Thanks, @GeorgeTichy .
I agree, obviously, that racism exists.
I don’t necessarily agree that it is very easy to recognize.
I do not, because I see people disagree, all the time, as to whether something is, or is not, racist. For example, see c), below.
If by, “Racism is better,” you mean that, “People are less racist than they were,” I would probably say, instead that, “Racism is being refined.”
Many white people give this kind of standard, dictionary definition when asked what racism is. I suspect it is either a) to avoid white culpability for race, and/or b) they have no apparent “mechanical” experience with race. So, they say what they think it must be.
It’s akin to defining racism as “a belief in the superiority….” No Black person thinks of racism so weightlessly; as a “belief.”
Racism is white supremacy. White supremacy is the only racism that functions. It’s the only kind with any “heft.” The only kind that “stops traffic.”
A form of racism that Black people and white people could both practice would quickly become incoherent, and decohere. It would become “gray.”
If racism wasn’t white supremacy, what would happen, sometimes, is that white people would raise racism, as a topic of discussion, at inconvenient times, and Black people would go mute, staring into their coffees in silence.
White people would loudly describe atrocities, slights, and indignities, and Black people would after much of this, quietly say, “I feel your pain.” A Black woman would stand and confess the racism in her heart, start crying, and the whole meeting would come to a halt, as white people rushed to hug her.
You’ve never seen this happen. But if racism were something anyone could practice, what I’ve described would happen as often as what actually happens does. Talking about racism at church potlucks would be as uncontroversial as talking about taxes, because everyone would face it.
I agree with this statement.
Many, if not most, white people do not.
The state of people relations “in” Brazil may be nuanced, perhaps. But they are not incomparable, as you state.
They compare, “in” Brazil, the one way people “in” Biloxi, Bangladesh, and Botswana all recognize: White people dominate non-white people. White people have the last word in all areas on activity.
In other words, are you saying that, in economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war, “in” Brazil, non-white people dominate white people; i.e., that non-white people make decisions which cannot be overruled by one or more white people?
If you are not saying that, then to say that, “in” Brazil, “Things are MUCH different down there, it’s even difficult for people living in America to understand the balance that settle down “in” Brazil. Cannot compare the two situations, unless one lived in both places for a long time” is not true.
I went “to” Brazil for a very short time, once, and, “in” an overwhelmingly non-white country:
• Almost everyone on TV was white.
• The biggest star, at the time, was a white woman named Xuxa, and when Black children saw her in person, they clung to her like she was an angel; i.e., with the adoration of self-negation.
• In the favelas, I saw brown people, chickens, garbage, and houses that looked like garbage. At the nightclub I went to, where the elite hung out, I heard techno, and saw lots of white people and Mercedes-Benzes.
I felt right at home.
In post #103, I said, “I am a victim of white supremacy”; i.e., a non-white person.
@Cassie got it, immediately. But, if you did not, or didn’t see it, so be it.
I think what you were saying, as I re-read the text, is that a) @ajshep is spouting nonsense, and b) Harry Allen keeps engaging him.
In other words, when I re-read your statements, there is a bit of ambiguity, based on what you wrote, as to who you are criticizing, and for what reason.
Thanks for your kind wishes.
In the opening of my response to you, I spoke about the repetitiveness of white statements on race. So, I’m aware that talking on this subject will often be a matter of “going in circles.”
But I do it a) as a testimony, to other non-white people, on how to respond, and b) to build my own ability in addressing white “talking points.”
So, for me, a person who must think about race, continuously—because it continuously thinks about me—this is a form of practice.
I don’t know what “the podium of defensiveness, and sometimes offensiveness” is, and I don’t understand your statement.
Please explain, and, if you’re saying that this is what I’m doing, please kindly give examples.
I believe you. I think you were criticizing @ajshep, as you’ve often done in this forum.
But because you did not say what you’ve said here—“Harry, I don’t see you doing (saying) anything wrong. Meanwhile @ajshep’s stuff is nonsensical”—but, instead, critiqued our mutual engagement, it appeared that you were criticizing me, also.
I trust that, upon reviewing what you wrote, this has become clear to you.
However, I apologize for misconstruing your intent.
Discussing race with @ajshep is circular, because of the way he responds to statements.
However, speaking tutorially, that being part of the reason, again, that I do this work, his speech is not “nonsensical.” I say this, because because I see its circularity as part of the logic of white supremacy.
I may have addressed this. If not, I’m about to do so.
I don’t have an obsession with the word “superior.” I doubt you’ve seen me use it outside of this sole application.
I don’t have an obsession with the word “supremacy,” either, perhaps that being the word you actually believe I overuse.
However, racism is white supremacy. So, in a discussion about race, the word “supremacy,” or “supreme,” or even “superior,” is bound to be used, often, if the discussion is going to be truthful.
I’m not exactly clear why you say that, “When you address someone as you did in the b), you probably should not expect much in return.”
I am talking about contexts where, as I thought that we were, a white person says, “This stuff you Black people are talking about is a bunch of nonsense. What you really need to do is X”; e.g., “pull yourselves up by your bootstraps”; “stop having so many babies”; “stop blaming racism.”
When I thought that this is what you’d said to me, in #246, I:
a) Immediately spoke to my frailty, at length, and
b) Said I’d welcome what I was sure would be better ideas.
I meant this. I believe that the sum total set of white ideas on how to eliminate white supremacy are better than anything that Black people have put together. I just think that it’s all mish-mashed with a lot of other white stuff, much of which is designed to protect their superior position.
However, you object to the word “superior.” Is the objection akin to telling a model she’s beautiful, or asking a rich person about their money?
Or, is it more that, if I hold that you benefit from a race system, I take it that you’re a “bad person”?
Maybe it’s the latter, because you say, by doing this, I “declare everyone to be an enemy even without seeing/hearing that person.”
To which I say, I do no such thing. Actually, that’s what the race system has done to non-white people, relative to white people. This is why, for example, police killings of unarmed Black people can be rationalized, then dismissed, anywhere.
Race has put white people in a superior position. This is factual. Whether one is an “enemy” or not, of me, depends on what they do about racism.
By analogy: All the people in Christ’s parable of the sheep and the goats are sinners. Yet one group enters heaven, and one doesn’t. It’s not because one group is not racist, and one is. It’s because one recognized their failures and addressed them, while one did not.
I understand that mine, in toto, may be a slightly different way of talking about race to white people. Most of what passes for race relations is Black and white people grinning at each other, uttering platitudes, then singing and praying in a circle, just before they go back to their differences in wealth.
I consider that broken, and long so. Hence.