The Black History Month thread got me thinking that why there is so much disagreement about that and things like affirmative action and reparations has to do with whether we consider our society to be equitable or just. As a society we've made huge strides in being equitable since discrimination is no longer legal and for the most part we don't judge people on the basis of skin color and most of us have no problems associating with others of a different race. In regard to the law there is equality. The bigger problem IMO is whether we are "just" and I think that causes a lot of confusion regarding what people then consider "equal." From equality standpoint the argument would be that discrimination is no longer allowed so we are all equal but someone else would argue that we're not since historically whites have beneffited from the legacy of racism. So just saying that discrimination no longer exist doesn't mean that everything starts back at zero and we all are equal since you can't ignore the history. This is the 'just' standpoint since even though there is equality on paper it isn't just since we're not all starting at the same point. From those differing viewpoints we get these kinds of arguments like "Why do we need Black History Month when we are all equal and we shouldn't treat Black History exceptionally." and the counter argument "We need Black History Month because while we might be equal in the law now Black History was repressed and downplayed for so long that it is just to have a month to emphasize Black History." So as long as there is that tension between the ideas of an equitable society vs. a just society we're going to keep on having problems.
^ A just society is one that addresses historical grievances. Its related to equality but also includes the idea that people aren't really equal until historical wrongs are also dealt with. For instance in affirmative action is called an equality program even though it gives advantages to one group under the reasoning that it is just to level out the historical advantages that white males have had.
I read some books about social networking. I think there is another one that let me call it a fair society. In that case, because the whites currently occupy the positions with great social capital (probably due to historical reasons), the non-whites are less likely to be successful no matter there are discriminations or not. So we should continue affirmative action until this is no longer the case. That's what I think affirmative action should address. AA should not be used to address the historical wrongs done by the whites. Anyway, this is just one man's opinion, as a democratic society, this will be decided by elections in an indirect way.
Can I suggest reframing the argument? What you are calling just is punishing (even slightly) groups of people for the crimes of their ancestors. Whether that is a good thing or not is debatable, but it is not justice by any modern definition. I actually had this argument with friends recently, but framed this way: Should we be satisfied with Equal Rights and Equal Opportunity, or should we make a concerted push for equality through what has been called "Equal Access". If you believe in capitalism, you must believe that Equal Rights and Equal Opportunity will eventually bring equality. But if we wait for the market to decide that, many will suffer from that inequality until it works its way through. It is only possible to have true "Equal Access" through a meritocratic Communistic Society. Since this has never worked, it is folly to hope for that completely. There should be some compromise, but where that compromise falls has to be debated.
That's a good point and I could've called it a "Fair society". I was thinking that "just" though is more appropiate since in discussing these matters you hear the term "justice" throw around a lot more. I think in regards to your description of AA you are right but it is a matter of addressing historical wrongs since the advantages that whites, and disadvantages of blacks, got were the product of history and to level the playing field is a matter of addressing what is considered a historical wrong. A better example of what I mean by a "just society" is regarding reparations since 'justice' is specifically brought up there. Under the idea of an equitable society reparations are a bad thing since no one alive or their parents owned or were a slave so why should one group get reparations now. Under the a "just society" the argument is that while noone owns slaves now there was still a wrong that was committed and that needs to be addressed.
Let me reframe a bit in regard that I'm not calling for a just society as defined here but bringing it up as a way of discussing the different perceptions that people have regarding things like Black History Month. The way I'm using the term "justice" you're right doesn't meet a criminal law definition but I'm using it in a broader sense and one where it is frequently used. I agree that its difficult to impose such things and that compromise is necessary. As I said I'm not advocating but putting up the issues for debate.
Actually I think we need AA based on household income as oppose to race. I highly doubt a rich African Americans are in need of the same help as a poor white. It seems to me no one is talking about AA based on income level. I suppose the poor folks don't have social capital and/or human capital to pull out any meaningful lobbying effort.
Another way to look at it is that society is paying the price for the mistakes of government, as is always the case. If the government screws over a citizen, and the citizen sues the government and wins, it is the taxpayers (society) that pay the price to offer restitution. That is because the government is the representative of society as a whole. AA works similarly. Our society is basically asked to share the burden of paying the price for our government's mistakes. Sometimes that burden is purely financial (in taxes), othertimes it is different. Society as a whole made a huge mistake and abused a lot of people. We don't get to just say "my bad, just forget about it."
