|
JeffreySchatzSecondPaper 9 - 08 Jun 2010 - Main.DavidGarfinkel
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | P: No, it’s not about that. You just have to treat family members in a different way than you treat others. It’s just the way things work. I can’t explain it. You’ll understand when you have children.
Value Groups | |
<
< | The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group. | >
> | The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group. | | | | |
<
< | Is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? Both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as "bad" and familyism as "good." While the effects of racism are arguably more detrimental to society, the underlying principles of both are similar, and praising one while condemning the other appears to be inconsistent. | >
> | Is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? Both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as "bad" and familyism as "good." While the effects of racism are arguably more detrimental to society, the underlying principles of both are similar, and praising one while condemning the other is fundamentally inconsistent. | | | Effects | |
<
< | Racism has served as a motivation for violence, genocide and war. This is not true for familyism. Family feuds are largely a thing of the past, and aside from the rare "hockey Dad" brawl, familyism generally manifests itself in a non-violent way. Additionally, familyism arguably has some benefits. It could be difficult for children to survive to adulthood if their parents didn’t give them any special treatment. More importantly, the love of, and interaction with, family members is a source of great joy for many people. It would be difficult to argue that racism either saves lives or provides people with a significant source of happiness. | >
> | Racism has served as a motivation for violence, genocide and war. This is not true for familyism, which generally manifests itself in non-confrontational and non-violent ways. Additionally, familyism arguably has some benefits. It could be difficult for children to survive to adulthood if their parents didn’t give them special treatment. More importantly, the interaction between different family members and expressions of love is a source of great joy. It would be difficult to argue that racism either saves lives or creates happiness for the vast majority. | | | | |
<
< | But, familyism carries some negative consequences too. Families devote more resources to their members than to other individuals, leading to a disparity of wealth between different family units. Parents may, and often do, use their income to help their own child go to college or buy a car rather than help another’s child eat. However, it may be that families don’t cause inequality, but mitigate it, as without the family unit individuals would keep their resources to themselves rather than spread them around their families. | >
> | But, familyism carries some negative consequences too. Families devote more resources to their members than to other individuals, leading to a disparity of wealth between different family units. Parents may, and often do, use their income to help their own child go to college or buy a car rather than help another’s child eat. While there is some distribution of wealth within the family unit and beyond to extended family members that would not be gained in a more individualistic society, the mitigatory effect is still limited. | | | | |
<
< | Nevertheless, it appears that, in terms of effects, familyism has fewer negative consequences than racism, and arguably has some positive consequences which racism lacks. | | | Principles | |
<
< | However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative effects. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be fundamentally wrong within themselves. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. This principle isn’t correct just because Dr. King said it, but because it actually makes sense. To judge someone by the group they were accidentally born into cannot be logically justified, and it hinders the development of a united society by slicing it up into differentiated sections. Avoiding these kind of value judgments is a good idea, but the familyist engages in them just as much as the racist does. | >
> | However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative effects. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be fundamentally wrong within themselves. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. This principle is not correct just because Dr. King said it, but because it actually makes sense. To judge someone by the group they were accidentally born into cannot be logically justified, and it hinders the development of a united society by slicing it up into differentiated sections. Avoiding these kind of value judgments is a good idea, but the familyist engages in them just as much as the racist does. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
JeffreySchatzSecondPaper 8 - 27 May 2010 - Main.JeffreySchatz
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Is Familyism Any Different Than Racism? | >
> | Is Familyism Any Different Than Racism? | | | -- By JeffreySchatz - 15 Apr 2010 | | | WS: It’s true on average, but there are exceptions to every rule. | |
<
< | I: So you acknowledge that there are at least a few black people who are just as smart and nice as white people. | >
> | I: So you acknowledge that there are at least some black people who are just as smart and nice as white people. | | | | |
<
< | WS: Sure, there are always exceptions. There are also some dumb, no good white people. But, on average, whites are better in these ways. | >
> | WS: Sure, there are always exceptions. There are also dumb white people. But, on average, whites are better in these ways. | | | I: So you don’t have a problem with these black people? | | | I: Better at what? | |
<
< | WS: Just better. Like God is better than the devil or good is better than evil. They’re just better. | >
> | WS: Just better. Like good is better than evil. They’re just better. | | |
And between a parent and child | | | P: No, it’s not about that. You just have to treat family members in a different way than you treat others. It’s just the way things work. I can’t explain it. You’ll understand when you have children.
