And Back to Racial Discrimination

RDKirk said:

The qualification made here is "in the United States." Why that qualification?

If it's not a truth worldwide, then it can be true in the United States.

If it is a truth worldwide, then it's a common condition of man like any other sin, and can be mitigated by social compact like any other sin.

Click to expand...

I think in the minds of the activists (or really ideologues) there's a risk in describing it as a human condition.

You might convince people that as such, it's simply the way things are, and not a problem that we can fix more than we could hope to fix something like greed.

The other risk is similar but it affects the activist themself instead of the undecided people who don't know what they think on the issue. It justifies tribalism. It affirms the importance of the group over the individual. It reaffirms the idea of things like race essentialism over the idea of individual expression.

That's partly why there's a very strong attempt at controlling the outside perceptions of these identity groups. If you're a feminist who insists upon a difference between a woman and trans-women, you're a terf. It's not a positive portrayal...it's described in negative ways like transphobic.

Similarly, you look at how Condoleeza Rice was labeled an agent of white supremacy....for the outrageous offense of suggesting that we can teach the good and bad parts of history without laying blame at the feet of a white kid. I've read about half a dozen opinion pieces (and I know these aren't representative of anything other than what gets clicks) that basically accused her of defending white supremacy, that even considering the feelings of white children is wrong or unnecessary. Ostensibly, these are the same people who want their own perspectives not just heard or considered but treated as fact with the same weight as any other historical fact.

I can't really understand the logic behind that without any discussion of racism. I can't see a motive that would justify the abandonment of rationality if it's not a motive that is centered on controlling narratives. The 1619 Project is a good example of this. It presented itself as history from the viewpoint of slaves. It was largely a curated selection of narratives that painted white European colonizers in the worst possible light. She sent it to an actual historian associate of hers to get feedback. I'm paraphrasing this part...but her historian friend told her she simply shouldn't have it published in the current form. It contained too many factual errors. Her reply to this was along the lines of white people lie about history too. She published it as it was.

The reaction was predictable...overwhelmingly applause and support. It was the Black Panther of American history. Awards were given. Finally American history explained from a black perspective.

The problem of the errors still existed though. Very large claims, very significant events, and very influential people were being incorrectly portrayed....or lied about.

Actual historians got together, outlined just some of the most egregious examples....and politely put their names in a letter asking her to please make corrections or at least acknowledge these weren't facts. For people who work very hard at the historical method (which is very difficult and leaves a lot unresolved) I thought the letter was extremely polite and borderline loving in it's tone and request. I read the actual letter.

She responded by calling them white supremacists who were trying to exclude marginalized voices.

I can only imagine how the discussion proceeded from there. It probably involved the historical method, what kind of evidence is given s certain amount of weight...stuff that she may or may have not known.

The result was a change in text that happened after some kind of historical debate behind closed doors. If you bought one of the first copies of the 1619 Project when it came out...I'd put it under glass and never open it. It's going to be one of those historical oddities that people will pay big money to get their hands on. There's a different 1619 Project that can be bought now....that has different facts, different interpretations, different levels of certainty about conclusions. These corrections were made, to my knowledge, quietly and behind the scenes. People who bought it in that first month and people who bought the later draft might not even realize they aren't reading the same book.

Why? Well the debate over the facts happened behind the scenes. Then the corrections were made but went completely unmentioned. That's despite the original version winning awards and being heavily promoted.

You might think this all happened behind the scenes to avoid embarrassing anyone. Perhaps they didn't want to deal with a larger audience weighing in.

It's primarily about the way this new left wing ideology determines truth. They look at which "voices" have been "marginalized" by "systems of power" and then encourage such people to "speak truth to power" and explain their "lived experiences" of oppression and suffering. That is literally....not an exaggeration....literally the way this ideology determines what is true. A person can certainly gather the writings of slaves and former slaves and place them into a general narrative to lend some perspective on history. If a historian tries to claim that it's all factual however, they had better have done the research and examined the evidence or actual historians will gladly embarrass that person. The idea that history is written by the victors or all history is biased is true to an extent. In many places there is no debate on what happened in history. In modern western nations however, who tried very hard to construct history out of facts by weighing certain types of evidence over others....because of logic and the availability of other evidence....the idea that all historical narratives are equally valid is simply untrue. There is plenty of room for argument and interpretation in modern western society for what is historically true. That happens....in open debate. The version of history we can be highly certain about and teach at the collegiate level is extremely difficult to argue against...it's not merely a myth constructed by the "victors". It's subject to change upon the discovery of new evidence. It acknowledges it's imperfections....and tries to correct its mistakes.

