Color blindness is an ideal that aims for a world where race is irrelevant, and everyone is treated equally.
The left academia claims that color-blindness causes more damage than solutions, for example, by ignoring the place of race in society. The left academia, then proposes "racial-consciousness", as a way to embrace your race and be able to detect racism.
On the other hand, color-blindness supporters claim that racial consciousness can be dangerous in a nation with latent neo-nazis
what is really racial-consciousness?
does it offer alternatives or not?
is color-blindness bad at all?
I'm not sociologist, these two articles have made me question about this debate. However, all I find is theories of how things are, few references, and no clear mechanisms.
>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-lefts-attack-on-color-blindness-goes-too-far/403477/
>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/color-blindness-is-counterproductive/405037/
Bunch of loaded terms leftists have pulled out of their ass, there are a ton of similar contradictions surrounding leftist racial politics. At the end of the day race exists and everyone needs to deal with it instead of pretending otherwise anyway.
>>348518
>race exists
Stay spooked, good goy
>>348520
>Genes aren't real
No, it's not a spook. You can hold a gene in your hand.
Equality is however a spook.
>>348506
>Racial consciousness
Racial consciousness is another term for white guilt. That's all it is.
>>348529
but what about delusion of white-supremacy
(replace white for any colour, get same results)
>>348538
What about it?
>>348528
>implying race is based on genetics
>>348543
racial consciousness is not only for white guilt, but can be a way to base oneself's identity in something like race, and to an extreme to justify crime or racism (again) for white/black/etc-supremacy delusion
I dont think colorblindness is the ideal insofar that different races should keep some racial identity and culture so that they aren't simply eaten alive by majority culture.
I also don't think colorblindness would work right now because minority races still have problems. And not necessarily from "institutionalized" racism or microaggressions or other boogeymen, but programs that exist that make it harder for poorer populations to increase wealth; programs like the war on drugs, shitty school systems, and irresponsible loan acquisition.
However, that doesn't mean we all need to carve a line in the sand and obsess over how we are different, and I don't think our recent focus on microaggressions, white privilege, and other recent racial buzzwords have helped at all. Free and open exchange of ideas is always the best solution and many people who support racial consciousness/critical race theory do not want a free exchange of ideas.
>>348528
Race is based on phenotype, not genetics.
>>348506
I am unfamiliar with the terms as I am part of eastern european non-politically correct space.
Here are my two cents on the issue.
Color blindness is a fiction since people are aware by birth of their ethnicity and the differences their groups have with other groups. However in the public space, provided there is no outright antagonism in the said society, color blindness should be the norm of polite interaction. You see, we both know we are different but we treat each other similarly.
On the other hand we are born with a racial consciousness. Acting on it however, is a straight path to ruin. As it can be observed with all the racial baiting in USA in the last decades.
So, treat people like equals until you are proven otherwise. Even after that treat them with the adequate amount of politeness, unless they are beyond redemption. That course of action is unaffected by ethnic makeup.
Or at least that's how it should be.
>>348575
>programs that make it harder for minorities
>war on drugs
elaborate pls
>>348582
>phenotype is unrelated to genetics
What
>>348604
your genotype consists of two sets of information that are different (imagine, blue eyes, brown eyes).
Your phenotype is expressed on only one, e.g. brown eyes, but carrying the gene for blue.
I guess that is what anon meant...
>>348604
He's saying that the races aren't designated by genes but by how people look.
There is a shitload of genetic variation in Africa, but everyone groups them into the same race.
>>348562
That's not racial consciousness in the sense leftist academia uses it.
Consciousness in this use means to see things their way, to do otherwise would not be conscious. As is the case for colour-blind folks, and all racial power movements.
>>348625
>Consciousness in this use means to see things their way, to do otherwise would not be conscious. As is the case for colour-blind folks, and all racial power movements
view things the way of who?
>>348603
I dont think it targets minorities specifically, but moreso inadvertently targets poorer populations who happen to be mostly minorities.
