Entry 2279, on 2023-06-28 at 13:50:51 (Rating 5, Comments)
I am often accused of "blaming the victim" in my on-line discussions of "difficult social justice issues". At this point of history there is a consensus amongst the people who follow politically correct dogma that "minority groups" who don't do as well in society, according to various measures such as income, health, etc, are in that situation not because of any deficiency in their character, attitudes, or culture, but because society itself is biased against them. In other words there is systemic bigotry.
I put the word minority in scare quotes above because it really has nothing to do with whether the group is a genuine minority or not. For example, there are roughly as many women as men in most countries, but women are often still considered a minority in this context (except when that status is upstaged by trans people!). And some genuine minorities, like Asian people in many Western countries, are not considered as such just because they don't show up in stats as disadvantaged. So really the argument is that disadvantaged groups are disadvantaged. Quite a revelation, isn't it?
There is no doubt that, if you look at the stats, there are groups who don't do as well as others. For example, in New Zealand, Maori people have shorter life spans; and in the US, black people have lower incomes. The question is not whether this happens or not, but why.
It is very tempting to ascribe a single cause to these phenomena. If you are politically correct, or a "liberal" or on the left, you will go for the societal or systemic bias argument, and if you are a conservative, or on the right, you will probably blame cultural tendencies of the "victim" group. So which is it?
Well, it's complicated. My first point is that it can be both, and the second is that it can differ depending on exactly which issue is under discussion. However, as you might have guessed from the introduction to this post, I think there should be far more blame attributed to the disadvantaged group, and less on alleged systemic biases.
A prominent current controversy of this type, here in New Zealand, is Maori life span and health outcomes. These are definitely worse for Maori, and bias in the health system is generally cited as the cause, but I doubt whether that is the major factor.
So if that isn't the problem, what is? Well, the stats clearly show that Maori suffer from many negative health factors which aren't related to the health system at all, and are more likely to be the result of elements of their culture.
For example, Maori adults are three times more likely to smoke than non-Maori, they are almost twice as likely to be obese, they are more than twice as likely to be unemployed, and they are one and a half times as likely to live in poverty. These factors alone could easily explain at least a significant part of the discrepancy in health and longevity (while it is true that I have done no quantitative research on this, surely it is at least a major factor which should be considered).
So why blame the health system, and even worse, why force health professionals to treat Maori and Pacific people, and other "disadvantaged" groups, instead of other New Zealanders who have equal need? Is there no place here for individual responsibility? I mean, it's not as if they are being forced to smoke or eat unhealthily, is it? Well, not in any meaningful way, anyway.
I will actually answer my own rhetorical question here: it is because, if you blame a minority group when that group is based on race, you will be labelled a racist. It won't matter too much whether you are right or wrong; just the fact that you had the temerity to quote facts which criticise that disadvantaged group is enough.
But ignoring the facts isn't doing anyone any favours. By preferentially treating people who have made the choice to smoke or eat unhealthily you don't solve the problem, you just disguise it, and probably make it worse.
Let's look at another example: education standards for black people in the US. Many higher education institutions have policies which radically favour black people in entrance exams. Black people get the equivalent of a 310 point bonus over white people, and Asians get a 140 point penalty.
The average SAT score is about 1050, and to be in the top 1% you would need a score of 1550, so a 300 point bonus is a huge advantage, the equivalent of a 30 meter head start in a 100 meter race. How is that fair? And before anyone starts citing white privileges note that white people are given a 140 point bonus over Asians, so are we really seeing Asian privilege here? I don't ever hear that claim!
So why do black people do so much worse in education unless they are given a massive unfair advantage? Actually, they do worse even with that bonus, so the situation is even more problematic then it seems. It probably isn't because of any inherent inferiority based on race, because the anomaly can more easily be explained by culture. Stable black families in the US more or less don't exist, because the rate of single parenthood is about 70%. That explains the phenomenon of black underachievement far more than societal bias does.
So the unfair rules used for entrance to universities, like the unfair rules for treating patients in New Zealand I mentioned above, aren't really solving anything, they are just disguising the real problems. But again, stating that problem makes you a racist, according to politically correct doctrine.
So I do blame the victim, because they are victims of themselves. Actually, there is some societal bias adding to their problems, but not in the way many people think. The bias which is causing their disadvantage is positive bias. Society is looking after them so that they don't need to do that themselves. And that is a self-reinforcing effect: the more handouts they get, the less they need to worry about self-improvement.
Before I am accused of being a crazy racist red-neck, I would like to moderate this conclusion slightly. There are many people in "privileged" groups who also suffer from this problem. After all, there are plenty of obese, poverty stricken, unemployed smokers amongst the white community on New Zealand as well, but the stats clearly show this is more common for Maori. And there is bias in society, but it goes both ways - it is both positive and negative for any group you want to name - so that also cannot be considered the most significant cause of disadvantage.
Before I finish this post I would like to make things even worse, because not only am I a racist, but I'm a misogynist and an islamophobe as well!
Women do get paid less on average, but the pay gap has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with gender. It is because of the type of work they do, their differing commitment to work-life balance, time off work taken to raise children, and lower aggression when bargaining pay and conditions.
And look at a map of which countries are currently affected by major risks of hunger. They are almost all Islamic countries. Is this just a conincidence? I think not.
At this point I should apologise to anyone who hasn't been offended by my opinions here yet. If you belong to a minority group other than Maori, blacks, women, or Muslims, then please read some of my other posts. I'm sure I have insulted you somewhere. There's no need to thank me for helping you feel like a victim; you're welcome!
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2023-06-29 at 12:20:08:
Still waiting to read the controversial parts of this post.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2023-06-29 at 15:27:07:
Oh, so sorry to disappoint you! :) I don't try to be controversial... well, maybe I do a bit. I can assure you that many people *would* be offended by what I said here. But it should be irrefutable that these points have merit, the only question is to what extent. Some people might say the effect is small, so can be ignored; others might say it should be ignored because it provides an excuse to ignore the reasons they believe in.
Of course, the real problem here is that so many people refuse to even consider the possibility that these points might be true. It's part of the replacement of objective truth with a personal "truth" which a person or group holds to be correct through a sort of faith. That's why I often compare wokeism to a religion.
Comment 3 by Jim Cable on 2023-07-01 at 19:50:45:
Owen, I always enjoy the fact that nothing is too "sacred' for you to address and/or admonish. You're unafraid to assail the seriously-touted nonsense which those who suffer such intellectual disadvantages as PC and woke-ism seem perpetually terror-bound to mention, let alone address. As usual, your points are well-considered and, among capable minds, essentially inarguable.
One minor point though. You made reference to "liberals" as if synonymic with usual leftist interests. Certainly the U.S. media have embraced the word's corrupted meaning for years when using it in reference to the Democrat Party - America's Left. In actuality, a "liberal' is actually one who embraces ideals that are the very antithesis of Leftist objectives - those of tolerance, lack of prejudice, a lack of bigotry, open-mindedness and a firm espousal of freedom of speech and thought.
While today's minority groups have corrupted the original meaning of so many good words, prostituting them to their own ends, I feel that the corruption of "liberal" and the media's slavish acceptance/promotion of it is among the worst of those lexiconic instances.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2023-07-01 at 20:03:43:
I totally agree. I usually avoid using the word, because it means different things in different countries, as well as having different meanings to people with different political beliefs. You did notice I put it in scare quotes, right?
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE