A couple of months ago, I posted a clip of Ibram X Kendi giving an embarrassingly circular definition of racism on Twitter. It’s unclear whether the nervous laughter that followed Kendi’s “definition” was based on the fact that he’d used the word he was supposed to be defining three times in quick succession, or whether his audience simply thought he was joking.
As much as I complain about assumptions based upon a monolithic view of groups, I have to constantly work at not doing it myself. It's so easy to do that.
As for short definitions of racism, "low expectations of someone because of their race."
Ironically It is very common in SJWs. "Black people need a white person to fix their issues (me, the superior ally)" and/or "white people are inherently racists." I consider it a foundational plank though it is often thought of as soft racism.
"As much as I complain about assumptions based upon a monolithic view of groups, I have to constantly work at not doing it myself. It's so easy to do that."
Haha, don't feel bad, anybody who says they don't have to work at this is almost certainly just lacking in self-awareness. I think your definition of racism leaves a lot on the table though.
The racism of low expectations is something we see an awful lot at the moment among the woke/liberal left. Black people are allowed to behave (and some allow themselves to be seen) as children who simply can't be expected to take responsibility for themselves or manage their emotions and lives.
*But*, as I've noted before, many of the problems that certain black communities face are the result of very different manifestations of racism. It's unfair to talk about the former without recognising the latter, as there's a straight line between the two. And ironically, the people in those marginalised communities are far more likely to be reasonable and rational and clear about the changes they want to see both within and without their communities than the hysterical, pampered children on Medium who act as if every micro aggression they experience in Starbucks is the same as slavery.
It's super important not to mistake the idiots for the entire cause.
"*But*, as I've noted before, many of the problems that certain black communities face are the result of very different manifestations of racism. It's unfair to talk about the former without recognising the latter, as there's a straight line between the two. And ironically, the people in those marginalised communities are far more likely to be reasonable and rational and clear about the changes they want to see both within and without their communities than the hysterical, pampered children on Medium who act as if every micro aggression they experience in Starbucks is the same as slavery."
Thirty years ago I lived in the state of Georgia. I worked a 2nd shift as a technician and there was an old black woman who changed parts for me. I spent quite a few cumulative hours talking with her, or more accurately listening to her. She had a lot to get off her chest having direct memory of burning crosses. While she was quite honest about her extreme low opinion of white men and sometimes her words were quite harsh, she needed me to listen as much as I needed to listen to her.
The thing is, it was easier for me sit sit next to her and listen than it is today to read the thoughts of the Starbucks drinkers. It's not that they have nothing to say that is valid, they do, but sitting with her where i could "feel" both her venom, pain and the genuineness of her words is different. That is a real deficiency of the internet.
I am an avid bid whist player and in those days I was "Salt" at the "black table" in the break room when I was on day shift in the sea of white pinochle tables. One day one of the guys let slip words that quickly caused him to say, "Excuse me Salt. I shouldn't have said that in front of you. Looking at my card you blend in." He didn't apologize for the words or the thought behind them, just for letting me hear them. It didn't bother me, I got it and needed to hear them more that the others at the table and the crowd of kibitzers that you find at a hot seat bid whist game.
We do need to listen, but it was disheartening to read "Sit down and shut up white man, you have nothing to say" when I gave an opinion on Medium. From a white woman I considered a friend at that. We need two way communication. Listening to idiots is a thing too, but as you wrote, that needs to go through a filter of "nobody elected this person spokesperson for a monolithic group.
"it was disheartening to read "Sit down and shut up white man, you have nothing to say" when I gave an opinion on Medium"
I completely agree. I'm so tired of hearing this across all of the various, arbitrary divides. Men can't talk about women's issues. White people can't talk about black issues. Non-trans people can't talk about trans issues. It's so obviously divisive and stupid. And increasingly, it's not even a divide of identity, it's a divide of opinion. Black people attack other black people with the "wrong" opinions. Women attack women, trans people attack other trans people. I've said it before but it just doesn't stop being true; we need to learn to talk with people who disagree with us without demonising them.
