I knew this kind of silliness was coming. Me sitting here with my white privilege is murdering people.
'Admit that you are uncomfortable around black people.'
Nope.
'Stop pretending that you don't have any black friends because you don't come into contact with them.'
Wrong again. OTOH, would you be my friend? Doesn't sound like it.
'Take an honest assessment of your attitudes. Admit that you would be less likely to believe Floyd did nothing wrong without the video to prove it.'
Uhh, the video doesn't prove that. The video shows he was brutalized and then died, but it doesn't show he did nothing wrong.
'Acknowledge that your initial inclination always is to trust that the police always tell the truth.'
I don't.
link:
https://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-glanton-white-america-mirror-george-floyd-0603-20200603-3c6zzlqtajfplmfak5ro7ulzxm-story.html
This kind of polemic is what gets published nowadays. I admit to being ungracious and sometimes thinking similar thoughts of others who disagree with me politically, but I try not to publish those thoughts.
Quote from: permanent imposter on June 05, 2020, 04:21:32 PM
This kind of polemic is what gets published nowadays. I admit to being ungracious and sometimes thinking similar thoughts of others who disagree with me politically, but I try not to publish those thoughts.
Do you mean me or the writer?
I'm calling it nonsense because some of it is, and this is a forum where you can scrutinize what people publish for accuracy.
The thing that amazes me is the author expects this piece to have a positive effect on race relations and the future of black America with it. Sure, it's letting off steam, but it's part of a plan. And there are plenty on that bandwagon. You know, sadly, the hope here is about as realistic as is some of the other things black culture has been doing, such as making stars and heroes out of hip hop performers who are criminals. These are the people they should praise and emulate? After all the wonderful athletes, musicians, poets, scientists, writers they have produced? I admit I don't get it.
Also: claiming that we (whites) are uncomfortable around black people is gas lighting. Assuming the goal is for me to feel comfortable around black people, when is it determined that that has been accomplished? When you, the black writer, announce it? This is not going to work. We can't be living like that.
Quote from: permanent imposter on June 05, 2020, 04:21:32 PM
This kind of polemic is what gets published nowadays. I admit to being ungracious and sometimes thinking similar thoughts of others who disagree with me politically, but I try not to publish those thoughts.
So you self-censure?
Quote from: mahagonny on June 04, 2020, 01:09:21 AM
link:
https://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-glanton-white-america-mirror-george-floyd-0603-20200603-3c6zzlqtajfplmfak5ro7ulzxm-story.html
I can see how the provocative rhetoric of the piece may have distracted from the author's core message. If you are ever interested in reading about the effects of "structured blindness" in perpetuating racism, I would suggest The Racial Contract by philosopher Charles W. Mills.
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 10:12:31 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 04, 2020, 01:09:21 AM
link:
https://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-glanton-white-america-mirror-george-floyd-0603-20200603-3c6zzlqtajfplmfak5ro7ulzxm-story.html
I can see how the provocative rhetoric of the piece may have distracted from the author's core message. If you are ever interested in reading about the effects of "structured blindness" in perpetuating racism, I would suggest The Racial Contract by philosopher Charles W. Mills.
Interesting quote from the article:
Quote
Black people cannot exude a sense of superiority that we have never experienced.
This is stated unironically after having said, just
a couple of sentences earlier:
Quote
American racism is a uniquely white trait. Black people cannot be racist toward you.
Obviously a sense of superiority is in the eye of the beholder.
Lots and lots of "white people" this and "white people" that in this article. Amazing how the author just knows how all "white people" think and feel. Good thing that blacks are inherently incapable of being "racist," otherwise it would seem that this opinion piece is pret-ty, pret-ty, pret-ty something .... ah yes, racist!
BTW, the reason black people can't be "racist" is that "racism" has been conveniently re-defined to exclude populations that have been historically discriminated against. So, blacks might not be "racist," but the author of this article certainly cannot recognize a self-serving tautology when she sees one.
Quote from: Treehugger on June 08, 2020, 10:39:43 AM
Lots and lots of "white people" this and "white people" that in this article. Amazing how the author just knows how all "white people" think and feel. Good thing that blacks are inherently incapable of being "racist," otherwise it would seem that this opinion piece is pret-ty, pret-ty, pret-ty something .... ah yes, racist!
BTW, the reason black people can't be "racist" is that "racism" has been conveniently re-defined to exclude populations that have been historically discriminated against. So, blacks might not be "racist," but the author of this article certainly cannot recognize a self-serving tautology when she sees one.
Do pomposity and self-righteousness count as "racist"? If someone talks down to basically everyone else, then perhaps they don't.
As the old saying goes, "I'm not a bigot; I hate everybody."
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 08, 2020, 10:53:09 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on June 08, 2020, 10:39:43 AM
Lots and lots of "white people" this and "white people" that in this article. Amazing how the author just knows how all "white people" think and feel. Good thing that blacks are inherently incapable of being "racist," otherwise it would seem that this opinion piece is pret-ty, pret-ty, pret-ty something .... ah yes, racist!
BTW, the reason black people can't be "racist" is that "racism" has been conveniently re-defined to exclude populations that have been historically discriminated against. So, blacks might not be "racist," but the author of this article certainly cannot recognize a self-serving tautology when she sees one.
Do pomposity and self-righteousness count as "racist"? If someone talks down to basically everyone else, then perhaps they don't.
As the old saying goes, "I'm not a bigot; I hate everybody."
Hmmm. I thought broad-based stereotyping based on race was racist. Actually, that's the thing that really gets me about the whole social justice movement: it is all about race, about group identity and not about the individual. If we make everything all about race (or gender) hierarchies, guess what? It will always be all about race (or gender) hierarchies. There is no end game here. The individual needs to be taken back into account (even if this makes the theory messier and makes it harder to produce academic papers).
Quote from: Treehugger on June 08, 2020, 11:06:03 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 08, 2020, 10:53:09 AM
Do pomposity and self-righteousness count as "racist"? If someone talks down to basically everyone else, then perhaps they don't.
As the old saying goes, "I'm not a bigot; I hate everybody."
Hmmm. I thought broad-based stereotyping based on race was racist. Actually, that's the thing that really gets me about the whole social justice movement: it is all about race, about group identity and not about the individual. If we make everything all about race (or gender) hierarchies, guess what? It will always be all about race (or gender) hierarchies. There is no end game here. The individual needs to be taken back into account (even if this makes the theory messier and makes it harder to produce academic papers).
Identitarians tend to be pretty quick to denounce people from the "correct" identities if they espouse the "wrong" views. (Remember Joe Biden recently explaining conditions under which "You ain't black"?) Similar to how a woman who questions some favourite idea of feminists gets accused of having "internalized misogyny".
