The Case for Ignoring Race
There are two arguments I want to push forward. The first is about ignoring race in your personal life. Ignoring your own race, and ignoring the race of others around you. And the second argument is to ignore race in the policy space. Ignoring race in college admissions, immigration, crime, etc. I also don't want to make the case that only white people should ignore race. I think it is generally beneficial for everyone to ignore race, but I'm guessing that most of the racial identitarians (people who place great importance on racial identity) that are here on themotte are white racial identitarians.
Ignoring Race in Your Personal Life
This is perhaps the less culture war loaded argument so I'll start with it first. I consider this section mostly good advice, and none of the advice is what I'd call "original". Smarter people than me have provided free advice to the masses, and this just feels like a synthesis of that advice.
Taking Responsibility
There is a certain mindset that treats genetics like destiny. And the mindset does not just apply on matters of race, but on broad characteristics like intelligence, athleticism, and charisma. I think this kind of mindset is harmful for the individual and those around them. Genetics does have an impact on your life, you aren't gonna be in the NBA if you were born with some short genes. You are still human, you are going to be similar to your parents in many ways. But it is most helpful to think of genetics as creating a set of boundaries around a wide field of possibilities. Where you wind up within that wide field of possibilities is up to you, and the field is probably much wider than you realize. In any field you look at you can often find surprisingly examples of standout performers that violate the expected norms. Like Stephen Curry being not very tall for the NBA, but being a star player. Or professors that are not that smart/brilliant, but still having prolific writing outputs of interesting material. The advice here is to take personal responsibility for where you end up within a large field of possibilities, and to stop blaming the often distant fences of genetics.
The restrictions placed on people by race are mostly imaginary social constructs. Somewhat facetiously: Rachel Dolezal is the story of a white girl becoming a respected black professor and NAACP member. Race has a loose relation with some of the very real limitations imposed by genetics, but most of the limitations of race come from social constraint. A person of a given race is not expected to do x, y, or z, and the person internalizes those expectations and lives up to them. What is important to remember here is that like with traffic, you are not just in a society, you are society. You are a part of creating and accepting the limitations that are merely social constructs. My simple advice is to stop doing that.
Information and Stereotyping
Our racial makeup is often one of our most visible characteristics, with the most visible characteristics often being clothes, gender, and age. I'd suggest to everyone that race is a mostly useless piece of information about people, and almost all of the information people claim to get from race is actually information that they get from other sources.
There are many variations on a joke about a race blind man refusing to cross the street as a black youth is walking towards him, he then gets mugged by the black youth. In more recent times the joke is often subverted to turn the race expectations on their head. Anyways, it is a good example for my purposes. Let us break the situation down:
- Context - Walking down a dark street at night in a bad section of town.
- Age - young, teen to late twenties. A time when humans are often physically at their peak, and a time when males are more prone to violence.
- Gender - male, as mentioned above more prone to violence and physicality.
- Clothes - You are often left to paint the picture for yourself in the joke. But imagine a dark hoody and well worn jeans.
- Demeanor - fixated at you, arrogant walk, one hand holding something in their hoody pocket.
At this point, without race ever being a factor, you can make an informed decision that interacting with this person is a bad idea. If you can't tell their race, and then are suddenly able to see it at the last moment, no result should change the informed decision you already made.
I won't make the very strong claim that Race is never a useful deciding factor. But I am making the claim that it is rarely useful. It is rarely useful because as I mentioned above it is mostly only a limitation by being an imaginary social construct. The actual correlations between race and very real limiting genetic factors are not very strong. The usefulness of race as a piece of information is proportional to the degree to which race is a commonly accepted limitation. The less people accept race as a limitation on their behavior, the less useful it is in predicting their behavior.
In general if you want to get better at reading situations with other people I would never suggest doing an in-depth reading of all the various stereotypes associated with different races. Instead I would suggest:
- Learning some biology related to human aging and gender. (I do believe gender stereotypes are very useful)
- Learning about clothing and fashion. In the above mugging example if the person you see happens to be wearing a dark Taylor Swift concert hoodie, and the jeans appear artificially aged then you might significantly downgrade the threat they pose.
- Learning to read body language. In the mugging example, maybe they are holding a phone, and maybe they are fixated on something behind you.
- Being more aware of context. Maybe before you start walking at night in the bad neighborhood of town you should realize how the situation might end up, and try to find a way to avoid it altogether. Some young people can sort of have their head in the clouds, and I'd suggest they play a sport that requires better situational and contextual awareness.
