Now non-white people can be white

[Pommer]

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

We might fall short of Rome’s record at being a Republic but we do have more firepower than they could’ve mustered.

 

[Pommer]

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.

Goalposts don’t move on their own but they ought to be on wheels with thinking like “Gee, I’d love to help you out with racial inequality but you protested in a manner that I don’t agree with so, bub-bye.”
Rinse
Repeat.

 

[disciple Clint]

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

Interesting because what I see is people trying to redefine what terms mean to fit their own needs at any specific time. It has gotten to such a crazy level that we now have people who say that a black person who does not conform to the values that the majority of black people have is considered white. I think we should just stop with the labels and treat each person as the individual that they are. It is insulting to suggest that all black people or all white people or all brown people think alike and have a predictable profile from a values standpoint. Isn't that the very definition of racialism? I do not endorse people thinking they can broad brush anyone based on race.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh no.... its "they" up to their usual no good!

They = the racists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It won't be temporary. "Equality" requires a comparison of the two or several races (or whatever), and that opens the door to judging whether they are being treated equally or not.

But if the word "equity" is used instead, it serves the same purpose for the person using it and, what's more, many listeners won't notice that it's not the word they have been used to hearing for most of their lives...and yet this word doesn't mean anything except what the speaker wants it to mean. Virtually any complaint can be addressed by saying "It's not fair!"

The very idea of equity is absurd. We can imagine economies or societies that are constructed around the pursuit of things of value (whatever they might be) but inevitably.....some are better at the pursuit than others and you're right back to inequality.

That's going to be true no matter how fair we make the pursuit.

Now, let's imagine equity....a game where we all get the same no matter what. Imagine a game of monopoly where everyone gets around the board, then all assets are piled together and redistributed equally each time.....erasing any progress one makes.

Why play this game at all? I'll do just as well as everyone else without putting in any effort. No work or effort required...I can simply leave my piece at "Go" and do something else.

If that's the case, once enough players drop out of the game (economically speaking) everything falls apart. Players will have to be forced to play against their will to keep the game going. I like to think of those Cambodian rice paddies where innocent people were worked to death for no gain of their own at gunpoint. Horrifying? Sure. But equitable.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

How can a non-white person benefit from white privilege?

If the term is used to refer to an unconscious bias that magically favors white people....you can't support it in a way that benefits non-whites lol.

I'm aware that you didn't construct the question essential so I'm not expecting an answer. I'm just surprised at the lengths people will go to in order to prop up bad ideas.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.



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.

Not a fan of the Korean War?

Even if you disagree with it's practical necessity.....it seems morally justifiable to spare the tens of millions of people the awful fate they would endure under communist Korea.

WW1 and WW2 changed a lot of things regarding how we view warfare. Not all of it for the better. I'm not particularly a fan of moral warfare....but it's hard for me to fathom the act of generosity created by the Korean war as an inherently wrong thing to do either morally or otherwise.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How can a non-white person benefit from white privilege?

it says "want to benefit".

 

[iluvatar5150]

Not a fan of the Korean War?

Even if you disagree with it's practical necessity.....it seems morally justifiable to spare the tens of millions of people the awful fate they would endure under communist Korea.

WW1 and WW2 changed a lot of things regarding how we view warfare. Not all of it for the better. I'm not particularly a fan of moral warfare....but it's hard for me to fathom the act of generosity created by the Korean war as an inherently wrong thing to do either morally or otherwise.

I'd probably lump that one under "politicians with savior complexes" - which, in hindsight, may not have been the best descriptor I could've used. Either way, what I intended to imply were motivations that were arguably good, but ill-advised.

I'll concede that I'm not super well-read on the history of the Korean War, but my understanding is that the motivation for the war was primarily strategic - that the US didn't want to allow communism to spread further through the region - rather than concern for the welfare of the people of South Korea. From what I recall, Syngman Rhee wasn't the most benevolent of leaders. I'm not going to argue that communism was good - but I'm pretty skeptical that our decades of combatting it with militarism and despotic puppet regimes was the best course of action.