So group identity actually has as much to do with ideology as it does to physical characteristics.
Along with Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract, this article by Robin DiAngelo might give you some perspective on the author's intentions.
https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116
I take this quote regarding the definition of racism from DiAngelo (p. 56):
Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual "race prejudice", which anyone of any race can have, Whiteness scholars define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hilliard, 1992). This unequal distribution benefits whites and disadvantages people of color overall and as a group. Racism is not fluid in the U.S.; it does not flow back and forth, one day benefiting whites and another day (or even era) benefiting people of color. The direction of power between whites and people of color is his- toric, traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of U.S. society (Mills, 1999; Feagin, 2006).
This says it all:
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 12:08:56 PM
Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual "race prejudice", which anyone of any race can have,
i.e. what
ordinary people mean when they speak of it.
Quote
Whiteness scholars define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hilliard, 1992).
i.e. people working from the
underlying assumption of white supremacy being the prime mover of history.
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 12:08:56 PM
Along with Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract, this article by Robin DiAngelo might give you some perspective on the author's intentions.
https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116
I take this quote regarding the definition of racism from DiAngelo (p. 56):
Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual "race prejudice", which anyone of any race can have, Whiteness scholars define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hilliard, 1992). This unequal distribution benefits whites and disadvantages people of color overall and as a group. Racism is not fluid in the U.S.; it does not flow back and forth, one day benefiting whites and another day (or even era) benefiting people of color. The direction of power between whites and people of color is his- toric, traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of U.S. society (Mills, 1999; Feagin, 2006).
DiAngelo is the one who wrote
Why It's Difficult For White People To Talk About Racism which I admit I've never read, but it sounds like she wants to speak for me, and she really can't. I guess that's why I never bought the book. Another reason for me be less of a fan of tenure and academics.
Similar to what's going on here. I am not uncomfortable around black people. I'm pretty sure my neighborhood is as black as D'Angelo's or this author's.
I don't understand how "whiteness scholar" is a serious thing. Surely none of these behaviors or phenomena are unique to a racial context. If I replace "white" and "black" with "rich" and "poor," wouldn't I observe pretty much the same phenomena? E.g. criminalization of homelessness and begging. Income-based segregation. Etc. In fact, it's probably something that generalizes pretty well to any example of "high power" and "low power" groups or individuals.
The entire exercise of imputing motivation for people's behavior seems largely doomed. It's easy to come up with a post hoc explanation of how some action is really driven by or contributing to structural racism and a need to dominate others. Offered an internship to your neighbor's kid? Congratulations, you're contributing to structural inequality and the oppression of people who don't live in the same neighborhoods as key decision-makers. Is it because you hate poor people and want to perpetuate the existing class structures, or because you like your neighbor and it'd be awkward not to help out? Pick your narrative. Once established, narratives really don't get challenged enough. For another context, take the claim that "rape is about power, not sex." Suffers from the same problem: what kind of evidence could such a claim possibly be based on?
Quote from: pigou on June 08, 2020, 02:05:32 PM
I don't understand how "whiteness scholar" is a serious thing.
I am not in critical whiteness studies and used to have a similar reaction to the term. But once you read the works of Charles W. Mills, Cedric Robinson, bell hooks, Franz Fanon, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva or many others who have written seriously about these issues, you might find that their perspectives are not as simplistic or unproductive as you imagine but rather important considerations toward a more equitable society.
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 02:25:09 PM
Quote from: pigou on June 08, 2020, 02:05:32 PM
I don't understand how "whiteness scholar" is a serious thing.
I am not in critical whiteness studies and used to have a similar reaction to the term. But once you read the works of Charles W. Mills, Cedric Robinson, bell hooks, Franz Fanon, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva or many others who have written seriously about these issues, you might find that their perspectives are not as simplistic or unproductive as you imagine but rather important considerations toward a more equitable society.
Ok, I'll take a look. If you had to choose one of these scholars, which one would you recommend? Is it possible that they pre-date the whole critical race theory movement? I remember Franz Fanon as not being a recent scholar. I'm completely unfamiliar with the others.
Quote from: pigou on June 08, 2020, 02:05:32 PM
I don't understand how "whiteness scholar" is a serious thing. Surely none of these behaviors or phenomena are unique to a racial context.
If "whiteness" is such a thing, then the Scandanavian countries should be the epicentre of racism, since that's where the whitest people are.
(And of course, you have to cherry pick history, because the various dominant civilations would mostly not be considered "white"; e.g. the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, Mongols, Chinese.... And there's also the wide spread of slavery in different countries, so that black slaves were not by any means universal, (and the slaves in the Atlantic slave trade were actually captured and sold by other Africans.....))
Quote from: Treehugger on June 08, 2020, 04:01:34 PM
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 02:25:09 PM
Quote from: pigou on June 08, 2020, 02:05:32 PM
I don't understand how "whiteness scholar" is a serious thing.
I am not in critical whiteness studies and used to have a similar reaction to the term. But once you read the works of Charles W. Mills, Cedric Robinson, bell hooks, Franz Fanon, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva or many others who have written seriously about these issues, you might find that their perspectives are not as simplistic or unproductive as you imagine but rather important considerations toward a more equitable society.
Ok, I'll take a look. If you had to choose one of these scholars, which one would you recommend? Is it possible that they pre-date the whole critical race theory movement? I remember Franz Fanon as not being a recent scholar. I'm completely unfamiliar with the others.
Yes, you are right. Fanon predates critical race and critical whiteness studies but it seems that his work is foundational to these fields. I would try Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract. He's a philosopher. For a more recent take, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva.
Part of the problems with these sorts of high-toned polemics, at least for me, is that I have the feeling that I am being blamed for things which happened before I was born or things that other people do that I do not.
I am not a bigot. I hate bigots. Why am I being lumped in with them.
It's part of the problem with reparations, too. And with a great deal of the commentary about rape or office harassment.
We can only use words to police those people who already care and are willing to listen. Only the choir will listen to Glanton preach, and she may just turn them off, rightly or wrongly. She did me.
Even more problematic, Glanton's opinions will not impress the people who think 'it's all being blown out of proportion,' 'it's no big deal,' or who implicitly, whether they mean to or not, justify the murder of Floyd---and this means you Mahagonny.
Fine, Floyd was stoned, he maybe passed off a counterfeit bill (which, BTW, happens all the time by people who do not know they are carrying fake money), maybe he even got lippy or started to fight---none of that matters when four police who are paid to protect and serve suffocate the man as he begs for his life.
Why do you keep bringing up the fact that Floyd was a *minor* criminal at best? He was trying to change.
