Race Fraud

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What counts as widespread, and why do you think there would be more evidence of it?

"Widespread" as in "common enough that systemic solutions need to be considered". And why wouldn't there be more evidence of it if it were that common? Right now, we're seeing rare individual cases.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why would you think that? What enforcement mechanisms exist to detect and punish race fraud?

Because rare individual cases are all we're seeing, and all anybody can provide evidence of. And they are being dealt with on a case by case basis because it's not widespread enough for it to require a systemic solution.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

"Widespread" as in "common enough that systemic solutions need to be considered". And why wouldn't there be more evidence of it if it were that common? Right now, we're seeing rare individual cases.

I already told you: the institutions with the ability to police this do not have an incentive to do so, and have an incentive to not make discoveries public if they do find cases.

Quote:

Because rare individual cases are all we're seeing, and all anybody can provide evidence of. And they are being dealt with on a case by case basis because it's not widespread enough for it to require a systemic solution.

If an institution provides advantages to any category, it should establish standards to verify that category. We do this for educational credentials, for work experience, etc. But we don't do it for race, even though many institutions provide advantages for race.

If you don't see the obvious problem with this approach, I don't think I can help you.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I already told you: the institutions with the ability to police this do not have an incentive to do so, and have an incentive to not make discoveries public if they do find cases.

...

If an institution provides advantages to any category, it should establish standards to verify that category. We do this for educational credentials, for work experience, etc. But we don't do it for race, even though many institutions provide advantages for race.

If you don't see the obvious problem with this approach, I don't think I can help you.

In the latest example we've been presented, the kerfuffle is about the university changing their existing method of verification. And it is explicitly stated that it's being done to bring it in line with other administrative procedures, and not because there are a lot of people defrauding the existing verification system.

So I don't think it's likely true that there are a lot of undiscovered cases of race fraud. I'm sure there's some, and a few cases have been introduced in this thread, and those institutions can deal with them if and when they are discovered, by whatever methods they deem appropriate.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Care to try again, but without your obvious bad faith attempts to move the goalposts?

Not really.

Let's talk goalposts, though. Proudfit may be pretending to be a Pechanga descendant, or she may be mistaken, or she may be correct. My goal is to gather enough evidence to have an informed opinion on this case, but so far all we've really got is he said / she said, her word against the tribal chairman as to the ancestry of her maternal line.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

"Widespread" as in "common enough that systemic solutions need to be considered". And why wouldn't there be more evidence of it if it were that common? Right now, we're seeing rare individual cases.

Because rare individual cases are all we're seeing, and all anybody can provide evidence of. And they are being dealt with on a case by case basis because it's not widespread enough for it to require a systemic solution.

To be fair, why talk about x because y is a much more pressing problem, could be said of the majority discussions on this forum, on the internet really.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by ahhell

To be fair, why talk about x because y is a much more pressing problem, could be said of the majority discussions on this forum, on the internet really.

Oh, absolutely. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't talk about it, and issues when they are discovered should definitely be addressed decisively. I just don't think it's as big a problem as some appear to imply.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Not really.

Let's talk goalposts, though. Proudfit may be pretending to be a Pechanga descendant, or she may be mistaken, or she may be correct. My goal is to gather enough evidence to have an informed opinion on this case, but so far all we've really got is he said / she said, her word against the tribal chairman as to the ancestry of her maternal line.

I'll just accept this as a walkback from your previous stance, then.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

I'll just accept this as a walkback from your previous stance, then.

If you feel that I've committed to a stance which claims Proudfit is either (1) pretending to be a Pechanga descendant, or (2) mistaken about being a descendant, or (3) correct about being a descendant, then I've failed to communicate my point clearly. My apologies. What I meant to convey is that hers is an interesting—albeit unresolved—case of alleged racial fraud.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If you feel that I've committed to a stance which claims Proudfit is either (1) pretending to be a Pechanga descendant, or (2) mistaken about being a descendant, or (3) correct about being a descendant, then I've failed to communicate my point clearly. My apologies. What I meant to convey is that hers is an interesting—albeit unresolved—case of alleged racial fraud.

