# Racialism: Everyone's Favorite Politics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 11, 2018, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715 "2018-07-11T14:56:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/421 "2018-07-19T19:07:27Z")
> [@Huey\_Freeman](#): > > I’ll end with a question. How many times of a year do you break bread with a person of color who isn’t from work? I mean, really break bread. 6.4. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/422 "2018-07-19T19:10:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t recall an answer to my question - in what way does racism/whiteness/whatever cause black fathers to abandon their children, black women to become pregnant out of wedlock, and blacks to be over-represented among criminals? If those circumstances are influenced by whiteness/blackness, and those negative circumstances are more frequently encountered by certain groups, then the effects of those circumstances are to some degree 2nd order effects of whiteness/blackness. > [@](#): > > Black kids grow up without their fathers. Why is this not the father’s fault? It is for Asians and Jews and white people. In many cases it is, in many it is not, and it’s often a combination. These are very complex concepts and circumstances and it’s almost impossible to speak of them accurately as simply as you’re trying to do so here, IMO. > [@](#): > > All of them are part of a culture. Culture is what people do, and think, and believe, and how they interact with each other. If whiteness weren’t part of any culture, whiteness would not exist. > > If nobody existed, would whiteness exist? Are you claiming that whiteness is like gravity or the law of entropy? Whiteness/blackness strongly influences American culture, and most or all sub-cultures within American culture (and vice versa). There are extremely complex interactions between all of these complex concepts and phenomena. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/423 "2018-07-19T19:19:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In my understanding of communism, persecution based on “means” is a core tenet. Do you disagree with this? I think they take away your "means’ if you have too much but after they take your stuff you don’t have “means” anymore. > [@](#): > > A cite that not every single Vietnamese person had the same means, and that having more means might have made it easier to leave? That seems almost trivially obvious and easy (you really believe that there was zero correlation, and all refugees and potential refugees had the same circumstances?!?), but here you go: > > [Vietnamese boat people - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people) > > “Humanitarian Program for Former Political Detainees, popularly called Humanitarian Operation or HO due to the “H” subgroup designation within the ODP and trailing numbers 01-09 (e.g. H01-H09, H10, etc.) was set up to benefit former South Vietnamese who were involved in the former regime or worked for the US. They were to be allowed to immigrate to the US if they had suffered persecution by the communist regime after 1975. Half-American children in Vietnam, descendants of servicemen, were also allowed to immigrate along with their mothers or foster parents. **This program sparked a wave of rich Vietnamese parents buying the immigration rights from the real mothers or foster parents.** ” > > Bolding mine. > > There you go – circumstances existed in which wealthy Vietnamese people had an easier path to the US than non-wealthy Vietnamese people. And this is just one example. In my understanding there were many, most of which were not due to policy, but just the standard barriers lack of wealth and other means present – wealthy people (relatively speaking) have a better chance of successfully transporting themselves to the escape boats; wealthy people have a better chance of bribing officials as necessary; wealthy people have a better chance of bribing those coming to kill them; etc. Here is the full quote. I think its useful to note that buying the immigration right required buying the half American child, something that you seem to think happened frequently enough to have changed the overall characteristics of the refugees from Vietnam. > [@](#): > > This program sparked a wave of rich Vietnamese parents buying the immigration rights from the real mothers or foster parents. They paid money (in the black market) to transfer the half-American children into their custody, then applied for visas to emigrate to the US. Most of these half-American children were born of American soldiers and prostitutes. They were subject to discrimination, poverty, neglect and abuse. I’m not going to call you a racist, but I wonder if I could get away with saying that some other group **sold their children** in large enough numbers to make a difference in the overall character of that group. I am looking for the cite that Wikipedia is using for that statement. I could not find one. It seems like the language is lifted from this website: [https://www.thefullwiki.org/Boat\_people](https://www.thefullwiki.org/Boat_people) I don’t see where they are getting this info from. > [@](#): > > The same obligation that every group has to try and improve themselves and improve the world around them. Nothing special here. > > Or, as I’ve alluded in other posts, that’s circumstances that lead humans to behave as humans do, resulting in statistical disparities due to disparities in the frequencies that various groups face that increase the chances of certain behaviors. > > There are circumstances in which, on average, human males are less likely to be available as fathers – whether because they are in jail, involved in crime, depressed, addicted to drugs, etc. Black people are human beings. In my understanding, black people