that thing white ppl do when they disparage 'white ppl'

rooney's whiteness i think i don't let affect my judgement, i don't say i don't know it's there cos it's always there obviously, but i try to make a clear judgement on him as if he weren't white, iykwim?

― at-zing-two-boards (darraghmac), Monday, 10 October 2011 02:06 (17 hours ago)

^^^^^^

― nakhchivan, Monday, 10 October 2011 19:07 (six years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Sorry but I have no idea what that even means.

- You signal he's white
- You don't want that to affect your judgement
- Yet you are aware that he is white
- But you try to make a clear judgement "as if he weren't white"?

???

― Young Swell (Le Bateau Ivre), Monday, 10 October 2011 19:15 (six years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

deems is basically saying that when we discuss rooney's popular soubriquet 'the white pele', we refer largely to the pele element -- how does rooney relate to pele, his mythos, his technical ability, how does rooney improve upon his prototype?

however, what is missed is exactly the meaning of rooney's whiteness -- why he is white? did he become white? does his whiteness derive from or merely perpetuate the tabloid rooccult?

― nakhchivan, Monday, 10 October 2011 19:31 (six years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ya

― at-zing-two-boards (darraghmac), Monday, 10 October 2011 19:32 (six years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

but without making it 'a thing' y'know

― at-zing-two-boards (darraghmac), Monday, 10 October 2011 19:33 (six years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I mean use a word however you want, but I feel like if you say "only white people can be racist, no matter what bigoted attitudes a non-white person holds" it's being used in a way that doesn't make sense to most people, solely because you want it to match up with your sociopolitical outlook or somehow leverage the language to obtain goals like "actually undoing racism". Demanding everyone share your precise definition of a word rather than you modifying your understanding of it based on how it's used by vast majority of people rubs me the wrong way.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, August 3, 2018 4:31 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This would make perfect sense.

but only if is language was actually static and meanings of words are not capable of changing over time,

if any conception of racism was actually divisible from a sociopolitical outlook,

if the the linguistic tools we use to engage this are perfectly suited for the task,

and if a majority of people can't be incorrect in their usage and understanding of a concept.

this is from that same interview with Robin DiAngelo

I want to be clear. I don’t see myself as redefining the term [racism]. I want to change the way the average white person understands what racism is, but I am using the sociological definition. You asked me, “What would you call the difference perhaps between Trump and me?” But I actually think, yeah, we both are racists. I see that as a continuum that I’m on and will be on for the rest of my life. In any given moment, I have to ask myself, “How am I doing on this continuum? What end am I behaving closer to? How do I know?” He and I may be on different spots on the continuum, but we’re both on it. I don’t tend to distinguish between the two of us, which probably shocks some readers, but if you’re asking me to somehow identify that difference, I would say “avowed” versus maybe “implied” or “implicit.”

So you consider yourself a racist right now?

Yes. I will always have a racist worldview and biases.
The way I look at it is I’m really clear that I do less harm than I used to. I perpetrate that racism less often. I’m not defensive at all when I realize—whether myself or it’s been brought to my attention—that I’ve just perpetrated a piece of it. I have really good repair skills. None of those are small things because they mean I do less harm. I have many more authentic, sustained cross-racial relationships than I ever had before. I can, with confidence, say there are people of color in my life who see me as a supportive and trustworthy person. I had none of that before.

I don't know this approach is scaleable as a solution, and getting white ppl to self-identify as racists and not distinguish too much between themselves and Donald Trump seems like it could have negative as well as positive consequences

So you consider yourself a racist right now?

Yes. I will always have a racist worldview and biases.

Not inviting her to Thanksgiving then.

if any conception of racism was actually divisible from a sociopolitical outlook,

I think it can. You disagree. C'est la vie

and if a majority of people can't be incorrect in their usage and understanding of a concept.

this contradicts this imo: but only if is language was actually static and meanings of words are not capable of changing over time,

ie most people do not use the term how you use it. and I think it's a vast majority. So I wonder why you would be so wedded to your definition of it, if your goal when using words is to get your thoughts across clearly to the most amount of people. You're being prescriptive with the language, which is what one does when trying to resist the changeability of language.

I genuinely am interested in changing my perspectives and the world around me but most of the rhetoric around doing so online is bullshit and totally unproductive and damaging and frequently illogical or wrong, in my opinion. And yet often built into that rhetoric, literally the way it works, like a trap, is the idea that any dissenting voice is actually a racist, or a sexist, or a homophobe or whatever, when in fact people are often just trying to find a form of something very complicated that they can actually agree with and believe in.