Policy
This is the more culture war laden section of this argument. I'm not going to claim this section is exhaustive or comprehensive. I simply picked two policy topics that are heavily enmeshed with racial politics. The college section will probably not be controversial to anyone on themotte. The immigration section will probably be very controversial here on themotte.
Universities
Universities and Colleges have been using race as a criteria for admission for quite some time now. I believe this is a bad policy, and doesn't accomplish their goals. One of their stated goals in doing this is to promote diversity on campus, which makes for a more interesting learning environment, and a better college experience.
I think race is a lazy selection criteria for diversity. It continues to be used because it is easily legible on a college admission form, and has somewhat of a correlation with diversity.
It is helpful to see how this approach is lazy, by imagining a stark contrast: a college that wants diversity and what approach it would take while expending the most amount of effort.
This imaginary college admissions would want to know as much as possible about their prospective students, and they would not want the students themselves to be the sole providers of that information. The admissions process might look more like the security clearance process. The student would fill out an exhaustive set of forms about their past life circumstances. Every sport, social group, vacation, and major life event would all be fair game. The university would assign a case worker for each student, who would then go interview the family and friends of that student to build an exhaustive profile of who they are. Then the students would be evaluated for their personalities, political beliefs, and viewpoints. With tens of thousands of profiles in hand the university would then run an exhaustive set of statistics and winnowing on the student profiles. Any prospective students with rare experiences or backgrounds would get additional weight. In this imaginary admissions process race would be almost a useless criteria, because there would be multiple other criteria that would make it obsolete or redundant.
Back to the real world. There are obvious problems with race based admissions when it comes to producing a diverse campus. As I said in the personal section, race is not actually a hard and fast genetic restriction, it is only loosely correlated with those genetic restrictions. So it is quite easily possible that you could have two suburban candidates that are next door neighbors and nearly identical in every category except race. Taking both of these students would not make the campus more diverse, except in the most superficial and meaningless sense of a skin color diversity. Imagine the opposite scenario of two identical twins separated at birth. One into a rich family of doctors in a big city, and another into a poor farming family in a small town. Admitting both of these students would not alter the racial diversity of campus at all, but it would make for a more interesting and diverse student body.
A lazy solution for colleges that want diversity and don't want to use race: create categories that you want to fill. For example, "person that has lived in a different country", or "person from a rough neighborhood", or "person from a big city", or "person from a small town", or "person that has lived in both". Then get students to fill in which categories they fit into. Then try to fill out the incoming class with a range of diverse experiences and backgrounds. This would be a slightly superficial take on 'diversity', but it would still be way better than a race based admission criteria. (some universities already do minor versions of this for other purposes, like asking if they are alumni / military child / etc.)
Immigration
If you have read the rest of my post some of what I'm about to say will be unsurprising. Race is generally an indirect sorting mechanism for the things we care about from immigrants, and more direct sorting mechanisms exist. I'd claim that the main things we care about in immigrants are: Intelligence, hard-work, cultural fit, criminality, and "buy in". Most of those are self-explanatory. I'd consider language skills under cultural fit. The "buy in" is how willing any immigrant is willing to engage in joining a country.
I think the easiest way to determine an immigrant's fit is to just look at their country or citizenship of origin, and ask for their reason for immigrating. Which is generally what the US immigration policy already does. Certain countries are better fits, and though Race correlates highly with country of origin it is not the same thing. And although there could be potential gaming of the system by asking people why they want to come to the country, some reasons are transparently obvious. For example, marriage into the country is an obvious reason for immigration, as well as a decent signal of some degree of "buy in".
Some quick thought experiment that suggests Race is a bad proxy measurement:
Imagine two immigration candidates. From two hypothetical nations. Candidate 1 is of the green race, but coming from redstan. Candidate 2 is of the red race, but coming from greenstan. They have both been in their countries for a full generation. Redstan is a war torn mess it has a failed government and the streets are regularly the sight of sectarian violence. Redstan is also ideological enemies with your country, Tealstan. Greenstan is your country's fatherland. Tealstan used to be a colony of Greenstan, but they peacefully split apart. They share a people, a culture, and are on friendly terms with one another. I would think Candidate 2 from Greenstan is clearly the better candidate.
Imagine two other immigration candidates. One is of your exact race. In fact they are your distant ancestor frozen in ice and revived in the modern era, but they have a cultural mindset from 200 years ago, they hate what the nation has become, and their lack of modern skills makes them highly likely to resort to crime. The other candidate is your neighbor, but a race very different from yours. They have been living next to you for five years, they had planned to just stay here a bit for work and then leave to their home country. But they fell in love and the prospect of marriage and starting a family has made them want to stay. I would think the second candidate is clearly the better choice.