face these sorts of circumstances more frequently than other groups, in general and on average. > > I’m snipping a bunch of other silliness that will just result in back and forth attacks which I’m going to try and stop being a part of (my fault as much as yours). I think you’re very wrong and hold some hateful ideas, but you’re probably trying your best to understand and overcome and I’ll try not to cast anything that could be considered personal aspersions on you because I think some of your ideas are so hateful and contemptuous. > > I tried to explain my views in a different way in my previous few posts. OK let me try saying it this way because you seem to think that culture is the result of some flaw in character of black people as individuals (or you think that is what I am saying). I think that the history surrounding black literacy in the antebellum south created a baseline of hostility or aversion to education that may have trickled down to some of the attitudes we have today. This is particularly prevalent among black males. I think this aversion to education is a toxic element of black culture. I think the drug policies and generational poverty leads to gangs becoming institutions. I think gangs are a toxic part of the culture in many poor black neighborhoods. I am not sure what the root cause of the breakdown of the black family but it is real and it is epidemic. I think this has become a toxic part of black culture. It doesn’t matter that these are not problems of their own making, these are things that keep the black community from reaching its potential. These are things that the black community has to address on its own and it can’t wait for racism to drop below some acceptable level before they start working on it. Of all the problems, I think the disintegration of the black family is the most important to address. I think everything else become easier to handle once they can reverse the disintegration of the black family. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/424 "2018-07-19T19:34:30Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > We _understand_ what the term means just fine, thank you very much, we just see it as a _phenomenally shitty term_. We’ve explained this to you at length; your response boiled down to “Well, I disagree”. And y’know, _that’s okay_! It’s okay to have value disagreements like this. This isn’t a matter of scientific inquiry or something, it’s a matter of philosophy and it’s not clear-cut. > > …It becomes a lot less okay when you misrepresent that value disagreement as “you don’t get it”. We get it! It’s a stupid term that alienates people and that almost everyone who isn’t Tumblr Woke ™ will consider to be racist bullshit (and indeed, _everyone_ will recognize the natural inverse of “blackness” meaning “bad things most typically related to being black” as racist as _hell_), and that’s taking you as charitably as we possibly can. We’re not stupid. I didn’t call you stupid for using a term I consider _incredibly_ counterproductive; _please_ extend the same courtesy to us for disagreeing with you. > > _We understand the term_. Just like we’re capable of understanding what **Biffster** means when he says “[God is life](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20935669#post20935669)”. That doesn’t make it good english (btw, both descriptivists and prescriptivists called it out there). > > We _get_ the context! Thank you! :mad: [We had this whole discussion about it not too long ago](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21051246#post21051246). [I absolutely stand by what I said](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21068035&postcount=219). Cliffs notes version: > > [ul] > [li]the term sucks etymologically (white+ness is a pretty straightforward signal!) [/li][li]most people aren’t aware of the meaning you ascribe to it [/li][li]if a white person who isn’t aware of that meaning hears you talking about “whiteness” as the root of all evils they’re going to freak out because to them it sounds like a call to a fucking race war[/li][li]Even if you understand the term, even if you concede it’s a useful term, why “whiteness” and not “toxic aryanism” or some term that makes it clear _through the term_ that the problem is not “you’re white”?![/li][li]The alt-right fuckin’ _loves_ us using that term for some reason.[/li][/ul] > > Hey, so y’know how there was this huge backlash in 2014-2016 against feminists and social justice warriors? And you know how something like _half the country_ considers “SJW” a meaningful pejorative? This is part of the problem. When a substantial portion of the people you are trying to convince to sign on to your values sees your terminology and reacts with horror to the way you talk to them, _something has gone wrong_. You are not reaching them well. And if you respond with “fuck your feelings you oppressive shitbag”, it doesn’t matter how right you are - you just lost that audience. That’s a group of people you will _not_ reach. And _even here_ “whiteness” goes over poorly! You know me. I’m a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. So is **BigT**. Both of us dislike the term. So do the right-wingers **Bone** and **Ditka** , although that’s hardly surprising. It’s not a good term. Find something else. “Toxic white privilege”? Fucked if I know. But you know how many people have a problem with “Toxic Masculinity”? Imagine if it was instead called “Maleness”. Imagine how well _that_ would go over. > > _Stop making our side look bad_. The culture war is, ultimately, about winning hearts and minds. You can’t win without that. And “whiteness” doesn’t win us hearts and minds. It’s an easy punching bag for the nazis who want to pretend that the left hates white people. _STOP IT._ > > Buddy, you could be some sick hybrid of the