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.
You said:
In response:
I haven’t said anything about “the U.S.” It’s not a term I typically employ when talking about race.
You said:
In response:
I haven’t used the term “racist whiteness.”
I don’t know why “1997” is a significant date in the history of race.
I said:
You said:
In response:
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?
You said:
In response:
Q: When you say, “These guys looked more Asian than they looked white,” please explain: What do you mean, in each case?
You said:
In response:
Q: What do you mean by “racism”? Please define the term.
You said:
In response:
Q: What do you mean by “racial attributes”? Please define the term.
You said:
In response:
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.
Also:
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.?
You said:
In response:
Q: What’s that?
You said:
In response:
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?
You said:
In response:
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?
You said:
In response:
“A vast amount of culture” practiced by whom?
I said:
You said:
In response:
Q: What does what you’ve just said have to do with my statement?
You said:
In response:
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….
You said:
In response:
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?
You said:
In response:
That is the sixth time you’ve raised subjects ostensibly related to “white on black US slavery and segregation.”
I have not done so.
I said:
You said:
In response:
Um, no. I’m assuming that when steak gets stuck in your throat, you gag.
You said:
In response:
7-0.
You said:
In response:
"Holodomor?" I wasn’t familiar with the word, but thanks for introducing me to it.
"Holocaust?" Yes.
"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.
You said:
In response:
8-0.
I said:
You said:
In response:
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.
You said:
In response:
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.
You said:
In response:
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
You said:
In response:
Thank you for the suggestion.
The following one requires some set-up. Here’s what happened.
You said:
I said:
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.
Then:
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:
In response:
I don’t know what that means.
Q: Please explain the term.
Then, you said:
In response:
MAJOR FAIL.
MAJOR FAIL.
MAJOR FAIL.
MAJOR FAIL.
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.
You said:
In response:
How familiar are you with the term bloviate?
You said:
In response:
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.
Qs:
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.
You said:
I said:
You said:
In response:
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.
You said:
In response:
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.
You said:
In response:
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?
You said:
In response:
Q: Why?
You said:
In response:
Please explain what you mean.
You said:
In response:
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.
You said:
In response:
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?
You said:
In response:
I’m not sure that this is relevant to my point.
You said:
In response:
I’m sure that this is not responsive to my argument.
You said:
In response:
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?
You said:
In response:
I’m not sure what you mean, but I will keep reading and responding as I have.
You said:
In response:
Why do you think that this happens?
You said:
In response:
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?
You said:
In response:
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.
I don’t think that there’s “two way” racism. There are people who think that that their skin color is what gives them a distinctive superiority over other, and there are who don’t. The fact that some people succeed in banding together and formalize and enforce these beliefs doesn’t mean that unsuccessful attempts or “closeted belief” are not a viable context for racism. You can’t have one without another.
The job of a comedian isn’t to “tell truth” or provide viable context. The job of the comedian is to conjure up absurd juxtapositions by limiting context in which joke becomes funny.
I could post a wide variety of race and ethnicity-related jokes. The fact that these are understood and laughed at doesn’t in any way reflect on the reality or logical coherence of the subject matter.
If I was to sit down with Aamer Rahman for a formal conversation, I’m fairly sure that I would be fairly quickly deconstruct this idea and illusion of “consolidated whiteness” colonizing the world and wrecking havoc. Hence, your referring to “where this joke will not be understood” is rather puzzling when you are continually avoiding the point that I’m making.
There are no monolith of “white people”. There are people with varying cultural backgrounds that don’t look or behave the same way, and that have varying beliefs that all fall under category of “white race”, and such category is purely subjective.
The same goes for “black people”.
So, when I would ask Aamer Rahman… who are “white people”. Were Spanish colonizers white? How about Portuguese? Were they white? How about lighter-skinned Arabs in Northern Africa and some parts of the Southern Europe during the post-Islamic conquest? Were they white too? How about Jews who dominate socio-political and creative industries of the modern America? Are they white? They surely became “white” the moment they stepped in the leadership seats. They were not white in the past.
