Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Now non-white people can be white
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tom 1" data-source="post: 75874709" data-attributes="member: 404020"><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>Do you quite literally not understand the meaning of these sentences? Or if that is not what you are saying, what <em>are </em>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?</p><p></p><p><em>...many Black and brown voters have family and friends who fervently b<strong>acked the MAGA policy agenda, including its delusions and conspiracy theories.</strong>..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<strong> call this phenomenon multiracial whiteness — the promise that they, too, can lay claim to the politics of aggression, exclusion and domination</strong>...</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em><strong>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.</strong> Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of <strong>whiteness </strong>as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a<strong> discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.</strong></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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. <strong>In the politics of multiracial whiteness, anyone can join the MAGA movement and engage in the wild freedom of unbridled rage and conspiracy theories.</strong></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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 <strong>a politics of whiteness</strong> and those who seek something better.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>If that really is the case I will try and simplify it:</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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 '<em>exclusion, violence and demonization', </em>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The difference you seem to be making between 'understand' and 'redefine' is an act of your own imagination.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tom 1, post: 75874709, member: 404020"] 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? 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 [I]are [/I]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? [I]...many Black and brown voters have family and friends who fervently b[B]acked the MAGA policy agenda, including its delusions and conspiracy theories.[/B]..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[B] call this phenomenon multiracial whiteness — the promise that they, too, can lay claim to the politics of aggression, exclusion and domination[/B]... 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. [B]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.[/B] Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of [B]whiteness [/B]as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a[B] discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.[/B] 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. [B]In the politics of multiracial whiteness, anyone can join the MAGA movement and engage in the wild freedom of unbridled rage and conspiracy theories.[/B] 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 [B]a politics of whiteness[/B] and those who seek something better. [/I] 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 '[I]exclusion, violence and demonization', [/I]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? The difference you seem to be making between 'understand' and 'redefine' is an act of your own imagination. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Now non-white people can be white
Top
Bottom