Now non-white people can be white

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.

Left part of this discussion out....you made a truth claim as well. You said "I understand this".

I called you on that by challenging it.

I said....prove you understand this.

Every subsequent post has only confirmed I was correct in rejecting your claim.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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?

I continue on reading then....I'm familiar with Beltran.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'm not entirely sure what she's describing here.

She describes whiteness through behavior. It's angry, it's violent, it's....racist but somehow welcomes all races? That's inherently illogical. The individuals might be racist.. but it would make more sense to describe whiteness as not inherently racist but not exclusionary by thought or belief or idea. This clearly includes both ideas you would agree with....and those you don't.

Now....we can debate whether that is a good idea or not and I'm going to be able to argue very well that not only is it a good idea, it's embedded in the US Constitution.

Want me to continue?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
We can actually contrast this with what it implies Beltran believes....

And I don't like assuming things but does Beltran believe that we should punish or exclude people by belief? I have no problem with her arguing for that and going through the difficult process of convincing people thought crime is a real thing and then repealing the first amendment by ratification of all fifty states.


But it appears she's taking the much easier option of mischaracterizing her opponents and promoting the acceptance of mob justice or social justice if you prefer.

Mob justice is punishment through will of a mob. We have implicitly decided that this is inherently wrong because a mob is explicitly passionate and justice should not be. Emotional motives should not drive the carrying out of justice. It should be facts, evidence, argument, consideration, etc that delivers us the guilty. When guilt is weighed...only then should we really be considering circumstances like emotions in the passing of punishment.

Or do you disagree?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Here's another excerpt I'd ask her about....

"Rooted in America’s ugly history of white supremacy, indigenous dispossession and anti-blackness, multiracial whiteness is an ideology invested in the unequal distribution of land, wealth, power and privilege — a form of hierarchy in which the standing of one section of the population is premised on the debasement of others."

Unequal distribution? The government writes and enforces the rules of the economic exchange. We have decided that because liberty is important and free will is a natural right....all contracts and exchanges should be entered into by people choosing for themselves. Free will.

It is inevitable that some will do better than others at correct assessing the values of exchange....thereby continually gaining. Once successful....such gains offer distinct advantages. Oppression should not exist.....but even without oppression there would not be equality.

To create equality you would have to create a government so vast it completely controls all opportunities and goods. You would have to eliminate liberty. You would necessarily create oppression.

Is she too dumb to understand this? Does she understand that this is a basic communist principle and it fails in practice every time? Is she unaware of the depravity and inhumanity that follows?

If she doesn't then perhaps she should consider at least a basic study of economic theory.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I mean seriously.....unequal distribution is the main criticism of capitalism.....and it's not valid.

What reason do I have to work hard and struggle if no gain followed? Please describe a system that results in equality without removing choice. I can't even imagine how it works. It's the kind of wide eyed idealism I expect from children....not adults parading around as academics. She's not smart.

We should be examining the failures of our universities. If this is what they produce then something has gone wrong.

Economics is a vast and dense and frankly boring subject that involves a wide range of factors and variables that are extremely complex and difficult to understand. Economic genius is extremely rare as a result. If we look at the two most influential figures of the modern age....Adam Smith and Marx....I think we can best assess them based on their predictions. Smith's predictions came true almost exactly as he described the rise of the merchant class beyond the wealth of the monarchy itself. They came true for decades long after he was dead. He even predicted the problems that would result and they came true as well

Marx's ideas failed immediately. They never even leave the starting point. It's obvious to all and participation becomes forced.

The reason why you've heard about Marx and almost never hear about Smith is because of the truth claims they laid out. Marx laid out a claim that is emotionally satisfying. Inequality exists because of oppression. If we remove oppression we can all live as equals in all matters. A utopia.

Smith was trying to speak an ugly truth as gently as possible....that we are inherently in competition. All resources are finite by their very nature.....so trade is best described as an exchange of resources. All seek gain in this endeavor or otherwise they would not exchange at all unless by absolute necessity.

That's not a pretty picture of reality or human nature.....but often, truth isn't pretty.

