I have found these quite interesting. The purpose for these are to challenge what you think to ensure you believe what you believe based on solid information and not just because someone told you so. Great exercise.
The Only Remedy to Past Discrimination is Present Discrimination | Purdue
- Thread starter Boilermaker03
- Start date
It's a very interesting thought experiment. Thanks for sharing.
I also see that the host has asked the same question on different campuses. I like his approach in creating a dialogue. At Portland State, he had two students (who sounded like they have taken his critical thinking class), and one agreed, and the other disagreed. He actually asked the students to flip side, and tried to argue from the opposite position. I think that was a fun exercise.
On surface, the quote doesn't sound right to me. If the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination, then it just means propagating discrimination forever. (In fact, the complete quote was "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.") If we are trying to get rid of discrimination, then why shall we continue to discriminate?
But then there was actually an explanation. The historian who came up with that controversial observation then quoted President Lyndon B. Johnson, "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” That sounds reasonable too.
Maybe we can think of it as using force? I don't advocate using force to resolve dispute, but I also think that you have to have [good] force to stop [evil] force. For example, will Hitler stop killing Jews if we just ask him nicely to stop? When we ask China to stop taking over Taiwan by force, they have to listen because we said US would not stand by idly, and we have the military force to back up. Without such force, China wouldn't bother what we say. So it also seems to me that the only way to stop [evil] force is to have [good] force.
And so what's good force, and what's evil force? Force that promotes long-term peace is good. Force that imposes your will against other's wishes is evil.
In that sense, I can agree with the idea that the only way to stop [evil] force is to use [good] force.
Or think of it when the room is noisy, and the teacher has to yell, "QUIET!!!" When the teacher yells, is he adding to the noise level of the room? Yes. But doing so is the way to stop the noise that is already going on in the room.
Therefore, I think that's what the historian who came up with the "discrimination" quote was getting at. I am still not fully agree with his racial / anti-racial distinguishment, but at least I can see where he is coming from, and it is not as ridiculous as it sounds when I first read it.
He was using the racial distinguishment because there is a lot of racism towards straight white men these days. It's something that is absolutely prevalent in today's society.
Personally, I think the only way to get rid of discrimination is by making the playing field as even as possible. This is IMO what the Right stands for. The Left stands for making things equal by discriminating (affirmative action for example), which will never end discrimination. You will always have a group that needs "help".
