Property, Expectations, Political Correctness

 One quote that really caught my attention: “Property is nothing but the basis of expectation, according to Bentham, consisting in an established expectation, in the persuasion of being able to draw such and such advantage from the thing possessed...The law has recognized and protected even the expectation of rights as actual legal property” (1729). Harris means that privileges are so ingrained in the identity of whiteness that it is culturally appropriated that whiteness is guaranteed with more privileged property rights.

This reminds me of a conversation that we had at the end of our last tutorial session. We discussed how sometimes white people feel disqualified to discuss racial suppression when they are the ones enjoying the privileges. It seems more culturally appropriate or politically correct for racial minorities to fight against racism, while in people’s perception, the white people had no similar experiences of racial suppression to speak the same. This phenomenon definitely shows society’s progression in representing more voices from racial minorities. However, in my opinion, the political incorrectness for white people to voice anti-racism opinions has hindered our progress towards true racial equality. In this way, individuals being a racial minority has also established an expectation that they must be the victims of racial suppression and should be compensated with the biggest privileges that override others in order to reach that racial equality. I am not suggesting our laws be completely color-blind, but I certainly hope the society would encourage more privileged peoples/races to recognize, voice, and redress their given privileges.

But I do certainly understand Harris’s concern in this quote above. In fact, in court, there is an implicit bias that people of color are more likely to conduct crimes, due to their less privileged racial status. But I also want to give the same recognition to white people that are also often accused as oppressors. For sure there are many examples in which white people are the oppressors, but it is important that our laws and our courts can avoid these implicit biases and political correctness to preserve true racial equality.

Comments

  1. Kenneth OwusuJanuary 27, 2022 at 4:04 AM

    I disagree with this claim. Yes, whiteness holds inherent privileges in the form of protected expectations by the state constituted on white supremacist ideologies. I think what you're referring to borders the idea of white guilt in which white people can come to feel a sense of guilt after realizing that the advantages/privileges that they hold are unearned and illegitimate. On this sentiment, I don't think it's the job of oppressed bodies to pander to white people to make them feel better for a problem they didn't create. White people created a system that benefits them at the expense of oppressed bodies and we should feel bad for calling out the unfair advantages that they reap? Further, I think on the point of feeling unqualified to speak on experiences of racial oppression... its because they are. In a system where whiteness is the status quo, how can a white person face racial oppression and thus gain the experience necessary to qualify them? This fact doesn't call for white people to sit out in fixing these systems though. Because of how these racist systems operate, white people not only should but have an obligation to dismantle them. But this doesn't grant them a platform to speak over and co-opt movements by oppressed bodies for oppressed bodies. Additionally, I think that it would be a regression for our laws to move towards color-blindness. In order to achieve racial equality, our laws have to recognize and address the socioeconomic effects that racism has had on oppressed populations. This includes initiatives towards reparations and wealth redistribution. In order to achieve racial equality, oppressed bodies must be compensated for past transgressions and be afforded the same privileges as white people. Whiteness is an oppressive force and those who hold it, weaponize it, and reap its benefits are oppressors. This fact does not work against white people in any court of law or in any system that was built on white supremacy (which is basically all of our systems.) The only capacity in which white people are victims of this system is in their ability to recognize these facts that I've laid out and may unknowingly perpetuate them. Otherwise, white people are not victims of their own creation and to paint them as such is detrimental.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even mor
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to me.
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the
Read more