Sirje, I don’t think I am, but let me go over your statement.
Please tell me if any part of my response is unclear to you.
Correct. That’s why I made a parenthetical response to this part of your hypothetical; an aside.
Whether or not a woman should be walking alone down a deserted dark street forms no part of my core analysis, as should be clear.
So, first, a point of order:
In internet contexts, writing in all-caps is the equivalent of yelling; it signifies this.
Are you “yelling” at me?
If so, there’s no need for you to do this. I read English reasonably well, and have at least average comprehension of its written form; it’s my first language. Writing in all-capital letters will not make what you’re writing any clearer, and, in fact, for a couple of reasons, may make it less clear.
If you’re not yelling, and just mean to emphasize a point, you can make the text bold, or italicize it, as you see fit. This will be far more conducive to the exchange in which we’re engaged.
Now, to your point:
I understand what you’re saying, and did, but I may not have responded to it, directly, in my previous reply. I apologize for that.
So, here’s that response: Yes, absolutely: In a scenario like the one you’ve described, a white person, so acting, might be called racist. They should not be.
Which is why I say that no Black person should call any white person racist, unless that white person says, first, that they are, and/or that they are one.
(I won’t elaborate much on this proposal, here, but a colleague of mine, Jay Smooth, once posted about this issue. I covered him, here, on my blog, Media Assassin, and the piece is explanatory.)
So, no: No Black person should call any white person racist.
However, what this means, to me, is that I can suspect any white person of being a racist. Indeed, I’d argue, that this is prudent, as long as the chief tools of a racist—as I hold they are—are deceit, secrecy, and violence.
However, to call them one is a whole other order of function, because, if you call them one, you have to prove it. And, I mean, how do you do that?
Put another way, in your thought experiment, you could have crossed the street, knowing that they were Black, and still might not have done so because they were Black.
So, certainly, yes: A white person might act as you have described, and be called racist, even if she did not know the racial classification of the men walking in her direction.
I’d say, to non-white people: Do not call that white person, or any white person, a racist. However, you are free to suspect that they are one, for that, or any reason.
Because racism is white supremacy, and white supremacy dominates relations between people. Anyone white could be a racist, especially because the primary weapon of a racist is deceit.
I agree: Many make this assumption.
That is exactly how your hypothetical scenario plays out.
That is incorrect.
It’s especially incorrect if the people calling the white person racist are non-white, because that is not racism.
Racism is not something non-white people do to white people. Racism is something that white people do, and have done, to people who aren’t white. Racism is white supremacy.
Think of it this way:
You may bake cookies, be good at it, and even sell some of your tasty morsels to local stores.
But only one cookie-maker gets to call themselves NABISCO.
Only one cookie-maker runs what is, literally, the largest bakery on earth: A 1.8 million-square-foot facility that employs over 1,200 people, and produces about 320 million pounds of snacks ever year.
Only one cookie-maker has sold over 450 billion Oreos in a hundred different countries, and uses a 300-ft long oven to make each one. Only one sells a billion Nutter Butters (!!) each annum, and it ain’t you.
Now: If what NABISCO does is called “NABISCO-ism,” or “NABISCO Supremacy,” you can’t call what you do, one sheet pan at a time, that. You have to get a whole other name, even if you both make a delicious toll house, because what NABISCO does is in another galaxy of operation.
When it comes to mistreatment on the basis of skin color classification, only the White Supremacists do this on a level that utterly reorganizes all systems of economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war, throughout the known universe, to suit and effect these ends.
No one does this better than they do it, and no one does this as big as they do it.
So, yes: A Black person might choose to call a white person, avoiding a crowd of nondescript men, “a racist.” They should not do this.
But this Black person’s act is not racism, because racism is a global system of white supremacy.
To evoke both your hypothetical and mine: Black guys do mug white grandmothers, but white guys mug ecosystems.
Please pay attention to, and, this time, absorb, what Aamer Rahman said in his YouTube clip:
Yes: That is, it seems useful to define one’s terms whenever one speaks. I’d say this is particularly the case when one is talking about a subject as problematic as racism.
Further, I’d urge, doing this is critical when addressing race, because, as I hold, the chief weapon of a racist is deceit, and the chief tool of deceit are words.
This is a great example of what I mean, also, when I speak of the need to define one’s terms, because I’ve never said racism is “tied,” directly or indirectly, to white supremacy. I don’t even know what that means.
What I say is that racism and white supremacy are the same thing. So, no, they’re not “tied” to each other, because, to put it another way, you can’t hitch a hitching post to itself.
That, or similar definitions, are the kinds one will find in the dictionary.
But that’s not the definition I’m using. No Black person would define racism as weightlessly as “a belief.”
“A belief” didn’t get my ancestors dragged out of Ghana in chains, and stuffed into the cargo holds of blood-soaked, vomit-crusted ships for months on end. Treating us that way certainly required a belief. But it also required megatons of infrastructure: Ship-makers, sailmakers, metal-workers, sailors, and other skilled and unskilled men and women…plus equipment, raw materials, trade routes, social networks, laws, weapons, monetary substances, agreements, schools, fields, seed, buildings, etc., etc., etc.
Racism is an effect. Calling racism “a belief” is akin to calling Leah Pritchett’s automobile “a spark”:
Everything her vehicle does requires a spark, generated by spark plugs. But if you watched her work, then walked up to her and said, “What amazing sparks,” she and her entire team would look at you like you were crazy. They would be correct to do so.
So, no: When I say racism, I am not talking about “a belief.” It was only “a belief” until someone either spoke to make it a reality, and/or acted to do so. From then, it ceased to be only “a belief.”
You seem to be suggesting that, despite 250 years of enslavement, followed by a century-and-a-half of varied, typically government-mediated brutality, Black people, here, need help determining if a given white person is, or may be, a racist. I’m going to guess that this is not what you intend.
Further, as I told @Arkdrey, Black people, in such instances, are not talking about how you and other white people “think,” but how you function. White people, collectively, function as white people.
It doesn’t, because racism = white supremacy.