Criminalization of drug use has created more prisoners than any other program in our nation's history. Poorer people are less able to have the financial capital get a good legal defense so they are left in the hands of incompetent/swamped public defenders; this combined with the reality of minimum sentences means that many of these people recieve pretty harsh punishment. In addition to all of this, thanks to the racial divide in wealth, minorities (mostly black and hispanic) are several times less likely to have a family member with the available wealth to help them, both in paying legal fees to stay out of prison and to help when they get out of prison.
This leads to a lot of young people going to prison for drug use and receiving felony convictions that will keep them out of the job market and feed them back into illegal gangs or black markets when they are out of jail.
The war on drugs has disenfranchised millions of people and makes it difficult for individuals to escape poverty. Now, I don't think it was created specifically to target minorities or anything. I think it was made during a period of moral panic and has inadvertently resulted in lots of harm.
IMHO the number one thing we should be focusing on is helping poorer individuals build wealth and keep wealth. That doesn't mean we hand out reparations, because you can't save a horse by leading it to water. It requires grass roots cultural reform, critical examination of school punishments and loan predatory loan programs, and a re-examination of the war on drugs.
Unfortunately, you never hear of this from the current crop of race activists. They are more concerned with narratives of victimization, character assassination, and witch hunts. For them it's not about having a practical dialogue; it's about controlling the conversation.
>>348620
Indeed, some people actually theorize that there are only five races based on skull structure, each divided in small groups.
This'd mean that the ''white race'' does not exist as it's just a generic term used to indicate each group that is part of the caucasoid race that happens to be white-skinned (germanics, scandinavians, slavs, etc...).
>>348506
>The left academia
This is where I stopped reading.
Jesus fuck grow up there is no giant body of evil lefties conspiring against you.
>>349124
Oh and this would also mean that white supremacists are full of shit.
Not to mention that it'd also imply that all those refugees from the middle east and da joos are all actually the same race as ours.
>following with /pol/ immeditately rejecting this theory
>>348506
>Color blindness is an ideal that aims for a world where race is irrelevant, and everyone is treated equally.
>The left academia claims that color-blindness causes more damage than solutions,
And they aren't exactly wrong.
The thing is, in a color blind society racial differences in outcome will invariably occur since races differ in average cognitive abilities.
>>349163
>races differ in average cognitive abilities
/pol/ seriously, why do you keep believing in pseudo-science?
just, why?
>>349169
>/pol/ seriously, why do you keep believing in pseudo-science?
It's not pseudo-science. The question is, why do you keep believing in egalitarian fairy tales?
>>349175
>IQ is not pseudo-science
>>349180
It's not.
Here start by reading here, you might go to bed less stupid :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
>>349163
STEM major here.
The IQ differences between races indicates nothing about genetics. Environment is a much more potent variable.
In other words, races currently having different IQs means nothing. Keep in mind, African and Middle Eastern cultures had their utopia years too.
>>349183
It's a theory you moron, from fucking psychology no less.
Actual science still hasn't even enstablished what intelligence is or where it comes from and you fags claim to know how to measure it?
Fuck off please.
>>349184
>STEM major here.
I'm a STEM major too.
>The IQ differences between races indicates nothing about genetics.
Of course they do. IQ is largely hereditary. Read up on transracial adoption studies and the such.
>Environment is a much more potent variable.
Why is why I'm sure every single attempt to raise IQ through environmental policies has failed pathetically (see : Head start).
>In other words, races currently having different IQs means nothing.
Apart from the fact that they have different IQs.
> Keep in mind, African and Middle Eastern cultures had their utopia years too.
The fuck. Do you even know what the word "utopia" means?
Sigh. Another example of affirmative action in STEM degrees.
>>349194
>It's a theory you moron,
So are the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution...
You're starting to sound like one of those bible thumpers from the deep south
>hurr durr it's just a theory them scientists aint know nuthin about nuthin
>Actual science still hasn't even enstablished what intelligence is
Actually, "actual science", i.e. psychometrics, has indeed established what intelligence is. I already linked to the wiki page about it. It would be nice if, instead of resorting to insults, you'd read the page I linked to you.
> you fags
Psychometricians.
>we dun know how da humanz wuz created and yu faggot "scientists" say we came from monkeyz??
