Now non-white people can be white

[jacks]

divisive. As in tending to divide.

Well no wonder...Thank you! Another confirmation that my computer is smarter than I am.

 

[Nine of Spades]

Just when we thought it couldn't get any more weird....

If you think you're safe from being called a racist or even "white privileged" just because you're not white, think again. They now have a new label---Multicultural Whiteness. Enjoy!

Understanding Multiracial Whiteness And Trump Supporters

For many leftists, calling someone “white” is a way of designating them as bad people who don’t agree with the prevailing PC orthodoxy. Hillary Clinton once slipped and called Vladimir Putin a “white authoritarian,” suggesting that being white is a terrible thing. Hence the reason why leftists are now labeling non-white conservatives as white. It’s a way of saying they’re part of the evil “oppressor” caste.

 

[anna ~ grace]

For many leftists, calling someone “white” is a way of designating them as bad people who don’t agree with the prevailing PC orthodoxy. Hillary Clinton once slipped and called Vladimir Putin a “white authoritarian,” suggesting that being white is a terrible thing. Hence the reason why leftists are now labeling non-white conservatives as white. It’s a way of saying they’re part of the evil “oppressor” caste.

Weird.

Whiteness isn’t evil. It’s not even a very helpful term. Are Kurdistanis white? Sicilians? Pashtuns? Nuristanis? Folks from the Balkans? Armenians? Ashkenazi Jews? The Irish?

It’s kind of useless.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Weird.

Whiteness isn’t evil. It’s not even a very helpful term. Are Kurdistanis white? Sicilians? Pashtuns? Nuristanis? Folks from the Balkans? Armenians? Ashkenazi Jews? The Irish?

It’s kind of useless.

Add to that we don't even blend in with the snow.

 

[essentialsaltes]

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So what you're saying, essentially, is that people of other races and ethnicities want to benefit from white privilege by supporting it.

BELTRAN: Right.

 

[Nine of Spades]

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So what you're saying, essentially, is that people of other races and ethnicities want to benefit from white privilege by supporting it.

BELTRAN: Right.

Except there’s the inconvenient fact that the concept of white privilege is only a myth. There are policies that actively discriminate against better qualified white people in favor of less qualified blacks and Hispanics. Here I am talking about affirmative action, which is widely practiced in college admissions and government jobs.

If a black person has the idea of benefiting from so-called white privilege, do you really think it would be in his interests to falsely check “white” on his college admission or job application when they inquire about his race, thinking it would help him? If he did so, it would harm his chances of getting admitted to a university or getting a job because there is a possibility that he would get passed up in lieu of a less qualified person of color.

I won’t deny there is racial privilege in this country. There is: except it’s black and Hispanic people who benefit from it because of affirmative action policies that discriminate against white people.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Except there’s the inconvenient fact that the concept of white privilege is only a myth.

Sez you. Anyway, I was pointing out that, as far as I can tell, the title of this thread is false.

 

[disciple Clint]

Going forward, we really need to think about reframing this whole discussion. Three things from the article (Beltran):

1. Whiteness is a political project/ideology
2. It is dynamic and always changing
3. We're not trapped in our identity or demographic

Nonetheless, many would say being white is not a political project, is not changing and dynamic, and one is "trapped" in the fact that one is white.

So, we have two sides who are coming to the conversation with diametrically opposed understandings of "whiteness." We cannot go forward productively if we have not established some common ground, in this sense, an agreed definition of terms.

As much as I want to see change and wish for some healing, I'm not confident this approach is helping.

For one side, "whiteness" seems to be a moving target that can potentially be reappropriated as the perceived situation changes. It becomes a catch all, that by overuse and fluidity could become saturated with meaning, and potentially become meaningless.

For the other, "whiteness" is a claim that one is racist by virtue of skin color. It seems to create resentment that blinds potential allies to the real need for dialogue and change.

If I'm wanting to convince someone that real change is needed, why would I consciously nurture resentment? Beltran readily admits that identity politics is divisive (well she kind of skirted the question, but didn't deny it). I just don't see how this can work. I wish I had better suggestions, besides just critique, but I don't.

maybe this all started with having "my truth" and "your truth" now we have reached a point where a word means anything that anyone wants it to mean.

 

[chilehed]

If you think you're safe from being called a racist or even "white privileged" just because you're not white, think again

I've got fifty buck that says that Prof. Beltran would call you a racist if you referred to an evil person as "black-hearted".

 

[SummerMadness]

Race is a social construct. That is why Japanese were white in South Africa, but Chinese were not. Asians were once consider white in the US census. That's what these articles talk about when they discuss whiteness. White != People of European descent, but that's what the political/social term now describes. Nonetheless, whiteness is why people like Barack Obama and every person of partial European descent is called non-white. Determining who is white has generally been about exclusion. Once people begin to separate their European ancestry from notions of "white", I think we can start moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, many white supremacists have grown wise to this and have begun to shift their identity toward "western" and it's describing it as superior.

