From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: nope
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:43:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.194712.22625@Princeton.EDU> bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU (Ameet A. Ravel) writes:
>[Andy:]
>>>>Certain subpopulations in the US won't use free pre-natal care and
>>>>have habits that are associated with infant mortality.  (That isn't to
>>>>say that ALL members of those subpopulations do this, but that certain
>>>>subpopulations are far more likely to fit this model than the
>>>>population as a whole.)  The general population isn't much like that.
>>>
>>>You are so right; they are *just* not our kind, dear.  :-( :-(
>>
>>They aren't my kind.  My kind takes care of themselves.
>
>*Exasperated sigh*  Who *are* "your kind"?  Who are "they"?  Who are
>these "certain subpopulations"?

I've described membership in the subpopulation; what more does Raval
want?  A list of names?

>>>Who are you referring to as "certain subpopulations" and "general
>>>population"?  If you can't be explicit about the categories you are
>>>thinking in, could this be because you are subconsciously ashamed to
>>>be trafficing in racial/ethnic stereotyping?
>>
>>I didn't mention race because it doesn't appear to be a factor.
>>Unless Raval has evidence that it is, we know who the racist is
>>in this disussion.  (If he does, then he'll get to argue the
>>"it isn't racist to point out racial differences" point.)
>
>But there is another sort of racism that can be called "modern" or
>"cloaked racism".  In the civil rights wars, conservative whites were
>known to say such things as "Of course everyone is *equal*, but
>still, those people should live with their own kind."  That phrase
>"own kind" is a cloaked way of talking about race without explicitly
>talking about it.

So?  I'm not talking about a subpopulation definition that involves or
is even associated with race.  I've pointed out that there are
subpopulations in the US that won't take care of themselves and their
families when given the opportunity and that race is NOT a factor.

Raval keeps asking about race and suggesting that certain
ethnic/racial groups are disproportionately represented in the
subpopulations under discussion.  It's his claim, so he gets to
provide the relevant evidence.  If he can't, then he's the racist, and
I don't particularly care what brand he is.  If he can, then he gets
to argue about whether or not it is racist to point that out.  Either
way, I'm not involved.

>Historically, the kind of vague terminology you used *is* associated
>with racism.

No, it isn't, since there is no racial component, except in Raval's
mind.  He thinks that any definition of subpopulations must have a
racial component and is applying that belief in a discussion where it
simply isn't true.

>The onus is on you to convince me that you aren't racist.

Where did this onus come from?  I'm discussing something that has
nothing to do with race when Racist Raval pops up and now I've got an
obligation?  Homey don't play that game.

>Most US'ers, white and otherwise, have tons of racism imprinted in
>our minds.  I would count myself in; however, I don't try to scurry
>around my racism, but acknowledge it mentally and try to work on it.

Good for Raval.  But what does this have to do with me?  I'm saying
that subpopulations that won't take care of themselves aren't racially
determined while Raval keeps asking what races I'm talking about.
He's the one who thinks that race is a factor; I've no interest in
defending his lies.

>In political discussions, I try to keep the racism both out of my
>language and out of the policy.  It's not easy.  I am not suggesting
>that it would be easy for you, either.  But for your own sake, try to
>look at the racism instead of denying it.

Ah, he's a patronizing racist and if he gets involved in a discussion,
then everyone in the discussion must be acting out his racism.  Sorry,
but no sale.  If Raval is going to insist that his racism pollutes any
discussion, then he'll have to find someone else to talk with.

>>>Andy, I thought the discussion was about high infant mortality in the
>>>US.  I am a US'er.  So are you.  So are the infants and parents
>>>affected by the high mortality.  Who is "they"??
>>
>>I'm discussing this issue as someone concerned about the problem,
>>they've demonstrated that they aren't.  Thus, it is unreasonable to
>>think that they'll take measures to solve it.  Yes, "we" are all
>>americans, but that's not all that relevant in this case.  (We all
>>breath too.)
>
>It is relevant.  We are talking about US domestic policy.  Anyone who
>is a US'er has a stake in it, and should be counted as a "we" for the
>purposes of the discussion.

Raval has an interesting, albeit false, view of the world.  He thinks
that everyone is guilty and everyone can help.  Nope.  They may live
here, but they're the problem.  If they were interested in being part
of the solution, they wouldn't be the problem.  That's implied by the
definition of the problem under discussion.

>If my brother-in-law were to become another
>"criminal" because he was the wrong color skin for the cop who
>stopped him, I could no longer justify using "them".  "Them" would
>become "we" overnight!

Interesting definition of criminal.  Suppose said brother in law
became a criminal because he decided to steal?  Does Raval become one
too?

>So maybe you don't have any close friends who are (or have in their
>family) a young unmarried mother.  

Or maybe I do.  Projecting little racist, isn't he?

BTW - "young unmarried mother" is not the same as "person uninterested
in pre-natal care".

>That's all I'm asking.

Not only isn't it "all", it isn't ANY of what Raval is asking.  He
wants to introduce race into a discussion where it has no legit place.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush