Now non-white people can be white

[Tom 1]

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 .

Where anywhere does anyone other than you talk about the whole of history? She clearly states that she is talking about this idea of 'whiteness' as something that arose out of the particular circumstances of US history. In what way is that not clear?

 

[Tom 1]

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.

What I am talking about, again, clearly, plainly and obviously, and what the articles are about, are the specific circumstances of history in the US. Did you think she was talking about something else?

 

[Tom 1]

What are you telling me here? History occurred? That at all times inequality exists?

What am I supposed to conclude?

It's rather obvious. Inequality equates to power dynamics. In the specific period of history in question, these power dynamics have historically been defined to a large extent by ethnicity. In recent decades, that link between power, privilege and ethnicity has begun to dissipate, and the means by which those on the powerful end of the scale assert their power (in any context) have also begun to change. Previously, sexual and physical violence were acceptable means of control, as were bogus notions about race and racial superiority. The impulse to dominate through crude means however has not disappeared, and its appeal, as Beltran also points out, is not limited to any ethnic group. In modern America the clearest recent advocate of this kind of thinking is Trump, he embodies this mentality in his public and private life, albeit in 'stealth mode' to some degree. This mentality is - very clearly - what Beltran is pointing to as the politics of whiteness, i.e. a political movement that represents those ideas which, in the relevant context (the US and its history, if that isn't clear), achieved their expression through white supremacy. Trump is not a white supremacist in the old sense, but he is a carry over of that way of thinking and acting, redefined for a modern age by the cultural norms of the moment. As there are no longer such clearly drawn ethnic barriers to being part of such a movement, anyone to whom it appeals can be part of it, hence the notion of 'multiracial whiteness', whiteness being, as above, the term that represents in the particular context of US history the dominance of white people over non-white people through various forms of coercion and sophistry and its modern day manifestations in groups like the proud boys. Your attempt to remove this entirely from its own context, which is clearly defined, indicates that you are not arguing in good faith. This is the context, the context used in every mention of the term 'whiteness' in anything that has been posted about it here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Can you stick to the topic please?

1) Do you understand the words and sentences in the article, or not?

Most.

2) If not, what particular words and sentences do you not understand?

The ones combined to form new and unbelievably vague concepts like whiteness.

Or however she is using white supremacy. It's as if she thinks history has one person moving it along and it's a white supremacist.

I cannot be sure though....she doesn't define it.

3) Do you understand what, from those words and sentences, is the idea of the person who expressed them?

No. It's too vague. If we were to include every group of people who ever displayed those characteristics at times....it's too many groups to count.

It lacks any distinguishing characteristics.

4) If not, why not? What is preventing you from reading and understanding the collections of words into sentences?

Can a group be exclusive but open to anyone? No. That's a contradiction.

I could apply her vague concept to any number of groups throughout the world and emerging from history and changing dynamically lol.

Can you give the soapbox stuff a rest please, we have a topic to discuss, not everything that might be possibly associated with it.

It's her concept...I'm more than willing to consider it.

But she doesn't seem capable of describing what makes it different from a gigantic group of things.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Where anywhere does anyone other than you talk about the whole of history? She clearly states that she is talking about this idea of 'whiteness' as something that arose out of the particular circumstances of US history. In what way is that not clear?

Well that history was the direct result of European history, which more or less has very close ties to the Mediterranean, Asian, and African history. I don't think it would be appropriate to call it the middle east back but the region we refer to as the middle east now had a big part to play to.

It's almost impossible to explain why the theory of race existed without going back thousands of years to some old Greek guys, their ideas and how those ideas developed.

But if you just want to talk about just native American and European interactions that's fine....

It's just not clear why.

 

[Tom 1]

Most.



The ones combined to form new and unbelievably vague concepts like whiteness.

Or however she is using white supremacy. It's as if she thinks history has one person moving it along and it's a white supremacist.

I cannot be sure though....she doesn't define it.



No. It's too vague. If we were to include every group of people who ever displayed those characteristics at times....it's too many groups to count.

It lacks any distinguishing characteristics.



Can a group be exclusive but open to anyone? No. That's a contradiction.

I could apply her vague concept to any number of groups throughout the world and emerging from history and changing dynamically lol.




It's her concept...I'm more than willing to consider it.

But she doesn't seem capable of describing what makes it different from a gigantic group of things.

Deflate the balloon a bit, narrow it down to what she is talking about, which is her 'whiteness' idea. This does not include 'is it similar to other things', 'is it totally different to anything else' etc. She is talking about a mentality that has translated into a series of societal, political and individual actions. Whether or not those actions are comparable to something else is not relevant to what she means by referring to those actions. In the past those actions were as we have already discussed, the things she refers to, in the present the mentality itself has undergone change but retains some of its characteristics, as previously discussed. All of these things are abundantly clear. If you don't like the term 'whiteness' you can think of something else. As she makes clear she is not talking about white people people in general. It would not be possible for this to be any clearer. I don't know where your objections come from but they don't reflect a response to what she is actually saying. A mentality is not ineluctably fixed to the brains of a certain ethnic group. As society has changed, the ways in which this particular mentality is expressed has also changed, as is made clear this means it is a mentality that is at the beginning of starting to lose it's ethno-specific relevance, for the obvious reason that overt racism is no longer popular. Perhaps, probably, this trend will continue, and at some point in the future the moniker 'whiteness' may become redundant as a means of indicating the evolution of this way of thinking, but for now it has some use in defining some elements of what makes up the whole Trump movement. Both articles are eminently easy to understand, but they are short. If you really want to understand the whole idea you can read a book about it, but these attempts to dodge around the idea and deny it any space are puzzling. It's as if you don't have any clear way of rebutting what she is saying, so instead you resort to disingenuous mal-interpretations and frequent tangents.