 

[98cwitr]

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

They had to come up with a term to pigeonhole conservative black people that wasn't explicitly racist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Goalposts don’t move on their own but they ought to be on wheels with thinking like “Gee, I’d love to help you out with racial inequality but you protested in a manner that I don’t agree with so, bub-bye.”
Rinse
Repeat.

Is every means of pursuing a goal legitimate?

Obviously you draw the line somewhere right? The legitimate means to solve whatever problem you believe white people pose is going to lie somewhere between working within existing societal institutions and organized racial genocide, right?

 

[Tom 1]

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 Suppoters

This part makes sense to me -

"So there's been a whole lot of people thinking and theorizing about white supremacy. And all of these scholars share a view that I share, that whiteness is not the same thing as white people and that whiteness is actually better understood as a political project that has emerged historically, and that is dynamic and that is always changing. And so whiteness as an ideology is rooted in America's history of white supremacy - right? - which has to do with the legacy of slavery or Indigenous dispossession or Jim Crow".

They could clear up some of the confusion by using different terminology.

 

[Aldebaran]

We might fall short of Rome’s record at being a Republic but we do have more firepower than they could’ve mustered.

Any nation that possesses guns, planes, missiles and bombs has more firepower than one that had swords, shields, catapults, and arrows. Since any nation on Earth at this time has the former, one must have better armaments than those nations. Comparing our military to ancient Rome's is not a good standard to go by.

 

[Aldebaran]

They had to come up with a term to pigeonhole conservative black people that wasn't explicitly racist.

The problem now is that they're simply taking black people who commit violence and lumping them in with conservatives. Even the black guy that attacked Capitol police recently and killed one of them is being associated with people from Jan. 6th.

 

[Aldebaran]

This part makes sense to me -

"So there's been a whole lot of people thinking and theorizing about white supremacy. And all of these scholars share a view that I share, that whiteness is not the same thing as white people and that whiteness is actually better understood as a political project that has emerged historically, and that is dynamic and that is always changing. And so whiteness as an ideology is rooted in America's history of white supremacy - right? - which has to do with the legacy of slavery or Indigenous dispossession or Jim Crow".

They could clear up some of the confusion by using different terminology.

They could also help matters by identifying characteristics of other races as well. Instead of talking so much about whiteness, when are they going to get around to talking about what blackness is, or Asianness, or hispancness? It would go a long way to showing how different white people are from everyone else, and highlight distinctions between the others as well, and even show us how Asians and blacks and hispanics are so much "better"than white people.

 

[Tom 1]

They could also help matters by identifying characteristics of other races as well. Instead of talking so much about whiteness, when are they going to get around to talking about what blackness is, or Asianness, or hispancness? It would go a long way to showing how different white people are from everyone else, and highlight distinctions between the others as well, and even show us how Asians and blacks and hispanics are so much "better"than white people.

I don't think that's where it's going, ultimately. A bit of patience might be called for - for the last few hundred years us whities have been at the top of the economic tree, by and large, and we have been calling the shots. A few hundred years can't be sifted through just like that, it'll take time.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

So if America didn't invade Iraq I wouldn't be able to use and enjoy living securely?

Also, how do you explain nations who have better quality of life and security and don't spend nearly a trillion dollars a year on military spending and go around bombing the world?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Pommer]

Any nation that possesses guns, planes, missiles and bombs has more firepower than one that had swords, shields, catapults, and arrows. Since any nation on Earth at this time has the former, one must have better armaments than those nations. Comparing our military to ancient Rome's is not a good standard to go by.

Nothing about America becoming an Empire then?

 

[Pommer]

So if America didn't invade Iraq I wouldn't be able to use and enjoy living securely?

Also, how do you explain nations who have better quality of life and security and don't spend nearly a trillion dollars a year on military spending and go around bombing the world?

-CryptoLutheran

War is our leading export!

 

[Erik Nelson]

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

Identity Socialists treat everyone outside of their "tribe" as outsiders

If you keep treating Middle America as deplorable unwashed outsiders, you have no one to blame but yourself for their failure to accept your ideology

What country on planet earth has accepted more immigrants and wound up being more diverse than America?

Sure seems like you're the one being self-righteous, holier than thou, and (justifying yourself being) "Puritanically" rejectivist