Because, on average, black people are more economically disadvantaged than white people.
Choosing to explicitly buy from black farmers will, on average, tend to support those with the least financial means out of the general population of farmers, whereas choosing to explicitly buy from white farmers will, on average, tend to support those who are already more financially advantaged.
One side is directly choosing to help those most likely to be economically disadvantaged, the other would be explicitly ignoring those with the least means in order to help those who already have the most, thus the situations are not quite comparable.
I personally would prefer an index that directly assessed farmers based on overall wealth to determine who you should buy from, but because that’s extraordinarily difficult to constantly update & maintain, verify, etc, it can just be easier to divide among racial lines since that still tends to produce a grouping that is relatively similar.
If the concern is economic disadvantages, shouldn’t the selectivity be based on income and net worth instead of skin color? Maybe selling products from poor and independent farmers. A portion of every race is economically disadvantaged.
Edit: I really appreciate your response. I think you described the issue really well.
shouldn’t the selectivity be based on income and net worth instead of skin color?
We should already be taxing proportional to income, and in the 60s when Affirmative Action was implemented, we were.
But the problem isn’t just that there is a lower class at all, the problem is that the lower class is disproportionately filled with black people and minorities as a direct result of racism.
If you think of it like a footrace, we ran the first half of the race giving black people a straight up disadvantage for no other reason than the color of their skin. Now most of the people in the back of the pack are black. We should already be helping all people in back to catch up to the rest of the pack, but this still means black people are disproportionately in the back as a direct result of that initial disadvantage. We could ignore it, and say that after another 300-400 years of equality, maybe things will even out on their own, but in the meantime you have a bunch of people who are living in poverty and dying, and we can scientifically say for an absolute fact that it’s a direct result of historical disadvantages targeting their ancestors based on race.
It’s inhumane to look those people in the eye and say, “tough luck, we’d help, but we decided we don’t do racism anymore.”
This is a remedial question, but that doesn’t make it a bad question. It is a hard problem to solve, and calling an advantage based on race somehow not racist does sound paradoxical at first glance. It’s important to be able to entertain the explanation without outright assuming you’re being attacked by a bunch of obtuse racists.
Hopefully we agree that:
black americans are at a statistically significant socioeconomic disadvantage compared to white americans, both historically and to this day, and
this is a direct result of a history of systematic disadvantages specifically targeting them based on their race
Let’s pretend the second bullet point has been solved, that systemic racism is over and done, and we’ve established a perfectly equal union. Even if that’s the case, we are left with the first bullet point as an ongoing problem. The challenge is now, how do you undo the very apparent damage that our history of racism caused, without specifically giving advantages to that group based on their race? And the short answer to a very complex question is: you can’t.
So the US government instituted “Affirmative Action” the goal of which was to deliberately give a targeted advantage to people who have had a history of targeted disadvantages in this country. This catches you up to roughly the 1960s.
But in the last 40 years or so, we continue to see lower class areas of the US disproportionately filled with black americans, and we also see widening wealth inequality affecting virtually everyone. So naturally we also see an increase of non-black people asking the same question as you: “I’m having a hard time too, why are they getting an advantage based on their race? That’s racism!”
The solution was to tax the rich, reduce wealth inequality, and continue to normalize disproportionate demographics. Instead, the wealthy used populism to hijack the republican party, and convince white americans that the minorities recieving these benefits were their enemy. And after 40ish years of pushing this narrative, they succeeded.
With the republican takeover of the federal govt, we can be virtually assured that any ongoing attempts to normalize these unfair demographics will be abandoned, at least at the federal level.
But it’s still a problem, just now one for the people and the states to solve. If you want to support black-owned farmers in an attempt to help pull historically disadvantaged groups out of poverty, you can. If not, that’s fine, just at least please vote for legislation that intends to reduce wealth inequality. (Note that history has exactly two ways of reducing wealth inequality: high taxes on the rich, or war. The question isn’t whether wealth will get redistributed, it’s how).
Tl; dr Yeah, it’s an advantage based on race to solve a problem caused by a history of disadvantages based on race.
Because racism is the discrimination of someone based on their ethnicity. If you are choosing one person over another due solely to their ethnicity, isn’t that discrimination? Shouldn’t people be judged not by the color of their skin? Explicitly advertising that you are selective solely based on race is racism.
I have seen this discussion happen over and over again and a big part of the misunderstanding is some people in the US have the definition of racism also involving power and some don’t. If your definition is the former, it’s what allows people to say “Fuck white people” isn’t racist with a straight face. Before you ask someone if something is racist, ask them what they think racism is. It will save a lot of time and aggravation for everyone.
To be clear, I’m 100% with you, just pointing out some troubles I had when discussing racism in the past and I found out we weren’t all on the same page.
Some white people have no power and some black people have loads of it. Can we just stop this categorization of people by race for if they can or can’t do something?
How is this not racist? If there were a service where you could choose to buy directly from white farmers peoples would lose their minds
Because, on average, black people are more economically disadvantaged than white people.
