One the numerous images coming out of the events surrounding Trumps inauguration was a S.H.A.R.P looking man with a jacket that had large letters that said “Race Traitor” with text surrounding it that read “Treason to Whiteness - Loyalty to Humanity”
Which lead me to their website. While I do not ascribe to the “post-racial” idea I do find this idea as intriguing which is much different than the typical “post-racial” arguments I have heard.
My stance and the general scientific consensus is that there is no biological basis for the concept of race. There are very real negative effects of the fully manufactured sociological construct of race.
It seems that their point is to “disown” being labeled as “white” as that label helps perpetuate the costs of the entire concept of race.
Would it be constructive as a person who is currently labeled “white” (although my Finnish ancestors were not considered white) to refuse the label in an attempt to make the concept worthless.
While the census and other government agencies and forms only care about what a person describes themselves as it does help perpetuate the costs to individuals whom are arbitrarily placed in other groups. And it does seem the right thing to do to deny the label in order to make those concepts meaningless.
I am tipping towards being a “race traitor” if it has a chance of helping abolish the label.
So what you are claiming is that the Democrats lost because they didn’t leverage a non-scientific concept to drive voters to the poles with irrational fear?
BTW, Facebook has 3 options for gender, Male Female and Custom.
But I think I may have missed your point here?
The fact that Donald Trump was elected due to in large part white racial fears which are irrational and have no biological basis seems to embolden the stance of the OP’s idea.
Can you explain why it is ridiculous to quit using a concept that is based on invalid concepts when it has very negative effects on my fellow Americans only due to the fact that they were born into it?
I want to hear your opinion but as this is Great Debates handwaving the concept away is unacceptable.
And then “other” just becomes the new label for “white”. You don’t end racism by pretending race (the social construct) doesn’t exist.
However, if the proposal is that everyone throw off their label of race, then that’s a different matter. I’d be shocked if those on the left would want that, though, as whole idea of racial justice, Black Lives Matter, Affirmative Action, etc would be thrown out the window. Everyone would just be “human”, and there would be no way of knowing if different racial groups were being treated differently. You don’t create a color blind society by pretending that the words for color don’t exist. That is definitely double-plus ungood.
That is a straw-man, the intent is not to solve the problem of attribution errors or group think but to make steps to tear down the existing racist institutional realities. Being “white” I have the privilege of being able to shed that label when those who are viewed as not belonging are not given the same right. If there was a critical mass of “others” they would be able to join and shed those labels too, while they will never be able to claim the currently beneficial label of white. The fact that their will be bigotry in the world does not change the value of that.
“White” says nothing about your cultural lineage, abilities or anything of substance except that you were born in a club that gains advantages at the expense of others.
While most that have that label are not overt racists the people who are do care very much care about people being “traitors” to their race.
Sure. This is as likely as eliminating religion with reason. Think of all the incontrovertible evidence that the world is governed by physical law. Now think of all the people who believe in ghosts, souls, divine this and that, resurrections, omnipotent deities and snake gods.
Don’t you think reason would be able to displace the belief in the supernatural if merely being an “invalid concept” was sufficient for dismissal? Why do you think race, if I concede your assertion that the idea of race is irrational, would be any different?
Humans are a social animal and like to sort themselves in several different manners to find a tribe. Religion is one, language is one, political ideology is one, nationality is one, race is one. Of course these are messy overlapping sets but they are real and humans find them valuable.
It doesn’t require full elimination, but I would argue that in the case of religion that is already happening which invalidates that part of your argument.
In the US the non-religious constitute 25 percent of the adult population, compared to 21 percent who are Catholic and 16 percent who are white evangelicals and this has changed dramatically from the 1990s. In some European countries less than 5% of the adult population goes to services and the non-affiliated will be the majority if trends hold.
But there is a big difference. I can personally drop the label of being “white” while still maintaining the identity of being Finnish etc…
The barrier is much lower and modern meaning of race only entered in the field of physical anthropology from the mid 19th century.
Democrats (or at least those on this board) constantly try to rationalize with crazy, irrational dolts. You can’t use reason and logic with people who don’t use reason and logic to make rational decisions. You have to use fear.
And I believe it is extremely naïve (perhaps dangerously so) to try ignore the fictional construct of “race”. There may be no “biological basis”, but there is also no biological basis for being French, Irish, Jewish, rich, poor or a Red Sox fan, but these are also social constructs that people feel strongly about.
Well…a few years back there was that “Grapeist” guy who used to turn everyone’s posts purple.
There is not anything unscientific about the social construct of the races. You confuse two different things.
The sociological and the cultural experience, is not changed by the removal of the false biological experience.
Your response to octopus’ very correct observation is
this seems very much like the idea of the permanent dominance of the american left due to the demographics, the bootstrapping of wishful thinking.
Yes, and this alone makes your argument ridiculous as the idea and the fact of the racial discrimination, without the idea of biological race, was completely operational from a century prior.
It is the magical thinking.
exactely.
it resembles the just so assertions of the hard left about the idea of class.
Obviously, there is no “white” race. And a few hundred years ago, even white people (however defined) would have laughed at the idea.
Englishmen and my Irish ancestors were equally pale, but in 1650, Englishmen regarded the Irish as scum, fit for nothing but drinking, breeding, and menial labor.
Northern Italians STILL look down on Southern Italians, while “white” Serbs hate equally “white” Croatians.
Again, it should be readily apparent that these “white” groups have little or nothing in common, and have no grounds whatsoever for joining together.
So, if “abolishing” the white race means simply “Stop pretending my complexion means I have any special ties to anyone else,” I’m all for it. If it means something else to you, please elaborate.
The thing is that while race is indeed not a scientific concept, people aren’t judged on which of these concepts they identify with, but rather their skin color. Humans naturally discriminate, in the scientific sense of noticing differences and attempting to group people and things based on these differences. Humans subconsciously, and sometimes consciously, treat people differently based on their skin color.
A white person not calling themselves white is not going to change the privileges or hardships they may get from being white. A black person not calling themselves black is not going to change the privileges or hardships they may face from being black. And someone not identifying themselves by their race is not going to erase their subconscious discrimination and tendencies that they have been developing since infancy. It’s unfortunately not that easy.