This is the fucking worst argument. To reduce people as stats is the worse.
Because, on average, black people are more economically disadvantaged than white people.
Choosing to explicitly buy from black farmers will, on average, tend to support those with the least financial means out of the general population of farmers, whereas choosing to explicitly buy from white farmers will, on average, tend to support those who are already more financially advantaged.
One side is directly choosing to help those most likely to be economically disadvantaged, the other would be explicitly ignoring those with the least means in order to help those who already have the most, thus the situations are not quite comparable.
I personally would prefer an index that directly assessed farmers based on overall wealth to determine who you should buy from, but because that’s extraordinarily difficult to constantly update & maintain, verify, etc, it can just be easier to divide among racial lines since that still tends to produce a grouping that is relatively similar.
prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
ArchRecord@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Should we just stop using statistics then? Numbers don’t matter if they are about people? (I genuinely want an answer here. Should we?)
Statistically, one societal class of people needs more support than the other to have the exact same quality of life, generational wealth, and opportunities. Thus, when deciding who to buy, in this case, produce from, it simply makes sense to purchase from the group most disadvantaged, until their disadvantage is no bigger than the other group, and we can then switch from buying from “small black farmers directly” to “all small farmers directly,” because all of them would then need a near identical level of support, financially speaking, to get the same outcomes.
prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
But in the process you will discriminate another groups.
ArchRecord@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Group A is historically not discriminated against, and now on average, has a net worth of $100,000.
Group B is historically discriminated against, and now on average, has a net worth of $80,000.
In both groups, some will own more or less than the average, but the largest number of poorer individuals reside in Group B, because the average is lower.
On a per person basis, everyone has $20,000 to spend. Should they give it:
- Exclusively to Group A? (and “discriminate” against Group B, but raise their average net worth to $120,000)
- Exclusively to Group B? (and “discriminate” against Group A, but raise their average net worth to $100,000)
- Split evenly between the two? (bringing Group A’s average to $110,000, and Group B’s average to $90,000)
Which option is most likely to uplift the most poor people to a less poor status?
This is why your argument of “discrimination” doesn’t hold up. The choice to make a purchase from Group A while ignoring Group B only entrenches existing wealth disparities. The choice to make a purchase from both evenly keeps the wealth disparity where it is. The choice to buy exclusively from Group B eliminates the disparity.
This decision is not being made because of race on its own, it is being made because of the common socioeconomic context within which people of color often reside. If white people were the ones who had a history of economic discrimination, even if all other actions regarding past and current racism remained equal, then economically supporting the white farmers specifically would make the most sense, because they would be most economically disadvantaged.
You cannot have a meritocracy when people start on uneven ground, and there is a very demonstrable difference in existing generational wealth between the races, as a direct consequence of past injustices. The way we fix that as individuals, and as a society, is by doing what we can to elevate groups experiencing a disparity until they no longer do.
remer@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If the concern is economic disadvantages, shouldn’t the selectivity be based on income and net worth instead of skin color? Maybe selling products from poor and independent farmers. A portion of every race is economically disadvantaged.
teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 months ago
We should already be taxing proportional to income, and in the 60s when Affirmative Action was implemented, we were.
But the problem isn’t just that there is a lower class at all, the problem is that the lower class is disproportionately filled with black people and minorities as a direct result of racism.
If you think of it like a footrace, we ran the first half of the race giving black people a straight up disadvantage for no other reason than the color of their skin. Now most of the people in the back of the pack are black. We should already be helping all people in back to catch up to the rest of the pack, but this still means black people are disproportionately in the back as a direct result of that initial disadvantage. We could ignore it, and say that after another 300-400 years of equality, maybe things will even out on their own, but in the meantime you have a bunch of people who are living in poverty and dying, and we can scientifically say for an absolute fact that it’s a direct result of historical disadvantages targeting their ancestors based on race.
It’s inhumane to look those people in the eye and say, “tough luck, we’d help, but we decided we don’t do racism anymore.”
xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 2 months ago
So by buying milk from black farmers, you will help:
Whereas by buying milk from poor farmers, you will help:
How exactly is the former better than the latter?
teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 months ago
Both are good. Each behaviour is a response to a different problem. Refer again to my footrace analogy.