Is it? If most of them are white nationalists but some aren't then the characterisation is wrong? Things are either 100% true or not at all in your world? 'Trump’s voters — and his mob — are disproportionately White' - is this factual, or is it not?
I don't know....I doubt anyone does. When you demonize people for who they voted for....they tend to stop telling you what they believe.
This is exactly what she does -? Are you saying that you literally don't understand the words on the page, or that you don't agree with them?
No....it's not. There's an actual process she can follow that would lead to understanding.
She can go ask them why they voted for Trump.
I know.....crazy, right? It's a lot of work and what do you do if you find out that the reason wasn't some vague undefined concept you're pushing?
Do you quite literally not understand the meaning of these sentences? Or if that is not what you are saying, what are you saying? If it's not that you don't understand but that you disagree, that is another question, but are you saying here that you are simply unable to understand these words?
...many Black and brown voters have family and friends who fervently backed the MAGA policy agenda, including its delusions and conspiracy theories...
Most of his policies fell in the normal range of the conservative side of the political spectrum.
I obviously can't remember every single one....
Which policies involved delusions and conspiracy theories?
What are we to make of Tarrio — and, more broadly, of Latino voters inspired by Trump? And what are we to make of unmistakably White mob violence that also includes non-White participants? I call this phenomenon multiracial whiteness — the promise that they, too, can lay claim to the politics of aggression, exclusion and domination...
What makes it white mob violence? White people?
I'm joking....obviously this is where she wants to associate the two.
When black people engage in mob violence....does she call it multiracial white mob violence?
Trump, by contrast, knows nothing of the history of Latinos in the United States and rarely even pretends to find value in Latinos’ distinct identities. Rather than offering his non-White voters recognition, Trump has offered them multiracial whiteness.
When and how? I'm certain he's never used her phrase "multiracial whiteness".
How does one offer this still undefined concept.
Rooted in America’s ugly history of white supremacy, indigenous dispossession and anti-blackness, multiracial whiteness is an ideology invested in the unequal distribution of land, wealth, power and privilege — a form of hierarchy in which the standing of one section of the population is premised on the debasement of others. Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.
Is she saying that is the reason Latinos voted for Trump? Because they felt he was going to allow them to be racist and dehumanize people? Because they believe in the superiority of the white race lol?
What exactly is the reason for Latinos voting for Trump here?
Multiracial whiteness promises Latino Trump supporters freedom from the politics of diversity and recognition. For voters who see the very act of acknowledging one’s racial identity as itself racist, the politics of multiracial whiteness reinforces their desired approach to colorblind individualism.
Is she against the idea of colorblind individualism?
The idea that is based upon the fact that race includes no inherent characteristics and should be treated as such?
In the politics of multiracial whiteness, anyone can join the MAGA movement and engage in the wild freedom of unbridled rage and conspiracy theories.
Anyone can join??? It doesn't exclude people???
Here, the politics of exclusion, violence and demonization are available to all.
Here the failure of basic logic is available to all.....
Is this a group that excludes people? Or does it allow anyone to join?
It can't be both.
This woman is a joke. What is her degree in?
If you want to speak Spanish and celebrate a quinceañera in your family, go ahead. If you want to be a Proud Boy, be a Proud Boy. Trump doesn’t care. As long as you love him, he’ll love you.
Is this a bad thing? Are we not free to believe as we wish?
America’s racial divide is not simply between Whites and non-Whites. Thinking in terms of multiracial whiteness helps us recognize that much of today’s political rift is a division between those who are drawn to and remain invested in a politics of whiteness and those who seek something better.
What are "politics of whiteness"?
Did Trump do something exclusive for white people that I missed?
I'm getting close to quoting the whole passage here. Are you saying that you literally don't understand the meaning of these words?
It's a few different things. I definitely don't know what "politics of whiteness" are....
There's a communist affirmation of pure equality.
There's an attack on free speech.
There's an attack on the idea that we should attempt to disregard race in our dealings with people since nothing can be assumed from it.
Again, we're not talking about whether or not you agree with anything she is saying, but are you saying that you are simply unable to understand the meaning of what is said? If so, which sentences from the above do you literally not understand?
The phrase politics of whiteness. The attacks on completely reasonable beliefs that aren't extremist or racist in any way.
The reference to history does not connect with the other sentences in any way.
If that really is the case I will try and simplify it:
She associates Trump's movement with a political outlook of aggression, exclusion and domination. She calls this political outlook 'the politics of whiteness' - do you understand these two sentences?
Who did Trump attempt to exclude or dominate?
It's not clear what she is referring to here. As for aggression...that's subjective.
She says that this politics of whiteness is rooted in - has it's origins in - comes out of - is based on, however you want to put it - the history of white supremacy in the US. While your reference to Marx and Smith might bear some tangential relationship to your own thoughts about this,
She associated it with unequal distribution of wealth.
That's everyone worldwide.
It's not that I don't know what the unequal distribution of wealth means....but if you have ever attempted to acquire anything of value, you have by description, engaged in whiteness.
Do you understand is the better question.
Her descriptions are so vague that they could apply to anyone.
Also I don't know what a history of white supremacy is.
Does that include any racist policies?
Does it include the formation of white supremacist groups?
Is it everything the US did.....ever?
I can't tell from her description.
. neither model has anything pertinent to add to what she is talking about, the basic reality that white European settlers, the people already living in the Americas and those people, mostly black Africans, who were brought there as slaves did not have, at the inception of the US as a colony and for most of its history thereafter, an equal footing.
In what regard? And why would they?
Is that something you expect to see happen at some point in history?
It hasn't....you could apply that to any distinct groups throughout all of recorded history. In each case....one of those groups had advantages.
Is this what passes as an insight to you? The blatantly obvious? Well I'm about to blow your mind....
All the people alive today....weren't even born at one point in history.
Chew on that completely obvious fact that adds nothing to the discussion.
What are you telling me here? History occurred? That at all times inequality exists?
What am I supposed to conclude?
What equality there is now represents a tiny fraction of the time since the first natives were killed by settlers and the first slaves arrived. Inequality between white European settlers - and to a lesser extent among white European settlers - and everyone else living there, by choice or otherwise, is a feature of almost the entire history of the US.
Yup.
And?
This is at least part of what she is referring to. Again, whether or not you agree with this is another question, but do you mean that you literally don't understand what is being said here?
I understand the words....it doesn't explain whiteness in any way to point out the blatantly obvious fact that inequality exists everywhere in all of history .
Bertran claims that this history of unequal opportunity represents the idea that white people have a privileged position in society (one that has been historically sound but which in recent decades has come under threat) and that this privilege is no longer based on ethnicity but on allegiance to its principles of 'exclusion, violence and demonization', elements of what she calls 'the politics of whiteness', hence through committing to these ideals a person of any ethnicity participates in this politics of whiteness. Again, whether or not you agree with this idea is another question, but do you literally not understand these words?
Oh ok....when were these principles defined by this political agenda?
I can't say I've listened to an entire Trump speech but if he says he is for exclusion (and anyone can join lol) violence and demonization....well at least this has some legitimacy as a new concept.
But then it emerged from Trump....not history....
Unless you mean in the broader sense like how everything that exists emerged from history lol.
The difference you seem to be making between 'understand' and 'redefine' is an act of your own imagination.
Words like "history" and "inequality" have meaning....
It's just too broad and applies to too many things to know what you're talking about.
No, not at all. For some reason that is all you are able to see. Whatever the reason for that, it has nothing to do with the actual words in the article.
And for some reason you still believe this is a concept? What won you over? It's complete lack of identifying features or that it can be used as an answer for anything because of its lack of coherence?