I, Racist
medium.com
medium.com
As a white person coming from the UK to the US, I noticed a stark contrast in black participation in society between the two countries. While not claiming Britain is perfect, my metropolitan southern experience included a lot of black people on an equal or senior footing on various axes of professional, financial, social, etc. That experience simply didn't carry across to the major east coast city I moved to. It is unusual for me to interact with black people at client meetings, in my middle class neighborhood, when I need professional advice from a doctor or a lawyer, really anywhere other than public transport or as a customer of a service function.
While I can't discount that my ignorance of any racial tension around non white people in England was a simple function of youthful naivety, I'm absolutely more aware of 'difference' now I live in the US and I'm a lot less comfortable as a result.
In short, it's obvious to me on a superficial level that the black experience in the USA is pretty bad, but this article is a deeper look at something that's quite hard to confront.
"Racism is our acceptance of an all white Lord of the Rings cast because of “historical accuracy,” ignoring the fact that this is a world with an entirely fictionalized history."
What does Lord of The Rings written by a white author in a fantasy setting of his own imagination have to do with racism? Furthermore, how is this racist? Shoehorning a character into the story inauthentically without knowledge of that culture would be just as bad if not worse. It's like Hollywood trying to put "Hacker" characters into their storylines without having any idea of what programmers actually do or actually act.
The author makes so many more powerful arguments in piece, this small point just sticks as a thorn in my side. In the broad scope of things, an 11 year child playing with a toy gun being shot to death within seconds of being seen by the police (in a state with open carry laws, no less) is a much more clear, poignant and serious issue. Harping that there aren't black people in Lord of The Rings just waters down the argument and takes credence away from the other more worthy points.
Lord of the Rings the books doesn't have any connection to racism. LotR the films does - black actors were excluded for bogus reasons. When we have "blind audition" or color-blind casting we see greater representation of non-white talent in orchestras or film or tv.
"Or even worse, we’re told that we are being racist (Does any intelligent person actually believe a systematically oppressed demographic has the ability to oppress those in power?)"
People are adding the requirement that to be racist or racism that an oppression element must coexist with the thought or behavior[1][2]. That's not completely true. An element of superiority or inferiority must exist. An oppressed person can still be racist is they believe they are superior to their oppressors.
The comment from the story above turns people off and away from hearing what is being said because it is offensive and a fallacy.
EDIT: formatting
EDIT: Clarification "(Does any intelligent person actually believe a systematically oppressed demographic has the ability to oppress those in power?)" No. But you're conflating two issues; thinking of oneself superior to another based on race and oppression. One can be racist without [directly] oppressing others. In fact, that's what the article is trying to point out.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=racism the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
This explains why some are moved deeply by things that occurred to strangers. The obvious solution would be to help all people view themselves more as individuals rather than belonging to this or that cultural identity. This includes less personal identification with any group as well as viewing others as individuals.
Unfortunately, the power players that make a living off racial tensions would prefer to keep it that way to maintain their influence.
Most insulting of all, is that any ideology can be put to test. One can make a colony, a island, a rapture and see how far it goes. Not far, by far.
The biggest insult though is that the web is annonym. There is no gender. There is no colour. There is no countrys. There is only mind. Thus, if one puts his mind and dedication into the web, one is equal. I ve seen to many excellent black speakers at conferences. The Wall has holes, and one can step through them. Of course there is racism. And its beeing fought by now. With cameras everywhere- beneath every gun, on every drone. This will not stand, this will end.
One is free to change what one can change, or to sit and sulk about the things one can not. Years of social paintjobs have archieved nothing.
Because you're weighing in on a complicated subject without considering your inherent biases. You're conflating the success of individuals with equal opportunity. Having a black president doesn't mean we're in a post-racial society, being able to point to black athletes and movie stars doesn't mean there's no disaprites in educational funding or discrimination in employment.
But worst of all, you've decided that because your advantages of birth are invisble to you, they must not exist. This is like deciding you don't have a cornea because you can't see it directly.
Look in a mirror, and instead of dismissing the idea of privilige, see if you can actually see it in your life experience. Perhaps you can look here as a starting point. https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/1662103.pdf
I'm not dismissing inequality. I'm saying that b!tching about it gets you nowhere and even worse, is a sorry excuse. There will always be people with more and with less. If you want more, you go out and get it, for yourself, by yourself, against all odds.
And what advantages are you talking about? Because I was referring to my parents who grew up in communist Poland, where my mom as a kid dragged the entire stores worth of butter home after rations were lifted. As a kid, in complete innocence, bought all the butter in the store because she was afraid of there not being more butter in the future. Or my dad, who to this day, still has bread soaked in milk as his ingrained go to food when hungry.
White people have the privilege to interact with the social
and political structures of our society as individuals. You
are “you,” I am “one of them.”
I'm not american so I don't give a damn about racism, so I can say things which can't be said in public: black culture is inferior (muhaha... I trample on your cultural relativism) and has many toxic elements. It's stupid to blame race, but it's still fact that culture makes a hellof a lot of difference by itself, including more likely to have shitty neighborhoods and white aunts moving out of them.
