I was reading through this post and I wanted to bring some things up in regard to argumentation. I think some arguments by various parties could have been more clear or better in terms of content.
First off:
In reading this thread, I ran into this quote from StarBuck:
I have several problems with this on an argumentation level.
1) This is a warrantless assertion more akin to psychologizing than anything else. After all, how do you empirically prove that "A lot" (a relatively vacuous term) of the white upper class (another vacuous term, though it doesn't have to be) hate rap for WHATEVER the reason?
2) Even if you could prove that the "white upper class" hates rap because it doesn't fit what they deem appropriate in terms of structure, what practical/functional use would that serve on THIS forum?
I understand that FaSheezy used anecdotal evidence to suggest that even some Objectivists seem closed minded/prejudiced when it came to rap and that Star Buck at least appears to back that up with his statement.
However Groovenstein (props by the way) correctly points out that anecdotal evidence isn't enough to generalize. By extension, even well documented evidence (of the fact that Race A can be racist towards Group B isn't enough to generalize that just because a person is in the category of Race A that they will NECESSARILY be racist towards someone in Group B.
I guess I'm confused as to why StarBuck posted what he did originally because it doesn't seem to have much use argument-wise or discussion wise. Maybe he can answer that one .
After reading StarBuck's original quote, I saw Thales post this:
Now THAT is a really bad approach first off and moreover, it is a bad argument.
First, Rational Cop's approach (asking the question, "What is meant by privileged and how does one become privileged") was much more conducive to good debate and rational because it leaves room for clarity and doesn't force the debate into muddy waters- it at least lets the person that might have muddied the waters to extricate themselves by clarifying.
Second off....since Thales slacked off and didn't define fundamental terms, I will do so.
Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary (www.refdesk.com) defines racist as :
rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective
MW's defines socialist as someone who subscribes to socialism which is defined as:
so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
With that in mind the term "white upper class" doesn't have to be racist or socialist AT ALL.
The terms "white" and "upper class" are pretty comprehendible.
White simply is a label for skin color. In fact, Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary (www.refdesk.com) says that white is : "2 a : being a member of a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin"
"upper class" is simply a term denoting social standing/economic status.
How in blazes do either of those terms (white or upper class) have racist implications by themselves or when you put them together?
Saying someone belongs to the category "White upper class" is DESCRIPTIVE in nature, not NORMATIVE.
So assuming that someone has normative implications is silly and unwarranted.
If someone says, "Jim is a member of the white upper class" that is falsifiable and empirically provable. We can check to see if Jim is indeed white and if his income falls within a certain range.
That doesn't have ANY racist implications on its own.
Now if someone says, "Jim is a member of the white upper class and because of that fact he is dumb, ugly, stupid, and isn't virtuous" that IS racist.
See the difference?
StarBuck saying "white upper class" does NOT demean people because they are white anymore than me saying, "I'm American" demeans me by putting a descriptive label It certainly doesn't "demean them in the worst way" as Thales claims.
NOW...onto the second claim that StarBuck using the phrase "upper class" is "socialist" in nature.
Once again...StarBuck makes a descriptive claim...that upper class white folk were the ones that had a problem with rap music.
For what it is worth, he is right in the fact that the white upper class was/is the group most active in protesting hip hop politically. That can be inferred by the fact that minorities statistically don't participate politically anywhere near Caucasians nor do people of all races under 65 participate as much as those OVER 65. Tipper Gore and Hillary Clinton are the ones that bitch about violent videogames and rap music (the snafu over Ice-T's Cop Killer was Dan Quayle's baby). You don't see Barrack Obama or Jesse Jackson up in arms about rap music. Currently Barrack is the ONLY black man in the senate.
Moreover, culturally speaking, rap/hip hop was STARTED by black youth FOR black youth. It wasn't trendy in the beginning which is why black people don't tend to be as overtly/publicly against rap/hip hop as white people.
Regardless of the truth or falsehood of StarBuck's original descriptive claim (that upper class white people are the ones that have the biggest problem with rap music), Starbuck's original claim is NOT socialist whatsoever. StarBuck said, "members of the privileged white upper class." He didn't say the white upper class as a whole. Thus, he RESPECTED the individual...the minority of one. That is NOT socialistic at all. It is a descriptive statement that seems more Objectivist in nature than socialist, though his statment has PLENTY wrong with it (I spent the first half of my post talking about why StarBuck's original comment is shoddy and not really useful). Thale's critique isn't any more correct or useful than what StarBuck originally contributed which is why I'm bringing all of this up.
StarBuck's original post had nothing to do with demeaning the white upper class because they are achievers or because of ANYTHING for that matter. Nothing was demeaned to begin with!