Choosing to explicitly buy from black farmers will, on average, tend to support those with the least financial means out of the general population of farmers, whereas choosing to explicitly buy from white farmers will, on average, tend to support those who are already more financially advantaged.
One side is directly choosing to help those most likely to be economically disadvantaged, the other would be explicitly ignoring those with the least means in order to help those who already have the most, thus the situations are not quite comparable.
I personally would prefer an index that directly assessed farmers based on overall wealth to determine who you should buy from, but because that’s extraordinarily difficult to constantly update & maintain, verify, etc, it can just be easier to divide among racial lines since that still tends to produce a grouping that is relatively similar.
If the concern is economic disadvantages, shouldn’t the selectivity be based on income and net worth instead of skin color? Maybe selling products from poor and independent farmers. A portion of every race is economically disadvantaged.
Edit: I really appreciate your response. I think you described the issue really well.
We should already be taxing proportional to income, and in the 60s when Affirmative Action was implemented, we were.
But the problem isn’t just that there is a lower class at all, the problem is that the lower class is disproportionately filled with black people and minorities as a direct result of racism.
If you think of it like a footrace, we ran the first half of the race giving black people a straight up disadvantage for no other reason than the color of their skin. Now most of the people in the back of the pack are black. We should already be helping all people in back to catch up to the rest of the pack, but this still means black people are disproportionately in the back as a direct result of that initial disadvantage. We could ignore it, and say that after another 300-400 years of equality, maybe things will even out on their own, but in the meantime you have a bunch of people who are living in poverty and dying, and we can scientifically say for an absolute fact that it’s a direct result of historical disadvantages targeting their ancestors based on race.
It’s inhumane to look those people in the eye and say, “tough luck, we’d help, but we decided we don’t do racism anymore.”
So by buying milk from black farmers, you will help:
Whereas by buying milk from poor farmers, you will help:
How exactly is the former better than the latter?
Both are good. Each behaviour is a response to a different problem. Refer again to my footrace analogy.
How is this meme relevant here? Who are the groups of people supposed to represent?
This is a remedial question, but that doesn’t make it a bad question. It is a hard problem to solve, and calling an advantage based on race somehow not racist does sound paradoxical at first glance. It’s important to be able to entertain the explanation without outright assuming you’re being attacked by a bunch of obtuse racists.
Hopefully we agree that:
Let’s pretend the second bullet point has been solved, that systemic racism is over and done, and we’ve established a perfectly equal union. Even if that’s the case, we are left with the first bullet point as an ongoing problem. The challenge is now, how do you undo the very apparent damage that our history of racism caused, without specifically giving advantages to that group based on their race? And the short answer to a very complex question is: you can’t.
So the US government instituted “Affirmative Action” the goal of which was to deliberately give a targeted advantage to people who have had a history of targeted disadvantages in this country. This catches you up to roughly the 1960s.
But in the last 40 years or so, we continue to see lower class areas of the US disproportionately filled with black americans, and we also see widening wealth inequality affecting virtually everyone. So naturally we also see an increase of non-black people asking the same question as you: “I’m having a hard time too, why are they getting an advantage based on their race? That’s racism!”
The solution was to tax the rich, reduce wealth inequality, and continue to normalize disproportionate demographics. Instead, the wealthy used populism to hijack the republican party, and convince white americans that the minorities recieving these benefits were their enemy. And after 40ish years of pushing this narrative, they succeeded.
With the republican takeover of the federal govt, we can be virtually assured that any ongoing attempts to normalize these unfair demographics will be abandoned, at least at the federal level.
But it’s still a problem, just now one for the people and the states to solve. If you want to support black-owned farmers in an attempt to help pull historically disadvantaged groups out of poverty, you can. If not, that’s fine, just at least please vote for legislation that intends to reduce wealth inequality. (Note that history has exactly two ways of reducing wealth inequality: high taxes on the rich, or war. The question isn’t whether wealth will get redistributed, it’s how).
Tl; dr Yeah, it’s an advantage based on race to solve a problem caused by a history of disadvantages based on race.
Lol. Lmao.
Well why do you think it is? Genuinely curious
Because racism is the discrimination of someone based on their ethnicity. If you are choosing one person over another due solely to their ethnicity, isn’t that discrimination? Shouldn’t people be judged not by the color of their skin? Explicitly advertising that you are selective solely based on race is racism.
I have seen this discussion happen over and over again and a big part of the misunderstanding is some people in the US have the definition of racism also involving power and some don’t. If your definition is the former, it’s what allows people to say “Fuck white people” isn’t racist with a straight face. Before you ask someone if something is racist, ask them what they think racism is. It will save a lot of time and aggravation for everyone.
It doesn’t matter what their definition of racism is. “Fuck white people” is racist.
To be clear, I’m 100% with you, just pointing out some troubles I had when discussing racism in the past and I found out we weren’t all on the same page.
Some white people have no power and some black people have loads of it. Can we just stop this categorization of people by race for if they can or can’t do something?