widespread.



But there were plenty of people in Japan willing to take my Yen and so I was able to eat quite well (I love Japanese food, especially Japanese food in Japan).  The vendor pictured above (hypothetically) refused my business but his competitors were quite happy to serve me.  His loss was their gain.  His racism mainly hurt him. Note that his competitors may well be racist too, but for them, profit trumped racism, and that's a good thing.

It's an important point that people trade to make profit and trade brings people together. Indeed, economists use that line of thinking to cast doubt on the alleged gender and racial gaps in wages.  Why would a greedy businessman pass up the opportunity to hire a cheaper woman or minority if the return-on-investment of hiring them was higher than hiring a white male?  Greedy businessmen hiring women and minorities would then drive wages up to the point of having the same ROI as white men.  In other words, you can be greedy or racist/sexist but not both, or, more accurately, for any given hiring decision one motivator inherently trumps the other.  As long as enough businessmen are greedy (and it doesn't take many), wages reach parity.

It's hard to know exactly how pervasive racism is in Japan, but for the purposes of a thought experiment, assume that it's universal; all Japanese feel superior to everybody else. So who does that affect?

In this case, it probably affects the whole world by a little bit since it probably makes trade more difficult. But this is no different than a government restricting trade for whatever reasons governments restrict trade (possibly some of those reasons for some governments are racist).  And Japan would be the most adversely affected in this hypothetical example because it would have more difficulty getting crucial imports such as food and energy.

So now let's say there was a large immigration of whites into this hypothetically ultra-racist Japan.  Let's say those whites were totally racist against the Japanese as well as the Japanese being totally racist against the whites.  However, let's say there was no government institutionalized racism - everyone is still equal before the law.  Then it would be like two separate countries with restricted trade.  It would be better if the racism didn't exist, but it wouldn't be that big of a deal.  Everybody could still do pretty well in their portion of the resulting highly segregated society.

But what if the whites who immigrated started with nothing, perhaps because they were fleeing severe oppression somewhere else? Would they be stuck with nothing forever?  No, they wouldn't. There are a few points to consider for this argument:
  • Once upon a time, wealth and productivity were mostly based on land ownership.  That's simply not true anymore. Looking at the world's wealthiest people, very few, if any, are wealthy because they own a lot of land (for example Jobs, Gates, Ellison, etc.).  So the fact that the white's start out owning no land is immaterial.
  • There are several examples of countries and their peoples starting out with nothing and within two generations becoming wealthy with some help but also some hindrance from the rest of the world. Taiwan is good example.  Just after WWII, their GDP per capita was less than one-tenth that of the United States.  Now they're approaching parity with the United States.  They had help from the United States but a lot of hindrance from the mainland Chinese.  South Korea and Singapore (and Hong Kong to some extent) are similar examples.
  • Taiwan is a small speck of a country with no significant natural resources.  Innovation and hard work were the main factors of their success in building a wealthy society from nothing.
The example of Taiwan (and others) show that a people can pretty much start with nothing and catch up with the first world within a couple of generations.  Thus the whites in the hypothetical example could have caught up with the Japanese even starting with nothing.  Racism by itself, even group racism, as long as it's not institutionalized, cannot keep a people down.  They can always rise to the task and make their own productive and wealthy future.

Even in the case of institutionalized racism, the racist is also hurt according to the economist Tyler Cowen:
I would suggest that most living white Americans would be wealthier had this nation not enslaved African-Americans and thus most whites have lost from slavery too, albeit much much less than blacks have lost. For instance it is generally recognized that freer and fairer polities tend to be wealthier for most of their citizens. (We may disagree about what “fair” means for many issues, but slavery and its legacy are obviously unfair.) 
More specifically, many American whites benefited from hiring African-American labor at discrimination-laden discounted market prices, but many others lost out because it was more costly to trade with African-Americans. That meant fewer good customers, fewer eligible employees, fewer possible business partners, fewer innovators, and so on, all because of slavery and subsequent discrimination. The wealth-destroying effects are surely much larger here, even counting whites alone. And the longer the time horizon, the more likely the dynamic benefits from trade will outweigh the short-run benefits from discriminating against some class of others. 
Empirically, I do not think whites in slavery-heavy regions have had especially impressive per capita incomes.  And a lot of the economic catch-up of the American South came only when the region abandoned Jim Crow. 
In every case, the racist is always hurt.  In the case of non-institutionalized racism, the racist is hurt the most.

Given all that, I've concluded that calling someone racist is sort of like calling someone fat.  Just like being racist, eating too much primarily hurts the person doing the eating.  If the person's not fat, then calling him fatso is pretty silly.  If he is fat, it's just a childish and mostly meaningless and unhelpful insult.