And it's made worse by the sheer volume of hateful, aggressive morons, who have sort of come to see their daily purpose in life as existing as the evil yin to the benevolent yang of the people posting loosely the same faintly memeified takes on social change or justice. Obviously they make it worse since they both bolster people's basic, standard position of the most simplistic possible interpretations of things, or encourage people to just repeat the same opinions or memes ad infinitum because there are still a million basic sexists who don't get it.

And so there's a kind of stasis. And even in typing this it's like I have to reveal my personality because otherwise I'm possibly an egg avatar chauvinist since nothing can be taken in good faith, obviously.

But FWIW I'm straight and white and a man, I tick two boxes on the positive discrimination part forms when I apply for a job, tho some forms don't include my race/nationality. And I'm currently in university studying in the evenings, and it's in humanities, and when I started I worried a bit that it might be strange being a dude in my 30s at university and maybe it would be like what social media is like or like what people say universities are like, or maybe like how people make universities seem on social media, both the 'you are all coddled' critics and some of the students.

But it isn't. From some initial defensiveness and arguments there's eventually just a lot of trust, despite us all being from totally different backgrounds, with a wide spread of age, race, religion and sexuality. And I never encounter the kind of reductive, hashtag-based crap that people spout online despite a lot of discussions about people's racial or religious background or their sexuality or class, as a regular part of the work we do, even when it gets heated.

And so I refute that it's 'you either care or you don't' - there are lots of ways of caring and listening and there are many people who believe in equality who can't agree even slightly about how to discuss it or what is right or wrong in those discussions.

like I'm comfortable with calling Farrakhan a racist. Nobody would be confused by what I mean when I say that. It clearly conveys my thoughts. Telling me it's impossible for him to be racist muddles the conversation we'd been having rather than fostering it.

the excerpts from the Robin DiAngelo interview were really interesting thanks for posting

Yep, thx. It made me think again about when I was younger, when I had to make hiring decisions, I would sometimes base whether someone got an interview on the name on the resume. White/anglo names just always have the go-ahead. That is some ingrained racism at work. I look back and get mad but then vow to work harder by not allowing that to ever happen again.

Xp yes that’s exactly how I feel too.

Sorry, I was xp-ing to the Robin DiAngelo quote.

xp to granny et al, so "white people do not experience racism" is not the same as "only white people can be racist" (farrakhan is v obv a hardcore anti-semite and a racist) and not what i'm (or afaict anyone else itt is) arguing. that a vast majority of ppl in american (of whom are about 70% white) look at racism through the lens of equal opportunity personal affronts is none of my goddamn concern. if you'll pardon the analogy, but most people thought pluto was a planet based on what they were taught, then it was discovered that calling pluto a planet was wrong and a bunch of ppl refused to change their definition of pluto. doesn't mean we have to accept bad planetary science anymore than we need to accept bad social science from people who were taught about race and racism primarily by white teachers.

and regarding the whole definition of racism/t issue, it's not like this is a new definition! most anti-racism work has been on changing systems and not individual moral behavior (13-15th Amds., Brown v Board, CRA/VRA, etc.) you've probably heard this kwame ture quote, but it's appropriate here: "If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power."

i don't think social science and planetary science prove things true or false in quite the same ways

no, but i think the analogy stands that majoritarian definitions are not enough reason to accept them when scholarship points us in another direction

pluto analogy is literally a long way of saying "what i said is right because i say its right"!

statement on power is a statement on power. malevolence of any origin depends on the intent and ability to act and the subsequent act. this doesnt in any way define or redefine the origin of the malevolence which is what your statement of what racism is is claiming afaict.

it doesnt change the fact that racism (or any malevolence) backed by power and intent is obviously more serious than it would otherwise be. i dont know why youd go out of your way to state this back to front.

nah tbf comparing your opinion about the meaning of a word to the physical definition of a planet is reasonable enough

: 0

if any conception of racism was actually divisible from a sociopolitical outlook,
I think it can. You disagree. C'est la vie

Yeah I was soft pedalling it but nah this isn't a simple question of disagreement. You were suggesting that a sociopolitical concept is divisible from a sociopolitical outlook and I was politely telling you how little sense I think that makes. In fact would be interested to know exactly how you square that.

and if a majority of people can't be incorrect in their usage and understanding of a concept.
this contradicts this imo: but only if is language was actually static and meanings of words are not capable of changing over time,

