*3 “RACES”*
.
.
.
*”race” (as a ‘social construct’) is the classification of ‘humans into groups based on ‘physical traits’, ‘ancestry’, ‘genetics’, or ‘social relations’, or the relations between those ‘groups’*
.
(first used to refer to “speakers of a common language” and then to denote “national affiliations”, by the 17th century ‘race’ began to refer to ‘physical’ (i.e. ‘phenotypical’) traits)
(the term was often used in a general biological ‘taxonomic sense’, starting from the ’19th century’, to denote ‘genetically differentiated human populations’ defined by ‘phenotype’)
(‘social conceptions’ + ‘groupings’ of ‘races’ vary over time, involving ‘folk taxonomies’ that define essential ‘types’ of individuals based on ‘perceived traits’)
(scientists consider ‘biological essentialism’ obsolete, and generally discourage ‘racial explanations’ for ‘collective differentiation’ in both ‘physical’ + ‘behavioral’ traits)
(“do they really believe this?”…)
(“or is it merely a variant of ‘scientific PC'”?)
(…to protect their jobs from the collective mass opinion)
(mostly the “corporation” + the “politician”)
(power of law (and force) vs power of money)
(or like “triumph of trump” (title?) as he has money + law at his disposal)
(‘scientific PC’ much like “global warming” believers in their fervent attitudes towards reducing carbon dioxide in atmosphere so that sea levels would rise)
(or is it that “industrialists” who will rose (or assume they will lose) $$$ that try to discredit global warming so they can make more money)
(biggest corporate polluters of all time?)
(even though there is a broad scientific agreement that ‘essentialist’ and ‘typological’ conceptualizations of ‘race’ are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize ‘race’ in widely differing ways, some of which have ‘essentialist implications’)
(while some researchers use the concept of ‘race’ to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of ‘traits’ or ‘observable differences’ in ‘behavior’, others in the ‘scientific community’ suggest that the idea of ‘race’ often is used in a ‘naive’ or ‘simplistic’ way, and argue that, among ‘humans’, ‘race’ has no ‘taxonomic significance’ by pointing out that all living ‘humans’ belong to the same ‘species’ (“homo sapiens’) + ‘subspecies’ (‘homo sapiens sapiens’))
(since the second half of the “20th century”, the association of ‘race’ with the ‘ideologies’ and ‘theories’ that grew out of the work of 19th-century ‘anthropologists’ and ‘physiologists’ has led to the use of the word race itself becoming ‘problematic’)
(although still used in ‘general contexts’, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and emotionally charged related concepts: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on ‘context’)
.
.
my fellow americans,
let us prepare ourselves to accept the ultimate collective challenge in terms of determining whether or not our society has become truly “color blind” (funnily enough, in physiological terms this term denotes a disability. in societal terms, it has more positive connotations (for most))…
our slave-owning white male forefathers have challenged us to test whether we’ve actually achieved the dream that this nation was founded on, namely the notion that “all men are created equal”
The US government currently enforces numerous laws that ban or limit ‘discrimination’ in various settings: employment, housing, college admissions to name a few.
Accepting the premise that discrimination is a negative force in any society, most would argue that these laws are beneficial + necessary. But I suspect that we as a people are just about ready to repeal these laws from our nation’s ‘books’ (sorry no law degree here, terminology may be a little screwy). This post-Obama election era of shared goodwill is an ideal period for the implementation of this ‘social experiment’. For many of these anti-discrimination laws have spawned negative externalities and created new problems, complications self-evident + troubling to the keenest of economists (not the least being all these fat Italian attention-seeking ‘reverse discrimination’ whiners). Even if discrimination continues to linger in society (just as all heinous offenses continue to be carried out everywhere homo sapiens wander), I suspect that the benefits associated with elimination of the negative externalities will outweigh these ills. And we’ll all feel better about ourselves (like taking a nasty shit after a night of tacos, the shit being the repealed laws, the tacos being the civil rights movement). For the sooner we accept that we will forever be burdened with a certain percentage of ignorant ‘discriminators’ in society, (those that would discriminate if given the chance), the sooner we can deal with this small percentage of perpetrators in a less sweeping manner.
simplistic storytime: see, in the prehistoric times (before the dawn of the aggregated knowledge internet age), there was a large percentage of Southern white business owners who genuinely preferred to hire the marginal white man over the marginal black man. He was raised by his gaptoothed mom n pop to believe that the black man was lazy because he didn’t allow himself to be enslaved by the white man. In his ignorance, this belief became a core component of his business model. Pretty soon hugh hefners came along and started hiring up all the cheaper (relative to white workers) black labor down South. Southern belles became Playboy bunnies. Scarlett O’Hara’s daughters more than mingled with Bill Cosby at the playboy mansion.
