[wolverine876]

It doesn't sound difficult to me. It has nothing to do with whiteness and maleness; it's about political power. If there is a group that is a dominant political power, it's the same thing. That's why issues of 'reverse racism' are a different problem: Discrimination is about power, not race. If American Buddhists are discriminatory against Baptists, it's obnoxious but not an issue of oppression or much threat to Baptists, because it lacks power.

Of course, that's generalized: It will play out in different ways, in different places, among different people, in different times. In the U.S., it's different in Mississippi and Chicago, different today and tomorrow.

> radical progressivists

Are they really "radical", or is that merely a pejorative attached to 'progressive'? In what way are they radical? Lots of groups want change, many want big change; the progressives aren't even the leaders in 'big change' these days.

[acituan]

> If there is a group that is a dominant political power, it's the same thing

The problem is to assume that dominant political actors cohere to constitute a group, a conspiratorial evil one at that. Hypotheses of evil conspirators played out so many times throughout history and it never ended well.

We all have a not-so-high-precision heuristic of detecting agency, therefore we sometimes ascribe agency where there is none. This unchecked unfortunately leads to Gnosticism-like belief structures where there are assumed demi-gods and demi-demons playing over us. Proof is any news feed, which will deify or demonize the character-du-jour. (And to be consistent, I am not making media into another conspiratorial force; if we are watching news like that it is only because we've been showing demand for it.)

[wolverine876]

That's a conceptual question but doesn't call into question the practical reality: People clearly have some identity as a group, and act against other perceived groups. In the last few years it's gone from subtle to brazenly, proudly advocated, as evidenced by ethnic nationalism. Arguably, much of the worst in human history was born from discrimination against a group: Armenians, Tutsis, Jews, African-Americans, Muslims in Bosnia, etc. etc. etc.

But to the concept, which we can learn something from: How do you reconcile what you say with the fact that people do have group identities - not as their complete identity, but part of it - and act as a group and treat others as members of groups? They clearly and explicitly do: People will openly discriminate against people based on skin color, sexual orientation, etc. As I said, ethnic nationalism has exploded, worldwide.

[acituan]

I'll start with your second question.

> How do you reconcile what you say with the fact that people do have group identities - not as their complete identity, but part of it - and act as a group and treat others as members of groups?

This has evolutionary roots in kin selection; we as primates do have some machinery that makes us favor the survival of individuals that fulfill some definition of kin. I want to make it very clear, this is a proposition of "what is" and not "what ought". Just because we do have the machinery doesn't make it right, as it can escalate all the way up to genocide. But acknowledging it is a good first step. No one is pure, no one is inherently innocent about it, but also no human is only a primate.

> That's a conceptual question but doesn't call into question the practical reality: People clearly have some identity as a group, and act against other perceived groups.

This is where the definition of identity becomes pivotal; we must not conflate an ontological identity (x is an x and only an x), and a categorical identity (x belongs to the category y). Group identities are the latter. The problem with categorical identities are the certain amount of frivolousness we are allowed about it;

Let's suppose an object a has n attributes, and object b has m attributes. For all objects n and m are infinitely many. Therefore whenever we make a comparison such that "a and b mutually share a subset between their n and m attributes, therefore they are similar" we are excluding infinitely many attributes that they do not share. Conversely, by only selecting a certain subset of those infinitely many attributes, we could claim any two objects to be in the same category. This makes categorical identity by definition a purpose specific, subjective construct. Its key function is relevance; that the attributes we chose are relevant to our goal.

This is exactly where the combination of the machinery for kin selection and inherent flexibility of categorical identity exposes us to hijack. You can convince anyone that they belong to a group by defining a group with the attributes that you find most useful for you. But that doesn't mean it was the best category to approach to the problem with. E.g. just as ethnic nationalism has exploded in Europe, racial essentialism has exploded in the US while very peculiarly missing class identity as a solid alternative that could actually address a good proportion of the grievances. Is this because the flexibility of categorical identity was (ab)used by those who wouldn't find discussions around class identity favorable, or because there was a true essence to those initial categories? My vote; it is more #1 than not.