Many people talk about racism as though anyone can be a racist. But this is clearly not the case. A form of racism that Black people and white people could both practice would quickly decohere and become incoherent. It would become “gray.”
Or, think of it this way:
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 historical atrocities, slights, and indignities they’d suffered at the hands of Black people, and Black people would, after much of this, quietly say, “I feel your pain,” or, “I feel guilty for what my ancestors did to yours.”
A Black woman would stand up, confess the racism in her heart, begin loudly weeping, and the whole meeting would come to a halt, as white people rushed to hug her.
You’ve never seen any of this happen in your entire life. But if racism were something anyone could practice, what I’ve just described would happen just as often as the opposite; what actually does happen. Talking about racism at church potlucks would be as uncontroversial as talking about rising taxes, because everyone would be dealing with it.
Perhaps when @Harry_Allen gets in the water with us wet fish he can begin try comprehend his perspective is neither the only, or the right.
I appreciate the poetry of the writ-this other stuff is dry, dusty, almost dead.
You can be a fisher of men, Harry, or you can nuke the pool.
If one is unable to question their certainties i’m not about to take that task. If they are convinced they have the mutually exclusive truth, and they alone possess the only language to apprehend it, then they have placed themselves aboard Rocinante endlessly jousting at their ephemeral windmills.
No I’m not yelling, and you know that. Who makes up these rules anyway?
It seems, by what you say, that you (the black community) have made up your own definitions for racism. While I’m using a definition commonly used for “racism” as per any dictionary, you, (Harry), on the other hand, have adopted your own definition and take issue with my comments based on a different definition from yours. Do you know how ridiculous that is. I can make up personal definitions all day long, and when talking with others accuse them of all kinds of things based on my private definitions. Who can discuss anything that way…
The other HUGE (me yelling) problem is what you say in the end -
Are you kidding me. You judge me on the basis of a COLLECTIVE (emphasis only) white persona, that you (as a black person) have given me, as a representative of a collective white persona as you define it.
Are there no individuals in your picture of white people? There certainly are black people in my memory - some I like, others I don’t. That is the sum total of all racial problem - identity by skin color. When the same is applied to gender discrimination, we have fit; but it’s OK to ascribe to an individual the sins of 400 years of immoral, criminal behaviour? Well, I’m not paying for the sins of those slave owners and whoever set themselves lord and master over a whole race of people. I will not own that.
I think there’s some progress to be made in forming a more just society worldwide. But this is a deeper conversation that would require broader discussion on various context about viable philosophy of justice, and various “parametric baselines” that we can agree on in order to have some viable societal structure that’s not some version of the “Divergent” teen novel.
I would categorically disagree that the proper context for justice is that of equality of the outcome. I would agree that we should strive for equality of opportunity, especially for those who are showing talent and potential, but may have some structural barriers along the way.
Now, that’s where you dive off the deep end, and I would like you to seriously consider what you are really saying. Likewise, I’m not quite sure what you mean by “function”? Are you suggesting that the skin color, and not culture is the determining factor of one’s “function” ?
A Tatar person from a Kaskstan is technically “white” in their skin color. I’m mostly an Ashkenazi Jew with Ukrainian lineage. Are you suggesting that my “function” would be that of a Brit or someone from Portugal?
You really don’t see that projecting “function” on a skin color is precisely how racism works?
And what I’m saying is that in the spectrum of various ethno-cultural contexts… there’s a whole range of divergence in which the term “white” makes no sense as some consolidated and monolithic concept.
I understand why you are trying to force that as a point in your argument… but it simply doesn’t work, especially when it comes to the diverse context of US immigration at the turn of 1900s… meaning post-civil war and post slavery era.
Just to give you some frame of reference. I’m a first generation immigrant, and I got to this country in 1997! You projecting “racist whiteness” on someone like myself if beyond absurd.
It appears that you have a very limited understanding of human history. Historically, supremacy was the tribal context of the past. Just to give you some viable context:
The above is a map of the Mongol empire in 13th century, which was the largest contiguous empire in the world history. These guys looked more Asian than they looked white. If you ever paid attention to human history, it’s full of racism, slavery, in context of long-term Empire-building enterprise by people who looked similar.
Anywhere in the world you look in the past, there’s an attempt of constant expansion of the dominant cultures, that typically coincided with racial attributes, since it was much easier to maintain some cultural coherence with people who “looked like you”.
And if you know ANYTHING about “white history” or “black history”, then you would actually know that there’s no singular context for “black” just like there’s no singular context for “white”… unless of course you choose to limit that history to that of history of “white” vs “black” people in the US.
But, during the colonial period, there were Spain and Portugal who were colonizing both Americas, Florida and Oceania, and there were Brits who were setting up North America and eventually Canada, Australia, India with Africa being colonized by both. And there’s, of course, French who likewise jumped into the colonial enterprise of the past.
If you are going to suggest “white” uniformity between French, British, Spanish, Portuguese, or Slavic cultures, which were in constant warfare with each well into 20th century… then you are immensely ignorant about European history, and need to take a break from “Black American History” and venture out a bit more beyond it.
To sum up for you - white people weren’t the only people in the historical business of entho-cultural supremasy. There’s a vast amount of culture in the mix that you are ignoring.
Yes, but you understand that racism is the historic setting for humanity as a whole… and that’s a setting that we are collectively trying to move past as we are developing global culture of today, especially in the multicultural and multiracial setting of the US.
You keep trying to shift the racist context into “white on black US slavery and segregation”… when there isn’t that context anymore, especially in light of the post 1900 immigration history in the US, in which plenty of white and black cultures have little to do with American Slavery of the past.
Someone like myself, who is a Ukrainian Jew with Middle-Estern roots … is a “white” today, just like a TatarTurk could be seen as “white”. And there are plenty of black immigrants who were not descendants of the US slaves, but rather immigrants from African culture.
So, in a present multi-culrual and multi-racial context in the US… projecting and pinning “whiteness” against “blackness” is absurd. There’s nothing you can pin on these people other than association you subjectively form using your own perception of US history.
