I think he sees only color. He doesn't see individuals. And therefore, because Black has been traumatized, White deserves to be traumatized. This seems to be a formulation of "an eye for an eye" and can be denounced just on that basis alone, if one believes the purpose of justice and law is to protect people from people who cause damage,…
I think he sees only color. He doesn't see individuals. And therefore, because Black has been traumatized, White deserves to be traumatized. This seems to be a formulation of "an eye for an eye" and can be denounced just on that basis alone, if one believes the purpose of justice and law is to protect people from people who cause damage, as against the biblical idea of retributive justice that has involved torture intended to "even the score." But there is a worse thing at work here: the denial of individuality. For Tim Wise, it is perfectly legitimate that random white children should be subjected to the same traumas as black children have experienced. This is one step further on the scale of malevolence, for now it's not a question of whether the transgressing individual(s) should be punished or merely kept away from others. Now it's a question of whether other individuals who merely look like the transgressors ought to be punished. And for Tim Wise, the answer is, "Yes, of course, because they are white."
He's an educator - a teacher of teachers. He's not hugely influential in his own person, but it is likely he has multiplied his influence through his effect upon teachers. There are probably some hundreds who act out his warped concept of collective racial retribution in schools far and wide. And there are many more education bureaucrats like him. We will see the result in the form of continued individual racism through at least the next two generations.
"I think he sees only color. He doesn't see individuals. And therefore, because Black has been traumatized, White deserves to be traumatized."
I mean, the thing about that is, he's white!😅 So what the hell is going through his mind? Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think he's just another one of those people who's discovered that he can earn money and get attention by beating this particular drum:
Let's all pretend that it's still 1800 and black people are being murdered in the streets for fun and denied the most basic opportunities in life. Ignore the black billionaires and the black president and now vice-president. They're the wrong kind of black person. Never mind the (psychologically crippling and demonstrably untrue) message this sends to young black people! Anybody who doesn't want them to entirely define themselves by the colour of their skin is a racist.
Yes, he is white. I first encountered this syndrome about 4 years ago. I know white academics who are, as I eventually realized, playing moral one-upmanship by denouncing any and all other white people for the most minute deficiencies of wokeness.
It's a mess of contradictions: If you are white you must confess to your racism, but the issue is "systemic" racism and "we are not blaming any particular person," except that "whiteness" is a disease you have if you are white and until you confess you are a racist, you are an unrepentant racist, which is worse, but not as bad as claiming you aren't a racist because then you definitely are a racist. Etc.
The highest moral ground attainable here is to be the one that points out the other white racists. It's not that unusual, we saw it under Nazism where the best way to improve your own situation was to denounce everyone you knew. In this case though, the stakes go as high as what Robin D'Angelo has "achieved".
I don't think he's a cynical grifter. I think he's 100% sincere.
"I don't think he's a cynical grifter. I think he's 100% sincere."
Hmm, I'm not sure which possibility is more depressing 😅.
I think you're spot on when you say that "the highest moral ground is to be the one who points out the other white racists," I'm just not sure this is necessarily sincere. I think it's driven by ego and a desire to be seen as "one of the good ones," rather than any deep conviction.
It's easy to learn the things you're supposed to say and parrot them for your daily dose of moral superiority. I've come across people like that many times before:
Yes, I could go with this. We may both be right. There are people who have no sense of identity beyond how (they think) others see them. In this case the desire to be seen as one of the good ones may be the greatest depth of conviction available to them.
So Godwin's law strikes again. I figured it was about time for Hitler's name to pop up. The problem is that the Nazis were evil in so many different ways you can always find some resemblance between the Nazis and someone you hate. This article demonstrates how: https://teedrockwell.medium.com/some-people-i-disagree-with-are-not-nazis-399808857282
Yes, sure, and if this is so, then I guess we can just toss out any argument from anyone that refers to some illustrative example in history! I actually was going to refer to Stalin, but most Americans are more familiar with Hitler -- who I did not actually name, BTW. And my reference to Nazis is not merely "because they are both evil," but specifically to the phenomenon of people who would denounce their friends to the Nazis (same with Stalin), as a way to keep themselves safe from persecution.
What I do suspect is that those white individuals who point at other white people and call them racists and who trade in the collectivist smear of "whiteness" may be themselves actually guilty of racism, or of living off of profits derived by their family from explicit racist policies. I personally know of one such finger-pointing person who eventually revealed to me his own direct history of this, but of course this one fact isn't sufficient to prove anything. Nevertheless, I do suspect this is so. It's a hypothesis that would explain much.
