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.