It's hard for me to take someone seriously when they make such complaints. It's a basic misunderstanding of reality that is emotionally satisfying. That's why Marx appeals to people who don't understand basic economics and Smith only appeals to people who actually want to understand it....ugly truths or not.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Here's an actual truth claim about a characteristic of "whiteness"....

"Multiracial whiteness promises Latino Trump supporters freedom from the politics of diversity and recognition
."

This should be the sort of thing that is easily proven. All she would need is some polls wherein Latinos explain why they voted for Trump and their distaste for diversity and recognition would be expressed in some way. There's no evidence presented though, and I never heard any latino who voted for Trump give this as a reason....so it's just a guess. She wants to make a racist negative generalization about latino Trump supporters and avoid anyone calling her out on it.....so she blames everything on the whites.

That's all it is....a method for being racist against the political right without being called racist by the left.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
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

A simpler, less overwrought explanation is that Hispanic people don't see race in rigid categories, and therefore don't necessarily see themselves as an "other". Which is no surprise to anybody who actually understands anything about those cultures.

Also, in the last election, Republicans made gains among Hispanic and Black men, and actually had losses among white, less educated males. Perhaps politics is becoming somewhat less tied to race, and tied more to other things (perhaps things like temperment, religion, or other ideologies or cliques).

One thing to keep in mind is that Trump merely gestured towards fascism and white supremacy. His real appeal was authoritarianism, which isn't simply confined to one particular political ideology, but drags a broad net through the right and center in American politics in general. He was more part of the Ur-Fascist/quasi-fascist mindset. Something that isn't rare at all in Latin American (Peron, Bolsinaro, etc.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Left part of this discussion out....you made a truth claim as well. You said "I understand this".

I called you on that by challenging it.

I said....prove you understand this.

Every subsequent post has only confirmed I was correct in rejecting your claim.

‘Prove you understand it’ lol. She says that guys who like the idea of being able to exercise their ‘freedom’ at the expense of others, an idea made flesh in Trump, like that idea regardless of their ethnic background. What is there that is hard to understand about it? What your swathes of random assertions have to do with it however I am completely in the dark about.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Clearly the characterization of Trump supporters as white nationalists is wrong.

Is it? If most of them are white nationalists but some aren't then the characterisation is wrong? Things are either 100% true or not at all in your world? 'Trump’s voters — and his mob — are disproportionately White' - is this factual, or is it not?

Instead of rejecting that characteristization and seeking a better understanding.

This is exactly what she does -? Are you saying that you literally don't understand the words on the page, or that you don't agree with them?

Do you quite literally not understand the meaning of these sentences? Or if that is not what you are saying, what are you saying? If it's not that you don't understand but that you disagree, that is another question, but are you saying here that you are simply unable to understand these words?

...many Black and brown voters have family and friends who fervently backed the MAGA policy agenda, including its delusions and conspiracy theories...What are we to make of Tarrio — and, more broadly, of Latino voters inspired by Trump? And what are we to make of unmistakably White mob violence that also includes non-White participants? I call this phenomenon multiracial whiteness — the promise that they, too, can lay claim to the politics of aggression, exclusion and domination...

Trump, by contrast, knows nothing of the history of Latinos in the United States and rarely even pretends to find value in Latinos’ distinct identities. Rather than offering his non-White voters recognition, Trump has offered them multiracial whiteness.

Rooted in America’s ugly history of white supremacy, indigenous dispossession and anti-blackness, multiracial whiteness is an ideology invested in the unequal distribution of land, wealth, power and privilege — a form of hierarchy in which the standing of one section of the population is premised on the debasement of others. Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.

Multiracial whiteness promises Latino Trump supporters freedom from the politics of diversity and recognition. For voters who see the very act of acknowledging one’s racial identity as itself racist, the politics of multiracial whiteness reinforces their desired approach to colorblind individualism. In the politics of multiracial whiteness, anyone can join the MAGA movement and engage in the wild freedom of unbridled rage and conspiracy theories.

Here, the politics of exclusion, violence and demonization are available to all. If you want to speak Spanish and celebrate a quinceañera in your family, go ahead. If you want to be a Proud Boy, be a Proud Boy. Trump doesn’t care. As long as you love him, he’ll love you.