You make a good point about talking in person vs reading online too. Online discourse really sucks the humanity out of people and makes context so much more difficult to appreciate. That's why it takes extra special effort to do it compassionately. As online is the way most of us connect these days, it's effort we all need to make.
Sad to hear about that guy at the whist table though. The issue is what he said, not whether you were there to hear it. The fact that he clearly doesn't appreciate that is disheartening frankly.
“To put them into an arbitrary box, and treat them like everybody else who ever fit in it. But it shouldn’t be lost on any of us that this is also true of racism.”
One of the things I so enjoy about you Steve is the unflinching honesty and fresh take you challenge yourself to make in these interactions, while holding a principled, consistent stance on what you feel to be true. It’s a mark of intellectual character that - clearly - draws people to you.
Your final words I re-cite here make so much sense. What you accurately call out as putting people in an arbitrary box seems, to me, the very initial stages of beginning to ‘other’ another person. And we all know where that leads. Well, those of us who disdain the silly illogic of a Kendi know where it leads.
It does indeed lead to racism.
I really enjoyed this exchange. Thank you for sharing.
"What you accurately call out as putting people in an arbitrary box seems, to me, the very initial stages of beginning to ‘other’ another person"
Yeah absolutely. It's basically the beginnings of a kind of intellectual laziness that we're all capable of. *Deciding* what somebody is all about is much easier than *learning* what they're all about by paying close attention. So we use shortcuts that almost always lead us astray. It's especially easy to do online, but we do it in person too, and yes, you're completely right, it's the foundation of all prejudice.
"*Deciding* what somebody is all about is much easier than *learning* what they're all about by paying close attention. So we use shortcuts that almost always lead us astray."
I think/feel this is a VERY important part. Firstly because You recognize it's important to FIND what a person is all about. And then recognizing that some people take more shortcuts than others. Yeah, I don't think anyone will argue against the idea that it's the foundation of all prejudice.
Yeah, the only problem comes when you *do* pay close attention and aren't quite sure you like what you find. Thankfully that's not often the case.
I mean, look at Saoirse, she recognised that she'd made a mistake, clearly went away and thought about it, made a clear and mature apology, and didn't try to shift blame. I couldn't be more impressed with how she handled herself.
Well, if You want to look at the specifics of Saoirse, let's look at the specifics of You and me, Steve. I like what I find in You. I just don't agree with You. If that's what it takes to be impressive to You, that would be unfortunate for both of us. Possibly, I haven't fully impressed on You how much I like You. If not, that's what I'm doing now.
If you disagree with me that's absolutely fine. I'd be happy to talk about what I've said that you disagree with. I always have been. But you still haven't ever actually explained what I've ever said that you have a problem with. At least not that I'm aware of.
I actually quite like the definiton of racism from Racecraft, "racism is the practice of a double standard based on ancestry" The authors do this, in order to not reify the concept of race, it avoids both tautology (as we see in Kendi's definiton) as well as not relying on race. They posit that racism makes race, and this is "racecraft" and not the other way around
Hmm, I struggle with this idea a bit. I mean I agree, race isn't real and we'd do well to stop pretending it is. But racism isn't based on ancestry--we all share a common ancestor after all--it's based on group affiliation, and that affiliation is based on the colour of our skin.
When we get down to it, I don't think any racists are giving much thought to the amount of diversity in "black" people or "white" people. They take a glance at the colour of somebody's skin and they're immediately oppressors or colonisers or criminals or subhumans.
Above all, they're not "one of us".
I think that the notion of shared identity based on skin colour underpins racism, and it's weird considering how trivially it can be proven false. So maybe a double standard based on skin colour? It seems strange to pretend that's not what this is really about.