Value Groups | |
<
< | The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. The white supremacist tries to give other reasons for the difference in values he places on whites and blacks, but in the end has to admit it is simply about race. The parent readily admits that she values her child more than the neighbor for the simple reason that the child is a family member. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group. | >
> | The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group. | | | | |
<
< | So is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? Both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as "bad" and familyism as "good." While the effects of racism are arguably more detrimental to society, the underlying principles of both are similar, and praising one while condemning the other appears to be inconsistent. | >
> | Is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? Both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as "bad" and familyism as "good." While the effects of racism are arguably more detrimental to society, the underlying principles of both are similar, and praising one while condemning the other appears to be inconsistent. | | | Effects
Racism has served as a motivation for violence, genocide and war. This is not true for familyism. Family feuds are largely a thing of the past, and aside from the rare "hockey Dad" brawl, familyism generally manifests itself in a non-violent way. Additionally, familyism arguably has some benefits. It could be difficult for children to survive to adulthood if their parents didn’t give them any special treatment. More importantly, the love of, and interaction with, family members is a source of great joy for many people. It would be difficult to argue that racism either saves lives or provides people with a significant source of happiness. | |
<
< | But, if examined from a different perspective, familyism carries some negative consequences as well. Families devote more resources to their members than to other individuals, leading to a disparity of wealth between different family units. Parents may, and often do, use their income to help their own child go to college or buy a car rather than help another’s child eat. However, it may be that families don’t cause inequality, but mitigate it, as without the family unit individuals would keep their resources to themselves rather than spread them around their families. | >
> | But, familyism carries some negative consequences too. Families devote more resources to their members than to other individuals, leading to a disparity of wealth between different family units. Parents may, and often do, use their income to help their own child go to college or buy a car rather than help another’s child eat. However, it may be that families don’t cause inequality, but mitigate it, as without the family unit individuals would keep their resources to themselves rather than spread them around their families. | | | | |
<
< | Therefore, it appears that, in terms of effects, familyism has fewer negative consequences than racism, and arguably has some positive consequences which racism lacks. | >
> | Nevertheless, it appears that, in terms of effects, familyism has fewer negative consequences than racism, and arguably has some positive consequences which racism lacks. | | | Principles | |
<
< | However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative consequences. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be fundamentally wrong. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. Putting people into groups is wrong because it is illogical (an individual cannot be accurately judged by the group they happen to be part of), it is destabilizing (it creates an “us v. them” mentality which inhibits the creation of a united society), and it causes injury to individuals (no one wants to feel less valued due to the group the judger has placed them in). This principle is violated just as much by familyism as it is by racism. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative effects. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be fundamentally wrong within themselves. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. This principle isn’t correct just because Dr. King said it, but because it actually makes sense. To judge someone by the group they were accidentally born into cannot be logically justified, and it hinders the development of a united society by slicing it up into differentiated sections. Avoiding these kind of value judgments is a good idea, but the familyist engages in them just as much as the racist does. |
|
|
JeffreySchatzSecondPaper 7 - 21 May 2010 - Main.JeffreySchatz
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Is Familyism Any Different Than Racism? | >
> | Is Familyism Any Different Than Racism? | | | -- By JeffreySchatz - 15 Apr 2010
A pair of conversations | |
<
< | Interview with a white supremacist | >
> | Imagined Interview with a white supremacist | | | | |
<
< | I: What does it mean for you to be a racist? | >
> | Interviewer (I): What does it mean for you to be a racist? | | | | |
<
< | WS: It means I think whites are better than blacks. | >
> | White Supremacist (WS): It means I think whites are better than blacks. | | | I: In what way? | |
<
< | WS: In every way. . . we’re smarter, kinder, more creative, you name it. | >
> | WS: In every way. . . we’re smarter, kinder, you name it. | | | I: But do you really think that every white person is smarter and nicer than every black person? | | | WS: Of course I still have a problem with them! They’re black. | |
<
< | I: But they’re just as good as whites in all the ways you mentioned: intelligence, creativity-- | >
> | I: But they’re just as good as whites in all the ways you mentioned: intelligence, kindness-- | | | WS: But that doesn’t matter. | | | WS: Just better. Like God is better than the devil or good is better than evil. They’re just better. | |
<
< | Conversation between a parent and child about buying a bike for a neighbor | >
> | And between a parent and child | | | Child (C): But why not? | | | Value Groups
The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. The white supremacist tries to give other reasons for the difference in values he places on whites and blacks, but in the end has to admit it is simply about race. The parent readily admits that she values her child more than the neighbor for the simple reason that the child is a family member. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group. | |
<
< | So is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? Understanding the innate similarities between them provides perspective on society’s values and ideals. Both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as bad and familyism as good, which in reality is an inconsistent presumption to take. By examining the actual effects and underlying principles of the two, we can see that such preference is questionable. | >
> | So is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? Both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as "bad" and familyism as "good." While the effects of racism are arguably more detrimental to society, the underlying principles of both are similar, and praising one while condemning the other appears to be inconsistent. | | | Effects | |
<
< | Racism has served as a motivation for violence, even genocide and war. This is not true for familyism. We can safely assume that when a nation is divided up by several racial groups, it has a potential for violence and instability; a nation divided by millions of kindred-based units does not have that potential. In terms of obvious consequences, we are at worse comparing a family feud to a civil war. Society in general assumes that familyism carries many benefits, such as child bearing and raising, socialization of individuals, and a source of happiness for the individual who is part of a family. Modern society is hard pressed to find any such benefit to racism, though one can try to argue that establishing racial homogeneity or dominance tends to result in greater stability. | | | | |
<
< | But if examined from a different perspective, familyism carries many negative consequences as well. Due to prioritization, families will of course devote more resources to themselves than to others, leading to a disparity between different family units. On an aggregate, this results in an unequal distribution of wealth, creating poverty and barriers to social justice. In addition, familyism can serve as a breeding ground for racism, as the individual can align her familial preference to racial preference. Thus, we see government creating policies to deal with both racism and familyism, from equal protection to wealth redistribution. | >
> | Racism has served as a motivation for violence, genocide and war. This is not true for familyism. Family feuds are largely a thing of the past, and aside from the rare "hockey Dad" brawl, familyism generally manifests itself in a non-violent way. Additionally, familyism arguably has some benefits. It could be difficult for children to survive to adulthood if their parents didn’t give them any special treatment. More importantly, the love of, and interaction with, family members is a source of great joy for many people. It would be difficult to argue that racism either saves lives or provides people with a significant source of happiness. | | | | |
>
> | But, if examined from a different perspective, familyism carries some negative consequences as well. Families devote more resources to their members than to other individuals, leading to a disparity of wealth between different family units. Parents may, and often do, use their income to help their own child go to college or buy a car rather than help another’s child eat. However, it may be that families don’t cause inequality, but mitigate it, as without the family unit individuals would keep their resources to themselves rather than spread them around their families. | | | | |
<
< | Principles
However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative consequences. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be wrong. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that an American principle of equality meant that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. Familyism violates this ideal just as much as racism does.
I never thought this preference was questionable. Family = blood relation. Thus the preference for family members makes sense because it is basic human biology. There are biological and evolutionary advantages to choosing your family members over others. And I’m not talking about nepotism in business or politics, just instances of regular everyday life like you mentioned. I didn’t hear a good reason why family members shouldn’t show more care and spend more money on people who are blood relations than those people who are not. Parents usually if not always have more invested in their own children than in other children who are not familial relations. (Adopted children also count as familial relations in this case.) | >
> | Therefore, it appears that, in terms of effects, familyism has fewer negative consequences than racism, and arguably has some positive consequences which racism lacks. | | | | |
<
< | You also spoke about equality and wealth distribution. I think you’re saying that there should be no familyism in order to make people more equal to one another. For example, if a wealthy man dies, his wealth should be distributed into the commons to help the common good instead of going to his biological children. But what incentive does the wealthy man have to keep his fortune for future generations of his family if he has not control over where it ends up after his death? In addition wealth distribution can and also does occur outside of the family unit. | >
> | Principles | | | | |
<
< | I also disagree with your premise that familyism is as violative as racism. In your scenario, comparing a conversation with a white supremacist to a mother buying a bike, a mere toy, for a neighboring child trivializes the issue of racism. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative consequences. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be fundamentally wrong. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. Putting people into groups is wrong because it is illogical (an individual cannot be accurately judged by the group they happen to be part of), it is destabilizing (it creates an “us v. them” mentality which inhibits the creation of a united society), and it causes injury to individuals (no one wants to feel less valued due to the group the judger has placed them in). This principle is violated just as much by familyism as it is by racism. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
JeffreySchatzSecondPaper 6 - 20 May 2010 - Main.StephanieOduro
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | Principles
However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative consequences. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be wrong. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that an American principle of equality meant that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. Familyism violates this ideal just as much as racism does.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
I never thought this preference was questionable. Family = blood relation. Thus the preference for family members makes sense because it is basic human biology. There are biological and evolutionary advantages to choosing your family members over others. And I’m not talking about nepotism in business or politics, just instances of regular everyday life like you mentioned. I didn’t hear a good reason why family members shouldn’t show more care and spend more money on people who are blood relations than those people who are not. Parents usually if not always have more invested in their own children than in other children who are not familial relations. (Adopted children also count as familial relations in this case.)
You also spoke about equality and wealth distribution. I think you’re saying that there should be no familyism in order to make people more equal to one another. For example, if a wealthy man dies, his wealth should be distributed into the commons to help the common good instead of going to his biological children. But what incentive does the wealthy man have to keep his fortune for future generations of his family if he has not control over where it ends up after his death? In addition wealth distribution can and also does occur outside of the family unit.
I also disagree with your premise that familyism is as violative as racism. In your scenario, comparing a conversation with a white supremacist to a mother buying a bike, a mere toy, for a neighboring child trivializes the issue of racism. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
JeffreySchatzSecondPaper 5 - 23 Apr 2010 - Main.DavidGarfinkel
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Familyism | >
> | Is Familyism Any Different Than Racism? | | | -- By JeffreySchatz - 15 Apr 2010 | | | Interview with a white supremacist | |
<
< | Interviewer (I): So you don’t deny you’re a racist?
White Supremacist (WS): No, not at all. I’m proud of it. | | | I: What does it mean for you to be a racist?
WS: It means I think whites are better than blacks. | | | P: No, it’s not about that. You just have to treat family members in a different way than you treat others. It’s just the way things work. I can’t explain it. You’ll understand when you have children. | |
<
< | Is there any context or background to these conversations. It may be helpful, at the least for the white supremest to try to derive it from a source or something similar, giving it more weight. And for the family, it would be difficult to have a source for that, but if you have something from your own personal experience that is similar, it can give it more meaning as well as make a stronger connection to the reader. I'll hunt around for some source material for the race conversation. For the family one, I really don't think it is disputable that parents will make sacrifices (both financial and otherwise) for their own children that they wouldn't make for others. | | | Value Groups | |
<
< | The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. The white supremacist tries to give other reasons for the different value he places on whites and blacks, but in the end has to admit it is simply about their status as either blacks or whites.