440 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 440 of 440
Harry Eagar said...

'Too many Americans are armed, and will not tolerate mob tyranny.'

Said with complete lack of irony by the admirer of Cliven Bundy.

Harry Eagar said...

'You never do.'

It would be easy enough to show I missed something. Go ahead, show me up.

Harry Eagar said...

'One location, at birth. Not very informative.'

Tell that to the birfers.

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
We have different views on the implication of available evidence, but for whatever reason you can't accept that kind of ambiguity.
---
You could use your other advice (always to quote your words) and try yourself to back up your phrase above with anything I've written.

Clovis said...

Skipper,

---
SFAIK, if I'm not operating a motor vehicle, there is absolutely no requirement for me to carry an ID of any kind.
---
If you are walking and a cop stops by to ask you to identify yourself, he can not ask for any kind of ID?

If you happen to fit the description of a suspect they may be looking for, what is he supposed to do if you can not provide any proof of who you are?

Clovis said...

Skipper,

---
Too many Americans are armed, and will not tolerate mob tyranny.
---
Where do you factor here the point that, if too many Americans are armed, that's equally true for both store owners and mob participants?

I did object to AOG's idea because he looked to imply that guns were forbidden around, but that's not really relevant to why I said his point made no sense. If him, and you by extension, want to make sense on this matter, please answer my question above.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

Your entire response to my quoted observation is based on that. Or, if not, what exactly was your point other than "AOG is wrong"?

As for mobs and store owners and gun ownership, the observation was based on historical data, that such riots and lawlessness occur far more frequently in places with little to no gun ownership. On a more micro level, there is Skipper's specific example of which many more exist. So you seem to be saying reality doesn't make any sense. Well, OK. I suppose this makes no sense either. You must also think the residents of Ferguson themselves make no sense, as they are stocking up on guns in response to these riots.

What you might note is that a mob is a small fraction of the population and generally acting as an oppotunistic bully. Even a small show of force can make it not worth the effort for a mob. This is, of course, the original reason for the Democratic Party to support gun control, so that white mobs wouldn't have to be afraid of going after blacks. The Democratic Party is still encouraging mob violence, as in Ferguson, and so still don't want citizens to be able to defend themselves against it.

Mr. Eagar;

Why should I bother? I've done it multiple times in the past with no effect. But anyway, here is the WSJ bringing it up last year and Breitbar echoing it, which makes at least one Tea Partier going on about it. And here is your boogey man, CIS going on about it 8 years ago.

Harry Eagar said...

Hmmm. That's telling me, I guess. Must be why Perry is sending the militia to the airports.

Oh, wait. That's not where he's sending them.

erp said...

Why should Gov. Perry send militia to the airports. That's where Obama's minions in Homeland Security are on guard.

You see nothing ironic in the militia being required to identify themselves while those sneaking across the border are afforded all the respect of welcomed honored invited guests?

erp said...

BTW Has everyone seen this?

Anonymous said...

As expected:

Eagar: "I've never heard of X".

AOG: "Here are examples of X".

Eagar: "Squirrel!".

That's why I shouldn't bother.

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] If you are walking and a cop stops by to ask you to identify yourself, he can not ask for any kind of ID?

The police officer may ask, but (unless you are operating a motor vehicle, which requires a license with ID info) you don't have to provide any ID, or even answer the question.

If you happen to fit the description of a suspect they may be looking for, what is he supposed to do if you can not provide any proof of who you are?

In that case, they have to either put you under arrest, or let you go. And in that case, an ID would be no proof against anything.

Hey Skipper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Skipper said...

[HS:] Too many Americans are armed, and will not tolerate mob tyranny.

[Harry:] Said with complete lack of irony by the admirer of Cliven Bundy.


Said by someone so completely immune to proportion that he thinks there is no meaningful difference between the riots and Bundy.

[HS:] You never do.

It would be easy enough to show I missed something. Go ahead, show me up.


Just in this thread alone:

Here.

And here.

Then "Squirrel!"

And here.

Then "Squirrel!"

And And here.

Then "Squirrel!"

Here is the new benchmark for hutzpah: I have frequently asked you, erp, where you get your misinformation; and you never respond. But now I know where you got this.

Oh, and here's one that's been lingering for ages: did Tea Partiers really chant "Let Him Die!"?

With you, it is squirrels all the way down.

erp said...

BTW - Thanks to whomever for fixing the Post a Comment link.