I'm still in the middle of the book, but I think what they are saying is that, we've come to believe race is real, because of what they call racecraft, makes it seem real, that its a conjure game without a conjurer, a bunch of interviews with them, the Fields sisters, are on Jacobin if you want to check it out. They go a bit further than saying race is a "social construct" If I'm understanding what they are saying correctly, a would be racist looks at someone's skin and other attributes, makes a decision about one's ancestry (which it and of itself has a bunch of associations) and then practice a double standard based on that, and that many of us are doing this, reproducing this, kinda all the time, so much so that we are living in a collective conjure (hence the use of the metaphor of witchcraft) They tease out differences between bigotry and attitutdes and racism (which they see as acts/practices) They seem to disagree that internal sense of identity either as white or something else or as a racist has all to do with the practice of racism and they give a bunch of examples. I'm not an expert on what they call Racecraft, but its a pretty compelling argument when you are inside of it. They talk a LOT about political economy as well...to think through inequality as they are marxists. Its a framework that helps understand how people come in and out of being the victims of racism, depending on time, location etc. My southern Italian ancestors are good case study, at one point they were perceived as not white, something other and experienced racism, then that shifted over time between the 1920s and 1960s, it still happens to some of us, depending on how we appear. Jews are another example...
Yeah it's true. There are all kinds of subtle ways we enforce the belief in race through our words and stereotypes. And I mean, statistically there are differences between various ancestries. It's the ascribing of meaning to those differences where we run into trouble.
As for an internal sense of identity, I really hate that concept as applied to race or gender or anything else. I can't make any sense of it, and indeed think it's a prime example of "racecraft" (or gender stereotyping). There's no such thing as "feeling black" unless you limit blackness to a box of certain allowed things and go from there. It's crazy to me that some black people so eagerly embrace this idea.
Looking forward to hearing the cases they make for this.
Yeah, the marxists (like the Fields and Adolph Reed) are big on their analytical categories and the historical and capitalist why of race, they call it ascriptive identity category, like you mentioned. I think their work is the key to undoing a lot of this antiracism mess, as they show why its so popular, it serves neoliberalism
it should also be noted, MLK was moving in this direction, in 68, talking about redistributive economics as the way to deal with inequality amongst blacks. So, we come back around to Kingian politics and takes as ultimately being more radical really, than nationalist takes.
" I think that the notion of shared identity based on skin colour underpins racism, and it's weird considering how trivially it can be proven false."
Sure.
"So maybe a double standard based on skin colour? It seems strange to pretend that's not what this is really about."
Yeah, I see this in whites and Blacks. Kendi? Kimberlé Crenshaw? I'm guessing a fair percentage of Blacks? Not gonna attempt to define "fair number," at this time.
While insisting that Blacks be looked at as individuals, instead of a monolith, they simultaneously stress the importance of "the lived experience" of Blacks. Implying ALL Blacks. Their shared monolithic experience of racism. While, at the same time, CHOOSING to see whites as a monolith. VERY strange, indeed.
Yep, I couldn't agree more. Though I will say, when I see a problem in both white people and black people, I usually try to point out how both sides manifest that problem. You seem to have focused exclusively on what some black people are doing wrong here.
Again, I agree with your points, just seems a little one-sided.
But I'll further ask You whether You see this problem of having a double standard primarily in white people or Black people. As a percentage. You see, I'm GUESSING that, as a percentage, You think white people are more likely to have a double standard. Correct me if I'm wrong.
First, I think it's really unhelpful to try to ascribe percentages to this kind of thing. Neither of us could possibly support whatever number we chose statistically. We'd just be picking a number out of the air based on our feelings.
Second, we'd have to define what we're talking about when we talk about racism. Mean articles on the internet? Yep, almost exclusively anti-white. I'd be hard pressed to even find anything written online against black people.
Criticism of "whiteness" in public discourse? Again, the majority of that kind of stereotyping is anti-white. This kind of stuff is in the air, a generalised feeling that white people are collectively guilty for something. I'm sure all white people can feel it, but very few white people have experienced any of it personally. There is, in fact, data to support this. 55% of white Americans think that there's racism against white people, yet less than 20% can give a single example of racism targeted against them personally.
*This* is the distinction I'm trying to make. Black people, I think, are far more likely to experience racism that materially affects their lives. White people are more likely to experience racism that affects their feelings. And this only if they spend too much time online.
