Mr. Twyman, as I mentioned before, I appreciate your writing and sharing your experience. I read, and suspend judgment, because I feel strongly that each person does have a unique experience, and it is a part of the whole picture. It's important to take in viewpoints that are different from what we might usually hear, or hold. I had an amazing discussion of this kind with someone I met at a retreat late last year, which caused me to examine my thoughts much more fully than usual.
So I appreciate your sitting at the keyboard, and telling your truth, refusing to be silenced. I'm reminded of the "Blind Men and the Elephant" parable, and I learn from your reports from your station!
Well, I love your comment. One of the joys of writing for me is sharing my perception albeit unique with readers. We're not alone if we tend to be non-conformers and quirky. I love being me in my writing. Living in dogma and slogan words would take away the fun. Best and thanks for your "Blind Men and the Elephant" parable.
I once worked for a juvenile justice system. I did an informal survey of my colleagues as to feelings about race and racism. No one would admit to any personal individual feelings of antipathy to treating people differently due to race. Yet all knew and admitted that black and Hispanic kids would get busted more often, draw longer sentences, and do harsher time than white youth. There was, and is, racism in the system. Systemic racism.
I saw a news article about the traumatic effects of war and bombings on children inn the Ukraine. It occurred to me that children in South Sudan are just as traumatized, but that is almost never mentioned in mainstream media. Systemic racism.
You point out the demise of legal racism in the U.S. from the laws passed in the 1960s which were necessary to end legal segregation and Jim Crow. But that is not the same as getting rid of systemic racism. There is still racism in the social system. In many parts of the U.S. a white person shooting a Native American is treated very differently than anyone shooting a white person.
Thanks for your comment. I define "systemic" as state action. That definition makes sense to me since the force of law cannot be avoided. All around were laws mandating life along racial lines. As I mentioned, those laws came to an end at the federal, state and local level by the 1970s. It was a great moment of transition in Southern, and U.S., history.
The stories you refer to are arguably the product of personal and individual prejudices. Does a juvenile probation officer treat young kids differently based on race? That would be wrong and a consequence of individual bigotry and prejudice. Similarly, if a judge in his or her discretion is impacted by individual prejudice, that is wrong and should be addressed and remedied. It is also a consequence of individual prejudice and bigotry. There are no federal, state or local laws mandating outcomes based on race. (I am aware some might disagree.)
So, there you go. We just disagree on definitions. I knew the disadvantage of state action (systemic racism to use your word) as a kid. Those days are gone. We should now focus on individual disparities. Why are kids offending? It would never have occurred to me or anyone I was close to to offend.
Media coverage, to your point, goes to individual decisions of editors and publishers. Coverage of traumatic events should be even-handed. That seems right. I just see the outcome as the result of individual choices and decisions made. I don't view the world through systems per se.
We just disagree on the import and definition of systemic. I define systemic as state action. Those days are long in the rear view mirror. Did you grow up in the South? Did you attend a segregated all-black school under Freedom of Choice? Just curious.
Here's a thought for you which you may find interesting, obtuse, or both. Applying an engineering concept to social issues, and the question you tease: when are social issues important to address and at what level. I wrote this as a comment on a post about another social issue than racism, but my point is that all social issues require some sort of similar analysis. At least if one is to be practical vs. mearly ideological......
People need to understand the concept of signal to noise ratio, with repect to social issues. Noise in the societal sense, are the low level problems of everyday life, which everyone experiences, that are annoying, but in no way are impediments to one's long term success and happiness. Take racism for example. If you go to a McDonald's and get poor service because the server is racist. Sure it's bad, but it doesn't have any effect on your life as a whole. It's in the noise. If you can't get into graduate school because you're being discriminated on the basis of race. That's a major impediment to your success -- it's above the noise.
To the author's point, many play victim today, but few really are. Largely this is a failure to appreciate life will never be perfect, we'll always be subject to the noise of life's daily problems and imperfections. The healthy among us will understand this, shrug it off, and persevere anyway.
Not to say there aren't social issues to fix. But we shouldn't be distracted by the noise, which is ever present and unfixable.
I like your framing of the issue. Noise is ever present and an irritant for everyone. Noise is just part of life and creates the stuff of resilience. Pressing the lever of race in my favor with the Echols Scholars program set me on a privileged course towards Harvard Law School and beyond. It was the opposite of not getting into graduate school due to being discriminated on the basis of race.
Here's a question -- suppose one is denied a promotion because one is too black for some and too white for others? Would that be the noise of life or discrimination on the basis of race and thus a major impediment to success? I always fear non-conformers face unarticulated "oppression" in the world.
