Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
MisterSwig

How To Solve Racial Problems

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, EC said:

Why don't you guys just provide the definition of "tribe" as it applies to the context of Federally recognized Native American tribes?

Here is the Official Guidelines document for Indian groups petitioning for federal acknowledgement. It covers the criteria that needs to be met.

OfficialGuidelines.pdf

If you skip to page 41 it defines "Indian entity" as "a political, self-governing group." This includes entities like tribes, pueblos, villages, etc. By "self-governing" they specifically don't mean a "formal structure." "Political authority or influence" may be "informal leadership found in churches, schools, etc." This means that "certain individuals not holding an office or title are able to influence the behavior of other members." One example given is a leader who organizes group activities like building a church, so that requirement doesn't even mandate a tribal chieftan.

The hardest criteria to meet, in my view, would be the first two listed.

1. Being "identified by reliable external sources on a substantially continuous basis as an Indian entity since 1900." 

2. Having "maintained a continuous community from historical times to the present day."

For #1 there needs to be consistent, historical source statements identifying the group, as a group. And for #2 there needs to be evidence proving communal existence from historical times. It is not necessary to show that the group has kept its native language, religion, or culture. Those things can change, as long as they've kept up their community.

The other criteria for acknowledgement don't appear to be relevant to the definition of a tribe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What you're trying to grapple with is something like secession, or separatism (claiming that your state or region ought to be a distinct nation instead of part of the existing country). 

I'm not grappling with secession. Secession, as I understand it in this context, is separation from the federal government. I'm talking about a tribal nation, which is still under the authority of Congress. Members of tribal nations are still US citizens. If they leave the reservation, state and local laws also apply to them.

I understand that white nationalists probably advocate for secession, but that's not me.

5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The important thing I'm emphasizing here is that racism is more than erroneous belief. Any serious racist, one who pushes for racism in the political realm (race-based policies), would try to spread their beliefs. Almost every time, it manifests as violence.

I'm not talking about violent racists who advocate the violation of individual rights. We agree that those people should not have full autonomy. They should be subject to federal laws. And if they try to enact and enforce race-based laws, they should be tried in federal court. But we can't assume a racist will be violent. Some are, some aren't. It depends on whether they respect rights.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm not grappling with secession

I don't think you're really listening. Earlier, also as SL was saying, you couldn't get a true Bigot Town. So I'm saying the only way you could get such a thing is separatism or secession. And if you came up with other political constructs for such a town to exist. But this is a tangent that doesn't matter much.

12 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm not talking about violent racists who advocate the violation of individual rights.

Did you read my scenario? I explained how it would manifest as violence, and all kinds of political problems created by racism, even if a portion of the people only want to be left alone. Of course the actions I'm talking about would be illegal, but their ideas remain a threat in the realm of ideas. You haven't offered a solution to deal with racist ideas.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Of course the actions I'm talking about would be illegal, but their ideas remain a threat in the realm of ideas. You haven't offered a solution to deal with racist ideas.

I read your scenario. I get what you're saying. Here's the issue. As long as someone's racist ideology does not promote the violation of rights, on what basis do you claim that it will lead to violence? Because they hold an irrational viewpoint? Lots of people hold lots of irrational views. It doesn't necessarily make them all future criminals. If someone holds a racist view on faith, then we must challenge their reliance on faith. If they offer actual evidence, we must deal with the evidence, like we do in the IQ threads. That's basically how I would deal with people who espouse racism.

I'm going to move off this idea of Bigot Town, because I don't claim to know how it would work, except as some voluntary association perhaps, in which case it would be subject to the local laws of whatever city it occupied. Furthermore, my hope is that any Bigot Town would fail, and the bigots might then learn the error of their ways. So I'm reluctant to speculate further how such a thing might endure. That's for the bigots to figure out.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

As long as someone's racist ideology does not promote the violation of rights, on what basis do you claim that it will lead to violence?

