Is this season of big brother actually big racism?

[Roland of Gilead]

For some reason I have watched Big Brother over the years.

This season the house was purposely populated with more people of color than is represented in the general population.   

This group formed an alliance solely based on skin color with the goal of making sure a person of color won the game.  They don't even like each other that much but are sticking to the goal.

When asked if this was a form of racism, Julie Chen Moonves, the host of Big Brother, responded "In my humble opinion, it is not."

Whether or not you agree with the end goal or are fine with this tactic, isn't it obviously a form of racism?

[J Boogie]

I think it is a bad idea to try and apply the term racism to this type of behavior.

In some ways, yes it's clearly racist. But really, it's something completely different than the racism of the Jim Crow south or the racism of the Nazi party. That racism was based on the idea of superior races and inferior races.

This type of antiracist racism currently defies description. It is more of a tribalism that uses race as an in-group identifier. Extreme members of these groups might occasionally use racist rhetoric suggesting that white people are inherently morally flawed, but the driving force here isn't a belief that white people are an inferior race. The driving force seems to be justice veering into vengeance.

Racial retributionism doesn't exactly roll off the tongue though. But I think that's the more accurate way to think about this behavior.

[former player]

Racism usually involves people being subjected to worse attitudes or conditions based on a perception of their having characteristics of a racial minority.  Not what's happening in your description.

There is a lot of reading you might do around the subject before starting a thread like this.

[Metalcat]

Racism usually involves people being subjected to worse attitudes or conditions based on a perception of their having characteristics of a racial minority.  Not what's happening in your description.

There is a lot of reading you might do around the subject before starting a thread like this.

100% this.

What is your intention with starting this thread?

Because it is NOT coming off like you want to engage in constructive, educated discourse about race relations.

Also, why would you assume that it's best to consult a financial forum, which has a longstanding history of NOT handling discussions of race issues very well?

This is DEFINITELY not the first place I would come if I was GENUINELY seeking wisdom about racism in the US.

[bacchi]

Isn't it mostly scripted anyway? It might work to increase ratings, which is the ultimate goal. Think how many FoxNews viewers will tune in so that they can clutch their pearls.

[Kris]

Isn't it mostly scripted anyway? It might work to increase ratings, which is the ultimate goal. Think how many FoxNews viewers will tune in so that they can clutch their pearls.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

It was capitalism, all along.

[charis]

What's with white people turning "racist" into a buzzword for behavior that either excludes white people or is preferential to people of color because of the vast history (and current practice) of marginalizing non-white people?

It's obviously an effort to seek an equitable resolution, not marginalize white people. So, like, don't be ignorant.

[J Boogie]

What's with white people turning "racist" into a buzzword for behavior that either excludes white people or is preferential to people of color because of the vast history (and current practice) of marginalizing non-white people?

It's obviously an effort to seek an equitable resolution, not marginalize white people. So, like, don't be ignorant.

Yeah, what's with people using the dictionary definition of a word. Weird.

What's with people and their odd view that the 14th amendment gives equal protection under the law.

I agree that it's annoying that it's become a buzzword, but it's a predictable reaction to the Kendi solution to ending racism against one group by increasing racism against another group.

[dreadmoose]

Hopefully just adding to the flood of responses heading in the proper direction here but short answer, no it is not racist.

If you're interested in tackling why and how power imbalances and systemic issues need to exist for it to play as racism Robin D'Angelo has a few works that would help, along with working through "Me and White Supremacy" (they are not easy reads but can you get as much out of them as you put into them).

[charis]

What's with white people turning "racist" into a buzzword for behavior that either excludes white people or is preferential to people of color because of the vast history (and current practice) of marginalizing non-white people?

It's obviously an effort to seek an equitable resolution, not marginalize white people. So, like, don't be ignorant.

Yeah, what's with people using the dictionary definition of a word. Weird.

What's with people and their odd view that the 14th amendment gives equal protection under the law.

I agree that it's annoying that it's become a buzzword, but it's a predictable reaction to the Kendi solution to ending racism against one group by increasing racism against another group.

It's not the definition of the word. Racism is not increasing against white people.  Seeking equitable solutions to combat historical and systemic marginalization of non-white people is not racism.

What aspect of the BB situation triggers 14th amendment protections, specifically?