America’s racial divide is not simply between Whites and non-Whites. Thinking in terms of multiracial whiteness helps us recognize that much of today’s political rift is a division between those who are drawn to and remain invested in a politics of whiteness and those who seek something better.

I'm getting close to quoting the whole passage here. Are you saying that you literally don't understand the meaning of these words? Again, we're not talking about whether or not you agree with anything she is saying, but are you saying that you are simply unable to understand the meaning of what is said? If so, which sentences from the above do you literally not understand?

If that really is the case I will try and simplify it:

She associates Trump's movement with a political outlook of aggression, exclusion and domination. She calls this political outlook 'the politics of whiteness' - do you understand these two sentences?

She says that this politics of whiteness is rooted in - has it's origins in - comes out of - is based on, however you want to put it - the history of white supremacy in the US. While your reference to Marx and Smith might bear some tangential relationship to your own thoughts about this, neither model has anything pertinent to add to what she is talking about, the basic reality that white European settlers, the people already living in the Americas and those people, mostly black Africans, who were brought there as slaves did not have, at the inception of the US as a colony and for most of its history thereafter, an equal footing. What equality there is now represents a tiny fraction of the time since the first natives were killed by settlers and the first slaves arrived. Inequality between white European settlers - and to a lesser extent among white European settlers - and everyone else living there, by choice or otherwise, is a feature of almost the entire history of the US. This is at least part of what she is referring to. Again, whether or not you agree with this is another question, but do you mean that you literally don't understand what is being said here?

Bertran claims that this history of unequal opportunity represents the idea that white people have a privileged position in society (one that has been historically sound but which in recent decades has come under threat) and that this privilege is no longer based on ethnicity but on allegiance to its principles of 'exclusion, violence and demonization', elements of what she calls 'the politics of whiteness', hence through committing to these ideals a person of any ethnicity participates in this politics of whiteness. Again, whether or not you agree with this idea is another question, but do you literally not understand these words?

I'm gonna bet that she seeks to redefine them far more broadly to the point where she is unclear

The difference you seem to be making between 'understand' and 'redefine' is an act of your own imagination.

We know she's talking about a group of people she doesn't like or agree with...but that's about it.

No, not at all. For some reason that is all you are able to see. Whatever the reason for that, it has nothing to do with the actual words in the article.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
A simpler, less overwrought explanation is that Hispanic people don't see race in rigid categories, and therefore don't necessarily see themselves as an "other". Which is no surprise to anybody who actually understands anything about those cultures.

Yeah...but it doesn't explain black people voting for him.

Also, in the last election, Republicans made gains among Hispanic and Black men, and actually had losses among white, less educated males. Perhaps politics is becoming somewhat less tied to race, and tied more to other things (perhaps things like temperment, religion, or other ideologies or cliques).

Or he just failed to meet expectations .

One thing to keep in mind is that Trump merely gestured towards fascism and white supremacy. His real appeal was authoritarianism, which isn't simply confined to one particular political ideology, but drags a broad net through the right and center in American politics in general. He was more part of the Ur-Fascist/quasi-fascist mindset. Something that isn't rare at all in Latin American (Peron, Bolsinaro, etc.)

Got a quote or something like that to demonstrate?

I think people never made a real attempt to understand his election. There was a short few months of genuine reflection...followed by a rather swift conclusion based on nothing.

If I had to go off the Trump voters who aren't holding extremely bizarre beliefs....and they greatly outnumber the ones who are....it's a general disillusionment with the process and the prospect of a non-politician fixing it.

I don't know how they view it now....

The left intentionally broad brushes the right to build support. They seem to be losing their ability to predict elections too.

That's not a surprise when you might be called a white supremacist for voting.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Is it? If most of them are white nationalists but some aren't then the characterisation is wrong? Things are either 100% true or not at all in your world? 'Trump’s voters — and his mob — are disproportionately White' - is this factual, or is it not?

I don't know....I doubt anyone does. When you demonize people for who they voted for....they tend to stop telling you what they believe.


This is exactly what she does -? Are you saying that you literally don't understand the words on the page, or that you don't agree with them?

No....it's not. There's an actual process she can follow that would lead to understanding.