Hannah Nicole Jones holds to an ideology that history is just part of a "cultural metanarrative" that is constructed by the oppressors to maintain privilege and power.

If you look at a lot of ancient history and the historians that existed very long ago. ..you could be right for believing that. That's not really the method today. Today historians try to separate facts from fictions, try to weigh evidence accordingly, and admit what they cannot be certain about...things they can only guess...

It's not a story created to preserve power nor is it considered immutable fact.

It would be a problem to teach it that way as well. We know that the civil war happened, there's a ton of both physical evidence, firsthand, secondhand, and even accounts completely removed from the actual experience of the war. We have a mountain of evidence for why it happened, what many people on both sides were motivated by, and the extent to which they were motivated by those reasons and beliefs.

To rewrite all that without the mountain of evidence supporting the rewrite requires a certain ideology that abandons reason and rationality and elevates some other method of finding truth.

In Critical Pedagogy....which includes critical race theory, critical feminist theory, and critical gender studies.....the method for finding truth is listening to the lived experiences of the oppressed and giving it the weight of truth. If you are of the privileged group? You aren't supposed to have any opinion. Your lived experiences don't count. Your only job is to listen to the oppressed, accept their personal perspectives as truth, and then do whatever is required to end their oppression and thereby create equity of outcomes.

There is nothing surprising or new about his "interest convergence theory." It's been known for thousands of years that any human transaction, if it is to be successful, must conclude with both parties feeling they have gained something valuable to them. Who expects altruism in this world?

Click to expand...

I forgot which economist stated it....but he said every transaction is essentially a gamble on value and you only agree when both parties think they are correct about the value. Sadly, only one ever is or there would be no trade.

Even the classical hedonists of ancient Greece could understand how keeping the poor from falling too deeply into poverty was in their own long-term interests.

Click to expand...

It takes a lot of slaves before the act of thinking becomes described as an occupation in an ancient society.

White abolitionists were not motivated by a love of black people, but by a desire to save white souls.

Click to expand...

There's certainly room to argue or debate over that position.

And there's no shame in that. There have been debates in these forums about whether Christian agape is really about some mystically induced, purely altruistic "unconditional love for all mankind" or, rather, a desire for pain avoidance or a desire to hear "well done, my good and faithful servant" one day.

Interest convergence is the essence of all successful human interactions.

Click to expand...

Bell also asserts that the civil rights movement was only supported by whites because they were trying to convince the rest of the world that liberal western civilization under capitalism was preferable to communism and that was difficult with a tiered racial system.

Do you think that is an accurate description of the majority of white civil rights supporters? Surely Bell is aware of the fact that MLK worked with communists.

I have not yet seen in CRT any steps actually toward or even a view of that brave new world. All I see at this point is the effort to tear down the white male patriarchy, and yet another non-white concept that white radical feminists are running with as another battering ram against the white male patriarchy. But they have not vision beyond that.

Click to expand...

Anything with Marxist roots is essentially utopian in its vision of what should be. The easiest way to spot it here is this almost magical idea that if we could snap our fingers and remove oppression we wouldn't see these disparities everywhere we look.

I agree that I don't see any plan for it. Marx himself didn't see any plan for it. The only plan Marxists make are about seizing power....they concern themselves with that first, what to do with it is a distant second.

Sadly, the results of these power grabs are predictable. You cannot gather broad support without convincing people of victimhood. If they aren't victims...the system might be working somewhat effectively.

Victimhood must be created if it doesn't exist. This is easily done by framing everything in a dialectical model....without any actual Hegelian synthesis. Silence is violence. Property is theft. Inaction is complicity. There are only oppressors and oppressed. Only racist and anti-racist. There are only white supremacists or white allies.

To allow the existence of a nuetral third position or 4th position that is interested in something else entirely like....saving whales....would give people a chance to deflect moral culpability in the oppression.

Oppression that is assumed by the lack of equity of outcomes. Evidence of oppression in a system isn't needed. In fact, understanding a system isn't the goal either. This ideology doesn't seek to identify problems nor solutions. This ideology considers any attempt to point out it's flaws as a defense of the oppressors and their privilege. It has one goal and one method. Acquisition of power by framing all things as power relationships between those with power and their victims.