The dude might have gotten sober, found God, got a college degree someday, become the member of society he wished to be---that is just as likely as a career in minor crime. Quit defining him by what he did in the past. We will never know what he might have become, good or bad, so don't pretend you do either.
Quit ragging on the man. He's a murder victim, by cops no less, and that's what is important.
You may even be enacting what Glanton is talking about.
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 05:48:31 PM
Quote from: Treehugger on June 08, 2020, 04:01:34 PM
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 02:25:09 PM
Quote from: pigou on June 08, 2020, 02:05:32 PM
I don't understand how "whiteness scholar" is a serious thing.
I am not in critical whiteness studies and used to have a similar reaction to the term. But once you read the works of Charles W. Mills, Cedric Robinson, bell hooks, Franz Fanon, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva or many others who have written seriously about these issues, you might find that their perspectives are not as simplistic or unproductive as you imagine but rather important considerations toward a more equitable society.
Ok, I'll take a look. If you had to choose one of these scholars, which one would you recommend? Is it possible that they pre-date the whole critical race theory movement? I remember Franz Fanon as not being a recent scholar. I'm completely unfamiliar with the others.
Yes, you are right. Fanon predates critical race and critical whiteness studies but it seems that his work is foundational to these fields. I would try Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract. He's a philosopher. For a more recent take, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva.
I just looked at a summary of Charles W. Mills work and it seems that he makes an argument that the social contract theorized by Locke and others purports to be universal, but in reality is a whites-only social contract. Moreover, this is not some kind of oversight, but is inherent to the theory.
This argument is familiar to me from my past life in academia (I specialized in 18th century studies) and I remember rejecting it for some very good reasons ... which, alas, I don't remember in detail since it has now been almost a decade since I last did any real research (too busy enjoying the blissful and well-rested life of a non-academic).
Still, I will try to get hold of a copy and see if he does indeed rehearse this common argument or if he is indeed getting at something different and more compelling.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on June 08, 2020, 06:16:50 PM
Fine, Floyd was stoned, he maybe passed off a counterfeit bill (which, BTW, happens all the time by people who do not know they are carrying fake money), maybe he even got lippy or started to fight---none of that matters when four police who are paid to protect and serve suffocate the man as he begs for his life.
This. The force used was disproportionate to the crime that he was
accused of committing. Do cops typically restrain people, who allegedly commit these crimes, in this manner?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on June 08, 2020, 06:16:50 PM
Part of the problems with these sorts of high-toned polemics, at least for me, is that I have the feeling that I am being blamed for things which happened before I was born or things that other people do that I do not.
I am not a bigot. I hate bigots. Why am I being lumped in with them.
It's part of the problem with reparations, too. And with a great deal of the commentary about rape or office harassment.
We can only use words to police those people who already care and are willing to listen. Only the choir will listen to Glanton preach, and she may just turn them off, rightly or wrongly. She did me.
Even more problematic, Glanton's opinions will not impress the people who think 'it's all being blown out of proportion,' 'it's no big deal,' or who implicitly, whether they mean to or not, justify the murder of Floyd---and this means you Mahagonny.
You're wrong about that. I do care.
One thing I hate about the way Blanton writes is I suspect this is the kind of thing that drives swing voters away for the democratic voting and into the Trump camp. If we are all racists anyway, why shouldn't we seek the company of the party that doesn't rub it in?
And I worry about four more years of this man. As long as the boorish persona of a Donald Trump is one of the dynamics, we are living on borrowed time.
She's not doing academia any favors either, as far as your mission of getting more funding for humanities fields.
Once again: I am not uncomfortable around black people. No one has any business making these obnoxious claims. The people who are going to vote for Trump can sit back and laugh -- the progressives are standing around in a circular firing squad!
Quote from: mahagonny on June 08, 2020, 07:25:37 PM
You're wrong about that. I do care.
One thing I hate about the way Blanton writes is I suspect this is the kind of thing that drives swing voters away for the democratic voting and into the Trump camp.
I know you care. You seem like a very good person, so don't sound like a boorish Trumpette.
And yes, I agree. Glanton turns off a lot of the people who are actually her allies. I suspect it must be so frustrating when one's life is overshadowed by racism, real or perceived, and one feels powerless to stop it that one just explodes like that. There's a very famous poem about that very thing.
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 12:08:56 PM
Along with Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract, this article by Robin DiAngelo might give you some perspective on the author's intentions.
https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116
I take this quote regarding the definition of racism from DiAngelo (p. 56):
Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual "race prejudice", which anyone of any race can have, Whiteness scholars define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hilliard, 1992). This unequal distribution benefits whites and disadvantages people of color overall and as a group. Racism is not fluid in the U.S.; it does not flow back and forth, one day benefiting whites and another day (or even era) benefiting people of color. The direction of power between whites and people of color is his- toric, traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of U.S. society (Mills, 1999; Feagin, 2006).
I'm hoping someone can explain this essay a little better. One of the things we teach freshmen writers is to avoid blanket-statements and to always back up your assertions with specific, objective examples----paraphrase, quotes, and citations. It doesn't always take on the first try and we grade them down; I always give the option of a rewrite.
So I get to this, just one claim in a series of claims very much in this vein:
Quote
[W]hites are taught to see their interests and perspectives as universal, they are also taught to value the individual and to see themselves as individuals rather than as part of a racially socialized group. Individualism erases history and hides the ways in which wealth has been distributed and accumulated
over generations to benefit whites today.
Doesn't sound like the world I know----particularly academia----and doesn't sound particularly accurate.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on June 08, 2020, 08:32:46 PM
Quote
[W]hites are taught to see their interests and perspectives as universal, they are also taught to value the individual and to see themselves as individuals rather than as part of a racially socialized group. Individualism erases history and hides the ways in which wealth has been distributed and accumulated
over generations to benefit whites today.
Doesn't sound like the world I know----particularly academia----and doesn't sound particularly accurate.
That is a very weird quote, and it seems logically inconsistent. If whites value
individuality above all, then their systems can't be set up to disadvantage specific
groups of people (or to adavantage their own
group either). If the systems are set up to
maintain inequality, then people of all groups should have equal ability (or *inability) to change their station.
(*in which case "white privilege" can't be a thing; there'd only be "privilege privilege" or "wealth privilege", which is hardly surprising.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 09, 2020, 04:28:49 AM
That is a very weird quote, and it seems logically inconsistent. If whites value individuality above all, then their systems can't be set up to disadvantage specific groups of people (or to adavantage their own group either). If the systems are set up to maintain inequality, then people of all groups should have equal ability (or *inability) to change their station.