[nedwin]

I guess I'm ignorant on the idea that racism is only majority to minority, but am open to education on the subject.  Thank you dreadmoose for the reading suggestions.  I hope this thread isn't derailed and can be productive on the subject.

At least in the employment law context racial discrimination is outlawed regardless of whether someone is a racial minority or not.  So racial discrimination against white employees can be a legitimate, but rare, claim.  I once worked for an employer that was sued by USDOL for claims that the employer was not hiring whites in favor of other races and ethnicities.

[J Boogie]

What's with white people turning "racist" into a buzzword for behavior that either excludes white people or is preferential to people of color because of the vast history (and current practice) of marginalizing non-white people?

It's obviously an effort to seek an equitable resolution, not marginalize white people. So, like, don't be ignorant.

Yeah, what's with people using the dictionary definition of a word. Weird.

What's with people and their odd view that the 14th amendment gives equal protection under the law.

I agree that it's annoying that it's become a buzzword, but it's a predictable reaction to the Kendi solution to ending racism against one group by increasing racism against another group.

It's not the definition of the word. Racism is not increasing against white people.  Seeking equitable solutions to combat historical and systemic marginalization of non-white people is not racism.

What aspect of the BB situation triggers 14th amendment protections, specifically?

Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group


As the contestants and their alliance do not form a legal institution, their discrimination against people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial group means they are probably not subject to any lawsuit citing the 14th amendment.

Regarding the 14th amendment, I was more referring to the general use of the buzzword racism as it pertains to discrimination against whites which you alluded to. For example here is a recent case of the 14th amendment being invoked to halt the proposal to send federal aid to all farmers except white farmers.

https://www.cheathamcountyexchange.com/news/state/the-justice-department-s-retreat-from-usda-race-based-farm-policies/article_e5c48744-6476-5108-96f0-e62a1933b756.html

[Boll weevil]

1.  I would be surprised if there were a season where they weren’t overpopulated with minorities. There’s only 16 people at the beginning of the show, so mathematically each one represents 6.25% of the population. According to the statistics I looked up, you would end up with about 10 white people, 3 Latinos, 2 Black, and 1 Asian if you tried to populate the show solely on race.

2.  Would you be as upset if they broke down along other lines that settled into a different -ism? For instance, what if all the younger ones voted as a bloc to get rid of the older ones - would that be ageism? What if all the females banded up against the males (and/or vice versa) - would that be sexism? What if they banded together by religion (or lack thereof)? 

I think J Boogie has it right by calling it tribalism with race as the chosen identifier.

It also leads into a larger discussion about self segregation vs externally imposed segregation (such as by government or businesses) .

[EvenSteven]

What's with white people turning "racist" into a buzzword for behavior that either excludes white people or is preferential to people of color because of the vast history (and current practice) of marginalizing non-white people?

It's obviously an effort to seek an equitable resolution, not marginalize white people. So, like, don't be ignorant.

Yeah, what's with people using the dictionary definition of a word. Weird.

What's with people and their odd view that the 14th amendment gives equal protection under the law.

I agree that it's annoying that it's become a buzzword, but it's a predictable reaction to the Kendi solution to ending racism against one group by increasing racism against another group.

Your Honor, there exists a British reality TV show in which non-white contestants have teamed up to win the show. This is a flagrant violation of my 14th amendment rights, and I demand satisfaction.

[Boll weevil]

What's with white people turning "racist" into a buzzword for behavior that either excludes white people or is preferential to people of color because of the vast history (and current practice) of marginalizing non-white people?

It's obviously an effort to seek an equitable resolution, not marginalize white people. So, like, don't be ignorant.

Yeah, what's with people using the dictionary definition of a word. Weird.

What's with people and their odd view that the 14th amendment gives equal protection under the law.

I agree that it's annoying that it's become a buzzword, but it's a predictable reaction to the Kendi solution to ending racism against one group by increasing racism against another group.

Your Honor, there exists a British reality TV show in which non-white contestants have teamed up to win the show. This is a flagrant violation of my 14th amendment rights, and I demand satisfaction.

I thought this was the US version of the show.

Also, these shows aren’t reality. I think of them as immersion game shows.

[EvenSteven]

What's with white people turning "racist" into a buzzword for behavior that either excludes white people or is preferential to people of color because of the vast history (and current practice) of marginalizing non-white people?

It's obviously an effort to seek an equitable resolution, not marginalize white people. So, like, don't be ignorant.