But you are assuming that my history in the US was all “sweet and dandy”, and that I breathed more of the oxygen than you did as a child with a $100 in my pocket immigrating alone from post-Soviet Europe. So, please, let’s not pretend that the only contextual hardship in all of the history of human suffering is that of American Slaves and segregation-era USA.
Ever heard of holodomor? How about Holocaust? How about Stalinist prison camps? Some of my relatives dealt with all of these. I don’t want to seem insensitive to the fate of American Slaves, but let’s not pretend that’s the only viable human injustice that set generations of people back.
Oh my :). I’m not really sure we can have a rational discussion on this subject, since your ignorance of ethno-cultural diversity within modern demografic of “white people” is absolutely astounding.
Likewise, could it be that what you are calling “white supremacy” simple be the context of white majority in the US? I wouldn’t be complaining about “Asian supremacy” if I happened to grew up in a country like China. There’s a viable historical context for dominant cultures to formulate the rules.
OF COURSE we should strive to make these rules more fair when it comes to generational access to opportunities to live a comfortable life. But, this influx of Marxist ideals about equality of outcome somehow equals justice… is absurd. Historically it has been disastrous in its consequences, and by the sound of your ideology, that’s what you are promoting. The economic context didn’t work, so Marxism shifted to inequality in “sex/race/gender” as the platform to push these ideals.
I suggest that you read Marx. Then consider how your present ideology is similar. And then trace the outcomes of that ideology whenever it took some historical roots.
You are arguably “Jussie Smolleting” this argument here. Your back doesn’t look like that. You weren’t forced to drink from white-only fountains, you were not lynched or mauled by KKK or Confederate-Flag mob. You weren’t choked out by the police, or went to prison for some drug non-crime. You are likely employed in an institution that has a number of black employees. And you’ve recently lived in a country in which Obama was the president, along with plentiful black candidates that got more votes than Ron Paul did.
Of course, we could find some marginal agreement that past impacts the future, and that segregation-driven racism of the past did result in the “ghettoization” of “black culture”, and in the case of the US “black people” some EXTREMELY POOR and rather paradoxical allegiances of black leaders that joined hands with the very KKK Dixiecrats that now promised them “Marx money” for the sake of shifting the balance in the “Socialism enterprise” that such political movements tend to be.
And then if you throw a good measure of drug-trade culture, which is violent to this day, and subsequent anti-crack crackdowns championed by black politicians and community leaders themselves that filled the corporately-run prisons.
All of that is EXTREMELY TRAGIC, and I deeply sympathize with a chain of poor decisions of various individuals in black communities that resulted in harmful stereotypes, which of course spills out into police business as it relates to these stereotypes, which are then glorified in films (I’m not sure why any self-respected black person would play a stereotypical drug dealer), which then exploited in rap culture (which is a perversion of hip-hop original context). All of it is complex mess.
But, let’s not pretend that:
All of this is somehow uniform across entire racial context of individuals
That white are all to blame for an orgy of poor decision making and allegiances that those who decided to channel solutions through these movements made in context of post-Jim Crow era.
So, please stop your pointing finger every white person you see as the cause of clearly poor management of the “black communities”.
If racism is systemic, then it’s a miracle that virtually every Nigerian I’m a client of, or who is a client of mine… are doing just as well, or better than I do.
There isn’t any “race system” in place today. There may be some isolated cultural settings in which racism or ethno-nationalism may drive individuals to discriminate, but there’s not much you can do with hidden motives of those individuals who have stereotypical prejudice against individuals that doesn’t look or talk like them. That’s not something unique to “white people”. It’s the generic tribal psychology of human beings in general.
In order for that to be “race system” it has to be explicit in the law as such. Yes, you can point to the ghetto culture, and the cycle of criminal behavior that it breeds… but you can’t make the case that such behavior is justified because of the racial segregation system 60 years ago, or system of slavery of 150 years.
YES. I do think that that we should collectively seek to rectify these conditions as a civilized society that wants all of its members to have some kind of a “baseline” that doesn’t result in desperation and perpetual crime and cyclical poverty. But, I think the way you and your fellow leftists are attempting to rectify these problems will not work, since it’s the very same policies and ideology that kept poor people with black skin to both identify with some dubious “Black culture” to which they become a political asset to direct and blame everything and everyone for why they stay poor, while a wide range of immigrants with black skin integrate and succeed almost immediately in present day US.
Well, I believe you, so, to the degree that I do, I know it now.
But I didn’t know it when I asked the question, because I’m not a ultracrepidarian. So, unless you’re one, you should avoid speaking about what I know, because you’re not credible on my thoughts.
I don’t understand why you’re asking this. I mean, you can’t be asking for a name, or address, correct?
That is, who made it up is not really the issue. The issue is that this is a widely understood convention. My point is just that, unless you want to convey, by writing, that you’re yelling, you should avoid all-caps.
Of course, that also means if you want to indicate that you’re yelling, use all-caps.
I’m speaking for myself. I’m not speaking for “the black community,” whatever that is.
Occasionally, I speak about what Black people, generally, think, say, and do. I feel comfortable doing this because I’ve been Black, and been around Black people, all my life. When I speak in this manner, I indicate it.
What I was saying about the dictionary is, when it defines racism, that definition—the one you gave, and that, incidentally, white people typically offer—is not what I mean. If it’s not what I mean, it’s purposeless for us to keep using the word as though it is what I mean.
Sirje: That is absolutely correct.
I don’t, but, I expect that you are about to tell me,
No one could, reasonably. That’s why I have sought to explain my terms over and over again, in my responses to you. That’s why they are as detailed as they are, also.
You’re not the first white person with whom I’ve discussed racism on this forum. You’re not even the first who has attempted to chastise me on this “dictionary” issue.
The last one was @Danny, who, I believe, was Australian. My response to him, a year ago, is below, and goes into some detail on why I take this particular approach to language, if it’s not already clear:
I didn’t say anything about a “persona,” or “personae.”
Let me clarify, because I may not have been clear.
What I’m saying is that there are white people. There are white people, individually, and there are white people, collectively.
What I’m also saying is that my collective experience, interacting with white people, is very similar to my individual experience interacting with white people.
