Are there other ways to deal with race besides different practices regarding punishment and discrimination? (Q&A 2)
While it is clear that racism and the social segregation of race is supported institutionally through patterns of criminal punishment, the roots of racism must be deeper than the economics of impoverishment and crime. Why is it we are trapped in this rut? I know I wont be able to fully answer this question.
I'm sure one reason that racism is still popular among poor whites is one of the same reasons it became popular in the first place. That is, that it is an accepted way to boost your ego, racism says that you are innately better than those people over there, and that is understandably an ego boost. It is unsurprising then that in my experience the upper middle class at least makes a nod at being anti-racist, and people from less financially secure backgrounds tend to be occasional racists. This might also be especially true because people living closer to poverty live in the same areas as impoverished blacks, and have more contact with racist concepts that are more readily replicated because of regular contact with blacks.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Responding to 'The Men's Center'
Brandon's original post can be found here
When reading this post I thought of an analogy that had been bugging me since I started looking for colleges. There are so many Black Student Unions, which are fine, but a White Students Union would clearly be racist.
I don't know if this fully explains it, but the logic behind oppressed groups banding together shares the logic of the classical Marxist proletariat organizing itself against its opporessor. However in the case of the proletariat the oppressors are just thrown off and cease to exist. If you attempt to do the same thing with race or gender you will never be able to achieve the same sort of result.
I fear that there are at least two competing logic in the politics of race. One is integration, where the cultures of the different race communities do not have to dissolve but cannot be separate. The second, more dominant, is the new separate but equal, except this time around it is not institutionally supported by racist government policy but by the way the black and white communities segregating themselves from each other mutually. It fits in very well with rhetoric of multiculturalism, which the listener understands as multiple separate cultures living together. I think the logic of the second is driving black student unions, and the logic of separation and difference might explain certain strains of feminism.
When reading this post I thought of an analogy that had been bugging me since I started looking for colleges. There are so many Black Student Unions, which are fine, but a White Students Union would clearly be racist.
I don't know if this fully explains it, but the logic behind oppressed groups banding together shares the logic of the classical Marxist proletariat organizing itself against its opporessor. However in the case of the proletariat the oppressors are just thrown off and cease to exist. If you attempt to do the same thing with race or gender you will never be able to achieve the same sort of result.
I fear that there are at least two competing logic in the politics of race. One is integration, where the cultures of the different race communities do not have to dissolve but cannot be separate. The second, more dominant, is the new separate but equal, except this time around it is not institutionally supported by racist government policy but by the way the black and white communities segregating themselves from each other mutually. It fits in very well with rhetoric of multiculturalism, which the listener understands as multiple separate cultures living together. I think the logic of the second is driving black student unions, and the logic of separation and difference might explain certain strains of feminism.
Discussing the Death Penalty Beyond Race
Is the death penalty wrong for reasons beyond race? (Q&A 1)
The last few chapters have been very focused on race. While the issue of the death penalty should probably be addressed partially due to issues relating to race, I think it should be approached from a different angle.
The death penalty is wrong simply because we don't want murder in our society. Even when justice is the justification for the killing it provides a legitimate means through which a person can be killed. If the state is justified in killing in response to a killing, isn't a citizen? Or at least a citizen could think this while trying to justify his actions in an unstable state.
The last few chapters have been very focused on race. While the issue of the death penalty should probably be addressed partially due to issues relating to race, I think it should be approached from a different angle.
The death penalty is wrong simply because we don't want murder in our society. Even when justice is the justification for the killing it provides a legitimate means through which a person can be killed. If the state is justified in killing in response to a killing, isn't a citizen? Or at least a citizen could think this while trying to justify his actions in an unstable state.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Punishment vs. Rehabilitation & Norway
Considering we're reading allot of material dealing with crime and punishment it should be worth while to look at prison. I subscribe to a sort of utilitarian theory of justice, justice should produce the best social outcomes possible for the greatest possible structural good. My working assumptions therefore assume that rehabilitation should be the goal of the prison systems (Which we are utterly failing to do in the US, with privatizing prisons and stigmatizing past inmates so they re forced back into crime).