Summary
Race is clearly a thing that exists. Genetic differences exist across races. The simplest proof is in people's skin pigmentation. However, genetics doesn't have to dictate anyone's destiny. Genetics can be barriers to unlimited possibilities, but your final place within a large set of possibilities is up to you.
And because race and genetics do not fully dictate who a person is, those characteristics do not provide good information about an individual that isn't obtainable in a myriad of other more reliable ways.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Suppose you have two chip fabrication plants. One produces 97% functional, working chips, 3% are broken. The other plant produces 6% of their chips broken.
The majority of both plant's products work. If you have applications that need only a few working chips of a certain type, or individual working chips, you can use chips from either company without much bother.
But say you need 10 working chips of the same type, from the same factory. A single failure means the product is worthless. 0.97 x 0.97... = 0.74
0.94 x 0.94... = 0.54
The difference between a 54% chance of success and 74% is huge, way more significant than 94% vs 97%.
The point of this semiconductor metaphor is that small differences matter at large scales. We care about groups as well as individuals. In fact, groups are the most important determinants of state success and the strength/capabilities of the state is the most important determinant of individual welfare. Being poor/stupid in Denmark and poor/stupid in South Sudan are very different concepts. If it takes 10 quality, honest people to make a successful company or to run an electricity grid without blackouts... Or if it takes five stupid, dishonest, violent people to ruin a neighbourhood...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income
Forget contrived stories of individuals and look at groups. At the top are East Asians, Indians and Europeans, at the bottom are blacks. There are exceptions and oddities - Appalachians are at the bottom for instance. Selection effects matter. But in general the obvious trend holds, the same trend you see in criminality, in health, science and so on. You see it in different countries - East Asia and European countries tend to be rich and advanced. If they're not, they have excuses.
Do you want a huge population of Afghans, Ethiopians and Sub-Saharan Africans coming to your country? Income of course doesn't tell the whole story - even those we'd expect to be inclined towards refugees throw up their arms with the Afghans we've been getting recently (there's probably a negative sorting effect going on here): https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ive-worked-refugees-decades-europes-afghan-crime-wave-mind-21506
In my country we have problems with Sudanese youths stealing cars and joyriding with them at grossly disproportionate rates. All this without a history of redlining, lynching and so on. And unlike Appalachian Americans, there do not seem to be non-economic gains from these populations - Appalachians have a history of military service.
Putting aside raw performance, there's also great value in homogeneity in itself. You might well say 'well let's skim off the most talented Chinese, Indians, Nigerians, Ethiopians with our high wages and boost our country's GDP'. What happens to your country if you do that? It becomes an empire as opposed to a nation-state and that invites disaster. Some ethnic group will find their way to the top and others will be jealous. What has happened to every empire in history? Nationalism tears it apart! Nationalism, competition for spoils, factionalism, cultural and religious tension - these are the most powerful forces in the world. We saw this quite clearly in Afghanistan. Nobody told the Taliban they needed a high GDP to beat us. They had nationalism and religious fervour, a culture standing firmly behind them, a force that proved stronger than a global superpower.
On all conventional measures of strength, NATO was far ahead of the Taliban. Yet we were trying to do something very difficult (massively changing a people's culture) and we were doing it in a stupid way (without forcibly indoctrinating or concentrating the population). What China did to its Uyghurs, that's how you change cultures from outside. If we're not prepared to do that (and how can we to people we invite to our countries), we will incur a disaster eventually. Few soldiers are prepared to die for feminism, for the political fortunes of the leading political dynasty, for liberal democracy or gay sex in Botswana. Many more are prepared to die for their nation, to make sacrifices for their nation. That's what people fought for in WW2.
Why can't the US fill the ranks of its army if its GDP is so high? Why is US politics such a disaster zone that there's an ongoing culture war? Because each passing day it becomes less and less national, more and more imperial. It becomes a hollow economic zone run by major corporations, media figures and ethnic leaders. Divisions (economic, cultural, ethnic) multiply and leaders start profiting from division, fuelling it for short-term advantage. There's a gigantic racial spoils apparatus devoted to papering over the cracks, trying to retain a modicum of stability even as it further undermines it. Destination: Lebanon.
His response is obvious. "Just test the chips lol" And we can do that! IQ-selective immigration, literally give every immigrant an IQ test. (before you say "politically impossible", any sort of racism is also politically impossible)
A quarter of our 'elite' are already jews and another quarter are a smattering of other international ethnicities. Even before that, "french" and "anglo" and "german" and "italian" were rather separate nations until they all blended together in america.