Yeah, what's with people using the dictionary definition of a word. Weird.

What's with people and their odd view that the 14th amendment gives equal protection under the law.

I agree that it's annoying that it's become a buzzword, but it's a predictable reaction to the Kendi solution to ending racism against one group by increasing racism against another group.

Your Honor, there exists a British reality TV show in which non-white contestants have teamed up to win the show. This is a flagrant violation of my 14th amendment rights, and I demand satisfaction.

I thought this was the US version of the show.

Also, these shows aren’t reality. I think of them as immersion game shows.

I didn't know there was a US version. I think I've just outed my ignorance of reality TV shows.

[DarkandStormy]

"Oh no, a white person won't win BB for the 23rd straight year...racism!!!"

[Zamboni]

Nothing will ever top Richard the gay nudist winning the first season of Survivor, so I have stopped watching these shows.

Alliances form and fall apart all of the time on those silly shows, and half the time people stab each other in the back anyway and the alliance falls apart.

Finally: not racist.

[Metalcat]

Nothing will ever top Richard the gay nudist winning the first season of Survivor, so I have stopped watching these shows.

Alliances form and fall apart all of the time on those silly shows, and half the time people stab each other in the back anyway and the alliance falls apart.

Finally: not racist.

So true. The top was in with the first season of Survivor.

[Roland of Gilead]

This was an off topic part of the forum which does have posts about tv shows, which is why I put it here.

I wasn't trying to troll, I was just wanting to get other views and thoughts about this type of behavior.

It is great that this season will finally have a person of color win.  Was this the only way to ensure that?  Maybe.

Looking at the show and how some of the white people seem to have not noticed the "Cookout" alliance even as the numbers of white people in the house kept dwindling down makes you think that the younger white generation could be a lot less racist than given credit for.   Either they didn't take the skin color into account when developing friendships and alliances or this whole thing is scripted to the point where CBS told people how to vote.   I would not put it past a network to do that but you would think it would get out that they did, non disclosure agreements aside.

[Roland of Gilead]

"Oh no, a white person won't win BB for the 23rd straight year...racism!!!"

So, about that.

Season 20, Kaycee Clark won.  Asian American (her mother is Filipino).
Season 19, Josh Martinze won, Hispanic American
Season 4, Jun Song, Asian American

By what Boll wrote "There’s only 16 people at the beginning of the show, so mathematically each one represents 6.25% of the population. According to the statistics I looked up, you would end up with about 10 white people, 3 Latinos, 2 Black, and 1 Asian if you tried to populate the show solely on race."

It does look like black people are being singled out but there really is not a large enough sample size to clearly identify past seasons as being white racism.  Individuals did make racist comments on the shows in the past though, so there was at least a thread of that sentiment going on.

[OtherJen]

Everyone knows that "reality" shows are very heavily edited to suit a narrative and maximize ratings, right?

[Chris22]

I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that some guy wanted his kids judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I wonder how that guy would react to the current trend of “hey let’s assign victim points to people based on the color of their skin?” 

But what do I know.

[former player]

It looks like this show features primarily young contestants. Random selection is inherently going to produce a group with has more black, asian, and hispanic members than you'd predict from looking at percentages in the country as a whole. Looking at gen Z specifically, a random sample of 16 people would include 8 non-hispanic white people, 4 hispanic people of any race, 2 non-hispanic black people, one asian person and one person who is explicitly categorized as multi-racial.

In reality, it looks to me like they ended up with 8 white people, 1 hispanic person, 5 black people, and either 2 asian people or 1 asian person, and 1 biracial person. Fewer hispanic people and more black people but for other groups pretty representative of young people in the USA today.

That said, apparently last year CBS committed to an explicit racial quota on its reality TV shows with 50% of slots reserved for non-white participants. That explicit commitment by the network to a racial quota is an open admission they are discriminating between people on the basis of race (i.e. racism*) even though the network should have been able to get roughly the same outcome if they'd applied non discriminatory random sampling from the population reality TV show contestants are drawn from anyway.

In the grand scheme of things it's not an example of racism I'm going to lose a lot of sleep over. Or any sleep for that matter. But it fits into the broader trend of our country abandoning the hard won social taboos we'd worked so hard to slowly built up between the 1960s and the 2000s against open discrimination between people on the basis of race.