To put this another way, because it is something of a subtle idea:
I’ve interacted with white people, individually, all of my life. But when I see how white people tend to act as an aggregate, it does not make me wonder, “How can this be?”, given my one-on-one interactions with white people, generally. It does not confuse me, or make me second-guess my interactions with white people, individually. It seems to “fit.”
“Black Americans are far more likely than whites to say the nation’s criminal justice system is racially biased and that its treatment of minorities is a serious national problem.”
Then, in the second paragraph:
“And in a survey shortly before last year’s midterm elections, 79% of blacks – compared with 32% of whites – said the way racial and ethnic minorities are treated by the criminal justice system is a very big problem in the United States today.”
These statements express an aggregate view of positions, held by both Black people and white people, on this matter. They are hugely divided and disparate. But the white view little surprises me, because it seems in line with what my experiences with white people have been like.
So, when I say, “White people, collectively, function as white people,” I merely mean that they are, in a certain, general sense, consistent.
In other words: The variations most white people imagine that they hold, compared to their masses, smooth out and vanish, when one looks at the way they act as a group, as this pertains to race.
Or put even another way: The white people who say they are against white supremacy (racism) do not overrule the ones who say they are for racism (white supremacy).
There are lots of them.
O.K. Regarding Black people, I feel exactly the same way that you do.
Also, you may want to know: I like some of the white people that I’ve met, and I don’t like some of the others.
Now, I haven’t met most of the white people who exist. But, were I to do so, I expect that that pattern would continue: I would like some, and not like others.
In other words, this is not a personality contest. This is all, essentially, the framework a question, and it’s this:
Why is it that no non-white person, anywhere in the known universe, can make a decision—in economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war—that cannot be overruled by one or more white people…but the reverse is not true?
If you look at that sentence, you’ll see that there is nothing there that expresses an opinion about liking anyone.
Or, let me put it another way: Why do white people, the global minority, dominate non-white people, the global majority?
You could say that this is the same question one could have asked during “the apartheid era in South Africa”: How do the minority dominate the majority?
People who want to reduce this issue to “liking” people are utterly off-subject.
But, in fact, you can identify a person as non-white, and not mistreat them. You don’t have to mistreat them because you’ve identified them, racially. After you identify them, another step is required that you’ve not named, in order for race to kick in.
That is, the Europeans didn’t enslave Africans because they were Black. They enslaved them because they were white. They’d created a meaning around their skin color that they then used as the basis of a new world order. When they died, they passed on their accumulations to their descendants. And they told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on, and so on, and so on.
I’m not talking about gender discrimination, except to say that most females are non-white.
It’s not OK to ascribe to an individual the sins of 400 years of immoral, criminal behavior.
But if you come from a notorious crime family, dress like a gangster, talk like a gangster, and act like a gangster, if would behoove me to have a conversation with you, in order to find out if you aspire to the benefits of your inheritance.
When I do this with white people, most say they abhor and detest the legacy of la cosa nostra, as you do, above. Yet most, also, don’t seem to mind wearing just a tiny pinkie ring, or accepting the best seats and service at fancy Italian restaurants.
This is a typically white thing to say.
This is even the case when no one has made a request, let alone a demand, that white people do this. It’s amazing to me how frequently this response jumps out of the ether.
However, I do not consider this response irrelevant.
I’m talking about you today. You keep jumping to these cases as some viable “proof” that we are still living in a racist system that keeps YOU down. Can you provide any evidence of that other than prison statistics, or an all-white boardroom of some corporation? How does it keeps you down from achieving your goals or some base level of success in the US in a ways that would put you in a TOP 1% of the entire WORLD by merely earning $33,000 USD as a family.
How does presend-day “racist white supremacy US” keeps you from achieving that baseline?
I am flabbegastered by the lack of knowledge of many. Frightened even. Looks like the size of the Pacific Ocean. Why is the topic waltzed upon with trifling remarks or seen through the unique lense of US history ? Perhaps because 99% of the people engaging are not really concerned actually. How are we going to make the people with the legacy actually talk and engage in RL ?
Well, then I’d be convinced that you aren’t really interesting in any viable context for American ideals of equality under law, but rather your are interested of “Jussieing it up” as means for boosting your status as pseudo “civil rights leader” by harvesting the collective anger and channeling it against “white supremacy”.
BTW, I’m not under any illusion that I will change your mind in this regard. But I really hope that our discussion may expose certain ideological bankruptcy that both extremely desperate, and not at all representative of the majority opinion of the people of color in my personal world… and THANK GOD FOR THAT :).
You don’t seem to get it. Supremacy isn’t and can’t be the only viable context for racism, because supremacy is a multi-dimentional context that merely coincides with race.
For example, Top5 scorrers in the NBA history have black skin. It doesn’t make every black person reign supreme in basketball, and it doesn’t mean that black people as a race are better basketball players on average. If we randomly pick out a sample of white and black players the supremacy context vanishes and the field evens out.
BUT, at the extreme of certain contextual differences for superiority against we can select “the best of the best”, some differences amplify, and there are a wide variety of contributing factors that feed those extremes… with race being a rather insignificant factor.
There are cultural contexts in which race coincides with someone being able to do something better than everyone else, in which there’s a statistical distribution that CAN align with race as a coincidental factor. BUT RACE IS NOT WHAT GIVES THESE PEOPLE THESE ABILITIES, just like race wouldn’t give one a disability.
Racism is trying to imply just that… that race is the sole factor responsible for ability of one, and disability of another. So, what you are saying above… that there’s no variation between “white people” in some behavioral context, and that certain blame not only can but SHOULD be attributed to anyone with white skin…
is a form of racial prejudice, and IS RACIST.
Edit: I’ve subsequently wrote that I think that you are hopeless and I went too soon to jump to a hasty conclusion, and missed some of the context for your above statement, for which I apologize. You do have a point, which I will punctuate below. I think we can attempt some rational discussion on few points, since you do have a viable point when it comes to “touch love” and “tough luck” attitude people like yourself often have to deal with.
