'Whites Can Be Black if They Wish' says Lecturers' Union

[financeguy]

Caracal, I'm not sure I agree with the degree of emphasis you place on race and slavery. Thomas Sowell has noted that people have enslaved one another since before we were able to read and write as a species. The term in English comes from the Slavic origin, long predating the involvement of Americans in the African trade. There are many areas of the world right now in which you can still see the existence of slavery, without even including sweat shops which might also be included in a modern definition.

This is one of the other "naturals" I'll put in the operating system of the human being. People have an innate desire to control one another and a willingness and capacity to do so with violence, exacerbated by the desire to do so for profit. This does not make it a positive, but it does mean the absence of this activity in a geographic region is what needs an explanation, not its presence. If we looked at Slavery historically in this way, including the trade in the Muslim world in hundreds of years before the existence of the United States as a country, we'd have to see it as a common yet undesirable historical feature of many people, not a historical outlier confined to whites. I've actually heard whites referred to as "inventors" of slavery, which goes to show the absolute lack of factual context many come to the issue with.

[Parasaurolophus]

Caracal, I'm not sure I agree with the degree of emphasis you place on race and slavery. Thomas Sowell has noted that people have enslaved one another since before we were able to read and write as a species. The term in English comes from the Slavic origin, long predating the involvement of Americans in the African trade. There are many areas of the world right now in which you can still see the existence of slavery, without even including sweat shops which might also be included in a modern definition.

This is one of the other "naturals" I'll put in the operating system of the human being. People have an innate desire to control one another and a willingness and capacity to do so with violence, exacerbated by the desire to do so for profit. This does not make it a positive, but it does mean the absence of this activity in a geographic region is what needs an explanation, not its presence. If we looked at Slavery historically in this way, including the trade in the Muslim world in hundreds of years before the existence of the United States as a country, we'd have to see it as a common yet undesirable historical feature of many people, not a historical outlier confined to whites. I've actually heard whites referred to as "inventors" of slavery, which goes to show the absolute lack of factual context many come to the issue with.

Caracal is talking about race-based slavery, which is of recent origin.

[ergative]

Race developed at this very particular moment, and the story is complicated, but really it crystallizes as a system of domination centered around slavery. This isn't controversial or disputed, when you look at slave codes, you can see how increasingly black and slave become synonymous terms. It isn't like any of this is ancient history, either, that's how race functions, as a system of domination and power. So, when you try to pretend that it is normal for people to like "people like them," you're just ignoring this whole history. There's nothing natural about it. That's also why, by the way, expressing pride in being white, or wanting white people to continue to be the dominant group in the United States, is a staple of racist, white supremacist thought.

Wanting whites (or any other group) to be a minority is likewise a staple of racist thought.  The ethnic makeup of the country is pretty much irrelevant; what matters is shared values. Twenty years from now, who knows where most immigration will be from, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. A society where all people are respected is the goal, not one with racial bean-counters making sure that there is appropriate "representation" in every slice of society.

Yes, eventually that's the goal. The problem, though, with this sort of 'color-blind' thinking now, in today's society, is that it blinds you from seeing the current injustices. It's great to be color blind if everyone else is too. But if some people (or systems, or institutions, or inherent biases) favor white people over other people, then living the color blind philosophy just means that you can't actually see it, call it out, and correct it. We must be color-aware now, in order to build a color-blind society later.

[marshwiggle]

Race developed at this very particular moment, and the story is complicated, but really it crystallizes as a system of domination centered around slavery. This isn't controversial or disputed, when you look at slave codes, you can see how increasingly black and slave become synonymous terms. It isn't like any of this is ancient history, either, that's how race functions, as a system of domination and power. So, when you try to pretend that it is normal for people to like "people like them," you're just ignoring this whole history. There's nothing natural about it. That's also why, by the way, expressing pride in being white, or wanting white people to continue to be the dominant group in the United States, is a staple of racist, white supremacist thought.

