Now non-white people can be white

[Tom 1]

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?

Of course you are way off - how can you expect to not be, when you ignore anything you don't like to hear about it? You can ruminate on your own ideas as long as you like, as long as you are unwilling to learn about other perspectives, you're wasting your time.

 

[Tom 1]

Science eventually disproved the Theory of Race rather conclusively. We somehow managed to fight against these ugly beliefs and protected against them in law.

Is that what you actually believe brought an end to practices such as slavery, land seizure and so on? Someone just said 'oh look that theory was wrong' and that was it? And that racism started with someone's theory?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course you are way off - how can you expect to not be, when you ignore anything you don't like to hear about it? You can ruminate on your own ideas as long as you like, as long as you are unwilling to learn about other perspectives, you're wasting your time.

Point to one thing I've ignored.

Whiteness as a concept is undefined. I can't really engage it until it holds at least some distinct characteristics.

Calling it a political project doesn't distinguish it from any other political project. Describe the concepts distinguishing characteristics....those aspects which make it identifiable and different from concepts which already exist.

 

[Tom 1]

Point to one thing I've ignored.

Whiteness as a concept is undefined. I can't really engage it until it holds at least some distinct characteristics.

Calling it a political project doesn't distinguish it from any other political project. Describe the concepts distinguishing characteristics....those aspects which make it identifiable and different from concepts which already exist.

Nothing you have said has anything to do with the transcribed interview in the article. You created your own version of what you think the person thinks and have been going on about that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is that what you actually believe brought an end to practices such as slavery, land seizure and so on? Someone just said 'oh look that theory was wrong' and that was it? And that racism started with someone's theory?

Oh no....disproving the theory just shows that anyone who holds a racist belief is factually wrong. We passed civil rights decades before that.

Passing those rights was more of an examination of justice and the role of government in justice.

 

[renniks]

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

Lol, they had to come up with some way to explain black Trump supporters and of course everything has to be about race, because surely no one could be conservative unless they are racist!

 

[Tom 1]

Oh no....disproving the theory just shows that anyone who holds a racist belief is factually wrong. We passed civil rights decades before that.

Passing those rights was more of an examination of justice and the role of government in justice.

What you are describing are actions that were eventually taken at the end of a long process that was driven more by economics, political pressure and the courage of a minority of people to fight against an unjust system. If you imagine this was some high-minded, principled process of wise and good leadership you don't know much about the history of your own country.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nothing you have said has anything to do with the transcribed interview in the article. You created your own version of what you think the person thinks and have been going on about that.

I read the article....it's an undefined concept.

If you could define it, you would, and then we could begin to examine it.

As of now we're stalled because you want me to accept it without any definition.

That's dogma. As an atheist I have a genuine understanding of dogma and it's purposes. I don't care about any in group status and since your dogma is vague and poorly defined it cannot possibly offer me truthful answers...just dogmatic ones.

Define the concept of whiteness clearly and we can move onto it's examination. If it appears to hold some value as a possibility of truth....we can discuss it's relation to reality it's usefulness in describing a "problem" since that is clearly how the context of your dogma describes it.

 

[Tom 1]

I read the article....it's an undefined concept.

If you could define it, you would, and then we could begin to examine it.

As of now we're stalled because you want me to accept it without any definition.

That's dogma. As an atheist I have a genuine understanding of dogma and it's purposes. I don't care about any in group status and since your dogma is vague and poorly defined it cannot possibly offer me truthful answers...just dogmatic ones.

Define the concept of whiteness clearly and we can move onto it's examination. If it appears to hold some value as a possibility of truth....we can discuss it's relation to reality it's usefulness in describing a "problem" since that is clearly how the context of your dogma describes it.

If your brain can't accept this definition, what does that have to do with me?

'...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. And so we've only been practicing a more consistent form of legal equality for a relatively short time since the 1960s. So Americans have often learned how to create their own sense of belonging through violence and through the exclusion of certain groups and populations'

This is an off the cuff definition, perfectly reasonable in its own right, but this is a radio interview, not a PhD thesis. For what it is it defines her idea in a perfectly understandable way, if you can't or don't want to see that, well I don't know what to tell you, it has nothing to do with either me or the person who gave the interview.

