Now non-white people can be white

[Tom 1]

Ok...looks like you choose to run because obviously, despite your earlier claim...you have no clue what whiteness is.

This is the modern left. Refusing to define "problems" so they can endlessly be applied in contradictory ways ad nauseam and telling their supporters they had better get on board or they'll be cast out.

No confidence in a party that engages in self deception and treats its supporters as if they are dumb.

Run from what? I'm still in the dark about whatever it is you are getting at.

Take the below for example. You idea is that white supremacy is about notions of superior genetics. That might be part of it for some people. or at least has been, but it's hardly the whole story. Even a minimum of reading of both what has been written by and about white supremacy reveals cultural and political aspects, and religious aspects for many too. It's these ideas that she is using the umbrella term 'whiteness' for, as is as plain as it could be in the text.

'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. And I think it's important to realize just how long in this country legal discrimination was not simply culturally acceptable but legally authorized'

Is that not clear? Or do you think that legal classifications of people as non-people and legal discrimination etc are not political issues? Again as should be obvious, white supremacists (or whatever term they use for themselves), like any other group of people have their own sets of values, both shared and disparate, a way of thinking about the world that encompasses a wide range of ideas and experiences. Many of these things have appeal for people who are not ethnically 'white' but who like some aspects of the culture, the machismo perhaps, the gun fetish or whatever, or just the driving about it pickups with guns and having basic notions about how the world works and so on. So people buy in at that level and the rest of has some influence on how they think politically as a result. What is it that isn't clear about any of this? This is what clarity is when talking about people and how they function, you may think it's all reducible to some basic notion, but it isn't - that is simply a fact, not an opinion.

If you read the rest of the article you can point out what it is you actually disagree with. Otherwise your 'I think something so it must be true' approach is a bit pointless.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Uh huh...

So why reply at all?

Because I screwed up. I didn't reply to most of your comments. The ones I did reply to, I thought I could do so and still avoid getting drawn into a pointless back and forth. Silly me.

I'll point out that in post #85, you took my lack of response as evidence of my inability to defend a position and tacit approval of some racist policy the details of which I'm still not clear about (note: that is not a solicitation of an explanation). So, either I respond to you and get drawn into an argument that I don't want to have; or I avoid the subject and get accused of being a hypocrite. When I do respond, my explanation isn't accepted and is, instead, questioned and interpreted to mean something else. There's no winning with you. This is exactly the sort of manipulative garbage I was hoping to avoid by not answering your questions.

Your continued participation just makes me look correct.

My continued participation certainly makes my initial assumption look incorrect.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Run from what? I'm still in the dark about whatever it is you are getting at.

Take the below for example. You idea is that white supremacy is about notions of superior genetics. That might be part of it for some people. or at least has been, but it's hardly the whole story. Even a minimum of reading of both what has been written by and about white supremacy reveals cultural and political aspects, and religious aspects for many too. It's these ideas that she is using the umbrella term 'whiteness' for, as is as plain as it could be in the text.

So anything white people do or believe can be called "whiteness"?

'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. And I think it's important to realize just how long in this country legal discrimination was not simply culturally acceptable but legally authorized'

I fully realize that legal discrimination existed. Do you think she realizes whiteness also includes the transition to making racial discrimination illegal? Whiteness also includes the disproving of the Theory of Race and the widespread teachings that there are no superior races?

 

[Tom 1]

So anything white people do or believe can be called "whiteness"?

You understand that she is equating that term with white supremacist ideas, ideologies, political actions and so on, right? I mean that is exactly what she says. Do you understand how that is different from 'anything white people do'? What is preventing you from responding to what is actually in the interview transcript?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because I screwed up. I didn't reply to most of your comments. The ones I did reply to, I thought I could do so and still avoid getting drawn into a pointless back and forth. Silly me.

I'll point out that in post #85, you took my lack of response as evidence of my inability to defend a position and tacit approval of some racist policy the details of which I'm still not clear about (note: that is not a solicitation of an explanation). So, either I respond to you and get drawn into an argument that I don't want to have; or I avoid the subject and get accused of being a hypocrite. When I do respond, my explanation isn't accepted and is, instead, questioned and interpreted to mean something else. There's no winning with you. This is exactly the sort of manipulative garbage I was hoping to avoid by not answering your questions.

When have I mischaracterized your arguments?

Racial discrimination has a rather clear definition. I'm not to blame if it accurately describes your position.

My continued participation certainly makes my initial assumption look incorrect.

Want me to link my post in this thread where I said I expect personal attacks?

It's literally predictable at this point. None of you are capable of defending your beliefs. The only response anyone has is to attack me instead.

That or avoidance.

Since I already predicted this and you confirmed it (your entire post is just a personal attack)...would you like to switch the topic to what this says, generally speaking, about your position?

 

[Tom 1]

Do you think she realizes whiteness also includes the transition to making racial discrimination illegal? Whiteness also includes the disproving of the Theory of Race and the widespread teachings that there are no superior races?