"blackness and whiteness" is awkward sounding and loses impact Any better?
The parent readily admits that she values her child more than the neighbor for the simple reason that the child is a family member. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group.
Is Familyism any better than racism?
Is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? The answer varies depending on whether we are referring to the effects of the value grouping, or the philosophical principles behind it.
In its effects?
When it comes to comparing the effects of racism with the effects of “familyism”, there appears to be a significant difference. Racism has a long history of causing violence and genocide. This is not true for familyism. Furthermore, one can safely assume that a nation divided into just a couple of race-based value groups is more inherently unstable than one which divides itself into a hundred million kinship-based ones. There have been some family feuds with tragic consequences, but none of them compare to the Civil War.
This seems rather obvious. Ignoring family feuds, which has been relegated to history and certain stereotypes, no one would argue that familyism would lead to the same results as racism. One problem to me that needs to be resolved is that attitude towards those outside the value group are radically different. While one may have a strong, natural preference for those belonging to one's family, they do not in general have hatred to the outsider. This is very different from racism, so it seems somewhat like comparing apples and oranges. I think I look at it in a more relative way. In both familyism and racism, the individual views members of their group MORE positively than they view non-members. Whether the difference is between love and neutrality (as with familyism), or neutrality and hatred (as in racism), there is still a relative difference in how people view members of their group versus non-members.
In addition, what should we imply from this. Is there a range of divisions that is good for a nation. If we agree that a nation divided by a couple of racial groups tends to result in conflict, then is it better for nations to be more homogeneous (a solitary racial identity) or should we encourage greater heterogeneity? Is this what you want your topic to imply? No, I think my real point is that familyism and racism are essentially the same thing: prioritizing members of your group for the simple reason that they are in your group.
Furthermore, the creation of the kinship-based value group provides the world with a great deal of “good” things.
Probably a better way to rephrase.
It would be tougher for children to survive to adulthood if their parents did not show them any special preference.
Others could argue differently. Maybe many problems result from abiding to the traditional family structure, and that society would be better if we had a more communal family structure, as exposed by certain Marxist philosophies (possibly seen in the old kibbutz system of Israel) and Plato's "The Republic." I think that is a very interesting point. However, if people stopped being familyist, ceteris paribus, I think children's welfare would likely take a hit.
Additionally, familial love and support is something that often makes people happier. Indeed, for many, spending time with family members brings them unparalleled joy. There is no evidence that racism either saves lives or significantly increases human happiness.
This is a blanket statement. There are arguments that forms of racism can save lives. This is demonstrated by the present debate concerning racial profiling, which does contain inherent characteristics of racism. Think South Park episode where Cartman's racism ends up saving the town from a nuclear bomb. I like the reference, but I think that is a slightly different situation. While racial profiling might often be motivated by racism, I don't think it necessarily is racism. For instance, racial profiling in the airport, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, is not theoretically based on the view that people of middle eastern descent are inherently inferior. Rather, it is based on the belief that they are more likely to be engaged in terrorism.
But, the effects of familyism may not be all good. The family likely serves as an obstacle to social justice. As in the conversation above, familyism leads parents to spend money on their own child rather than on one who may be in greater need. That being said, it is at least an arguable assertion that benefits of familyism (the joy of familial love and increased chances of infant survival) outweigh its costs (inequality). The same is not true for racism.
How do you reach this conclusion. Do families really spend all their money on their own. No, they don't spend all their money on their own, but they are more willing to spend money on their own than they are on others. In reality, families seem to be a strong source of donations through religion, schools, and charities. And shouldn't we expect families to devote most of their resources to their own. Only if we accept familyism. Also, the ideal behind the progressive income tax system does contain some of the redistributive elements you believe are lacking. Right, but isn't this system only necessary because of familyism?
In its principles?
However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative consequences. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be a "bad" within and of themselves.
Do we necessarily? What about value judgments we make and implement for the supposed benefit of certain racial groups. The biggest example would be affirmative action. I think the reason affirmative action is so controversial is the fact that we view value judgements based on race to be bad within themselves.
When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that an American principle of equality meant that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. That people should be valued as individuals is a principle that profoundly influences both our social and legal philosophies. Familyism violates it just as much as racism does. | >
> | The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. The white supremacist tries to give other reasons for the difference in values he places on whites and blacks, but in the end has to admit it is simply about race. The parent readily admits that she values her child more than the neighbor for the simple reason that the child is a family member. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group.
So is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? Understanding the innate similarities between them provides perspective on society’s values and ideals. Both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as bad and familyism as good, which in reality is an inconsistent presumption to take. By examining the actual effects and underlying principles of the two, we can see that such preference is questionable.
