Race-based political policy and advocacy.
Taxonomical definitions are notoriously difficult to structure precisely and accurately, and that’s when you’re dealing with physical objects (what’s a chair?) When it comes to sociological constructs, they’re damned near impossible to structure precisely and accurately. Are you unaware of this difficulty, or are you trying to score cheap points by acting like race is nonexistent due to the difficulty of defining it precisely and accurately?
The rest of your OP was rather confusing but I think you’re asking the almost the right question here. But instead of ‘white’ and ‘black’ you need to use ‘us’ and ‘not us’. And you need to ask why you are asking the question in the first place. Skin colour is irrelevant, as those in the former Yugoslavia would tell you, as would Rwandans, as would the Northern Irish, as would so many others.
And the answer, I think, is that America has itself to blame: you Americans insist on people being XYZ-Americans rather than plain Americans. By doing so you are perpetuating the divisions. Instead of learning from the past you are perpetuating the mistakes of the past by implementing them in a new way.
I want just policies and practices by society. If a group (racial or otherwise) isn’t being treated justly, on average, by institutions in society, then policies should be put into place to fix that.
Whether this is true or not (and I’ve seen conflicting studies), it’s irrelevant to your consistent wrongness when trying to psychoanalyze the motivations of the liberals you hold in so much contempt. You are almost always wrong when you try to dig into the motivations of liberals/progressives/Democrats, and you should stop trying to do so. Rather, when you want to know what they/we think, just ask.
Race gets defined differently in different societies. Or different time periods. I’m reminded of the Rwandan massacres in the early 90’s. It was two groups of people who were of different ethnicity within their culture, but who would both be seen as “black” outside of their culture. I’m also thinking back to the early 20th century, when different groups of “white” people hated either other (Irish, Italians, for example).
“Racialism”…is there a “Alt-Right Dictionary” somewhere that these kinds of terms leach out from (like slugs wriggling out of piles of garbage)? “Democrat Party”, “Social Justice Warrior”, etc., where the actual meaning (vs. surface) is a hidden in-joke? Please fight my ignorance.
Neither. I don’t support the taxonomy. Others find it useful, apparently. If I found a taxonomy to be useful, I would be able to give an explanation for it. If i wanted to structure government policy around it, I could define it.
I agree, but many Americans find race to be deeply important and race-based policies perpetuate this.
This is very obviously false. The greatest atrocities of American history – slavery (a century of mass labor-theft, brutality, torture, rape, and murder); treatment of the Native Americans (a century of mass land-theft, brutality, torture, rape, and murder); and their successors, segregation, Jim Crow, red-lining, and similar policies/practices, came long before the concept of “XYZ-American” came about. Recognizing the differences in how so many Americans are treated by government, society, and institutions is a step in how we solve these mistreatments, not a step towards making them worse.
Since you find race-based policies to be an effective bulwark against injustice, can you define what the races are for us?
No, there’s an actual dictionary with the term “racialism” in it though. Crack one open sometime.
Another “Hating the haters is the real hate!” argument?
LMGTFY? White people - Wikipedia
Or maybe this is of those “is milk in cereal a broth, beverage, or sauce?” questions.
Pop tarts are ravioli
Axioms.
-
Unequal treatment by skin color exists.
-
The people who are being treated unequally know who they are and what group they are part of.
-
People who complain about unequal treatment are not in the same category as people who pretend there is no unequal treatment.
-
People who fight for equal treatment are not in the same category as bigots.
See how easy it is to live in the real world?
I didn’t say this. Politics, especially politics and racism, are complicated enough that they usually can’t be summed up like this.
Here’s a decent start: Race and ethnicity in the United States - Wikipedia
It’s an extremely complicated mesh of history, culture, power, economics, geopolitics, and much more. Lots of great books (and lots of terrible ones) have been written on the subject. I don’t claim to be an expert, I just try to understand the best that I can.
I don’t think I can precisely define “asshole” in the pejorative context, but I definitely know when when I see one.
You’re missing it. No one can dispute the past, but by using XYZ-American you are perpetuating them. You are perpetuating the divisions. Move on. You are one United States of America so be one group of Americans. Make Americans one group of Us, not one group of Us and a group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us and another group of Not Us etc.
IME, and in history’s, you are utterly wrong. The lower classes is precisely where the most virulent racism( and sectarianism )tends to concentrate, simply because they are the least economically secure and have the lowest social standing. Economically ‘the other’ is seen as a greater threat and socially having someone to look down on is psychologically comforting for many.
Another problem we’re going to have communicating is agreeing to a definition of moderate. Thinking of Obama, the Clintons or Biden as “leftists” just causes me to shake my head. They’re bog standard MOR Democrats, with the most glaring exception to that being on the other end of the spectrum with Hillary Clinton’s rather hawkish foreign policy.
When we come from such disparate world views that definitions can’t be shared, it becomes really hard to discuss issues.
No, this is incorrect. We can look at history and see this clearly. What perpetuated and exacerbated divisions was unjust and unequal treatment, by society, government, and institutions. What mitigated divisions was ending that unjust and unequal treatment. At no point in American history can we point to a great division (by race or otherwise) and say that the labels used were the cause of that division. It was always differing treatment, by government, society, and/or institutions, of various groups.
This is both a failure of subtlety and a failure to mind which forum you are posting in. This isn’t the Pit. Knock it off.
[/moderating]