Maclean's Racism Story: Am I a racist?

I'm finally getting around to this story. The Maclean's article: Welcome to Winnipeg: Where Canada's racism problem is at its worst, has pretty much gone viral and has spawned corrections, responses, counter-responses, and so on. I'm going to skip over most of that. Going back to the original article I'll outline my opinions on it and the race conversation in it's entirety.

First, the reason it took me so long to get to this article is that this entire conversation has long been uninteresting to me. Not because racism isn't an issue in Canada, or is an important issue to me, but because the issue is stale. I feel like I've been on all sides of all arguments, and I just don't see any tangible progress being made. When all options are on the table, and a real honest conversation is taking place, I'd happily take an active role in the process. That time is not now. Articles like this help reinforce that.

Maybe I'm mis-defining what stereotyping means, but I use it as a 'judge a book by it's cover' type of term. Now, I've never understood why this term carries a negative connotation. If you go into a book store. Do you grab a book at random, read the entire thing through, then decide if you should buy it? No, you gather as much information as you can from the covers and form a judgements of their viability.

Based on those judgements of that cover, you might be able to make a selection. But if your requirements are more stringent, you take the information you've gathered and flip open the jacket and read the summary. Perhaps you read the jacket reviews, or perhaps you quickly flip to amazon and read some customer reviews. The point is, you gather information every step of the way to a level sufficient enough to fill your criteria. There is no objective 'right' level of scrutiny required, but simply, a subjective 'right' level given time and personal preferences.

My point is that useful information can, and should be made, when little knowledge is at hand. An honest discussion about it's use and how to improve upon how we upgrade our priors would be much more useful than simply calling it racism and wiping our hands of it.

On to the article.

My first problem: The use of polling 

I clicked through the CIIM link, but after three clicks of trying to find the study that the figures were drawn from, I lost interest. How do you rely on figures and not make them easy to access?

Citing that, 'one in three Prairie residents believe that "many racial stereotypes are accurate" or that, '52 per cent of Prairie residents agree that Aboriginals' economic problems are "mainly their fault."' as proof of racism seems to carry a pretty significant explanation. We don't get it.

Let's consider racial stereotypes. Thought experiment: random white person vs. random asian person; math contest... who would you bet on? (full disclosure: as a half white and half asian person I can make this comparison). One more? Random white person vs. random asian person; driving contest... who do you bet on?

Now, the failure to update your bet upon acquiring further information, may stem from prejudice or from poor gambling skills, whatever motivates that that decision (to me) would determine if a person is racism or not. But to suggest that holding an opinion based racial identity as 'racist', kind of dilutes the term to the point of being worthless. This is where I believe discussions find themselves now.

If someone called me up and said: do you think most racial stereo types are true, I'd say, yes I'm a pretty effective stereo typer. Am I racist? Depends how you define it. I make a pretty qualitative difference, and as a good bayesian, I update my priors as often as possible and as objectively as possible. Simple race based information is largely useless next to good info.

So, perhaps asking about what the author believes to be racial stereotypes, specifically would be useful. And then asking what how that stereotype impacts their view of a random person would be useful. But a vague yes or no to a vague question about a vague topic? Useless (this of course assumes that is how the data was collected, which the article didn't really present readily, and in the internet age, that seems inexcusable).

In terms of the 'their fault' result. First, what are Aboriginals' economic problems? I really hope a more specific set of questions were asked, but again, I don't care enough to dig through website links. Likely, this pushes another vague concept: 'economic', and reports a yes or no answer.

Life is a sum of our choices. Not graduating high school? A choice. Not going to University? A choice. Doing illegal activities and running the risk of a criminal record? A choice. These are all significant factors in determining economic outcomes. I'd answer yes, it is 'mainly their fault' with the caveat that these choices are ultimately up to the individual but they stem from a complex web of interconnected occurrences both involving individual choices and non-individual surroundings and influences. Those surroundings, largely out of the control of the individual will often pre-dispose them towards making choices, if they don't maximize the probability of economic successes then the blame does not solely fall on the individual. Ultimately, a choice is a choice. But there is a lot going on in those choices. Again though, the implication is I'm a racist.

I'll even leave the 'hearing negative comment' poll alone (did they ask about intent?).

My Second Problem: Causation vs. Correlation

Drawing causal inferences from observed outcomes is difficult in almost any circumstances. That's why one handed economists are so often longed for (... but on the other hand). But that exists for a reason. Simply taking an out come, and observation, seeing the correlation and chalking the observation up as the causal factor is troubling even with a decently flushed out theoretical underpinning.

This article takes as given that 'racism' is both an observable and casual factor in social and economic outcomes without explaining the linkages. I'm not even saying it isn't a factor here, I'm saying that it's a lazy and uninteresting way to make an argument.

I remember back during my undergrad hockey playing days (at St. Lawrence University) one of the deans was giving the atheletes a lecture on racial sensitivity and, using the hockey team as an example, said (paraphrased): as a black man, if I were on the hockey team, I'd have to wonder where the diversity is.