She can go ask them why they voted for Trump.

I know.....crazy, right? It's a lot of work and what do you do if you find out that the reason wasn't some vague undefined concept you're pushing?

Do you quite literally not understand the meaning of these sentences? Or if that is not what you are saying, what are you saying? If it's not that you don't understand but that you disagree, that is another question, but are you saying here that you are simply unable to understand these words?

...many Black and brown voters have family and friends who fervently backed the MAGA policy agenda, including its delusions and conspiracy theories...

Most of his policies fell in the normal range of the conservative side of the political spectrum.

I obviously can't remember every single one....

Which policies involved delusions and conspiracy theories?

What are we to make of Tarrio — and, more broadly, of Latino voters inspired by Trump? And what are we to make of unmistakably White mob violence that also includes non-White participants? I call this phenomenon multiracial whiteness — the promise that they, too, can lay claim to the politics of aggression, exclusion and domination...

What makes it white mob violence? White people?

I'm joking....obviously this is where she wants to associate the two.

When black people engage in mob violence....does she call it multiracial white mob violence?

Trump, by contrast, knows nothing of the history of Latinos in the United States and rarely even pretends to find value in Latinos’ distinct identities. Rather than offering his non-White voters recognition, Trump has offered them multiracial whiteness.

When and how? I'm certain he's never used her phrase "multiracial whiteness".

How does one offer this still undefined concept.

Rooted in America’s ugly history of white supremacy, indigenous dispossession and anti-blackness, multiracial whiteness is an ideology invested in the unequal distribution of land, wealth, power and privilege — a form of hierarchy in which the standing of one section of the population is premised on the debasement of others. Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.

Is she saying that is the reason Latinos voted for Trump? Because they felt he was going to allow them to be racist and dehumanize people? Because they believe in the superiority of the white race lol?

What exactly is the reason for Latinos voting for Trump here?



Multiracial whiteness promises Latino Trump supporters freedom from the politics of diversity and recognition. For voters who see the very act of acknowledging one’s racial identity as itself racist, the politics of multiracial whiteness reinforces their desired approach to colorblind individualism.

Is she against the idea of colorblind individualism?

The idea that is based upon the fact that race includes no inherent characteristics and should be treated as such?

In the politics of multiracial whiteness, anyone can join the MAGA movement and engage in the wild freedom of unbridled rage and conspiracy theories.

Anyone can join??? It doesn't exclude people???

Here, the politics of exclusion, violence and demonization are available to all.

Here the failure of basic logic is available to all.....

Is this a group that excludes people? Or does it allow anyone to join?

It can't be both.

This woman is a joke. What is her degree in?

If you want to speak Spanish and celebrate a quinceañera in your family, go ahead. If you want to be a Proud Boy, be a Proud Boy. Trump doesn’t care. As long as you love him, he’ll love you.

Is this a bad thing? Are we not free to believe as we wish?


America’s racial divide is not simply between Whites and non-Whites. Thinking in terms of multiracial whiteness helps us recognize that much of today’s political rift is a division between those who are drawn to and remain invested in a politics of whiteness and those who seek something better.

What are "politics of whiteness"?

Did Trump do something exclusive for white people that I missed?


I'm getting close to quoting the whole passage here. Are you saying that you literally don't understand the meaning of these words?

It's a few different things. I definitely don't know what "politics of whiteness" are....

There's a communist affirmation of pure equality.

There's an attack on free speech.

There's an attack on the idea that we should attempt to disregard race in our dealings with people since nothing can be assumed from it.



Again, we're not talking about whether or not you agree with anything she is saying, but are you saying that you are simply unable to understand the meaning of what is said? If so, which sentences from the above do you literally not understand?

The phrase politics of whiteness. The attacks on completely reasonable beliefs that aren't extremist or racist in any way.

The reference to history does not connect with the other sentences in any way.

If that really is the case I will try and simplify it:

She associates Trump's movement with a political outlook of aggression, exclusion and domination. She calls this political outlook 'the politics of whiteness' - do you understand these two sentences?

Who did Trump attempt to exclude or dominate?

It's not clear what she is referring to here. As for aggression...that's subjective.