*While acknowledging some folks have been trying, with mixed success, to redefine what the word "racism" means away from its original meaning of discriminating between people on the basis of their perceived race. If you want to argue about what words to use to represent what ideas, just go read a comic instead.

As a word in English "race" when applied to people has origins from the time when white Europeans needed a word to describe the other peoples of the earth that they were starting to conquer, exploit and enslave.  The idea that it is "race-neutral" is a hangover from the era of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow in America when the attempt was made to justify inequality on the grounds of "separate but equal".  Which was of course complete bullshit.

[maizefolk]

As a word in English "race" when applied to people has origins from the time when white Europeans needed a word to describe the other peoples of the earth that they were starting to conquer, exploit and enslave.  The idea that it is "race-neutral" is a hangover from the era of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow in America when the attempt was made to justify inequality on the grounds of "separate but equal".  Which was of course complete bullshit.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

Most words in english date back to eras when many people held views we now would find abhorrent.

You put quotes around "race-neutral" but I don't think I used that term or alluded to that concept.

[uniwelder]

I’m having trouble understanding most of the replies here. I don’t watch the show, but if a group of people of one race teamed up against another, that would be racist from an objective standpoint.

If a wealthy person gets mugged on the street, should we feel pity for the thief because they’re poor and need the money, and societal inequities led to the class disparity? From what I’m reading here, it sounds like most people would say yes.

[charis]

Racism is apparently defined by Merriam-Webster as:"1 unfair treatment of people of a particular race in a society especially to the benefit of people of another race. 2 : the belief that certain races of people are superior to others."

I don't see the BB scenario as involving the unfair treatment of white people (it's quite fair actually) or the belief that the white contestants are inferior to the contestants of color because of their race.  But I don't watch BB and I know that nuance can be difficult.

[former player]

As a word in English "race" when applied to people has origins from the time when white Europeans needed a word to describe the other peoples of the earth that they were starting to conquer, exploit and enslave.  The idea that it is "race-neutral" is a hangover from the era of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow in America when the attempt was made to justify inequality on the grounds of "separate but equal".  Which was of course complete bullshit.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

Most words in english date back to eras when many people held views we now would find abhorrent.

You put quotes around "race-neutral" but I don't think I used that term or alluded to that concept.

The whole tenor of your previous post was racism applies equally to all.  My point is that it doesn't, and that attempts to say that it does are denying its origins and application for centuries in favour of "white people are victims of racism" - which isn't true, or perhaps is true only as a secondary effect.  You are of course free to carry on seeing white people as primary victims of racism if you wish.

[uniwelder]

As a word in English "race" when applied to people has origins from the time when white Europeans needed a word to describe the other peoples of the earth that they were starting to conquer, exploit and enslave.  The idea that it is "race-neutral" is a hangover from the era of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow in America when the attempt was made to justify inequality on the grounds of "separate but equal".  Which was of course complete bullshit.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

Most words in english date back to eras when many people held views we now would find abhorrent.

You put quotes around "race-neutral" but I don't think I used that term or alluded to that concept.

The whole tenor of your previous post was racism applies equally to all.  My point is that it doesn't, and that attempts to say that it does are denying its origins and application for centuries in favour of "white people are victims of racism" - which isn't true, or perhaps is true only as a secondary effect.  You are of course free to carry on seeing white people as primary victims of racism if you wish.

I don’t think anyone said white people are primary victims. Your argument is similar to ‘men can’t be victims of rape’ simply because it’s typically the other way around.

[maizefolk]

The whole tenor of your previous post was racism applies equally to all.  My point is that it doesn't, and that attempts to say that it does are denying its origins and application for centuries in favour of "white people are victims of racism" - which isn't true, or perhaps is true only as a secondary effect.  You are of course free to carry on seeing white people as primary victims of racism if you wish.

I think you are reading into my post which I did not intend to write.

This worries me a lot given the potential professional consequences to me if others end up interpreting my writing in the same way.

Could you please expand on what in the post that I wrote lead you to conclude that I hold the view that "white people are the primary victims of racism"?

For the avoidance of any confusion this is NOT a view that I actually hold.

[former player]

The whole premise of this thread, which you appear to support, is that black people deciding to act together is "obviously" racist against white people.

I'm just trying to explain why it isn't.  Feel free to either find someone who can explain it better than I can, or continue to believe that it's racist.  I'm out, I've got a tennis match to watch.