Clovis, back when we were governed by The Rule of Law, there were certain givens like "probable cause" and "presumption of innocence" which were in place to protect us from the police demanding that we prove our innocence by presenting a government issued piece of paper.

Now the arm of the government known as the media make those decisions by editing the facts and audio/video tapes to advance the lefty narrative and the arm of the government known as the rabble rousers/poverty pimps rouse the rabble to riot, loot and cause general mayhem including murder to advance the cause.

Harry Eagar said...

'Said by someone so completely immune to proportion that he thinks there is no meaningful difference between the riots and Bundy.'

Enlighten me. What is the difference?

Clovis said...

Skipper,

---
The police officer may ask, but (unless you are operating a motor vehicle, which requires a license with ID info) you don't have to provide any ID, or even answer the question.
---

I see. This is the Theory. How does it go in real life?

I believe I have the same right to ignore a police officer here, in principle. But you wouldn't want to try it.

BTW, is is against the law to walk in the middle of a street (I wonder how, since there are so many street with no sidewalk in the US)? If it is not against law, had Michael Brown just ignored the officer and kept walking, what do you think would be the result?

Clovis said...

Erp,

---
BTW - Thanks to whomever for fixing the Post a Comment link.
---
Someone fixed the link but reintroduced moderation - I guess Bret is inviting us to stop writing in this post :-)

Clovis said...

AOG,

---
You must also think the residents of Ferguson themselves make no sense, as they are stocking up on guns in response to these riots.
---
So from suggesting Ferguson would be lacking in armed citizens due to regulations, you are now posting links showing they can freely stock up guns? Good move.

Hey Skipper said...

[Hey Skipper:] Too many Americans are armed, and will not tolerate mob tyranny.


[Clovis: Where do you factor here the point that, if too many Americans are armed, that's equally true for both store owners and mob participants?


Clausewitz. "Defense is to offense as three is to one".

Clovis said...

Skipper,

---
Clausewitz. "Defense is to offense as three is to one".
---

Checkmate. Now it does make sense.

Hey Skipper said...

[Hey Skipper:] Said by someone so completely immune to proportion that he thinks there is no meaningful difference between the riots and Bundy.

[Harry:] Enlighten me. What is the difference?


Here's a little pop quiz. Which of the Bundy kerfuffle or the 1992 LA riots included [widespread] looting, assault, arson, [murder], and estimates of property damages topped one billion dollars?

You really should learn the history of America; it is so interesting, and you seem to know nothing of it.

It would be easy enough to show I missed something. Go ahead, show me up.

From your silence, I presume you consider yourself shown up.

erp said...

Clovis, I have no problem with moderation.

Amazing as it may seem to you, before the fascists took over any action by the police not conforming to the law would have been open to law suits and disciplinary action of the officer(s) -- some of those old movies and TV crime shows were correct about that.

Pace Harry. We’ve already gone through the horrors of the Deep South.

Walking in the middle of the street isn't the issue and I guess you know that. People not bent on suicide or high on something don't walk in the middle of a busy street and will take a police officer's suggestion to get out of the middle of street as a smart move on their part for their personal safety.

You are right, there aren't sidewalks on every street from sea to shining sea, but the smart perambulator pretty much hugs the shoulders of roads.

Anonymous said...

Clovis;

The question was gun ownership, not rights, so stocking up now indicates that that was low at the time of the riots.

As for Brown, he was obstructing traffic which is against the law. Had he ignored the lawful request of the police officer, he might have been arrested. Had he simply moved to the side of the street, he would have been fine and not had to show any ID at all. Physically attacking the officer was not a good choice.

In real life, ignoring a police officer is a bad idea, but that's not what Skipper said. Politely refusing to provide ID is fine or answer questions, and if it results in arrest you have a good chance of getting a financial settlement in a wrongful arrest lawsuit if you were not doing anything illegal. This can vary a lot between jurisdictions - I wouldn't suggest doing that in Chicago.

Harry Eagar said...

This never happened.

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2014/08/27/st-paul-cops-allegedly-taser-and-arrest-black-male-sitting-public-space

Hey Skipper said...

Harry, what is your point?

Surely it can't be that the event never received any attention, because it has, every bit of it excoriating the police.

[erp:] People not bent on suicide or high on something don't walk in the middle of a busy street and will take a police officer's suggestion to get out of the middle of street as a smart move on their part for their personal safety.

FWIW, having looked at a high-res satellite image of where Brown was shot, the street very likely wasn't busy, and there are sidewalks on both sides.

The proper response to police demanding ID (when not operating a motor vehicle) is "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?"

erp said...