She says that this politics of whiteness is rooted in - has it's origins in - comes out of - is based on, however you want to put it - the history of white supremacy in the US. While your reference to Marx and Smith might bear some tangential relationship to your own thoughts about this,

She associated it with unequal distribution of wealth.

That's everyone worldwide.

It's not that I don't know what the unequal distribution of wealth means....but if you have ever attempted to acquire anything of value, you have by description, engaged in whiteness.

Do you understand is the better question.

Her descriptions are so vague that they could apply to anyone.

Also I don't know what a history of white supremacy is.

Does that include any racist policies?

Does it include the formation of white supremacist groups?

Is it everything the US did.....ever?

I can't tell from her description.

. neither model has anything pertinent to add to what she is talking about, the basic reality that white European settlers, the people already living in the Americas and those people, mostly black Africans, who were brought there as slaves did not have, at the inception of the US as a colony and for most of its history thereafter, an equal footing.

In what regard? And why would they?

Is that something you expect to see happen at some point in history?

It hasn't....you could apply that to any distinct groups throughout all of recorded history. In each case....one of those groups had advantages.

Is this what passes as an insight to you? The blatantly obvious? Well I'm about to blow your mind....

All the people alive today....weren't even born at one point in history.

Chew on that completely obvious fact that adds nothing to the discussion.

What are you telling me here? History occurred? That at all times inequality exists?

What am I supposed to conclude?

What equality there is now represents a tiny fraction of the time since the first natives were killed by settlers and the first slaves arrived. Inequality between white European settlers - and to a lesser extent among white European settlers - and everyone else living there, by choice or otherwise, is a feature of almost the entire history of the US.

Yup.

And?

This is at least part of what she is referring to. Again, whether or not you agree with this is another question, but do you mean that you literally don't understand what is being said here?

I understand the words....it doesn't explain whiteness in any way to point out the blatantly obvious fact that inequality exists everywhere in all of history .

Bertran claims that this history of unequal opportunity represents the idea that white people have a privileged position in society (one that has been historically sound but which in recent decades has come under threat) and that this privilege is no longer based on ethnicity but on allegiance to its principles of 'exclusion, violence and demonization', elements of what she calls 'the politics of whiteness', hence through committing to these ideals a person of any ethnicity participates in this politics of whiteness. Again, whether or not you agree with this idea is another question, but do you literally not understand these words?

Oh ok....when were these principles defined by this political agenda?

I can't say I've listened to an entire Trump speech but if he says he is for exclusion (and anyone can join lol) violence and demonization....well at least this has some legitimacy as a new concept.

But then it emerged from Trump....not history....

Unless you mean in the broader sense like how everything that exists emerged from history lol.


The difference you seem to be making between 'understand' and 'redefine' is an act of your own imagination.

Words like "history" and "inequality" have meaning....

It's just too broad and applies to too many things to know what you're talking about.

No, not at all. For some reason that is all you are able to see. Whatever the reason for that, it has nothing to do with the actual words in the article.

And for some reason you still believe this is a concept? What won you over? It's complete lack of identifying features or that it can be used as an answer for anything because of its lack of coherence?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't know....I doubt anyone does. When you demonize people for who they voted for....they tend to stop telling you what they believe.




No....it's not. There's an actual process she can follow that would lead to understanding.

She can go ask them why they voted for Trump.

I know.....crazy, right? It's a lot of work and what do you do if you find out that the reason wasn't some vague undefined concept you're pushing?



Most of his policies fell in the normal range of the conservative side of the political spectrum.

I obviously can't remember every single one....

Which policies involved delusions and conspiracy theories?



What makes it white mob violence? White people?

I'm joking....obviously this is where she wants to associate the two.

When black people engage in mob violence....does she call it multiracial white mob violence?



When and how? I'm certain he's never used her phrase "multiracial whiteness".

How does one offer this still undefined concept.



Is she saying that is the reason Latinos voted for Trump? Because they felt he was going to allow them to be racist and dehumanize people? Because they believe in the superiority of the white race lol?

What exactly is the reason for Latinos voting for Trump here?





Is she against the idea of colorblind individualism?

The idea that is based upon the fact that race includes no inherent characteristics and should be treated as such?