White people who don't read Medium or use Twitter and aren't college age will have had almost all of the current nonsense pass them by. But black people? There's no escape. As I wrote in an article not long ago, *every black person* has a story about racism. Not a mean blog post on Medium. Somebody, in their actual daily life, who discriminated against them personally. Again, very few white people have experienced this.
There are ways in which this is changing. Especially in schools. Which is why I've spent more time recently talking about anti-white racism in schools. I'm sickened by what I'm seeing there. These white children are experiencing racism which is actually affecting their lives negatively. But black people experience this all the time. And have been for generations.
Ah well... Hope You read the one on "Occam's Razor" first. Granted, intuitions sometimes leave a lot to be desired.
ON THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDGING CHARACTER.
You see, I thought this would go without saying. But perhaps not. It comes in handy when asking these kinds of questions:
Why are We here living at this time? What is the PURPOSE of life?
How do we judge right from wrong?
Are scientists (SOME) right to believe that EVERY question can be solved by pursuing scientific objective truths?
IS there even such-a thing as semi-objective Truth.
IS it a waste of time to pursue such semi-objective Truths?
What is racism?
Do I have racial biases?
Am *I* a racist?
How DO You analyze things that can't be QUANTITATIVELY MEASURED?
What's the easiest (therefore best) Way to live day-to-day?
From the least, to the most, these are some-a the burning questions revolving around the subconscious, if not the conscious, mind.
Sure, You try to find the answers Yourself. In fact, that's the ONLY Way, technically, that You CAN answer them. But most people are smart enough to look to others for hints.
Being amongst the things than canNOT be measured quantitatively, how is one to separate the wheat from the chaff. And that is done by judging the character of the person "speaking." Which itself, cannot be measured. The over-reliance these days on quantitative thinking is, In My View, one-a the main reasons people struggle overly in trying to answer these kinds of questions. I think the overall malaise in the Western world, people endlessly seeking...
...Well, In My Humble Opinion, For What It's Worth, Your Mileage May Vary, I Could Be Wrong...
I think it's because full-well 50% of the important question will NEVER be resolvable by thinking quantitatively.
TY (thank You) anyone taking the time to read. More still for Contemplating on the ideas. TYTY, either Way.
Well, "Occam's Razor" is a fairly well-known concept amongst scientists, and others. I was informed of it in my youth, but looked it up on Wikipedia a few months ago. I didn't find the discussion there all that good. A simple way of expressing it is "use the SIMPLEST idea that fits the bill. The more complicated an idea, the less the likelihood that it has a very general applicability."
So I would propose a shorter sentence, that covers a huge number of cases. To paraphrase the "I Have a Dream:
Racism: Instead-a judging a person by their character, judging by color of skin.
It has some advantages.
It's not my own ego-centric idea, but the one by the Master on Racism, MLK.
It leaves color of skin outta the equation altogether, as it should be.
It stresses the importance of character.
Now some say a color-blind America isn't POSSIBLE. In fact, some say it's racist itself. That's true to the extent that it's not possible to do PERFECTLY. But only that far.
To be opposed to a color-blind America is, firstly, only useful for the purpose of gaining approval for a lesser version of anti-racism. But, secondly and most importantly, it's CONTRADICTING the idea that we shouldn't take the color of a person's skin into account. It's saying color of skin, not only SHOULD be taken into account, but is of PRIME IMPORTANCE in viewing a person.
And they saying wanting a color-blind America would be RACIST?
Before You deny any-a the above, I'm am in no way, shape or form suggesting color of skin should NEVER be taken into account. When You're looking at things in a general Way. And on a personal level? I'm saying color of skin should be taken into account in a SMALL measure, and culture of person should be taken in LARGE measure.
Off-topic: Writing things strictly based on intuitions is in no wise gonna be illogical. Above statements PERFECTLY logical? Mathematically doubtful.
As much as I complain about assumptions based upon a monolithic view of groups, I have to constantly work at not doing it myself. It's so easy to do that.
As for short definitions of racism, "low expectations of someone because of their race."