[uniwelder]

The whole premise of this thread, which you appear to support, is that black people deciding to act together is "obviously" racist against white people.

I'm just trying to explain why it isn't.  Feel free to either find someone who can explain it better than I can, or continue to believe that it's racist.  I'm out, I've got a tennis match to watch.

You haven’t actually explained why this scenario isn’t racist. You’ve said what racism usually entails from a broad perspective and the historical implications.

[maizefolk]

I said that CBS setting racial quotas meets the literal definition of racism. It's a particularly silly type of racism since they'd get the same outcome from random selection and it's hard to get bent out of shape about given the silly low stakes (who gets to make a fool of themselves on reality TV). To the best of my knowledge a corporation does not have a racial identification so I don't see any way a person could take this as "black people acting together."

You have attributed statements and views to me which I have not said and do not hold.

Specifically:

You have said I support the view that black people acting together in of itself is obviously racism:

The whole premise of this thread, which you appear to support, is that black people deciding to act together is "obviously" racist against white people.

I do not believe that and I have not said that.

You have said that I see white people as the primary victims of racism:

You are of course free to carry on seeing white people as primary victims of racism if you wish.

I do not believe that and I have not said that.

I would ask that you please stop attributing to me odious and offensives views which have not stated in this thread and which I do not hold.

[DarkandStormy]

I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that some guy wanted his kids judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I wonder how that guy would react to the current trend of “hey let’s assign victim points to people based on the color of their skin?” 

But what do I know.

Another white dude invoking MLK lmao

[Roland of Gilead]

Another white dude invoking MLK lmao

Because everyone knows you have to be black to agree with things MLK said?

I think Claire is actually the least racist person on the show this season.  She was blind to skin color and was playing the game based on personal friendships and relationships and seemed honestly shocked when she was told she would be voted out because she was not a person of color (but accepted it).

I hope she gets fan favorite.

[marty998]

Nothing will ever top Richard the gay nudist winning the first season of Survivor, so I have stopped watching these shows.

Alliances form and fall apart all of the time on those silly shows, and half the time people stab each other in the back anyway and the alliance falls apart.

Finally: not racist.

So true. The top was in with the first season of Survivor.

It's so sad that I remember this. The last game between the final three was the hands on immunity idol challenge and Richard was like "fuck this, you two sort it out while I go fishing".

Forget the young woman's name who won that challenge against the 72 year old Navy vet Rudy. She (being the tough as nails single mum(?) fighter) then voted him out thinking that she'd have a better chance of winning against the smug corporate rich white dude.

For some inexplicable reason the tribe voted for Richard even though I remember him being the biggest scheming asshole there. I can only guess it was as a thankyou because he caught all their dinners for 8 weeks so they didn't all have to only eat rice.

[PKFFW]

Having not seen the show and only commenting based on the OP.....

My 2 cents...no, it is not racist.

Why?

The in group is simply playing within the stated rules to provide their group with an inherent advantage over others.  They are not treating any person unfairly or seemingly hold any belief that anyone else is a lesser person based on their "race".  They are also not denying any others the freedom to form their own group to counter their alliance.  That the in group has chosen "race" as their identifier does not automatically make their actions racist.

But it fits into the broader trend of our country abandoning the hard won social taboos we'd worked so hard to slowly built up between the 1960s and the 2000s against open discrimination between people on the basis of race.

Perhaps it is a form of racism that is a direct response to the continued covert, systemic racism that your country (and others, mine included) has continued to ignore in favour of pretending that a taboo on open discrimination is good enough.

[uniwelder]

Having not seen the show and only commenting based on the OP.....

My 2 cents...no, it is not racist.

Why?

The in group is simply playing within the stated rules to provide their group with an inherent advantage over others.  They are not treating any person unfairly or seemingly hold any belief that anyone else is a lesser person based on their "race".  They are also not denying any others the freedom to form their own group to counter their alliance.  That the in group has chosen "race" as their identifier does not automatically make their actions racist.

This has been mentioned a few times now.  If the situation were flipped the other way around, would anyone here be commenting that its not racist? 

[maizefolk]

But it fits into the broader trend of our country abandoning the hard won social taboos we'd worked so hard to slowly built up between the 1960s and the 2000s against open discrimination between people on the basis of race.

