"The real and significant division is not between white and black. The division is between those who oppose the whole idea race and skin as being valid measures of an individual, and those who reject the whole idea of individuals and insist on seeing only the racialized collectives"
Yes, I completely agree. If I'd been arguing with somebo…
"The real and significant division is not between white and black. The division is between those who oppose the whole idea race and skin as being valid measures of an individual, and those who reject the whole idea of individuals and insist on seeing only the racialized collectives"
Yes, I completely agree. If I'd been arguing with somebody who was demonising white people, I'd certainly have pointed out this distinction. That's also why I was at such pains to point out that I wasn't collectivising or blaming white people today.
But given Michael's framing, which completely ignored the harm done to black people whilst casting slavery as a problem that white people solved through their bravery and commitment to ending racism, I thought it was worth pointing out that it's not possible talk about slavery and cast white people (of that time) in the way he wants to.
After all, in 1780s America, it would have been fair to assume that all white people were racist. There were, of course, exceptions, but none of us would choose to go back to that time and live as a black person. Not a single one of us. And if we *were* unlucky enough to find ourselves in that situation, none of us could count on our humanity being recognised by the average white person on the street.
So I completely see what you're saying, and in a different conversation, I wouldn't have accepted that framework. But in Michael's case it felt as if there was value in adopting it. His view was so absurdly one-sided that it would have been difficult to show him what he was missing without mirroring his language.
"The real and significant division is not between white and black. The division is between those who oppose the whole idea race and skin as being valid measures of an individual, and those who reject the whole idea of individuals and insist on seeing only the racialized collectives"
Yes, I completely agree. If I'd been arguing with somebody who was demonising white people, I'd certainly have pointed out this distinction. That's also why I was at such pains to point out that I wasn't collectivising or blaming white people today.
But given Michael's framing, which completely ignored the harm done to black people whilst casting slavery as a problem that white people solved through their bravery and commitment to ending racism, I thought it was worth pointing out that it's not possible talk about slavery and cast white people (of that time) in the way he wants to.
After all, in 1780s America, it would have been fair to assume that all white people were racist. There were, of course, exceptions, but none of us would choose to go back to that time and live as a black person. Not a single one of us. And if we *were* unlucky enough to find ourselves in that situation, none of us could count on our humanity being recognised by the average white person on the street.
So I completely see what you're saying, and in a different conversation, I wouldn't have accepted that framework. But in Michael's case it felt as if there was value in adopting it. His view was so absurdly one-sided that it would have been difficult to show him what he was missing without mirroring his language.