>>349183
Also keep in mind
IQ is not some inherently defined characteristic, like how many weights you can lift how well can you see etc. You could argue the measure picks up on the strength of industrialized civilizations, instead of some of the incredible cognitive feats of other cultures, like throwing a spear.
>>349210
>IQ is not some inherently defined characteristic
Of course it is. If you mean that you can "train" for IQ, that's true but only within a reasonable limit. A person who scores 80 on an IQ test will never score a 130, no matter how much he prepares for it...
> instead of some of the incredible cognitive feats of other cultures, like throwing a spear.
Throwing a spear is in no way whatsoever a cognitive feat.
>>348604
There's shitload more to genetics than just phenotype.
>>349208
>psychometrics
>a fucking social science
>enstablished what intelligence is
>>349196
What does that mean practically though? There are still smart and stupid black people/Asians/Hispanics/Arabs/etc and smart and stupid white people. The global population is massive, and those are just averages.
>>349223
Do you have anything of value to contribute instead of ad hominems on a field which is way more scientific and of way higher value than anything which has ever exited your puny brain?
>>349224
>What does that mean practically though?
Exactly what it means! That the races differ in their average cognitive capabilities.
> There are still smart and stupid black people/Asians/Hispanics/Arabs/etc and smart and stupid white people.
Of course.
>The global population is massive, and those are just averages.
That's actually the point. The global population is massive. Hence this little law called "the law of large numbers" kicks in.
>>349224
It means nothing, the truth is that there are multiple theories on what exactly intelligence is. Some of them even suggest that there are multiple types of intelligence.
And yes while it's true that gravity and evolution are also theories the difference is that those theories come from natural sciences, not fucking social sciences like in the IQ's case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY
Also fun fact: the US was actually gonna give a huge ass fund to brain-related studies, too bad it got cut.
If those promised millions were actually invested in research done on the brain I bet we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
>>349242
Not the guy you're replying to, but my problem with races is the fact that while the physical and behavioral characteristics are undoubtedly rooted in genetics and there obviously are genetically distant populations, at what point do they became races?
Like there's certain genetic distance between two clusters that could represent neighboring villages in Sweden, for example. Or a distance between a Frenchman and a German. Where's the cutoff point we can point to and say "this is where racial boundary is"?
>>349255
>It means nothing, the truth is that there are multiple theories on what exactly intelligence is. Some of them even suggest that there are multiple types of intelligence.
There are also multiple theories about the origin of humans. One of them is that we all descend from Adam and Eve. Just like talking about Adam and Eve at a biologist conference will get you laughed out of the room, talking about "emotional intelligence" at a psychometrics conference will get you laughed out the room.
>And yes while it's true that gravity and evolution are also theories the difference is that those theories come from natural sciences, not fucking social sciences like in the IQ's case.
Why the double standard between "the social sciences" (psychometrics is more statistics than social science, by the way) and "the natural sciences"?
There's a difference between sampling test results according to ethnicity while taking into account various factors, and what is typically called "the social sciences".
You know what's what of the pillars of modern social science? Denial of racial differences in average cognitive ability. You're the one at fault here of promoting social science.
>>349255
>Some of them even suggest that there are multiple types of intelligence.
Almost everyone agrees on this, other than /pol/tards waving their collages
>>349264
>Not the guy you're replying to, but my problem with races is the fact that while the physical and behavioral characteristics are undoubtedly rooted in genetics and there obviously are genetically distant populations, at what point do they became races?
Depends. This is where the "race is a social construct" phrase originates from. Take the light spectrum. Where does yellow start? Where does green start? There's bound to be a certain degree of arbitrariness. But yet, I don't think anyone will deny that blue and red are fundamentally different colors.
The same is true for human race. While it's true that races exist "on a spectrum" (which isn't entirely true btw, there's a big gap between the different continents. That spectrum only exists in Eurasia), this doesn't invalidate racial classification.
>>349271
>Almost everyone agrees on this,
Ironically, the multiple intelligence theory was invented by one of your loathed "social scientists". It was immediately discounted by serious academics :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Critical_reception
The only people who take the "multiple intelligence" theory as valid are redditors. Literally.
>>349270
A ''psychometric'' would also get laughed at by any biologist.
And watch that video.