There is no contradiction here at all? Language isn't democratic. A majority misappropriating a term doesn't automatically make that emergent definition correct, nor does it preclude a change in meaning, otherwise white people would still feel comfortable calling black people niggers.

ie most people do not use the term how you use it. and I think it's a vast majority. So I wonder why you would be so wedded to your definition of it, if your goal when using words is to get your thoughts across clearly to the most amount of people. You're being prescriptive with the language, which is what one does when trying to resist the changeability of language.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, August 3, 2018 4:53 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm not really trying to "do" anything here but but I think a lot of your base assumptions are incorrect. Take the adoption of "reverse-racism" as a term, in response to civil rights successes and affirmative action to describe a form of racism against whites. If what you're saying is correct it wouldn't have crossed people's minds to call it anything other than racism. The "reverse" is instructive here; Whiteness as a hegemonic point of reference has been baked into our configuration of race and racism in the west for centuries and to that end nothing has changed. And even when things do change it doesn't follow that the language we use to discuss it has to mirror that change accurately. You're attributing an innocence to the mechanics of this process that doesn't bear any scrutiny.

This shift in the conception of racism which you say most people now relate to, (I read "most" as "most white" people cause that's the only way it makes sense) wasn't a result of more nuanced idea about race coming to fore in the general public consciousness or more conscientious efforts to improve the quality of dialogue. Mirroring almost every conversation surrounding this, it happened in bad faith.

No grand conspiracy was required for white people to understand implicitly that coopting the language of the oppressed not only undermines it and muddies its prerogatives but also creates a counter narrative that actual prejudice can't compete with. You're either ignoring or being wilfully blind to the power of language in determining what arguments can even be had and what shapes they take. You're essentially arguing that the definitions that a majority in a society favour should hold sway even when those definitions undermine the ability of minorities to express grievances. Do you not see how that kind of thinking would only serve to perpetuates prejudice? If a majority of white people took the 3/5ths compromise literally and a black person was then defined as such, what meaningful argument could've been had about civil rights if what you're saying is correct?

The insidiousness of this isn't just in its blatant erasure of history. (though is it any wonder that so many white Americans now believe they're an oppressed minority despite all evidence to the contrary?), Laying claim to a nonexistent level playing field in this way not only enables the rollback of measures put in place to combat historic racism but makes a case for their reversal (word to Jeff Sessions).

The changeability of language or resistance to it has never been the point of contention here. There's no misunderstanding here. It has always been a question of who controls the literal terms of the debate cause there's so much at stake in just that.

tldr M Bison otm

arguing that the definitions that a majority in a society favour should hold sway even when those definitions undermine the ability of minorities to express grievances

perhaps it's a small number but framing racism exclusively in terms of white american hegemony over black americans seems to ignore the fact that there are at least some white minorities in america. mentioning them or their existence is not to diminish the experience of other, larger minority groups. i suppose few enough of them that their experiences might as well be erased tho? like not that big a deal.

I'm talking white Hegemony period. At no point did I say over black people specifically. If I frame things in terms of blackness its cause I'm black and those are the examples I know most readily.

If there are white minorities who's grievances stand at odds with my conception of racism, I'd genuinely want to discuss and explorehow that plays out but my argument against a majoritarian control of language stands regardless.

I have no clue what a white minority in america is? I just tried to google this. I usually refrain from using the word minority because it's a bit outdated and people wilfully recenter it on america becoming less white.

also m bison otm.

Might the poster be thinking of Jews?

Irish.

i was actually thinking eastern europeans for starters, but the fact it's so boggling is kinda shocking to me. you could prob form a p long list i'm sure.

also i don't see what's dated about the term minority tbh - it seems a fairly useful word in a thread like this, like 'discrimination' would be.

Brendan O'Neillians!

^^^
disparaging shite people

all wite ppl throughout history have been v nice to each other just hanging out waiting to build an infrastructural system to subjugate all other races

def enjoy the constant inference that any quibble regarding this is weaselly bad faith shifting of ones rightful share of burden x

xpost Because white people are super concerned that they are becoming the "minority" instead of the word being used to designate people of color, people with the minority power. I don't use it because I don't want people to misinterpret who I am talking about.

that seems a bizarre concession to people who are definitively not minorities choosing to describe themselves as minorities.

i mean again, what about people who are minorities but white? shouldn't they be part of the same discussions? even if it's tiny on a percentage level america is a big country there must be millions of say romani americans, eastern europeans, and other minorities.