Perhaps it is a form of racism that is a direct response to the continued covert, systemic racism that your country (and others, mine included) has continued to ignore in favour of pretending that a taboo on open discrimination is good enough.

The taboo against open racial discrimination clearly didn't solve all our problems or "end racism" or any such nonsense. But it did create a much better world for us all to live in than what had existed before.

As you point out, plenty of racial discrimination continued to exist behind closed doors or as a result of unconscious actions. I don't know anyone who would say the hard won taboo was, by itself, "good enough."

My fear is that a lot of us have forgotten just how much worse things can get without that taboo. There are plenty of people alive today who lived through the era of segregated schools, segregated buses and segregated drinking fountains. People who rode in cars while their parents charted safe and unsafe towns for the family to stop in from consulting the green book. The last anti-miscegenation law in the United States was repealed in the year 2000.*

Hopefully we've moved beyond that as a country. Hopefully even as we ask people to unlearn that two generations of public school education has taught all of us about the evils of things like hiring people based on their racial identity,** we'll keep moving towards a more just world rather than towards greater injustice. But then I look around at what's happening in the nation today and it's hard to be that optimistic.

I work with a number of folks from Rwanda. Some were children during the genocide. Some grew up hearing about it from their parents. It's fascinating (and a bit terrifying) to hear their perspectives on the ways people here in the US are starting to see each other and talk about each other.

*It had been unenforceable for several decades before it was repealed, but it was still on the books.

**And again, it's really hard to get that worked up about this particular example since 1) the quota CBS set pretty much matches what they'd get in the absence of racial discrimination anyway and 2) even if it didn't who is or isn't allowed to make a fool of themselves on reality TV hardly seems like the hill to die on.

[Chris22]

I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that some guy wanted his kids judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I wonder how that guy would react to the current trend of “hey let’s assign victim points to people based on the color of their skin?” 

But what do I know.

Another white dude invoking MLK lmao

I’d love to hear a nuanced argument why MLM was wrong instead of “lol white people”.

[Kris]

I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that some guy wanted his kids judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I wonder how that guy would react to the current trend of “hey let’s assign victim points to people based on the color of their skin?” 

But what do I know.

Another white dude invoking MLK lmao

I’d love to hear a nuanced argument why MLM was wrong instead of “lol white people”.

Because white people quote him out of context all the time precisely to derail a nuanced argument.

https://www.upworthy.com/if-you-quote-mlk-but-havent-read-his-letter-from-a-birmingham-jail

[PKFFW]

This has been mentioned a few times now.  If the situation were flipped the other way around, would anyone here be commenting that its not racist?

As mentioned, I haven't watched the show.  However, I've not seen any suggestion in this thread that the in group is treating anyone in a way that is against the rules or is basing their actions on a belief that white people are inferior.  In fact the suggestion seems to be that the in group has treated others in all other respects with friendship and as regular and equal people.  Someone mentioned one contestant being surprised to be told she was being voted out simply because she was not part of the "coloured people" in group.  She seemed completely unaware of any difference in treatment up to that point

So if the situation were flipped around, personally, I would not consider it any more racist than a sporting team playing within the rules to beat another sporting team.

[PKFFW]

The taboo against open racial discrimination clearly didn't solve all our problems or "end racism" or any such nonsense. But it did create a much better world for us all to live in than what had existed before.

Never suggested otherwise.

As you point out, plenty of racial discrimination continued to exist behind closed doors or as a result of unconscious actions. I don't know anyone who would say the hard won taboo was, by itself, "good enough."

My fear is that a lot of us have forgotten just how much worse things can get without that taboo. There are plenty of people alive today who lived through the era of segregated schools, segregated buses and segregated drinking fountains. People who rode in cars while their parents charted safe and unsafe towns for the family to stop in from consulting the green book. The last anti-miscegenation law in the United States was repealed in the year 2000.*

Hopefully we've moved beyond that as a country. Hopefully even as we ask people to unlearn that two generations of public school education has taught all of us about the evils of things like hiring people based on their racial identity,** we'll keep moving towards a more just world rather than towards greater injustice. But then I look around at what's happening in the nation today and it's hard to be that optimistic.

I work with a number of folks from Rwanda. Some were children during the genocide. Some grew up hearing about it from their parents. It's fascinating (and a bit terrifying) to hear their perspectives on the ways people here in the US are starting to see each other and talk about each other.