 

[Tom 1]

That's dogma. As an atheist I have a genuine understanding of dogma and it's purposes.

Your understanding is that dogma means undefined concepts?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What you are describing are actions that were eventually taken at the end of a long process that was driven more by economics, political pressure and the courage of a minority of people to fight against an unjust system. If you imagine this was some high-minded, principled process of wise and good leadership you don't know much about the history of your own country.

They made an argument about justice. It describes the hypocrisy inherent in a system of rules for one group of people...while having different rules for another group...and simultaneously affirming that justice applied equally to all was not only a hypocrisy but an injustice.

It was an arguement made. It was given evidence. It had strong merits.

Even though most people had racist beliefs, they still believed that fundamentally we are all humans....even if they viewed one group or another as superior. It became very difficult to find a reason why justice should be applied differently to each group. To do so was inherently a contradiction to a nation which applied justice to individuals...or claimed to.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your understanding is that dogma means undefined concepts?

You're asking for the definition of dogma?

 

[Tom 1]

You're asking for the definition of dogma?

No, I'm asking if you think dogma means 'undefined concepts' as you seem to be saying here -

'I read the article....it's an undefined concept.

If you could define it, you would, and then we could begin to examine it.

As of now we're stalled because you want me to accept it without any definition.

That's dogma.'

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here's an easy definition for dogma that applies.....

Definition of DOGMA


: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

Why are the grounds of your point of view inadequate? Because it so heavily relies on undefined concepts.....stripping concepts of definition....and emotional bullying.

 

[Tom 1]

a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

Which is just what you appear to be doing - ?

The woman interview elaborates a bit more on her idea here, if you can't get what she's saying from the interview: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...rt-we-must-think-terms-multiracial-whiteness/

 

[Tom 1]

your point of view

What point of view are you talking about?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which is just what you appear to be doing - ?

The woman interview elaborates a bit more on her idea here, if you can't get what she's saying from the interview: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...rt-we-must-think-terms-multiracial-whiteness/

From the first paragraph....

The Trump administration’s anti-immigration, anti-civil rights stance has made it easy to classify the president’s loyalists as a homogenous mob of white nationalists. But take a look at the FBI’s posters showing people wanted in the insurrectionist assault on the U.S. Capitol: Among the many White faces are a few that are clearly Latino or African American.

Clearly the characterization of Trump supporters as white nationalists is wrong. Instead of rejecting that characteristization and seeking a better understanding.....I'm gonna bet that she seeks to redefine them far more broadly to the point where she is unclear. We know she's talking about a group of people she doesn't like or agree with...but that's about it.


However, if I'm wrong, and this whiteness is clearly defined at some point in article, just say so and I'll keep reading.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What point of view are you talking about?

The one you clearly subscribe to without any thought.

I can describe it and the labels it goes by and the methods it uses. I can show where it derives from. I can even describe the almost inevitable conclusions it leads to....but I make no claim to certainty about that.

 

[Tom 1]

From the first paragraph....

The Trump administration’s anti-immigration, anti-civil rights stance has made it easy to classify the president’s loyalists as a homogenous mob of white nationalists. But take a look at the FBI’s posters showing people wanted in the insurrectionist assault on the U.S. Capitol: Among the many White faces are a few that are clearly Latino or African American.

Clearly the characterization of Trump supporters as white nationalists is wrong. Instead of rejecting that characteristization and seeking a better understanding.....I'm gonna bet that she seeks to redefine them far more broadly to the point where she is unclear. We know she's talking about a group of people she doesn't like or agree with...but that's about it.


However, if I'm wrong, and this whiteness is clearly defined at some point in article, just say so and I'll keep reading.

The article as a whole offers a perfectly clear picture of what Christina Beltrán means by 'multiracial whiteness', as does the radio interview. If you can't or don't want to see that, what is it that you expect me to do about it?

 

[Tom 1]

The one you clearly subscribe to without any thought.

I can describe it and the labels it goes by and the methods it uses. I can show where it derives from. I can even describe the almost inevitable conclusions it leads to....but I make no claim to certainty about that.

What are you on about? The discussion we have had is - this is what the person in the interview means by whiteness / you saying she doesn't say what she means and making other loosely related assertions.