To sum up; group identities are self-fulfilling, overly flexible and most importantly purpose built constructs. Wrongly choosing the category could as well ossify the problems it is trying to solve than to help people break free of them. I'll even one up; the meta-group of "belonging to a group" is even bigger of a problem; to convince people that the fact that they can be group-things is more important than them being individuals creates a greater host of framing issues for them.

[wolverine876]

Very well written, and I agree completely. Usually I don't bother going that far on HN (and I didn't know the theory so clearly) because I wonder who else is as interested as I am. I'm glad you are.

To give an example of what you describe, many white Americans used to choose identities over where they emigrated from: Italian vs Irish vs Polish, etc. Now many identify around being white Americans, against people with other skin color and against immigrants.

> Is this because the flexibility of categorical identity was (ab)used by those who wouldn't find discussions around class identity favorable, or because there was a true essence to those initial categories? My vote; it is more #1 than not.

There's no true essence to it; that's an assertion by people trying to protect their power against the inevitable flexibility of groups. But also, some of it is not intentional either - it can be just incidental - and I suspect much is the artifact of prior intention: Their grandparents refused to associate with black-skinned people, and so now they don't know any black-skinned people, so they don't identify with them, and black-skinned people become the unknown.

> To sum up; group identities are self-fulfilling, overly flexible and most importantly purpose built constructs. Wrongly choosing the category could as well ossify the problems it is trying to solve than to help people break free of them. I'll even one up; the meta-group of "belonging to a group" is even bigger of a problem; to convince people that the fact that they can be group-things is more important than them being individuals creates a greater host of framing issues for them.

While I agree, we must still solve the present(and past) harm done to people for being identified with certain groups. I'd always work to leave the door open to what you are saying, but that doesn't help black people (and LGBTQ and others) who are threatened and harmed today.

But generally, I'm with you. ;)

[peytn]

I think GP was saying the opposite, i.e. it’s nominally about political power as you said, but in the local context they’re going after white men who have no political power and ignoring politically powerful groups.

[im3w1l]

> It doesn't sound difficult to me. It has nothing to do with whiteness and maleness; it's about political power.

This kind of attitude is a big problem with US cultural export. You have to realize that the US has a unique history with unique problems. Slavery, segregation etc etc. Majority-minority relations in other countries will have different histories and many different nuances. A straightforward application or translation of US discourse will therefore often be very inappropriate.

[wolverine876]

Agreed, though my point is that the issues of power and discrimination are the same, just with different groups and different applications of them.

[nverno]

If it was just about political power it wouldn't make much sense given we've had a darker skinned person as president half this century (slight exaggeration), not to mention the current vice president, etc. etc.

[amanaplanacanal]

In the western world I’d say it’s more about economic power, or the power behind the politicians. The 1% and large corporations are the real power, not whoever happens to be in office this week.

[wolverine876]

The overwhelming majority of politicians, especially in higher offices, are white males.

[wolverine876]

> If it was just about political power it wouldn't make much sense given we've had a darker skinned person as president half this century (slight exaggeration), not to mention the current vice president, etc. etc.

The distribution of power isn't binary, all or nothing. African-Americans have gained some power, but if you look at photos of Congress, the courts, the executive branch, governors, Fortune 1000 CEOs, powerful people in Silicon Valley, etc., it will be apparent who has most of the power.

[nverno]

I think you're implying the rich are powerful, which seems rather obvious since being rich is usually the result of being successful in some fashion.

I took a quick look into the African American stats you mention from https://www.statista.com/chart/18905/us-congress-by-race-eth.... It appears ~14% of the house is African American - the same as the reported percentage of the population. In other words exactly what you'd expect if the house was draw at random from the population.

