Black People Should Stop Expecting White America To 'Wake Up' To Racism

"There is of course no disputing that in modern Western society whites often oppress blacks and men often oppress women. This is bound to be the case in a social context in which people are forced to compete for scarce resources and to differentiate themselves from each other in any way which will accord them greater power, however illusory that power may be (nothing, after all, could be more pathetic than the belief that 'whiteness' confers personal superiority or that men are in some way to be valued more highly than women).

However, it is a conceptual mistake of the first magnitude to attribute the causes of such oppression to internal characteristics or traits of those involved. So long as sexism and racism are seen as personal attitudes which the individual sinner must, so to speak, identify in and root out of his or her soul, we are distracted from locating the causes of interpersonal strife in the material operation of power at more distal levels2. Furthermore, solidarity against oppressive distal power is effectively prevented from developing within the oppressed groups, who, successfully divided, are left by their rulers to squabble amongst themselves, exactly as Fanon detailed in the case of Algerians impoverished and embittered by their French colonial masters.

It is not that racist or sexist attitudes do not exist - they may indeed be features of the commentary of those who exercise or seek to exercise oppressive, possibly brutal proximal power. But that commentary is not the cause of the process that results in such proximal oppression and it is as futile to tackle the problem at that level as it is to try to cure 'neurosis' by tinkering with so-called 'cognitions' or 'unconscious motivation'.

This, I think, explains the otherwise puzzling success of 'political correctness' at a time when corporate power extended its influence over global society on an unprecedented scale. For this success was in fact no triumph of liberal thought or ethics, but rather the 'interiorizing', the turning outside-in of forms of domination which are real enough. The best-intentioned among us become absorbed in a kind of interior witch-hunt in which we try to track down non-existent demons within our 'inner worlds', while in the world outside the exploitation of the poor by the rich (correlating, of course, very much with black and white respectively) and the morale-sapping strife between men and women rage unabated.

Once again, we are stuck with the immaterial processes of 'psychology', unable to think beyond those aspects of commentary we take to indicate, for example, 'attitudes' or 'intentions'. The history of the twentieth century should have taught us that anyone will be racist in the appropriate set of circumstances. What is important for our understanding is an analysis of those circumstances, not an orgy of righteous accusation and agonised soul-searching..." (emphasis mine). Power, Responsibility and Freedom, David Smail.

When are people--liberal, moderate, conservative; left, center, right--going to stop giving credence to the concept of biological race?

Race discrimination? It is discriminating against a myth. It is discriminating against something that does not exist.

Non-racist people subconsciously discriminate against African-Americans? I would argue that, on the contrary, they are racist. If they believe that there are biological races within the human species then they are being racist.

The author of the article that inspired this thread asserts that a revolution is not needed, and will not happen anyway. I disagree. A revolution is needed. Not a revolution where white Americans suddenly all understand what it is like to be black in the United States of America. The revolution that is needed is one where everybody is made conscious of the fact that biological race is a myth. A myth created to justify exploitation. A myth used to divide us and undermine solidarity.

Forget about spending money developing, testing and implementing anti-discrimination training in government and business. Save money and have everybody read the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race". Here is some of what it says:


"In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species...

Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor...

As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each "race," linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought..."


It is a powerful myth. It is so powerful that we have college-educated people here discussing and arguing about it like it is something real.

It could have been anything, really. Instead of "blacks" and "whites" based on skin color it could have been "blues" and "greens" based on eye color. It is not difficult to imagine that this thread instead started with an article written by a "blue" about how it has been 50 years; the revolution where "greens" suddenly get it and see the institutional discimination against "blues" is not going to happen; "blues" are the only group in history that are believed to be able to succeed only under ideal conditions; and how "blues" can succeed within the system rather than changing the system.

It sounds foolish, doesn't it? Well, skin color is no less arbitrary than eye color. Yet, people are here having a debate that perpetuates the myth that humans are naturally divided into genetically distinct groups such as "black" and "white".

Do you really want to end race discrimination? If you really want to end race discrimination then stop giving credence to the concept of human biological race.

When I was spending time with with a black man about my age, we were working on a project together, and spending a little time together doing other things, and eventually having a financial arrangement between us, I never asked him how much time he spent around white people, but he did ask me, "You haven't spent much time around black people, have you?" It was when I was treating him like I would any other person that he asked this.

I began to recognize when he was trying to get away with something, or was preparing to do something contrary to our agreement, because he would get beligerant, and not listen to anything, even an answer to his questions.

If someone wishes to be treated as an equal, or with no regard to these characteristics, why would they get more angry when they ARE treated this way? Why would they think someone else should take up their culture, when they enter the other person's culture?

Avid said:

When I was spending time with with a black man about my age, we were working on a project together, and spending a little time together doing other things, and eventually having a financial arrangement between us, I never asked him how much time he spent around white people, but he did ask me, "You haven't spent much time around black people, have you?" It was when I was treating him like I would any other person that he asked this.