Xp

People of colour is not so black and white though

Just ask the armenians living in the US

I am literally telling you I am talking about people of color. They can call themselves minorities if they want in whatever context they see fit. I've called myself a minority in the past because I am half asian and in certain super white circumstances, they just see totally asian. I personally don't use it because other people redirect the conversation to white people.

that was an xpost.

But sure if you want to talk about eastern europeans living in the US go nuts.

Isn’t every sub category is white a “minority” if you dig deep enough? Idg what this is being made an example of. White ethnic minorities are still white and benefit from whiteness. Their additional identity as an immigrant from a certain place does have significance but assimilation is also something that comes with time and the next generation won’t be “Polish” or “Georgian,” they’ll be American. They will still be white.

^^^
yes!

I guess I could go downstairs and ask one, but he’s busy watching tv. My sense is that even though the ethnic heritage is a point of pride and self-identification, it’s not being specifically Polish (or Armenian) that forms the basis for the challenges his family dealt with in coming here—it was just being an immigrant, period.

i just think that the term racism can be fairly used to describe racism perpetuated against white minorities, that's the debate that began itt.

i presume mostly by other white people but it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to set out scenarios in which first generation immigrants from the countries you mention would experience racism. of course they benefit from the colour of their skin but not all racism has to be the exact same experience or level of seriousness from group to group to be racism.

i'm not talking about like sean spicer or something here.

it’s not being specifically Polish (or Armenian) that forms the basis for the challenges his family dealt with in coming here—it was just being an immigrant, period.

i'd be curious if that's true for first generation immigrants, it seems to me there are always unique and personal stories about how specific discrimination could be based on culture, food, whatever when surrounded by people who are not from the same country.

All discrimination is not racism.

speaking as an immigrant in the country i live in, i would be highly surprised if any immigrant anywhere hasn't experienced racism.

wtf is going on here

racism perpetuated against white minorities

if we're talking about late 19th cent. discrimination against Irish and Italian immigrants in America, ok sure (with the caveat that Irish and Italians were definitely NOT considered white at the time). If you're talking about Jews, there's a different word for that. Otherwise this phenomenon does not really exist in modern America, and saying it does looks like dog-whistling about "reverse racism" etc.

I have to believe this dude is just trolling.

late 19th cent.

(in case anyone gets on me about this, yes I'm aware this carried over well into the 20th century. past WWII, not so much)

xp

I experienced some minor anti-Irish prejudice from a bigoted headmaster in the late 70's in the UK. But it is was nothing compared to the treatment meted out to Afro-Caribbean pupils. There was a black kid in my class who was 3 years older than me and had continually been put back a year at his behest, and this went on completely unchallenged until High school. The only thing that made you 2nd gen Irish was your name and you knew you were on team White, and different rules apply etc.

we're discussing whether racism is racism or whether its only racism when we say it is

in the thread perfectly apposite for same btw

trolling isnt exactly a fair description in the circs imo

course the simple introduction of /america/ tags would as always possibly remove a lot of the uncommon grounds idk

Οὖτις, do you really, honestly think that foreigners in america are never discriminated against? like a portion of whom may be white?

it doesn't even make sense to cite a country as racist and then assume that like a first-generation polish immigrant would just be fine because they're white.

I have to believe this dude is just trolling.

how is it trolling to suggest a country which treats minorities badly treats all minorities badly?

is there any country which doesn't have an undercurrent of prejudice towards any/all minorities?

if we're talking about Europe, that esteemed continent's rich tradition of every ethnic group hating every other ethnic group is sort of irrelevant, or at least a different sort of beast, not so tied to notions of who deserved to be enslaved in the New World.

xp

I'm talking white Hegemony period. At no point did I say over black people specifically. If I frame things in terms of blackness its cause I'm black and those are the examples I know most readily.

If there are white minorities who's grievances stand at odds with my conception of racism, I'd genuinely want to discuss and explorehow that plays out but my argument against a majoritarian control of language stands regardless.

i mean if we go way back up to tsrobodo's comment i just thought 'yeah fair enough' when i read this.

it doesn't even make sense to cite a country as racist and then assume that like a first-generation polish immigrant would just be fine because they're white.

it totally does, and this country is called America, where 1st generation Polish immigrants won't receive even a fraction of the discrimination that a Nigerian immigrant will, BECAUSE OF SKIN COLOR and thus perceived "whiteness"

and yeah you sound like a troll