More options
Context Copy link
On the flip side, if you have a test for chip quality which can diagnose bad chips with sensitivity and specificity of 75%, you can use that test to get from a 6% bad chip rate to a 2% bad chip rate if you're willing to throw away a little over a quarter of your chips. (Math: out of 1000 chips, there will be 705 good chips the test says are good, 235 good chips the test says are bad, 15 bad chips the test says are good, and 45 bad chips the test says are bad).
Even pretty crappy tests (0.75 is a terrible number for both sensitivity and specificity) can get you massive advantages over just relying on base rates.
So, by that thought process
If we are capable of having the sort of process that is capable of predicting, not necessarily very well, just a bit better than chance, which particular applicants have an elevated risk of being a problem, and we're willing to use that process even if it unfairly rejects a significant fraction of applicants, then yes, I do want a huge (selected) population of immigrants from those countries coming here.
That said, I live in a country where the vast vast majority of residents have immigrant ancestors within the last 10 generations, and a solid quarter of them within the past generation (i.e. they are either themselves immigrants or their parents were). The "the country has a strong sense of solidarity because everyone belongs to the ethnic group that's always lived here" ship has not sailed, because that ship never arrived in the first place.
Tests are good. Indeed my country actually uses tests and gets a higher quality of immigrant, refugees aside. Nobody else seems to bother with this though and people can cheat, unlike passive objects. Employers naturally want cheaper labor, as cheap as they can get. There'll always be pressure to water down tests, endless economic arguments. To beat an economic argument, what about a social argument?
What happens if there's a crisis and the bulk of the population is economic migrants? Would they stay and fight for their country or go back home or find another country to move to?
The pioneers of China's ballistic missile program have a lot of credentials from US universities. National solidarity is very important and we undermine it at our peril. Maybe you don't need it ever ten years, or even every fifty years but you do need it and you never know when.
Empirically national solidarity seems to increase when there's a crisis. Unless the crisis is economic, I suppose - if lots of people moved to your country because of the promise of prosperity, and then your country started doing worse economically, those people might go seek their fortune elsewhere.
But yeah, losing the possibility of national solidarity based on centuries of common ancestry is a cost, at least for places where that was ever on the table. I expect the benefits are generally worth that cost, especially in a context where you can only control immigration and not emigration, but it is a cost.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If anything, it is because GDP is high; potential recruits have better options. It is in poor countries that people are eager to seek public employment, including in the military.
The Taliban did not beat us; the beat their internal rivals.
If you can't get people to fight for their country, you won't have a country for very long. If you see an army like a mercenary organization that attracts its recruits with competitive remuneration, you're not going to beat goat-herders in AKs who are fighting for something more. People fight hard for nations, not for money.
Our puppet government? The puppet government we imposed by force of arms, propped up for 20 years and disintegrated the moment that we left (making the Soviet puppet government look like a paragon of stability, outlasting the Soviet Union itself)?
I don't think so. "A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority." This certainly fits the US. And it becomes more imperial the more diverse it gets, the more nations it rules over.
The US is an empire that relied upon being largely homogenous, founded and ruled by Protestant Englishmen. And sure it's had a good run. But there's only one ending to this story. The Hapsburgs ruled many nationalities for a very long time and were pretty successful. Yet they're gone with the wind. It only takes one big loss and empires disintegrate back into nation-states.
Perhaps. But that is not the claim I was addressing.
No, as I said, their internal rivals. Who were fighting the Taliban long before the US decided to back them in 2001.
What do you think "nations" means in that context?
Again, what do you think "nationalities" means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation
I don't buy the 'civic nationalism' stuff there though. I have no doubt many identify as Soviet citizens, many probably still do and then... their 'civic nation' is not around anymore, it dissolves into smoke and mirrors unlike a real nation.
OK, I messed up when I said nationalities and meant nations.
Ok, that is kind of what I thought, but then I don't understand what you meant when you said that the US is ruling over nations. Because while Germans constitute a "nation," German-Americans do not. Ditto re Chinese (or perhaps merely Han) and Chinese-Americans. African-Americans certainly are not a nation, given that Africans are not a nation. Ditto re Hispanics.
Why don't Chinese-Americans constitute a nation? The moment a Chinese man signs a piece of paper to become American, his nation changes? What about all those people who don't even speak English, are they part of the American 'civic nation'?