(*in which case "white privilege" can't be a thing; there'd only be "privilege privilege" or "wealth privilege", which is hardly surprising.)
Studies have shown that people who have wealthy parents have more opportunities as children. For example, Miles Davis attended Juilliard Conservatory.
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 02:25:09 PM
I am not in critical whiteness studies and used to have a similar reaction to the term. But once you read the works of Charles W. Mills, Cedric Robinson, bell hooks, Franz Fanon, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva or many others who have written seriously about these issues, you might find that their perspectives are not as simplistic or unproductive as you imagine but rather important considerations toward a more equitable society.
Delsur, you mentioned these authors in five different posts yesterday, according to your posting history. We get it.
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 12:08:56 PM
Along with Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract, this article by Robin DiAngelo might give you some perspective on the author's intentions.
https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116
I take this quote regarding the definition of racism from DiAngelo (p. 56):
Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual "race prejudice", which anyone of any race can have, Whiteness scholars define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hilliard, 1992). This unequal distribution benefits whites and disadvantages people of color overall and as a group. Racism is not fluid in the U.S.; it does not flow back and forth, one day benefiting whites and another day (or even era) benefiting people of color. The direction of power between whites and people of color is his- toric, traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of U.S. society (Mills, 1999; Feagin, 2006).
Translation: Only racism giving white people an advantage at the expense of non-whites counts. Let's re-define "racism" in a way such that bigotry between non-white groups, or directed against white folks, does not count.
Quote from: Stockmann on June 09, 2020, 08:32:30 AM
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 12:08:56 PM
Along with Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract, this article by Robin DiAngelo might give you some perspective on the author's intentions.
https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116
I take this quote regarding the definition of racism from DiAngelo (p. 56):
Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual "race prejudice", which anyone of any race can have, Whiteness scholars define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hilliard, 1992). This unequal distribution benefits whites and disadvantages people of color overall and as a group. Racism is not fluid in the U.S.; it does not flow back and forth, one day benefiting whites and another day (or even era) benefiting people of color. The direction of power between whites and people of color is his- toric, traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of U.S. society (Mills, 1999; Feagin, 2006).
Translation: Only racism giving white people an advantage at the expense of non-whites counts. Let's re-define "racism" in a way such that bigotry between non-white groups, or directed against white folks, does not count.
Here's a more concise definition: Racism is prejudice plus power. That is, prejudice is judging people on some outward observable feature like race. It becomes an "ism" when it is coupled with the power to do something about your pre-judgments.
Quote from: pgher on June 09, 2020, 01:27:11 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on June 09, 2020, 08:32:30 AM
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 12:08:56 PM
Along with Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract, this article by Robin DiAngelo might give you some perspective on the author's intentions.
https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116
I take this quote regarding the definition of racism from DiAngelo (p. 56):
Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual "race prejudice", which anyone of any race can have, Whiteness scholars define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hilliard, 1992). This unequal distribution benefits whites and disadvantages people of color overall and as a group. Racism is not fluid in the U.S.; it does not flow back and forth, one day benefiting whites and another day (or even era) benefiting people of color. The direction of power between whites and people of color is his- toric, traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of U.S. society (Mills, 1999; Feagin, 2006).
Translation: Only racism giving white people an advantage at the expense of non-whites counts. Let's re-define "racism" in a way such that bigotry between non-white groups, or directed against white folks, does not count.
Here's a more concise definition: Racism is prejudice plus power. That is, prejudice is judging people on some outward observable feature like race. It becomes an "ism" when it is coupled with the power to do something about your pre-judgments.
But anyone, however outwardly powerless, can accuse people of stuff, and lately, many do, loudly. And frequently in gangs. Of course, there are others who can't help it. Racism is a big gravy train of publishing, tenure, adjunct exploitation, awards, etc. The more racism you find, the better your gravy train.
Quote from: pgher on June 09, 2020, 01:27:11 PM
Here's a more concise definition: Racism is prejudice plus power. That is, prejudice is judging people on some outward observable feature like race. It becomes an "ism" when it is coupled with the power to do something about your pre-judgments.
So does power include the ability to publish something like this?
Quote
White people, you are the problem.
Regardless of how much you say you detest racism, you are the sole reason it has flourished for centuries.
It seems like if you replaced "white" with lots of other things, it would be very hard to be able to say something like that in print.
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 09, 2020, 01:42:54 PM
Quote from: pgher on June 09, 2020, 01:27:11 PM
Here's a more concise definition: Racism is prejudice plus power. That is, prejudice is judging people on some outward observable feature like race. It becomes an "ism" when it is coupled with the power to do something about your pre-judgments.
So does power include the ability to publish something like this?
Quote
White people, you are the problem.
Regardless of how much you say you detest racism, you are the sole reason it has flourished for centuries.
It seems like if you replaced "white" with lots of other things, it would be very hard to be able to say something like that in print.
Of course, you have to also add that
by definition only whites have power. If blacks seem to have power, it is an illusion.
I find this thread rather horrifying.
The author in question makes general claims. Then y'all come along and are going "Not All White People" on it. Maybe you specifically are not uncomfortable around black people - but most white people are. This is why large black men have to make themselves appear unthreatening in the hopes that people will not call the police on them, etc.
You have Charles Mills recommended to you as someone worth reading on the topic, and then you argue with it based on a couple of sentence summary. If a student did this, I'm guessing you would not give them a passing grade.
You ignore the context of the statements made in the article. The author specifically said that in America (meaning the US) racism is a white problem. There could be societies where this isn't true, but that is outside the scope of the article.
You are ignoring basic definitions of words - racism has been viewed as prejudice plus power in academic circles for years. Anyone can be bigoted; not just anyone can be racist. Racism is structural; bigotry is personal. Black people can be mean to you. They can fire you. They have not had the power to exclude you from living in large swathes of cities based on the color of your skin. They have not had the power to exclude you from voting.
I'm boggled at this. We have a litany of police officers killing unarmed black people and you're arguing like freshmen in a 101 course who didn't even do the reading.
Quote from: Treehugger on June 09, 2020, 02:09:47 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 09, 2020, 01:42:54 PM
Quote from: pgher on June 09, 2020, 01:27:11 PM
Here's a more concise definition: Racism is prejudice plus power. That is, prejudice is judging people on some outward observable feature like race. It becomes an "ism" when it is coupled with the power to do something about your pre-judgments.
So does power include the ability to publish something like this?
Quote
White people, you are the problem.
Regardless of how much you say you detest racism, you are the sole reason it has flourished for centuries.
It seems like if you replaced "white" with lots of other things, it would be very hard to be able to say something like that in print.
Of course, you have to also add that by definition only whites have power. If blacks seem to have power, it is an illusion.