I have to point out that I do sympathize with, and find the stereotypes surrounding and driving the discussion of “black culture” to be tragic in more than one way. On one hand, I do think that it’s problematic that we as a culture would tolerate the cyclical context of “war on drugs” that largely fuels the prison population dynamics when it comes to race.
The tragic context of the US demographics is that:
Black population in the US culture were held back by slavery and discrimination laws
When these laws were lifted, their political allegiances were exploited in exchange for welfare handouts
The drug trade economy decimated the communities, and created the cyclical culture of violence and poverty
The criminal laws in US arguably drive people back to crime, instead towards successful re-integration in society
As a result of that, there’s a higher representation of black people in prisons… and perpetual and cyclical poverty and violence in black communities IN SPITE of better social and legal context
I get the above… but I’m not really sure how stereotyping “white people” as your proverbial enemy helps your condition, since arguably you drive more people in the camp of white nationalism with this ideology of “if you are white, then you are essentially a white supremacist”?
I would imagine that the rise in such rhetoric was the contributing factor that shifted many if not most political centrists to cast a vote for Trump, because voting for Hilary would be a concession to the ideological narrative that gets us nowhere. It’s like a wife who re-marries and then reminds her husband that all of the man, including himself, are scum because the previous guy cheated on her and left her for a blond chippie. Not only it’s irrational, but it’s increasingly unnerving, and generally results in divorce.
READ Ron Lawson’s, Adventists, the Constitution, and Same
Sex Relationships at Adventist Today.
"Adventist history is similar when it comes to the situation of racial minorities
in the US. Ellen White’s book, THE SOUTHERN WORK puts us in what was
then a radical position, with integrated congregations. However, this book was
soon allowed to go out of print and the RADICAL policy was replaced by one
of “temporary” segregation and discrimination AFTER a SOUTHERN
SEGREGATIONIST was given the task of selecting the contents of TESTIMONIES
VOLUME 9 in the NAME of the by then very elderly and frail prophet. Resulting in a
long history of discrimination in admissions to academies and colleges, of no opportunity
for promotion of blacks within the church structure, refusal to treat black patients in
SDA hospitals, etc.[it goes on to give the history of making separate black conferences
which is NOT what they asked for] [During the Civil Rights SDA became known for NOT
participating – except for a few lone SDAs] [Discusses that a larger majority of NEW
black membership comes from Africa and the Caribbean Islands.] [Discusses our
heartless way of treating African multiple wives issue]
NEED TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE
And what I’m saying is, if so, I’m not talking about those various ethno-cultural contexts.
I haven’t said anything about “the U.S.” It’s not a term I typically employ when talking about race.
I haven’t used the term “racist whiteness.”
I don’t know why “1997” is a significant date in the history of race.
I do. I am an impoverished victim of the race system. There’s so little I do know, particularly a) how did white supremacy begin, and b) what do white people say about non-white people when Black people are not around?
Q: When you say, “These guys looked more Asian than they looked white,” please explain: What do you mean, in each case?
Q: What do you mean by “racism”? Please define the term.
Q: What do you mean by “racial attributes”? Please define the term.
Again, I don’t know what you mean when you say, “in the US,” as this pertains to racism. It’s not a term I ever use.
Q: By the above statement, do you mean that there are places, in the known universe, where:
a) …people do not understand what white people are; i.e., where this term has no commonly, or generally, understood meaning?
If so, where is this place, and who are these people; i.e., what do they call themselves, how many of them exist, etc.?
b) …people do not understand what non-white people are; i.e., where this term has no commonly, or generally, understood meaning?
If so, where is this place, and who are these people; i.e., what do they call themselves, how many of them exist, etc.?
c) …non-white people dominate white people—where non-white people overrule white people’s decisions, in all areas of activity: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war—and the white people are unable to do anything about this fact?
If so, where is this place, and who are these people; i.e., what do they call themselves, mutually, how many of them exist, etc.?
Q: What’s that?
Q: In the time period you are discussing, are “Spain,” “Portugal,” “both Americas,” “Florida,” “Oceania,” “Brits,” “North America,” “Canada,” “Australia,” “India,” “Africa,” and “French” dominated by:
a) White people, or
b) People who aren’t white?
In other words, in these places, are the people with the last word on what can be done, or not done, in all nine areas of people activity—economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war—white, or non-white?
I’m sure you’re correct. I don’t read nearly enough.
So, let me ask you this:
Q: A “British” ship is full of non-white slaves. The slaves don’t like the way the trip is going, so they start to attack the “British.”
Meanwhile, a “Spanish,” “French,” and “Portugese” ship, each also full of non-white slaves, come across the struggle going on.
Do the “Spanish,” “French,” and/or “Portugese” ships:
a) Ignore the “British,” and keep sailing?
b) Help the “British”?
b) Help the non-white slaves?
“A vast amount of culture” practiced by whom?
Q: What does what you’ve just said have to do with my statement?
No, actually, you keep trying to do that.
In this post, alone, just thus far, you’ve mentioned “white on black US slavery and segregation,” and/or subjects related to the same, at least four different times. (I suspect that there are more such references, below.)
I’ve not done this in any of the posts I’ve written to you, or to @Sirje. Your eyes—perhaps even your mind—may be making you see things that are simply not there….
Q: Explain this.
In other words, why aren’t the “immigrants from African culture” considered white, while you, “a Ukrainian Jew with Middle-Estern roots” are considered Black?
In other words, how did this happen? Who made these decisions? On what bases—all of them—were they made?
Were the most powerful people involved in these decisions white, or non-white?
That is the sixth time you’ve raised subjects ostensibly related to “white on black US slavery and segregation.”
I have not done so.
Um, no. I’m assuming that when steak gets stuck in your throat, you gag.
"Holodomor?" I wasn’t familiar with the word, but thanks for introducing me to it.
"How about Stalinist prison camps?" Yes.
"Some of my relatives dealt with all of these." I never fail to be amazed at how crappy people can be to each other.
My condolences to your family for the loss of loved ones under such horrible, human conditions.
Yes. For example, you said:
I don’t know how you know what other white people think. You’d have to explain that to me, and I expect that you can, since, you’ve said, you’re white.
