'Admit You're Uncomfortable Around Black People' and other nonsense

[marshwiggle]

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?

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.

[Treehugger]

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?

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.

[PhilosophyGirl]

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. 

[mahagonny]

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?

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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?

[Treehugger]

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.

[mamselle]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[writingprof]

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.

[mamselle]

Mahagonny, since I never do read your posts, I wasn't directing any discernment of truth or fact in your direction.

Promise.

M.

[mahagonny]

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.)

[Caracal]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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?

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).

[Caracal]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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?