In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 13 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote: He elaborates in the article what he means by friendship. To him it means that they see you and your problems as equivalent to their own, a true peer. Genuine empathy towards you, rather than treating you as a character in their own life. It's not "don't hang out with people outside your race", or anything like that.
The problem is that the white majority in America simply doesn't have the back of black Americans when it counts. When blue collar jobs dry up, real estate prices crater, and drugs ruin communities the voting response depends dramatically on the skin colour of the people getting fucked. The same people prescribing government money propping open coal mines and steel plants are the ones who previously prescribed bootstraps. The same people prescribing money for the opioid epidemic previously prescribed prison.
Well sure. And if you discover white people don't have your back, and there is no genuine empathy, I could see people coming to that conclusion. But I wonder how naturally discoverable it actually is, if it needs to be taught to a younger generation? If it were a naturally occurring phenomenon, I would think no teaching would be required.
Hurricane Harvey taught me a lot about the limits of racism in America, or at least Texas. I saw areas that had existing racial tension get flooded. And afterwards a bunch of mostly white volunteers came into the minority-majority area with their helping hands and their trucks of emergency supplies and the only hints of racism were a few isolated comments by other minorities that maybe the Hispanic parents of large families were taking more than their "fair share" of clothing.
At the end of the day, America's a giant community, and most of us want it to succeed as a community.
I kind of wonder if this current GH-Mohdoo spat is an example of what is described as "internalized racism" in the modern usage of the term. I suspect so with the "you're not an ally" talk.
On November 13 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote: He elaborates in the article what he means by friendship. To him it means that they see you and your problems as equivalent to their own, a true peer. Genuine empathy towards you, rather than treating you as a character in their own life. It's not "don't hang out with people outside your race", or anything like that.
The problem is that the white majority in America simply doesn't have the back of black Americans when it counts. When blue collar jobs dry up, real estate prices crater, and drugs ruin communities the voting response depends dramatically on the skin colour of the people getting fucked. The same people prescribing government money propping open coal mines and steel plants are the ones who previously prescribed bootstraps. The same people prescribing money for the opioid epidemic previously prescribed prison.
Well sure. And if you discover white people don't have your back, and there is no genuine empathy, I could see people coming to that conclusion. But I wonder how naturally discoverable it actually is, if it needs to be taught to a younger generation? If it were a naturally occurring phenomenon, I would think no teaching would be required.
Yeah, I'm not convinced by the teaching part, I think that was mostly a rhetorical device to talk about the lack of political empathy with a catchy title. That minorities need to be aware that politically their white peers are going to be the shitty friend that bails when you need them.
On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too.
I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants...
The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not.
Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism.
That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact.
You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals.
It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet.
Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"?
"I'm not saying I think the police should deny the constitutional rights of blacks, I just think that we should stop investigating the cases of them doing that"
I thought this post by yourself did a good job delineating the nuances in positions of various degrees of white supremacy endorsement mohdoo is asking for.. You can say that 'either you're a racist or you're not', but when it comes to what policies you actively support, there are lots of different degrees of racism. According to yourself you're like a 7 out of 9, at what point of this scale does the binary go from 0 to 1?
On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too.
I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants...
The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not.
Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism.
That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact.
You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals.
It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet.
Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"?
"I'm not saying I think the police should deny the constitutional rights of blacks, I just think that we should stop investigating the cases of them doing that"
I thought this post by yourself did a good job delineating the nuances in positions of various degrees of white supremacy endorsement mohdoo is asking for.. You can say that 'either you're a racist or you're not', but when it comes to what policies you actively support, there are lots of different degrees of racism. According to yourself you're like a 7 out of 9, at what point of this scale does the binary go from 0 to 1?
9. 9 is the passing grade there. When the kid actually corrects the injustice at their own expense because they know it's the right thing to do and that, although they worked hard, they did not earn the benefit they received at the expense of the other kid.
I'm a terrible ally. I'll freely admit that. I believe in all sorts of causes which I do absolutely nothing to further, while privately enjoying the privileges I receive due to the failure of those causes. I'll probably go max hypocrisy and send my kids to a private school and hell, it'll probably be racially segregated when I do. I'll say it's fucked up that the world is the way it is while shamelessly abusing the benefits of my own hypocrisy.