*It had been unenforceable for several decades before it was repealed, but it was still on the books.

**And again, it's really hard to get that worked up about this particular example since 1) the quota CBS set pretty much matches what they'd get in the absence of racial discrimination anyway and 2) even if it didn't who is or isn't allowed to make a fool of themselves on reality TV hardly seems like the hill to die on.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the rest of your post but it kind of reads like "yeah not being openly racist doesn't solve everything but it could be a hell of a lot worse so you know, let's just all get along and not think about it."

[maizefolk]

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the rest of your post but it kind of reads like "yeah not being openly racist doesn't solve everything but it could be a hell of a lot worse so you know, let's just all get along and not think about it."

Yes, you are misinterpreting my post.

Think of it like having a leaky roof. If the roof is leaking you can either try to patch the leaks, or you can decide the house is unsalvageable and needs to be torn down to build a new one from scratch.

Depending on how frequent storms are, how many leaks there are in the roof, and how much confidence you have in your ability to build a better house (and how fast), tearing the house down might be the right call, or patching the leaks in the existing roof might be the right call.

But arguing that we're better off patching leaks than tearing the house down and hoping we can build a new better one in time is not the same thing as saying we're should just be happy to have a house with a leaky roof and so shouldn't do anything at all.

[GuitarStv]

My give-a-fuckometer is riding dangerously low on this one either way.

If it's not racist, then let's just stop discussing crap TV.  If it is racist, it's a display of racism that doesn't matter in any way to anyone.  Oh no - on a ridiculous 'reality tv show' that is probably mostly scripted some actors decided to band together by skin colour?

In the words of the illustrious US president - "C'mon man".

:P

[PKFFW]

Yes, you are misinterpreting my post.

Think of it like having a leaky roof. If the roof is leaking you can either try to patch the leaks, or you can decide the house is unsalvageable and needs to be torn down to build a new one from scratch.

Depending on how frequent storms are, how many leaks there are in the roof, and how much confidence you have in your ability to build a better house (and how fast), tearing the house down might be the right call, or patching the leaks in the existing roof might be the right call.

But arguing that we're better off patching leaks than tearing the house down and hoping we can build a new better one in time is not the same thing as saying we're should just be happy to have a house with a leaky roof and so shouldn't do anything at all.

That analogy does make it much clearer, so thank you.

To take the analogy further I see the sort of quota "racism" you refer to as being akin to having a roof that is leaking in 2 bedrooms and the rest of the house is fine.  Those sleeping in the bedroom are trying to repair the roof.  They are not suggesting the entire house needs to be torn down. 

On the other hand, those not sleeping in the leaking bedrooms are fine with the situation and see no need to repair the roof or tear down the house and in fact see any attempt at repairing the leaky roof as being some sort of attack on their bedrooms.

[PKFFW]

My give-a-fuckometer is riding dangerously low on this one either way.

If it's not racist, then let's just stop discussing crap TV.  If it is racist, it's a display of racism that doesn't matter in any way to anyone.  Oh no - on a ridiculous 'reality tv show' that is probably mostly scripted some actors decided to band together by skin colour?

In the words of the illustrious US president - "C'mon man".

:P

Personally, I agree.

[Metalcat]

My give-a-fuckometer is riding dangerously low on this one either way.

If it's not racist, then let's just stop discussing crap TV.  If it is racist, it's a display of racism that doesn't matter in any way to anyone.  Oh no - on a ridiculous 'reality tv show' that is probably mostly scripted some actors decided to band together by skin colour?

In the words of the illustrious US president - "C'mon man".

:P

Personally, I agree.

But those poor white people might lose the pointless, rigged competition. How can you not care?

[maizefolk]

That analogy does make it much clearer, so thank you.

To take the analogy further I see the sort of quota "racism" you refer to as being akin to having a roof that is leaking in 2 bedrooms and the rest of the house is fine.  Those sleeping in the bedroom are trying to repair the roof.  They are not suggesting the entire house needs to be torn down. 

On the other hand, those not sleeping in the leaking bedrooms are fine with the situation and see no need to repair the roof or tear down the house and in fact see any attempt at repairing the leaky roof as being some sort of attack on their bedrooms.

It sounds like a reasonable summary of the difference in views.