And BLM is not a black movement. it's a multiracial movement, coalition. The present environment involves whites turning against other whites over what are considered racial matters.
Quote from: PhilosophyGirl on June 09, 2020, 02:37:47 PM
I'm boggled at this. We have a litany of police officers killing unarmed black people and you're arguing like freshmen in a 101 course who didn't even do the reading.
You know, PG, it is statements exactly like this that derail the conversation.
We are allowed to question, be offended, and even disagree.
I am initially uncomfortable around AA people, at least until I know them, because I am afraid of walking into a minefield like the one you just planted. Statements like yours give the conservative zealots the fodder to call us liberals/progressives/left-leaners "snowflakes," "tyrants," "social justice warriors," etc.
All sane, moral people know the facts about racism in this country, and I suspect almost everyone here is an ally of the protesters swarming our streets, so there is no need to accuse your friends.
I am willing to examine my views and how I interact with the world. Are you?
Quote from: PhilosophyGirl on June 09, 2020, 02:37:47 PM
I find this thread rather horrifying.
The author in question makes general claims. Then y'all come along and are going "Not All White People" on it. Maybe you specifically are not uncomfortable around black people - but most white people are. This is why large black men have to make themselves appear unthreatening in the hopes that people will not call the police on them, etc.
You have Charles Mills recommended to you as someone worth reading on the topic, and then you argue with it based on a couple of sentence summary. If a student did this, I'm guessing you would not give them a passing grade.
You ignore the context of the statements made in the article. The author specifically said that in America (meaning the US) racism is a white problem. There could be societies where this isn't true, but that is outside the scope of the article.
You are ignoring basic definitions of words - racism has been viewed as prejudice plus power in academic circles for years. Anyone can be bigoted; not just anyone can be racist. Racism is structural; bigotry is personal. Black people can be mean to you. They can fire you. They have not had the power to exclude you from living in large swathes of cities based on the color of your skin. They have not had the power to exclude you from voting.
I'm boggled at this. We have a litany of police officers killing unarmed black people and you're arguing like freshmen in a 101 course who didn't even do the reading.
You know, I studied critical theory on and off for fifteen years. After a while, you recognize patterns of argument and you can say — oh
that argument again. I've seen 50 variations of that argument and they were all quite easy to critique. Will this one be any different? Probably not.
You say we are ignoring a basic definition of the word "racism." I'm sorry but whatever academia contorted "racism" into is not a basic definition. I don't care how many years ago academics decided on this contrived meaning. It is not what most people think "racism" means. And, if you ask a linguist, language means what people think it means, not what academics say it should mean.
Some things are so different from today....
This is my favorite YT post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSlWDlXCelk
The joy, the humor, and the serious awareness of values and issues underlying that moment's fragility often gives me pause.
And while I'm white, work with all different nationalities and races, creeds and philiosphies of approach to the work I do in a few realms, I still remain aware within myself that I startle more if a black person I don't know approaches me unexpectedly, or is walking behind me at night (in a place where they're more likely to be the department chair than anything or anyone else)...just because.
I pray, work, eat, (and have slept with) people who are black or brown, but there is still a lingering moment of unease at times, and even though I address it and talk to myself about it, I'm still aware of it.
The subconscioius delivers up little gems like, "Well, yeah, but that's because she's black," or "Oh, I don't think a white guy would try to pull that...." when in fact the white guys I know have tried worse, and her behavior has more to do with being female and pressured to deliver under very difficult conditions.
But it's always there, it's always an out, and when one is white and disavows the existence of a sense of difference, they're <<almost always>> lying to themselves and everyone else.
The exceptions I'm aware of (because all of this is subjective) might be the two interracial couples I've known and in one case worked very closely with for many years. The ones I knew best had to move away because her Texas family had a very difficult time with his dark Nigerian appearance, wise and gentle as he always was (the family later came back together after their four babies were born).
He died last year and two senators and several well-known authors spoke at the memorial service in the fall. We danced in the reception hall afterwards. His kids (two of whom I had had as students) teach, and one has written about her life as a biracial child; I suspect she'll publish her work sometime.
But there were still people who startled when he came into view, and he was always careful to introduce himself softly for that reason...
The ones I knew less well were quietly happy, friendly, had us over for Bible Studies and meals, and just went along with their lives.
But they were from Virginia, and the (awful word) laws were still in place, so they, too, had to move away to get married, and find jobs where there would be no trouble about their racial "otherness" or else keep it under wraps.
I bring the issues of interracial marriage up because one of the real issues underlying a lot of this is the sense of alienation represented to those who say they "don't have any issues with race," because that's one of the testing points.
People who say they "don't have any issues" are often just saying under their breaths, "....as long as I don't have to marry one of them."
And then the house of cards comes tumbling down...
M.
Oh, I'd marry a black woman, certainly. I've dated several, loved them, showered with them, shared our drinks of bourbon, eaten their cooking, paid their credit card balance, traded stuff when we broke up, watched television with their kids. Lived with a woman who had a black parent. Had a black male roommate. When I say I am not uncomfortable around black people it's the gospel truth. I don't think I'm unusual. Just a middle income city-dweller trying to have some fun, company and a little love in my life. But by all means, if it makes you feel righteous and cleansed, do your white sub-consciously racist confessional thing. If I'm late you may start without me.
[on edit] Mamselle, I'm sorry -- I promised I would ignore your posts and I had forgotten. I really wish you would stop your disingenuous goody-two-shoes act here. You apparently see yourself as dropping by with a kind, gentle, nuanced thought. But, true to form, you called me a liar in the last post.
Quote from: mahagonny on June 09, 2020, 03:52:12 PM
Oh, I'd marry a black woman, certainly. I've dated several, loved them, showered with them, shared our drinks of bourbon, eaten their cooking, paid their credit card balance, traded stuff when we broke up, watched television with their kids.
Paying the credit-card balance of
any woman (or man) is just bad strategy. Surely that, if nothing else in this world, is not about race.
Mahagonny, since I never do read your posts, I wasn't directing any discernment of truth or fact in your direction.
Promise.
M.
Mamselle, you can get over being uncomfortable in the presence of black people. Don't give up. It's not that hard.
(Funny, if you're a homophobe you are afraid of gay people, and therefore unenlightened. Whereas, one is supposed to say 'black people make me nervous' to show one's honesty and self-awareness. I guess I'll never figure these things out.)
The focus of the discussion is pointless. Obsession with your own personal feelings is mostly a way to avoid confronting the bigger questions and thinking about institutions and histories. The question of Mahoganny's dating preferences or lack thereof is only of interest to people who would like to date him. Mamselle's feelings of discomfort don't really matter unless they are being expressed in some tangible and consequential way.