The reality is that racism is a zero sum game. If you're a white guy who thinks black people should be able to sit at the front of the bus then the correct solution is obvious, you stand up and you give Rosa Parks your seat. If you refuse to give up your seat then no amount of words is sufficient.
You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals.
It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet.
Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"?
You're still choosing to ignore nuance. People can be very against racism, yet think affirmative action is bad. They can think all sorts of "I agree with this, but not that" without being terrible people. Are you really trying to say there are 2 sets of beliefs regarding race in this world? Two sets of people who all agree on like 20 different racial issues and completely disagree with the other group on all 20?
you seem conflicted, let me help you. You are not an ally. You can drop the pretense if you want and just tell us what you really think.
lol, as if you and your allies get anything done. You just yell loud and tell yourself you've accomplished something by "taking a stand", meanwhile, life goes on as always. I've lived a very empowered life and have worked hard at reversing racism in my community and helping to empower other young people of color. How about I do my thing and you do yours?
Haha. I can see why you backed "A progressive that gets thing done" now. But I'm glad you're finally out, should be freeing.
I'm not "now" out of anything. I've never been a member of your fringe perspective. I will continue to fight racism as I have been. It's not like you've got the anti-racism community on some sort of lockdown. You may yell the loudest, but I am willing to bet you've gotten a lot less done than me
You're good intentions just happen to reinforce white supremacy. I'm saying you can drop the pretense of the good intentions and realize there's nothing extreme you're objecting to.
My good intentions address racism in a way distinct from your own. But as I keep trying to help you understand, your rigid perspective is only a result of your own emotional failings. You cracked under the same pressure I thrived in. It made you cynical and need to hold on to easy to digest ideas of right and wrong because you couldn't tolerate it otherwise. I stayed strong. I stay engaged. You fell off the deep end because you couldn't handle life as a victim of racism.
That's hilarious. You think your bold acceptance of racism is a virtue. You didn't survive where I cracked. It's actually the opposite. You've allowed yourself to become their unwitting stooge. Proud of it too.
I don't accept racism. I still think blacks of the US are owed some form of compensation for a history of selective breeding, segregation and every single other thing you see as wrong with the country. I think the only place we disagree is messaging. It is hard to understate the level of suffering that has resulted from slavery and everything that came after. If nothing else, the selective breeding alone is just such a fucked up, awful thing that it is hard for me to appreciate. In this regard, I understand that being hispanic rather than black gives me a different perspective. My entire race hasn't been shifted to suit the needs of another. In that regard, I can see how more militant perspectives can be more easily justified.
I am glad you do what you do because I think more perspectives and approaches the better. I think there are some disadvantages to your style, such as making people a lot more defensive and entrenched than they otherwise would be. But I'd be lying if I said YOU yourself have not influenced my own beliefs. I am 100x more sympathetic to your perspective than I was 10 years ago. My conversations with you have certainly made me more accepting of militant anti-racism movements than I was before.
When I was...maybe around 10-17, I would say we agreed a lot. I was a downright brown panther and felt like racism should be punished by public execution. I know that you're not quite that extreme, but I certainly was. It was only once I started college that I toned it down a lot. I am now seeing that views between my previous views and my current views are still justifiable and productive.
Social movements have never been about agreeing. I value our conversations and you keep me honest. I truly think we both do good for minorities in the US.
On November 13 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote: He elaborates in the article what he means by friendship. To him it means that they see you and your problems as equivalent to their own, a true peer. Genuine empathy towards you, rather than treating you as a character in their own life. It's not "don't hang out with people outside your race", or anything like that.
The problem is that the white majority in America simply doesn't have the back of black Americans when it counts. When blue collar jobs dry up, real estate prices crater, and drugs ruin communities the voting response depends dramatically on the skin colour of the people getting fucked. The same people prescribing government money propping open coal mines and steel plants are the ones who previously prescribed bootstraps. The same people prescribing money for the opioid epidemic previously prescribed prison.
Not 100% the same thing, though, is it? Inner city blacks and rural whites... there's more than just the racial divide. If interests now overlap.. hey.. let's burn this bridge / keep it burned?