I'd only ask that you remember that not everyone who disagrees with your proposed approach is doing so because they don't think there is a problem and don't want anything to change. You've repeatedly framed this as a choice between your proposed approach to making things better (abandon the taboo on racial discrimination to order to directly intervene based on race) or do nothing at all:

"those not sleeping in the leaking bedrooms are fine with the situation and see no need to repair the roof or tear down the house and in fact see any attempt at repairing the leaky roof as being some sort of attack on their bedrooms."

""yeah not being openly racist doesn't solve everything but it could be a hell of a lot worse so you know, let's just all get along and not think about it.""

"...systemic racism that your country (and others, mine included) has continued to ignore in favour of pretending that a taboo on open discrimination is good enough."

We can and should be working really hard to address many of the gaps and inequalities in our society regardless of whether that means tearing the house down or patching the holes in the roof. Because of how big the racial income and wealth gaps are in the USA there are countless legally race neutral policies we can, should, and are advocating for that have the effect of reducing racial inequality.

-Shifting more school funding to the state or federal level rather than local property taxes so people in poor neighborhoods (who are disproportionately black) have access to better schools and education.
-Marijuana reform and other drug reform which reducing the number of (disproportionately black) people who get sent to jail and end up with criminal records.
-More funding for the Department of Justice and HUD to do more audit studies and stings to detect and prosecute illegal housing discrimination.
-Absolutely ANYTHING you can do to make college more accessible to people from low income backgrounds. Less than a third of black high school students get a college degree while almost half of white students do. Yet if grouped by income level, college attendance and graduation rates are nearly the same for black and white students, the difference is that a lot more black students are coming from the bottom of the income distribution.

I could go on and on with this (the expanded child tax credit which is for the moment dramatically cutting childhood poverty which disproportionately effects black children). But hopefully you can understand my point? It's not a binary choice between trying to convince society that racial discrimination is sometimes good and sometimes bad and claiming there are no problems and so we shouldn't try to fix them.

[PKFFW]

It sounds like a reasonable summary of the difference in views.

I'd only ask that you remember that not everyone who disagrees with your proposed approach is doing so because they don't think there is a problem and don't want anything to change. You've repeatedly framed this as a choice between your proposed approach to making things better (abandon the taboo on racial discrimination to order to directly intervene based on race) or do nothing at all:

"those not sleeping in the leaking bedrooms are fine with the situation and see no need to repair the roof or tear down the house and in fact see any attempt at repairing the leaky roof as being some sort of attack on their bedrooms."

""yeah not being openly racist doesn't solve everything but it could be a hell of a lot worse so you know, let's just all get along and not think about it.""

"...systemic racism that your country (and others, mine included) has continued to ignore in favour of pretending that a taboo on open discrimination is good enough."

We can and should be working really hard to address many of the gaps and inequalities in our society regardless of whether that means tearing the house down or patching the holes in the roof. Because of how big the racial income and wealth gaps are in the USA there are countless legally race neutral policies we can, should, and are advocating for that have the effect of reducing racial inequality.

-Shifting more school funding to the state or federal level rather than local property taxes so people in poor neighborhoods (who are disproportionately black) have access to better schools and education.
-Marijuana reform and other drug reform which reducing the number of (disproportionately black) people who get sent to jail and end up with criminal records.
-More funding for the Department of Justice and HUD to do more audit studies and stings to detect and prosecute illegal housing discrimination.
-Absolutely ANYTHING you can do to make college more accessible to people from low income backgrounds. Less than a third of black high school students get a college degree while almost half of white students do. Yet if grouped by income level, college attendance and graduation rates are nearly the same for black and white students, the difference is that a lot more black students are coming from the bottom of the income distribution.

I could go on and on with this (the expanded child tax credit which is for the moment dramatically cutting childhood poverty which disproportionately effects black children). But hopefully you can understand my point? It's not a binary choice between trying to convince society that racial discrimination is sometimes good and sometimes bad and claiming there are no problems and so we shouldn't try to fix them.

I agree it doesn't need to be a binary choice.  Lots can be done, some little is actually being done, and history proves the rate of change, while probably seen by those not suffering the inequality themselves as great strides forward from how bad it used to be, is frustratingly slow for those who are the ones suffering the inequality.

My only original point in responding to your comment about quota "racism" was that it could well be a reaction to the perceived limited action towards tackling systemic covert racism beyond making it taboo to be openly racist.