Now, my brother (also on the team) and I are very much visible minorities and were both laughing. The implication that the outcome: no black folks on the team. Equated to a bias: against black hockey players. Seemed laughable to us then, and still to me now. Do you know how many black kids played hockey in Canada when I was growing up, probably about the same as there was asian kids (like myself, who was often 'stereotyped?' as being aboriginal). You know how many black NCAA hockey players there were when I was in college? Probably about the same as there was asian NCAA hockey players when I was in college. IS that racism? Or were there more good white hockey players to choose from? Is it racism to have the people best suited for an outcome, get that outcome? Depends how you define it I suppose.

When it comes to more serious issues like health, education, criminal, and economic outcomes the implication that correlation equates causality along these simple racial lines isn't laughable, but it should be met with a pretty healthy dose of skepticism and context.

Murdered teens, elevated incarceration rates, elevated poverty rates, these are outcomes that are used to show us that racism persists. For racism to be the cause shouldn't we find a better control group? What about other races with comparable levels of education, from comparably broken homes, and people in as high of risk factor settings.

Certainly, proportionally aboriginals find themselves in higher risk situations, but addressing these situations instead of assessing how racist the outcomes are seems like a different conversation all together. Am I mistaken here?

The author clearly states that a number of risk factors are more prevelant in the aboriginal communities, but doesn't offer an explanation about why it's simply 'racism' to blame.

If the risk of getting murdered as a teenage girl goes up in the presence of: growing up in a broken home, travelling alone in a city, substance abuse (self inflicted and the presence of it), and sex trafficking, is race the dominant factor? My assumptions are clear, that these factors do increase the risk of ending up murdered. But to conclude that race is the dominant factor you'd have to assume that race is the primary cause of these factors. I'm not even saying that this is false. I'm just saying that it should have been explored in this article.

Were these outcomes perpetrated on the victims by people with racist intent? I haven't heard if racially motivated people perpetrated the murders, abuses, or neglect. If that is so, I am all for addressing that. This article doesn't flush any of that out.

Instead the author observes the correlation (not causation) between race and these risk factors. Then points to these risk factors and the victim. Then draws the line between race and the victim; without justifying the other steps. Outcome. Correlation. Conclusion. Outcome. Correlation. Conclusion.

It just seems lazy.

Conclusion:

Look, Racism is a despicable act that needs to be addressed whenever, and wherever it rears up. But I don't think that outcomes falling disproportionately on a race equate racism. Racism, to me, is when opinions, beliefs, and MOST importantly actions and policy can only be justified on racial terms. I abhor this absolutely (or sex, or religion, or sexual orientation) but that isn't what the author is after.

If school funding is the problem (as implied, but my knowledge on the topic is basically nil), go after whoever is in charge of that and insist that they justify it without using race (is it net tax flows? is there something in the treaties?). If they can't? It might be racism.

If native deaths are being neglected, go after the investigators and insist that they justify it without using race (neglect across the board? higher incidence rate?). If they can't? It might be racism.

Is this unreasonable? I don't know, it doesn't seem so to me.

Policy addressing these 'racial' issues need not be justified in racial terms. If you're disadvantaged, we'll help. If you're in a high risk situation, we'll help. Income redistribution? I'm actually for it (despite my largely libertarian bend), but I don't understand why race need be involved in that discussion. Same rules for everyone makes sense to me.

If you're comparing social outcomes of two groups wouldn't the obvious place to start looking be how each group is represented legally and making them the same? I don't get it, and I'd love for someone to fill me in. This article doesn't do that.

And this is largely why I simply abstain from this whole mess of a conversation, and why nothing will change. I'm usually told it's a legal issue with treaties and all that good stuff. That may very well be so. I don't know. I don't care. The whole conversation shifts from looking for the best possible outcome, to justifying ones priors. I'll leave that to politicos and the lawyers. I don't find that interesting. So I move on.

The bottom line is that there is a huge discrepancy in outcomes that I'd love to play a part in addressing. I just don't think all of the options are on the table. They aren't. But broadly painting outcome differences as simply 'racist' doesn't seem helpful. Writing articles as sloppy as this doesn't seem helpful either. Everyone gets to reaffirm their priors and the conversation sits exactly where it's been.

"Islamophobia" - Am I a bigot? Am I racist?

In the wake of Charlie Hebdo we're seeing, what seems to me, another wasted opportunity to address the real issue here. Stupid ideas. In this case, 'my' being offended justifies my action of killing you. Stupid idea.

Rather then asking: how did these idiots arrive at this decision? We focus on the outcome. We call it radicalization and wipe our hands of it. They are crazy! Irrational! You can't reason with them! Look at most Muslims they do good stuff. Therefore, these idiots aren't 'true' Muslims.

So we look past their stated motivation. Even worse, people like me who say: "they are telling us why they did it, it's their religious conviction" get branded as an islamophobe and conversation shuts down. "He's a bigot, he's a racist (?!?), bigot's and racists don't have anything useful to say, so he doesn't have anything useful to say!"

First, lets knock that shit off. It's clearly not racism. By definition. Next, Islamophobia. Is it 'bigoted"? What is Islamophobia? What is bigotry? Some definitions to start off. Here's Google:

pho·bi·a
noun
an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.

And of course bigot:

big·ot
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Ok, so there probably is a fairly significant overlap between those irrationally afraid of Muslim's and those who are bigots. But am I a bigot? Do I have an irrational fear of Islam?

It's worth defining what the Islam in Islamophobe is. Because really, who the hell knows? I've read the Bible, and I've read parts of the Quran. It's the same basic stuff. You can read it any which way you want. 'Nice' people take nice stuff from it. 'Shitty' people take shitty things from it (remember Abraham, who's willing to murder his kid because god told him to? Well 'shitty' people might think a voice in their head is justification enough to kill someone. Where as 'nice' people.... wait, how would a nice interpretation of that story go?).

Mea Culpa: I'm scared of shitty people who take their direction from other shitty people who take direction from a book written centuries ago. This is materially different then my intellectual disagreement with nice people taking their direction from other nice people who take direction from a book written centuries ago.

But, let me be clear: I'm scared of any shitty person, who takes their direction from other shitty people, especially when they take their direction from a book written centuries ago. Particularly if your conviction is strong enough for you to employ this direction in the physical world and impact others (if you just think it, I still think you're an idiot, but also believe in (and will defend) your right to think like an idiot). I don't care what else you believe, how you look, how old you are, your race, etc.

I'm also Bayesian by nature, so this fear has zero impact on my life because I know the vast majority of people who disagree with me out there, simply disagree with me and (like me) often find these disagreements make for the best conversations! "Am I going to get killed" would be so far down the list of questions I ask myself upon meeting a Muslim that it's essentially irrelevant. But I still think that it's worth pursuing the implications of this intellectually.

Here's the truth: I am more afraid of the shitty Muslims folks who take their actions from other shitty Muslim folks, then I am of shitty Christian folks who take their actions from other shitty Christian folks. Is this 'Islamophobia'? I guess you could define it as such if you want.

But why? I think that relative fear is rational. 'Shitty' Christians in this day in age try to prevent gay people from getting married and want to change school curriculums. The logic behind these actions are just as stupid as the logic behind the more violent perpetrated by 'Shitty' people in the Islamic world, but the outcomes are clearly less worse (but still terrible). Now neither of these fears are nearly enough to impact my day to day. Is that a phobia? It doesn't seem so. But it's all semantics. If you put me up on a split screen with a 20 second summary of my thoughts it might be labeled so.

And I'm not saying one religion is better or more 'true' then any others. I'm saying the outcomes that stem from some are currently better then other. Not always were, not will be in the future, but at this point in time the out comes are better. The simple truth is that I think no justification for any action should ever be faith based. I just think that reevaluating all laws, social constructs, etc. in a manner that says "not good enough" when someone says, "it's what we believe", or "it's always been done this way", would make this world a better place.

Don't think women should be allowed to drive? Justify it. Don't think two dudes should be allowed to have sex? Justify it. Don't think girls should be allowed to go to school? Justify it. Don't use "it's what we believe", or "it's always been this way" and justify it. I'm actually curious, and all ears. I've never heard an argument that made any sense under these requirements.

Anyone that knows me, knows I don't have alot of patience for 'faith'. I think this is a good place to define that term. From Google:

faith
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

My problem with faith has to do with the combination of both points of the definition. A complete trust or confidence and the absence of proof. In fact, that's typically how I define faith, I rid it of any religious connotation. Faith: belief in or of something, in the absence of proof. It just seems like a dumb way to justify something. I believe it because I believe it. Now, the counter argument is, well you have faith that faith is a bad way to arrive at a decision. If you see those as symmetrical in their dogma. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Faith takes many different forms, and results in many different actions. I'd probably even argue that the vast majority of these faith based actions result in positive outcomes (although I think better justification for those actions are redily available, like helping out a poor person because you care for their well being not because your mandated by faith).

The problem is that the justification for those perpetrating the action resulting in a positive outcome, is the exact same justification as those who perpetrate the action resulting in a negative outcome.

In simplified terms: the little old lady who volunteers down at the soup kitchen 'because of her faith' employs the same logic as the guy who doesn't eat bacon "because of his faith", or lets kids think their friends (who don't share their faith) are going to roast in hell for ever "because of their faith", and the guy who thinks his daughter deserved stoning for hurting his feelings (I never really got honour killings) "because of his faith".

My point is that unless you're willing to look at the underlying reason behind ALL of these actions. You'll never properly address the underlying reason behind ANY specific action.

Until I hear an honest conversation on this front. I'll just keep rolling my eyes at these commentators explaining Charles Hebdo, Al Shabab, Boko Haram, etc., etc.  and hope that tomorrow's story in the world of idiocy is about school curriculums and legal rights, and not about honour killings and terrorist attacks.