[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
> O.K. Martin, now you, too, want to accuse me of offering racist
> arguments.
I don't want to accuse you of anything, Larry. I explained why your
argument IS OPEN TO A CHARGE of racism. I explained how your aergument
CAN BE INTERPRETED as racism. The fact that you have ignored the nature
of what I have said and have instead defended yourself against charges
that were not made seems to indicate you see the problem in the argument
you have chosen.
> It's the equivalent of saying, when are you going to stop beating your
> wife?
>
> No, you haven't explained. If you had explained, I'd answer directly.
You didn't answer this at all:
"But [Colin] is asking you about African Americans, Larry. Your response
is to say you didn't say anything about them. But you did say something
about them, because your statements include them, and since, by the
statistics Colin claims exist, African Americans have significantly
poorer health as a group, either you are saying African Americans are
irresponsible, or you are saying there is no need to consider their poor
health separately, because the level of health for the whole set of
people who are responsible enough to prioritize health care is high, and
some subset of people has to be at the bottom of the curve, and the fact
that it happens to be African Americans is just, well, bad karma, I guess."
> If I accepted that your point of view had merit, I'd not only concede
> the point, but I'd thank you for pointing out to me how it was that I
> inadvertently made some remark or presented some line of reasoning
> which presented some sort of subliminal racist ideation.
>
> So maybe I'm dumb.
That's it. You are dumb about this. Tim Wise wouldn't put it that
succinctly, but I guess it would amount to the same thing. You didn't
inadvertantly make some remark. Your whole argument ignores the problem.
> Colin offered up a whole lot of **** numbered 1,2,
> 3, and 4. Reading your various posts since your initial reference to
> your (apparently intended to be tongue in cheek) view that America
> can't solve it's educational, health care and race relation problems
> because it is too busy converting yards to miles, I do get the idea
> that you are trying to be dispassionate and reasonable (again, in stark
> contrast to Colin, whose language has been utterly contemptible). So
> be patient with me; explain (probably using different words, as I
> obviously didn't understand the words you used before) exactly what it
> is in any of what I've said which could remotely fit into the broadest
> possible definition of "racism" (a definition broad enough to justify
> the use of this word to describe anything that I said or implied).
>
> What my argument "reduces" to is that the USA has a philosophy of
> government (and a philosophy of health care) which emphasizes
> maximizing opportunity as opposed to maximizing the even distribution
> of goods and services (including health care). You are free to feel and
> argue that Americans should want out of government what Europeans want,
> but the fact is that we don't. So, in a democracy, you follow the
> wishes of the majority while doing your best to respect and protect the
> rights of the minority. Political minority views can easily get air
> time in American debate (thank goodness!). Conspicuously absent has
> been any measurable public sentiment for radically overhauling the
> American health care system along the lines of other Western
> democracies. People in British Columbia care passionately about health
> care (I know this from regularly listening to "As it Happens"). This
> isn't the case even for California, one of the most solidly "Blue"
> states.
There are two points for me to say something about there. First, when
you say "the USA has a philosophy of government (and a philosophy of
health care) which emphasizes maximizing opportunity as opposed to
maximizing the even distribution of goods and services (including health
care)," you clearly imply it isn't that way in the other countries we're
talking about. Your implication is false. None of these other health
care systems is about trying to even the distribution of health care.
They are all about ensuring that everyone gets the health care he or she
needs. That is quite a different task from your implication.
Second, your remark "Conspicuously absent been any measurable public
sentiment for radically overhauling the American health care system..."
is exactly the kind of view that LEAVES YOU OPEN to a charge of the
"white privilege" racism Tim Wise is talking about. You'll have to spend
some time at his website to get a handle on this concept.
<http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise>
> Now, you accuse me of "restricting my argument to the working
> uninsured."
>
> In the first place, this is by far the biggest problem (see below). In
> the second place, it is in this context that my allegedly "racist"
> statements were made (my contention, which I stand by, that the lack of
> health insurance among working Americans is a matter of personal
> priorities and personal choice).
No, Larry. You don't get to decide the context. That isn't the context.
> So I am asking you to help me out in understanding exactly what it is
> that I seem to be missing in all of this. Racism-wise.
I've tried to do it again above, but here is another angle on it from
Tim wise that is closer to what Colin has been pointing to:
"The two most common excuses for racial wage inequity are age and
geography: excuses popularized by black conservatives like Thomas
Sowell, and repeated ad infinitum by white reactionaries like Abigail
and Stephen Thernstrom. Since blacks are, on average, younger than
whites they will earn less, so the argument goes; and since blacks
disproportionately live in the South -- a lower-wage region of the
country -- they will earn less, even if there were no racism operating
in labor markets.
"Regarding age, though the median age among whites is about nine years
older than the median for blacks (5), and although persons who are older
typically earn more than those who are younger, this fact does not
explain differences between white and black earnings, and even to the
extent it is a factor, it cannot be separated from the issue of racism.
"First, even when whites and blacks of comparable age are compared, wage
gaps remain substantial. Black men with college degrees earn, on
average, 20-25 percent less than comparable white men, even when they
are the same age (6). White families headed by persons of every age
group are far better off than comparable blacks, and indeed a black
family headed by a 45-54 year old is 3.5 times more likely to be poor
than a comparable white family, and twenty percent more likely to be
poor than a white family headed by someone who is twenty years younger! (7)
"Secondly, the older median age for whites is due to a larger number of
elderly citizens, which is the result of longer life expectancy. But of
course, life expectancy itself is related to racism, so age gaps between
whites and blacks hardly qualify as an independent variable to explain
income inequality. As a number of studies have documented, blacks
routinely have less access to high-quality health care, and also suffer
from discriminatory treatment at the hands of doctors. Even when health
care is available, doctors are less likely to order a full range of
diagnostic tests and treatments for black patients than for whites, even
when these patients' finances and insurance coverage are comparable to
their white counterparts (8).
"Even when comparing blacks and whites of comparable age, sex, severity
of disease, geographic location, and other factors that could influence
the quality of medical treatment, blacks are sixty percent less likely
to receive a coronary angioplasty or bypass surgery to relieve a serious
heart condition (9).
"As one study found, doctors presented with identical patient histories
and symptoms overwhelmingly refer whites for more advanced treatment.
According to the study, which presented doctors with videotaped patient
interviews (actually actors trained to pose as patients with identical
medical histories and symptoms), doctors were far less likely to refer
black women for aggressive treatment of cardiac symptoms than white
women. When asked to give their impression of the actors (whom they
believed to be real patients), doctors routinely said they perceived the
black "patients" as less intelligent, less likely to follow doctor's
recommendations and thus cooperate with a treatment regimen, and more
likely to miss appointments: this, despite the fact that the actors had
made identical comments and had presented identical symptoms (10).
"So, if whites have a longer life expectancy, and if this is due in part
to racially disparate provision of health care, it is absurd to claim
that the younger average age of the black community explains racial
earnings gaps, independent of racism, since the age gaps and racism are
intimately related. Even racism experienced outside the realm of health
care is correlated with negative health outcomes. After all, the biggest
killer of African Americans is high blood pressure leading to stroke,
heart disease and kidney failure (11); and high blood pressure has been
shown to be associated with experiences with racism."
<http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/excusesexcuses1.html>