You think whiteness isn’t about being white - our conception of what is nuts is clearly not the same. It is a slight improvement, but I’d have to see it used in context rather than discussed abstractly.
It’s not about being perceived as attacking “them” specifically either. I’m not Arabic, but if I see an attack on Arabs I’m going to speak out against it, not be because it is attacking me personally. So no, that’s not my chief complaint. My main complaint is that it’s not informative nor descriptive outside of the groups that are already bought into the idea, and that’s bad for discourse. Plus the etymological construction doesn’t make sense with how English uses the -ness suffix so it’s even clunkier that way.
I saw it, but it was perfectly legible. Like I said - one unclosed quote tag. What’s yours (the bits in the boxes) and nelliebly’s (the bits in the larger box around some of those, and unboxed further down) is perfectly obvious - plus, of course, one can always click through and see your original post.
Also, it’s a bit rich, you loudly protesting (no-doubt inadvertent) formatting errors in the same post in which you don’t even finish a sentence.
It just seems like a bit of a pointless ad hominem, to still be harping on about formatting, pages and days later. It almost makes it look like your counterargument is otherwise insubstantial despite your protestations to the contrary.
That’s not what andy said in the bit you quoted. He said whiteness wasn’t an attack on White people. Those are not the same thing, unless you think any mention of the existence of White people is an attack on White people.
I’m not explaining away anything. I’m just pointing out that the Vietmanese refugees aren’t special – their story isn’t particularly different from Jewish immigrants (escaping various European pogroms and oppression), Irish immigrants (escaping famine and oppression), Cuban Americans, Nigerian Americans, Indian Americans, and many other groups – the ones with the inclination and means to leave and come to America did so. The ones without the inclination or means (which doesn’t necessarily mean wealth) did not. Much of Vietnamese refugee immigration might have been on a shorter time scale, but there were also various spurts of Jewish and other migrations due to urgent and immediate need.
The Vietnamese immigrants are a great American success story, just like Jewish, Irish, and many other migrations. They’re not particularly unusual.
The groups that don’t fall into that mold are either America’s immediate neighbors, or the descendants of slaves and Native Americans. Those last two are very different from, and faced entirely different circumstances from, those who wanted to come to America. They had no choice in the matter, had little or no chance to maintain familial, community, and cultural cohesion, were continuously brutalized for centuries, and forcefully segregated until quite recently.
They’re just not comparable.
If you accept that some Vietnamese people had greater means than others, and those generally (all else being equal) had a better chance to escape then others, and they also may have been more likely to be targeted by communists (and thus more likely to desire to escape), then that’s enough for me, and there isn’t anything significant we disagree on.
The circumstances are different with each group, and sometimes extremely different, as described above.
It’s possible that this is a result of alien brain parasites programming humans for their own nefarious purposes.
Anything is possible.
I believe what I believe based on a load of history, statistical data, personal observations and discussions, and much more. Fundamentally I believe that humans are humans and, in general, are the same everywhere. And the more I read and interact with people, the more this is confirmed to me. When I start with this assumption, everything else falls into place – various statistical disparities that exist are the product of circumstances brought about by powerful forces in history – government policy, wide social practices and mores, geopolitics, resources, etc. There really isn’t anything special about any groups of humans – only in the various circumstances of how they’re treated by broader society and other forces.
I think we should be critical of those things that 1) can be fixed by us and 2) are causing the problems. Harmful and biased institutions and policies and practices fall into both categories, even if fixing them is extremely difficult. I’m very skeptical that black culture plays a role in 2) and I’m certain it doesn’t fall into 1). Non-black Americans critiquing black American culture and communities from the outside cannot be untangled from white supremacism. If history was different, maybe this would be different. But we have to deal with history and the world as it is.
It’s different if a black person critiques black culture. I’m not going to tell even someone I think is as awful as Ben Carson that he shouldn’t criticize black culture – he’s lived it and I haven’t, even with immediate family and friends who are black. Non-black Americas telling black Americans that they’re wrong about black culture/communities also cannot be untangled from white supremacism.
Hopefully one day we’ll have a society in which race doesn’t matter (or even exist), and there won’t be divided cultures, and AA won’t be necessary, and all that. But that’s not where we’re at now – we have to face the real world as it is.
Okay, now I’m really confused. How can the concept that describes the historical policies and practices put into place starting around ~1700, through the next century and a half or so (and later), that originated the modern American understanding of race with regards to who is black and white, and what that means, be reasonably summed up by “it’s about being white”?
It matches my understanding of at least one useage of the -ness suffix very closely – the rhetorical “essence” of the why and how of who is white (and black). But I already know you don’t like the term. I just haven’t seen that isn’t more confusing, aside from perhaps my suggested whiteness/blackness.