Wanting whites (or any other group) to be a minority is likewise a staple of racist thought.  The ethnic makeup of the country is pretty much irrelevant; what matters is shared values. Twenty years from now, who knows where most immigration will be from, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. A society where all people are respected is the goal, not one with racial bean-counters making sure that there is appropriate "representation" in every slice of society.

Yes, eventually that's the goal. The problem, though, with this sort of 'color-blind' thinking now, in today's society, is that it blinds you from seeing the current injustices. It's great to be color blind if everyone else is too. But if some people (or systems, or institutions, or inherent biases) favor white people over other people, then living the color blind philosophy just means that you can't actually see it, call it out, and correct it. We must be color-aware now, in order to build a color-blind society later.

By this, MLK must be rejected as "not woke enough". It won't be long before statues to him are torn down.

[Caracal]

Race developed at this very particular moment, and the story is complicated, but really it crystallizes as a system of domination centered around slavery. This isn't controversial or disputed, when you look at slave codes, you can see how increasingly black and slave become synonymous terms. It isn't like any of this is ancient history, either, that's how race functions, as a system of domination and power. So, when you try to pretend that it is normal for people to like "people like them," you're just ignoring this whole history. There's nothing natural about it. That's also why, by the way, expressing pride in being white, or wanting white people to continue to be the dominant group in the United States, is a staple of racist, white supremacist thought.

Wanting whites (or any other group) to be a minority is likewise a staple of racist thought.  The ethnic makeup of the country is pretty much irrelevant; what matters is shared values. Twenty years from now, who knows where most immigration will be from, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. A society where all people are respected is the goal, not one with racial bean-counters making sure that there is appropriate "representation" in every slice of society.

Yes, eventually that's the goal. The problem, though, with this sort of 'color-blind' thinking now, in today's society, is that it blinds you from seeing the current injustices. It's great to be color blind if everyone else is too. But if some people (or systems, or institutions, or inherent biases) favor white people over other people, then living the color blind philosophy just means that you can't actually see it, call it out, and correct it. We must be color-aware now, in order to build a color-blind society later.

By this, MLK must be rejected as "not woke enough". It won't be long before statues to him are torn down.

It doesn't seem like it should be too much work to go read a biography of King before you opine on his beliefs and legacy. Heck, Wikipedia would probably do in a pinch. He, certainly embraced the idea of a color blind society as an eventual goal, but he didn't argue that the way to get there was to pretend race wasn't an issue. King said that "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him," as part of an argument for affirmative action.

[Caracal]

Caracal, I'm not sure I agree with the degree of emphasis you place on race and slavery. Thomas Sowell has noted that people have enslaved one another since before we were able to read and write as a species. The term in English comes from the Slavic origin, long predating the involvement of Americans in the African trade. There are many areas of the world right now in which you can still see the existence of slavery, without even including sweat shops which might also be included in a modern definition.

This is one of the other "naturals" I'll put in the operating system of the human being. People have an innate desire to control one another and a willingness and capacity to do so with violence, exacerbated by the desire to do so for profit. This does not make it a positive, but it does mean the absence of this activity in a geographic region is what needs an explanation, not its presence. If we looked at Slavery historically in this way, including the trade in the Muslim world in hundreds of years before the existence of the United States as a country, we'd have to see it as a common yet undesirable historical feature of many people, not a historical outlier confined to whites. I've actually heard whites referred to as "inventors" of slavery, which goes to show the absolute lack of factual context many come to the issue with.

Caracal is talking about race-based slavery, which is of recent origin.

Indeed. Slavery is very old, one historian has argued that it might be tied up in the domestication of animals. However, there's really no reasonable argument that the modern concept of race isn't bound up with slavery. The details are complicated and subject to more debate but no reputable historians disagree with that basic point.

