[Peace-discuss] Anti-racism

[Robert Naiman]

I thought I gave an example in my reference to Northern Ireland. When
distribution is unequal due to past discrimination, practices that may
appear nominally non-discriminatory can perpetuate inequality.
Positive action is needed to ensure greater equality going forward.
"Proper remedy" depends upon the situation. But in the long run,
certainly one of the measures of whether the remedies are proper is
whether they remove the inequality.


On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:12 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
> Could you spell out the distinction?  What would an example of "the current
> effect of past discrimination" be, and what would be the proper remedy?
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>
>> I think it's worthwhile to distinguish between claims based on the
>> fact that one's ancestor experienced discrimination and claims based
>> on the current effects of past discrimination. While I have nothing
>> against the former, it's the latter that I was addressing.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:03 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I get something because my Irish great-grandfather was an exploited
>>> laborer
>>> in
>>> 19c. Pennsylvania?
>>>
>>> There is (practically) no legal discrimination or popular prejudice
>>> against
>>> Irish-Americans today (altho' I could tell you stories from New
>>> England...).
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem with making a distinction between legal structures and
>>>> popular attitudes. I was making a different point: that the categories
>>>> of
>>>> "legal structures" and "popular attitudes" don't cover "racism," unless
>>>> one
>>>> expands the categories of "legal structures" and "popular attitudes" to
>>>> include the absence of redress, since there are tendencies for
>>>> disparities
>>>> created in the past to be self-perpetuating, even in the absence of
>>>> legal
>>>> discrimination and popular prejudice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:53 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's worthwhile to distinguish between legal structures and popular
>>>>> attitudes, even if there are areas where they shade into one another
>>>>> (e.g.,
>>>>>  the non-enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, or prejudicial police
>>>>> practice). The same is true of night and day.
>>>>>
>>>>> The civil rights movement ended legal segregation and contributed to
>>>>> conscientization of some regarding racial prejudice. For others, it
>>>>> increased racial prejudice (e.g., whites who concluded "the government
>>>>> does
>>>>>  everything for black people!").
>>>>>
>>>>> The latter reaction was encouraged by the long-standing elite strategy
>>>>> of
>>>>> playing upon divisions in the working class -- and race was always a
>>>>> potent
>>>>>  division, as limited success of 20th-century union organizing in the
>>>>> South
>>>>>  shows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jay Gould, American financier at the turn of the last century,
>>>>> remarked,
>>>>> "I
>>>>>  can always hire one-nalf of the American working class to kill the
>>>>> other
>>>>> half."  He was not referring specifically to race, but it helped. --CGE
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "legal" seems too narrow. economic discrimination can persist in the
>>>>>> absence of laws enforcing discrimination. in fact, discrimination can
>>>>>> persist without being strongly reinforced by censorious attitudes,
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> customs and practices that may seem nominally neutral but have the
>>>>>> effect of
>>>>>> reproducing existing disparities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for example: a legacy of British colonial policies in Northern Ireland
>>>>>> was that Protestant workers disproportionately held factory jobs. a
>>>>>> foreman
>>>>>> comes before the workers and says,"we have a few openings." workers
>>>>>> tell
>>>>>> friends, neighbors, cousins. as a result, the applicant pool
>>>>>>  is all Protestants, and only Protestants get the jobs. no law said
>>>>>> only
>>>>>> Protestants would get the jobs. and censorious attitudes didn't have
>>>>>> to be
>>>>>> particularly strong for people to spread the news to their social
>>>>>> circles
>>>>>> which happened to be overwhelmingly Protestant. in such a situation,
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> would need affirmative action for redress. it isn't sufficient to say,
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> are no discriminatory laws, and the censorious attitudes aren't so
>>>>>> bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:23 PM, C. G. Estabrook
>>>>>> <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Racism refers to legal structures that penalize groups defined by
>>>>>>> descent. Racial prejudice refers to censorious attitudes towards
>>>>>>> groups
>>>>>>>  defined by descent.  Both are present in Israel. Racism, but not
>>>>>>> racial prejudice, is now largely absent in the US (altho' some, like
>>>>>>> native Americans, may justly not think so).  --CGE]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> March 4, 2009 SEGREGATION IN ISRAEL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Israeli Association for Civil Rights
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some 55 percent of Jewish Israelis say that the state should
>>>>>>> encourage
>>>>>>>  Arab emigration;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 78 percent of Jewish Israelis oppose including Arab parties in the
>>>>>>> government;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 56 percent agree with the statement that 'Arabs cannot attain the
>>>>>>> Jewish level of cultural development'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 75 percent agree that Arabs are inclined to be violent. Among
>>>>>>> Arab-Israelis, 54 percent feel the same way about Jews.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 75 percent of Israeli Jews say they would not live in the same
>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>>  as Arabs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://prorev.com/2009/03/segregation-in-israel.html
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing
>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org