Plenty of whites who don't want the fed gov to fix coal country. But.. they aligned and won an election.
I'm not arguing that hanging onto grudges is productive or that the overlap of interests shouldn't be capitalized upon, just that the reality is that it took a white American drug epidemic to treat drugs as a societal problem rather than an individual one.
It's great that there is now the potential for a coalition there but the overlap should not be mistaken for empathy.
Sure?
I've battled liberals on this thread so many times yet I dislike Trump and the populist cranks he aligned with. Harris, Warren and Patrick can take my vote if asked.
D's have the advantage and shouldn't blow it by spurning potential allies. R's are too welcoming to allies (to the point where they cannot govern) and D's not enough - to the point where they cannot win. That's my take, at least.
On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Man that article really triggered some folks.
I'm glad people read it enough to see that the author does think their kids can be friends with white people, just teaching them to have a healthy skepticism and to understand what "friendship" should really mean (comparably important in today's facebook 5000 "friends").
Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
@LL All white people aren't "evil racists", just a large portion of white people (larger share of Trump voters) reinforce white supremacy in subtle to significant ways daily.
The troublesome ones are the pretentious Patricks that have convinced themselves they aren't saying/doing that support/perpetuate white supremacy because it makes them feel better about white America still not getting their act right.
It's not obvious how this article is any better than a mirror article written by a white person about how "black people" scare them, and that unless a black person shows that they are "for" good social principles like law and order, respectful and professional dress, and proper diction, they can't be trusted. It's "not all black people" of course, but given that so many are opposed to the "rule of law," "hard work," and good manners, they are going to teach their white child to be wary of black people unless they show clear signs of being committed to the American project.
I'm not saying there aren't critical differences, but it's surely not obvious.
Along the lines of Mohdoo's point, I find it interesting that I personally feel much more compelled by Lebron James' racial statements than Colin Kaepernick's. Someone who has been put through a lot of shit and still speaks with dignity (but still firmly) is someone I have a lot of respect for and can empathize with. Even though Kaepernick has probably also been through a lot of shit, kneeling during the national anthem is outright antagonizing and comes off as childish. I'm find it much easier to dismiss someone (even if they have a legitimate grievance) whose behavior/conduct I have little respect for.
Similar to the way I feel more moved by Otis Redding in "(Sittin' on) The Dock of the Bay" then I do by modern hip-hop music, and MLK Jr. than by Jesse Jackson.
On November 13 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote: He elaborates in the article what he means by friendship. To him it means that they see you and your problems as equivalent to their own, a true peer. Genuine empathy towards you, rather than treating you as a character in their own life. It's not "don't hang out with people outside your race", or anything like that.
The problem is that the white majority in America simply doesn't have the back of black Americans when it counts. When blue collar jobs dry up, real estate prices crater, and drugs ruin communities the voting response depends dramatically on the skin colour of the people getting fucked. The same people prescribing government money propping open coal mines and steel plants are the ones who previously prescribed bootstraps. The same people prescribing money for the opioid epidemic previously prescribed prison.
Not 100% the same thing, though, is it? Inner city blacks and rural whites... there's more than just the racial divide. If interests now overlap.. hey.. let's burn this bridge / keep it burned?
Plenty of whites who don't want the fed gov to fix coal country. But.. they aligned and won an election.
I'm not arguing that hanging onto grudges is productive or that the overlap of interests shouldn't be capitalized upon, just that the reality is that it took a white American drug epidemic to treat drugs as a societal problem rather than an individual one.
It's great that there is now the potential for a coalition there but the overlap should not be mistaken for empathy.
Sure?
I've battled liberals on this thread so many times yet I dislike Trump and the populist cranks he aligned with. Harris, Warren and Patrick can take my vote if asked.
D's have the advantage and shouldn't blow it by spurning potential allies. R's are too welcoming to allies (to the point where they cannot govern) and D's not enough - to the point where they cannot win. That's my take, at least.
I agree. My beliefs about what is right and what is politically practical vary considerably. When arguing online I tend to argue what I think is right, except when I get into arguments with GH because he's better at it than me. If I were a politician then I would certainly respect the hell out of white fragility.