Finance guy's comments are illustrative of a way that I think lots of people  misunderstand historical thought. Questions about the essential badness or goodness of people are beyond my professional pay grade, but, the idea that violence, control and oppression are staples of most societies throughout history is pretty clearly true. When I say that race based slavery comes out of European colonization and settlement in the Western Hemisphere, I'm not making moral comparisons to other places and other systems of slavery or exploitation. I'm just explaining why race isn't a neutral concept for distinguishing one group of people from another. Race developed as a system of exploitation and control and it has been used that way throughout its history, although you also see people try to repurpose it for other ends.

I'm also not suggesting any need for guilt and self flagellation. I think we should understand the past and how it continues to influence the present. People often self identify with a version of the past that isn't real, or is missing a lot, and when you point that out, they think historians want them to feel guilty. I don't need anyone to feel guilty or to think that the US is some  uniquely awful country, I just want people to have a better understanding of actual history and not act like we all just woke up in 1990 with the world the way it currently is.

[jimbogumbo]

I think this is not worth discussing, as virtually any position, no matter how whackadox, will be found somewhere.

Post #2 from this thread.

McWhorter's views do comprise, IMHO, a better basis for a discussion. This NPR link has excerpts from an interview, and an embedded link to the full interview: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/20/892943728/professor-criticizes-book-white-fragility-as-dehumanizing-to-black-people

[mahagonny]

Race developed at this very particular moment, and the story is complicated, but really it crystallizes as a system of domination centered around slavery. This isn't controversial or disputed, when you look at slave codes, you can see how increasingly black and slave become synonymous terms. It isn't like any of this is ancient history, either, that's how race functions, as a system of domination and power. So, when you try to pretend that it is normal for people to like "people like them," you're just ignoring this whole history. There's nothing natural about it. That's also why, by the way, expressing pride in being white, or wanting white people to continue to be the dominant group in the United States, is a staple of racist, white supremacist thought.

Wanting whites (or any other group) to be a minority is likewise a staple of racist thought.  The ethnic makeup of the country is pretty much irrelevant; what matters is shared values. Twenty years from now, who knows where most immigration will be from, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. A society where all people are respected is the goal, not one with racial bean-counters making sure that there is appropriate "representation" in every slice of society.

Yes, eventually that's the goal. The problem, though, with this sort of 'color-blind' thinking now, in today's society, is that it blinds you from seeing the current injustices. It's great to be color blind if everyone else is too. But if some people (or systems, or institutions, or inherent biases) favor white people over other people, then living the color blind philosophy just means that you can't actually see it, call it out, and correct it. We must be color-aware now, in order to build a color-blind society later.

Questions:
A color-blind society is not the goal of the Left. Their goal is equal outcomes in wealth, success, influence among people of all races. How will your 'color-aware' (I assume you mean 'anti-racist') plan accomplish that?
If one important question (if not the most important one) is how to help Black Americans reach greater prosperity, have safer neighborhoods, more success, better health free from addiction, etc. who should we trust to decide how they might get there? Why not these people? They have two qualifications to your one. They are both Black and educated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzOApVTfT48

Incidentally, as far as whites shrinking to a minority in twenty years or whatever the prediction is, if conservatives have their way, the Black brith rate will increase, with access to abortion decreased or made illegal.

[apl68]

Race developed at this very particular moment, and the story is complicated, but really it crystallizes as a system of domination centered around slavery. This isn't controversial or disputed, when you look at slave codes, you can see how increasingly black and slave become synonymous terms. It isn't like any of this is ancient history, either, that's how race functions, as a system of domination and power. So, when you try to pretend that it is normal for people to like "people like them," you're just ignoring this whole history. There's nothing natural about it. That's also why, by the way, expressing pride in being white, or wanting white people to continue to be the dominant group in the United States, is a staple of racist, white supremacist thought.