That's where these discussions of reverse racism get so absurd. Of course, there are non-white people who have prejudices about white people. Who cares? Just about every person on earth has had the experience of an encounter with someone where you got a pretty clear sense that the person doesn't like you because of things totally outside of your control, and these experiences are almost always pretty unpleasant. However, it is worth thinking about why you are so fixated on the fact that there are people out there who might not like you because of your race. The semantic debate misses the point (it also is based on an overly rigid idea of the way language works, but perhaps that's too off topic) The assumption from people who want to talk about "reverse racism" is that it needs to be talked about because it is somehow a major issue. They almost always seem to believe that anti white prejudice is hurting them or other white people in some large systematic way. The assertion is basically ridiculous on its face, which is why you see these discussions being steered into these rhetorical corners.
Quote from: Caracal on June 10, 2020, 05:39:16 AM
The focus of the discussion is pointless. Obsession with your own personal feelings is mostly a way to avoid confronting the bigger questions and thinking about institutions and histories. The question of Mahoganny's dating preferences or lack thereof is only of interest to people who would like to date him. Mamselle's feelings of discomfort don't really matter unless they are being expressed in some tangible and consequential way.
That's where these discussions of reverse racism get so absurd. Of course, there are non-white people who have prejudices about white people. Who cares? Just about every person on earth has had the experience of an encounter with someone where you got a pretty clear sense that the person doesn't like you because of things totally outside of your control, and these experiences are almost always pretty unpleasant. However, it is worth thinking about why you are so fixated on the fact that there are people out there who might not like you because of your race.
This is absolutely true and applies to
everyone, especially identitarians of both the right and left.
Quote
The semantic debate misses the point (it also is based on an overly rigid idea of the way language works, but perhaps that's too off topic) The assumption from people who want to talk about "reverse racism" is that it needs to be talked about because it is somehow a major issue. They almost always seem to believe that anti white prejudice is hurting them or other white people in some large systematic way.
So does what happened to George Floyd only matter because it is part of some "systematic" problem?
Quote
The assertion is basically ridiculous on its face, which is why you see these discussions being steered into these rhetorical corners.
What's ridiculous is that people on the left want to keep redefining terms and reframing so that questions
can only be asked in one direction; i.e. actions by some people against other people are criminal, whereas if the situation is reversed, it's completely acceptable (or possibly even laudable).
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 10, 2020, 06:18:48 AM
So does what happened to George Floyd only matter because it is part of some "systematic" problem?
What's ridiculous is that people on the left want to keep redefining terms and reframing so that questions can only be asked in one direction; i.e. actions by some people against other people are criminal, whereas if the situation is reversed, it's completely acceptable (or possibly even laudable).
Huh? On a personal scale, of course not. But on a larger scale, yes, obviously. This particular case galvanized a larger movement because it is a particularly horrible example of systemic institutional racism and violence.
Who are these "people." You're creating a fantasy world in which there are all these racist attacks against white people going unpunished. There's unfortunately, a very long history of this sort of fantasy, and it isn't pleasant.
Quote from: Caracal on June 10, 2020, 06:59:12 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 10, 2020, 06:18:48 AM
So does what happened to George Floyd only matter because it is part of some "systematic" problem?
What's ridiculous is that people on the left want to keep redefining terms and reframing so that questions can only be asked in one direction; i.e. actions by some people against other people are criminal, whereas if the situation is reversed, it's completely acceptable (or possibly even laudable).
Huh? On a personal scale, of course not. But on a larger scale, yes, obviously.
I think what you're trying to say by this hedging is that if a white person experiences something like that from a non-white person, it doesn't count since it's not "stystemic". Although for anyone else, it counts.
Quote
Who are these "people." You're creating a fantasy world in which there are all these racist attacks against white people going unpunished.
How many does it take to count? Does Treehugger's story above "count"? Or is it just an insignificant random event?
Why isn't violence against
anyone on the basis of the colour of their skin problematic?
Quote from: Caracal on June 10, 2020, 05:39:16 AM
The focus of the discussion is pointless. Obsession with your own personal feelings is mostly a way to avoid confronting the bigger questions and thinking about institutions and histories. The question of Mahoganny's dating preferences or lack thereof is only of interest to people who would like to date him. Mamselle's feelings of discomfort don't really matter unless they are being expressed in some tangible and consequential way.
When I started the thread I wasn't expecting to be prompted to talk about my specific relationships with black friends and lovers. I simply said this article has a lot of accusing of white people for being white; for example, that we are uncomfortable around black people. I was hoping to be taken at my word. Mamselle for example shows I was wrong, but she's probably only one of many in our culture. It's getting personal. It's rude to attribute sentiments to people that they don't express. Being white shouldn't give you the right to make this confession on behalf of your race. The idea is the white person has to confess to harboring anti-black feelings that he tries to deny, in order to get a welcome into the club of 'people who are part of the solution, not part of the problem.' It's a humiliating exercise to the white person, ignores other races (did we notice that one of the the four policeman is Asian, and with a long list of complaints about his violent treatment of suspects in custody?), and it doesn't even help the white person move forward in the event he is less comfortable in the company of black people. It's a lot of negativity. And the pressure to do the 'I'm a reactionary, square, idiot, white guy who needs to purge himself of bigotry' confessional and then tiptoe around these discussions (but don't you dare keep quiet and listen either -- silence is violence) is widespread, decades old. Personally, it strikes me as hopelessly corny. So, yeah, I guess it is a bit of a rant against people who are asking for it.
Next time you're in a room full of black people, try saying 'excuse me: one little thing. I know you're uncomfortable right now because there's a white person present, and I'm open to helping you work on it.' I think they will think you are a real boob. I would. I wish there were some factoring in of the Golden Rule and common courtesy meaning what they traditionally have.
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 10, 2020, 07:11:55 AM
[
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 10, 2020, 07:11:55 AM
Who are these "people." You're creating a fantasy world in which there are all these racist attacks against white people going unpunished.
How many does it take to count? Does Treehugger's story above "count"? Or is it just an insignificant random event?
Why isn't violence against anyone on the basis of the colour of their skin problematic?
Again, exactly who is supporting violent attacks on white people because of their race? I can't find the post you're referring to, but you're arguing in non-sequiturs. People are pointing out that there is a pattern of violence and oppression towards black people and your response is "well, sometimes white people are attacked because of their race, shouldn't we care about that? Isn't that just as important?" It would be like if I came running into your office and breathlessly told you that the contractors working on the building next door had just accidentally put a wrecking ball through my office wall and your response was "I heard that last week a car ran into a house. Isn't all destruction of property problematic?" Sure, I guess so, but your focus at this moment seems off, since there is a big hole in my office wall and the building might be about to fall down.