>You know what's what of the pillars of modern social science? Denial of racial differences in average cognitive ability. You're the one at fault here of promoting social science.
lol, yes there are multiple conflicting theories in social sciences, who would have thought?
it's almost as if it's totally normal in any type of science!
>>349295
>A ''psychometric'' would also get laughed at by any biologist.
Not at all. In fact many psychometricians were originally biologists.
>And watch that video.
While Feynman was a genius in physics, his opinions on fields outside his specialty are not to be taken seriously. If a youtube video is enough to convince you that an entire field of scientific study is invalid then you must score a pretty low IQ yourself...
>lol, yes there are multiple conflicting theories in social sciences, who would have thought?
In the same sense that "Adam and Eve" as a theory for the origin of life conflicts with the theory of evolution.
No one in the field takes your hogwash "multiple intelligence" meme theories seriously.
>>349293
Did you literally learn everything you know from wikipedia?
There being multiple types of intelligence has been the orthodox position in the west for a generation now.
>>349161
Nobody's complaining about the refugees' ethnic make up, they're complaining about the stone age beliefs and practices they're bringing with them.
>>349214
Fine, you try learning it. Throwing a spear and hitting a target utilizes many brain functions, like balance, body awareness, vision, reasoning of movement of the target.
You're defining what it means to be intelligent and then proving it by your own definition. It's very circular.
You don't know how to define intelligence, bub.
>>349318
>Did you literally learn everything you know from wikipedia?
No, I also happen to have read books on the field. But I'm trying to cater to your quite abysmally low cognitive capabilities. It seems, though, that you're even unable to muster up the brain power to read a single wikipedia article.
>There being multiple types of intelligence has been the orthodox position in the west for a generation now.
The fact that you can type this when the article I just linked to you CLEARLY states the opposite frankly boggles my mind.
>>349308
>No one in the field takes your hogwash "multiple intelligence" meme theories seriously.
I don't think you understand the point, none of those theories on intelligence are more valid than the others.
This includes your meme field of psychometrics.
>>349317
>statistical data
Based on anecdotes and political idealogies? Because that's always how it is when it comes to stats related to intelligence and behavior.
>>349283
>That spectrum only exists in Eurasia
There's also a continuum between Arabian peninsula and northeast Africa (Egypt to Somalia) stretching all the way to like Tanzania.
>>349325
I know, I was talking about white supremacists in fact
>>349327
>Fine, you try learning it.
I could probably, if I cared for it. It can't be very hard.
> Throwing a spear and hitting a target utilizes many brain functions, like balance, body awareness, vision, reasoning of movement of the target.
None of which pertain to intelligence. Should Harvard's admission process be based on how good prospective students are good at throwing spears?
>You're defining what it means to be intelligent and then proving it by your own definition.
I'm not "proving anything". I'm defining what intelligence is, yes. Please point out to me where I'm "proving" anything.
>You don't know how to define intelligence, bub.
And that's where you're wrong, "bub".
I know you're not going to read it because it probably exceeds your attention span, but I'll post it anyways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
>>349332
>I don't think you understand the point, none of those theories on intelligence are more valid than the others.
I don't you understand that that's not true you stupid faggot! Can you PLEASE read the articles I linked to? The existence of g factor is supported by OVERWHELMING evidence. The evidence of "multiple intelligences" is not. Here I'll even quote the passage :
> Empirical support for non-g intelligences is lacking or very poor. Despite this lack of evidence, the ideas of multiple non-g intelligences are attractive to many due to the suggestion that everyone can be smart in some way. Cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory of multiple intelligences.[7]
Understood now? Jesus..
>Based on anecdotes and political idealogies?
Do you know what the words "statistical data" mean?
At this point it's pretty clear you're yourself of inferior intellectual capabilities. I don't think it's worth dragging on this conversation.
>>349336
True, I could've mentioned the horn of africa which received an influx of west eurasian dna.
>>348601
Best post, i agree
>>348762
They could stop doing drugs, or try to not get caught.
If you are poor, and you know you can't afford good legal advice, and you know society as a whole discriminates against people who look like you, and you still do stupid shit like smoking crack on a street corner, then you should probably be locked up to save the rest of us from your stupidity.