By adhering to a colorblind capitalist credo, mister hefner and his ilk played a significant role in the civil rights movement. And they deserve all the barely legal twin sisters they can get their hands on. Meanwhile, our racist antihero is stuck in Appalachia with an old fat wife, only looking forward to the yearly pilgrimage of clueless teen catholic schoolgirls that come to fix the homes of these useless old white folks. Moral of the story: educate yourselves + don’t discriminate and you’ll end up like hugh! Popping viagras well into the next century as parades of playmates line up at your bedroom door while America watches in wonder, vicariously living through you all the while.
Allow the capitalist machine to gnaw away at racism in our society.
Capitalism recognizes a winner and throws its money behind it.
It was the capitalist machine + scourged wall street martyrs (fat bonus checks in pocket) that put President Obama into office. We’ve been brainwashed into believing that it was civil rights legislation that eradicated discrimination, but it was actually a gradual capitalist process that continues to work its magic upon our society. We mustn’t interfere by passing extraneous laws, otherwise we get the reverse racist crybabies on our hands. But give Pat Buchanan + Newt Gingrich their dues. For these are illegitimate sons of William F Buckley, twin products of a schoolboy affair with Marilyn Monroe. These chubby children were college dopeheads before becoming leaders of a paleoconservative movement. And we will require their brains in the troubled times ahead. They can actually put their intellect to proper use rather than waste time crying ‘reverse racism’ on cable news.
Listen, this is our time capsule BACK to the utopian 60s! And we’ll get it even MORE right this time
From a pure cost-benefit perspective, the simple fact that discrimination exists is not sufficient.
I think the most important debate is over employment discrimination, which has implications that carry over into other types of discrimination. We assume that certain people have a “taste” for discrimination in that they prefer hiring only people of a certain race, prefer buying only from people of one gender, or prefer being around only people of a particular religion. Say, for example, that white employers do not like employing blacks. This preference by employers lowers the demand for black employees and reduces their equilibrium wage. Any employer with non-discriminatory preferences obtains a cost advantage by hiring black employees. Since these non-discriminating firms have lower costs, they can set lower prices and take profits away from the discriminating firms. As these discriminating firms lose money, they exit the industry, which then reduces the demand for white employees relative to black employees…until finally, equilibrium wages are equal. What I’m trying to illustrate is that competitive markets provide a potentially strong counterweight to employer discrimination.
Now what if discrimatory preferences come from customers? Say that most people who take golf lessons prefer male golf instructors and are willing to pay a higher price even if the quality of the lessons is the same. Therefore, a higher wage for the male golf instructor can persist in equilibrium and there is no way for any firm to arbitrage the differential away. Overall, economic forces can limit employer discrimination (because it is costly for the employer) but they cannot eliminate customer discrimination.
How can we determine how much discrimination exists in labor markets? You can compare the average wages of blacks versus whites or men versus women and you will certainly find substantial differences. The average wages of whites is 22% higher than the average wages of blacks. The average wages of white men is 28% higher than the averages wages of white women. But this is not an accurate way of measuring discrimination because there are other reasons for this disparity: quantity or quality of education or training, experience in the labor market, degree of commitment to the labor market. Therefore, measuring discrimination requires a more sophisticated approach than simply comparing wage rates. The standard approach is to use individual-level data and regress wage rates on variables such as age, education, experience, and dummies for race and gender (plus possibly other factors). These studies find that much of the gap in measured wages can be explained with observable determinants of productivity, but there is typically some residual effect of race or gender. These residual effects are thought to measure the amount of discrimination.