Because that's what makes a racist ideology (as opposed to "casual" racism we see with stereotypes). I mean, individuals might be racist and do nothing. I'm trying to argue that even if this town sprang up, this would be a potential threat that should be dealt with in the realm of ideas. If they got together, I wouldn't stand by and think "hey, this isn't a bad solution, now they are all isolated in their own town!" As I said before, I get the idea of trying to isolate the dangerous ideology. But I don't think it would work. Throughout history, concentration of racists who want political action (and are involved with it) become violent very quickly. Part of the reason for this is that racist ideologies completely lack any individualism, it's a wild contradiction to support individual rights and be a racist. They just don't occur together. 

Although rights help us identify how to deal with conflict, they don't offer guidance on how to change someone's mind. They don't identify how to create social change. 

I'm more interested in if you have more ideas.

The best idea I have is to engage racism when I see it. But I'm not satisfied with how it has worked out in various places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Throughout history, concentration of racists who want political action (and are involved with it) become violent very quickly. Part of the reason for this is that racist ideologies completely lack any individualism, it's a wild contradiction to support individual rights and be a racist. They just don't occur together. 

I have dealt with racists who support individual rights. For example, some parents don't want their children marrying outside the race, and yet they would not support a ban on interracial marriage. While they personally value one race over another, for whatever reason, they don't believe in enforcing their own morality on others. So not all racists want to inject racism into politics. And if they do, they should be banned from politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I have dealt with racists who support individual rights.

I should have been more specific. They don't occur together as political movements.

I already granted there might be individuals who hold that contradiction. The thing is, no political ideology remains static. When these people are interspersed throughout the entire US, it's a lot less likely to grow and evolve. But when you concentrate all these people, a rights-violating political ideology is a lot more likely to form. "But it's illegal!" Isn't a good reason to think that it won't grow and become more extreme over time. That's what my scenario was supposed to point out, and how it further grows from there. 

So I'm just wondering why you even think this would be a good idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

So I'm just wondering why you even think this would be a good idea. 

You seem convinced that the town would get more racist, because "racist ideologies completely lack any individualism." And "when you concentrate all these people, a rights-violating political ideology is a lot more likely to form."

I see a causal issue here. Humans have complicated belief systems. They can hold a racist view among their personal beliefs, yet not include that view in their political beliefs. This does not mean there is a necessary contradiction. It means they don't want to impose their morality on society. For example, I think it is wrong to lie to children about Santa Claus, yet I would not favor a law against deceiving children about Santa Claus.

So, what causes people to integrate a personal moral belief into their political belief? I suspect it happens when they do not recognize an individual right in that context, and think it's important on a political level.

Historically, almost everyone was a racist, and almost nobody had a concept of individual rights. Therefore, it's not surprising that the violent groups were also racists. But were they violent because of their racism or because they had no concept of individual rights?

Why would a concentration of non-violent racists be more likely to form a rights-violating ideology? Wouldn't the more peaceful people start leaving the town if its leaders advocated violence? And wouldn't they tell authorities what's going on in there? I suspect that the town would become less racist over time, not more, because there would be no outside pressure for them to radicalize against an enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Why would a concentration of non-violent racists be more likely to form a rights-violating ideology? Wouldn't the more peaceful people start leaving the town if its leaders advocated violence? And wouldn't they tell authorities what's going on in there? I suspect that the town would become less racist over time, not more, because there would be no outside pressure for them to radicalize against an enemy.

This is what happens in most cases. I know you guys are talking about hypothetical "Bigot Towns" but in reality there are small towns in rural areas that possess exactly this property and the above is exactly what eventually happens to them over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

But were they violent because of their racism or because they had no concept of individual rights?

Racism is caused by a failure to understand what an individual even is. Because of that, it is not possible for them to have a complete concept of individual rights.

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Why would a concentration of non-violent racists be more likely to form a rights-violating ideology?

Because there is a constant tension between rights and racism. Something has to give, eventually. Some portion of the people will give into rights, another portion will give into racism. I think you are ignoring the nature of the ways ideologies evolve. When I say ideology, I mean in the context of groups of people who share a particular set of ideas. It's "possible" that nothing will happen, but I think this is less likely than something dangerous happening. When you concentrate people, their ideas become concentrated.