Here’s some usage “in context”:
The major problem with regards to discrimination and oppression and inequality in America is the concept of whiteness/blackness. Whiteness/blackness inflitrates who we live with, work with, eat with, marry, watch on TV, the music we listen to, the sports we play and watch, and almost every other part of American society, and always to the detriment of working and struggling people of every hue and background.
Not even close. It’s not a substantive response in any way because I’m not addressing anything your wrote. It’s meant to dismiss your post as worthless.
He didn’t say it in that portion, you’re right. But he did say it here (my bold):
This is like, up is down kind of construction.
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. “Whiteness” means being white (I know you disagree) and therefore in context of discussing racial issues, when folks say something along the lines of ‘whiteness is the problem’ it is understood to mean, all white people are the problem. You understood this when you objected to the phrasing of “toxic black culture” and read it as an attack on all black people. Your objection to that phrase is the same as my objection to “whiteness”.
Sure, you can talk about systems and practices that othered people in order to mistreat them and preserve the power of the in-group. Yes, you can ascribe this complex meaning for this incredibly loaded term. We can do the same thing with “toxic black culture” too. Imagine if every instance of your use of whiteness, we substituted “toxic black culture” to mean the exact same thing. But somehow for you, one is highly objectionable, and the other is just peachy keen. That doesn’t reconcile.
Words can have multiple definitions. I’m using the definition used by those academics and journalists I’ve referred to.
So no, I don’t disagree – but I’m using a different definition/usage of the word.
That’s why I’m using the phrase here, in an audience that has mostly seen it before, and seen it explained before, and is familiar with the academic/journalistic usage. And I’m happy to follow up by explaining it again. And even offer an alternative that no one can reasonably see as “all white people are the problem”.
It’s a fact that the way I use it is an accepted definition among historians and journalists who focus on the history of racism and related topics. You might find this fact uncomfortable, but it is a fact.
It’s entirely reasonable to use the term referring to a historical concept that the experts use. Especially when there’s no other term used for it. That’s the only choice I have right now, aside from trying to make up something new (which I tried!).
I’m unaware of any academic/expert usage of “toxic black culture” to refer to various hypothetical cultural elements that are present in many cultures (black and non-black alike) that supposedly cause higher rates of certain bad behavior. Plus, when I asked and asked about the usage of “toxic”, the poster made it clear (to me, at least, even as I thought later posts conflicted) he was talking about black culture – the culture of black people as a whole in America, not elements that may be present in many or every culture. So no, I don’t believe the objections are at all the same.
Imagine if you called it “giraffe marshmallow”! Sure, that’d be weird, but calling it the same thing that the focused historians and academics call it doesn’t seem weird at all. No, I don’t find it objectionable.
Really – it’s the best term there is right now, other than making up something new, which I tried. You’ve only offered confusing alternatives that refer to different things. Institutional racism is something else, but related. White supremacism is something else, but related. Etc.
There’s a term used to describe the historical concept I want to discuss. It’s the term expert writers and historians have been using for decades. So I’ve been using that term, which is a pretty reasonable thing to do, because I want to discuss that concept, and there’s no other term that exists that clearly sums it up. Using the term that the experts use to describe a complex phenomenon is a reasonable way to discuss that phenomenon.
You jumped in, quoted a single phrase, then disingenuously interpreted it to mean something entirely different than it said.
If you are not getting anything out of a post that you decide to quote out of context, that may not have anything to do with the worthiness of the post that you chose to malign.
I get that you were trying to be dismissive with your little quip, the insult you intended was well understood and received. I fully understand where you are coming from, that is the typical strategy of one who wishes to avoid actual discussion.
If you want to defend your paraphrase of my post, then go ahead and explain how you got your meaning, in explicit opposite to what I said, or admit that you were just looking to try deflect the discussion rather than contribute to it.
People who have been “non white” in the US have also been Catholics, Irish, Italians, Semitic peoples, and a long running taxonomy, which eases up and lets people into the system basically over time.
So “Whiteness” is a historical idea that doesn’t limit itself to the race of a European commenter saying his piece now. Also: it was the terminology used in the event. If you want to call it something else because it’s confusing to you, and possibly insulting, I say let’s talk about it. I’m open minded. “Otherism” “Dominationism” “Melaninism” can be used without changing the meanings.
Thank you for saying this. When I posted, I was also having trouble with a cursor gone rogue., and since I’m visually impaired, I don’t always catch errors. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when a post of mine has formatting errors, but I’m not happy about it. In retrospect, perhaps I shouldn’t have posted due to those issues.
Your last paragraph was also spot on. I suspect he’ll ignore it, another tactic of those with weak arguments.
