[sheepdestroyer]

"childhood household income. That transcends race or gender"

vs

"targeting childhood household income will see representation of the groups you're trying to help drop to nearly zero"

Did you misunderstand the point? It seems right that if you want to help poor people, you should target poor people, how could that be counterproductive?

[rendaw]

I think GP's point is that if the goal is to help those disadvantaged by childhood poverty, assuming similar levels of poverty, it will help white children who are relatively less disadvantaged and not help relatively more disadvantaged black children.

[ithkuil]

But that should be the goal. Using skin color as a proxy for being disadvantaged works only inasmuch the proxy is precise enough. If it's not, it's just another bias.

If you had a better metric that can be used to help people from marginalized cummunities, wherever they happen to be, you should be using those if the goal is to be more inclusive, more diverse and more equitable.

But the problem is that the very same psychological mechanisms that drive racism are the ones which drive these modern attempts at fixing racism.

I think there are two different but related angles at play:

1. Historical injustice. Racism against black communities in the USA has such a long and disgusting history that when new generations learn about that it's understandable that people want to wash that away and find ways to make amends and counterbalance things.

2. Since we live in a world where skin color is a visible marker that you literally wear on your skin, there is a sense that you're just being disadvantaged for being you and thus you need a more-than-normal counterbalance to set things straight.

We thus ended up in a situation where we destroyed the aspirations of a truly color-blind society. We need to keep reminding ourselves about the fact that color matters.

This is not helping defusing racism. This is feeding racism because despite the best intentions it operates in the worldview of racism.

Of all the words you Americans have purged from the language you kept the word race, a word that post WWII many European nations successfully defused.

[relaxing]

You seem to be reasoning from the standpoint that anti-black racism is no longer a factor today.

This is not the case.

Once you understand this, it is easy to see that actual, first-order racism is what destroys the dream of a colorblind society.

[ithkuil]

I understand that anti-black racism is still a factor today.

I really fail to see how doubling in on the importance and reality of race and skin color in particular (as opposed to culture) everywhere is going to make that problem go away.

[relaxing]

Exposure to other races through integration increases understanding and reduces the tendency towards prejudice.

Makes sense?

[emchammer]

Skin color is visible, but it is not a marker unless you allow it to be one.

[teractiveodular]

But what if the poor people have the wrong skin color?

[schmookeeg]

...raise taxes on the households of whatever the "correct skin color" is until they qualify for these programs? Obvs. :)

/s, I hope. :/

[eastbound]

I don’t know. When Sweden reached 58% women in university, they stopped the gender equality programs. Why would you help men if everyone knows they are advantaged?

(Oh man, please answer, but we’re overdue for an overcorrection, and it might look as dangerous as 1934).