But are there unmeasured determinants of productivity that correlate with race or gender? For race, one factor could be educational quality, since blacks have historically attended lower quality schools than whites. In the case of gender, one factor could be “degree of attachment to the labor force”, if women are more likely to choose episodes of non-participation. Therefore, it is plausible that the magnitude of discrimination is smaller than measured in standard approaches. The evidence does not rule out the existence of some discrimination, but it does not suggest that discrimination is rampant or a major determinant of wage gaps. Lets assume that there are factors other than standard observables that affect productivity but are correlated with race or sex. And lets also assume that these are unobservable to employers as well, but these employers recognize the correlation between unobservables and race/sex. Then it can be rational for employers to use race or sex as a proxy for these unobservables. This is known as statistical discrimination. The key point is that a profit maximizing but non-discriminating employer would be tempted to engage in statistical discrimination, and many presumably do.
How can policies reduce discrimination, asuming that some discrimination exists in labor markets? It can prohibit discrimation in hiring, promotion, firing, wages, etc. It can also adopt policies that “affirmatively” promote the hiring of targeted grops. These are the two main policies that have been utilized in the U.S. starting in the mid-1960s. They are generally thought of as separate policies, but I think that they should be thought of as one package. We can evaluate the effectiveness of these anti-discrimination policies by measuring the relative wage of blacks versus whites or men versus women, though there are many variants on this to consider. It seems that these anti-discrimination policies have had some success: black-white and male-female wage differentials have declined substantially over the past 50 years. The exact narrowing of the gap depends on exactly which measure of wages and which group one examines; in some cases non-trivial gaps remain, and in other cases the gaps are small. But we also must consider the fact that these gaps began declining well before the U.S. adopted anti-discrimination policies AND these gaps have continued declining at similar rates since the adoption of anti-discrimination policies. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the policies had no impact, since some studies find an effect. But overall, it seems that there are forces other than anti-discrimination policy that have played a far bigger role in reducing race and gender wage differentials. Some possible forces include increasing education by blacks and women.
So what we have concluded so far is that there are limits on the magnitude of discrimination in labor markets. There are fairly modest amounts of discrimination. Anti-discrimination policies have probably played some role in reducing discrimination, but other factors have been more important in reducing wage gaps. Now, given the costs of anti-discrimination policy, does it really make sense? If the costs are minor, then it is hard to make a case for or against anti-discrimination policy (since the problem is modest, the policy effects are modest, and the policy costs are modest). But if anti-discrimination policy has substantial costs, then the case against it is compelling.
One cost of anti-discrimination policy is inefficiency imposed by the forced hiring of less qualified people, which is a standard criticism of affirmative action. Reduced efficiency is possible, but it is also possible that increased hiring of targeted groups undoes discrimination against people who are at least as qualified as the non-targeted group. Looking at it this way, there might not be an efficiency loss and there could be an efficiency gain in some cases. Studies have suggested that the effects of affirmative action are modest: it has slightly increased the amount of targeted hiring, and it has slightly reduced efficiency. I think that critics of affirmative action almost always exaggerate its effects.
A cost of discrimination is that it might reduce the incentives of the group suffering the discrimination to expend effort or resources to improve their economic situation. For example, if firms refuse to promote highly capable women, they why should women bother getting MBAs? Or, if customers will not buy from minority-owned firms, or suppliers will not deal with them, or the government will not give them contracts, then the incentives to work hard in the marketplace are reduced. This is a plausible theory, but there is little evidence to support it. One way to overcome discrimination could also be to become “overqualified” through education or extra-hard work. This would be costly in the short term but over time, it could eliminate stereotypes and break down barriers (the Jackie Robinson effect). Policies like affirmative action could reduce the incentives to acquire human capital or expend extra effort. Why work hard or get educated if you will get hired anyway? Overall, both of these theories are not strongly supported by evidence. BUT, it is possible that anti-discrimination policies are counterproductive along this dimension because they provide an “alternative” path to success or undermine the incentives to compete in the marketplace.