Again, as she says quite clearly, and more than once, she is defining whiteness, or referring to the definition of whiteness as used by, as she says, a number of academics in related fields to mean that which represents ideas rooted in or having their origin in white supremacist ideology. That is her definition of 'whiteness', for the purposes of study and understanding etc., as, as she says, opposed to white people. What you are putting forward here is another one of your ideas, your definition of what the term 'whiteness' means, not hers. Do you understand? She is not using whiteness as you seem to think she is to mean all things connected with white people. She quite clearly makes the distinction between whiteness as meaning a mentality arising from white supremacy and 'white people' in general. This is what she makes clear, you can read it in the interview.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You understand that she is equating that term with white supremacist ideas, ideologies, political actions and so on, right?

If she's equivocating white supremacy with whiteness....we don't need the term whiteness.

We can just stick with the already well defined term of white supremacy.

As such, her characterization is wrong. I doubt there's any significant number of non-whites advocating white supremacy that would merit any discussion.

Furthermore, there's very few white people advocating white supremacy.

If however, she is attempting to misconstrue completely legitimate political behavior of white people that is outside of white supremacist ideology.... then she is committing a rather obvious logical fallacy.

 

[Tom 1]

If she's equivocating white supremacy with whiteness....we don't need the term whiteness.

You can just read what she says. Ideologies develop, that is what happens. The idea of whiteness she is talking about goes beyond your idea about genetics. This is pretty obvious, and it is also what she is saying, if you read it.

We can just stick with the already well defined term of white supremacy.

As such, her characterization is wrong. I doubt there's any significant number of non-whites advocating white supremacy that would merit any discussion.

You can stick with what you like, and what you think merits discussion is what you think. Do your ideas about what you think she means without actually talking about what she means merit discussion?

Furthermore, there's very few white people advocating white supremacy.

If however, she is attempting to misconstrue completely legitimate political behavior of white people that is outside of white supremacist ideology.... then she is committing a rather obvious logical fallacy.

What behaviour does she talk about, and what behaviour are you talking about?

 

[Aldebaran]

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

You mean nations that the United States defends? They don't have to spend trillions of dollars on defense if we're there to do it for them.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You mean nations that the United States defends? They don't have to spend trillions of dollars on defense if we're there to do it for them.

Perhaps our friends from the international community can chime in on this. After all, if they need us to spend a trillion dollars on our military budget for them to feel safe, perhaps they could let us know.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aldebaran]

Perhaps our friends from the international community can chime in on this. After all, if they need us to spend a trillion dollars on our military budget for them to feel safe, perhaps they could let us know.

-CryptoLutheran

If our "friends" are the governments of those nations that make such decisions, their input would be meaningful.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Oh for crying out loud.

I'm the one you addressed in post #70. If you're going to call me out, call me out.

Don't confuse a choice to not engage with the inability to engage.

I didn't respond to that comment or subsequent comments because I learned a while ago that I don't have the energy, time, or desire anymore to go back and forth with you on certain subjects, especially those that require chasing down your strawmen (which often happens on subjects related to racism). In this thread, I chose to engage you on specific subjects that I knew I had the energy to engage on (e.g. the Korean War). When you chimed in on comments I addressed to others, I deliberately chose to just overlook the ones I knew were headed towards a rabbit hole I didn't want to go down.

More broadly, I just don't have the energy for most useless protracted arguments here anymore. For the most part, the only useless arguments I have the energy for are drive-by snipings, which is more-or-less what I did with @Erik Nelson and @98cwitr . (possible exception: economic issues that I have an easier time researching and arguing, which I do for my own edification more than anything) You're more reasonable than a lot of folks I disagree with, and while I often don't trust your take on racial issues, they typically warrant more of a response than a 30 second hot take while I'm sitting on the toilet. And these days I typically have better things to do.

I'm sure others would like to know what your objection to Jim Crow is. Otherwise all this rings very hollow.

I'd also like to know what whiteness is.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm sure others would like to know what your objection to Jim Crow is. Otherwise all this rings very hollow.

I'd also like to know what whiteness is.

I'd like to know that as well. I've been asking, but never get a very good answer. Usually I'm told that it's everything that's wrong in the world, no matter the color of the person exhibiting the wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Run from what? I'm still in the dark about whatever it is you are getting at.

Take the below for example. You idea is that white supremacy is about notions of superior genetics. That might be part of it for some people. or at least has been, but it's hardly the whole story. Even a minimum of reading of both what has been written by and about white supremacy reveals cultural and political aspects, and religious aspects for many too. It's these ideas that she is using the umbrella term 'whiteness' for, as is as plain as it could be in the text.

'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. And I think it's important to realize just how long in this country legal discrimination was not simply culturally acceptable but legally authorized'

I've specifically pointed out why it's unclear. I can refer you to those posts if you want.