Quote from: Caracal on June 10, 2020, 05:39:16 AM
The focus of the discussion is pointless. Obsession with your own personal feelings is mostly a way to avoid confronting the bigger questions and thinking about institutions and histories.
That's where these discussions of reverse racism get so absurd.
I don't think I agree with you there, Caracal.
Firstly, the sort of rhetoric Glanton uses does nothing but alienate people. Just look at what's happen to this very thread.
Secondly, I'm sorry, but I can believe in the existence of "reverse racism."
Thirdly, what "big issues" is anyone avoiding? Like literally everyone on this thread, I am horrified by the death of Floyd, disgusted by the people who would dehumanize him, and angry that we still have to deal with this in 2020. No one is avoiding "the bigger questions and thinking about institutions and histories."
What issues am I supposed to discuss that I am not?
Am I supposed to remove any personal feelings?
We have a terrible racist past that has extended its tendrils into our present. To an extent, police have institutionalized this---nevertheless, we still must take in the hard facts of race and policing, which does not always support the most extreme conclusions.
None of that is changed on my "personal feelings" that Glanton's piece was bad journalism and only served to attack the people who care (does anyone think the Nazis on Storm Front are going to change their minds after reading that?).
I read about halfway though the online "White Fragility," wondering the whole time if that was part of her PhD dissertation, before giving up. Perhaps I should have read to the end but I saw no point. That is an accusatory polemic, a well controlled screed really, built for the rage machine.
Mill's "racial contract" points out that the founding socioeconomic/cultural philosophers of the past were racists. Is that surprising? It reminds me a bit of the reaction to this piece:
Is Mary Poppins Racist? (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mary-poppins-racist/)
I remember the scene the professor is writing about from when I was a little. I didn't know why the guy dressed like an admiral was shooting fireworks at the chimney sweeps, I did not know what a "Hottentot" was or why the admiral fella yelled it, I just thought the whole sequence was really funny.
Look, if we go back in time by any duration we will find deep racism and sexism. We just will. It's not a mystery. We will find racism or a version thereof if we look at any culture in the history of the planet. If we look around in any direction today we will find a whole series of bigotries alive and well. I know this, you know this, Glanton knows this----what's the point in accusing the choir of ignoring it?
If you can figure out a way to eliminate bigotry, sign me up.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on June 10, 2020, 09:51:01 AM
Quote from: Caracal on June 10, 2020, 05:39:16 AM
The focus of the discussion is pointless. Obsession with your own personal feelings is mostly a way to avoid confronting the bigger questions and thinking about institutions and histories.
That's where these discussions of reverse racism get so absurd.
I don't think I agree with you there, Caracal.
Firstly, the sort of rhetoric Glanton uses does nothing but alienate people. Just look at what's happen to this very thread.
Secondly, I'm sorry, but I can believe in the existence of "reverse racism."
Thirdly, what "big issues" is anyone avoiding? Like literally everyone on this thread, I am horrified by the death of Floyd, disgusted by the people who would dehumanize him, and angry that we still have to deal with this in 2020. No one is avoiding "the bigger questions and thinking about institutions and histories."
What issues am I supposed to discuss that I am not?
Am I supposed to remove any personal feelings?
We have a terrible racist past that has extended its tendrils into our present. To an extent, police have institutionalized this---nevertheless, we still must take in the hard facts of race and policing, which does not always support the most extreme conclusions.
None of that is changed on my "personal feelings" that Glanton's piece was bad journalism and only served to attack the people who care (does anyone think the Nazis on Storm Front are going to change their minds after reading that?).
I read about halfway though the online "White Fragility," wondering the whole time if that was part of her PhD dissertation, before giving up. Perhaps I should have read to the end but I saw no point. That is an accusatory polemic, a well controlled screed really, built for the rage machine.
Mill's "racial contract" points out that the founding socioeconomic/cultural philosophers of the past were racists. Is that surprising? It reminds me a bit of the reaction to this piece:
Is Mary Poppins Racist? (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mary-poppins-racist/)
I remember the scene the professor is writing about from when I was a little. I didn't know why the guy dressed like an admiral was shooting fireworks at the chimney sweeps, I did not know what a "Hottentot" was or why the admiral fella yelled it, I just thought the whole sequence was really funny.
Look, if we go back in time by any duration we will find deep racism and sexism. We just will. It's not a mystery. We will find racism or a version thereof if we look at any culture in the history of the planet. If we look around in any direction today we will find a whole series of bigotries alive and well. I know this, you know this, Glanton knows this----what's the point in accusing the choir of ignoring it?
If you can figure out a way to eliminate bigotry, sign me up.
James Baldwin wrote about "white innocence" and I think it is a better phrase than fragility. He didn't mean it in a good way. For Baldwin white innocence was a failure to see the world as it was that kept many white Americans from fully realizing their humanity. Innocence was the belief that somehow things were fine. It is a seductive idea for those of us who can access it. I also find it helps me get away from these sorts of questions that focus on my own personal deep dark feelings about race. The danger is not that I have buried racist feelings inside me, but that I want to think that, at base, everything is fine and I can just shake my head and wonder what everyone is getting so up in arms about.
Quote from: Caracal on June 10, 2020, 10:49:23 AM
James Baldwin wrote about "white innocence" and I think it is a better phrase than fragility. He didn't mean it in a good way. For Baldwin white innocence was a failure to see the world as it was that kept many white Americans from fully realizing their humanity. Innocence was the belief that somehow things were fine. It is a seductive idea for those of us who can access it. I also find it helps me get away from these sorts of questions that focus on my own personal deep dark feelings about race. The danger is not that I have buried racist feelings inside me, but that I want to think that, at base, everything is fine and I can just shake my head and wonder what everyone is getting so up in arms about.
If white people can
underestimate how bad things are, then presumably other people can
overestimate how bad things are. What objective process do you propose that can be used, independent of the person using it, so that everyone can determine accurately how bad things are, so that improvements can be made towards an objectively-determined standard?
So 57 years ago, before I was born, in a time much different from today, Baldwin penned an essay about why we white Americans ignore the reality of racism in our country.
You know that the streets have literally swollen with whites condemning of the treatment of African Americans, right?
But okay, what am I, Wahoo Redux, supposed to do?