>>51594408
Funny how extreme poverty, lack of appropraite social models, and lack of opportunity makes people do stupid things.
>>348549
Race is socially constructed so yes it can be based on genetics
>>348620
Because all non-Africans are from a bottlenecked population
>>349432
Excellent attitude, may our prisons swell and our gangs grow larger.
>>350369
>may our prisons swell and our gangs grow larger.
How is the swelling of the prison population NOT the fault of people who can't stop committing crime??
>>350286
>race is a social construct based on genes
You just defended racism, congratz
>>350405
>You just defended racism
I think anyone who defends the truth deserves to be congratulated.
>>350369
>He wants the average brainless criminal living next door to him, near his children, rather than safely in a prison where he can only harm fellow crooks.
>>348506
>american problems
>>350380
>fault
Are you underage?
>>350530
>He is released and then goes straight into a gang.
>>350582
>He wuz a gud boy dindu nothing and prison turned him into a gangbanger
>>350655
>Missing the point.
Yeah fuck those niggers, let's just keep shooting ourselves in the back by making them more of a problem than what they are.
>>350663
Society doesn't make people a problem. They choose that of their own accord. I'd rather they were in jail then on the street.
Do you want criminals near your kids?
here are some videos that go into race and why bigotry exists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKbGvpgBwe8
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ok6mk
>>349183
One can learn how to take IQ tests and "improve" your IQ.
IQ does not show any inherent talent, as you can adapt to get higher scores, like training in a gym.
>>348506
The left academia claims that color-blindness causes more damage than solutions, for example, by ignoring the place of race in society
That statement contradicts itself because the more people are colorblind the less a a certain race is tied to a place in society
Being colorblind doesn't mean you don't acknoledge race exists, that's silly; we can tell someone's racial group from the shape of their skull.
But it means you don't make assumptions on the person's personality and capabilities based on their genetics
>>348506
The problem with color-blindness is that it may be used as an excuse for overlooking existing "racist" structures (you really need to use the term in the broadest sense here).
The problem with any kind of racial consciousness is that it will view issues of universal significance, such as non-discrimination, only through the lens of one particular interest group, running the risk of losing sight of why such an ethical goal might exist in the first place, regarding all himans as individuals, not as this or that group.
The standard answer to the dilemma would be intersectionality, i.e. always putting the disadvantages that one group faces into context with other disadvantaged groups.
Imo, this is fair enough, but it still glances over the oppressive nature of group identities as such, which remains in place even if all groups get respected equally.
Of course we have to recognise the lingering impact of racism.
At the same time, colourblindness is a worthy tactic. if someone dos treat people all the same, we shouldn't force them to see the false differences.
Anti colourblindness is sometimes legit. (for example someone saying there is no such thing as racism" is wrongly colourblind.
However someone saying "Racism is a horrible invention, and I refuse to play by it's rules," is being positivly colourblind.
>>350151
Funny how stupid people tend to live in extreme poverty, lack realistic long term goals etc
>>353505
this is not about race
is about dilemma between opposing proposed solutions.
I like the idea of aspirational colourblindness where you reconise the impact of racism but still want to aim for a world without race.
>>348506
Changes
By Tupac Shakur
>I see no changes all I see is racist faces
Misplaced hate makes disgrace to races
We under I wonder what it takes to make this
One better place, let's erase the wasted
Take the evil out the people they'll be acting right
'Cause both black and white is smokin' crack tonight
And only time we chill is when we kill each other
It takes skill to be real, time to heal each other
And although it seems heaven sent
We ain't ready, to see a black President, uhh
It ain't a secret don't conceal the fact
The penitentiary's packed, and it's filled with blacks
But some things will never change
Try to show another way but you stayin' in the dope game
Now tell me what's a mother to do
Bein' real don't appeal to the brother in you
You gotta operate the easy way
"I made a G today" But you made it in a sleazy way
Sellin' crack to the kid. " I gotta get paid,"
Well hey, well that's the way it is
2 Pac Summed it up alright. Some times understanding each other all that isn't always faggotry.
>>348506
Holy shit the anti-racists get solidly BTFO ITT