I have highlighted the new descriptors that you added since you first posted the link and then read the article, which completely change your original statement. You have now reverted to your typical tactic of merely implying rather than stating so your claims can't be nailed down as wrong.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

I have highlighted the new descriptors that you added since you first posted the link and then read the article, which completely change your original statement.

Again, if you took my original statement to mean that the tribe is correct and Proudfit is wrong, I apologize for the miscommunication.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Again, if you took my original statement to mean that the tribe is correct and Proudfit is wrong, I apologize for the miscommunication.

I understand. Posting the article as a case of race fraud before you actually even read it can certainly lead to "miscommunication" if not outright back-pedaling or goal-post moving.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Posting the article as a case of race fraud before you actually even read it can certainly lead to "miscommunication" if not outright back-pedaling or goal-post moving.

I've not yet determined whether this is a "case of race fraud" or not. Do you have an opinion?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I've not yet determined whether this is a "case of race fraud" or not. Do you have an opinion?

My opinion was on your original claim. I have no opinion on your new claim that you have no claim.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

My opinion was on your original claim.

Care to quote my original claim?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Care to quote my original claim?

Why, have you forgotten what it was already?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

"Widespread" as in "common enough that systemic solutions need to be considered".

Seems like the ideal time to consider systemic solutions is before the problem becomes widespread. Why wait until great harm has been caused, when you have already identified the loophole and have a chance to close it while the harm is still minimal?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Why...?

Because I'd be interested in knowing which part of that post you'd like to argue against.

"Interesting new case" seems pretty uncontroversial to me, but here are a few reasons why I found her case interesting:

1) Neither side is backing down from their claims. The tribe insists she is not a descendant, Proudfit insists otherwise.

2) Proudfit is probably the highest profile Native American woman in her state.

3) There is something of a mystery around Proudfit's grandmother, upon whose ancestry this entire case should may hinge one way or another.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Because I'd be interested in knowing which part of that post you'd like to argue against.

Sorry, I thought it was quite clear that I disputed your claim that it was an interesting case of rape fraud in this thread you created about rape fraud. Now that you've walked it back to merely an allegation, I'm not disputing that an allegation has been made.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Sorry, I thought it was quite clear that I disputed your claim that it was an interesting case of rape fraud in this thread you created about rape fraud. Now that you've walked it back to merely an allegation, I'm not disputing that an allegation has been made.

I'd suggest proof-reading would have helped in this case!

[d4m10n]

I wouldn't go so far as to say every "interesting case" is a genuine case, but hey, whatevs.

ETA: I even included a rather dubious case in the OP itself! Liz Warren isn't lying about being Native American in part, although she may well be mistaken about which specific tribe her 3x great grandmother hailed from. Honest mistake ≠ fraudulent deception, IMO (YMMV).

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Seems like the ideal time to consider systemic solutions is before the problem becomes widespread. Why wait until great harm has been caused, when you have already identified the loophole and have a chance to close it while the harm is still minimal?

Maybe, if it is known that it is going to become more widespread. Otherwise we're just wasting effort that may be better spent elsewhere, on problems that are already widespread.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Maybe, if it is known that it is going to become more widespread. Otherwise we're just wasting effort that may be better spent elsewhere, on problems that are already widespread.

I think we have good reason to believe it will become more widespread. In fact I think we have good reason to believe it already is more widespread than we know. I also think that most modern civilizations can easily walk and chew gum at the same time.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think we have good reason to believe it will become more widespread. In fact I think we have good reason to believe it already is more widespread than we know.

I'm not so sure about that, honestly.

Originally Posted by theprestige

I also think that most modern civilizations can easily walk and chew gum at the same time.

This is true.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I wouldn't go so far as to say every "interesting case" is a genuine case, but hey, whatevs.

ETA: I even included a rather dubious case in the OP itself! Liz Warren isn't lying about being Native American in part, although she may well be mistaken about which specific tribe her 3x great grandmother hailed from. Honest mistake ≠ fraudulent deception, IMO (YMMV).

Ah, we're doing the typical d4m10n tactic of widening our topic to include things that aren't actually on topic, then?

