But the very vernacular you are using suggests a higher level of education than the majority of black men, and I know enough about your lifestyle (fishing in the evening, gated community, pool, etc) to know that you enjoy a relatively high quality of life. And I've spent enough time working with low-income black people to know that none of that stuff is even on their radar, because:

1. When you're systemically disenfranchised from education, financial resources, good health care;
2. Have low availability of nutrient-rich foods;
3. Are raised in a community rife with criminal convictions, absentee fathers, drug addiction;
4. Are racially profiled and made to feel inferior in even the most benign of circumstances;

...your whole focus simply becomes making it to the next meal without some sort of calamity pulling you further down. And for people who are suffering that lifestyle, some group identity solutions -- like affirmative action, anti-discriminatory financial lending policies, food stamps, etc -- do hold a lot of merit.

The problem then becomes one of engaging the individual, who is now fully plugged into and reliant on the gov't welfare system, to fully understand their unique challenges in hopes of weaning them off that system and empowering them to have greater agency and fulfillment in their lives.

But how does any of this argue against my idea that it is better to be viewed as an individual, in general?

And why would it ever be necessary to say that because someone is a white man they should not have an opinion on a matter?

Because the group identity solutions are a relatively efficient way for a highly inefficient government to address multiple people with similar problems in one fell swoop.


I don't think anyone is saying that. I think we are saying that your proposal that the individual is more important than the group is not an outlook that fits uniformly across the entirety of human experience.

But if the ideas are not viable, then shouldn't a group solution be considered?

Example: Thousands of black families are denied home loans every year simply because of the color of their skin (the systemic approach is technically related to their zip code, but the practice of "red lining" is widely accepted to be a sort of race-based gerrymandering for financial lenders).

Is it practical for every black family that gets denied a loan to take up a legal case at either the state or federal level, thereby gumming up the works of the legal system and likely putting those families further into debt for the pursuant legal fees? Or is perhaps a more widespread policy solution, like changes to red-lining laws, a more practical solution to a widespread problem?

Sure, if it's the most viable solution, but it shouldn't take an endemic claim over unnecessary aspects of society at large.

what?

It should be viewed as a viable solution to a problem, not the correct way to view human beings.

"Viewing human beings" sounds like an internal thought exercise; I thought we were talking about helping people. Could totally be my mistake.

"Viewing human beings" sounds like an internal thought exercise; I thought we were talking about helping people. Could totally be my mistake.

Breaking: Two dudes on RM talking past each other for 30 minutes.

I appreciate your efforts at poverty reform and all, but I just don't want to be seen simply as a 'white man'.

if you think that acknowledging race and how that colors your worldview is the same as reducing one to being nothing but their race, well...