Effects
Racism has served as a motivation for violence, even genocide and war. This is not true for familyism. We can safely assume that when a nation is divided up by several racial groups, it has a potential for violence and instability; a nation divided by millions of kindred-based units does not have that potential. In terms of obvious consequences, we are at worse comparing a family feud to a civil war. Society in general assumes that familyism carries many benefits, such as child bearing and raising, socialization of individuals, and a source of happiness for the individual who is part of a family. Modern society is hard pressed to find any such benefit to racism, though one can try to argue that establishing racial homogeneity or dominance tends to result in greater stability.
But if examined from a different perspective, familyism carries many negative consequences as well. Due to prioritization, families will of course devote more resources to themselves than to others, leading to a disparity between different family units. On an aggregate, this results in an unequal distribution of wealth, creating poverty and barriers to social justice. In addition, familyism can serve as a breeding ground for racism, as the individual can align her familial preference to racial preference. Thus, we see government creating policies to deal with both racism and familyism, from equal protection to wealth redistribution. | | | | |
<
< | One thing that needs to be addressed is what is the main thing you want to drive at and how does your comparison get you there. The reader will presume that you are comparing two things that can't really be compared. So one thing that has to be done is to add strength to your justification of why you are doing the comparison. What may help is including what you want the reader to see through the comparison. Should we try to change the traditional family structure? Should we make racial identity more like kinship (refer back to my comments in the effects section)? You may not necessarily need to lead the reader to a particular conclusion, but would possibly need to expand on your comparisons a bit so that the reader can create his own informed conclusions through your paper. I will attempt to do my edit, but it would be helpful if you could respond to these comments so that my edit can better maintain your intentions and ideas. Thanks. I think the point of my essay is basically this: both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as bad and familyism as good, which strikes me as an inconsistent set of positions to take. David, I really appreciate the time you're taking with this. I think you've really helped me to figure out what I was driving at. | >
> | Principles
However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative consequences. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be wrong. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that an American principle of equality meant that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. Familyism violates this ideal just as much as racism does. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
JeffreySchatzSecondPaper 4 - 23 Apr 2010 - Main.JeffreySchatz
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | P: No, it’s not about that. You just have to treat family members in a different way than you treat others. It’s just the way things work. I can’t explain it. You’ll understand when you have children. | |
<
< | Is there any context or background to these conversations. It may be helpful, at the least for the white supremest to try to derive it from a source or something similar, giving it more weight. And for the family, it would be difficult to have a source for that, but if you have something from your own personal experience that is similar, it can give it more meaning as well as make a stronger connection to the reader. | >
> | Is there any context or background to these conversations. It may be helpful, at the least for the white supremest to try to derive it from a source or something similar, giving it more weight. And for the family, it would be difficult to have a source for that, but if you have something from your own personal experience that is similar, it can give it more meaning as well as make a stronger connection to the reader. I'll hunt around for some source material for the race conversation. For the family one, I really don't think it is disputable that parents will make sacrifices (both financial and otherwise) for their own children that they wouldn't make for others. | | | Value Groups | |
<
< | The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. The white supremacist tries to give other reasons for the different value he places on whites and blacks, but in the end has to admit it is simply about blackness and whiteness.
"blackness and whiteness" is awkward sounding and loses impact | >
> | The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. The white supremacist tries to give other reasons for the different value he places on whites and blacks, but in the end has to admit it is simply about their status as either blacks or whites.
"blackness and whiteness" is awkward sounding and loses impact Any better? | | | The parent readily admits that she values her child more than the neighbor for the simple reason that the child is a family member. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group.
Is Familyism any better than racism? | | | In its effects?
When it comes to comparing the effects of racism with the effects of “familyism”, there appears to be a significant difference. Racism has a long history of causing violence and genocide. This is not true for familyism. Furthermore, one can safely assume that a nation divided into just a couple of race-based value groups is more inherently unstable than one which divides itself into a hundred million kinship-based ones. There have been some family feuds with tragic consequences, but none of them compare to the Civil War. | |
<
< | This seems rather obvious. Ignoring family feuds, which has been relegated to history and certain stereotypes, no one would argue that familyism would lead to the same results as racism. One problem to me that needs to be resolved is that attitude towards those outside the value group are radically different. While one may have a strong, natural preference for those belonging to one's family, they do not in general have hatred to the outsider. This is very different from racism, so it seems somewhat like comparing apples and oranges.
In addition, what should we imply from this. Is there a range of divisions that is good for a nation. If we agree that a nation divided by a couple of racial groups tends to result in conflict, then is it better for nations to be more homogeneous (a solitary racial identity) or should we encourage greater heterogeneity? Is this what you want your topic to imply? | >
> | This seems rather obvious. Ignoring family feuds, which has been relegated to history and certain stereotypes, no one would argue that familyism would lead to the same results as racism. One problem to me that needs to be resolved is that attitude towards those outside the value group are radically different. While one may have a strong, natural preference for those belonging to one's family, they do not in general have hatred to the outsider. This is very different from racism, so it seems somewhat like comparing apples and oranges. I think I look at it in a more relative way. In both familyism and racism, the individual views members of their group MORE positively than they view non-members. Whether the difference is between love and neutrality (as with familyism), or neutrality and hatred (as in racism), there is still a relative difference in how people view members of their group versus non-members.