On November 13 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote: He elaborates in the article what he means by friendship. To him it means that they see you and your problems as equivalent to their own, a true peer. Genuine empathy towards you, rather than treating you as a character in their own life. It's not "don't hang out with people outside your race", or anything like that.
The problem is that the white majority in America simply doesn't have the back of black Americans when it counts. When blue collar jobs dry up, real estate prices crater, and drugs ruin communities the voting response depends dramatically on the skin colour of the people getting fucked. The same people prescribing government money propping open coal mines and steel plants are the ones who previously prescribed bootstraps. The same people prescribing money for the opioid epidemic previously prescribed prison.
Well sure. And if you discover white people don't have your back, and there is no genuine empathy, I could see people coming to that conclusion. But I wonder how naturally discoverable it actually is, if it needs to be taught to a younger generation? If it were a naturally occurring phenomenon, I would think no teaching would be required.
This means, in the case of an American Negro, born in that glittering republic, and the moment you are born, since you don’t know any better, every stick and stone and every face is white.
And since you have not yet seen a mirror, you suppose that you are, too. It comes as a great shock around the age of 5, or 6, or 7, to discover that the flag to which you have pledged allegiance, along with everybody else, has not pledged allegiance to you. It comes as a great shock to discover that Gary Cooper killing off the Indians, when you were rooting for Gary Cooper, that the Indians were you. It comes as a great shock to discover that the country which is your birthplace and to which you owe your life and your identity, has not, in its whole system of reality, evovled any place for you. The disaffection, the demoralization, and the gap between one person and another only on the basis of the color of their skin, begins there and accelerates – accelerates throughout a whole lifetime – to the present when you realize you’re thirty and are having a terrible time managing to trust your countrymen. By the time you are thirty, you have been through a certain kind of mill. And the most serious effect of the mill you’ve been through is, again, not the catalog of disaster, the policemen, the taxi drivers, the waiters, the landlady, the landlord, the banks, the insurance companies, the millions of details, twenty four hours of every day, which spell out to you that you are a worthless human being. It is not that. It’s by that time that you’ve begun to see it happening, in your daughter or your son, or your niece or your nephew.
You are thirty by now and nothing you have done has helped to escape the trap. But what is worse than that, is that nothing you have done, and as far as you can tell, nothing you can do, will save your son or your daughter from meeting the same disaster and not impossibly coming to the same end. Now, we’re speaking about expense. I suppose there are several ways to address oneself, to some attempt to find what that word means here. Let me put it this way, that from a very literal point of view, the harbors and the ports, and the railroads of the country–the economy, especially of the Southern states–could not conceivably be what it has become, if they had not had, and do not still have, indeed for so long, for many generations, cheap labor. I am stating very seriously, and this is not an overstatement: *I* picked the cotton, *I* carried it to the market, and *I* built the railroads under someone else’s whip for nothing. For nothing.
The Southern oligarchy, which has still today so very much power in Washington, and therefore some power in the world, was created by my labor and my sweat, and the violation of my women and the murder of my children. This, in the land of the free, and the home of the brave.And no one can challenge that statement. It is a matter of historical record.
In another way, this dream, and we’ll get to the dream in a moment, is at the expense of the American Negro.
It's cruel to know this is coming and to do nothing to prepare your child.
On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Man that article really triggered some folks.
I'm glad people read it enough to see that the author does think their kids can be friends with white people, just teaching them to have a healthy skepticism and to understand what "friendship" should really mean (comparably important in today's facebook 5000 "friends").
Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
@LL All white people aren't "evil racists", just a large portion of white people (larger share of Trump voters) reinforce white supremacy in subtle to significant ways daily.
The troublesome ones are the pretentious Patricks that have convinced themselves they aren't saying/doing that support/perpetuate white supremacy because it makes them feel better about white America still not getting their act right.
It's not obvious how this article is any better than a mirror article written by a white person about how "black people" scare them, and that unless a black person shows that they are "for" good social principles like law and order, respectful and professional dress, and proper diction, they can't be trusted. It's "not all black people" of course, but given that so many are opposed to the "rule of law," "hard work," and good manners, they are going to teach their white child to be wary of black people unless they show clear signs of being committed to the American project.
I'm not saying there aren't critical differences, but it's surely not obvious.
