I said that I don’t agree with the OP much. And I was thinking of all minorities, not just Americans of African descent.
Oddly enough the responses to this post kind of validate the concept from the OP in my mind.
The effort seems to bother those who believe that the flawed concept of race is a real biological identifiers.
I have a moral issue with perpetuating a myth at the expense of my fellow Americans.
The well meaning people who think that this trivializes the costs of racism may not get that this is similar to the Superman effect on the KKK. The concept of race needs to be called out as absurd and while we need to be very thoughtful about the negative effects the concept does not deserve respect and will not be destroyed by protecting it from ridicule. Particularly when there is a way such as this to trivialize the beneficiaries without disrespecting those who suffer the negative consequences.
Note that it doesn’t require all members to universally shed the label, just enough to publicly remind others of the fact that the label is ridiculous to enough of a population to avoid the assumptions of universal acceptance.
it seems more that anything validates it, as you wish to prosletyze
with the exception of Wesley Clark citing something unscientific, there has been essentially zero response about the ‘real biological identifiers.’ the responses have been saying the biological has nothing to do with the cultural or the sociocultural… this comment is a bizarre straw man.
It seems this is an idée fixe.
Compared to doing nothing?
But you may want to look up above for the responses from ITR etc…
If doing something means engaging in irrational strawman fantasies, then yes doing nothing is better.
But this is also a strawman, the false either or choice.
It is not a stawman, but it is obvious that outside of fear uncertainty and doubt you are unwilling to debate.
I do wish to proselytize, why shouldn’t I?
The social impacts of racism are negative, and you may want to look up the word proselytize.
You are committing the fallacy fallacy, as your post directly told me to not advocate or promote the teardown of the flawed concept of race and racism.
Only if every white person ticks it and no other people tick it.
Do you count people who use ethnic slurs like “wetbacks” in “anyone who makes an issue of it is a fool”? Or is that particular slur somehow exempt?
As the great Billy Connolly said, “I’m not white, I’m pale blue!”
When every single person in the thread disagreeing with you validates your thesis, I’m wondering what it means when they do agree with you. Since you are impervious to persuasion that your plan is ludicrous, I’ll leave you to it. If you’re right, then I’ll read about its implementation in the paper soon.
AFAIKT, that is what the OP is proposing. But only the second half of your statement needs to be true. If only white people tick “other” then every “other” is white regardless of how many white people select it.
[quote=“rat_avatar, post:46, topic:777807”]
It is not a stawman [\quote]
it is a pure strawman as you continue to go on and on about the biological idea of race and ignore the non foundation of the racism in this idea.
debate what?
The strawman you erect? Why?
go ahead , but it is boring.
This is the silly strawman. My post only pointed out your strawmanning of the responses to your assertions.
You are not tearing down the ‘flawed concept of race’, you are attacking an aspect that aside from WC not one person has promoted and ignoring the many observations that the racism is not an idea fundamentally based in the pseudo-sceintific biological racism.
but you tear away furioiusly at your strawman instead.
Or raghead. Of course the blustering reply of denial can be predicted.
the self awareness is not present.
Most of those are nationalities and come in all colors. Basque can be, among other things, an ancestry*, but since it has no cutoff point we’re also getting them in all colors nowadays. In 1997, a black Basque president was a joke; nowadays it could happen.
- It can also be defined by area of birth, area where one grew up or area of residence, and by language.
The 1997 reference is to a movie.
You don’t seem to understand what abolish the white race means. It doesn’t mean not checking a box or pretending race does not exist. If you read the linked screed they are trying to say that it mean that white people act black so that those in power don’t assume that just because you look white you are going to act white. In this context acting black means cursing at cops and having anti-cop bumperstickers.
This is obviously stupidity on stilts but at least get the idea correct.
I’m not sure what motivates going down this rabbit hole, but I do know it’s not the topic of this thread. It’s also unnecessarily inflammatory. Please dial this back. If you feel you must, the Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
I think it may be you that has the concept incorrect as far as that site is involved.
https://www.facebook.com/kehben.grifter/posts/10211657641222032
the idea is that the group that gains the most benefit from the concept of race (white christians) quit using it.
That man in the photo is quite obviously dressed as a SHARP would be, to claim that he is “acting” black is not true at all.
The idea is to destroy the description for the group that gains advantage to the term, not to pretend to be from another culture.
This blog post has come up before (is it from an aggregator site?); sadly, to the contrary, it does not match up to either of your claims about it. In the first case, the problem is one of interpretation; the writer of the article claims some remarks by Trump are not racist, to which many do seem to differ, including myself. In the second, you’ve made the mistake of not using the same language as the writer. He debunks the idea that white supremacist groups such as the KKK or followers of David Duke could make up the core of Trump’s support, purely on a numbers basis - there aren’t enough of them to form the “core” even if every one of them supported him. However, when it comes to “racist groups”…
[QUOTE=said article]
4. Aren’t there a lot of voters who, although not willing to vote for David Duke or even willing to express negative feelings about black people on a poll, still have implicit racist feelings, the kind where they’re nervous when they see a black guy on a deserted street at night?