In addition, what should we imply from this. Is there a range of divisions that is good for a nation. If we agree that a nation divided by a couple of racial groups tends to result in conflict, then is it better for nations to be more homogeneous (a solitary racial identity) or should we encourage greater heterogeneity? Is this what you want your topic to imply? No, I think my real point is that familyism and racism are essentially the same thing: prioritizing members of your group for the simple reason that they are in your group. | | |
Furthermore, the creation of the kinship-based value group provides the world with a great deal of “good” things.
Probably a better way to rephrase.
It would be tougher for children to survive to adulthood if their parents did not show them any special preference. | |
<
< | Others could argue differently. Maybe many problems result from abiding to the traditional family structure, and that society would be better if we had a more communal family structure, as exposed by certain Marxist philosophies (possibly seen in the old kibbutz system of Israel) and Plato's "The Republic." | >
> | Others could argue differently. Maybe many problems result from abiding to the traditional family structure, and that society would be better if we had a more communal family structure, as exposed by certain Marxist philosophies (possibly seen in the old kibbutz system of Israel) and Plato's "The Republic." I think that is a very interesting point. However, if people stopped being familyist, ceteris paribus, I think children's welfare would likely take a hit. | | | Additionally, familial love and support is something that often makes people happier. Indeed, for many, spending time with family members brings them unparalleled joy. There is no evidence that racism either saves lives or significantly increases human happiness. | |
<
< | This is a blanket statement. There are arguments that forms of racism can save lives. This is demonstrated by the present debate concerning racial profiling, which does contain inherent characteristics of racism. Think South Park episode where Cartman's racism ends up saving the town from a nuclear bomb. | >
> | This is a blanket statement. There are arguments that forms of racism can save lives. This is demonstrated by the present debate concerning racial profiling, which does contain inherent characteristics of racism. Think South Park episode where Cartman's racism ends up saving the town from a nuclear bomb. I like the reference, but I think that is a slightly different situation. While racial profiling might often be motivated by racism, I don't think it necessarily is racism. For instance, racial profiling in the airport, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, is not theoretically based on the view that people of middle eastern descent are inherently inferior. Rather, it is based on the belief that they are more likely to be engaged in terrorism. | | | But, the effects of familyism may not be all good. The family likely serves as an obstacle to social justice. As in the conversation above, familyism leads parents to spend money on their own child rather than on one who may be in greater need. That being said, it is at least an arguable assertion that benefits of familyism (the joy of familial love and increased chances of infant survival) outweigh its costs (inequality). The same is not true for racism. | |
<
< | How do you reach this conclusion. Do families really spend all their money on their own. In reality, families seem to be a strong source of donations through religion, schools, and charities. And shouldn't we expect families to devote most of their resources to their own. Also, the ideal behind the progressive income tax system does contain some of the redistributive elements you believe are lacking. | >
> | How do you reach this conclusion. Do families really spend all their money on their own. No, they don't spend all their money on their own, but they are more willing to spend money on their own than they are on others. In reality, families seem to be a strong source of donations through religion, schools, and charities. And shouldn't we expect families to devote most of their resources to their own. Only if we accept familyism. Also, the ideal behind the progressive income tax system does contain some of the redistributive elements you believe are lacking. Right, but isn't this system only necessary because of familyism? | | | In its principles?
However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative consequences. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be a "bad" within and of themselves. | |
<
< | Do we necessarily? What about value judgments we make and implement for the supposed benefit of certain racial groups. The biggest example would be affirmative action. | >
> | Do we necessarily? What about value judgments we make and implement for the supposed benefit of certain racial groups. The biggest example would be affirmative action. I think the reason affirmative action is so controversial is the fact that we view value judgements based on race to be bad within themselves. | | | When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that an American principle of equality meant that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. That people should be valued as individuals is a principle that profoundly influences both our social and legal philosophies. Familyism violates it just as much as racism does. | |
<
< | One thing that needs to be addressed is what is the main thing you want to drive at and how does your comparison get you there. The reader will presume that you are comparing two things that can't really be compared. So one thing that has to be done is to add strength to your justification of why you are doing the comparison. What may help is including what you want the reader to see through the comparison. Should we try to change the traditional family structure? Should we make racial identity more like kinship (refer back to my comments in the effects section)? You may not necessarily need to lead the reader to a particular conclusion, but would possibly need to expand on your comparisons a bit so that the reader can create his own informed conclusions through your paper. I will attempt to do my edit, but it would be helpful if you could respond to these comments so that my edit can better maintain your intentions and ideas. Thanks. | >
> | One thing that needs to be addressed is what is the main thing you want to drive at and how does your comparison get you there. The reader will presume that you are comparing two things that can't really be compared. So one thing that has to be done is to add strength to your justification of why you are doing the comparison. What may help is including what you want the reader to see through the comparison. Should we try to change the traditional family structure? Should we make racial identity more like kinship (refer back to my comments in the effects section)? You may not necessarily need to lead the reader to a particular conclusion, but would possibly need to expand on your comparisons a bit so that the reader can create his own informed conclusions through your paper. I will attempt to do my edit, but it would be helpful if you could respond to these comments so that my edit can better maintain your intentions and ideas. Thanks. I think the point of my essay is basically this: both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as bad and familyism as good, which strikes me as an inconsistent set of positions to take. David, I really appreciate the time you're taking with this. I think you've really helped me to figure out what I was driving at. |
|
|
JeffreySchatzSecondPaper 3 - 23 Apr 2010 - Main.DavidGarfinkel
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | Conversation between a parent and child about buying a bike for a neighbor | |
<
< | Child (D): But why not? | >
> | Child (C): But why not? | | | Parent (M): I’m not just going to go and buy her a bike. | | | P: No, it’s not about that. You just have to treat family members in a different way than you treat others. It’s just the way things work. I can’t explain it. You’ll understand when you have children. | |
>
> | Is there any context or background to these conversations. It may be helpful, at the least for the white supremest to try to derive it from a source or something similar, giving it more weight. And for the family, it would be difficult to have a source for that, but if you have something from your own personal experience that is similar, it can give it more meaning as well as make a stronger connection to the reader. | | | Value Groups | |
<
< | The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. The white supremacist tries to give other reasons for the different value he places on whites and blacks, but in the end has to admit it is simply about blackness and whiteness. The parent readily admits that she values her child more than the neighbor for the simple reason that the child is a family member. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group. | >
> | The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. The white supremacist tries to give other reasons for the different value he places on whites and blacks, but in the end has to admit it is simply about blackness and whiteness.
