Omigod. No. Just no. This thread is not intended as a place for conservatives to gotcha the board’s leftists over whether affirmative action, merit scholarships, or whathaveyou is really oppressing the White Man. It’s about something different entirely. If you’re interested in discussing how poor and oppressed white people are, I hope you’ll open a thread to discuss that.
I don’t think AA does that by any means. Or at least it doesn’t necessarily have to do that. Maybe in some instances it’s been poorly instituted, but considering the massive tilt in favor of straight cis white men (for example) in so many organizations in America, a relatively small tilt away from them doesn’t deny or diminish anyone’s rights (unless one thinks that straight cis white men necessarily should have the right to be more likely to be picked to be a high executive, the right to higher pay, be treated better at work, etc.).
Okay, but I’m still curious how you would respond to the first part of my post, that you didn’t quote or respond to.
Again, I want to focus on the difference between the three concepts (systemic oppression, personal bigotry, and jerkiness), rather than get into the weeds of whether any specific example qualifies. While that’s a worthy discussion, I’m trying to get at something particular here.
I thought my question was about that. Personal bigotry is on the personal level, the level of the individual. Systemic oppression is on the level of the whole society. But how big does that society have to be? and is there any level between the individual and the society?
I think “systems” and “institutions” fall somewhere between society and the individual (I think “systemic” implies multiple “systems”, not just a single one). In a truly equal society, oppressive systems and institutions might occasionally pop up, but they will be relatively quickly identified and rendered non-oppressive, because a properly run society will have the means and will to do so (in fact, they must, and they must make it a priority, in order to be a truly equal society).
This seems to be a “how many grains make a mound?” question. I don’t know, nor do I believe there’s a specific cutoff. Rather, it’s something of a spectrum.
TB, do you think that someone or anyone should be obligated to answer your question when addressing such societal problems? Why? What purpose does it serve to demand line-drawing when everyone knows that such line-drawing is impossible?
I don’t understand. Are we not allowed to ask questions in Great Debates? I was honestly trying to understand the parameters of systemic oppression. But no, you’re not obligated to answer if you don’t have a good answer to offer.
If those people are negatively judging others based on purely immutable personal characteristics and not actions, ideas and character then clearly they are bigoted. It is pretty much a dictionary definition of bigotry as well as a common usage.
You could make the case that such bigotry is understandable given past and continuing ill-treatment but it is bigotry all the same.
No. Bigotry is unreasonable or unjustified dislike. And the trans or Black experience with entire systems of oppression makes the negative reactions reasonable and justified. You can’t fuck people over for generations and then call their perfectly valid reaction to that unreasonable just because it’s applied with a broad brush. And no, that is not the same as “I once was mugged by a Black man, so it’s OK for me to hate Blacks”. Not even close.
They are not a bigot. They may be wrong in individual cases (far less than people seem to think. This very board has taught me that Whites absolutely suck at recognizing racism, for instance) , but that doesn’t make them bigoted, or prejudiced. They are postjudiced.
Calling their justified negative emotions bigotry is just another kind of victim-blaming.
Fix your own damn houses before having the gall to say word one about whether anything Blacks, trans people or other oppressed minorities feel is justified. They don’t need to justify themselves to you You still owe them - and in this case, what you owe them is shutting up and fixing your own White cis-het patriarchy first.
I’ll consider any particular White American wholly blameless the day they give up all their possessions and stolen land to Natives and Blacks, wrap themselves in sackcloth and spend the rest of their days ministering to poor PoCs.
Otherwise, their actions and character partake of White supremacy, even if a tiny bit. Of those, the ones who I know actively work at compensating for it, even if not to the sackcloth-and-ashes degree , like @iiandyiiii, have earned enough good will to make up for the unearned privileges they have. The rest of them? Naah. There’s a lot more actions that count towards supporting White supremacist systems than just wearing a hood. Like always jumping in to argue against PoCs in GD threads rather than shutting up and listening. Every little microinvalidation counts.
So we have original sin, impossible demands, impossible standards, impossibility of innocence, assumption of wrongdoing, assumed guilt due to action, assumed guilt due to inaction.
And all of that based on the colour of a person’s skin. That’s bigotry and prejudice and it is always wrong in all circumstances. You don’t get a pass on it.
and what is it precisely about a random white-skinned person, of whom you know nothing, that justifies automatic dislike?
If you meet a person of a different skin colour to you and you know nothing about them, then disliking that person purely because of that difference is absolutely unjustified and unreasonable. It is a slam-dunk case of bigotry and your protestations are meaningless.