 

[Tom 1]

Well that history was the direct result of European history, which more or less has very close ties to the Mediterranean, Asian, and African history. I don't think it would be appropriate to call it the middle east back but the region we refer to as the middle east now had a big part to play to.

It's almost impossible to explain why the theory of race existed without going back thousands of years to some old Greek guys, their ideas and how those ideas developed.

But if you just want to talk about just native American and European interactions that's fine....

It's just not clear why.

It's not clear why? It's because - that is what she is talking about - ? She's talking about US history.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's rather obvious. Inequality equates to power dynamics.

No...

But go on...

In the specific period of history in question, these power dynamics have historically been defined to a large extent by ethnicity.

Why? Because that's the lense that you want to examine them through?

Why not wealth? Why not technological innovation? Why not the philosophical development that makes such things possible?

Why would you pick ethnicity?

In recent decades, that link between power, privilege and ethnicity has begun to dissipate, and the means by which those on the powerful end of the scale assert their power (in any context) have also begun to change.

This is a rather vague description....

What type of power are you talking about here?

Previously, sexual and physical violence were acceptable means of control, as were bogus notions about race and racial superiority.

Really? This looks like a giant step backwards towards tribalism to me.

The impulse to dominate through crude means however has not disappeared, and its appeal, as Beltran also points out, is not limited to any ethnic group.

We could even say it applies to Beltran herself since her invented term is clearly a negative moral characterization of a very large and diverse ethnic group based on nothing more than a difference of opinion and her own racist beliefs.

In modern America the clearest recent advocate of this kind of thinking is Trump, he embodies this mentality in his public and private life, albeit in 'stealth mode' to some degree. This mentality is - very clearly - what Beltran is pointing to as the politics of whiteness, i.e. a political movement that represents those ideas which, in the relevant context (the US and its history, if that isn't clear), achieved their expression through white supremacy.

Are you saying that all of US history was motivated by white supremacists ideology?

Did you ever actually study US history? How much of the writings of the early political and cultural leaders do you think concerned race or ethnicity?

Even if I just limited myself to the most influential events of US history...race relations are only a big factor in the Civil War and Civil Rights.

Trump is not a white supremacist in the old sense, but he is a carry over of that way of thinking and acting, redefined for a modern age by the cultural norms of the moment.

So not white supremacist.

What's the new definition?

As there are no longer such clearly drawn ethnic barriers to being part of such a movement,

Again, Trump's policies were nothing really unusual for typical conservatism.

So I'm not sure what movement you're referencing.

anyone to whom it appeals can be part of it, hence the notion of 'multiracial whiteness', whiteness being, as above, the term that represents in the particular context of US history the dominance of white people over non-white people through various forms of coercion and sophistry and its modern day manifestations in groups like the proud boys.

Sophistry lol...

Ok.

If you know what sophistry is then you should know that I know you don't have any real definition.

You're engaging in sophistry.

Your attempt to remove this entirely from its own context, which is clearly defined, indicates that you are not arguing in good faith.

There is no point in history that is uninfluenced by all the history that preceded it.

This is the context, the context used in every mention of the term 'whiteness' in anything that has been posted about it here.

I get that you're using the term to describe a group of people you don't like based on race.

The context was always clear .

You could have just agreed with me at the start.

 

[Tom 1]

No...

But go on...



Why? Because that's the lense that you want to examine them through?

Why not wealth? Why not technological innovation? Why not the philosophical development that makes such things possible?

Why would you pick ethnicity?




This is a rather vague description....

What type of power are you talking about here?



Really? This looks like a giant step backwards towards tribalism to me.




We could even say it applies to Beltran herself since her invented term is clearly a negative moral characterization of a very large and diverse ethnic group based on nothing more than a difference of opinion and her own racist beliefs.



Are you saying that all of US history was motivated by white supremacists ideology?

Did you ever actually study US history? How much of the writings of the early political and cultural leaders do you think concerned race or ethnicity?

Even if I just limited myself to the most influential events of US history...race relations are only a big factor in the Civil War and Civil Rights.



So not white supremacist.

What's the new definition?



Again, Trump's policies were nothing really unusual for typical conservatism.

So I'm not sure what movement you're referencing.



Sophistry lol...

Ok.

If you know what sophistry is then you should know that I know you don't have any real definition.

You're engaging in sophistry.




There is no point in history that is uninfluenced by all the history that preceded it.



I get that you're using the term to describe a group of people you don't like based on race.

The context was always clear .

You could have just agreed with me at the start.

