And you are wrong for nutpicking, another reason for being wrong is that that was one paper with hyperbolic language in the summary (until someone quotes or links the explanations in the paper, chances are that what was said in the summary is not quite what is on the research itself, an issue that I have seen many times before). As I cited already, that is not the focus that researchers look at.
How much are you willing to bet?
There is already a better word. White supremacy. It covers both our incredibly racist history and racist systems in the present day. The problem is most people think this refers to things like cross-burning and the KKK, not black men getting shot or sentenced to longer terms in prison or denied bank loans. So they think they don’t have to do anything about it because they’re not members of the KKK.
If some psychoanalyst wants to call it “whiteness” I don’t personally care, but I don’t think it’s realistic to expect the average voter to have some advanced academic understanding of critical race theory. I had to take graduate level courses on this. It’s not accessible.
People with experience and knowledge about this subject are telling you that isn’t what it means. It’s one thing to argue it could be interpreted as racist against white people and quite another to say it is racist against white people when a bunch of people who have a nuanced understanding of this subject are telling you that it’s not - with links to relevant articles I might add.
Is it bad messaging? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
Ok….let’s say the epitome of left wing craziness is that Donald Moss article.
And the epitome of right wing craziness is this
https://media.patriotssoar.com/pdf/TrumpInDays.pdf#page2
And this
Any questions?
As I and others have tried repeatedly to point out to you, whiteness isn’t to be construed as merely the state or condition of having predominately European DNA. It’s the reality that disparities in power along racial lines existed since the beginning of this country’s history and that we’ve all inherited that legacy, with all of its inherent penalties and rewards. If you stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge that this component of the whiteness discussion exists, then there’s really no need to carry on this debate further. A debate necessarily involves people acting in good faith to get closer to understanding about what the facts are and aren’t, and constructing ‘realities’ from those facts (i.e. lived experiences in this case).
Will you answer the question Andy wouldn’t? Which people are supposed to be ‘infected’ with ‘whiteness’?
Everyone. We’re all impacted by systems designed to protect and empower white people. Our very economy was built on a foundation of white supremacy. The laws that govern us and the policies that shape our society were designed, sometimes explicitly, to promote the interests of white people. That’s what is meant by “whiteness.”
But again, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the average white person to understand that. The Republicans are more than willing to use people’s ignorance about CRT as a wedge in the next election. I’m sure it will work.
And I agree with the concept 100 percent, without reservation.
That said, naming it “whiteness” is a gift, a massive gift, to the Trumpist propaganda machine
There comes a point when you have to stop giving a shit what their reaction is and just decide whether the arguments and labels have merit. It needs to be pointed out that we have different ways of describing the same thing. So a few cranky academics call it ‘whiteness’; others offer a more toned down version called ‘white privilege’. And then there’s the really mild version: ‘institutional racism’. Naturally, white grievance collectors are going to seize on the handful of extremists and try to make that the story. It’s up to the rest of us to identify what’s going on and not be fazed or distracted by these divisive efforts.
But you have a point: I personally wouldn’t label it as ‘whiteness’ if I were trying to be persuasive. I get the sense that the author wasn’t trying to be persuasive, but rather deliberately provocative.
You’re probably right.
According to CRT, whiteness is intrinsic to white people, but it can also ‘infect’ minorities if they ‘act white’ or somehow benefit from ‘whiteness’ or white power steuctures.
Usually, this is used to indict powerful minority members who are not with the CRT program. So Clarence Thomas is guilty of ‘acting white’ (ie being an Uncle Tom). So is Candace Owens, Tim Scott, or any other minority conservative that steps off the progressive reservation.
In white people, whiteness is original sin, and can only be absolved through ‘anti-racist’ activity. Just getting on with your life means benefiting from white supremacy, which makes you a racist.
The whole conceptual framework of CRT is incredibly racist, and it kind of turns my stomach just describing it. Just the fact that skin color must be constantly referenced when talking about human beings is nauseating.
Is the article Donald Moss wrote supposed to be ironic?
It would be equally provocative if every instance of the word “Whiteness” was replaced by the word “Jewishness” or “Blackness”. But I doubt it would be hailed as worthwhile reading.
I don’t think that the effective way to fix structural racism is to use the same methods and language that has been used to justify racism in the first place.
Tip. Back up what you’re saying. I’ve only read the abstract, but I’ve looked at other references including the previously mentioned Newsweek article. It contains further details about the full article showing it’s consistent with the abstract.
If you believe the abstract doesn’t capture the spirit of the article it’s summarising, then state why. Otherwise, you’re just putting out distractions, rather than trying to counter an argument with facts.
You basically just admitted that you’ve not read the article. Nothing further to add.
And all of which terms are just as vehemently claimed by the Right to just represent nothing but “anti-white racist” ideology. Their whole point is that we should not even mention it.
We’re discussing vocabulary, but it’s not like this thread isn’t full of tangents. I view white supremacy as active directed racism with the intent to inflict suppression, or even harm. I would say that what iiandyiiii is referring to with his definition is systemic racism, which is both more complicated and less direct. However, that’s more of a generic term that describes a present phenomenon. His definition of “Whiteness” is specifically focussed on the white race, and seems to have a focus on the US historical context. I’m not sure if there is a good present term as an alternative for “Whiteness”. Even so, I’d prefer a mundane generally accurate phrase, than a charged one that implies that racism is an inherent white trait.
I haven’t read the article. I didn’t want to pay for it. What’s your point? In the several references I made to the cited page, I referred to the content of the page as the abstract. In an offhand remark that didn’t discuss the content of the page, I equated the article with the abstract. Again, so what? Do you have a belief that the abstract is an incorrect summary of the page? If so, please state why. Otherwise you’re just highlighting a meaningless imprecision in an offhand remark which contributes zero to the discussion of the topic.
Yes, as I pointed out, people don’t think of systems when they think of white supremacy. But it’s baked into the definition.
The dictionary offers two possibilities. We’re talking mainly about the latter.
None of these definitions appear to match the abstract. How do you get from laws and policies and the structure of society, to some mysterious thing that infects people and warps their minds?
Saying people can absorb prejudiced attitudes due to the society they grew up in is uncontroversial. Saying they are incurably psychically warped by some kind of parasite… even if I replace ‘whiteness’ with ‘wokeness’, it still sounds offensive and absurd. The only reason to say such a thing is to demonise a group of people. In this case, the group of people the condition is named after and who are said to be particularly susceptible to it.
Who said it was incurable? Cite, please, and be specific.