And Back to Racial Discrimination

[RDKirk]

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.

Does anyone trust media reporting more than first-hand experiences? It's going to be unfortunately true that some people are going to have some poor first-hand experiences, but first-hand experiences should logically carry more weight than the stories one hears.

A logical and wise person would consider it given that a proportion of any group will be "bad people," so that logical and wise person would base a judgment on a sample of more than one, but first-hand experiences should logically carry more weight than the stories one hears.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

No, it's historically been the opposite. It has been a privilege of being white in America not to have to think about it.

 

[bekkilyn]

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.

This statement here is important because so many people have been told over and over again, particularly if they hang out in more liberal places on the internet or have more liberal friends, etc. that *only* white people can be racist, and that's what you have to believe if you are going to be a "good person" (as much as a white person could be) I've even told people that myself because it had been so strongly reinforced in my mind by those who had studied more about racism than I had, and so they supposedly knew what they were talking about, and they were talking about it all the time and constantly calling each other out for any hints of what might be racism.

But it simply isn't true, because what Ana said above rings more true. We could get rid of every white person in the entire world and there would still be racism, so where would the racism then be coming from if it were true that *only* white people can be racist?

 

[bekkilyn]

On the "I don't see you as black" comment, I'm more in agreement with RDKirk with that one even though what Ana said could be correct in some circumstances. Reason being is that I've never been a very conventional female growing up and so had a lot of male friends in school along with some female friends, and I would be told numerous times that I was *different* or that I was like one of them or "not like a girl" etc. And I was very happy about it at the time because who would want to be like a girl? Girls were "less than" and so I believed at the time that it was a compliment, and it probably was a compliment in their minds as well, but it was a compliment based on a false assumption of male superiority.

 

[Whyayeman]

Of course there are numerous racisms. The Greeks' hatred of the Turks has gone on for centuries and has not abated in modern times. This perhaps universal tendency to disfavour those that seem 'other' becomes more important when there is a difference in power between the groups.

A good modern example of this is the so called Irish Problem in the UK. The Republic of Ireland and the UK have long since buried the hatchet; the Protestant faction in Northern Ireland is still fighting the Battle of the Boyne (1690) and singing hymns to King Billy (James II). Power, economic and political, remained in Protestant hands until 1999 (the Good Friday Agreement). The power-sharing is a fragile thing still and many people identify with one or other side of the religious divide.

From here is is pretty clear that the relationship between white and black communities more resembles Northern Ireland than the relationship between Greeks and Turks (not perhaps in Cyprus). Americans can and do commit violence against one another across this divide; the Northern Irish have almost stopped (but keep your fingers crossed) after huge investments of political capital from both parties with huge pushes from America, UK and Ireland.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it's historically been the opposite. It has been a privilege of being white in America not to have to think about it.

Well then logically RDKirk....if I can detach any meaningful beliefs from white skin I can do the same for black skin.

This is exactly why you don't see any CRT scholars debate...

It's so riddled with contradictions and logical fallacy that you don't have to have a degree to point them out. Obviously we can choose to be a colorblind society....if we can't, then I must be walking around with these racial constructs in my mind somewhere.

Here's another fun one....how does CRT explain the millions of white people in poverty without meritocracy? If systemic racism and white privilege explain economic differences....how does this magical "analytical lens" explain all these poor white people?

How did they miss out on all this privilege I keep hearing about?

I know that they say "just because you have privilege doesn't mean you don't face difficulties"....but for some reason the difficulties of millions of poor whites never get addressed by this analytical lens. I'd suggest that it can't. Any reason why they are poor that can serve as a rational explanation could just as easily replace the ideas of white privilege and systemic racism as causes of poverty for non-whites.

Perhaps...a meritocracy isn't what they describe it as. Perhaps when we talk about a meritocracy...we're talking about selecting people on merit for jobs or elected offices. It's not a guarantee of wealth or anything.

 

[RDKirk]

I know that they say "just because you have privilege doesn't mean you don't face difficulties"

Who says that?

I've said in this thread and a number of other times, that "white privilege" is merely being given the benefit of the doubt on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes that's a big deal, sometimes it's not. Many times there situation is so far from doubtful that it means nothing at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

On the "I don't see you as black" comment, I'm more in agreement with RDKirk with that one even though what Ana said could be correct in some circumstances. Reason being is that I've never been a very conventional female growing up and so had a lot of male friends in school along with some female friends, and I would be told numerous times that I was *different* or that I was like one of them or "not like a girl" etc. And I was very happy about it at the time because who would want to be like a girl? Girls were "less than" and so I believed at the time that it was a compliment, and it probably was a compliment in their minds as well, but it was a compliment based on a false assumption of male superiority.

My point wasn't that I think the other interpretation is correct.

My point was that the guy making the video was doing the same kind of assumptions about the writer as he was accusing the writer of having. He likely jumped on that explanation because that's how he sees the world. The only thing really different is which race they held a negative preconception of....and the "correct way" to make these kinds of assumptions.

This is the plam of CRT. They call it a "racial consciousness". It's not a new way of thinking. It's basically the same thing as what we used to call "racism". It's the idea that you can correctly assume things about individuals based on race...

The reason why they've been getting away with it is pretty simple.

1. The advocates lie. They call it anti-racism....it's exactly the same as racial discrimination. They call it "privilege" and we used to call it a racist assumption. They are academics who have used scholarly words, a veneer of "expertise", and bad logic to justify pushing a set of racist beliefs under the guise of "equity".

2. Lying techniques. A powerful technique for manipulating people is called "framing". It's when you insist upon an idea at the start of an explanation or narrative...but it's only presented to use against any counter-argument. For example...

Most definitions of CRT begin with the assertion that race is a social construct and not a biological reality. This gets the reader to assume that is how CRT sees race. It isn't. CRT sees race as a unavoidable part of someone's identity.

Another example in the definition describes CRT as an analytical tool, a lens to see racial situations. This makes it sound like valid scholarship instead of just a bunch of racist beliefs.

Critical Whiteness Studies is an offshoot of CRT. The description always starts with the explanation that "black people have always had to study white people in order to survive". This is obviously untrue. It frames whites as immoral and dangerous....while the racism that is the main feature of "whiteness studies" becomes justified.

"White supremacy" is described so vaguely in CRT...people don't understand what it refers to. It roughly equates to all of western civilization. No one wants to defend white supremacy....but many people would defend western civilization.

CRT plays into the emotions of two racial groups. It plays into the white guilt of many white people when they consider the racial history of the US. It also plays into the desire for righteous struggle that many black people associate black identity with.

These are racists. They are cynically manipulating people for their own benefit.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Who says that?

I've said in this thread and a number of other times, that "white privilege" is merely being given the benefit of the doubt on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes that's a big deal, sometimes it's not. Many times there situation is so far from doubtful that it means nothing at all.

It depends upon who you ask...I can probably pull a video of a black man using that exact explanation. White privilege is a moving target. It could be a simple hidden bias that you can't really use to explain things because it's hidden.....the next minute, it's the reason why we're standing on stolen native American land.