Ironically It is very common in SJWs. "Black people need a white person to fix their issues (me, the superior ally)" and/or "white people are inherently racists." I consider it a foundational plank though it is often thought of as soft racism.
"As much as I complain about assumptions based upon a monolithic view of groups, I have to constantly work at not doing it myself. It's so easy to do that."
Haha, don't feel bad, anybody who says they don't have to work at this is almost certainly just lacking in self-awareness. I think your definition of racism leaves a lot on the table though.
The racism of low expectations is something we see an awful lot at the moment among the woke/liberal left. Black people are allowed to behave (and some allow themselves to be seen) as children who simply can't be expected to take responsibility for themselves or manage their emotions and lives.
*But*, as I've noted before, many of the problems that certain black communities face are the result of very different manifestations of racism. It's unfair to talk about the former without recognising the latter, as there's a straight line between the two. And ironically, the people in those marginalised communities are far more likely to be reasonable and rational and clear about the changes they want to see both within and without their communities than the hysterical, pampered children on Medium who act as if every micro aggression they experience in Starbucks is the same as slavery.
It's super important not to mistake the idiots for the entire cause.
"*But*, as I've noted before, many of the problems that certain black communities face are the result of very different manifestations of racism. It's unfair to talk about the former without recognising the latter, as there's a straight line between the two. And ironically, the people in those marginalised communities are far more likely to be reasonable and rational and clear about the changes they want to see both within and without their communities than the hysterical, pampered children on Medium who act as if every micro aggression they experience in Starbucks is the same as slavery."
Thirty years ago I lived in the state of Georgia. I worked a 2nd shift as a technician and there was an old black woman who changed parts for me. I spent quite a few cumulative hours talking with her, or more accurately listening to her. She had a lot to get off her chest having direct memory of burning crosses. While she was quite honest about her extreme low opinion of white men and sometimes her words were quite harsh, she needed me to listen as much as I needed to listen to her.
The thing is, it was easier for me sit sit next to her and listen than it is today to read the thoughts of the Starbucks drinkers. It's not that they have nothing to say that is valid, they do, but sitting with her where i could "feel" both her venom, pain and the genuineness of her words is different. That is a real deficiency of the internet.
I am an avid bid whist player and in those days I was "Salt" at the "black table" in the break room when I was on day shift in the sea of white pinochle tables. One day one of the guys let slip words that quickly caused him to say, "Excuse me Salt. I shouldn't have said that in front of you. Looking at my card you blend in." He didn't apologize for the words or the thought behind them, just for letting me hear them. It didn't bother me, I got it and needed to hear them more that the others at the table and the crowd of kibitzers that you find at a hot seat bid whist game.
We do need to listen, but it was disheartening to read "Sit down and shut up white man, you have nothing to say" when I gave an opinion on Medium. From a white woman I considered a friend at that. We need two way communication. Listening to idiots is a thing too, but as you wrote, that needs to go through a filter of "nobody elected this person spokesperson for a monolithic group.
"it was disheartening to read "Sit down and shut up white man, you have nothing to say" when I gave an opinion on Medium"
I completely agree. I'm so tired of hearing this across all of the various, arbitrary divides. Men can't talk about women's issues. White people can't talk about black issues. Non-trans people can't talk about trans issues. It's so obviously divisive and stupid. And increasingly, it's not even a divide of identity, it's a divide of opinion. Black people attack other black people with the "wrong" opinions. Women attack women, trans people attack other trans people. I've said it before but it just doesn't stop being true; we need to learn to talk with people who disagree with us without demonising them.
You make a good point about talking in person vs reading online too. Online discourse really sucks the humanity out of people and makes context so much more difficult to appreciate. That's why it takes extra special effort to do it compassionately. As online is the way most of us connect these days, it's effort we all need to make.
Sad to hear about that guy at the whist table though. The issue is what he said, not whether you were there to hear it. The fact that he clearly doesn't appreciate that is disheartening frankly.
“To put them into an arbitrary box, and treat them like everybody else who ever fit in it. But it shouldn’t be lost on any of us that this is also true of racism.”