In the senate, it looks like only ~3-4% is currently African American. The senate of course is composed of two senators from each state, thus over representing the sparsly populated states that have very little ethnic diversity (most of the country by area), so a more thorough analysis would be necessary to argue something about skin color having an effect/how much of an effect on senate races.

At a glance, it doesn't look too different from what I would expect given the assumption skin color/race aren't important (my experience everywhere I've lived in the USA). But, the US varies so greatly between regions it may as well be a few countries mashed together in many respects. My hunch is that the house/senate will continue to become more ethnically diverse given the current climate - being from a minority group seems more beneficial, if anything, politically.

[trophycase]

lmao the "discrimination is about power" is so played out and is used as a tool to justify "reverse" racism (which is just racism). What does a police officer being more afraid during a traffic stop of black people have to do with institutional power? What does people walking home at night and crossing the road when "certain" people are on their side have to do with institutional power? Nothing. This whole "racism = power + prejudice" thing is an intentional normalization of the ability for everyone to be racist to whites (or asians I guess) without having to be held to their same standards. I've rarely ever seen this argument used without a basically overtly racist/sexist comment either preceding or following it.

[pjc50]

> What does a police officer being more afraid during a traffic stop of black people have to do with institutional power?

The police officer is institutional power. The organization which issues him a gun is institutional power. The prosecutor who will decline to prosecute him when he murders a black man is institutional power.

[trophycase]

Obviously, but the officer being more scared of a black person has nothing to do with institutional power, that's my point. I can be a penniless, poor homeless person and still be a racist piece of shit. I don't require power for that.

In my example, the fact that the person is a police officer has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are also discriminating. Certainly issues arise when the two intersect (having institutional power and discriminating) but don't conflate the two as the same.

Also this whole argument rests on the fact that power is some binary thing which isn't true at all. Power imbalances exist in every facet of life and sometimes, traditionally "oppressed" classes of people have more power than "oppressor classes" in some situation or another.

[wolverine876]

> the officer being more scared of a black person

That's a hypothetical that you created, it's not a fact: The fact is that civilians do not oppress police officers. They very rarely kill them, imprison them, stop and frisk them, etc.

> I can be a penniless, poor homeless person and still be a racist piece of shit. I don't require power for that.

> Certainly issues arise when the two intersect (having institutional power and discriminating) but don't conflate the two as the same.

I didn't call them the same; they are certainly different. The point is that it doesn't matter too much if there is discrimination without power. The penniless poor person will have little effect on the passing African-American's life; the police officer can easily ruin their life.

> this whole argument rests on the fact that power is some binary thing which isn't true at all. Power imbalances exist in every facet of life and sometimes, traditionally "oppressed" classes of people have more power than "oppressor classes" in some situation or another.

I agree, I actually thought about that, but I left out that nuance (I can't write a dissertation on HN; something must be left out). But since you bring it up: Yes, anyone can suffer discrimination on the micro level. But that is much less of an issue; it doesn't rise to the level of a society issue for two reasons:

As an example, I was going door-to-door for a political campaign and one person said to me, 'get your [deleted] ass off my porch': They were in a vulnerable group and I wasn't.

First, I wasn't feeling threatened because, again, they lacked power. They couldn't call the police and have me arrested; their neighbors wouldn't beat me up. It was just one person being jerk. Think of it this way: I've knocked on doors after dark around elections (which are in November in the U.S., and polls usually close after dark). Doing that in a white neighborhood, I've thought - what if I was a black man? It would be dangerous for me.

Second, it's just an isolated event and not a macro, society-wide problem. African-Americans have been suffering widespread discrimination by almost every institution and large sections of the population, creating great harm for generations. I had a bad experience for a few seconds. While the person shouldn't have acted that way, it wasn't a big deal; it doesn't rise to the level of a major society issue requiring legislation and Constitutional amendments. It also didn't evoke a lifetime of abuse and threat; it was just annoying. I said 'ok' and went to the next house.

[pjc50]

(there's an entire academic discipline addressing the question of "what does X have to do with institutional power", but you're not going to like what it's called)