On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too.
I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants...
The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not.
Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism.
That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact.
You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals.
It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet.
Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"?
"I'm not saying I think the police should deny the constitutional rights of blacks, I just think that we should stop investigating the cases of them doing that"
I thought this post by yourself did a good job delineating the nuances in positions of various degrees of white supremacy endorsement mohdoo is asking for.. You can say that 'either you're a racist or you're not', but when it comes to what policies you actively support, there are lots of different degrees of racism. According to yourself you're like a 7 out of 9, at what point of this scale does the binary go from 0 to 1?
9. 9 is the passing grade there. When the kid actually corrects the injustice at their own expense because they know it's the right thing to do and that, although they worked hard, they did not earn the benefit they received at the expense of the other kid.
I'm a terrible ally. I'll freely admit that. I believe in all sorts of causes which I do absolutely nothing to further, while privately enjoying the privileges I receive due to the failure of those causes. I'll probably go max hypocrisy and send my kids to a private school and hell, it'll probably be racially segregated when I do. I'll say it's fucked up that the world is the way it is while shamelessly abusing the benefits of my own hypocrisy.
The reality is that racism is a zero sum game. If you're a white guy who thinks black people should be able to sit at the front of the bus then the correct solution is obvious, you stand up and you give Rosa Parks your seat. If you refuse to give up your seat then no amount of words is sufficient.
So to what degree must you favor violent property redistribution before you are an ally? I mean, I'm such a leftist that I probably come out better than mostly everyone else according to your definition, but I don't really agree with it anyway. I strongly believe in favoring policies that empower black people (and any other disenfranchised group), I want increased taxes across the board because I want a more equitable distribution of goods, even though this clearly disfavors my own privileged self. However, I also favor a 'whoever sat down first gets to keep their seat' as the literal answer to the bus dilemma, although I could definitely see my current self giving up my seat if I found myself in race segregated USA. (with the knowledge that my current self probably wouldn't be my current self if that's where I grew up.)
Imo there's a very big difference between your average trump voter and your average mohdoo, much bigger than the difference between your average mohdoo and your average GH.
On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Man that article really triggered some folks.
I'm glad people read it enough to see that the author does think their kids can be friends with white people, just teaching them to have a healthy skepticism and to understand what "friendship" should really mean (comparably important in today's facebook 5000 "friends").
Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
@LL All white people aren't "evil racists", just a large portion of white people (larger share of Trump voters) reinforce white supremacy in subtle to significant ways daily.
The troublesome ones are the pretentious Patricks that have convinced themselves they aren't saying/doing that support/perpetuate white supremacy because it makes them feel better about white America still not getting their act right.
It's not obvious how this article is any better than a mirror article written by a white person about how "black people" scare them, and that unless a black person shows that they are "for" good social principles like law and order, respectful and professional dress, and proper diction, they can't be trusted. It's "not all black people" of course, but given that so many are opposed to the "rule of law," "hard work," and good manners, they are going to teach their white child to be wary of black people unless they show clear signs of being committed to the American project.
I'm not saying there aren't critical differences, but it's surely not obvious.
That’s one of the reasons I linked.
I think that's at least one reason why they prefaced it with "I'm just figuring this out now after having a privileged childhood" (paraphrasing).
I feel like going through the differences (if they aren't obviously apparent) between the mirror is a journey I'm not particularly interested in taking at the moment.
On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too.
I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants...
The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not.
Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism.
That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact.
You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals.
It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet.
Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"?
"I'm not saying I think the police should deny the constitutional rights of blacks, I just think that we should stop investigating the cases of them doing that"
I thought this post by yourself did a good job delineating the nuances in positions of various degrees of white supremacy endorsement mohdoo is asking for.. You can say that 'either you're a racist or you're not', but when it comes to what policies you actively support, there are lots of different degrees of racism. According to yourself you're like a 7 out of 9, at what point of this scale does the binary go from 0 to 1?
9. 9 is the passing grade there. When the kid actually corrects the injustice at their own expense because they know it's the right thing to do and that, although they worked hard, they did not earn the benefit they received at the expense of the other kid.