In my case, the noise has decreased 95% to 98% since the fall of 1969. That is progress. It is also, I suspect, an individual assessment. Over 40 million Americans will have over 40 million perceptions of noise over a lifetime. This is healthy since we want to perceive social issues through the lens of the individual, not the racial group.
I'm curious -- did systemic racism fall away for me in the fall of 1969, the fall of 1978, or some later point in time? It is an individual question, not a collective or group question. Thanks for your good insight into noise versus major impediments to success.
The noise of life is not oppression. The noise of life is...life.
Signal to noise ratio is only a useful concept for some things. When a young person complains today there is still racism they experience, and we compare that to the pre 60s segregated South, one can at least point out these are two entirely different things. And while I cannot walk in the shoes of a young person, based on hearing their evidence I suspect we're in the noise -- they're complaining about things which aren't fixable in a public policy sense. Personally I can make no hay with my kids on this line of argument. They are still too idealogical to the extent they think every social problem must and can be addressed.
Your experience with the Echols Scholars program, or any affimative action as we used to call it, needs to be viewed in the context of the circumstances of that time. To give away the punch line to my thoughts, it's perfectly reasonable to be in favor of affirmative action then, but not now. The analogy being affirmative action was a strong medicine, which in light of the tremendous inequities at the time, would quickly help address the social issues. Today the side effects of that medicine can yield more negative side effects, than benefits, because the patient is no longer as sick.
Not that there shouldn't be programs to help disadvantaged youth, but using race as the primary criteria is today not as good and simple a criteria as it was then. While the elimination of segregation laws, opened the conduit to education and job opportunities. Certainly it would have taken decades longer if the pump were not primed, so to speak, with affirmatively helping to get a lot of talented kids into the educational spots they would have naturally attained had years of discrimination not denied them the opportunities now open, but for which they could not roll the clock back to take advantage of.
One could also say of the early post segregation South, that being black was coincident with many factors of disadvantage. Making it easy enough criteria to use. Today a black kid could be fabulously privileged or horribly disadvantaged, so race alone is no longer a simple effective criteria.
On the personal and not social level, I get a sense you are evaluating how you personally should feel about the advantage you received through the Echols. If so, to this I would say everyone in the world is born to circumstances of such wide disparity and out of their control, it bears no fruit to worry about one's personal advantage or disadvantage. We can only take what we are given and make the most of it, and hopefully for the benefit of others.
PS. I write to explore ideas, not to be right or wrong about a particular thing, or to convince.
Mr. Twyman, as I mentioned before, I appreciate your writing and sharing your experience. I read, and suspend judgment, because I feel strongly that each person does have a unique experience, and it is a part of the whole picture. It's important to take in viewpoints that are different from what we might usually hear, or hold. I had an amazing discussion of this kind with someone I met at a retreat late last year, which caused me to examine my thoughts much more fully than usual.
So I appreciate your sitting at the keyboard, and telling your truth, refusing to be silenced. I'm reminded of the "Blind Men and the Elephant" parable, and I learn from your reports from your station!
Well, I love your comment. One of the joys of writing for me is sharing my perception albeit unique with readers. We're not alone if we tend to be non-conformers and quirky. I love being me in my writing. Living in dogma and slogan words would take away the fun. Best and thanks for your "Blind Men and the Elephant" parable.
I once worked for a juvenile justice system. I did an informal survey of my colleagues as to feelings about race and racism. No one would admit to any personal individual feelings of antipathy to treating people differently due to race. Yet all knew and admitted that black and Hispanic kids would get busted more often, draw longer sentences, and do harsher time than white youth. There was, and is, racism in the system. Systemic racism.
I saw a news article about the traumatic effects of war and bombings on children inn the Ukraine. It occurred to me that children in South Sudan are just as traumatized, but that is almost never mentioned in mainstream media. Systemic racism.
You point out the demise of legal racism in the U.S. from the laws passed in the 1960s which were necessary to end legal segregation and Jim Crow. But that is not the same as getting rid of systemic racism. There is still racism in the social system. In many parts of the U.S. a white person shooting a Native American is treated very differently than anyone shooting a white person.
Thanks for your comment. I define "systemic" as state action. That definition makes sense to me since the force of law cannot be avoided. All around were laws mandating life along racial lines. As I mentioned, those laws came to an end at the federal, state and local level by the 1970s. It was a great moment of transition in Southern, and U.S., history.
The stories you refer to are arguably the product of personal and individual prejudices. Does a juvenile probation officer treat young kids differently based on race? That would be wrong and a consequence of individual bigotry and prejudice. Similarly, if a judge in his or her discretion is impacted by individual prejudice, that is wrong and should be addressed and remedied. It is also a consequence of individual prejudice and bigotry. There are no federal, state or local laws mandating outcomes based on race. (I am aware some might disagree.)