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Wouldn't the more peaceful people start leaving the town if its leaders advocated violence? And wouldn't they tell authorities what's going on in there?

I think that's a reasonable possibility, but that's what I'm getting at: I think this will happen every time, so it's hardly a solution to encourage a town of racists. Unless you are suggesting that provoking the development of violence is an effective way to demonstrate the evils of racism. I could see that argument working. 

(Tangent: People like MLK supported nonviolence as a way to combat violent racists, because the violent racists would actively demonstrate their evil, and therefore emphasized to the good people exactly what the threat is. Gandhi did the same thing. So it is possible that a temporary increase of violence can in the long run lead to decreasing the racism which caused that violence.)

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I think you are ignoring the nature of the ways ideologies evolve.

People have free will. Ideologies don't have a determined evolutionary course, right? They can get worse or better, depending on choices made. So, maybe Bigot Town #1 goes rotten because they have a charismatic hateful type leading them. But Bigot Town #2 ultimately decides to integrate because they raise better children who study better ideas.

3 hours ago, EC said:

This is what happens in most cases. I know you guys are talking about hypothetical "Bigot Towns" but in reality there are small towns in rural areas that possess exactly this property and the above is exactly what eventually happens to them over time.

Yeah, when I started this thread I didn't realize how many actual Bigot Towns there are in the U.S. We could study some modern examples, such as Hildale, Utah, home of the FLDS, a bunch of polygamists who basically own the town, which is 96% white, mostly of English stock. Until recently the government and police were all members of the church. They've been federally prosecuted for religious bigotry and housing discrimination. I'm sure that's a complicated story involving abuses on both sides. But the really interesting part is what happened to their church president, Warren Jeffs. He's been quoted saying nasty things about blacks. His own nephew accused him of rape. And he's in a Texas jail for life on account of sexually assaulting female minors. He forced one young girl into an unwanted marriage with her uncle, who repeatedly raped her. So basically members of his own church and family turned on him.

After all the corruption and sex  scandals and in the absence of Jeffs, a couple years ago the town elected Donia Jessop as mayor. She is the first non-FLDS mayor of Hildale. A dozen city leaders resigned in protest, calling her an "apostate," because she left the church several years ago. And the nail in the coffin: she has vowed to open up the town to outsiders.

I could also talk about the Amish, who are primarily of Swiss German ancestry, and their efforts to integrate racially by adopting black children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

People have free will. Ideologies don't have a determined evolutionary course, right?

This is mainly why I was talking about probability. There are definite trends about human action. There are definite ways to encourage and discourage various actions. It sounds like you have no support for your idea that this is remotely a solution. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

This is mainly why I was talking about probability.

Probability is based on actual statistics. I've been looking at real Bigot Towns to see what actually happens. What do you think of the Hildale example? Here we had a fundamentalist church-controlled town, where the leader-prophet was a racist, misogynist, religious bigot--an all-around scumbag. Despite some federal pressure against their discriminatory ways, the town was left alone. It did not radicalize into terrorist crusaders. There were some minor issues with outsiders who snuck into town. Ultimately, many church members turned against their leader, their church, their faith, and have started to become less bigoted. Even those diehards who remained loyal to the church have not strapped bombs to their chests or murdered the new apostate mayor. They keep to themselves and build little wooden cells in their backyards, so they can experience what it's like to be their prophet in jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Probability is based on actual statistics.

I don't know what you mean by "actual statistics". All I see is you avoiding any discussion of social systems. As if they are completely random.

38 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Ultimately, many church members turned against their leader, their church, their faith, and have started to become less bigoted.

I'm not disputing this as a realistic possibility. I'm disputing you calling the creation of such towns a solution.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I'm with Ms. Rand on that solution.  By repealing segregation laws, we are simply placing racism and bigotry in its place- as a means of disrespect for individual rights.  Courts then should be able to strike down any race restrictions passed by governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...