Skipper, I'm not sure I get your point. Should Brown have ignored the officer's suggestion/order? Where does the law come down on this? He could have been just as menacing from the sidewalk as from the middle of the street. This was probably a "cock of the walk" power gambit.

It must very trying being a male of the species.

As for the ID. You are absolutely correct.

Anonymous said...

erp, Skipper;

There is now strong evidence that in response to being asked to clear the street, Brown physically attacked the police officer.

Hey Skipper said...

Should Brown have ignored the officer's suggestion/order ...

You are assuming facts not in evidence. We know almost nothing about what transpired. We don't know if Brown was menacing, or that the officer preceded his order to get off the street with a stream of fighting words.

Leave it to the progressives to invent narratives; after all, it worked so well for them in the Martin/Zimmerman fiasco.

erp said...

Skipper, I was responding to what I read, i.e., Brown was walking in the middle of street in a menacing way and was told to move to the side. I haven’t been paying too much attention to this latest Zimmerman-Light wannbe except to note how fast it fizzled.

The left can't seem to find a conservative willing to kill someone for no other reason than his/her skin color to use a catalyst for nationwide rioting. The summer is over, so if they don’t do something quick, they’ll have to wait until next summer. It’s no fun rioting in bad weather.

To get back to the original question: I think a citizen would be required to get out of the middle of the street if ordered to do so by a police officer because there are traffic laws covering pedestrian traffic.

Hey Skipper said...

[AOG:] There is now strong evidence that in response to being asked to clear the street, Brown physically attacked the police officer.

True.

But there is no evidence how the officer asked Brown to clear the street. Speaking purely hypothetically, if the officer used "fighting words" as part of the request, then Brown's reaction would be understandable. If anyone other than a police officer had done such a thing, they wouldn't be able to claim self defense, and would be guilty of murder.

I don't think that changes any just because there is a uniform involved; if anything, it is worse.

The left can't seem to find a conservative willing to kill someone for no other reason than his/her skin color to use a catalyst for nationwide rioting.

Perhaps.

Again speaking purely hypothetically, it is also possible that the Ferguson police force has been routinely antagonistic towards blacks. It doesn't matter whether black behavior, particularly black males, invited antagonism. We pay the police to be better than that.

I think a citizen would be required to get out of the middle of the street if ordered to do so by a police officer because there are traffic laws covering pedestrian traffic.

Absolutely.

Clovis said...

---
[Erp] I think a citizen would be required to get out of the middle of the street if ordered to do so by a police officer because there are traffic laws covering pedestrian traffic.

[Skipper] Absolutely.
---

Not that I disagree with that, but I wonder what the inner free spirit living inside each of the Libertarians here think about that.

I've had an encounter with a police officer due to a related situation once. In Germany.

It was a beautiful Sunday morning after many dark days, and it was my first couple of months living there the first time. I was walking around happy with the sun and the many beautiful sights.

I approached a street where the cars were all stopped in their red signal, and instinctively crossed it without even looking the pedestrian signal, assuming it should be green (the cars were stopped after all).

That was my mistake number one. My mistake number two was not to realize that the first of all cars stopped was a Police car (they are green and white in Dresden, a color I did not associate to the police by then).

After a while - only after their signal turned green - the car came to a stop besides my sidewalk, and their two officers got out to intercept me.

It turns out I unwittingly crossed the street when the signal was red for pedestrians. It was red for both pedrestrians and cars, because there was a possible turning for cars coming from other lane, a kind of configuration I was not used to in Brazil.

And the worst of sins: I've done such a blatant crime in front of the Polizei. Somehow they've read that as a challenge.

They not only searched me for guns (or whatever they might think I would have), but checked my wallet and all my documents, radioing their central to double cross it all. Do you undertand now why they don't have much trouble with illegals, Skipper?

Upon knowing I was a Brazilian, the Police officer started a long discourse on how in Germany things were different and I would need to behave like a human being. And mind you, he was not just talking, but almost shouting with great proximity, with a bit of saliva flowing to my face.

They also charged me a fee for my crime, 5 Euros. They even gave me a receipt, and I keep it to this day.

Were not him a Police officer, I don't know if I would have taken it all so quiet. I've lost all my will for tourism and went home that day. I felt bad about that little incident for quite some time.

It worked: I never crossed a pedestrian red light signal again in Germany. Nor failed to recognize the Police whenever I saw it.

But my inner free spirit took a little bruise there, I believe an unecessary one. I don't know what happened with Brown and that Police officer, but I would keep an open mind in your place, Erp.

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] Not that I disagree with that, but I wonder what the inner free spirit living inside each of the Libertarians here think about that.