'Look, just because I said it is a case of race fraud don't mean I said it's a genuine case of race fraud! Jeez Luise, can't a guy use examples that don't actually fit in the thing he's complaining about to pad his numbers and make it seem like a far more common thing? Cuz, I mean, come on, just like my CRT and cancel culture threads, you know I gotta pad the numbers to justify my concerned citizen pose!'

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I'm not so sure about that, honestly.

But you don't actually know. Which is a problem in and of itself. The system rewards fraud, and has little mechanisms to detect or prevent fraud. You think it still isn't happening much. Well, maybe. But it's not enough to be honest, those in power must be seen to be honest. And without detection and prevention mechanisms, they aren't being seen to be honest even if they are.

I'd prefer to simply get rid of racial preferences all together. Then race fraud wouldn't even matter, and we wouldn't have to police it at all.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Ah, we're doing the typical d4m10n tactic of widening our topic to include things that aren't actually on topic, then?

Let's ask the whomever posted the OP whether Liz Warren and Joely Proudfit (both fairly ambiguous cases) are on topic or not.

Quote:

Look, just because I said it is a case of race fraud...

I'll take quotes no one ever actually said for $500, Alex.

For future reference, when I say something is an "interesting case" I do not mean to imply that we already know how the case will resolve.

[d4m10n]

H. G. Carrillo^WP wasn't born/raised Afro-Cuban, but this was the identity he took on later in life.

He even wrote an entire novel about the Cuban immigrant experience: Loosing My Espanish.

[Brainster]

Sacheen Littlefeather, who memorably refused the Oscar awarded to Marlon Brando for his role in the Godfather, turns out to have been another F-Troop Indian:

Quote:

According to The Chronicle, Orlandi and Cruz both said that their family has no known Native American ancestry and said their family identified as "Spanish" on their father's side.

White Mountain Apache tribal officials told The Chronicle that they found no record of either Littlefeather or her family members ever being enrolled in the White Mountain Apache.

[shuttlt]

There have been claims of her being a fake Indian going back decades. More interesting, I think, is her connection with the Second Battle of Wounded Knee. The activist group she was a member of seem like they weren't just playing around.

[marting]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Sacheen Littlefeather, who memorably refused the Oscar awarded to Marlon Brando for his role in the Godfather, turns out to have been another F-Troop Indian:

So did she formally change her name?

[theprestige]

Is it really fraud if nobody cares whether she's a real Indian, and everyone agrees that the idea she represents of Indians having a position of privilege in colonizer affairs, is the important thing?

The idea is not fraudulent. The frisson we experience at seeing its enactment is real. The issue it raises certainly exists. Does it really matter if someone had to put on redface, to make it happen? Does we really object to the cover-up that was necessary to drive the message home?

Real Indians owe "Sacheen" a debt of gratitude, probably. Considering all the advances and benefits they have achieved in American policy as a result of her paradigm-shifting ruse.

[marting]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Is it really fraud if nobody cares whether she's a real Indian, and everyone agrees that the idea she represents of Indians having a position of privilege in colonizer affairs, is the important thing?

The idea is not fraudulent. The frisson we experience at seeing its enactment is real. The issue it raises certainly exists. Does it really matter if someone had to put on redface, to make it happen? Does we really object to the cover-up that was necessary to drive the message home?

Real Indians owe "Sacheen" a debt of gratitude, probably. Considering all the advances and benefits they have achieved in American policy as a result of her paradigm-shifting ruse.

Assuming her sister's claim is correct, it brings up the question of how she immersed herself enough in a specific native american culture to be accepted as one among them. Really quite an accomplishment. That would be harder than presenting herself as one outside the culture. Would like to know more about her early background and how she accomplished that.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by marting

Assuming her sister's claim is correct, it brings up the question of how she immersed herself enough in a specific native American culture to be accepted as one among them. Really quite an accomplishment. That would be harder than presenting herself as one outside the culture. Would like to know more about her early background and how she accomplished that.