I'm a terrible ally. I'll freely admit that. I believe in all sorts of causes which I do absolutely nothing to further, while privately enjoying the privileges I receive due to the failure of those causes. I'll probably go max hypocrisy and send my kids to a private school and hell, it'll probably be racially segregated when I do. I'll say it's fucked up that the world is the way it is while shamelessly abusing the benefits of my own hypocrisy.
The reality is that racism is a zero sum game. If you're a white guy who thinks black people should be able to sit at the front of the bus then the correct solution is obvious, you stand up and you give Rosa Parks your seat. If you refuse to give up your seat then no amount of words is sufficient.
Kwark, it's not fair that you make it look so easy.
Maybe I should try to lead by example with a more self-abasing sig. Something like
Protests the bourgeoisie on equipment made by his slaves at Foxconn from the exploited labor and natural resources of his African comrades.
I feel like people finding out they aren't as self-aware as they think they are is incredibly hard for some.
Why would I have to make a sacrifice before I can truly be seen as an ally? Why isn't changing the system enough, which would balance the scales, anyway? There's nothing inherently bad by trying to gain for yourself with the system in place, even while you advocate of abolishing that very system. It's called looking out for yourself. Not everyone can be a martyr or a saint. You can still do enough to change what's going on, make it, even infinitesimally, better for the people that have it less easy than you, while still benefiting of that which they are not.
Literally the only thing that will change the way things are currently going, is when a political figure, or a bunch of them, climb to the top and make radical changes on a socio-infrastructural level. This will only come after the general consensus has shifted the atmosphere and the way things are going currently aren't in favor (look at how Hillary for example turned on gay marriage after x years simply because it's now a good thing to support homosexuals!).
The real question is: how long are you willing to wait before you can see change towards more equality taking concrete form?
On November 13 2017 10:35 Uldridge wrote: Why would I have to make a sacrifice before I can truly be seen as an ally? Why isn't changing the system enough, which would balance the scales, anyway? There's nothing inherently bad by trying to gain for yourself with the system in place, even while you advocate of abolishing that very system. It's called looking out for yourself. Not everyone can be a martyr or a saint. You can still do enough to change what's going on, make it, even infinitesimally, better for the people that have it less easy than you, while still benefiting of that which they are not.
Literally the only thing that will change the way things are currently going, is when a political figure, or a bunch of them, climb to the top and make radical changes on a socio-infrastructural level. This will only come after the general consensus has shifted the atmosphere and the way things are going currently aren't in favor (look at how Hillary for example turned on gay marriage after x years simply because it's now a good thing to support homosexuals!).
The real question is: how long are you willing to wait before you can see change towards more equality taking concrete form?
This presumes we're currently heading the right direction. That's not the case. For decades nearly every measurement of success from the Civil Rights Act has been getting worse, not better.
Despite the constant objections (perhaps better understood in their own light), turns out without the overt and constant harassment to be better, white America will just get worse. It's not the polite stuff either, it's the stuff they hate that changes their behavior, which is probably not unconnected to why they hate it.
How hasn't it gotten better? Black people can sit on the front of the bus, right? They can vote now, can't they? An incredible amount of change has happened for women, non-straight people and people of color. It's insane you're saying things are changing for the worse. Again, if you don't set the building on fire and assassinate all those that are sitting on their thrones, you won't get shit done. You can scream and riot as loud as you want, they'll still drink out of their golden cups. Usurp them however you deem fit because in the long run, it'll all be wasted energy. Making people go: "hey, I hadn't thought of it that way", won't make them trade in their comfortable life so they can risk it for something else. People have become entrenched in that comfort, they have no NEED for things to change. You need to reach a boiling point somehow, how do you see that happening?
I think I see where Mohdoo is coming from when he talks about messaging. Not because its flawed per se but because the average person isn't clever enough or pay attention enough to understand.
Like with the concept of white privilege. If you understand what it is then it really isn't an offensive concept or an attack on white people. However, bring it up among the large amount of poorly educated and poor whites (of which there are a lot) who have struggled themselves to find success and they immediately think the term is implying that they have had it easy and everything has been handed to them, which conflicts with how their lives has been.
Messaging is important because most people aren't capable or involved enough to understand concepts unless they are broken down into very easy to understand basic concepts.
EPT