 

[Speedwell]

maybe this all started with having "my truth" and "your truth" now we have reached a point where a word means anything that anyone wants it to mean.

No, they are trying to find out what the word really means, how it's really being used. See the previous post.

 

[durangodawood]

Weird.

Whiteness isn’t evil. It’s not even a very helpful term. Are Kurdistanis white? Sicilians? Pashtuns? Nuristanis? Folks from the Balkans? Armenians? Ashkenazi Jews? The Irish?

It’s kind of useless.

Useless as a realistic description of individual people.

Very useful as a legal fiction to organize an apartheid system.

 

[Aldebaran]

Such nonsense.


This one was funny. Whoops.

"The segment aired Tuesday during a SiriusXM show hosted by David Webb, who is also host FOX Nation’s Reality Check. His guest during the segment was Areva Martin, a civil rights attorney and CNN legal analyst.

According to a clip posted to Twitter, Webb details his rise in the media, saying he always saw his qualifications as a more important issue than his color.

"Well, David, that’s a whole 'nother long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing that people of color don’t have the privilege of," said Martin.

When Webb asks how he benefits, Martin said it's "by virtue of being a white male."

"Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should’ve been better prepped. I’m black," said Webb.

Webb then scolds Martin for making the assumption, going through his qualifications ultimately leading him to Fox News "where I’m told apparently blacks aren’t supposed to work."

"Yet, you come with this assumption, and you go to white privilege. That’s actually insulting," Webb said."

So ridiculously offensive!

Instances like this are probably why they "reimagined" what whiteness is and had to come up with a new term of Multiracial whiteness. That way they can label people as being white-privileged even if they aren't white. It'll no doubt further alienate those who are "of color" and yet have been successful.

 

[Aldebaran]

The complaint of ambiguous terminology may be reasonable, but it was "white" people who started using "whiteness" and its shifting definitions (that they themselves redefined) as the indicator of whether or not someone was a member of the in-group or the out-group. Blacks were never "white," but eastern Europeans, Irish, Hispanics, and more recently, Asians, have all at various times been considered non-white or somewhat less than fully white.

So, if you want to blame somebody for the confusing definitions, blame white people for establishing this racial hierarchy in the first place and for employing fuzzy definitions for its delineations. Don't blame the people who merely point out the fuzziness of these definitions.

Who invented "not black enough"? 'I'm either too black or not black enough': One teenager's experience

 

[iluvatar5150]

Who invented "not black enough"? 'I'm either too black or not black enough': One teenager's experience

Oh look another attempt at veering off topic.

You didn’t read that piece, did you?

 

[Aldebaran]

Oh look another attempt at veering off topic.

You didn’t read that piece, did you?

Yep, I did.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Identity Socialism (today) promotes the "hyphenated Americans" which President Theodore Roosevelt opposed.

Insofar as people can really only have one identity, Identity Socialism teaches people to be their "tribalist" identity group at the expense of all else, including national identity

 

[Pommer]

Identity Socialism (today) promotes the "hyphenated Americans" which President Theodore Roosevelt opposed.

Insofar as people can really only have one identity, Identity Socialism teaches people to be their "tribalist" identity group at the expense of all else, including national identity

You’re correct, we all need to be Americans!
Some of us Americans would like public funding for a National Healthcare System.
That’d a be “good thing”, right?
After all we simply lavish the Armed Forces with funds to [checks notes] “kill people and break things” [might get “unsecured site” warning], maybe it’d be nice to spend for something that all of us can use and enjoy?

 

[Aldebaran]

You’re correct, we all need to be Americans!
Some of us Americans would like public funding for a National Healthcare System.
That’d a be “good thing”, right?
After all we simply lavish the Armed Forces with funds to [checks notes] “kill people and break things” [might get “unsecured site” warning], maybe it’d be nice to spend for something that all of us can use and enjoy?

The Armed Forces kills people and breaks things in order for you and I to use and enjoy living securely.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Identity Socialism (today) promotes the "hyphenated Americans" which President Theodore Roosevelt opposed.

Insofar as people can really only have one identity, Identity Socialism teaches people to be their "tribalist" identity group at the expense of all else, including national identity

I'd have a lot more sympathy for that argument if the folks making it didn't expend so much energy trying to treat certain groups of people as somehow less than American or less than worthy of the rights bestowed on the residents and citizens of this nation. My entire life, I've been listening to conservatives describe urbanites, academics, artists, media professionals, and minorities as not "real Americans." If you want people to adopt a national identity, you have to welcome them as one of your own. If you constantly treat them as outsiders, you have no one to blame but yourself for their failure to assimilate.

The Armed Forces kills people and breaks things in order for you and I to use and enjoy living securely.

For the last 75 years, the armed forces have killed people and broken things in order to entertain the desires of warmongers, profiteers, and politicians with savior complexes. The only war after the 1940's that could remotely be construed as having been waged in order to make us at home more secure was Afghanistan and even that argument is shaky. We're now four generations beyond WW2; it's about time we stopped imagining ourselves as our great-grandparents.