From her Wikipedia page, it looks like she was interested in it at college and was taught it by people in the native American political circles she moved into. I don't think there is any suggestion that she was culturally native American in the sense that she appeared at the Oscars.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Is it really fraud if nobody cares whether she's a real Indian, and everyone agrees that the idea she represents of Indians having a position of privilege in colonizer affairs, is the important thing?

I found a reply to this from Jacqueline Keeler:

https://twitter.com/jfkeeler/status/1509533051889414144

Quote:

White decision makers prefer the play-actor & obscure our reality.

https://twitter.com/jfkeeler/status/1509552185125744650

Quote:

If everything about Native people consists of dressing up in Redface & play-acting our issues whilst excluding us? What is that?

Keeler happens to be one of the journos who'd been chasing down Littlefeather's story for years, here is here most recent piece.

[marting]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I found a reply to this from Jacqueline Keeler:
....links

Thanks! Interesting background.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

But you don't actually know...

No, strictly speaking I don't. And while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, if there were really a rush of people claiming race-based benefits that they're not entitled to, I think there would be more evidence of it.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'd prefer to simply get rid of racial preferences all together. Then race fraud wouldn't even matter, and we wouldn't have to police it at all.

Unfortunately that would not be realistic.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Unfortunately that would not be realistic.

Why not? Title VI seems to take that approach most of the time.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Why not? Title VI seems to take that approach most of the time.

Because a lot of the time, people need those benefits, just to bring them up to baseline. You can't just ignore or wipe the slate clean of decades or centuries of systematic racism.

This is why we say that you need to treat people equitably, not equally.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Because a lot of the time, people need those benefits, just to bring them up to baseline. You can't just ignore or wipe the slate clean of decades or centuries of systematic racism.

This is why we say that you need to treat people equitably, not equally.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5e396bd6a6.png

Both of those are equality, the first is equality of opportunity, the second is equality of outcome.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Both of those are equality, the first is equality of opportunity, the second is equality of outcome.

Equality of opportunity kind of ends up being equality of outcome. I understand that it can be defined in narrow, libertarian terms, but rhetorically, this is how I always see the argument going...

None of us are born with the same opportunities in life. We aren't born as smart, as strong, as attractive, as rich, in a location with the same opportunities, to parents who invest in us, or with inclinations that society is equally able or willing to cater to. Life is inevitable a game of poker where some people come to the table with more chips than they can carry, while others have to borrow chips just to play. To get people to the table with the same number of chips, you are already engaged in the same cosmic battle to level the playing field that the equality of outcome folks are involved in.

I think equality of outcome is a bad goal, but in choosing equality of opportunity as our goal, the moral frame is already given away. Equality of opportunity relies on the argument not being followed to it's conclusions, and these days it is pretty much guaranteed to be.

The better attack on this is that the analogy of the boxes is artificial. The universe of the problem is artificially narrow and quantifiable. It is the same narrow little trolley bus world in which utilitarianism, or libertarianism work just fine. A more realistic version would involve people who had no interest in watching the game being given boxes, elderly people who needed the box to sit on having the box taken away from them, while the cost of boxes is driven up creating scarcity in other places. Maybe people used to bring boxes to stand on, but they don't bother any more because they are just going to be taken and handed out to people who didn't. Now that free viewing is officially sanctioned, people stop paying for the seats and the whole things has to be subsidised. Maybe you can level the outcome of the visibility, but you have made other outcomes less equal to achieve that one equal outcome. If I worked for and paid for my three boxes, but you've taken two away and given them to people who did nothing for them, we've made one outcome equal, by making another less equal. It assumes an understanding of the problem, and an ability to fix the problem without creating worse problems elsewhere that is in question. Effectively the very things that are at issue are smuggled in.

The example of affirmative action seemed to be being referenced. It's been, what, 60 years? How is that going? I don't doubt that we know how to improve individual metrics.... one could after all just skew test scores, policing, or hiring practices along racial lines to hit particular targets. It won't be long before there are few people left alive who were around when we first started redistributing boxes. How much longer do we think will be required before we are done with this in, say, California? Not perfect, but good enough? 20 years? 100 years? Never? Do we actually know how to do what is depicted in the cartoon?