[Peace-discuss] Anti-racism

Fri Mar 6 20:30:17 CST 2009

Consider the northern Ireland police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary.  At 
the time of the Good Friday Agreement (1998), it was overwhelmingly Protestant 
-- "a current effect of past discrimination," I suppose.  But the solution can 
be considered "non-discriminatory": a 50-50 recruitment policy for Catholics and 
Protestants.

That was chosen instead of what the Brits would call "positive discrimination" 
(= affirmative action) because of the resentments that that would have produced.

Of course, one of the "remedies [that would] remove the inequality" would have 
been to shoot most the Protestant policemen; but few (some, perhaps) would have 
considered it a proper remedy. --CGE

Robert Naiman wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 