"Multi-racial whiteness"

Apparently being white now has nothing to do with your race but is all about attitude:

Anyone not think this is ridiculous?

There was an article, “the whitening of Asian-Americans,” too.

What the article calls “multiracial whiteness” could be more accurately be called “being a sociopathic asshole”. Yes indeedy, being a sociopathic asshole is open to all races, creeds, and colors, and sociopathic assholes the world over can find something appealing about Trump’s brand of self-centered hatefulness. And opposition to Trump also isn’t purely restricted to non-white individuals, because, astonishingly, there are in fact a handful of white people who aren’t monstrous douchebags. (Hard to believe, I know.)

At face value, it appears that the author mischaracterized the situation as “white person = trumper”, and when objective reality failed to meet that standard refused to completely let go of their characterization of the situation as purely being a race thing. (With the end result of them kind of sounding sort of racist themselves.)

This, on the other hand, reminds me how how italians and others were originally considered a different race from anglo-saxons and discriminated against accordingly, but nowadays they’re considered “within the tent”.

Care to be more specific? What is it in the piece that you find ridiculous?

Sociopaths are what, 1% of the population?

I think she characterised it as “Trumper = white person”, but otherwise, yes I agree. After so many people saying Trump’s appeal is all about white supremacism, perhaps she can be forgiven for her misapprehension. Personally I don’t find his appeal to Latinos incredibly surprising, Trump fits the type of a Caudillo and there is a long tradition of those in Latin America.

That’s a much clearer way of putting it than saying they ‘became white’.

What do you think, is this really a thing?

It’s becoming increasingly clear that sociopathy can be taught. Which, yes, is a horrifying thought.

The article includes this:

America’s racial divide is not simply between Whites and non-Whites. Thinking in terms of multiracial whiteness helps us recognize that much of today’s political rift is a division between those who are drawn to and remain invested in a politics of whiteness and those who seek something better.

We witnessed this very divide in Georgia, when a significant segment of White voters broke with Georgia’s White majority, joining a multiracial coalition that sent Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff to the U.S. Senate, following the leadership of Black women whose organizing made that electoral victory possible.

This is the hopeful side of the shifting and diverging politics of whiteness. In the post-Trump era, the challenge will be to prevail over the extremism of Trump’s White majority while trying to prevent the politics of whiteness from becoming an increasingly multiracial affair.

This pretty explicitly equates whiteness with trumpism - if whites weren’t all assumed to be trumpists then white people “breaking with” the white majority and voting liberal would be nothing remarkable.

If by “Whitening” they mean the meshing of races and cultures together it is absolutely happening and it is a good thing. In the same way though, mainstream culture is becoming slightly more hispanic and black.

Intermarriage of races and enmeshment of cultures is the path to ending racism.

I think there’s a point to be made that, for example, participation in anti-black racism by black people does not mean that it’s not racism.

However, at the same time, this feels like an attempt to stretch the use of a racial lens beyond reason in order to be able to keep framing “Trumpism” as simply racism, or primarily racism.

If I want to be able to criticize anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant attitudes as being a “white people” problem, then I guess I have to cast non-whites with those attitudes as some flavor of “whiteness”.

I sincerely hope you are wrong about this.

I guess you’re right. That makes it even more nuts.

Yes, I think that’s the problem I have with it. And I agree about the participation of black people not proving something isn’t racism.

In general, I don’t think tying race to behavior or stereotype is a good thing. This reminds me of how some black people ridiculed fellow blacks who studied hard, did well in school, wanted a good career, as “behaving white.”

If the article author wants to write about bigotry, then write about bigotry. If the author wanted to write about racism, poverty, religion, anti-religion, etc. - then write about those things. But don’t write about Hispanics voting for Trump and say “those Hispanics are becoming white.” That would be like saying that a man who is pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-LGBT, progressive “is becoming a very feminine man.”

Just out of curiosity, why do you consider those positions “feminine?”

It’s been crazy for awhile now. Identity politics is all gas - no brakes.

It’s starting. They backed down, I suspect some form of it will come back eventually.

This one – also from the Washington Post – shocked me.

Woman who falsely accused black teen of stealing phone says:

“I’m Puerto Rican, I’m a woman of color [and therefore I can’t be racist].”

Washington Post columnist says:

She’s racist and therefore she cannot be a woman of color. I’m going to label her “white.”

I can’t decide which one of them is more wrong.

“Whiteness” is different than just being White. “Whiteness” is not just about race. Some good starting points:

Whiteness is a concept that is not the same thing as being white. It’s what happens if you study white people as a race, with our own culture and everything, rather than treating us like the default since we’re in a predominantly white country. As such, it makes sense in the same way there are some white people who are well integrated with black culture.

The term does not mean “racist,” so that is not a valid replacement. It it talking about those who allow white culture to define how they see the world. This is, of course, mostly white people, but there are some PoCs mixed in.

And there are people who are against the idea of sticking with a white culture and converting others to that culture, and would rather live in a multiculture. These people can be white or any other race. They accept that the way white people do things isn’t the only way.

Granted, I’m oversimplifying. Everyone has aspects of both. But the point is that studying it this way allows us to see how much the dominant culture is pushing itself onto other cultures. It allows looking at the underlying causes and beliefs that led to that dominant culture.

The thing is, white people aren’t used to this framing, and it leads to people reacting like this. Bringing race into it is seen as making it racist, because we don’t regularly think of things through a racial lens like any racial minority has to.

But that framing has led to insight in a way that ignoring the racial component doesn’t. Like it or not, Trump’s message was in fact a very white message, pulling upon white grievances (and straight grievances and cisgender grievances, and predominantly male grievances). That’s why everyone characterizes what he does as white identity politics.

The fact that there are some nonwhite people who are attracted to it as well doesn’t change that it’s trying to appeal to white culture.

I also note that, just because his message was designed to appeal to white culture doesn’t mean it appeals to all white people–those of us white people who don’t have racial grievances aren’t as attracted to it. It doesn’t mean we’re not a part of white culture–just that we don’t see our culture as under threat.

It ironically is a part of whiteness to try and shut down any talk of whiteness, white grievance politics, white culture, etc. Because we just don’t think about it that way, so it makes it feel racist to us. But the same people will talk about black culture, Hispanic culture, LGBT culture, and so on.

Well, our culture gets studied, too, both the good and the bad. The fact that many of us reject the bad doesn’t change that it’s still part of the culture–if it weren’t, then the appeal to it wouldn’t work.

That’s not to say I love the term itself–but once you understand the concept, I’m at a loss to come up with a better term. It might be better if we evolve the other way, and start using other -ness prefixes when discussing other racial cultures.

This is what happens when your premises lead to absurd conclusions, and instead of abandoning the premises you accept the absurd conclusions.

They’re both saying that only whites can be racist, which is both unbelievably stupid and also extremely racist.

However I’d say that denying the plainly obviously race of a person based on his moronic racist belief is going a step beyond.

I agree and so does the Honorable Sen. Jay Billington Bulworth:

Everybody just gotta keep fuckin’ everybody til they’re all the same color