most charismatic and right people of the past 200 years, and if all of your speeches were accompanied by the brown note, nobody would listen to you. I would agree that it is bad form to use such terms in an open public speech or something where the recipients may not understand the word, just as I would expect that if I were to use the term “pentadactyl” to describe my listener, the listener being ignorant of the meaning of that word could effect communication, even though it would (probably) be accurate, they may perceive it as an insult. But to use a word in its academic context in conversation to explain a phenomenon that has no other ready term shouldn’t be condemned. You are correct that bigots objected to terms that people used when they tried to highlight the effects of bigotry. How much consternation has been thrown over the prefix “cis”, for instance. It is bad enough that the bigots demand control over the language, and while I agree that it is not a great way to get bigots on your side to use a descriptive term like “whiteness”, the bigots aren’t going to be on your side no matter what word you use to describe the cultural and economic effects of generational bigotry. If talking about the effects of generational racism bother people, then lets get rid of the effects of generational racism, not police the language so that it can be more easily ignored. For those who do not understand that racism didn’t just stop when slavery was ended, or when jim crow was repealed, that hundreds of years of slavery and oppression could not possibly have any effect on modern socioeconomic problems of people of color, anything that could possibly remind them that their prosperity was built on the backs of generations of the oppressed is an anathema, and so their objection to any words that would remind them of that makes sense. For those who do understand these things, turning on others in an attempt to make the bigots more comfortable is doing their work for them. So yeah, it would be unwise to go out and make public speeches blaming “whiteness” for the world’s ills. But on a little corner of a message board supposedly devoted to fighting ignorance, while talking specifically about racial relationships and how they effect the socioeconomic status of various demographic groups, I cannot condone censoring useful language to make bigots more comfortable. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/425 "2018-07-19T19:36:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think they take away your "means’ if you have too much but after they take your stuff you don’t have “means” anymore. Taking away their means sounds like persecution to me. > [@](#): > > Here is the full quote. I think its useful to note that buying the immigration right required buying the half American child, something that you seem to think happened frequently enough to have changed the overall characteristics of the refugees from Vietnam. > > I’m not going to call you a racist, but I wonder if I could get away with saying that some other group **sold their children** in large enough numbers to make a difference in the overall character of that group. > > I am looking for the cite that Wikipedia is using for that statement. I could not find one. It seems like the language is lifted from this website: > > [https://www.thefullwiki.org/Boat\_people](https://www.thefullwiki.org/Boat_people) > > I don’t see where they are getting this info from. I also said the following, based on common sense: wealthy people (relatively speaking) have a better chance of successfully transporting themselves to the escape boats; wealthy people have a better chance of bribing officials as necessary; wealthy people have a better chance of bribing those coming to kill them; etc. Do you disagree with these logical suppositions? Do you think a poor person and a rich person targeted by the oppressive government have exactly the same chance of avoiding or bribing corrupt/malevolent officials/death squads, making it to the coast, onto a boat, bribing officials, getting enough food on the journey, etc. – all the things that might be necessary to make it to America? It seems trivially obvious to me that someone with wealth would have a greater chance of success in this endeavor than someone with nothing, all else being equal. > [@](#): > > OK let me try saying it this way because you seem to think that culture is the result of some flaw in character of black people as individuals (or you think that is what I am saying). > > I think that the history surrounding black literacy in the antebellum south created a baseline of hostility or aversion to education that may have trickled down to some of the attitudes we have today. This is particularly prevalent among black males. I think this aversion to education is a toxic element of black culture. > > I think the drug policies and generational poverty leads to gangs becoming institutions. I think gangs are a toxic part of the culture in many poor black neighborhoods. > > I am not sure what the root cause of the breakdown of the black family but it is real and it is epidemic. I think this has become a toxic part of black culture. > > It doesn’t matter that these are not problems of their own making, these are things that keep the black community from reaching its potential. These are things that the black community has to address on its own and it can’t wait for racism to drop below some acceptable level before they start working on it. Of all the problems, I think the disintegration of the black family is the most important to address. I think everything else become easier to handle once they can reverse the disintegration of the black family. I think (as someone said upthread) you’re getting cause and effect wrong. If there are circumstances caused by