I'm a Christian, so ultimately I must strive for reconciliation. Even if I were not a Christian, the fact is that white people aren't going anywhere, black people are not going anywhere, and nobody else is going anywhere, so reconciliation is a practical necessity.

Click to expand...

Which is true and a big part of what concerns me. If those enamored with this ideology gain power....I don't think they can actually solve any problems. I'm not convinced they really want to. If they genuinely do....and I don't think they can succeed....they'll have basically three options for justifying their acquired positions of power.....

1. Lie about results and claim success. That's not as easy as it uses to be. Internet changed a lot of things. Still a possibility.

2. Reexamine the problem, consider other possible explanations, come to new conclusions.

3. Double down on the strategy that has already proven successful...scapegoating white men. That justifies more history correction....more injustice punishment...a wider tier of gender and race.

I think #1 is a possibility. I don't think #2 is even something they can consider without being excommunicated by their peers. I think #3 is almost a certainty.....especially if they move their beliefs into education.

Whyayeman said:

This is a term that has very little use in British English. Whenever I see it - invariably here on these forums - I think there is something mocking or pejorative lurking behind it.

Racism is a real issue everywhere. American society is stained by the legacy of slavery, complicated no doubt by unresolved tensions and hostilities which still reverberate after the Civil War. The UK has a long history of white supremicism (actually in many minds British supremicism) so cannot escape the same judgment.

These problems are more than employment issues; they permeate pretty well all aspects of our cultural lives. I think that while economic issues like employment are important they are very far from the whole. We can discuss them in an academic way and define certain things as racist in a general way till the cows come home, but cannot escape the obvious elephant in the room; overwhelmingly certain easily identified cultural groups live at a disadvantage in our societies.

Click to expand...

What is an example of such a group in the UK? I don't know enough about the current culture to guess who you're talking about.

Can you give an example of each? Advantaged and disadvantaged?

RDKirk said:

"Beau of the Fifth Column" in this video has precisely nailed what I've been saying for a while. If a white person says, "You're a hard working guy, we get along well together...I don't see you as black," that means he has a mental image of black people that ignores me as his own first-hand example of a black person.

Click to expand...

Ironically, that video is a good example of how I see the problem too lol.

Language isn't perfect. It's certainly not perfect at conveying a vague idea. There's at least a couple of ways of interpreting the statement....

"I don't even think of you as black."

Regardless of whatever follows it. I think the statement that follows is...

"I think of you as good and hardworking people just like me".

And I can see why that leads to a negative interpretation of the first statement. Taken that way, he has a negative view of black people in general...but his black friends are so much like him that he doesn't think of them along those negative stereotypes of black people.

I get the interpretation.

He seems to be reading text though, and tone gets lost, so let's consider another interpretation. Language necessarily limits the user based on it's own construction. I used to think that because Christians can't tell me what it's like to feel the presence of god...they weren't really feeling it. I have to at least consider that it's a feeling we don't really have any word for. I happen to think the same thing about claims of "feeling like the opposite gender". I can't really explain "feeling like a man"...unless I associate it with certain physical acts a can do because of my biology. I can't think of any emotion I have that a woman cannot. I have to at least consider that I'm wrong and this is really a limitation of language in describing a vague idea.

So with that in mind, back to the second interpretation we could make about the two sentences...

"I don't even think of them as black. I see them as good hardworking people like me."

He could be saying that because they are so alike him (and he chooses the words good and hardworking to describe this similarity) that he constantly loses consideration of their skin color and, in essence the term black doesn't mean anything more than white does to him.

Do you understand what I mean when I say "he loses consideration of race"? You don't think of race all the time (despite what activists want people to believe). I don't know you, obviously I don't know how often you think about it. I'm simply pointing out situations where you don't think of it at all...maybe you're driving, at home relaxing, any period of time when it doesn't occur to you consider your race in any way.

That's what I mean by "lose consideration for". It's like your pinky finger. You know it's there, you know you have it, but you don't really think of it till it gets slammed in the car door.

Just in case you're sitting there thinking "that's not possible, he has eyes...he sees his friend is black"....I'm not saying that he magically stops seeing skin color. It's the idea that skin color is in any way attached to some kind of larger idea is gone. "Black" as an identity loses meaning. He could be saying that despite their obvious differences in skin color, he stops seeing him as his black friend and now he's just his friend.

That's a possibility, right? Even if you think the beardo has the correct interpretation....there is at least one other interpretation. I'd suggest there's probably multiple interpretations. The term black is both loaded because of the differences in experience....and the lack of clarity.

