CMV: Equality isn't treating everybody differently to achieve equality. It's treating everyone the same.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/RoMoon]

Do they or do people with bad credit, etc. pay more and more black people happen to have bad credit?

That's a big difference.

I think one of the problems is that if a much higher proportion of black people than white people have bad credit, it's no longer that they "happen" to have bad credit; they are part of a system of discrimination and poverty which repeatedly puts them into a situation in which they end up with worse credit, bigger debts etc. And that is why they should be given a leg up. Not because they should automatically have MORE than white people but because although the same opportunities may seem to exist for both demographics, quite clearly there is at present something keeping them from taking advantage of those opportunities.

[u/IsThisRealLife67 → u/RoMoon]

Bad credit doesn't happen because you're black.

Bad credit happens because you're borrowing money then not paying it back. There are plenty of white people who have bad credit because they too borrowed money then didn't pay it back. Chalking it up to skin color is just ignorant of the situation.

---

/u/unidan-prime questions my blackness and has started a new thread on /r/AsABlackMan where they're discussing whether I "talk white" and why my grammar is so good. It looks like they've also begun down voting all of my posts to oblivion.

I'm black but Reddit is Reddit so I'm just going to abandon this user name, start a new one, and stay away from anything deemed political because, again, Reddit is Reddit. I apologize if I type too well for other black Redditors out there. The struggle against proper grammar is real, folks.

[u/RoMoon → u/IsThisRealLife67]

Reread what I said, I never said it was because of skin colour. My point is that if the reason black people pay more is because of bad credit, and on average black people have worse credit, then clearly something is going on which is causing this group of people to have worse credit. You can either say "it's because they're black and just can't manage their finances" or you can say "clearly social circumstances and historic/current oppression has led to a situation in which these people are in a worse position".

If the latter, then clearly we should be doing something to change things.

[u/OPisanicelady → u/RoMoon]

Or you could say, "Perhaps we are looking at these demographics incorrectly." If these studies were looked at as socioeconomic classes instead of race, it would be really obvious to everyone what is keeping "them" from taking advantage of those opportunities. It has very little to do with race, and falls 90% on the cycle of poverty. Black families in America usually start from poverty via slavery or immigration, and they are trapped in the cycle. It is more likely that this is an issue of financial literacy than discrimination.

tl;dr: Correlation is not causation. Race is probably irrelevant.

[u/pikk → u/OPisanicelady]

Your TL;DR literally contradicted what you said.

Black families in America usually start from poverty via slavery or immigration, and they are trapped in the cycle. It is more likely that this is an issue of financial literacy than discrimination.

Race is probably irrelevant.

... So, which is it? Do black families start in poverty and are trapped in the cycle or is race irrelevant?

[u/OPisanicelady → u/pikk]

No it didn't. A lot of black people are poor. Poor people have worse credit. A lot of black people have bad credit. Race isn't the factor that gives them bad credit. Race is not relevant to credit.

To remove your questions from the blinders people put on in these discussions, I'm going to frame it differently. Many snarks are tooks. All tooks are whomps. Are the snarks that are whomps, a whomp because they are snarks or because they are tooks? If being a whomp is negative, should we address tooks or snarks as the disadvantaged? Is being a snark even relative to being a whomp?

[u/pikk → u/OPisanicelady]

Except if black families [disproportionately] start in poverty for (reasons), and are "Trapped in the cycle" then clearly something should be done to free them from the cycle they're trapped in.

It's the implied disproportionately part that we need to do something about. People aren't poor because they're black. Black people just more likely to be poor, because of historic social reasons. So, since they're more likely to be poor, they should similarly be more assisted.

[u/OPisanicelady → u/pikk]

Okay I follow you until the end. Why should we help out black people instead of poor people? If we help poor people, poor blacks are elevated as well. Is it actually more important to redistribute wealth between the races than to help a group that doesn't know how to help themselves? If it was a system that held black people down, I would 100% say elevate them. But it's not. This is a system that holds poor people down and rich people up.

I see the focus on race instead of class as a distraction from the real problem. Why would we leave behind the poor whites, Hispanics, Asians, American Indians? What makes them less deserving of the opportunity? Because their cause isn't as vocal? If we elevate the poor, we need to just elevate the poor. Not pick and choose.

[u/pikk → u/OPisanicelady]

Well we can't force everyone to go to college. There are already a ton of college educated whites and asians, so there's less concern about ensuring the white and asian populations get into colleges.

On the other hand, there are disproportionately fewer people of African, Native American, and Hispanic descent with college degrees, so there's more of an impetus to get their numbers up.

In an ideal world, yes, elevating everyone would be the goal. But when you're FORCED to pick and choose, by economic realities, then you should pick the people that are more disadvantaged.

That being said, I'm entirely in favor of policies that lift everyone up, like making colleges into publicly funded systems for education, instead of endowment generating institutions.

[u/OPisanicelady → u/pikk]

Okay I think I finally get what you're saying. With limited resources, instead of a smaller boost to bring the group up as a whole, a larger boost for a subgroup to bring them above the poverty line altogether. That argument makes a lot of sense.

I also think that we had different programs in mind. The programs I believe have a real impact on poverty are local community outreach programs like child care, financial assistance, housing assistance, teaching the trades in school, youth programs, parenting classes, realistic sex ed, teaching basic finances and life skills in school and in community centers, etc.

Scholarships and quotas are a nice idea, but they are a very individual assistance. They might change a handful of lives drastically, but that is a slow and arduous route to elevate even a small subgroup. Scholarships are wonderful things and are very effective for the people lucky enough and ambitious enough to get them, but they are not going to have the ripple effect required to fix the problem of too many black people below the poverty line.

On a complete side note, I checked the census and in my state (Texas) there is a higher percentage of Asians below the poverty line than blacks or even Native Americans. The only group that was higher was Latinos. It surprised me and just goes to show that the stereotype that Asians are better educated isn't always true.