Quote from: pgher on June 09, 2020, 01:27:11 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on June 09, 2020, 08:32:30 AM
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 12:08:56 PM
Along with Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract, this article by Robin DiAngelo might give you some perspective on the author's intentions.
https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116
I take this quote regarding the definition of racism from DiAngelo (p. 56):
Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual "race prejudice", which anyone of any race can have, Whiteness scholars define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hilliard, 1992). This unequal distribution benefits whites and disadvantages people of color overall and as a group. Racism is not fluid in the U.S.; it does not flow back and forth, one day benefiting whites and another day (or even era) benefiting people of color. The direction of power between whites and people of color is his- toric, traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of U.S. society (Mills, 1999; Feagin, 2006).
Translation: Only racism giving white people an advantage at the expense of non-whites counts. Let's re-define "racism" in a way such that bigotry between non-white groups, or directed against white folks, does not count.
Here's a more concise definition: Racism is prejudice plus power. That is, prejudice is judging people on some outward observable feature like race. It becomes an "ism" when it is coupled with the power to do something about your pre-judgments.
Power is highly situational and not monolthic. To use as an example something that actually happened to two different people I know, if a lone Mexican gets attacked by an all-black gang, then unless he has a gun and they're unarmed, then it is the black gang that has power (many against one). Yes, the gang would also have power if they were all white, but that's kind of the point - the gang has power over the attackee (indeed, potentially life-or-death power) in that scenario regardless of the race of its members, and gangs can be of any race. In both cases it happened for no apparent reason, leading the attackees to (separately, independently) conclude the attacks were racially motivated - a conclusion that nobody here would openly question if it had been an all-white gang attacking a non-white for no reason. Also note that it's plausible these gangs were exploiting systematic racism against Hispanics - assuming the attackees wouldn't go the police (as indeed happened) or that even if they did they'd get taken less seriously than a white attackee. Sure, there are lots of instances of "classic" racism, etc, but it is not universal in the US that it's the white people who have power in any situation involving race. So DiAngelo's defintion of racism amounts to circular reasoning - racism is a white thing because the word has been re-defined to apply only to whites.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on June 10, 2020, 10:58:22 AM
So 57 years ago, before I was born, in a time much different from today, Baldwin penned an essay about why we white Americans ignore the reality of racism in our country.
You know that the streets have literally swollen with whites condemning of the treatment of African Americans, right?
But okay, what am I, Wahoo Redux, supposed to do?
It's a pretty good example of emotional reasoning:
1. If white America were against us, we should be very upset;
2. We are upset;
3. Therefore, white America is against us.
Now, whether the ways in which we have bee purporting to help black America since Baldwin's time have been or should be expected to be productive is another question. I happen to think for example the hip hop culture glorifies the dregs of black America, while white recording artists have imitated black criminal music/poetry culture without inflicting on themselves the same damage that comes from it.
We need to stop thinking everything any black person does is cool. We are not paying homage to their struggle by imitating fools.
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 10, 2020, 06:18:48 AM
So does what happened to George Floyd only matter because it is part of some "systematic" problem?
Yes, from the viewpoint of critical race theory, what happened to George Floyd only matters because of systemic racism. In my view, this is the very worst thing about critical race theory as well as gender theory and all their theoretical cousins. At the end of the day, it is only systems, language and power that count. Individuals and their lived experience do not count. Or rather they only count to the extent that their experience can be used to illustrate the accepted narrative in question. They are profoundly anti-humanist theories.
Quote from: mahagonny on June 09, 2020, 05:23:29 AM
Studies have shown that people who have wealthy parents have more opportunities as children. For example, Miles Davis attended Juilliard Conservatory.
Turns out these advantages re-emerge even if you wipe out the families' wealth (and execute the educated elite): https://www.nber.org/papers/w27053
Quote
The Chinese Communist Revolution in the 1950s and Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976 aimed to eradicate inequality in wealth and education, to shut off intergenerational transmission, and to eliminate cultural differences in the population. Using newly digitized archival data and linked contemporary household surveys and census, we show that the revolutions were effective in homogenizing the population economically and culturally in the short run. However, the pattern of inequality that characterized the pre-revolution generation re-emerges today. Grandchildren of the pre-revolution elites earn 17 percent more than those from non-elite households. In addition, the grandchildren of pre-revolution elites differ in their cultural values: they are less averse to inequality, more individualistic, more pro-market, more pro-education, and more likely to see hard work as critical to success. Through intergenerational transmission, socioeconomic conditions and cultural traits thus survived one of the most aggressive attempts to eliminate differences in the population and to foster mobility.
Which, if nothing else, tells you that if you want to fix systemic inequality, you need something more radical than the communist and cultural revolutions. A more progressive tax code certainly isn't going to do it.
The paper does highlight one thing that breaks this chain: the early death of one's parents. Evidence for a mechanism of cultural transmission of values. Doesn't really lend itself to actionable policies, though.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on June 10, 2020, 09:51:01 AM
If you can figure out a way to eliminate bigotry, sign me up.
Society is not perfectible. You might as well decide you're going to eliminate swearing or smelly feet.
Quote from: mahagonny on June 11, 2020, 08:17:32 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on June 10, 2020, 09:51:01 AM
If you can figure out a way to eliminate bigotry, sign me up.
Society is not perfectible. You might as well decide you're going to eliminate swearing or smelly feet.
I will not support the elimination of swearing.
Quote from: mahagonny on June 08, 2020, 06:39:04 AM
Quote from: permanent imposter on June 05, 2020, 04:21:32 PM
This kind of polemic is what gets published nowadays. I admit to being ungracious and sometimes thinking similar thoughts of others who disagree with me politically, but I try not to publish those thoughts.
Do you mean me or the writer?
I'm late to replies because I only check here once a week, but yes I meant the writer. I know everyone has already talked about this, but I don't think this type of writing is helpful at all with respect to race relations. You're only going to further inflame people who already agree with you, and further retrench people who are wondering why people are making them out to be klan members.
Quote from: Treehugger on June 08, 2020, 07:30:19 AM
Quote from: permanent imposter on June 05, 2020, 04:21:32 PM
This kind of polemic is what gets published nowadays. I admit to being ungracious and sometimes thinking similar thoughts of others who disagree with me politically, but I try not to publish those thoughts.
So you self-censure?
I think "self-censorship" is a little strong, but yes I am circumspect about what I say around others.
Quote from: writingprof on June 09, 2020, 06:47:07 AM
Quote from: delsur on June 08, 2020, 02:25:09 PM
I am not in critical whiteness studies and used to have a similar reaction to the term. But once you read the works of Charles W. Mills, Cedric Robinson, bell hooks, Franz Fanon, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva or many others who have written seriously about these issues, you might find that their perspectives are not as simplistic or unproductive as you imagine but rather important considerations toward a more equitable society.
Delsur, you mentioned these authors in five different posts yesterday, according to your posting history. We get it.
I only saw them in a couple of places, so I for one am glad for the reminder.