Well, now that’s just wrong. On page 3, INTERNALIZED RACISM: “…The behavior of one person of color toward another that stems from this psychic poisoning. Often called ‘inter-racial hostility;’” Um, dude, it’s “intraracial”.
Whoops, ran out of time on the edit window. As I was saying:
This “only whites can be racist” stuff is based not on any belief that non-whites can’t be racially prejudiced or discriminatory, but on the concept of identifying racism as an aspect of a society, rather than of individual opinions about race.
I don’t think that this particular interpretation of “racism” is a necessary or particularly useful one, especially since it is used so often in a garbled form (as in the current OP) to induce mouth-foaming tizzies on the part of conservatives. I prefer a more commonly understood concept of “racism” that doesn’t need several pages of explanation and backstory in order to avoid shocking people.
But there’s no denying that if you do interpret racism societally rather than individually, the inherent racism of the US system is indeed of the white-supremacist kind. For a variety of historical and social reasons, white racism against non-whites is overwhelmingly dominant in our American social system, above all other kinds of racism. And all of us who are white Americans are indeed both “privileged and socialized on the basis of race” by this system.
There is nothing intrinsically anti-truth or irresponsible or over-PC about pointing out that simple fact.
Actually, it’s “Pot, meet kettle”.
You find that balanced??? :eek:
Deal with it? Why should I? That bears absolutely no resemblence to anything I think, believe, or advocate. What is there in that quote that I need to “deal with?” Do you have to “deal with” the KKK, because they’re closer to you on the political spectrum than they are to me? Of course not. Anyone comparing you to the KKK because you skew conservative is an asshole. Just like anyone comparing me to Shakti Butler because I’m a liberal is an asshole. And yeah, there are a lot of assholes on the boards these days. Way more than there should be. Don’t be one of them, Dave. Stop being part of the problem.
Yes, I understand what it is. It’s nothing even close to being a “fact”. It is complete and utter bullshit used to advocate the victim mentality that is so useful in perpetrating the social and political power of what is commonly called “the black leadership”; i.e Jackson, Sharpton and their ilk-and the liberal power elite of the Democratic party. This attitude furthers the problem of racism in our society rather than alleviating it.
Surely you can name plenty of high ranking Democrats that believe in the definition of institutional racism?
More balanced than you were trying to paint it, certainly.
As I went on to say in my most recent post, I personally don’t subscribe to this “societal rather than individual” interpretation of the concept of racism, and don’t think it’s a particularly useful contribution to the issue of race and racial prejudice. But it’s perfectly reasonable to say that according to that interpretation, racism in American society equals white-supremacist racism.
Well, this is interesting. You’re arguing that American society does not in fact, for a variety of historical and social reasons, privilege white racism over other kinds of racism? In other words, according to you, there’s no net pro-white bias left in modern American society?
“Only whites can be racist” is stated as a corollary of “all whites are, by definition, racist.” Which is a bullshit definition and completely robs the term “racist” of any meaning, both socially and individually.
On the contrary, this handout that defines the above terms and others specifically claims that racism is something that only white people can claim because some English men “invented” the word “white” as a term of “race.”
Personally, it deeply offends me. Why? It’s another instance of people using my skin color to assume that I or my ancestors had anything to do with their and their ancestors’ oppression. Not every white person in the US had family over here when some of the more horrible bits of racist behavior occurred. Part of my family didn’t come to the US until after the civil rights movement was in full swing, and part of my family wasn’t here until well after the beginning of the 20th century.
We shouldn’t be teaching people to be hostile toward others based on their appearance; what would be a better measure is to do more training that encourages open mindedness rather than vindictiveness.
Whites within the US, that is. Because, as I noted before, these claims are based on an interpretation of racism as a characteristic of a society rather than individual opinions or prejudices. And the dominant (and historically defining) form of racism in the US as a society is indeed white racism.
Well, you’re certainly right that it robs the term “racist” of any meaning individually. It’s interpreting racism not as something manifested in different directions and to different extents by the beliefs of different individuals, but as an inherent social tendency that all members of a particular society are affected and influenced by.
What a stupid OP. never mind that (as it turns out) this is only the opinion of one (1) individual rather than an institution or a whole class of “liberals” as the OP would have us believe, but he hasn’t even offered any support for his allegation that even this one individual is a “liberal.” How about a cite that Shakti Butler is a liberal?
It’s generally not a good idea to run with whatever hysterical political screed finds its way into your email inbox as a thread idea. They tend to blow up in your face and make you look stupid like this one has.
Liberals don’t think that all white people are bigots or that non-whites cannot be bigots. That’s the end of it. This discussion is resolved. Maybe the OP can find a nice, inflammatory “War on Christmas” email to blog about next.
But the term “blghjeroplop” would suffice if they wanted to a new term for this. Using a pre-existing term, while it’s within their rights as contributors to the language, just endeavors confusion between it and the new term, and I am not convinced that all of them are not doing it on purpose in order to stoke confusion between the institutional and personal implications of the two terms.
Actually, I would say that I do have to deal with them. I think anyone who styles them self a conservative or has conservative leanings needs to be aware of the extremists on that side of the spectrum, if as nothing more than a cautionary tale on what not to do, something along the lines of “there but for the grace of God (or maybe a good deal of common sense) go I”, but more usefully to study what should be the limits of ones beliefs. For example: Do all anti-abortionists shoot doctors? Of course not. Is it even typical of a majority of those people?, again of course not. Might it be useful to examine the rhetoric of the anti-abortion movement in an attempt to understand how some people pervert it to such an extreme? I think so, I think that would be very useful indeed.
Kimstu has shown (adroitly) that the sentiment in the OP is not liberal. Liberalism concerns itself with individuals. It is conservatism that frets over societies.
I completely agree, which is one of the reasons I personally don’t favor this societal interpretation of the term “racism”, and don’t think it’s particularly useful.
I think you’re probably right about that, too. Again, I personally am not advocating the societal interpretation of “racism” that this “diversity facilitator” is trying to promote; I’m just pointing out that it does have more of a rational basis than the OP realizes.
Then why say “all whites?” It seems to me that parsimony requires us to take the definition at face value.
Unquestionably. I take issue with the “and”, however, as I do not accept the proposition as stated to refer to society and not individuals.
So, if someone calls me a racist, I get to say “Hey, it’s not me. I can’t help it if I was born in a racist society?” I don’t meant that to sound smartass. Why should I try to behave as non-racist (a phrase defined by our interlocutor as ‘a non-term,’) if, at the end of the day, I am still a racist?
Ya gotta admit, claiming that all whites are racists sure doesn’t sound like saying that all whites are influenced by racism. Why not call an entrenching tool an entrenching tool? (Joke)
Yea, I am arguing that. Right now, today, in the USA, there is no systematic, institutional, nationwide pro-white racism. It doesn’t exist. We have stamped it out. It’s over, history, a dusty relic of the past residing on the ash heap of history, where it belongs. That fight is won. I specifically reject the entire thesis of the “racist society” crowd. That does not mean that there are no racist individuals, of course, or even incidents of racial discrimination by corporations or the government, but these instances are the exception rather than the rule.
Don’t be silly.
A fair minded debater would read that biography and at least admit that the burden of proof has shifted and it’s up to someone else to find a reason to believe she ISN’T a liberal.
No idea what you’ll do, of course, but that’s what a fair-minded debater would do.
I can’t see anything in there that says she’s a political liberal. It says she’s “warm and compassionate.” I guess that means “liberal” to you.
When come back, bring cite.
OMG!!11!!11!!LOOK WHAT CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE!!![pretend link to some screed by David Duke]