I’m gonna back away. Apparently we have some sort of feud going on that I’ve only just been made aware of (I seriously thought most of my interactions on this thread and on this topic were with iiandyii, and I don’t think even the two of US have a feud). If you make a compelling post I will respond but until then I will just try not to add fuel to this fire.
I guess where you lose me is where you clump actual self selected immigrant groups like the Taiwanese or Indians who had vastly higher average levels of education and income than other immigrant groups with the Irish who came here because they didn’t have enough to eat and the Vietnamese who went through all the shit they went through. I feel like there is a good argument for why Taiwanese and Indian immigrants are such a success story and are not really a fair point of comparison for anything.
So explain to me how the Latino immigrants are different from the Irish immigrants?
Sure, I agree. I just don’t see the relevance of that fact to the point that was being made. You basically said that the Vietnamese were able to close the gap with whites in about a generation because there was some sort of self selection. Refugee communities (who presumably all have some portion of wealthy people) are generally not considere3d a demographically self selected group.
Why would I be critical of things I can fix myself? That’s not being critical, that’s being bitchy because I don’t want to fix it myself.
I’m not white. Is it still white supremacism?
Sometimes an outside perspective can a better vantage point. As a non-black minority I fully understand that racism exists and I also fully understand that it should not be the absolute barrier that you are making it out to be. You seem a bit fatalistic about human nature and our ability to rise above our circumstances. Sure, white people don’t have to "rise above their circumstances"the way blacks do but they only have this one life to make things better of themselves and their children. They can sit around and wait for racism to evaporate.
Aside from the descendants of slaves and American Indians, I don’t see how AA is necessary right now. I don’t know how long we should have AA for these groups but I agree we need more for the time being.
AA is a form of race based discrimination and that is pretty antithetical to our form of government and IMHO should only be used to remedy extreme circumstances. I am still not sure that you have made the argument for why we should exercise race based discrimination in favor of latinos, African immigrants and Caribbean immigrants.
The main difference, IMO, is choice – those who make choices and decisions in order to migrate, and those who had no choice (i.e. slaves and natives). With choice there is some level of self-selection. Many or even most immigrants to the US have been a sort of economic refugees – fleeing shitty economies for a place they had a chance to improve the lives of their families.
I never said it was anything you could fix yourself. It’s something society can fix in general – society can fix society. We should work towards a society free of the concept of whiteness/blackness, in addition to the things we all already agree on – no more institutional discrimination, racism in the media, etc.
Yes, or a closely related concept.
It’s not an absolute barrier – the most talented people of any background have always (or almost always, anyway) been able to rise above it. But these are obstacles – and if black kids are otherwise the same as white kids, in terms of natural ability, but face more obstacles due to broader society, then fewer of these black kids will succeed.
This is really a separate discussion – I’m in favor of AA in places and circumstances in which the data suggests people aren’t getting a fair shake. I’m far from certain African immigrants are getting a fair shake, for example, since in my understanding most white and non-black employers/educators see them and treat them the same as they see and treat African Americans. But there are lots of places in which AA could be instituted unfairly and imperfectly, and perhaps some Asian groups aren’t getting a fair shake in some circumstances, and I’m certainly open to those discussions. But I think that’s separate from this broader discussion of racism and whiteness/blackness. AA is just a temporary band-aid meant to provide immediate relief and some sort of simulated fairness in an unfair and imperfect society. It’s not meant to fix society, or eliminate racism, etc.
This isn’t a “feud.” This is two people calling you out on your tactics in your response to me. But if “pulling back” is the only alternative you can find to making ad hominem attacks towards others, you’re wise to do so, now and in the future.
Doesn’t this pretty accurately describe hispanic immigrants as well?
So society can fix society’s problems but the black community cannot fix the black community’s problems? Even when most of the black community’s problems are not being forced on it by society?
If MLK were alive today, do you think he would blame racism for the unwed pregnancy, truancy and absence of fathers in the community or would he shake his head.
Which concept?
Some of those obstacles are not due to broader society. Some of those differences are due to the toxic elements of black culture. Or blackness if you prefer that term.
Having only one parent. Who might have gotten pregnant as a teen so was never able to develop the human capital needed to maintain economic stability. So they ended up living in a neighborhood where gangs and violence were everywhere. And these things can happen to anyone of any race but happens in the black community at far greater rates than elsewhere.
How are the racists forcing this result in the black community? How are the racists treating the black community differently than they are treating the Hispanic and asian communities?
That’s 50 ears of “temporary relief” so far.
Do you think AA is an extraordinary measure to take in a democracy like ours? Discriminating based on race to alleviate discrimination based on race seems like something that shouldn’t be used lightly.
AFAICT AA is not a band aid that imposes very little cost on the patint. Its chemotherapy. It does a lot of harm and the hope is that the harm is outweighed by the good.