When did race based policy become "anti-racist"?

I recall a time when being racist meant treating and regarding people differently based on their race, and not using race as a proxy for things like criminality, wealth, competency, etc.

That later became known as "colour-blindess". It was an ok metaphor for a while, and then later rebuffed as people took it literally (or pretended to) and noted that if you don't notice race and pretend it doesn't exist and don't stay mindful of basic human tribalism and racial disparities at a group level then you become racist.

Then this somehow warped into race based policies being endorsed as "anti-racist" by the majority of those writing such articles in elite universities. Check for yourself and do a google on "racial color blindness" and you will find a bevy of articles making this claim, and doing what I wrote in the paragraph above.

What I can't figure out is when exactly this happened. I see the first article I can find on it dating back to the year 2000, and its origin probably dates way back to the 1960s or something. But I'm curious when it became the dominant right-think.

A decade or so ago I think the vast majority of liberals would have balked at the idea that policy should be race based, and would have recognized that as racist rather than as the opposite.

 

It started from the beginning of the Civil Rights movement I think. It was less than a decade from the 1964 Civil Rights Act to Federal Affirmative Action programs, and everyone sort of winked and nudged at that because they wanted to give black people a temporary helping hand. Sixty years later actual discriminatory "anti-racism" programs are considered sacred an equal treatment is considered racist.

Weird.

 

What bugs me about it is that I think we were on the right track in the 80s and 90s. Maybe my memory is distorted, but I recall a time of pushing for actual inclusion for all, instead of exclusion of some based on race. And being a liberal, it especially bugs me because its coopted what I had considered my "side".

 

The assumption that we could be successful in the context of simple merit based equality undermines the desire by most progressives who need desperately to produce dependency to support their need to control and then "manage" the plantations that they believe they are entitled to administrate.

 

Well also, they were frustrated that equality of opportunity didn't produce...equality. So they abandoned equality of opportunity and moved on to the next thing.

 

A huge part of the problem is confusing group averages for individuals. There are plenty of people of all races who are privileged overall in comparison to the population at large or not, and yes there are more white people who are in the former category, but that doesn't make all white people the former or all non-white people the latter. I don't think they can wrap their minds around that. They point at struggling minorities and presume all of us have that same experience.

 

It came about as a retaliation for the coopting of the term woke by the far right.

 

It's never been a purely merit based system, rather a privileged wealth based system.

 

The tired everyone is a victim method.. I feel like you purposefully evaded the point. When you maintain the "privileged wealth based" dogma, you seem to be fully embracing the narrative that ensures the continued control progressives demand. Let me guess, you identify as a modern communist/socialist.... Prove me wrong.. LOL

 

id hardly call the privileged and wealthy victims but go ahead...

 

Since I didn't you can defend then why you yourself would make the claim....

 

That's true to an extent. But we were on the road towards recognizing that as a bad thing. Now even on the left it is being pushed as a good thing.... And that's a problem. Who remains to push against it and how do we amplify their voices?

 

idk about americans but in the uk we had jeremy corbyn. in his prime he ran the biggest left wing party in europe. he was anti establishment, anti war and pro working class.

 

So you would be against current grants paying for Native American's technical training in impoverished areas?

 

Yes, if impoverished people in those areas who aren't Native Americans are excluded. Do you disagree? If so, I would like to see your argument why.

 

So you would not help a group who had a specific problem, like high pregnancy mortality rate, because it violates your ideological made up rules and rather that help should be offered to “everyone” which would dilute the help trying to be given to the targeted in need group.

 

By using criteria of race....you are excluding individuals who have need and that is wrong. Focusing criteria on income and region will effectively raise an impoverished area for all. If white people as a group need less help--then the majority of those helped will not be white.

The only race based criteria I support are when used by Native American tribes...considered nations by our government, and having responsibilities to their citizens. Or when used by private individuals or companies who offer scholarships and programs for causes close to their heart.


.

 

Correct. I would instead help all individuals who have that problem. Excluding people because they don't look the same as many others with the same problem is asinine.

And you think leaving somebody who needs the same help out is somehow justified because they don't have the same skin tone?

There is a word for that...

 

This is exactly correct, and I am always amazed when well meaning folks refuse to see it. Add to this that pushing the message that Race X = Y Problem feeds directly into racism against people of Race X, whether or not they have Y Problem. Its one reason why black guys get pulled over for driving nice cars and why black kids get special obseration from security in stores.

 

So the verdict is you would not allow government grants for Native American tech training and you would not allow a targeted culture with a high rate of death during pregnancy help for ideological reasons. Both programs, if still funded because of added size, must be for "everyone", thus watered down and helping fewer of the target group....you can thank a rigid ideology.

 

A ridged ideology is more inline with offering help to one citizen based on race and excluding another needy person because of their race. Because you are WORRIED that a needy and desperate white family might get help.. That is racism and wrong.

 

For everyone with the particular need, yes, regardless of race. Calling helping an individual in need "watering down" simply because of their race is both irrational and disgusting. It is the same mentality as telling black people to sit at the back of the bus to make room for the white people. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

 

We have very different definitions of racism if y'all think a government grant for tech training Native Americans is racist.

 

Yes, it seems we do have very different definitions. I would not exclude a child in need because he is black and not Native American. You would?
My definition of racism has to do with not discriminating against individuals based on their race alone. Does yours not?

I would also not give special opportunities based on the colour of somebody's skin. You would? And if so, how do you suare that with opposing white people giving special preferance to other white people over non-white people?

 

If the answer is that you think "white people" have had it good so this particular underprivileged white person should suffer without help, then how would you address somebody who treats innocent black people as criminals because some other black people are?