Is that not clear? Or do you think that legal classifications of people as non-people and legal discrimination etc are not political issues? Again as should be obvious, white supremacists (or whatever term they use for themselves), like any other group of people have their own sets of values, both shared and disparate, a way of thinking about the world that encompasses a wide range of ideas and experiences. Many of these things have appeal for people who are not ethnically 'white' but who like some aspects of the culture, the machismo perhaps, the gun fetish or whatever, or just the driving about it pickups with guns and having basic notions about how the world works and so on. So people buy in at that level and the rest of has some influence on how they think politically as a result. What is it that isn't clear about any of this?

Oh no....it's racism. If you ascribe to the idea that race influences morality....behavior....or any other characteristics that aren't influenced by race (that's nearly everything) you're a racist. We don't have to assume that a person who holds racist beliefs subscribes to white supremacist ideology. Anyone of any race can be racist.

So why try to shift the blame to some vague and undefined notion of whiteness? My guess is those people are both cowards and racist. They inevitably will see non-white people engaging in horrific acts of racism and because of their personal discomfort in blaming non-white people for anything.....they shift the blame to white people. Why? Obviously they are racist. They don't want to call a black racist a black racist because in today's society....they will inevitably be called racist for doing so.

They're scared racists who feel better blaming white people instead of whatever person is responsible. It allows these cowards to never confront racism in non-white people. Sadly, that doesn't lead to any real understanding of the problem....it avoids it.

Is that clear?

 

[Tom 1]

I've specifically pointed out why it's unclear. I can refer you to those posts if you want.



Oh no....it's racism. If you ascribe to the idea that race influences morality....behavior....or any other characteristics that aren't influenced by race (that's nearly everything) you're a racist. We don't have to assume that a person who holds racist beliefs subscribes to white supremacist ideology. Anyone of any race can be racist.

So why try to shift the blame to some vague and undefined notion of whiteness? My guess is those people are both cowards and racist. They inevitably will see non-white people engaging in horrific acts of racism and because of their personal discomfort in blaming non-white people for anything.....they shift the blame to white people. Why? Obviously they are racist. They don't want to call a black racist a black racist because in today's society....they will inevitably be called racist for doing so.

They're scared racists who feel better blaming white people instead of whatever person is responsible. It allows these cowards to never confront racism in non-white people. Sadly, that doesn't lead to any real understanding of the problem....it avoids it.

Is that clear?

Nope. Your notion of clarity is highly original.

A good question for yourself would be understanding what provokes such knee-jerk blustering at something you haven't even attempted to understand.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What behaviour does she talk about, and what behaviour are you talking about?

She doesn't talk about it or clearly define it because it would show how racist she is. You cannot possibly broadly describe all the political behavior of white Europeans in the US as "white supremacist". It's factually wrong and easily dismissed. It's why she doesn't have any real clarity about what whiteness means.

In fact, if one were so inclined, they could show conclusively that the basis for US political thought is overwhelmingly centered around the individual....not any group of any race or any kind.

That's why you have individual rights...not group rights. That's why laws no longer apply to groups (even to the point of considering corporations as individuals) about 99% of the time. They apply to individuals....and since the passage of specific amendments to the Constitution (not a small thing) they cannot be applied by group status.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nope. Your notion of clarity is highly original.

A good question for yourself would be understanding what provokes such knee-jerk blustering at something you haven't even attempted to understand.

I don't think you have any real reason to believe I have not given it any thought....I've given it considerable consideration for years now. I'm confident in my position.

Do you believe that any person can hold a racist belief?

 

[Tom 1]

You cannot possibly broadly describe all the political behavior of white Europeans in the US as "white supremacist".

Where do you get that notion from?

 

[Tom 1]

I don't think you have any real reason to believe I have not given it any thought....I've given it considerable consideration for years now. I'm confident in my position.

Do you believe that any person can hold a racist belief?

What I see is that the slightest whiff of anyone having anything to say about the history of racism in European/US culture leads to you trying to harangue, manipulate and bluster in some attempt to limit discussion to the parameters you find acceptable.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What I see is that the slightest whiff of anyone having anything to say about the history of racism in European/US culture leads to you trying to harangue, manipulate and bluster in some attempt to limit discussion to the parameters you find acceptable.

I fully accept that not only is there a long ugly history of race and racism in the US and Europe. I've never contested this fact. As long and ugly as it is....I'm actually glad that it had its roots in science as science is not dogma. Science eventually disproved the Theory of Race rather conclusively. We somehow managed to fight against these ugly beliefs and protected against them in law. I'm rather proud of that too.

That doesn't deny anything about the facts of history though.

What it appears to me is that you believe something else you don't want to speak but seem upset that I don't arrive at this conclusion the same way you do.

If I had to guess....it involves some imaginary transferrable responsibility of the actions of individuals and groups from the past...to me in the present.

It appears to be based on nothing more than the fact that those people who you judge in the past as immoral...must be atoned for by me in the present....because of the color of my skin.

Am I right? Am I way off?