If I had to guess...and I wouldn't want to...I'd rather be able to ask the person....but if I had to, I think the bearded guy is probably correct in his interpretation. He sees his black friends one way, all other black people another. It could be that he meant the second interpretation that I offered but there's no way to be certain without asking.

Here's where I see the problem, the guy making the video with the beard then takes his personal interpretation of a somewhat ambiguous statement about race...made by a white guy....about his black friends....and while this interpretation isn't the most negative one, he then applies it to the entire society? Or just all white people? Or just some white people? Is he describing systemic racism or it's effects?

I certainly wouldn't see any problem with applying the interpretation of that statement to the guy who made it. If you want to judge him morally for it...eh, I don't even really like judging people by ideas. We can't control thoughts but we can control actions so I try to keep morality confined to behavior and ideas judged by their validity or value.

Anyway, beard guy makes the exact same mistake as the guy he's talking about. He's judged an entire category of people as viewing things a very certain way. That's a wild judgement. It's certainly not a positive view of an entire race of people or honestly any category of people that's going to run in the hundreds of millions.

The error he is committing is twofold....

1. That selective interpretation is factual. You can read Lord of the Flies, I can read Lord of the Flies. We might come away with very similar interpretations or very different ones. We can discuss our perspectives and learn things about the way the other sees things. We can come across interpretations and opinions we had not even considered.

Unless we have the author standing right there and he's able to clearly explain everything to the point of no ambiguity whatsoever....neither of us can really be "correct" in how we interpret the book, characters, motivations, themes, etc.

I'm not saying there's no use in any exchange of perspective or interpretation of meaning. There definitely is. It can teach you a lot about the way someone sees things.

But it isn't fact. It's just his interpretation, and even though I think I generally agree with that interpretation, it still could be wrong. That's the first mistake.

The second mistake is the idea that he can then take his interpretation of one man's very specific and yet somewhat poor description of a way he sees his friend's common humanity in relation to their race and go and apply it generally to a vastly larger number of people? Why??

Even if it wasn't about skin color and it was about a group of people from any common factor....they could all be nuns, asians in pre-school, seniors in a nursing home, or any group of people....why would I imagine they all think the same? Even if I went to N Korea, where what you can say and what you can believe is enforced at gunpoint.....I know that if removed from the social pressure and freed of the fear of reprisal...they'll have different views on stuff.

It's a super common thinking error that was recognized back in at least Julius Caesar's day. It is very easy to imagine that other people see things the same way you do. The reality is that simply isn't the case. The human brain is just a pattern seeking reward based machine...rational thought tends to only briefly show up at the back end of a belief formation as a post hoc explanation and protection of the patterns and schemas that we use to make choices easier, explain our world in ways that are easy to understand and less complex.

Whyayeman said:

One easy answer is that racism is a deeper and more urgent issue than feminism in the present day and historically. That is not to denigrate feminism, arising as it does from deep historic issues too. (And actually, maybe the death toll is not so different after all.)

I don't want to start a hare here.

Click to expand...

I guess I probably worded the question badly.

I'm guessing instead of "racism and feminism" you probably were asking if racism or sexism is the bigger problem.

Right? Or were you talking about activist movements?

I'm guessing you meant racism and sexism...probably more specifically misogyny.

I think here in the US the bigger problem is racism. We at least agree, with few exceptions outside of radical fundamentalism and some feminist activists what it means to be sexist. That gives a certain way of at least beginning to talk about it, problems it causes, possible solutions.

The definition of racism is going to vary pretty widely from person to person, across racial lines, age groups, and so on. You can believe it applies equally to everyone (which is a good definition if you don't want to be charged with discrimination or a hate crime), you can believe it's about power imbalances or some subjective position of wealth and power based on history, you might hear that person to person racism isn't an issue but structural, environmental, or some other kind is the problem. There's the catch all systemic racism which just seems to be an assumption of racism, unconscious or otherwise, affecting processes that affect outcomes.

You can take your guess as to why this definition shifts so wildly and so often. It used to be purely for academic purposes. Individual racism didn't work well in sociology so structural racism was an idea....but it depends upon whether or not you use it to describe behavior or policy.