I think he sees only color. He doesn't see individuals. And therefore, because Black has been traumatized, White deserves to be traumatized. This seems to be a formulation of "an eye for an eye" and can be denounced just on that basis alone, if one believes the purpose of justice and law is to protect people from people who cause damage, as against the biblical idea of retributive justice that has involved torture intended to "even the score." But there is a worse thing at work here: the denial of individuality. For Tim Wise, it is perfectly legitimate that random white children should be subjected to the same traumas as black children have experienced. This is one step further on the scale of malevolence, for now it's not a question of whether the transgressing individual(s) should be punished or merely kept away from others. Now it's a question of whether other individuals who merely look like the transgressors ought to be punished. And for Tim Wise, the answer is, "Yes, of course, because they are white."
He's an educator - a teacher of teachers. He's not hugely influential in his own person, but it is likely he has multiplied his influence through his effect upon teachers. There are probably some hundreds who act out his warped concept of collective racial retribution in schools far and wide. And there are many more education bureaucrats like him. We will see the result in the form of continued individual racism through at least the next two generations.
"I think he sees only color. He doesn't see individuals. And therefore, because Black has been traumatized, White deserves to be traumatized."
I mean, the thing about that is, he's white!😅 So what the hell is going through his mind? Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think he's just another one of those people who's discovered that he can earn money and get attention by beating this particular drum:
Let's all pretend that it's still 1800 and black people are being murdered in the streets for fun and denied the most basic opportunities in life. Ignore the black billionaires and the black president and now vice-president. They're the wrong kind of black person. Never mind the (psychologically crippling and demonstrably untrue) message this sends to young black people! Anybody who doesn't want them to entirely define themselves by the colour of their skin is a racist.
Yes, he is white. I first encountered this syndrome about 4 years ago. I know white academics who are, as I eventually realized, playing moral one-upmanship by denouncing any and all other white people for the most minute deficiencies of wokeness.
It's a mess of contradictions: If you are white you must confess to your racism, but the issue is "systemic" racism and "we are not blaming any particular person," except that "whiteness" is a disease you have if you are white and until you confess you are a racist, you are an unrepentant racist, which is worse, but not as bad as claiming you aren't a racist because then you definitely are a racist. Etc.
The highest moral ground attainable here is to be the one that points out the other white racists. It's not that unusual, we saw it under Nazism where the best way to improve your own situation was to denounce everyone you knew. In this case though, the stakes go as high as what Robin D'Angelo has "achieved".
I don't think he's a cynical grifter. I think he's 100% sincere.
"I don't think he's a cynical grifter. I think he's 100% sincere."
Hmm, I'm not sure which possibility is more depressing 😅.
I think you're spot on when you say that "the highest moral ground is to be the one who points out the other white racists," I'm just not sure this is necessarily sincere. I think it's driven by ego and a desire to be seen as "one of the good ones," rather than any deep conviction.
It's easy to learn the things you're supposed to say and parrot them for your daily dose of moral superiority. I've come across people like that many times before:
https://steveqj.substack.com/p/my-goal-is-to-make-sure-the-white-170
Yes, I could go with this. We may both be right. There are people who have no sense of identity beyond how (they think) others see them. In this case the desire to be seen as one of the good ones may be the greatest depth of conviction available to them.
So Godwin's law strikes again. I figured it was about time for Hitler's name to pop up. The problem is that the Nazis were evil in so many different ways you can always find some resemblance between the Nazis and someone you hate. This article demonstrates how: https://teedrockwell.medium.com/some-people-i-disagree-with-are-not-nazis-399808857282
Yes, sure, and if this is so, then I guess we can just toss out any argument from anyone that refers to some illustrative example in history! I actually was going to refer to Stalin, but most Americans are more familiar with Hitler -- who I did not actually name, BTW. And my reference to Nazis is not merely "because they are both evil," but specifically to the phenomenon of people who would denounce their friends to the Nazis (same with Stalin), as a way to keep themselves safe from persecution.
What I do suspect is that those white individuals who point at other white people and call them racists and who trade in the collectivist smear of "whiteness" may be themselves actually guilty of racism, or of living off of profits derived by their family from explicit racist policies. I personally know of one such finger-pointing person who eventually revealed to me his own direct history of this, but of course this one fact isn't sufficient to prove anything. Nevertheless, I do suspect this is so. It's a hypothesis that would explain much.