Anyone can join??? It doesn't exclude people???



Here the failure of basic logic is available to all.....

Is this a group that excludes people? Or does it allow anyone to join?

It can't be both.

This woman is a joke. What is her degree in?



Is this a bad thing? Are we not free to believe as we wish?




What are "politics of whiteness"?

Did Trump do something exclusive for white people that I missed?




It's a few different things. I definitely don't know what "politics of whiteness" are....

There's a communist affirmation of pure equality.

There's an attack on free speech.

There's an attack on the idea that we should attempt to disregard race in our dealings with people since nothing can be assumed from it.





The phrase politics of whiteness. The attacks on completely reasonable beliefs that aren't extremist or racist in any way.

The reference to history does not connect with the other sentences in any way.



Who did Trump attempt to exclude or dominate?

It's not clear what she is referring to here. As for aggression...that's subjective.



She associated it with unequal distribution of wealth.

That's everyone worldwide.

It's not that I don't know what the unequal distribution of wealth means....but if you have ever attempted to acquire anything of value, you have by description, engaged in whiteness.

Do you understand is the better question.

Her descriptions are so vague that they could apply to anyone.

Also I don't know what a history of white supremacy is.

Does that include any racist policies?

Does it include the formation of white supremacist groups?

Is it everything the US did.....ever?

I can't tell from her description.



In what regard? And why would they?

Is that something you expect to see happen at some point in history?

It hasn't....you could apply that to any distinct groups throughout all of recorded history. In each case....one of those groups had advantages.

Is this what passes as an insight to you? The blatantly obvious? Well I'm about to blow your mind....

All the people alive today....weren't even born at one point in history.

Chew on that completely obvious fact that adds nothing to the discussion.

What are you telling me here? History occurred? That at all times inequality exists?

What am I supposed to conclude?



Yup.

And?



I understand the words....it doesn't explain whiteness in any way to point out the blatantly obvious fact that inequality exists everywhere in all of history .



Oh ok....when were these principles defined by this political agenda?

I can't say I've listened to an entire Trump speech but if he says he is for exclusion (and anyone can join lol) violence and demonization....well at least this has some legitimacy as a new concept.

But then it emerged from Trump....not history....

Unless you mean in the broader sense like how everything that exists emerged from history lol.




Words like "history" and "inequality" have meaning....

It's just too broad and applies to too many things to know what you're talking about.



And for some reason you still believe this is a concept? What won you over? It's complete lack of identifying features or that it can be used as an answer for anything because of its lack of coherence?
Can you stick to the topic please?

1) Do you understand the words and sentences in the article, or not?
2) If not, what particular words and sentences do you not understand?
3) Do you understand what, from those words and sentences, is the idea of the person who expressed them?
4) If not, why not? What is preventing you from reading and understanding the collections of words into sentences?

Can you give the soapbox stuff a rest please, we have a topic to discuss, not everything that might be possibly associated with it.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I understand the words....it doesn't explain whiteness in any way to point out the blatantly obvious fact that inequality exists everywhere in all of history .

Do you understand that in referring to the origins of her 'whiteness' concept she is talking about the relative positions of white and non-white people in the country now known as the United States of America? Is that somehow unclear?
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Which policies involved delusions and conspiracy theories?

If you genuinely aren't aware of the various delusional ideas pushed by Trump over the last 10 years or so, you must live in a bubble. If you really are that unaware of real world events perhaps any attempt at discussion is simply pointless.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What makes it white mob violence? White people?

I'm joking....obviously this is where she wants to associate the two.

When black people engage in mob violence....does she call it multiracial white mob violence?

What does this have to do with anything in the article? Are you being deliberately obtuse here?

To begin with, mob is your addition. Clearly, obviously, plainly she is referring to something more than recent riots and mob violence when she speaks about both historical movements and the actions of individuals. If she meant 'white people tend to engage more in mob violence' then something of that sort would be in the article. How is it that you do not understand this?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It hasn't....you could apply that to any distinct groups throughout all of recorded history. In each case....one of those groups had advantages.

Do you genuinely not understand that she is talking about the particular instance of history known as the history of the United States?
 
Upvote 0