I think you misunderstand what Libertarianism is about. Very briefly, it takes as the default that the individual is sovereign. Note: that doesn't mean that the individual is always sovereign, only that it is the starting point.

In your case, the Polizei were, among other things, trying to impress upon you the need to follow traffic rules because they embody things you might not suss at first glance.

And also, that Polizei can be jackbooted tyrants.

When I lived in England, I turned left on red. That is a perfectly legal maneuver in the US. I did it in front of a Bobby. He pulled me over. On discovering I was a Yank, he told me that isn't done in Blighty.

And left it at that.

No European doesn't know this joke: "The European dream is one where Brits are the police, the French cooks, and the Germans administrators. The European nightmare? Brits are the cooks, French are administrators, and Germans the police."

Do you undertand now why they don't have much trouble with illegals, Skipper?

Within the EU, no immigration is illegal. Beyond the EU, there is an Ocean on one side, and very sparsely populated countries on the others.

Which helps limit, but does not eliminate, the problem.



It appears that up to 100 Americans have joined ISIS.

I'm betting that the New York Times will fail to editorialize on their behalf in the event the US military is able to vaporize some, or all of them.

erp said...

Clovis, had you offered an abject apology for your ignorance of German traffic laws and thanked them for protecting you from a possible accident, perhaps you would have been treated differently. Their country, their rules. I'll bet their opinion of hot-headed Latins got a boost in the wrong direction just as yours did of authoritarian Teutons.

The situation in Missouri is quite different. Brown wasn't an innocent tourist out for a morning stroll in the sunshine.

Clovis said...

Erp,

You misread me if you think I had any ignorance on what does it mean a red light signal. I simply did not see it, walking leisurely as I was.

Errors do happen - I just don't think you need to immediately bring up to the face of the person in error his race or origin. But I understand you don't get that.

On hot-headed Latins, that's you doing the same as that policeman: judging by origin. What he found was an apologizing person eager to make up to his mistake. But that would not provide a chance for him to exercise his authority, so my apologies were ignored.

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] On hot-headed Latins, that's you doing the same as that policeman: judging by origin.

Which *might* be what has been going on in Ferguson for a long time.

Something that conservatives need to keep in mind.

---

Clovis: What is the proper US response to Americans siding with ISIS?

erp said...

Clovis, do you agree with Obama that ISIS is not Islamic?

Re: German polizei

My responses about apologizing for ignorance of German traffic laws had nothing to do with your nationality. While you are sensitive about being categorized as a hot-headed Latin, perhaps German police are sensitive about being likened to jackbooted tyrants when they are just doing their job.

Skipper, I think the situation in areas like Ferguson has gotten out of hand because police are now not members of the community, but members of a powerful union. That’s part of the problem. The other part is that people have gotten out of the habit of being law-abiding. Example: Sharpton made the amazing statement that Brown wasn’t committing armed robbery, he only shop-lifted a box of cigars.

… and what’s even more stunning than the public service unions (and Clovis, it isn't only federal workers, but state and most municipal unions as well) running the country is that 2/3rds of public sector workers have ratings as high a military officers. That means, I think, there are two supervisory personnel for every worker bee.

A quick Google shows there are less than 20,000 members of PATCO. This doesn't seem to be enough to be statistically significant?

erp said...

I thought I replied to the comments above??? Are comments being monitored or did I fail to click SEND?

Clovis, Skipper above said it. In my comment earlier I said both you and the police officer reinforced ingrained stereotypes.

Re: ISIS, do you agree with Obama that ISIS is not Islamic?

Hey Skipper said...

Skipper, I think the situation in areas like Ferguson has gotten out of hand because police are now not members of the community, but members of a powerful union.

Perhaps, but I think there is a better possible explanation.

Part, perhaps most, of the problems between Ferguson's citizens and PD stem from there being no black police officers on the Ferguson PD. But before any progressives lurch into a racist froth, there is a readily apparent, non-racist reason: due to horrendous inner city schools and a high incarceration rate among blacks, there are both few blacks in a position to become police officers, and a very high demand for them.

That means small town PDs such as Ferguson that can't pay as much as other departments simply won't have any black applicants.

It's a problem without a solution, no matter how well intentioned the Ferguson PD might be.

erp said...

Skipper, I believe you restated my position. Police are no longer members of the community as they once were. The color of their skin isn't important. You are falling into the only blacks can teach, govern ... fill in blanks, other blacks and IMO that is not only wrong, it's a mistake. Either we return to the melting pot, or we continue down the path of warring factions based on irrelevant differences.

The schools??? Another example of union thuggery destroying the finest school system the world had ever known.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 440 of 440   Newer› Newest»