Even with my admittedly liberal leanings I was shocked to discover that Norway had such success with rehabilitation. I assume, and this is an important assumption, that the reason rehabilitation has failed so utterly in the US is because it has never been attempted with such single mindedness like it was tried in Norway. We have always tried to sorta rehabilitate and always punish, and this approach has lead to some pretty sorry outcomes (the US has the highest number of prisoners in proportion to its total population than any country (yup, even including the anti-democracy guys: Russia, China, and Iran))
This is a very good article about a Norwegian low security prison.
Even with my admittedly liberal leanings I was shocked to discover that Norway had such success with rehabilitation. I assume, and this is an important assumption, that the reason rehabilitation has failed so utterly in the US is because it has never been attempted with such single mindedness like it was tried in Norway. We have always tried to sorta rehabilitate and always punish, and this approach has lead to some pretty sorry outcomes (the US has the highest number of prisoners in proportion to its total population than any country (yup, even including the anti-democracy guys: Russia, China, and Iran))
This is a very good article about a Norwegian low security prison.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
A Quote Misattributed to Mark Twain
"The whole principle is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak." - Not Mark Twain
The quote above, commonly misattributed to Mark Twain, is in response to to censorship. Like the quote suggests, it does seem true that the argument for censorship boils down to its enforcement to prevent the moral, or other sort of, corruption of minors. There are socially accepted views which should be established in minors and there are those that should be kept from them. In this day and age I doubt there is much support for moral censorship in regard to adults.
It seems that there are two child rearing philosophies that would put parents on one or another side of the child censorship debate. One was already sketched above, that children need to be protected from deviant views. The other, which could be cautiously deemed the 'liberal' approach, assumes that people can think from a vantage point beyond particular belief systems, and should develop this impartial mind set. In contrast with the first view on child rearing, it would actually encourage a child to explore diverse belief systems so he can become intelligently impartial.
Personally I have serious doubts that any human can be impartial or not hold any socially motivated views. Despite this, however, second theory of child raising hopefully results in a certain consciousness of other viewpoints which I believe is a positive one. Censorship for minors, unless you are attempting to impose ideological purity, is unnecessary and theoretically damaging for an open society.
The quote above, commonly misattributed to Mark Twain, is in response to to censorship. Like the quote suggests, it does seem true that the argument for censorship boils down to its enforcement to prevent the moral, or other sort of, corruption of minors. There are socially accepted views which should be established in minors and there are those that should be kept from them. In this day and age I doubt there is much support for moral censorship in regard to adults.
It seems that there are two child rearing philosophies that would put parents on one or another side of the child censorship debate. One was already sketched above, that children need to be protected from deviant views. The other, which could be cautiously deemed the 'liberal' approach, assumes that people can think from a vantage point beyond particular belief systems, and should develop this impartial mind set. In contrast with the first view on child rearing, it would actually encourage a child to explore diverse belief systems so he can become intelligently impartial.
Personally I have serious doubts that any human can be impartial or not hold any socially motivated views. Despite this, however, second theory of child raising hopefully results in a certain consciousness of other viewpoints which I believe is a positive one. Censorship for minors, unless you are attempting to impose ideological purity, is unnecessary and theoretically damaging for an open society.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
My CRITO Essay - After Some Research
I suppose I'm not really surprised, but after some research (as suggested by prof. DKJ), it seems there is a tradition of 'Animal Abolitionism.' This view advocates the abolition of animal ownership as a central tenet of a moral relationship with animals. It's proponents include Tom Regan and Gary Francione.
In the end I think I agree with the conclusions of this particular school of thought. In order to truly have a moral relationship with animals, we need a paradigm shift more fundamental than providing for the welfare of owned animals. We need to change the way we think of animals.
In the end I think I agree with the conclusions of this particular school of thought. In order to truly have a moral relationship with animals, we need a paradigm shift more fundamental than providing for the welfare of owned animals. We need to change the way we think of animals.
Responding to "Double Standards"
There seems to be a huge degree of reluctance about dealing with or discussing the societal discrimination against men, and for good reason. There is the risk of such a discussion becoming the rear guard sexism that crops up in such places as Esquire magazine. Also, I'm sure no one would deny, women deal with inequality far more often than men, and that struggle therefore seems more pressing. I am not, however, advocating that issues men deal with in society should not be dealt with, but I can see why the topic is often avoided.
Avery's original post can be found here.
Avery's original post can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)