[netfire]

You say its a myth, but then don't provide not explanation as to why. I guess I don't understand how race-restricted aid isn't racial. By restricting assistance, scholarships and other aid to a particular race aren't you in essence saying that you care more about helping people of a certain race than you do about helping people of other races?

If a person is in the same circumstances, economic or otherwise, as another person, why should I only give aid to one of those people based on their race? How would restricting a scholarship to white students be less racist than restricting a scholarship to african-american students?

[beat]

I'm saying that there isn't any race-restricted aid. You're saying there is. You're wrong about that. Feel free to prove otherwise.

And sure, you can bring up some scholarship as an exception that proves the rule (I wonder how Daughters of the American Revolution scholarships fit?). But that's a very weak argument. I'm talking about the welfare state in general, and it is pointedly not about race.

[netfire]

I didn't mean to imply that there was government sponsored aid that was race-restricted. There definitely is for scholarships[1] and affirmative action policies for admission to schools or specific programs in those schools. (although that's not necessarily monetary aid)

Some quick googling shows results of what appears to be private organizations solely focused on providing assistance to african americans or people of african descent. [2]

[1] - https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarsh... [2] http://www.diversitybestpractices.com/news-articles/20-afric...

[beat]

Think about how circular this is... you're now arguing that the problem is a sense of victimization brought on by racially-driven aid in the form of college scholarships. So your victims have already succeeded in finding their way out!

There are excellent arguments that the welfare state structure is a significant cause of racial inequality. But your "teaches them to be victims" argument is not one of them.

A much more interesting and defensible argument would be that the welfare state in its current incarnation punishes people for getting off of welfare. If the "reward" for finding a job is to take away aid on a 1:1 basis, why would getting a job be a good idea? Another interesting angle is the fact that minimum wage is not sufficient to keep a family out of poverty - especially when you throw in the costs of transportation and child care associated with a job.

To find the racial problem, look at history. When the welfare state first came into existence, racism had kept the black community in deep poverty, so poverty was already unevenly distributed. Since the welfare system merely treats the symptoms rather than the causes of poverty, the disparity has continued. And the disparity is driven not by welfare, but rather by institutional racism.

There was a great photo by a trio of black artists at the Henderson protests. It was a black woman dressed as a slave, a shirtless black man wearing a noose, and a black man in an orange prison jumpsuit, standing together - the history of institutional racism in America.

[netfire]

My main argument actually is that I think racism will continue until we eliminate race from our decisions, positive or negative and treat and value each other as members of the human race, regardless of one's skin color.