One of the things I so enjoy about you Steve is the unflinching honesty and fresh take you challenge yourself to make in these interactions, while holding a principled, consistent stance on what you feel to be true. It’s a mark of intellectual character that - clearly - draws people to you.
Your final words I re-cite here make so much sense. What you accurately call out as putting people in an arbitrary box seems, to me, the very initial stages of beginning to ‘other’ another person. And we all know where that leads. Well, those of us who disdain the silly illogic of a Kendi know where it leads.
It does indeed lead to racism.
I really enjoyed this exchange. Thank you for sharing.
"What you accurately call out as putting people in an arbitrary box seems, to me, the very initial stages of beginning to ‘other’ another person"
Yeah absolutely. It's basically the beginnings of a kind of intellectual laziness that we're all capable of. *Deciding* what somebody is all about is much easier than *learning* what they're all about by paying close attention. So we use shortcuts that almost always lead us astray. It's especially easy to do online, but we do it in person too, and yes, you're completely right, it's the foundation of all prejudice.
"*Deciding* what somebody is all about is much easier than *learning* what they're all about by paying close attention. So we use shortcuts that almost always lead us astray."
I think/feel this is a VERY important part. Firstly because You recognize it's important to FIND what a person is all about. And then recognizing that some people take more shortcuts than others. Yeah, I don't think anyone will argue against the idea that it's the foundation of all prejudice.
Yeah, the only problem comes when you *do* pay close attention and aren't quite sure you like what you find. Thankfully that's not often the case.
I mean, look at Saoirse, she recognised that she'd made a mistake, clearly went away and thought about it, made a clear and mature apology, and didn't try to shift blame. I couldn't be more impressed with how she handled herself.
Well, if You want to look at the specifics of Saoirse, let's look at the specifics of You and me, Steve. I like what I find in You. I just don't agree with You. If that's what it takes to be impressive to You, that would be unfortunate for both of us. Possibly, I haven't fully impressed on You how much I like You. If not, that's what I'm doing now.
If you disagree with me that's absolutely fine. I'd be happy to talk about what I've said that you disagree with. I always have been. But you still haven't ever actually explained what I've ever said that you have a problem with. At least not that I'm aware of.
Ah well... Of no moment. Same with this, but think I made mention of it here a while back, mebbe.
https://jt01010.medium.com/why-im-deleting-my-profile-and-vanishing-from-medium-forever-5245dcddcd44
I'm taking a day off or two to do some reading. But I was wondering if You meditate, Steve?
I'll be the first to admit I haven't devoted years to it like some. Just off and on. Maybe a handful of years, total. No more than two.
I actually quite like the definiton of racism from Racecraft, "racism is the practice of a double standard based on ancestry" The authors do this, in order to not reify the concept of race, it avoids both tautology (as we see in Kendi's definiton) as well as not relying on race. They posit that racism makes race, and this is "racecraft" and not the other way around
Hmm, I struggle with this idea a bit. I mean I agree, race isn't real and we'd do well to stop pretending it is. But racism isn't based on ancestry--we all share a common ancestor after all--it's based on group affiliation, and that affiliation is based on the colour of our skin.
When we get down to it, I don't think any racists are giving much thought to the amount of diversity in "black" people or "white" people. They take a glance at the colour of somebody's skin and they're immediately oppressors or colonisers or criminals or subhumans.
Above all, they're not "one of us".