"blackness and whiteness" is awkward sounding and loses impact
The parent readily admits that she values her child more than the neighbor for the simple reason that the child is a family member. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group. | | | Is Familyism any better than racism?
Is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? The answer varies depending on whether we are referring to the effects of the value grouping, or the philosophical principles behind it. | | | In its effects?
When it comes to comparing the effects of racism with the effects of “familyism”, there appears to be a significant difference. Racism has a long history of causing violence and genocide. This is not true for familyism. Furthermore, one can safely assume that a nation divided into just a couple of race-based value groups is more inherently unstable than one which divides itself into a hundred million kinship-based ones. There have been some family feuds with tragic consequences, but none of them compare to the Civil War.
| |
<
< | Furthermore, the creation of the kinship-based value group provides the world with a great deal of “good” things. It would be tougher for children to survive to adulthood if their parents did not show them any special preference. Additionally, familial love and support is something that often makes people happier. Indeed, for many, spending time with family members brings them unparalleled joy. There is no evidence that racism either saves lives or significantly increases human happiness. | >
> | This seems rather obvious. Ignoring family feuds, which has been relegated to history and certain stereotypes, no one would argue that familyism would lead to the same results as racism. One problem to me that needs to be resolved is that attitude towards those outside the value group are radically different. While one may have a strong, natural preference for those belonging to one's family, they do not in general have hatred to the outsider. This is very different from racism, so it seems somewhat like comparing apples and oranges.
In addition, what should we imply from this. Is there a range of divisions that is good for a nation. If we agree that a nation divided by a couple of racial groups tends to result in conflict, then is it better for nations to be more homogeneous (a solitary racial identity) or should we encourage greater heterogeneity? Is this what you want your topic to imply?
Furthermore, the creation of the kinship-based value group provides the world with a great deal of “good” things.
Probably a better way to rephrase.
It would be tougher for children to survive to adulthood if their parents did not show them any special preference.
Others could argue differently. Maybe many problems result from abiding to the traditional family structure, and that society would be better if we had a more communal family structure, as exposed by certain Marxist philosophies (possibly seen in the old kibbutz system of Israel) and Plato's "The Republic."
Additionally, familial love and support is something that often makes people happier. Indeed, for many, spending time with family members brings them unparalleled joy. There is no evidence that racism either saves lives or significantly increases human happiness.
This is a blanket statement. There are arguments that forms of racism can save lives. This is demonstrated by the present debate concerning racial profiling, which does contain inherent characteristics of racism. Think South Park episode where Cartman's racism ends up saving the town from a nuclear bomb. | | | But, the effects of familyism may not be all good. The family likely serves as an obstacle to social justice. As in the conversation above, familyism leads parents to spend money on their own child rather than on one who may be in greater need. That being said, it is at least an arguable assertion that benefits of familyism (the joy of familial love and increased chances of infant survival) outweigh its costs (inequality). The same is not true for racism. | |
>
> | How do you reach this conclusion. Do families really spend all their money on their own. In reality, families seem to be a strong source of donations through religion, schools, and charities. And shouldn't we expect families to devote most of their resources to their own. Also, the ideal behind the progressive income tax system does contain some of the redistributive elements you believe are lacking. | | | In its principles? | |
<
< | However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative consequences. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be a "bad" within and of themselves. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that an American principle of equality meant that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. That people should be valued as individuals is a principle that profoundly influences both our social and legal philosophies. Familyism violates it just as much as racism does.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JeffreySchatz | >
> | However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative consequences. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be a "bad" within and of themselves.
Do we necessarily? What about value judgments we make and implement for the supposed benefit of certain racial groups. The biggest example would be affirmative action.