Another negative effect of affirmative action is to confirm negative views of the targeted group. Some observers could assume that success achieved by the targeted group results mainly from affirmative action rather than from merit. In some instances, members of a targeted group are not competent, regardless of affirmative action. But the very presence of affirmative action policies would give some people a basis for concluding that negative stereotypes about that group are accurate. This is not really a measurable effect, but it is a potential downside of affirmative action. To take this even further, affirmative action instills and exacerbates resentment amongst the non-targeted group against the targeted group. Under affirmative action, some members of the non-targeted group will not get jobs, and then some will assume that the reason they didn’t get the job is because of affirmative action. Now in reality, the degree to which affirmative action prevented this non-targeted group member from getting a job depends on the situation, and in many cases the magnitude is modest. But the very nature of affirmative action tends to promote frustration associated with reverse discrimination, which undermines the goal of producing a non-discriminating society.
Another cost of affirmative action policies is potential “avoidance behavior” by firms where firms will not hire the targeted group in the first place. For example, after the American with Disabilities Act was passed, the law required “reasonable accommodations” of persons with disabilities. Therefore, some employers would respond by not hiring disabled people in the first place. In this case, the law made the disabled worse off.
So…affirmative action may have some benefits, but it also has non-trivial costs. Therefore, many think that society should prohibit discrimination, but that it should not utilize affirmative action policies (especially not in their more extreme forms such as quotas). Another argument is that even prohibitions on discrimination are counterproductive because they inevitably evolve into affirmative action, including quotas. But even if the only policy were the prohibition on discrimation, it has the potential to do more harm than good.
I think that the government SHOULD NOT prohibit discrimination because policy cannot attempt to stop discrimination without then promoting a Pandora’s box of government intervention in the market. Anti-discrimination policy implies that the government can tell a private employer whom he can or cannot hire, which accepts the view that firms are not simply the property of their owners to be used as the owners see fit. Instead, interventionism accepts the view that firms are partially “public” and can therefore be told to operate in “socially-approved” ways. Even if this helps reduce discrimination, there are other ways in which this blurring of the private/public distinction causes substantial harm. Therefore, since the degree of discrimination is modest, generates costs, and is reduced by market forces, then the government should just treat private property as private. Owners of businesses can use their property as they like, just as a homeowner can admit or exclude anyone the homeowner chooses.
How about reverse discrimination? If governments should not prohibit discrimation against targeted groups or promote affirmative action on behalf of the targeted groups, then the government also should not prevent private agents from engaging in reverse discrimination. For example, if private institutions of higher learning want to practice affirmative action in admissions, then they should be allowed to. Therefore, private agents could discriminate OR reverse discriminate as they see fit. The fact that some private parties will practice affirmative action implies that government-mandated affirmative action is less necessary. Many businesses firmly support their right to practice affirmative action because many of their customers are black, Hispanic, Asian, etc.
Private affirmative action is better than government affirmative action because
it does not violate the principle that private agents own their property,
it is likely to be flexible, modified, moderate, and varied across firms, the firms that practice private affirmative action will thoughtfully weight the costs and benefits, and private affirmative action does not generate the same degree of anger, polarization, confusion, and complication. Therefore, private affirmative action is perfectly fine.
How should the government hire its own employees?
In the past, the government has often discriminated.
State universities excluded blacks and women, the Army had separate units for blacks, public schools allowed “separate but equal”, racial profiling has been used to enforce drug laws, and government-protected unions have excluded minorities and women.
The right view is that government agencies exist to serve the public, and there is no reasonable case that discrimination promotes the interests of particular agencies.
Therefore, the government should not discriminate, but it also should not practice affirmative action.
Overall, discrimination does exist, but it is far less substantial than frequently portrayed.
Government attempts to deter private discrimination almost inevitably evolve into complicated and intrusive affirmative action programs which probably do more harm than good.
Even limited anti-discrimination policies, such as bans on discrimination in hiring, are problematic because they undermine the view of firms as private property.
The best government policy is to permit private affirmative action, but take no other steps to reduce discrimination
.
(…just as we will always have ‘sub-humans’ that will kill if given the opportunity)
.
.
*👨🔬🕵️♀️🙇♀️*SKETCHES*🙇♂️👩🔬🕵️♂️*
.
.
.
👈👈👈☜*“ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS”* ☞ 👉👉👉
.
.
💕💝💖💓🖤💙🖤💙🖤💙🖤❤️💚💛🧡❣️💞💔💘❣️🧡💛💚❤️🖤💜🖤💙🖤💙🖤💗💖💝💘
.
.
*🌈✨ *TABLE OF CONTENTS* ✨🌷*
.
.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥*we won the war* 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