You must have read a different article, because very little of that last post had anything to do with what Coates wrote. I’m not interested in continuing this hijack about your dismissal (or maybe hatred) of black culture, or its supposed inferiority to your culture. If you want to continue talking about that, I recommend starting another thread.
But what Coates wrote is invalid - he is scolding on a subject he is incapable of fully understanding. Unless you’re white and grew up in white American culture, you are incapable of fully understanding white American culture, and incapable of fully understanding its problems. Right?
Regards,
Shodan
Of course – if someone is writing about “white American culture”, and isn’t a part of “white American culture”, then this would be accurate.
But Coates is writing about “American culture”, of which he’s a part.
And I’ll repeat that I’m unconvinced of the existence of such a thing as “white American culture”.
You are trying to have it both ways - blacks can scold whites but not vice versa. If Coates is part of American culture, then he can scold it. Since he is part of American culture, he can be scolded in return, and all this stuff about how we can scold the white part of American culture but not the black part is nonsense.
Regards,
Shodan
Can you define “the white part of American culture”? What does that mean to you? Just curious, not trying to do a gotcha or anything with this question.
No, this isn’t what I’m saying. I’m saying that any critique of a culture is pointless and even counter-productive in terms of trying to change that culture unless it comes from within. I don’t believe “blacks can scold whites but not vice versa” – I don’t think any such scolding has any hope of being effective. I think Coates is making an effective critique of American culture and society, and it has a chance at being effective because he’s a part of American culture and society, and thus critiquing it from within.
As another example, if Ben Carson criticizes black culture, I’m not going to argue with him. Not because I don’t necessarily disagree (I probably do) – but because I’m incapable of understanding black culture as he does, since he grew up in it. I happen to find other characterizations of black culture from within (that is, from many other black Americans) more convincing than Ben Carson’s, but I’m not going to argue about black culture with someone who grew up within it, no matter what they say, and I’m not going to pretend my understanding of something I didn’t experience is (or can be) better than anyone who did. Just as I won’t argue about rape with someone who has been raped, or about abortion with someone who has had an abortion, etc.
You are still trying to have it both ways.
If Coates’ critique is going to be effective because he is part of American culture in general, then others who are also part of American culture can effectively critique American culture. Therefore either both white and black culture are parts of American culture, in which case both whites and blacks can effectively critique, or they are not, in which case whites can’t critique the black part and blacks can’t critique the white part.
For the purposes of this discussion, the white part is what can be criticized by whites and the black part is what can be criticized by blacks.
I don’t think it is a particularly useful distinction, but it seems to be one that iiandyiii and Coates are relying on. Apparently Coates can critique a part of the American culture even though he’s not white, because he is part of American culture, but whites can’t critique other parts because they’re not black, even though they are also part of American culture and grew up in it.
Regards,
Shodan
Nope, still not what I’m saying. Coates isn’t critiquing “a part of the American culture” – he’s critiquing American culture and society (and law and history) as a whole. He’s critiquing the entire basis of it. Any American can do so, black or white or other, with a chance of being effective (if it’s a good critique), IMO. He’s not critiquing anything that he’s not a part of/subject to, unlike the critiques of black culture in this thread.
Then black culture must not be part of general American culture, since it can’t be critiqued by those who are part of general American culture.
Regards,
Shodan
Black culture is a subset within general American Culture. Imagine a large circle representing general American culture, then imagine a smaller circle within that large circle that is Black culture. One can be a part of general American culture, but not a part of Black culture. There are a lot of subgroubs like this within general American culture. I believe what iiandyiiii is saying is that anyone in America can criticize general American culture since we are all within that large circle, but criticizing those within one of the smaller circles when you yourself are not within that smaller circle is ineffective and perhaps counter-effective. Just as if someone not within our circle of general American culture criticizes it. What would you say to someone from outside America criticizing American culture? Do you think that would be likely to actually affect American culture?
So, what do you think about the efforts to change the Apartheid culture in South Africa, back in the 70s and 80s? That was driven, to a large extent, by people not of that culture.
I would have to look more into the history of that situation before offering an opinion, but I’d be surprised to learn that the change in that society was actually caused by outside factors. Influence can come from lots of places, but ultimately change has to come from within, it can’t really be forced by outsiders. Attempts to do so have not had much success in the past as far as I know.
Again, I don’t consider myself informed enough on the history of Apartheid S.A. to make any particular claims in that area.
Policy certainly can be effectively critiqued from the outside, IMO – there are many such examples. Of course, in the example of apartheid, the ultimate change, both to policy and overall South African culture, came from South Africans. Outside pressure probably assisted in the changes to policy. Any changes to South African culture were necessarily driven by people within that culture, in my understanding.