Thales needs to be WAY more precise when using words...especially if he is going to go around chucking BIG TIME value leaden words like "racist" and "socialist" around at people accusatorily without explaining HOW they meet the words definitional requirements. Using words inaccurately is a great way to give the appearance (whether correct or not) of throwing around value ladden buzz l words (racist/socialist) out for the purpose of simply inciting negative response without care for accuracy. If this wasn't an Objectivist forum, I would probably assume that Thales was just an uneducated dolt throwing trying to be provocative (trolling/flaming). I hope this isn't the case. Good arguments and good scholarship ensures that you never have to deal with bad impressions like that, however.
It kind of saddens me that nobody brought this up until now.
Ah well.
I guess someone has to do it. Might as well be a former debater .
Now...to ANSWER RationalCop's insightful question (since StarBuck seemed to bow out of the discussion)
"How Does one become privileged or non-privileged and what does that mean?"
I think you can easily answer that question without descending into Socialist babble.
First off:
priv·i·lege
Pronunciation: 'priv-lij, 'pri-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office
I think StarBuck was implying that upper class white people have certain benefits, favors, and advantages to being upper class AND white that people that are NOT upper class OR white do not have that come from simply being born into a certain category.
I think that can be a descriptive statement without having negative normative implications (at least economically speaking).
Being rich DOES have advantages/benefits but only if a person is really worthy of their money. We all know that isn't a BAD thing. It becomes a privilege when you are born into it. We all know about trust fund baby syndrome aka "from rags to riches to rags in three generations." Miss Rand said herself that those that don't understand the nature of money, capitalism, and the role of philosophy in people's lives will most likely end up worthless playboys or destitute because they aren't worthy of their money. Thus it can be argued that simply being born into money isn't necessarily a benefit or advantage...in fact it can be a disadvantage because in the wrong hands it only gives a person MORE rope to hang themselves with and MORE potential ground to disassociate oneself from reality. I think that is the BEST argument against people trying to claim that "economic privilege" is really important in the grand scheme of things.
As far as racial privilege? That is an unfortunate product of racism that manifest itself in things like police corruption, etc. In some places (and sometimes only in certain circumstances) white people DO have special privileges just because they are white. This can equate to unfair treatment in the courts or by the police...or just an overall difficulty in getting respect or a voice due to racism.Perhaps a daycare doesn't accept your kid because he isn't the "right color?" That kind of stuff DOES happen and it DOES get documented every now and then. Is it huge? Probably not.
Statistically speaking, white people are OVERALL better off economically than pretty much any other minority from every statistic I have seen. This translates to political power, better education, and more opportunities (in a lot of cases, more SQUANDERED opportunities...which is something minorities don't often mention...lol). If you are white, chances are you get more starting privileges (better access to education, etc).
Now...the interesting question comes from asking WHY that is.
If the real issue is money, then why are white people better off economically than black people?
I personally believe it all has to do with philosophy and outlook. Much in the same way that Jews have been pretty darn economically successful due to the Hellenistic influence in their culture, White people have been pretty successful due to the Founding Fathers and some good old Western Renaissance/Enlightenment thinking that started America on the right track. That thinking has been pretty badly diluted and poorly defended in the west as Miss Rand explains in her several books. However, THAT is what has allowed America to become successful AT ALL. The philosophy.
Black people were imported from tribal/primitive cultures and were screwed with HARD when it came to slavery. Not only were families split up and black people dehumanized, but their society was fragmented by the Union which said, "You came from primitive culture and adapted to a life where you didn't really have to think for yourself or live as a rational animal working to achieve values. That life is gone. Have fun learning to survive out there on your own!"
Were the results really that surprising? Given the fractured nature of the slave system with family members being sold up the river and families being dependent upon the females (which wasn't ALWAYS "unnatural" as in some cases it was an offshoot of some African matrilineal cultures) , is it a surprise that the freeing of the slaves created a society that has some serious issues of mothers being saddled with kids and deadbeat dads? Is it a surprise that a decent segment of FORCED dependents became willing dependents as soon as they could when it was offered (welfare)? It wasn't like everything changed for the positive in the South for black people right after the Civil War. When FDR introduced welfare, you still had JIM CROW laws for christ's sakes....so it isn't like there were a butt load of opportunities in the south.
Keep in mind, welfare/poverty are NOT unique to black people and I'm not trying to argue that. I think Jesse Jackson made said somewhere that single white moms are the most prolific welfare users (in response to Vicente Fox sticking his foot in his mouth poltically by commenting that Mexicans do jobs that black people won't do). However, there ARE some unique issues that black people have faced and are facing historically and I think that people like EC would do well to keep that in mind when they get annoyed with Tupac going into "black issues."
I know I have sidetracked the discussion into debate/argumentation issues (what constitutes a good or a bad argument) and some other stuff (race/privilege). I think the debate/argumentation post is necessary and proper in ANY forum if arguments aren't being made that you think should be made or BAD arguments are being made that you object to. I felt that discussing the privilege issue was an important thing to do considering Rational Cop brought it up to begin with as a question. Perhaps it belongs in another forum, but I think since the question was brought up here...that it can reasonably stay here.
If a moderator thinks otherwise, c'est la vie.
-Evan
(post edited for clarity)