So yes, you could call overly "reverse-racist" a point of view which willfully assigns to racism what can be explained otherwise.
I was at first attempted to call your statement hyperbole. But then I realized that's exactly the insidiousness of white privilege that I cut you some slack by thinking you're just being silly.
> And White people, every single one of you, are complicit in this racism because you benefit directly from it.
> every single one of you
> complicit in this racism
What else is this suppose to say besides, "all white people are racists"?
Why is that okay for a black person who identifies as "Black" not black as a descriptor of skin color but Black as a part of community, a culture, not an individual, to say that all, that's all as in every man, woman, and child as a White person, not an individual, but all White people as a part of the white community, are racists?
Why is this okay? What does this accomplish? What is the end goal of this conversation the author intends to have with his audience really about?
If a message is conveyed here to the White audience, what are white individuals, and White people collectively suppose to do about it? Is the article just about saying White people are racist and that's it, rant over, end of story?
What is the solution?
> [...] it’s getting harder and harder for me to think about the protection of White people’s feelings when White people don’t seem to care at all about the loss of so many Black lives
What? Are you serious?
Lets repeat that back:
> White people don’t seem to care at all about the loss of so many Black lives
Excuse me? Says who?
EDIT- I think it's interesting the parallel between this and womens issues where a man will discount a womans perspective by pointing out "not all men are like that"
Re: the complicit because we all benefit, I'm not sure that your argument holds. The author isn't calling all white people racist; he's saying that all white people benefit from racism. That is subtly different.
You may have a case to build around whether we all directly benefit from racism, or whether we simply don't suffer because of it. The latter position is surely close to axiomatic but the former requires more thought.
The author's argument is that you have no say in this system of white privilege. It's neither opt in nor opt out, because that is the system. You get it whether you want it or not. He's not saying you're a racist because of this inheritance. He's saying it's a self-rewarding and pepetuating system that will not change until those who have the privilege a.) become aware of it and b.) decide to change it.
I don't speak for the author, but I'd say if you don't recognize or accept white privilege's existance, then you're oblivious. Exhibits A, B, C, D the're all around you and the author listed a number of examples of how it manifests.
The dilemma though, those of us who accept that white privilege exists and realize we benefit from it, and yet say and do nothing? We're certainly a little bit racist, because we're tacitly accepting the underlying premise: not my problem, I'm OK. That's definitely racist in the face of blatant inequality that we ourselves recognize. Through the recognition and acceptance white privilege exists, that I benefit from it, I've just ethically obligated myself through that awareness to change the discourse with the goal of changing the system. If I don't do that, complicity becomes racism.
Now if we want to play a little game of self-forgiveness, we can start singing the Avenue Q song, 'Everybody's a Little Bit Racist!"
However, I think it's hyperbole when the author writes, "Millions of Black lives are valued less than a single White person’s hurt feelings." I don't really know what that means. I'd say one black life probably is valued less (in terms of policy) than somewhere around a million white people's hurt feelings. That's pretty disgusting, but it's not just more plausible, it's likely.
http://www.jamesmaystock.com/essays/images/InterracialMurder...
Source of image:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...
What about institutionalized educational and police racism? What about the presence of drugs and the lack of social workers cause God forbid rich people pay higher taxes for the well-being of others?
What about the absence of fathers leaving innocent children to grow up without good role models because daddy is in jail for an egregiously long "drug offense" sentence (i.e. toking on a blunt)?
That stuff is systemic, showing out-of-context bar charts from the FBI doesn't make it right.
then the immigration policies of this country would have kept the USA as a white majority country.
Instead, white people are becoming a minority in the USA and European countries.
"As Of Today, California No Longer Has A White Majority" http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/07/01/2238421/cali...
And that's a problem, why?
I didn't say it was a problem for a country to be non-white. I said that it simply proves that white racists are not running everything, which it does. The WASP elites are not running everything anymore - its not the 1920s.
And half a percent of the USA are running the whole country. I suspect they are all old white guys. We're more than halfway done proving the "they are in charge" accusation, right?
Did I say "white people are disappearing" No.
I don't know where this 'ancient notion' stuff you are arguing with comes from either.
I can't argue on the internet with someone who can't read.
Only to the extent that present self-identification of people as non-whites is driven by their internalization of the one-drop rule, since these statistics, like most modern consideration of racial demographics, is driven by self-identification, not authoritarian ancenstry-tracing and application of the one-drop rule.
Though the "majority non-White" characterization does seem to be a mischaracterization of "majority non-(non-Hispanic White)" finding.
Why? Why would the whites holding the majority of the power oppose having greater non-white subject populations as long as they were still subject? (One might argue that this would be short-sighted, on the assumption that minority dominance isn't indefinitely sustainable, but at a minimum this requires assuming that the white rulers were not merely racist, but also uniformly long-term strategic thinkers.)