Then it became connected with an idea of power and prejudice....which had a nice touch of alliteration so it caught on really well. It didn't make much sense because power dynamics aren't defined by race....unless you choose to define them that way. For example, if you describe them as capacity for violence....and 5 people are in a room and only one has a gun, I think we can agree that person holds more power than the others. Is that person the only one capable of being racist? That one never made sense to me, and then it didn't matter because no one uses it anymore. Then it was briefly about implicit bias, and everyone thought they had a good scientific explanation, but it didn't quite pan out into behavior....or maybe never actually measured bias. Now systemic racism....the racism that no one can find, it's either the result of processes, or biases, or history, or all of these things.

To hear people in the US talk about racism....you would think we were just a half step from a full racial genocide. It seems like an unfair description. We went from slavery where we didn't even consider some races to be fully human, to a racial heirarchy of second and third class citizens...unequal but allowed to exist. Then that progressed to equality under the law, desegregation, and onto teaching children to not treat others differently because of characteristics they cannot control, generally a steady improvement in views of racial tolerance and general acceptance.

Until about 10 years ago.

Around that time views wildly diverge into two camps. One camp thought things were going pretty well, steadily improving, but perhaps they had some blind spots. The other camp decided racism had changed, because racial discrimination is illegal, and now it's lack of visibility and openness compared to the past meant you can't really prove it....you have to assume it.

There's any number of reasons why this could be happening.

RDKirk said:

Sorry, no, despite all that verbiage, that doesn't work.

Click to expand...

Ok...

No matter how you put it, the guy still has a mental image of "black"--everyone in American society does,

Click to expand...

How about white? Do you think that we all have a "mental image" of that?

Out of curiosity, let's imagine for a moment that someone didn't attach any meaning to these words beyond skin color. They know they are meaningful to you...because as you said, media makes that clear. Does that automatically make these distinctions meaningful to them?

because the issue is constantly in the news--and when he made the statement, he was obviously thinking of his mental image of "black"--and noting that his hardworking black friend does not fit it.

Click to expand...

Or he was just trying to describe a commonality....and no matter what characteristics he chose, you would assume that he doesn't believe that about the larger black community.

If he said friendly....you'd assume that he thinks the opposite of the black population in general?

The point is that his mental image of "black" ought to be the person he personally knows.

Click to expand...

Why? It's not as if the black person he knows represents black people in general.

RDKirk said:

Sorry, no, despite all that verbiage, that doesn't work.

No matter how you put it, the guy still has a mental image of "black"--everyone in American society does, because the issue is constantly in the news--and when he made the statement, he was obviously thinking of his mental image of "black"--and noting that his hardworking black friend does not fit it.

The point is that his mental image of "black" ought to be the person he personally knows.

Click to expand...

If it was a black person making the same statement....would you interpret it the same way?

RDKirk said:

He should, if he has no other first-hand example.

Click to expand...

But why?

Why would he assume that some other black guy is going to be anything like the one he knows?

It's not based on anything other than skin color. If the only black person a white person ever met had robbed them at gunpoint, you wouldn't be saying that they should use that black person as some sort of template for all black people.

RDKirk said:

You mean a black person telling another black person, "I don't see you as black?"

Click to expand...

Yeah.

No black person I know would say that. Even if that other black person "acted white," the response would not be "I don't see you as black."

Click to expand...

Again, you have to start with these assumptions to even think that way. You have to start with the assumption that white people are walking around with these negative views of black people in their heads...I'm sure some are, I'm sure some aren't.

Possibly the most bizarre idea I've seen spread around the US in the past is the idea that white people are all walking around with this idea of being white in their minds. It's not a thing unless you're actually in a white supremacist group....or maybe you hold a few racial stereotypes....or if you're on this far left ideology, you've got this whole weird conspiracy theory level idea of whiteness as an unspoken social currency that explains the way everything works.

Do you think that the whole idea of colorblindness had no impact on racism at all?

I try to think about how we got to this point in race relations and I do think it's a few assumptions that played out differently in different communities.

Obviously I only have insight into mine and I clearly took for granted the way I was raised and what I was taught. I've never really had any white friends or associates or coworkers who openly admitted they were raised in a very racist environment but judging by what some people say on here and other forums....clearly they saw or heard a lot of racism growing up. I think it's easy to imagine that everyone in your race has a similar experience or that everyone of a different race has a similar experience.

Obviously I'm not perfect, I could at some point say or do or assume something about someone because of race and not realize it. I might embarrass myself at some point in the future. It's weird to me though because I have to hear white people tell me to examine my racial assumptions or attitudes (I can't think of any) and try to find the hidden racism in me because I'm white (can't find it and that always sounds like a really racist belief). I'm not lying or making things up when I say I was taught to not judge people by race. My father had one conversation about it with me, I was told how much it would disappoint him, why it was wrong, etc. School didn't talk about race much but when it did....it was the same basic message.