I think that the notion of shared identity based on skin colour underpins racism, and it's weird considering how trivially it can be proven false. So maybe a double standard based on skin colour? It seems strange to pretend that's not what this is really about.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nwCSs0T5Tbk This gets into it all a bit, esp from minute 36/37 on
I'm still in the middle of the book, but I think what they are saying is that, we've come to believe race is real, because of what they call racecraft, makes it seem real, that its a conjure game without a conjurer, a bunch of interviews with them, the Fields sisters, are on Jacobin if you want to check it out. They go a bit further than saying race is a "social construct" If I'm understanding what they are saying correctly, a would be racist looks at someone's skin and other attributes, makes a decision about one's ancestry (which it and of itself has a bunch of associations) and then practice a double standard based on that, and that many of us are doing this, reproducing this, kinda all the time, so much so that we are living in a collective conjure (hence the use of the metaphor of witchcraft) They tease out differences between bigotry and attitutdes and racism (which they see as acts/practices) They seem to disagree that internal sense of identity either as white or something else or as a racist has all to do with the practice of racism and they give a bunch of examples. I'm not an expert on what they call Racecraft, but its a pretty compelling argument when you are inside of it. They talk a LOT about political economy as well...to think through inequality as they are marxists. Its a framework that helps understand how people come in and out of being the victims of racism, depending on time, location etc. My southern Italian ancestors are good case study, at one point they were perceived as not white, something other and experienced racism, then that shifted over time between the 1920s and 1960s, it still happens to some of us, depending on how we appear. Jews are another example...
Yeah it's true. There are all kinds of subtle ways we enforce the belief in race through our words and stereotypes. And I mean, statistically there are differences between various ancestries. It's the ascribing of meaning to those differences where we run into trouble.
As for an internal sense of identity, I really hate that concept as applied to race or gender or anything else. I can't make any sense of it, and indeed think it's a prime example of "racecraft" (or gender stereotyping). There's no such thing as "feeling black" unless you limit blackness to a box of certain allowed things and go from there. It's crazy to me that some black people so eagerly embrace this idea.
Looking forward to hearing the cases they make for this.
Yeah, the marxists (like the Fields and Adolph Reed) are big on their analytical categories and the historical and capitalist why of race, they call it ascriptive identity category, like you mentioned. I think their work is the key to undoing a lot of this antiracism mess, as they show why its so popular, it serves neoliberalism
it should also be noted, MLK was moving in this direction, in 68, talking about redistributive economics as the way to deal with inequality amongst blacks. So, we come back around to Kingian politics and takes as ultimately being more radical really, than nationalist takes.
You're always offering fascinating bits of further research! Thanks for this and for the video link. I'll definitely have a look.
" I think that the notion of shared identity based on skin colour underpins racism, and it's weird considering how trivially it can be proven false."
Sure.
"So maybe a double standard based on skin colour? It seems strange to pretend that's not what this is really about."
Yeah, I see this in whites and Blacks. Kendi? Kimberlé Crenshaw? I'm guessing a fair percentage of Blacks? Not gonna attempt to define "fair number," at this time.
While insisting that Blacks be looked at as individuals, instead of a monolith, they simultaneously stress the importance of "the lived experience" of Blacks. Implying ALL Blacks. Their shared monolithic experience of racism. While, at the same time, CHOOSING to see whites as a monolith. VERY strange, indeed.
Yep, I couldn't agree more. Though I will say, when I see a problem in both white people and black people, I usually try to point out how both sides manifest that problem. You seem to have focused exclusively on what some black people are doing wrong here.
Again, I agree with your points, just seems a little one-sided.
"Yeah, I see this in whites and Blacks."
But I'll further ask You whether You see this problem of having a double standard primarily in white people or Black people. As a percentage. You see, I'm GUESSING that, as a percentage, You think white people are more likely to have a double standard. Correct me if I'm wrong.
There are two problems here.
First, I think it's really unhelpful to try to ascribe percentages to this kind of thing. Neither of us could possibly support whatever number we chose statistically. We'd just be picking a number out of the air based on our feelings.
Second, we'd have to define what we're talking about when we talk about racism. Mean articles on the internet? Yep, almost exclusively anti-white. I'd be hard pressed to even find anything written online against black people.
Criticism of "whiteness" in public discourse? Again, the majority of that kind of stereotyping is anti-white. This kind of stuff is in the air, a generalised feeling that white people are collectively guilty for something. I'm sure all white people can feel it, but very few white people have experienced any of it personally. There is, in fact, data to support this. 55% of white Americans think that there's racism against white people, yet less than 20% can give a single example of racism targeted against them personally.