Trying to keep America white by immigration? No Media favoring white people? No (they called the hispanic George Zimmerman white to further their 'white people are all rascist' narrative') Passing laws that favor the majority white religion (Christianity)? No
The sooner you realize their line of thinking is very similar to a conspiracy theorist's, in that any contrary evidence is used as evidence to further support their thinking, the better off you are.
It's not too dissimilar from a conspiracy theorist saying "the government isn't incompetent... they just want you to believe they are! It's a guise!"
That's a whole different argument than the one you made upthread; if that's what you wanted to argue, why didn't you argue that first, instead of what you did (which you apparently aren't interested in defending.)
Note that the comment you are responding to doesn't argue that whites are running everything, it argues that your previously-stated basis for rejecting that is unsound.
> Trying to keep America white by immigration?
By restricting immigration, and not allowing the overall quotas to align with where the people otherwise qualified and interested in coming are located? Certainly.
By adopting a variety of non-immigrant foreign labor schemes, certainly also.
> Media favoring white people? No (they called the hispanic George Zimmerman white to further their 'white people are all rascist' narrative')
Zimmerman is of white race and Hispanic ethnicity.
> Passing laws that favor the majority white religion (Christianity)?
Whites in the US are less likely to be Christian than Blacks.
(And given your comments on Zimmerman, which seems to indicate that you reject the normal definition of race and see Hispanics as inherently non-white, well, Hispanics are also far more likely to be Christian than Whites in general -- and this is even more true, obviously, Hispanics vs. non-Hispanic Whites.)
Overall, Whites aren't any more Christian than the population at large, so laws favoring Christianity as such don't really relatively favor Whites.
What? Race and ethnicity are synonyms.
Maybe you can score some internet points but what's the use of a discussion if words have no meaning and you can make up distinctions where there are none.
Race and ethnicity are, perhaps, similar kinds of cultural constructs, but they are orthogonal categories.
They are both cultural in-group, out-group constructs, they just happen to be different constructs rather than synonyms.
There are more white Christians than white Athiests and white "Other" religions. Regardless if only 60% of Whites are Christian and 95% of [other race] are Christian it would still be a white majority, just not "per capita". 100% of 100,000 is still a minority compared to 55% of 100,000,000.
>By restricting immigration, and not allowing the overall quotas to align with where the people otherwise qualified and interested in coming are located? Certainly.
This has nothing to do with race and more to do with a government, "it's people", and the effects of immigration on both of those. Your argument presumes that someone can be anti-immigration but "pro-white immigration". As someone against immigration and pro-restrictive immigration, that's a bit of an absurd and out-of-touch claim to be making. I'm equally against a "qualified Irishman" from immigrating as I am a "qualified Indian".
Also what do you mean by "overall quotas"?
Open-borders also actively harms "lesser-off" countries: all their talent leaves for greener pastures. Leaving these countries with a lack of leaders and professional talent (ie. doctors). How do you value the interest of an individual over the well-being of an entire country? What if we simply took every single doctor out of India and let the people fend for themselves when it comes to health care? Should millions die so a few 10,000 could move to a "better country"? Immigration has harmful side-effects than I don't think you're fully considering.
>Why would the whites holding the majority of the power oppose having greater non-white subject populations as long as they were still subject? (One might argue that this would be short-sighted, on the assumption that minority dominance isn't indefinitely sustainable, but at a minimum this requires assuming that the white rulers were not merely racist, but also uniformly long-term strategic thinkers.)
You provided your counterpoint and then precluded racist and "strategic thinkers". It doesn't take a strategist to know that ruling over a minority that outnumbers you isn't feasible and revolt is likely when you are outnumbered. (see: history)
The counterpoint is that whites are not uniformly racist because they haven't created systems to guarantee a smaller non-white population than white population. If white people were uniformly racist, as you mentioned, they would have had systems in place to insure they remained the majority population in order to remain in control.
>Zimmerman is of white race and Hispanic ethnicity.
He's of Hispanic race and Hispanic ethnicity. Police reports, for ages, have only had []White and []Black fields for criminal reports. If you aren't black, you're white. That includes whiter-skinned blacks and is often left up to the person filing the report. So you can come from African with two black parents, be black yourself, but still be filed as White in the criminal report at the whim of the officer filing the report.
Do you actually believe this? It's nonsense and nowhere near true. Where did you get such a distorted fact from?
EDIT: also you may want to look into segregation and post-segregation, where white Americans were given low cost mortgages and black Americans were pushed into projects.
>>Where did you get such a 'distorted' fact from? Deutsche Welle
>>Germany has one of the largest populations of Muslim immigrants in Western Europe, with a Muslim community of over 3 million. That trend is expected to continue, leading some demographic trend-watchers to warn that the country is well on the way to becoming a Muslim state by 2050, Deutsche Welle reported.
Your figure claims a Muslim population of 3m. Even if we assume all of those people are black it's still dwarfed by the 77million other people.