When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that an American principle of equality meant that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. That people should be valued as individuals is a principle that profoundly influences both our social and legal philosophies. Familyism violates it just as much as racism does. | | | | |
<
< | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list | >
> | One thing that needs to be addressed is what is the main thing you want to drive at and how does your comparison get you there. The reader will presume that you are comparing two things that can't really be compared. So one thing that has to be done is to add strength to your justification of why you are doing the comparison. What may help is including what you want the reader to see through the comparison. Should we try to change the traditional family structure? Should we make racial identity more like kinship (refer back to my comments in the effects section)? You may not necessarily need to lead the reader to a particular conclusion, but would possibly need to expand on your comparisons a bit so that the reader can create his own informed conclusions through your paper. I will attempt to do my edit, but it would be helpful if you could respond to these comments so that my edit can better maintain your intentions and ideas. Thanks. |
|
|
JeffreySchatzSecondPaper 2 - 17 Apr 2010 - Main.JeffreySchatz
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | | |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | | |
<
< | Paper Title | >
> | Familyism | | | -- By JeffreySchatz - 15 Apr 2010 | |
<
< | Section I | >
> | A pair of conversations
Interview with a white supremacist
Interviewer (I): So you don’t deny you’re a racist?
White Supremacist (WS): No, not at all. I’m proud of it.
I: What does it mean for you to be a racist?
WS: It means I think whites are better than blacks.
I: In what way?
WS: In every way. . . we’re smarter, kinder, more creative, you name it.
I: But do you really think that every white person is smarter and nicer than every black person?
WS: It’s true on average, but there are exceptions to every rule.
I: So you acknowledge that there are at least a few black people who are just as smart and nice as white people.
WS: Sure, there are always exceptions. There are also some dumb, no good white people. But, on average, whites are better in these ways.
I: So you don’t have a problem with these black people?
WS: Which black people?
I: The ones who you think are just as smart and nice as whites.
WS: Of course I still have a problem with them! They’re black.
I: But they’re just as good as whites in all the ways you mentioned: intelligence, creativity--
WS: But that doesn’t matter.
I: But just before you were saying that these were the reasons whites are better than blacks.
WS: No, there are other reasons too.
I: Like what?
WS: Whites are just better than blacks.
I: Better at what?
WS: Just better. Like God is better than the devil or good is better than evil. They’re just better.
Conversation between a parent and child about buying a bike for a neighbor
Child (D): But why not?
Parent (M): I’m not just going to go and buy her a bike.
C: But you bought me a bike.
P: Yes, because you’re my child.
C: So? She needs one too.
P: But you’re my child and she’s not. Parents don’t buy bikes for other peoples’ children.
C: But her parents can’t afford to. I told you this already.
P: It’s just not the same. She’s not part of our family.
C: So she’s worse because she’s not part of our family? | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | P: Not worse. There’s just a different relationship. When someone is part of your family you do things for them that you wouldn’t do for other people. | | | | |
>
> | C: But I still don’t get why. She’s smarter than me, she runs faster. A lot of people even think she’s nicer. | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | P: None of that’s true. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | C: If it was, and I could prove it, would you buy her a bike? | | | | |
>
> | P: No, it’s not about that. You just have to treat family members in a different way than you treat others. It’s just the way things work. I can’t explain it. You’ll understand when you have children. | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | Value Groups
The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. The white supremacist tries to give other reasons for the different value he places on whites and blacks, but in the end has to admit it is simply about blackness and whiteness. The parent readily admits that she values her child more than the neighbor for the simple reason that the child is a family member. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group. | | | | |
>
> | Is Familyism any better than racism?
Is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? The answer varies depending on whether we are referring to the effects of the value grouping, or the philosophical principles behind it. | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 2 | >
> | In its effects?
When it comes to comparing the effects of racism with the effects of “familyism”, there appears to be a significant difference. Racism has a long history of causing violence and genocide. This is not true for familyism. Furthermore, one can safely assume that a nation divided into just a couple of race-based value groups is more inherently unstable than one which divides itself into a hundred million kinship-based ones. There have been some family feuds with tragic consequences, but none of them compare to the Civil War. | | | | |
>
> | Furthermore, the creation of the kinship-based value group provides the world with a great deal of “good” things. It would be tougher for children to survive to adulthood if their parents did not show them any special preference. Additionally, familial love and support is something that often makes people happier. Indeed, for many, spending time with family members brings them unparalleled joy. There is no evidence that racism either saves lives or significantly increases human happiness. | | | | |
>
> | But, the effects of familyism may not be all good. The family likely serves as an obstacle to social justice. As in the conversation above, familyism leads parents to spend money on their own child rather than on one who may be in greater need. That being said, it is at least an arguable assertion that benefits of familyism (the joy of familial love and increased chances of infant survival) outweigh its costs (inequality). The same is not true for racism. | | | | |
<
< | Section II | >
> | In its principles?
However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative consequences. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be a "bad" within and of themselves. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that an American principle of equality meant that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. That people should be valued as individuals is a principle that profoundly influences both our social and legal philosophies. Familyism violates it just as much as racism does. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | | |
|
|
|
JeffreySchatzSecondPaper 1 - 15 Apr 2010 - Main.JeffreySchatz
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By JeffreySchatz - 15 Apr 2010
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JeffreySchatz
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|