I began to recognize when he was trying to get away with something, or was preparing to do something contrary to our agreement, because he would get beligerant, and not listen to anything, even an answer to his questions.

If someone wishes to be treated as an equal, or with no regard to these characteristics, why would they get more angry when they ARE treated this way? Why would they think someone else should take up their culture, when they enter the other person's culture?

Click to expand...

I've had similar experiences. If you want to "hang" with someone who is black, you need to be up on black slang, aight? Word...

Avid said:

If someone wishes to be treated as an equal, or with no regard to these characteristics, why would they get more angry when they ARE treated this way? Why would they think someone else should take up their culture, when they enter the other person's culture?

Click to expand...

Simple answer: Some people have been taught that the white man owes them something.

I currently live in an area of the country which is 95% white. The natives here haven't had enough exposure to non-whites to become prejudiced. It's an endearing quality really. They just expect everyone to act the same ... and don't understand it when some non-white starts crying about discrimination.

NightHawkeye said:

Simple answer: Some people have been taught that the white man owes them something.

I currently live in an area of the country which is 95% white. The natives here haven't had enough exposure to non-whites to become prejudiced. It's an endearing quality really. They just expect everyone to act the same ... and don't understand it when some non-white starts crying about discrimination.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And when you have fought for non-white neighborhoods to have Christmas decorations and they are destroyed within a few days? or to put a playground in their area, and they destroy it within a couple of weeks?
After awhile you withdraw, and decide to let them fight their own battles...

Aldebaran said:

Or taking away peoples' racial identity. Imagine being forced to call themselves simply "American" instead of something with a hyphen separating two words.

Click to expand...

America already has a long history of erasing other people's racial identity, Aldebaran, especially when it concerns Native Americans.

Forced assimilation, forced Christian indoctrination, racial discrimination, cultural genocide, enslavement and oppression are all hallmarks of America's way of dealing with the Indigenous and other minority people living within its borders. Need I remind you of the Indian Residential Schools. Native Americans in this country are all too familiar with social injustice, racial discrimination, cultural genocide, and oppression, and often times with forced assimilation and forced Christian indoctrination. Many of my people are still the poorest in this country, living in third world poverty, alcoholism and drug abuse on the Rez. The suicide rate among native youth is one of the highest in the country.

Our identity as a people was stripped away from us, our culture, our way of life, our religion, our languages, our traditions, and our heritage was almost completely destroyed by the white man. The European (Christian) invaders came to our homeland with their bibles and guns, killing and pillaging as they went across our sacred ancestral homeland, destroying everything in their path, spreading disease, and leaving only death and destruction in their wake. They gave us their bibles and then took our sacred land.

The land on which America now resides is all stolen tribal lands, stained with the blood of my ancestors. It is a sacred land, not because the nation of America now resides on it, but because of what my ancestors had to endure and what they suffered at the hands of this nation that boasts of being the land of the free and home of the brave. These sacred tribal lands were once the land of the free and home of the brave when my ancestors lived freely on this land, but it is no longer free or brave. America wasn't founded on freedom or liberty and justice for all. It was founded on racism, oppression, white supremacy, white privilege, and white nationalism. It was then built upon the genocide of the Native American and on the enslavement of the African American. This nation has been racist and oppressive of its Indigenous and minority people since before its inception. While race relations may have evolved in recent decades, this nation is still quite racist and oppressive of its Indigenous and minority people.

It was then built upon the genocide of the Native American and on the enslavement of the African American. This nation has been racist and oppressive of its Indigenous and minority people since before its inception. While race relations may have evolved in recent decades, this nation is still quite racist and oppressive of its Indigenous and minority people in many different ways.

Click to expand...

Interesting facts, there were thousands of black slaves held by Native Americans. There were black slaves owned by blacks. And of course "indentured servitude".

nightflight said:

Interesting facts, there were thousands of black slaves held by Native Americans. There were black slaves owned by blacks. And of course "indentured servitude"; (it wasn't the Job Corp, lol!)

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well aware of the many hang around the fort NDNs who tried to assimilate themselves more into American white society by owning black slaves.

And unfortunately, many of these were Cherokee. I think it was one of the unfortunate results of being recognized as "civilized" by the united states government.

TheBarrd said:

I've had similar experiences. If you want to "hang" with someone who is black, you need to be up on black slang, aight? Word...

Click to expand...

My black friend generally hates black culture. He prefers rock music over rap. Lol.

MehGuy said:

My black friend generally hates black culture. He prefers rock music over rap. Lol.

Click to expand...

Rap?
I thought it was hip-hop.
But then, what do I know?
I like that old fashioned rock and roll...that kind of music just soothes my soul...