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559604836/majority-of-white-americans-think-theyre-discriminated-against
*This* is the distinction I'm trying to make. Black people, I think, are far more likely to experience racism that materially affects their lives. White people are more likely to experience racism that affects their feelings. And this only if they spend too much time online.
White people who don't read Medium or use Twitter and aren't college age will have had almost all of the current nonsense pass them by. But black people? There's no escape. As I wrote in an article not long ago, *every black person* has a story about racism. Not a mean blog post on Medium. Somebody, in their actual daily life, who discriminated against them personally. Again, very few white people have experienced this.
There are ways in which this is changing. Especially in schools. Which is why I've spent more time recently talking about anti-white racism in schools. I'm sickened by what I'm seeing there. These white children are experiencing racism which is actually affecting their lives negatively. But black people experience this all the time. And have been for generations.
Not relying on race as a concept* which is problematic in and of itself
Ah well... Hope You read the one on "Occam's Razor" first. Granted, intuitions sometimes leave a lot to be desired.
ON THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDGING CHARACTER.
You see, I thought this would go without saying. But perhaps not. It comes in handy when asking these kinds of questions:
Why are We here living at this time? What is the PURPOSE of life?
How do we judge right from wrong?
Are scientists (SOME) right to believe that EVERY question can be solved by pursuing scientific objective truths?
IS there even such-a thing as semi-objective Truth.
IS it a waste of time to pursue such semi-objective Truths?
What is racism?
Do I have racial biases?
Am *I* a racist?
How DO You analyze things that can't be QUANTITATIVELY MEASURED?
What's the easiest (therefore best) Way to live day-to-day?
From the least, to the most, these are some-a the burning questions revolving around the subconscious, if not the conscious, mind.
Sure, You try to find the answers Yourself. In fact, that's the ONLY Way, technically, that You CAN answer them. But most people are smart enough to look to others for hints.
Being amongst the things than canNOT be measured quantitatively, how is one to separate the wheat from the chaff. And that is done by judging the character of the person "speaking." Which itself, cannot be measured. The over-reliance these days on quantitative thinking is, In My View, one-a the main reasons people struggle overly in trying to answer these kinds of questions. I think the overall malaise in the Western world, people endlessly seeking...
...Well, In My Humble Opinion, For What It's Worth, Your Mileage May Vary, I Could Be Wrong...
I think it's because full-well 50% of the important question will NEVER be resolvable by thinking quantitatively.
TY (thank You) anyone taking the time to read. More still for Contemplating on the ideas. TYTY, either Way.
Well, "Occam's Razor" is a fairly well-known concept amongst scientists, and others. I was informed of it in my youth, but looked it up on Wikipedia a few months ago. I didn't find the discussion there all that good. A simple way of expressing it is "use the SIMPLEST idea that fits the bill. The more complicated an idea, the less the likelihood that it has a very general applicability."
So I would propose a shorter sentence, that covers a huge number of cases. To paraphrase the "I Have a Dream:
Racism: Instead-a judging a person by their character, judging by color of skin.
It has some advantages.
It's not my own ego-centric idea, but the one by the Master on Racism, MLK.
It leaves color of skin outta the equation altogether, as it should be.
It stresses the importance of character.
Now some say a color-blind America isn't POSSIBLE. In fact, some say it's racist itself. That's true to the extent that it's not possible to do PERFECTLY. But only that far.
To be opposed to a color-blind America is, firstly, only useful for the purpose of gaining approval for a lesser version of anti-racism. But, secondly and most importantly, it's CONTRADICTING the idea that we shouldn't take the color of a person's skin into account. It's saying color of skin, not only SHOULD be taken into account, but is of PRIME IMPORTANCE in viewing a person.
And they saying wanting a color-blind America would be RACIST?
Before You deny any-a the above, I'm am in no way, shape or form suggesting color of skin should NEVER be taken into account. When You're looking at things in a general Way. And on a personal level? I'm saying color of skin should be taken into account in a SMALL measure, and culture of person should be taken in LARGE measure.
Off-topic: Writing things strictly based on intuitions is in no wise gonna be illogical. Above statements PERFECTLY logical? Mathematically doubtful.