Wanting whites (or any other group) to be a minority is likewise a staple of racist thought.  The ethnic makeup of the country is pretty much irrelevant; what matters is shared values. Twenty years from now, who knows where most immigration will be from, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. A society where all people are respected is the goal, not one with racial bean-counters making sure that there is appropriate "representation" in every slice of society.

Yes, eventually that's the goal. The problem, though, with this sort of 'color-blind' thinking now, in today's society, is that it blinds you from seeing the current injustices. It's great to be color blind if everyone else is too. But if some people (or systems, or institutions, or inherent biases) favor white people over other people, then living the color blind philosophy just means that you can't actually see it, call it out, and correct it. We must be color-aware now, in order to build a color-blind society later.

Speaking as an employer, I have to bear this in mind in making hiring decisions.  We have a lot of black patrons at our library, and I don't dare let our front-desk service staff become all white (Or all black, for that matter).  I can't let that be the only consideration in making my hiring decisions, but it must be a consideration. 

I'm helped greatly in this by having an assistant director who is black.  We examine applications and resumes together, and interview prospects together.  This helps to make sure that different perspectives--and not just racial perspectives--are taken into account in our hiring process. 

This is a big part of why there's such a push to see more diversity in higher-level positions in academia and elsewhere.  More diverse representation at that level helps to insure greater diversity at other levels.  Unfortunately institutions have long been caught in a Catch-22 situation where they need greater diversity at the entry level to insure more at the higher level, yet less diversity at the higher level slows progress at the entry level.  No wonder people get frustrated at the slow progress and want to try to hurry it up in some way.

[apl68]

I'm also not suggesting any need for guilt and self flagellation. I think we should understand the past and how it continues to influence the present. People often self identify with a version of the past that isn't real, or is missing a lot, and when you point that out, they think historians want them to feel guilty. I don't need anyone to feel guilty or to think that the US is some  uniquely awful country, I just want people to have a better understanding of actual history and not act like we all just woke up in 1990 with the world the way it currently is.

I fully agree with this.  However, the tone of so much commentary on racial matters gives the definite impression that guilt and self flagellation and a generally abject attitude are what is being demanded of whites who want to be considered acceptable citizens and allies.  Attitudes like that are not helpful.  They alienate some who might otherwise be prepared to listen.  This is why a lot of the more radical stuff we hear about defunding the police and such concerns me.  We've got an unprecedented level of support at this point for needed police reform.  Radical overreach could damage that support.

[marshwiggle]

I'm also not suggesting any need for guilt and self flagellation. I think we should understand the past and how it continues to influence the present. People often self identify with a version of the past that isn't real, or is missing a lot, and when you point that out, they think historians want them to feel guilty. I don't need anyone to feel guilty or to think that the US is some  uniquely awful country, I just want people to have a better understanding of actual history and not act like we all just woke up in 1990 with the world the way it currently is.

I fully agree with this.  However, the tone of so much commentary on racial matters gives the definite impression that guilt and self flagellation and a generally abject attitude are what is being demanded of whites who want to be considered acceptable citizens and allies.  Attitudes like that are not helpful.  They alienate some who might otherwise be prepared to listen.  This is why a lot of the more radical stuff we hear about defunding the police and such concerns me.  We've got an unprecedented level of support at this point for needed police reform.  Radical overreach could damage that support.

A good example of this is the difference between "black lives matter"- the idea and "Black Lives Matter" -the political organization. All of the population who aren't white supremacists (probably 99% of the population) agree with the idea  but reject many of the positions of the political organization. (One of those ideas is the defunding of police.) This is illustrated by people saying "all lives matter". Since "all" includes black people, then it absolutely supports the idea, while implicitly rejecting support for the political organization.

[apl68]

I'm also not suggesting any need for guilt and self flagellation. I think we should understand the past and how it continues to influence the present. People often self identify with a version of the past that isn't real, or is missing a lot, and when you point that out, they think historians want them to feel guilty. I don't need anyone to feel guilty or to think that the US is some  uniquely awful country, I just want people to have a better understanding of actual history and not act like we all just woke up in 1990 with the world the way it currently is.