Probably. And this is why I am talking about crying wolf. If you wanted to worry about the voter with subconscious racist attitudes carefully hidden even from themselves, you shouldn’t have used the words “openly white supremacist KKK supporter” like a verbal tic.
[/QUOTE]
The guy actually thinks there’s “probably” a lot of racist people out there, and doesn’t debunk their role in Trump’s support.
There are a number of other problems with that article, but I’ve restricted it simply to the claims you’ve brought up.
[quote=“Ramira, post:51, topic:777807”]
You are the one that is building a strawman, and the link in the OP nor any of my postes have suggested that this would fix racism overall, or address the use of “raghead” or “wetback”
But it does start to address the only true “voluntary” label. “White” was a description created to further systematic racist policies that are actually one of the root causes of the current issues.
While Finns, or Catholics can be assimilated into the original and only “positive” label over time this is never going to happen for people who are considered brown.
Your strawman argument that is built around the claim that this will not solve “all” racism or bigotry which is not the goal.
As for it being “boring” to bring this up, civil rights are not improved by people being silent.
That is exactly my intent, If I can reference James Madison’s Federalist No. 10.
There is only one broad racial description that was not created in a pejorative fashion and that is “white”
The historical flawed concept of race included “white” and then the the “lesser races” and most individuals who happen to have been born into the “white” race have the privilege of voluntarily dropping that description. And this does not require them to ignore or diminish their ancestry or cultural histories.
The idea is similar to the concerns about Faction within Federalist No. 10.
A group that is proud to be in a group like being English, Basque, or Charger fans will not be large enough to effect the policy of the entire country as their numbers are too small.
The idea is to abandon the label of “white” to help remove it’s power as a faction to meet these goals.
The idea is not so naive as to belief that it will solve the problem of racism and bigiotry but in the hope that it will reduce the negative effects of the historical context by reducing the power provided by the false concept.
I do not think that most of the negative effects are cause by a majority of “whites” committing acts of explicit bias, but that due to the nature of man the implicit biases enable a minority of actors to enforce laws or to instill fear based on this false group membership.
Or to once again quote Federalist 10 to reduce the power of:
The brilliance of the site in the OP is that they directly confront the issue in a way that drives a visceral reaction. In people who are just acting out of normal human in-group, out-group biases and attribution errors is acts as a conversation starter for a very important and real conversation. In groups that it produces a visceral reaction based on explicit bias it directly attacks their core ideology and rhetoric while reducing their core ideology to what it is, absurdity.
I vividly remember several in person debates with the head of the Aryan Nations, Richard Butler where he directly accused me of being a “Race Traitor” for not supporting a separatist ideology. I saw the entire community rise and confront them and I while I am personal friends with the Keenan’s who’s assault and resulting lawsuit may have caused the end of the origination it was ridicule that was really breaking down their local power.
With the absence of that direct example of the absurdity of white supremacy has unfortunately reversed those gains over the years in that area of the country.
I think that directly devaluing the concept of being “white” as being a separate, real identifier could help reduce the ability of a majority of individuals to gain enough power to enact policy on a broad scale.
This general idea is well covered in the referenced URL, and the directed inflammatory language is intentional and purposeful. It is directly targeted at those groups who ascribe to explicit bias and bigotry.
But yes the goal is to “Stop pretending my complexion means I have any special ties to anyone else,”
From the article "Recently, one of our editors, unfamiliar with New York City traffic laws, made an illegal right turn there on a red light. He was stopped by two cops in a patrol car. After examining his license, they released him with a courteous admonition. Had he been black, they probably would have ticketed him, and might even have taken him down to the station. A lot of history was embodied in that small exchange: the cops treated the miscreant leniently at least in part because they assumed, looking at him, that he was white and therefore loyal. Their courtesy was a habit meant both to reward good conduct and induce future cooperation.
Had the driver cursed them, or displayed a bumper sticker that said, “Avenge Rodney King,” the cops might have reacted differently. We admit that neither gesture on the part of a single individual would in all likelihood be of much consequence. But if enough of those who looked white broke the rules of the club to make the cops doubt their ability to recognize a white person merely by looking at him or her, how would it affect the cops’ behavior? And if the police, the courts, and the authorities in general were to start spreading around indiscriminately the treatment they normally reserve for people of color, how would the rest of the so-called whites react?"
From another essay “What would the determined minority have to do? They would have to break the laws of whiteness so flagrantly as to destroy the myth of white unanimity. What would it mean to break the rules of whiteness? It would mean responding to every manifestation of white supremacy as if it were directed against them. On the individual level, it would mean, for instance, responding to an anti-black remark by asking, What makes you think I’m white? On the collective level, it would mean confronting the institutions that reproduce race”
So they only give two examples of what a race traitor should do and in both instances the solution is to act black. Black in their parlance meaning someone who is in defiance of the culture and being oppressed by the culture.
Of course to ask for coherence from these people is obviously too much to ask.