From: bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU (Ameet A. Ravel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:47:12 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

[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"?

>>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 Ravel 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.)

Social psychologists who study racism say that people carry differing
types of racism.  One sort, let us call it "explicit racism", is
typified by explicitly held negative stereotypes of various groups.
Note that the groups do *not* have to be delineated by racial lines
in order for racism to be operating (at least by the technical
definition.) The English, for example, are historically somewhat
"racist" towards the French, and vice versa.

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.

Historically, the kind of vague terminology you used *is* associated
with racism.  The onus is on you to convince me that you aren't
racist.

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.
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.

>>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.

It is equally egregious, to use an example for which *I* am (sadly)
guilty, to refer to "those" criminals, and what "our" government
should do about them.  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!  But why should my compassion and
identification wait till that happens in real life?  Why not now?

So maybe you don't have any close friends who are (or have in their
family) a young unmarried mother.  Can't you *imagine* having a
person in that circumstance in your cirle of friends?  Can't you
*imagine* saying "we", and meaning you and her both?  That's all
I'm asking.

-- 
Ameet A. Raval                   Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
email: bongo@splash.princeton.edu                Princeton, N.J. 08542
disclaimer: Mine, they're mine, I tell you!        phone: 609-452-6563
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush