I think by "ethnic spoils", OP is referring to the situation where most ethnic groups use their influence on government simply to deliver more resources to themselves. The word spoils here is used only in the sense of resources, as in "to the victor goes the spoils". India, Brazil, Iraq, Lebanon and most other multi-ethnic democracies have fairly dysfunctional governments in part because each politician is supposed to only serve their own ethnic interests.
Wokeness in Canada elevates this kind of activity to a virtue, and e.g. in job searches, it's considered a positive to have advocated for your own race's interests politically or institutionally. This is one way to show "commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion".
astrolabia
3yr ago
I personally would prefer number 2, but I think OP's worry is that the most realistic choice is between:
A) Something like the current white majority that's partly woke, in which that wokeness is not catastophic, and
B) Different races, partly woke, in which the wokeness leads to ethnic spoils, persecution of whites, and general Brazilification.
It does seem like in Canada in particular there's room for some sort of third option, in which whiteness de facto ends up extending to the "white-adjacent", i.e. northeast Asians, high-caste Indians, and whoever else has the desire and ability to compete in a pseudo-meritocracy. I already see lots of affirmative action programs specifically for black & indigenous people.
Basically it seems plausible that there might be some sort of bifurcation between (whites and skills-based immigrants) vs (refugees and aboriginals).
astrolabia
3yr ago
Thanks, but in my particular set of institutions, there are almost no blacks at all, so it doesn't help. But otherwise I do like this line of argument.
astrolabia
3yr ago
I don't think "burden of proof" makes sense in the context of actually trying to solve a problem. But in any case, yes that is the usually tack that I or others take, suggesting that something like better elementary schools would eventually fix the problem. But then you've ceded that at equilibrium we should expect equal representation, so why not help speed up our approach to that equilibrium? Again, for competitive fields, arguing that the under-represented just don't care enough to try as hard is about as unspeakable as saying they're not as capable (see Damore).
astrolabia
3yr ago
Thanks. At least in our case, there are enough non-white-or-asian-male candidates who apply, but are poorly qualified, to make your argument difficult.
A female colleague argued that of course non-white-or-asian-males require more resources to achieve at the same level (because of society).
astrolabia
3yr ago
I've made those anti-collectivist arguments, but the reply is usually that these differences in outcomes are evidence of extreme discrimination, which is unjust and hurting our effectiveness.
As for Asians, they just double down on anti-black racism. Mentioning Jews just makes you sound anti-Jewish.
astrolabia
3yr ago
Thanks. I have had the honest convos with people one on one and it has usually gone OK. But lots of my educated acquaintances have heard the basic claims about IQ and also a bunch of rebuttals or claimed debunkings. E.g. They think Gould's Mismeasure of Man showed conclusively that race realists were wrong.
I any case, I am talking about professional contexts, again where people explicitly disavow the possibility that differences in group outcomes could be possibly due to "inherent inferiority".
astrolabia
3yr ago
I've tried this a few times, and here's how it went each time:
Me: Aren't you just imposing a new hegemony in your own interests? Classical liberalism / colorblindness is a good compromise that avoids turning everything into a political race-to-the-bottom, at least for a while.
Them: We're liberating everyone from white supremacy and patriarchy. If your beloved meritocracy functioned at all, why are there so few black, indigenous, or female leaders in our institutions? Surely you don't think people from these groups are inherently inferior...?
Me, unwilling to commit professional suicide: No, no, of course not...
The debate has organically evolved so that the only rejoinder in almost any discussion involves acknowledging an on-average superiority in many professional fields of white men, which is literally a hate crime in my western country. Including East Asian and Indian men in my answer just begs the question about the remaining groups and they know it.
I've noticed in the last few years that my interlocutors are becoming quicker to ask the Unanswerable Question in these kinds of discussions, or even pre-emptively announce their rejoinder to anyone who might suggest such an idea.
If anyone has a suggested reply that won't get them fired or un-personed, I'm all ears.
For instance a few years ago I think it was in Illinois that black lawmakers successfully lobbied to require black board members on all large corporations. But I think GP isn't making claims about particular ethnicities - rather he's talking about a bad Nash equilibrium where, once most other ethnicities are doing this, yours has to as well or it will be marginalized, crushed, or impoverished.
As for in job searches, a typical example would be that a latino job candidate will get points for having volunteered for a "Latinx in [their field]" organization that advocates for latinx interests.
More options
Context Copy link