Nations can change, German-Americans are very watered down now. But the very notion that there's a distinction between American (which brings to mind a white man) and African-American must mean there's some kind of significant biological difference there. This is a national difference to my mind.
The US has many nations within it - there are Ethiopians, Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, Jews, African-Americans. African Americans might not have a state but how are they not a nation, if you can draw a distinction from them that is rooted in race as opposed to social characteristics? What is the word for this? If it's not nation, surely it's a word with very similar meaning?
Africa is a geographic area inhabited by many peoples. You have Arabs, Berbers, Bantus, Igbos... That's not quite what we mean when we talk about African-American though. Elon Musk is not really an African-American, nor is he terribly African IMO.
The word is "ethnic group," which, as the source you linked to notes, has a very different meaning than "nation." The US has many different ethnic groups in it, not many different nations.
I wasn't talking about nationhood, which again is different from nations existing. A Chinese man is part of a Chinese nation regardless of his nationality. Ghandi in 1900 was Indian even if there was no sovereign Indian state.
Nationality can change, since nationality is decided by pieces of paper. You can go to space a Soviet citizen and return to Earth as a Russian or whatever. But nation isn't changed by pieces of paper, where nation means national community. Nation is decided by birth, culture, language and upbringing... not pieces of paper.
And why are we quibbling over definitions anyway? It doesn't significantly relate to my broad point whether we call it a nation, a people or an ethnic group in so far as my point is that diversity in this factor (national community, nations, ethnic groups) is bad for state cohesion and a source of instability that should be minimized.
More options
Context Copy link
I think that quite a few (572 federally recognized ones) Native American tribes consider themselves nations.
I like Bloom's definition of a nation - the same people living in the same place. The Native American tribes on reservations definitely have this character.
I do not know if any other groups in the US are sufficiently segregated to count as a nation. I think in Canada, the Quebecois would have obviously been a nation had they split in 1995, so presumably, they were close to being one at the time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
probably not a good example of genetics, this country is worse than African poor and one of 2 (IIRC) countries than still do have wild poliomielitis. They probably could do about as well as Albanians given better circumstances.
on the other hand, does it need to?
So US Army did won against Taliban. Army doesn't decide what happens after this.
If the Afghanistan War was a victory, what would defeat look like? Their goal was to destroy the Taliban, something, something, liberal democracy... These goals were definitely not achieved! If you don't achieve your goals and the other guy does (control Afghanistan) then he beat you!
Afghanistan is famous for being full of extremely tough, stubborn, independence-minded warriors. They gave Alexander problems, they gave us problems, they cause everyone problems. Thousands of years of war surely have some kind of effect, the unending tribal feuds breed a certain kind of aggression and preparedness to die that is hard for us to match. More literary-inclined souls probably did not fare so well in the mountains.
They completed the military goals with professionalism and aplomb, but the political goals were fucking stupid because Bush Lol.
The Army is a contractor here: they received a dogshit plan for a moronic project, executed it in detail chapter and verse, and then the building fell down because it was stupid to begin with.
The neocon playbook where you shoot people in the mountains/deserts/jungles until they love you just doesn't work.
Was it even a military victory? Surely a military victory would mean destroying the Taliban, defeating all the people who kept blowing themselves up, laying IEDs. But the Taliban persisted and fought on to ultimate victory.
I'm as eager as anyone to call neocons and politicians idiots but the Army can't escape blame. They sold Obama on a 'Surge' to achieve victory and beat the Taliban around 2008. Certainly, Obama didn't give them 500,000 troops for five years as they asked:
But is that realistic? If Field Marshall Rundstedt asked Hitler for 4 million men and 6,000 tanks to secure the Western Front and prevent D-day, I have little doubt D-day would've been impossible. But who cares, they didn't have armies lying around. It's pretty unrealistic for the US to sustain 500,000 troops in Afghanistan, a landlocked, mountainous country. It reads more like some kind of internal ass-covering game 'you didn't give us a ridiculous amount of resources so it's not our fault if we fail'.
They concealed their failures from the public, saying everything was going great even as internal secret reports said it was all FUBAR (from the Afghanistan Papers).
Fair enough.
I count their looooooooooong tail of post conflict fuckups as an extension of being assign the stupid mission in the first place; but a truly perfectly successful army would have invaded, set up, tried once, then gone back to the executive and said "Shits fucked bro. It's not gonna happen".
Same problem that comes up in any hierarchical organization I suppose; that failure is worse than success. Shit, pulling out of a bad plan is usually worse than just fading to the back of the room, shutting up, and letting it burn.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link