So, there you go. We just disagree on definitions. I knew the disadvantage of state action (systemic racism to use your word) as a kid. Those days are gone. We should now focus on individual disparities. Why are kids offending? It would never have occurred to me or anyone I was close to to offend.
Media coverage, to your point, goes to individual decisions of editors and publishers. Coverage of traumatic events should be even-handed. That seems right. I just see the outcome as the result of individual choices and decisions made. I don't view the world through systems per se.
We just disagree on the import and definition of systemic. I define systemic as state action. Those days are long in the rear view mirror. Did you grow up in the South? Did you attend a segregated all-black school under Freedom of Choice? Just curious.
Here's a thought for you which you may find interesting, obtuse, or both. Applying an engineering concept to social issues, and the question you tease: when are social issues important to address and at what level. I wrote this as a comment on a post about another social issue than racism, but my point is that all social issues require some sort of similar analysis. At least if one is to be practical vs. mearly ideological......
People need to understand the concept of signal to noise ratio, with repect to social issues. Noise in the societal sense, are the low level problems of everyday life, which everyone experiences, that are annoying, but in no way are impediments to one's long term success and happiness. Take racism for example. If you go to a McDonald's and get poor service because the server is racist. Sure it's bad, but it doesn't have any effect on your life as a whole. It's in the noise. If you can't get into graduate school because you're being discriminated on the basis of race. That's a major impediment to your success -- it's above the noise.
To the author's point, many play victim today, but few really are. Largely this is a failure to appreciate life will never be perfect, we'll always be subject to the noise of life's daily problems and imperfections. The healthy among us will understand this, shrug it off, and persevere anyway.
Not to say there aren't social issues to fix. But we shouldn't be distracted by the noise, which is ever present and unfixable.
I like your framing of the issue. Noise is ever present and an irritant for everyone. Noise is just part of life and creates the stuff of resilience. Pressing the lever of race in my favor with the Echols Scholars program set me on a privileged course towards Harvard Law School and beyond. It was the opposite of not getting into graduate school due to being discriminated on the basis of race.
Here's a question -- suppose one is denied a promotion because one is too black for some and too white for others? Would that be the noise of life or discrimination on the basis of race and thus a major impediment to success? I always fear non-conformers face unarticulated "oppression" in the world.
In my case, the noise has decreased 95% to 98% since the fall of 1969. That is progress. It is also, I suspect, an individual assessment. Over 40 million Americans will have over 40 million perceptions of noise over a lifetime. This is healthy since we want to perceive social issues through the lens of the individual, not the racial group.
I'm curious -- did systemic racism fall away for me in the fall of 1969, the fall of 1978, or some later point in time? It is an individual question, not a collective or group question. Thanks for your good insight into noise versus major impediments to success.
The noise of life is not oppression. The noise of life is...life.
Signal to noise ratio is only a useful concept for some things. When a young person complains today there is still racism they experience, and we compare that to the pre 60s segregated South, one can at least point out these are two entirely different things. And while I cannot walk in the shoes of a young person, based on hearing their evidence I suspect we're in the noise -- they're complaining about things which aren't fixable in a public policy sense. Personally I can make no hay with my kids on this line of argument. They are still too idealogical to the extent they think every social problem must and can be addressed.
Your experience with the Echols Scholars program, or any affimative action as we used to call it, needs to be viewed in the context of the circumstances of that time. To give away the punch line to my thoughts, it's perfectly reasonable to be in favor of affirmative action then, but not now. The analogy being affirmative action was a strong medicine, which in light of the tremendous inequities at the time, would quickly help address the social issues. Today the side effects of that medicine can yield more negative side effects, than benefits, because the patient is no longer as sick.
Not that there shouldn't be programs to help disadvantaged youth, but using race as the primary criteria is today not as good and simple a criteria as it was then. While the elimination of segregation laws, opened the conduit to education and job opportunities. Certainly it would have taken decades longer if the pump were not primed, so to speak, with affirmatively helping to get a lot of talented kids into the educational spots they would have naturally attained had years of discrimination not denied them the opportunities now open, but for which they could not roll the clock back to take advantage of.
One could also say of the early post segregation South, that being black was coincident with many factors of disadvantage. Making it easy enough criteria to use. Today a black kid could be fabulously privileged or horribly disadvantaged, so race alone is no longer a simple effective criteria.
On the personal and not social level, I get a sense you are evaluating how you personally should feel about the advantage you received through the Echols. If so, to this I would say everyone in the world is born to circumstances of such wide disparity and out of their control, it bears no fruit to worry about one's personal advantage or disadvantage. We can only take what we are given and make the most of it, and hopefully for the benefit of others.
PS. I write to explore ideas, not to be right or wrong about a particular thing, or to convince.