We started a discussion on ‘is it clear what this person means’. You claim you are unable to understand what it means. That is what we are talking about. Unable to explain yourself, you have gone off on a series of tangents and now claim you were right - about what?

 

[Ana the Ist]

We started a discussion on ‘is it clear what this person means’. You claim you are unable to understand what it means. That is what we are talking about. Unable to explain yourself, you have gone off on a series of tangents and now claim you were right - about what?

Read the words I wrote....

Context is clear. This is a racist stating her racist beliefs...

Meaning is unclear. What makes these people different if you only distinguish them by race....but claim it's not about race?

Do you understand the difference between a context and meaning?

 

[anna ~ grace]

Interesting because what I see is people trying to redefine what terms mean to fit their own needs at any specific time. It has gotten to such a crazy level that we now have people who say that a black person who does not conform to the values that the majority of black people have is considered white. I think we should just stop with the labels and treat each person as the individual that they are. It is insulting to suggest that all black people or all white people or all brown people think alike and have a predictable profile from a values standpoint. Isn't that the very definition of racialism? I do not endorse people thinking they can broad brush anyone based on race.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Deflate the balloon a bit, narrow it down to what she is talking about, which is her 'whiteness' idea. This does not include 'is it similar to other things', 'is it totally different to anything else' etc.

That's because she preaches nonsense for money.

She is talking about a mentality

Oh good....we can stop there. Since we're talking about millions of people and she offered us no evidence at all....we can dismiss her openly and mock anyone foolish enough to agree.

She's not psychic. She can't speak intelligently about the mentality of millions of people based without any evidence.

I don't even have to point out that she repeatedly contradicts herself or starts with the conclusion.

The only question is why did you buy into it? Did you really believe it had validity? Do you also believe you can read minds?

 

[Tom 1]

That's because she preaches nonsense for money.

Your idea is that only academics who specialise in the totality of everything are worth their salt (if such a person could exist)? Specialised study is 'nonsense'?

 

[Tom 1]

Read the words I wrote....

Context is clear. This is a racist stating her racist beliefs...

Meaning is unclear. What makes these people different if you only distinguish them by race....but claim it's not about race?

Do you understand the difference between a context and meaning?

Putting together everything you have said, it is clear that you do actually understand what she is getting at, but that you don't like it and don't want to engage with it. Instead, you stand on the side lines throwing poorly aimed rocks, trying to change the subject and stop people saying things you don't like through disconnected bluster and a barrage of your own general notions. Whatever you are trying to say would be far more convincing if you would address her actual claims rather than simply making things up and going on about that instead. Bit of a waste of time, if you ask me.

 

[Tom 1]

That's because she preaches nonsense for money.



Oh good....we can stop there. Since we're talking about millions of people and she offered us no evidence at all....we can dismiss her openly and mock anyone foolish enough to agree.

She's not psychic. She can't speak intelligently about the mentality of millions of people based without any evidence.

I don't even have to point out that she repeatedly contradicts herself or starts with the conclusion.

The only question is why did you buy into it? Did you really believe it had validity? Do you also believe you can read minds?

Who said I agree with her? Even to have that discussion you'd need to stop playing about and address what she has to say.

 

[Tom 1]

Read the words I wrote....

These are your initial questions:

That makes sense to you?

I see that and immediately notice that whiteness never actually gets defined.

Would you be able to describe whiteness based on that paragraph?

What you 'notice' is something you don't like, which is why you have spent so much time bobbling on about a random selection of loosely related topics rather than addressing what the plain English in the two articles actually says.

 

[Ana the Ist]

These are your initial questions:

That makes sense to you?

I see that and immediately notice that whiteness never actually gets defined.

Would you be able to describe whiteness based on that paragraph?

Not in any meaningful way.

Imagine if you got a call...

"Sir, your daughter just got contacted by some matter that was moving at a dynamic speed, historically speaking, and she is seeking resolution which can happen anytime in the near future."

I'm sure you know what all those words mean. I'm sure you can explain any of them.

Can you tell me what happened to your daughter? No. Why not?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Who said I agree with her? Even to have that discussion you'd need to stop playing about and address what she has to say.

I can't address what she's saying. It's deliberately vague.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your idea is that only academics who specialise in the totality of everything are worth their salt (if such a person could exist)? Specialised study is 'nonsense'?

Some are for certain....

If your field of study involves CRT or makes it central....good chances it's not worth the paper it's printed on. CRT involves logical errors and the denial of evidence and it's importance regarding reality. It's built around anecdotes which aren't useful in describing the behavior of large groups of people.

It's not useful for anything. However, it is easy, and if you can figure out how to repeat it's dogma....you too can get a degree in the humanities.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Who said I agree with her? Even to have that discussion you'd need to stop playing about and address what she has to say.

Well let's start one part at a time....

The deaths of indigenous communities in the US specifically at the hands of Europeans.

We can actually examine the motives for this and when it happened. The results will ultimately change depending upon circumstances. We won't be able to say the reason was 1 thing....like white racism....without ignoring a giant heap of well documented evidence.

Why should we do that? Does that give a better understanding of history? Or does it just simplify it for some reason?