Clearly we all didn't have the same message or schools or parents. The only thing I can remember my father saying that was racist is when he saw an attractive black woman (I think once it was Tyra Banks on SSI swimsuit cover) he would remark that she "must have a little Hawaiian in her". I heard this 3 or 4 times before I asked him how he could tell, he explained that he spent some time there in the army or something, and he could "spot it".

I believed this for maybe another year or two before it dawned on me that he simply had a hard time admitting to himself that he found a black woman attractive. After I figured this out...I waited until he said it again...I called him out on it, told him he shouldn't be ashamed of finding a black woman attractive but if he wanted to keep pretending he could spot Hawaiian genes....I'd let it go.

He never said it again.

I don't mind telling this story because it's not the just the worst racist thing I've ever heard from either of my parents....it's the only racist thing. I've probably taken it for granted that other white people had similar experiences. I'm pretty lucky in this regard.

I work with people who quite frankly don't possibly fit into the whole CRT framework. If you believe it's an analytical lens, it should have something to say about these people but it would just blame whites. I have a 3rd generation Mexican American peer who grew up in southern AZ. I asked him what it was like and he said "really racist". I asked if white people were really racist towards him (because like most people I had an idea of racism being a "white problem") he said yes....but honestly, he said he was raised racist. His parents were really racist and he was told it was perfectly normal to hate white people. He said his entire family said racist stuff all the time. He would go to school and throw slurs at white students, and they would do the same to him. He saw this as completely normal.

Then he joined the Marines out of high school and was put into an entirely white unit except for one other latino. He expected to receive a lot of racism....but it never came. He would tell racist jokes to the other latino until one day that guy told him that he was a racist, that he didn't agree with him, that he was embarrassed by him, and if he didn't stop saying racist garbage....he wouldn't talk to him anymore. My coworker was so embarrassed by this that he genuinely changed. He realized his parents were racist and that the rest of the world wasn't like that necessarily. Fortunately social media wasn't around when he was young.

I also have a coworker that I'm 100% certain that most people would call black. He's not, he says he's Puerto Rican. In his mind there's a huge difference. He's really proud of being PR.....he doesn't consider himself black. In fact, he told me he hates being around black people. He hates the assumptions about him they make...he says he constantly gets judged for acting white. He said he had no idea what that meant for years and although he thinks he gets it now, he still doesn't like being around black people.

I haven't known a lot of asians very closely...but I've been friends with two closely enough to be invited in their homes. They never said anything racist.....but to my surprise their parents were really racist. They didn't seem to recognize it...they seemed to think they were just identifying truths about whites and blacks and other types of asians. They also had really negative views of other asians. The black friends I had weren't as openly racist as the asians but occasionally they were pretty comfortable with it. For song reason they just didn't describe it as racism. To them, they were just "stereotypes" based on truth. I didn't have any latino friends when I was young.

I did have the opportunity to get to know a few native Americans for a short while through work. By far, they were the most racist. They hated everyone. They sounded obsessed with how impure other members of their tribe were. Impure, I learned, was a term related to a kind of racial purity that was tainted by the genes of non-tribal members. I can't really compare it to the other groups. It was like attending a KKK meeting.

I'd like to point out that I still believe in what I was taught. These people I've known don't represent all other people who are the same race. I don't even like pointing out these experiences because I don't want people thinking that my experiences are normal. I'm sure there's a wide variety of racial beliefs in every group.

I'm only bringing this up because I am starting to think that because of our history and the fact that most of the racism we hear about was done by racist white men....we have a weird belief in a lot of racist white men wre out there doing all the racism. It's an idea that it's a problem made by racist white people, and that if we just fix the white people, we can fix the racial problems.

Obviously there are racist white people. They clearly exist. I think we can all agree on that.

Even if all the racist white people magically stopped being racist tomorrow....we would still have problems with racism. It's not a problem we can solve by endlessly demanding white people improve or redefining racism in new ways to keep the focus on whites.

I think we can improve our views, no matter what you identify as. The problem is that with the constant cancellation of people isn't going to make the conversations easy. Telling little white kids that they're racist because their parents are and ignoring all other racism probably won't work.

I remember being able to talk about this stuff ao much easier with non-white friends when I was young and I can't imagine kids today having those discussions at all.