So, you see, that’s the reason why you have to reduce “whiteness” to “function”, because categorizing “whiteness” purely by means of skin color… clearly fails to underline the “uniformity” of approach to making jokes about “white people” .
First of all, you are not addressing my point or my objection. My point was about projecting success or failure as structured by the system based on the skin color of the faces you get to see as a dominant part of that hierarchy. So, you can’t assume that because most of the top 50 scorers have dark skin, therefore ALL people with darker skin are better at basketball.
Again, my argument is against the statistical approach that you apply to racism by appealing extremes of human experience and ignoring the mediums, especially when it comes to the present-day forms of racism.
So, again, if we randomly pull people with different skin tones and evaluate why some of them have higher position in society than other… there will be a list of overlapping categories that we can fill that all coincide with each other, and may coincide with race. But it would be erroneous to conclude that race is the DOMINANT CAUSAL FACTOR that indicates dominance of these individuals in any given context of society.
It is relevant, because you are attempt to “level” all of the differences between what you label as “white people” when it comes to their individual attitudes towards what you would describe as “black people”, in which case you pin the two extremes of “black failure” vs another extreme of “white success”, and you are missing the fact that you can’t statistically correlate complexity of these solely based on basis of skin color.
So, what you are telling me is that what you would do is:
Ignore their ethno-cultural and even religious differences
Mentally judge all of them similarly them based on your projected perception of “whiteness”
Think that such view of people is justified, because, according to you, these girls are “representative” of the system of “white supremacy” that unfairly dominates everyone else and is “the greatest sin”.
You really don’t see how the above is problematic?
May it Rest in PhD’s.
Apparent cause of death,
terminal degrees.
Lovely concept, if you don’t “get me/it”, that means you are (insert pet stereotype).
I mean, i understand the OT, somewhat. I understand some of the vinegar immediately ensuing, I even get that I have not walked in the shoes that are trying to climb out of the shadows of racism.
But I have also met the snarling face that all but explicits that until such time that there is confirmed Black Supremacy, all of my empathy, all of my angst, all of my sorrow, all of my best attempts to surmount this scourge upon mankind is less than spit and indicative of my supposed white supremacy.
Um, ok, but I’ve no compunction to either share my personal journey here (yes, it goes back to being a young innocent boy whose best friend happened to be blackest of obsidian, -and i am aware my sharing this is lower than spit on spit, at least according to some here- it goes back to my use of the n-word (after all, i had never seen an honest to goodness African before; i didnt know that his brothers could hurl that epithet as if it were meaningless, but the one time I did i got struck in the mouth hard). It goes back to spending my own money (as a dirt poor scandinavian 10 year old) and ordering books from SBS, to understand best as I could, these confounding things.
But none of that matters, none of that is enough for men here who carry a chip bigger than the world, and have useless dulled Bunyans ax. I wonder how many lurkers on this thread wonder, as do i, how many brothers and sisters, black and white alike, have been alienated, denigrated and set back from the task at hand, to wit, doin’ each our own level best to keep the ground at the shadow of the cross level, despite the seismic labor pains.
I have a number of black friends who use the “N” word like it is their NAME
when referring to some of THE persons they know.
And several will do it in my presence. Will say the “N” word when speaking
about them instead of their Given Name.
PLEASE SEE Adventist Today on their recent article of the History of
Discrimination in the SDA church. When Ellen wrote a book on “The
Southern Work” there were black and white members meeting in one
church together. After she died, it was no longer available.
Testimonies Vol 9 was assembled by a Southern Segregationist and
so our school stopped allowing Black students and White students to
attend the same school, College.
Also gives the Hx of the Black Conferences even though the Black
Pastors DID NOT request it be done.
Discusses all the BAD things that T9 brought into the church in treatment
of blacks by our institutions.
A VERY SAD Read.
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.