I fully agree with this.  However, the tone of so much commentary on racial matters gives the definite impression that guilt and self flagellation and a generally abject attitude are what is being demanded of whites who want to be considered acceptable citizens and allies.  Attitudes like that are not helpful.  They alienate some who might otherwise be prepared to listen.  This is why a lot of the more radical stuff we hear about defunding the police and such concerns me.  We've got an unprecedented level of support at this point for needed police reform.  Radical overreach could damage that support.

A good example of this is the difference between "black lives matter"- the idea and "Black Lives Matter" -the political organization. All of the population who aren't white supremacists (probably 99% of the population) agree with the idea  but reject many of the positions of the political organization. (One of those ideas is the defunding of police.) This is illustrated by people saying "all lives matter". Since "all" includes black people, then it absolutely supports the idea, while implicitly rejecting support for the political organization.

This is definitely a major problem--the growing assertion that one can't be a true supporter of one thing unless one signs on to a particular political program that one might have reservations about.

[Parasaurolophus]

A good example of this is the difference between "black lives matter"- the idea and "Black Lives Matter" -the political organization. All of the population who aren't white supremacists (probably 99% of the population) agree with the idea  but reject many of the positions of the political organization. (One of those ideas is the defunding of police.) This is illustrated by people saying "all lives matter". Since "all" includes black people, then it absolutely supports the idea, while implicitly rejecting support for the political organization.

If I say 'Save the whales!', I'm not saying 'Save only the whales and let everything else in the ocean die'. I'm expressing particular concern for a particular segment of marine life, and advocating for solutions which will help it and other marine life too. If I say 'save the whales!' and you respond with 'save all marine life', while the content of your utterance is unobjectionable, its function in context is to deny that there's anything special to worry about with respect to whales.

The same is true of the Black/all lives matter talk. When people are protesting in the streets and saying 'Black lives matter', they're responding to particular events which indicate the extent to which Black lives don't matter. They're responding to events in which police murder Black people for no good reason. That's not to deny that white and Indigenous and Latinx people are also murdered by the police; it's just to express concern about the disproportionate rate at which Black people experience this kind of violence. The solution everyone is calling for is less police brutality in general, and a recognition of the particular harms visited upon Black and minority communities. Those are solutions which will benefit everyone who interacts with the police. When you respond to that by saying 'all lives matter', although the content of your utterance is unobjectionable, its function in context is to deny that there's a particular problem. It's a distraction, an attempt to shift the conversation in another direction. 'Black lives matter' is a call for equality of treatment; 'all lives matter' is a hollow, pedantic correction.

In other words, if we want to plug 'all lives matter', we need to start by showing that it's true. And that means taking particular care where some lives are disproportionately affected. If it's sincerely meant, then great: when I look at the people saying it, I should be looking at people who are actively trying to change law enforcement culture, prosecute police brutality, etc. But that's not what I see when I look at that crowd. I see widespread misunderstanding and mischaracterization, and I see too many white supremacists for comfort. It's fine if you mean well, but then show it. And maybe take a moment to worry about your well-meaning message of solidarity being hijacked by the ghost costume brigade.

The evidence from the world around me, right now, indicates that it's simply not true that all lives matter. Some lives clearly matter more than others.

[marshwiggle]

The evidence from the world around me, right now, indicates that it's simply not true that all lives matter. Some lives clearly matter more than others.

Specifically, black lives taken by white people matter much more than black lives taken by other black people.

[Parasaurolophus]

Specifically, black lives taken by white people matter much more than black lives taken by other black people.

It's a call for an end to police brutality, not white police brutality.


The deflection to 'Black-on-Black' crime is a red herring. Tellingly, I don't remember anyone going around on September 12, 2001 saying "but what about white-on-white crime?!", even though it's true that white people are most often killed by other white people.