discrimination/oppression/“whiteness/blackness”/etc. that are leading to these disparities, then it’s not the culture that’s causing them, but the circumstances. If black people are facing these circumstances more often than others, and are just behaving as humans tend to on average in these circumstances, than _focusing on culture will do nothing_. And this includes every one of these disparities – there are circumstances in which humans are more promiscuous, on average, or are more criminal, or violent, or whatever, on average. If black people are facing these circumstances that result in humans behaving in these ways more frequently, due to whiteness/blackness/racism/institutional-bigotry/discrimination/etc., then the disparitiy is not the fault of black culture, but rather the fault of these harmful phenomena. And we should focus on those circumstances (and the larger cause of those circumstances) since they’re the only thing outsiders (and broader society) can affect anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/426 "2018-07-19T19:56:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Taking away their means sounds like persecution to me. How do those non-existent means help them get to America? > [@](#): > > I also said the following, based on common sense: wealthy people (relatively speaking) have a better chance of successfully transporting themselves to the escape boats; wealthy people have a better chance of bribing officials as necessary; wealthy people have a better chance of bribing those coming to kill them; etc. You mean the wealthy people that are being targeted and persecuted by the government? If wealthier people could escape communism, the entire professional class in communist countries would have left. I have not seen any evidence that refugees generally are wealthier than the general population of the country they were fleeing. I thought it was commonly understood that refugees are fairly representative of their country of origin. > [@](#): > > Do you disagree with these logical suppositions? Do you think a poor person and a rich person targeted by the oppressive government have exactly the same chance of avoiding or bribing corrupt/malevolent officials/death squads, making it to the coast, onto a boat, bribing officials, getting enough food on the journey, etc. – all the things that might be necessary to make it to America? It seems trivially obvious to me that someone with wealth would have a greater chance of success in this endeavor than someone with nothing, all else being equal. I think a Vietnamese fisherman has a better chance at becoming a refugee than a Vietnamese lawyer. > [@](#): > > I think (as someone said upthread) you’re getting cause and effect wrong. If there are circumstances caused by discrimination/oppression/“whiteness/blackness”/etc. that are leading to these disparities, then it’s not the culture that’s causing them, but the circumstances. If black people are facing these circumstances more often than others, and are just behaving as humans tend to on average in these circumstances, than _focusing on culture will do nothing_. And this includes every one of these disparities – there are circumstances in which humans are more promiscuous, on average, or are more criminal, or violent, or whatever, on average. If black people are facing these circumstances that result in humans behaving in these ways more frequently, due to whiteness/blackness/racism/institutional-bigotry/discrimination/etc., then the disparitiy is not the fault of black culture, but rather the fault of these harmful phenomena. > > And we should focus on those circumstances (and the larger cause of those circumstances) since they’re the only thing outsiders (and broader society) can affect anyway. So what circumstances cause the things I mention? Most of the “circumstances” seem to be (directly or indirectly) vestiges of the past. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/427 "2018-07-19T20:16:50Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > How do those non-existent means help them get to America? > > You mean the wealthy people that are being targeted and persecuted by the government? If wealthier people could escape communism, the entire professional class in communist countries would have left. I have not seen any evidence that refugees generally are wealthier than the general population of the country they were fleeing. I thought it was commonly understood that refugees are fairly representative of their country of origin. > > I think a Vietnamese fisherman has a better chance at becoming a refugee than a Vietnamese lawyer. Do I really have to spell this out? A wealthy Vietnamese person understands that his family is a likely target of the communists. Maybe he’s not sure at first, but a wealthy friend is targeted, so then he realizes he better get his family out of Vietnam before it’s too late. In my understanding, that’s a very common feature and result of communist revolutions. And it seems quite logical that these folks might be more successful in getting out, just as a wealthy fisherman with a high quality boat will have a better chance of escaping than a poor fisherman with a broken boat. > [@](#): > > So what circumstances cause the things I mention? > > Most of the “circumstances” seem to be (directly or indirectly) vestiges of the past. There could be a million different possibilities. In my understanding, kids who have lost a parent or sibling are more likely to engage in risky and dangerous behavior. Kids with less hope for the future are more likely to engage in desperate behavior, or throw caution to the wind. Kids without a safe place to be during the day are more likely to go to dangerous places, with dangerous people. Once you assume these are just humans being human, all the rest falls into place pretty logically, IMO. It doesn’t absolve any individual for bad behavior. But it explains why groups may include greater or fewer numbers of people engaging in these behaviors, just because they’re humans in more difficult circumstances, when those circumstances are different, on average. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/428 "2018-07-19T20:35:42Z")