By your twisted racist logic it would be reasonable and rational if that person’s experience of black people was negative enough.
Thank you for the kind words!
I’ll note that, beyond some donations and the kind of common personal sacrifices people make for their families, I don’t sacrifice much in support of justice. So I don’t want to pretend I’m some great champion for PoC or other marginalized groups. I live a comfortable life in a patriarchal and systematically bigoted society.
This is the crux of our disagreement. I think it’s helpful to have words we can use to talk about bigotry separate from historical oppressive systems, as well as bigotry integrated into such systems.
But those systems can’t justify bigotry. It can explain someone’s lived experience; but if what they do with that experience is to start treating people primarily as members of a group, rather than as individuals, they’re engaging in bigotry.
It’s incumbent on folks who benefit from systemic oppression to figure out how we can resist those structures, even to our own detriment; and a crucial part of that work is examining ourselves and trying to get rid of our own bigoted assumptions, because those bigoted assumptions strengthen the oppressive systems. And that’s way more important than for folks who suffer under those systems to get rid of their own bigoted assumptions.
But that doesn’t make the latter bigotry a good thing.
No, based on membership in a group that historically oppresses. That it happens to line up with a racial group is, well, not coincidental, but besides the point.
There are no random White people.
See, if there was a 50/50 chance any random White person was a privileged unthinking tool of White supremacy (when not an active embracer of same), you might have a point. The numbers are way more skewed than that, though. So it’s perfectly reasonable to preemptively dislike a member of an oppressor class first, and change your mind later when they show they’ve done the work. And arguing against it is the opposite of doing the work.
Nobody would question whether Jews were leery of Nazis. Whites just don’t think they’re the Nazis in current system of White supremacy. Well, they are. Just like MRAs don’t think men are the Nazis in the Pat-reich-archy. Well, we are.
No. One experience =/= generations of oppression, no matter how negative the singular experience.
Sure. But it’s also useful to delineate what is and isn’t bigotry, vs well-earned dislike or wariness or mistrust.
Do you think it’s bigoted for anyone to dislike Nazis? Even though they’d being treated as just members of a group, and not questioned about their individual Nazi motives?
I think this gets to a really important distinction:
“Irrelevant” might not be the best word. Maybe “innate”?
In any case, definitionally, Nazis are racist. If you don’t think that Aryans are the master race, what business do you have calling yourself a Nazi?
Concluding that someone holds racist beliefs because they’re a Nazi is reasonable.
But the identification of race is a social construct that’s placed on a person externally, based primarily on their birth. It’s extremely difficult for most folks to change their racial identification.
It’s true that in a society that has bone-deep racist structures and ideas, everyone–no matter their race–is almost certain to absorb and internalize those racist ideas. And it’s true that White people in the US internalize them in a way that’s self-advantageous.
But making value judgments about folks based on their innate characteristics remains bigotry. And acting on it is no good.
There’s probably another distinction to make, between bigotry (“White people are devils”) and caution (“Be careful around White people, because you never know what racist bullshit one of them might pull”). I’m not really sure how to make that distinction, especially not in a way that recognizes the validity of caution in some cases, but doesn’t open the gates for toxic bullshit like “rational racism.”
That’s true but that also doesn’t do much for people of color who are on the back end of hundreds and hundreds of years of systemic oppression. Social constructs are powerful and real.
White people aren’t innately the benefits of centuries of historical oppression of non-whites, unless it is your assertion whites have an “innate” genetic trait that makes them likely to dominate other ethnicities? Whites are the benefits of historical oppression because of a long chain of decisions made, some of which continue to the present day. Not every white person had a hand in those decisions, but @MrDibble is absolutely right that we all benefit from them. The lands I own used to belong to Native Americans, the State I live in was built on the backs of slaves. The school system in my State, even after Brown v Board, was designed to as much as possible funnel the best teachers and most dollars to white schools etc etc. A black person feeling resentment or anger over that is not bigotry.
Maybe you do it for the cool Hugo Boss clothes, or because all your bowling club are in it, or even because in your town, if you weren’t a Nazi, you’re Nazi-fodder.
Concluding that a White person benefits from White privilege, absent very clear, loud, indications from that person that they’re working against that, is also perfectly reasonable.
The dislike I’m talking about, from Blacks or trans people or whichever, is much more like the latter, not the former. Only NoI Hoteps spout “Whites are all innately devils” rhetoric, but way more Black people have had The Talk from their parents.