Yes, this is an accurate representation of my position.
I’m not sure that has any significant meaning since the only way change can be forced from outside is through the use of the military. So yeah, no military force was used on South Africa, if you think that’s an important distinction to make.
Anyway, my post was directed at Airbeck’s post, so feel free to agree with him if you want. But that wold make about half the post on this MB irrelevant.
I think you’re misunderstanding me – I’m distinguishing between government policy and culture, in terms of how outside critiques are likely to effect change. Apartheid was a government policy, a set of laws and practices written down and instituted/executed. Outside influence (economic pressure, protests, diplomacy, etc.) and critiques can certainly be influential for changing government policies.
But policy isn’t culture – I’m saying that any changes to South African culture were driven entirely from within, necessarily, due to human psychology (in my understanding).
And I think what Shodan and I are saying is that in the process of criticizing “American” culture, Coates sure uses the word “white” a lot. The stuff that he is criticizing about “American” culture is all “white” stuff.
I understand, and FWIW I agree with this - there is a general culture, and a distinguishable black subculture. We can quibble over the boundaries, but I don’t think it affects the larger point.
Maybe it is clearer to talk about black American culture, and non-black culture, which consists of everyone who is outside the circle of black subculture. All part of the American culture, certainly. But being inside the circle of black subculture apparently entitles Coates to criticize the general American culture which is made up of all the other, non-black subcultures. But being inside the circle of white subculture or Asian or Hispanic or Italian subcultures does not entitle one to criticize the general American culture, which consists of all the non-Asian parts (if one is Asian) or Hispanic if one is Hispanic or black or Hawaii’an or whatever. Why is it that only blacks can criticize everyone else but everyone else can only criticize non-blacks? A white person can’t experience blackness, except insofar as blackness is part of the general American culture. A black person can’t experience whiteness except as part of the American culture either, but that shouldn’t disqualify them from criticizing whiteness.
That smacks of trying to exclude criticism by definition. “Don’t criticize me if you haven’t lived my life” works both ways, or at least IMO it should.
Sure, I understand that people are defensive about their own culture, when it’s criticized from someone outside. If the criticism is valid, they shouldn’t be, but it’s natural. But it appears that whites are expected to be more accepting of such criticism from without, and blacks are not.
Regards,
Shodan
Fine so far.
Here’s where you’re misunderstanding me. Yes, any American can (with a good critique) effectively criticize general American culture, including any white, Hispanic, Asian, etc. American. There’s no double standard here. And “blackness” and “whiteness” are concepts that are deeply integrated both in American society at large and in most (if not all) of the smaller cultures within it, most notably black culture. “Whiteness” is both incredibly important and massively influential within black American culture (as well as broader American culture). In fact, without the concept of “whiteness” (and “blackness”), we wouldn’t even have any “black culture” (since we wouldn’t have any “black” people).
The reason I keep asking about the existence of “white culture” is because, outside of deliberate supremacist enclaves, it’s not clear to me where/how this culture could exist in the US. In my understanding of how cultures develop, smaller cultures like black culture, Jewish American culture, etc. develop within a larger culture when broader culture is, to some degree, not wholly welcoming and safe for a group. Black culture developed out of necessity because black people didn’t have a great chance to thrive (or even survive) within broader culture – and the same goes for Native American culture and various once-immigrant cultures (Jewish-American, Italian-American, Irish-American, etc.).
But white people (as “white” was defined at the time) have always been safe and able to thrive within broader American culture, even as it’s changed and been influenced by non-white people (notice how many white Americans listen to music or eat food that had non-European influences!). So I don’t think a “white culture” ever developed, except possibly for small groups of white nationalists/supremacists who made deliberate choices to live in enclaves and separate themselves from other influences (if those communities are large and significant enough to be called “cultures”).
I said “fine so far” in my last post, but I realize that I do actually have a quibble (possibly, depending on your intention with this phrasing) with this part – I don’t think it’s possible to talk about a broader American culture that doesn’t include black culture (or Native American culture, or Hispanic American culture, etc.). I think the only possible “non-black culture” in America is the aforementioned possible white supremacist enclave culture, in which they have deliberately set themselves apart from non-white/non-European influences. There’s no “non-black” culture that would cover any significant number of people, IMO – where can you find any significant number of people in America in which none of them like hip-hop music/R&B/rock-and-roll/etc., and none of them eat any “soul food”, and none of them follow major sports, etc?