However, I took your statement at face value, and said, in so many words, “You don’t have to think about things that are automated.”
Put another way, white people don’t have to think about race because they have Black people to do that for them.
White supremacy is a global system. So, when I make the statements that I’ve made, I take them to be true throughout the known universe.
This is why you don’t see me saying anything about “white on black US slavery and segregation,” as you have at least nine times, all while trying to say that this is what I am doing.
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Thank you for the suggestion.
The following one requires some set-up. Here’s what happened.
Then, I said:
Then I showed eight images and/or videos of the following:
• The scarred back of an enslaved non-white person
• White and non-white drinking fountains
• A Ku Klux Klan group photo
• An “alt-right,” “neo-Nazi” gathering
• A graph comparing Black / white median wealth
• An all-white law partnership group montage
• An TV ad for skin lighteners
• A news piece on the 2015 chokehold police killing of Eric Garner
Then I said:
“If your answer to this question is ‘Yes,’”—in other words, if you’re saying “this ‘new civil rights’ context” reminds people that they are Black or white" more than these eight images and/or videos—“please kindly explain and support that response with examples.”
In other words:
a) Explain what “this ‘new civil rights’ context” is.
b) In each of the eight cases, show how “this ‘new civil rights’ context” reminds people that they are Black or white" more than these eight images and/or videos.
That was “the assignment.”
Let’s see how you did:
You began by saying:
I don’t know what that means.
Q: Please explain the term.
Then, you said:
You don’t appear able to even follow your own line of questioning. I strongly suspect that you are “Chicago Police Department-ing” your way out of this. (I trust that this is not your tactic for my other Qs:.)
You did not say, “No Black person’s back looks like that, does it?”, etc.
You said, "this “new civil rights” context … fixates on race. It reminds everyone that they are black or white."
Now, I’m dumb enough to know that “contexts” don’t act: People act, and those people are either white, or non-white.
I’m also dumb enough to know that you probably weren’t arguing that white people “fixate on race,” or that white people “remind everyone that they are black or white.”
So, I said, "You’re saying non-white people ‘remind everyone that they are black or white’…more than this; i.e., white supremacy?
And you ducked.
Your answer is a non-sequitur. Arkdrey, you ran for the hills.
Please try again, and please answer the question as it was asked.
How familiar are you with the term bloviate?
You just said:
Virtually every Nigerian I’m a client of, or who is a client of mine… are doing just as well, or better than I do.
a) Are “Nigerians” white, or non-white?
b) How do you know the answer to a)? In other words, have you asked them, or did you surmise this, and, if the latter, how did you do so, step-by-step?
c) If non-white, why? In other words, for what purposes are they deemed “non-white”?
d) When you say that they “are doing just as well, or better than [you] do,” what do you mean?
For example, because some “are doing just as well, or better than [you] do,” what types of things happen to you, that don’t happen to them, in economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war, that show they “are doing just as well, or better than [you] do”?
Name several, then we’ll talk.
Wow: I knew that this was coming, but I didn’t know we would get here this soon.
Typically, I would say to non-white people reading here that, if a white person tells you, “There isn’t any ‘race system’ in place today,” STRONGLY suspect that he or she is a White Supremacist.
You should do this, the way Adam & Eve should have strongly suspected they were talking to The Devil, when the serpent said, “Ye shall not surely die.”
Please, Arkdrey: Answer each Q:clearly, completely, thoroughly, and, especially, simply: I’m not that smart or educated.
Q: You say “There isn’t any ‘race system’ in place today.”
If there was a “race system” in place today, what would be different, today, as it pertains, comparatively, to white people and non-white people, in each of these areas: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war?
If there isn’t any ‘race system’ in place today, then why did you mention “Nigerians,” in that comment, above?
Please, again, be very thorough in your answer.
We’ll address this after your response to all of the questions—every question marked by, and/or contiguous with, a bold Q:—that I’ve asked in this post.
Q: What “has to be explicit in the law as such”?
What do you mean by “the law”? To what are you referring, when you use that term?
Please explain what you mean.
By saying “fellow leftists,” you’re suggesting that I am one.
Q: When did I say that I was a “leftist,” whatever that is?
Should I add this to your “white on black US slavery and segregation” score?
I’m not sure, but I suspect that this answer is another way of saying, “I meant none of that crap I said. It was just a little flourish I added, in the spirit of bonhomie,” or words to that general race effect.
If you’re like most white people, and based on your statements you certainly seem to be, the non-white people in your world probably do not tell you their real feelings about racism.
They don’t, because you are a client of theirs. They depend on you, needfully exchange with you, and they understand that white people are, to use a term that’s been popularized lately, fragile.
Thus, they probably mostly avoid the subject. They do so because what they’ve found is that—much as when a person has sex with another person—if you’re Black, and tell a white person what you really think about race, the relationship changes.
You warble that you have not changed my mind. But what this also implies is that you have not changed yours, either.
However, the difference is that you can probably go for the rest of your life and never have to say the word “racism” again, or even think about it. Ask your Nigerian clients if they are so assured.
If you may notice, I try to be as extensive as I can, and I forego tracing of the thread in order to have a detailed response. I also ask you to answer my direct questions that up to now you’ve simply avoided.
#1 from the above is a viable aspiration in context of the ideal, but it’s difficult to mediate in a pure subjective context of “feeling mistreated”, and that’s why we have a legal system based on specifically outlined contractual agreements which set collective context for fairness. Hence, it’s a more complex conversation than saying “Justice is about making sure no one is mistreated”. As a metaphor, should I feel mistreated if I lose 10 of of 10 chess games consistently?
hence, we get to discuss #2, which IS NOT JUSTICE and IS MERCY AND CHARITY. Justice, mercy, and charity are three completely different semantic concepts, and in recent context of human relationships and a very extreme dose of Marxist ideology, mercy and charity become the demanded form of justice.
Of course, we want to live in a more merciful and charitable setting where we take care of those who are unable to take care of themselves. But it’s a far more nuanced and complex conversation that you are having on that subject.