Red Fox said:

Yes, I'm well aware of the many hang around the fort NDNs who tried to assimilate themselves more into American white society by owning black slaves.

And unfortunately, many of these were Cherokee. I think it was one of the unfortunate results of being recognized as "civilized" by the united states government.

Click to expand...

As someone who claims to be an indian you really don't know the first think about them do you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

Native American groups often enslaved war captives whom they primarily used for small-scale labor.[2] Some, however, were used in ritual sacrifice.[2] While little is known, there is little evidence that the slaveholders considered the slaves as racially inferior; they came from other Native American tribes and were casualties of war.[2] Native Americans did not buy and sell captives in the pre-colonial era, although they sometimes exchanged enslaved individuals with other tribes in peace gestures or in exchange for redeeming their own members.[2] The word "slave" may not accurately apply to such captive people.[2] Most of these so-called Native American slaves tended to live on the fringes of Native American society and were slowly integrated into the tribe.[2]

In many cases, new tribes adopted captives to replace warriors killed during a raid.[2] Warrior captives were sometimes made to undergo ritual mutilation or torture that could end in death as part of a grief ritual for relatives slain in battle.[2] Some Native Americans would cut off one foot of captives to keep them from running away. Others allowed enslaved male captives to marry the widows of slain husbands.[2] The Creek, who engaged in this practice and had a matrilineal system, treated children born of slaves and Creek women as full members of their mothers' clans and of the tribe, as property and hereditary leadership passed through the maternal line. The children did not have slave status.[2] More typically, tribes took women and children for captives for adoption, as they tended to adapt more easily into new ways.

Click to expand...

The indians were enslaving, and torturing each other long before any white man set foot on the continent.

And when europeans got here? Well they were more than happy to sell their own people to the white man.

European colonists caused a change in Native American slavery, as they created a new demand market for captives of raids.[2][10] For decades, the colonies were short of workers. Especially in the southern colonies, initially developed for resource exploitation rather than settlement, colonists purchased or captured Native Americans to be used as forced labor in cultivating tobacco, and, by the eighteenth century, rice, and indigo.[2] To acquire trade goods, Native Americans began selling war captives to whites rather than integrating them into their own societies.[2][5] Traded goods varied among the tribes such as axes, bronze kettles, Caribbean rum, European jewelry, needles, scissors, but the most prized were rifles.[5] The English copied the Spanish and Portuguese, they saw the enslavement of Africans and Native Americans as a moral, legal, and socially acceptable institution; a rationale for enslavement was "just war" taking captives and using slavery as an alternative to a death sentence.[11]

Click to expand...

Let me guess, they were just trying to fit in with whitey right?

TheBarrd said:

Rap?
I thought it was hip-hop.
But then, what do I know?
I like that old fashioned rock and roll...that kind of music just soothes my soul...

Click to expand...

Isn't rap part of hip-hop?

Lol, I don't know..

NightHawkeye said:

I currently live in an area of the country which is 95% white. The natives here haven't had enough exposure to non-whites to become prejudiced.

Click to expand...

I also live in an area that's 95% white, and a lot of people are racists here. There are countries like Saudi Arabia where everyone hates Jews, but nobody's ever met a Jew. Prejudice doesn't have to come from meeting people--it can come from media portrayals, political rhetoric, a need to believe the world is fair, the attitudes of your parents, a general dislike of people who aren't "like you," a lot of things. I'm actually very skeptical of your portrayal; I wonder what someone would have to do for you to see them as racist.

They just expect everyone to act the same ... and don't understand it when some non-white starts crying about discrimination.

Click to expand...

How do you know non-whites aren't genuinely discriminated against where you live? It happens most other places.

In a General Social Survey, over 50% of whites said "I prefer that my close relatives marry spouses from their same race." That was in 2006.

pakicetus said:

How do you know non-whites aren't genuinely discriminated against where you live? It happens most other places.

Click to expand...

I've seen it other places. The lack of discrimination here was perhaps most visible in the number of inter-racial couples I observed after first moving here. Non-whites seemed more likely to marry whites than their own racial group ... a situation which makes perfect sense given the small number of minorities ... though I never checked the statistics.

The claims of discrimination come not from the locals but from minorities who have recently moved to the area ... and bring their old racial views with them.

NightHawkeye said:

I've seen it other places. The lack of discrimination here was perhaps most visible in the number of inter-racial couples I observed after first moving here. Non-whites seemed more likely to marry whites than their own racial group ... a situation which makes perfect sense given the small number of minorities ... though I never checked the statistics.

The claims of discrimination come not from the locals but from minorities who have recently moved to the area ... and bring their old racial views with them.

Click to expand...

In other words, you just don't know. Why pretend that you do?

pakicetus said:

In a General Social Survey, over 50% of whites said "I prefer that my close relatives marry spouses from their same race." That was in 2006.

Click to expand...

What did blacks say?