If My father. . steals your father's whole fortune . .. say a million dollars leaving your father and you in poverty . .then kills your father My father later dies I have those millions and living the good life. . while you live in poverty You are saying it is not Just to take what is now *my* million away and give it back to you and your family but is it just that you don't have the fruits of for father's labor? It is not an easy question to answer Justice. . . being Just. . . is not easy that is why it is so difficult to get too Rocket River
I would say that your definition of justice is not necessarily the only reasonable one. I would say the argument you have laid out is one more of the difference between absolute equality and equality under the law. I support equality under the law. There should be no legal differences based on race, sex, orientation, religion, etc. The only thing that should make the law treat someone differently than someone else is that person's breaking of the law. I do not support absolute equality. That is the path of communism, and it has not been shown to be a successful strategy. Some people have advantages over others. That is life in a capitalist system. We all start where we start, and we can do the best we can to try to end up better. Paris Hilton has a big advantage over me because her family opened hotels back when my family was performing as electricians and secretaries. That is life. I don't think that Paris should be punished because she starts with an advantage over me, even if I am never able to catch up. Likewise, I started with an avantage over someone whose parent(s) did not have an education or own their own home. That is life, even if that person never catches up to me. The country though, the government, the law, treat us all the same (or at least it should).
^ SM, I think you have captured exactly what I mean by an equitable society and Rocket River a just society. I'm not saying that's an unreasonable point of view at all but drawing the distinction between why there is a clash regarding these views what I think comes down to equity or justice. These certainly aren't easy issues but I think represent world views that have come into conflict in our culture.
The counter-argument is that there are enough successful Blacks to indicate that this isn't a racial issue but rather a class issue. Much like how we award some Native American tribes gambling permits and tax breaks, while the majority of the Native Americans still live in squalor. A consequence to the Just Society is despite good intentions, if the changes aren't organic, then the results are not equally distributed across the intended targets. It might be the most realistic and best solution we have, but the method of interference can be improved.
First, I'm going to post something on which (hopefully) most people can agree: Nature is an aristocracy. Some people, for whatever reason, are born smarter than others. It just happens. So, to me, a just society would be genuinely a level playing field. Meaning: If you're smart enough to get into Princeton, then you'll get into Princeton. If you're dumb, then, no matter how wealthy and connected your parents happen to be, you'll be put in a job that doesn't involve the fate of the nation - you'll bag groceries, or dig ditches, or whatever. I'm in favor of ANYTHING that will result in a genuine meritocracy. The problem is, now, that being born to a decent family, no matter how close to r****ded you may be, virtually assures you success. Conversely, you may be a super-genius, but if you're born to a poor family you may never make it past the hurdles set before you because of the accident of your birth. A truly EQUITABLE society would recognize that genetics makes for some weird results, and would accordingly LEVEL the playing field - so that people who rise to positions of prominence would genuinely deserve to be there by virtue of their ability to occupy that position. And mediocre men would continue to be businessmen, and idiots would be relegated to their proper position as manual labor.
While this is true it is only part of the picture. Intelligence has been proven to be as much about nurture (stimulation early in life) as nature.
I don’t think unrestrained capitalism will get you there. I think the industrial revolution taught us that. If you look at this from a different angle, what do people need to have a fair chance to be the best that they can be in society? I think every child needs basic food, shelter, clothing and an education that gives them a fair chance to live up to their natural potential. They also need the protection of the state from abusive situations. Is there anything else the state should ensure for every child?
What if my parents are recent immigrants, but I'm white. Should I lose out to make up for some historical wrong neither I nor my 'ancestors' had anything to do with?
That's why Marx and Engels advocated eliminating lineage and families in their manifesto. A truly equitable society would have to blow up all forms of passing a person's wealth, power, or prestige onto his successors. While I'm not sure if its realistic for the government to be the best guardians to our future, in theory, the government would give all children a level playing field in opportunities and education. Afterwards, each individual would have to prove their worth based on their skills on talent.
I think that what happens on the top in terms of passing wealth along is not as important as what happens on the bottom end. If you have a good social safety net that gives every child a fair chance then much of the rest will take care of itself. Some regulation is needed everywhere, of course, as healthy capitalism can’t exist without government regulation. On the bottom end you need to provide more than education, though. If children don’t have the basics of life then they don’t have a chance either. They can’t learn when they’re malnourished, sick, or unsafe. I forgot to add health care above, which is a basic human need as well.
I think "justice" is a slightly loftier and more morally-loaded concept than equitable, contrasting them probably unfairly maligns equality. Ideally equality would be a subset of, or method towards attaining, justice. A more accurate contrast might be between equality and freedom. Intentions and outcomes that directly counteract each other. The struggles between those two ideals keeps things fresh and active, and makes history class, museums, national holidays and political speeches a hell of a lot more interesting. Also, our society will always have problems, but it's worth noting that we really are better at balancing money, power, freedom, fairness and fun, on a large scale, than anyone else. Red Stripe Fourth of July commercial: "Hooraaay America!"