In short, and again, mercy and charity IS NOT justice, and these are different concepts. That’s the semantic switch and bate problem that we are having in conversation such as this, because people think that lack of mercy or charity IS lack of justice, and they feel mistreated and begin demanding both.
Again, you are not making sense when in comes to both linguistic convention and semantic necessity that requires coherent concepts. Culture is about functional behavior rules. I’ve pointed out that what you would call “white people” have different functional behavior rules that fall on a rather broad spectrum of beliefs, habits, and attitudes.
You seem to be suggesting that all of these converge on their opinions about what to do with, let’s say, black people in jail.
A question for you:
Historically, it’s people in black communities who lead the charge to clean these up and lock up the dealers and addicts who were raiding and stealing anything and everything for a hit of heroine or crack. Are those black people now become a part of what you call “white supremacy” ?
It seems that you judge the aspects of what you call “white supremacy” by one’s cultural alignment towards ideology and not a skin color. So, if you hear something like this:
Is Morgan Freeman a part of your ideological “white supremacy” because he thinks that the best way to deal with racism is by instead focusing on our humanity and forego the skin color as the most important context?
My final summary - The members of a sport’s team play by the rules of a playbook. Each team member must understand the rules of the game, which also apply to the opposing team. I think you know where I’m going with this…
We quote the angels’ proclamation at Christmas time, but we get it wrong. The proclamation does not declare “peace on earth and good will to all”. There can be no peace on earth as it is now. The actual translation is “Peace on earth to men of good will.” It’s all about our intentions.
Can you explain by what you you mean by that in a more detail? I’m not sure I’m understanding your position clearly.
Why wouldn’t you talk about it or take these into account? If it’s the FUNCTION that you are concerned with, then if I showed you a function that you get to “hear but not see”, would you auto-ascribe that “function” to black or white skin? What if a person of color if “functioning” in a way that you see a function of the dubious “white supremacy”. What would that mean? Are they “white” :)? Do notice any lack of coherence of this conceptual framework?
[quote=“harryallen, post:346, topic:18511”]
I haven’t used the term “racist whiteness.” I don’t know why “1997” is a significant date in the history of race. [/quote]
History of race? :). Let me explain in a way that again dispels the absurd notion of “white colonialism” in a way that should be clear to you.
Where I immigrated from - Ukraine is an area of people for constant historical quest for political Independence. We really been a country for a very brief period in our national history, hence it tends to be a mess when it comes to present-day economic condition.
“White people of Ukraine” didn’t own black slaves or sailed around the world in a manner that comedy clip you have posted would point out. Yet, the “white people” is framed in such a way in which it doesn’t matter which “white people” you are referring to… all of them end up being complicit.
So, even though I came from a Jewish background on top of constant oppression history of Ukraine in general… and I land on North American continent in the year of 1997 much poorer that virtually all black people in US I lived with… you view me through the lens of that of “colonial imperialism” and “white supremacy”.
How does that factor into your quest for “balance of justice”?
So, you are projecting assumption on things that you don’t know?
I’m speaking to your conceptual understanding of “white people”. So, I mean just that. What you think of as “white”, these guys looked Asian.
Racism in its simplest form is an assumption that people who look like you are superior to those who don’t, which in mind of that ideology, justifies treatment of these people as “less human” solely based on color of one’s skin, or different shape of one’s head… which subsequently results in preferential treatment and attitudes given to people who look like you, and distrust and lack of comparable treatment to people who don’t.
Race is a spectrum, hence it’s an abstract idea of human mind that needs to chunk reality in distinguishable attributes. Hence, differentiating race can be subjective, unless there are some strict scientific parameters… so just like with color below:
I could ask, where does color yellow “begin” on the chart above? Well, the problem is that each time you would point to the “beginning of yellow”, there’s a gradient continuum that could be arguably more of a “beginning” of yellow than what you end up pointing to, until we are in a clearly “orange” territory… but then it’s far from yellow. Likewise, under different lighting conditions colors shift.
So it is with racial attributes. The are only as distinct as you make these out to be distinct.
I don’t really see these as more important than cultural presets.
a) …people do not understand what white people are; i.e., where this term has no commonly, or generally, understood meaning?
There are places and individuals who never get to see drastic racial variance, hence they only have context of “people”. That’s more of a question for cultural anthropologist who outline encounters with these tribes or people.
I don’t think that we don’t see differences in appearance. People understand what “white people” are if they have conceptual reference of what it means, just like they understand what fat people are, or they have some subjective preferences for what they would call “ugly” or “beautiful”. When someone says “ugly person”, we can conjure up an image… which generally is associated with a members of our race.
But, amplifying these subjective perception and attaching it to ideologies as though that’s what should drive our human relationships… is where the problem lies.
Again, it’s a very strange spectrum. My wife is from Philipines, and she complains about this constantly… since there’s a “more white” concept in Philopino culture, just like there’s a “more white” concept in black culture or any other culture you encounter.
At times I’m not really sure there’s a viable difference in some mixed racial cases where it’s “both” and “neither”. And, I think we do need more people like that in our world as per Gandhi, who thought that the only way for eliminating caste societal structure in India, for example, is by merging of two castes via “rebellious marriages” that produce children that become “caste paradox” that reduces the concept into conceptual absurdity.
Hmm… again, you are loading this question with parameters that don’t apply to my views of personal responsibility and individual context for freedom that has little to do with race. I don’t see any country in the world where any race is unable to carve out some contextual freedom of live their lives according to their preferences.
There will always be broader context of decisions by “ethnic majority” that will dominate political context. For example, “white decision” doesn’t dominate cultural landscape of china. They get to reject and ban films they don’t like. They get to cut off and dictate what internet content flows over their wires. They get to ban the religions they don’t see fit into their national context. But that doesn’t make “white people” in that country oppressed or lacking freedom of operating within the parameters of that cultural setting, even though they are cultural minority.
And such is the case in any country, even the most oppressive ones. I have Jewish heritage, and “our” cultural perspective gave “us” context for relative success in any setting, even the most oppressive ones.
The same with Asian Americans in the US, which succeed fairly fast in spite of being racial minority that was historically oppressed and is severely under-represented in virtually all scopes of media, government, etc.