Are we really having an argument about whether the word “whiteness” is an appropriate term for “the concept or ideology of there existing a socio-ethnic or racial group of people identified by light skin color and connected to human settlements originating in northwestern Eurasia, a group given privileged positions in society and being ascribed generally as being more virtuous than people who are not white”? Can someone offer a better term? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/429 "2018-07-19T22:18:21Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Are we really having an argument about whether the word “whiteness” is an appropriate term for “the concept or ideology of there existing a socio-ethnic or racial group of people identified by light skin color and connected to human settlements originating in northwestern Eurasia, a group given privileged positions in society and being ascribed generally as being more virtuous than people who are not white”? Not really, we are having a discussion about whether people who are acting in the interests of social justice should censor themselves in order to appease the bigots who don’t want to discuss the concepts behind that term, and claim offense to the word in order to change the conversation to one about not hurting the feelings of bigots. > [@](#): > > Can someone offer a better term? Institutional and pervasive racism perpetuated by those who benefit from it, maybe? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/430 "2018-07-19T22:42:09Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Not really, we are having a discussion about whether people who are acting in the interests of social justice should censor themselves in order to appease the bigots who don’t want to discuss the concepts behind that term, and claim offense to the word in order to change the conversation to one about not hurting the feelings of bigots. Okay, if that’s the case I am surprised at some of the specific board members who are joining that parade. > [@](#): > > Institutional and pervasive racism perpetuated by those who benefit from it, maybe? I’m not sure that covers it, though. The term needed is specifically one directly referencing the creation of the concept or meme of whiteness, which is a specific cultural and historical thing, and is responsible directly for all conceptions of non-whiteness. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/431 "2018-07-19T22:57:58Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Are we really having an argument about whether the word “whiteness” is an appropriate term for “the concept or ideology of there existing a socio-ethnic or racial group of people identified by light skin color and connected to human settlements originating in northwestern Eurasia, a group given privileged positions in society and being ascribed generally as being more virtuous than people who are not white”? Yes because as **iiandyiiii** is using the word with a non-standard definition, “whiteness” isn’t about being white (my bold): > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Again, **whiteness isn’t about being white** , or even about being a racist white person – it’s the specific system put into place centuries ago that broadly defined the modern (and recent historical) definitions of “white” and “black”, delineated who was “white” and who was “black” (which changed over time), how this related to slavery, and was deliberately meant to separate poor white and poor black people who otherwise (and previously) had been much closer and more intermingled communities. It’s not about being white, it just has “white” in the name. Because reasons. > [@Huey\_Freeman](#): > > You’ll never understand what whiteness is because you’re incapable of understanding. Cool story, bro. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/432 "2018-07-19T23:06:20Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Yes because as **iiandyiiii** is using the word with a non-standard definition, “whiteness” isn’t about being white (my bold): > > It’s not about being white, it just has “white” in the name. Because reasons. I’m using it as the academics/journalists who focus on the issue do (at least, in my understanding). I also offered “whiteness/blackness” as a potential alternative. But why engage when you can quip, right? Quip away! ---
**Author:** ![Huey\_Freeman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/huey_freeman/32/251_2.png) [@Huey\_Freeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huey_Freeman)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/433 "2018-07-19T23:25:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > **I’m using it as the academics/journalists who focus on the issue do** (at least, in my understanding). I also offered “whiteness/blackness” as a potential alternative. > > But why engage when you can quip, right? Quip away! (emphasis mine) You are, indeed, doing the Lord’s work (with the added patience of a thousand epochs). But let me show you a trick I learned from Kakashi-Sensei. Kuchiyose no Jutsu Go ahead, Robin. Take it from here. (emphasis mine) > [@Robin DiAngelo](#): > > Because most whites have not been trained to think complexly about racism in schools (Derman-Sparks, Ramsey & Olsen Edwards, 2006; Sleeter, 1993) or mainstream discourse, and because it benefits white dominance not to do so, we have a very limited understanding of racism. Yet dominance leads to racial arrogance, and in this racial arrogance, \*\*whites have no compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought complexly about race \*\*. Whites generally feel free to dismiss these informed perspectives rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect on them further, or seek more information. This intelligence and expertise are often trivialized and countered with simplistic platitudes (i.e. “People just need to…”). See? You need not expend\* so \*much effort posting. Remember, you will not sway hearts and minds. This is worth repeating. You will not sway hearts and minds here, so conserve you reserves and rely on Robin DiAngelo. This woman is the first white woman in history to be able read white folk better than black folks. Here, read the [Jutsu](https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116)from this scroll. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/434 "2018-07-19T23:27:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Yes because as **iiandyiiii** is using the word with a non-standard definition, “whiteness” isn’t about being white (my bold): At this point, it’s a pretty standard definition. The worst you can say about it is that it’s a specialized definition, and it’s pretty clear, in the context of this conversation, that it is the definition that is appropriately understood. > [@](#): > > It’s not about being white, it just has “white” in the name. Because reasons. It’s about the very existence of the concept of being white. “Whiteness” is a pretty reasonable term to use for that concept. The reason we have a race problem is that at some point some people invented the idea of considering themselves white. There was nothing necessary or inevitable about that. It was a deliberate decision. Blackness exists because of whiteness. So whiteness is the problem under the discussion. As I asked before, what better term is there? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/435 "2018-07-19T23:32:09Z")
> [@Huey\_Freeman](#): > > (emphasis mine) > > You are, indeed, doing the Lord’s work (with the added patience of a thousand epochs). But let me show you a trick I learned from Kakashi-Sensei. > > Kuchiyose no Jutsu > > Go ahead, Robin. Take it from here. > > (emphasis mine) > > See? You need not expend\* so \*much effort posting. Remember, you will not sway hearts and minds. This is worth repeating. You will not sway hearts and minds here, so conserve you reserves and rely on Robin DiAngelo. This woman is the first white woman in history to be able read white folk better than black folks. Here, read the [Jutsu](https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116)from this scroll. I know at least one poster, maybe two, on the Dope, who were swayed towards supporting reparations as a policy by the writings of Ta-Nehisi Coates. Plus, I enjoy these sorts of discussions. And perhaps the Overton window is shifting, millimeter by millimeter, on these issues, just as more people hear perspectives they have never considered before. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/436 "2018-07-19T23:40:22Z")
Potential alternatives, in addition to my offered “whiteness/blackness”: Whititude Whitening Whitation Whititation Whitity Whitacity Whitacitness Whitasticity Whength Whitenty Whitingestness Wypiponess Thoughts? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/437 "2018-07-19T23:50:38Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > ROFLMAO. > > /wipes tear from eye > > Noone cares if you’re impressed. You haven’t earned any credibility here and the way you talk, you never will. You may well be right that no one cares. I don’t know if I’ve earned any credibility here or not , but from the responses I’ve seen to your many posts, you’re certainly not qualified to make that call. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/438 "2018-07-19T23:57:06Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > It’s about the very existence of the concept of being white. “Whiteness” is a pretty reasonable term to use for that concept. Then you disagree with **iiandyiiii**. As he states, “whiteness” is not about being white. * * * I tend to agree with much of the ideas and concepts being raised, though perhaps not as much on the solutions which haven’t really been presented in this thread. But the messaging here is simply terrible and I reject the term because it’s silly. Redefining words to have non standard definitions is bad for communication. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/439 "2018-07-20T00:09:07Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Then you disagree with **iiandyiiii**. As he states, “whiteness” is not about being white. > > * * * > > I tend to agree with much of the ideas and concepts being raised, though perhaps not as much on the solutions which haven’t really been presented in this thread. But the messaging here is simply terrible and I reject the term because it’s silly. Redefining words to have non standard definitions is bad for communication. As far as I can tell, Ascenray and I are on the same page. It’s awfully hard to talk about this topic using simplistic language. And I have trouble understanding how using the terms that are used by academics is “redefining” anything. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715/440 "2018-07-20T00:11:26Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Blackness exists because of whiteness. So whiteness is the problem under the discussion. As I asked before, what better term is there? The “concept of whiteness” is not bad. It emphasizes that the conception of racial categorizations is being discussed and not those who are placed in such categories without their consent or knowledge. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racialism-everyones-favorite-politics/817715.md?page=23)