Period in history underlined by colonial expansion of European nations.
Again, you have an oversimplified view of race, especially as you ignore ethnic diversity, that seems count along the binary lines of two “white” and “the rest” racial colors.
Ethnically, Europe was fairly diverse, especially the part of continental Europe that made travel and trade more viable. So, you would find a broader spectrum of ethnicity than what you would think of a typical “white people”. Here’s what King Ferdinand of Spain looked like:
And that would be something along the lines of “hispanic/ non-white” that many people would identify with today. And that’s the nation that colonized the US first, and which colonies established slave trade in the south, until Britain took over.
In fact, the concept of the “unified white race” was rejected in 17th century Europe, since these people didn’t consider themselves to be “like the other”. It may come as a surprise to you, but the concept of “whiteness” is a relatively recent concept, and didn’t originate with self-identification of “white people”. None of the colonists self-identified as “white”. They generally ran with ethno-cultural context that they pledged allegiance to. They didn’t think in terms of their “whiteness” like you are attempting to frame it to be.
So, no, “white men” didn’t dominate all of the scope of colonization or even choices of colonized territories were much more nuanced than what you are present it to be. In the academia, it’s a very well-known setting and history. Of course, it’s highly popular to align oneself with the newfound context for “whiteness”, which again, is a political tool more than it is a viable reality. Ethno-racial context for cultural dominance is far more complex than what you are attempting to paint it.
Please, take a course on European history as it relates to the progressive history of where these people are from in the first place, and you may recognize that there is no dubious “whiteness” you are talking about. It doesn’t exist anymore than “blackness” exist. Some people in the past forced a lot of people into “blackness”, and now to counter that there’s the opposite spectrum of “whiteness” that’s made responsible for that.
Racism implies supremacy, because it is constructed as a system of domination. It is not “two-way,” as many white people imagine. As I said: A “two-way racism system” would decohere faster that a torus bubble.
This is what Aamer Rahman said with such great humor and style in his reverse racism joke. Did you even listen to and pay attention to what he said?
If your answer is yes, a question: Do you think he was in “white on black US slavery and segregation” when he told it?
In other words, what country could he have not been in, because no English speakers there would understand the thrust of the joke? Tell me, and, in each instance, tell me why.
What I’m saying is if you sat these multi-millionaire, ultra-high-achieving Black athletes down, and asked one question…
“How much, and in what ways, does, or did, racism affect your life and career?”
…you could fill at least an entire hour, and you would not have to ask another question. You might fill two hours, if the men felt comfortable, were speaking with a Black male interviewer, had time, and felt a need to be brutally honest.
What I’m also saying, is this: If you added #6 to the room—Dirk Nowitzki—he would probably not say anything. As well, the other five athletes would not talk as much, or as long.
Now, why is this, and how do I know it? Under what conditions does the above make any sense? Because this is what would happen. So, why?
I’m not sure that this is relevant to my point.
I’m sure that this is not responsive to my argument.
It’s not racist, because I can’t be.
It’s also not because this is not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is what I’ve said, in the context I meant: The great differences between white people, individually, more or less vanish, from a racial perspective, when you take them as a whole. The most racist of them, and the least racist of them, are not far enough apart to make a significant difference in the field.
This is why Black people say things like, “I prefer the South over the North, because, when they’re racist to you in the South, they’re racist to your face, not behind your back.” What they’re saying is, it’s racist all over, but there is a little variation there that I can better tolerate.
What this means for Black people, is that we pretty much expect that, anywhere we go, we cannot be assured that we will not experience direct racism (white supremacy). If the background radiation was not so smooth, we would be able to identify places, in the known universe, where non-white people rarely or never had racist experiences. I’ve never heard of such a location. Have you? If not, why?
I’m not sure what you mean, but I will keep reading and responding as I have.
Why do you think that this happens?
You seem to be talking, again, about “white on black US slavery and segregation.”
OK. After step 1, what did white people do, collectively, re: Black people? Anything at all?
Please quote, verbatim, the stereotypes I’ve asserted about white people. Please list all of them.
It only doesn’t make sense if you frame the context as “all of these things remind me that there’s racism against black people”.
What I’ve pointed out to is that there IS NO singular “white or black”, which is a false dichotomy and non-nonsensical binary distinction even in the tones of skin!
I work in the visual effects industry, and the “tonal correction” range for black skin is the same as for white, since it’s an overlapping skin tone in the “orange-red” spectrum of color that only varies by how much light it either absorbs or reflects, making it darker or lighter.
The context for our conversation that you are framing is that of a “unified black” and “unified white”, with black dominating white, which is what I’m pointing to that you need to constantly remind me of in order to shift conversation towards some “consolidated” way of looking at complex ethno-culrual settings with absolute lack of nuance related to these settings apart by holding up a piece of white paper and seeing how closely it resembles somone’s skin color.
Hence, your lines of questioning breaks down along similar lines “Are they black? Were they white?”. Black and White (colored) is a context of AMERICAN SEGREGATION SYSTEM, and while you are correct that you are not bringing it up directly, that’s where you are shifting the context of that uniform approach to ethnicity to… to the shades of skin tone that you attach some dubious “function” to.
And while I absolutely sympathize with injustice of American slavery and segregation, even in a forced context of black/white that it existed, it was more nuanced than you are painting it to be as some form of binary context.
When I point out that :
You shift the conversation about race to the binary context of “white and non-white” that’s only found in limited context of US history during the era of segregation which painted race in such manner.
You invoke that context with virtually every question that you ask that can only make sense in a dichotomy of monolithic “black/white” stereotypical approach to humanity and ethno-racial difference.
So, I pointed out that you are no longer living in that context, and that conversation about race should be more nuanced than claiming that all of these examples that you brought up remind all of us about “who’s the boss”… and it’s “white people”. There isn’t “white people” or “black people” that exist as a broader category that we can viably dissect via statistical data and correlate some viable causal links.
That would be like taking a survey of people who don’t have diabetes, and then figuring out that all of them eat almonds… and then claim that eating almonds prevent diabetes.
The sooner we get past this false dichotomy, the better it will be for us all.