Racist = personally defines or categorizes people by the color of their skin, according to a made up concept called "race"... — Pro Hominem
Every language user who has ever used the terms "black", "white", "asian", or "multi-racial" is racist according to that criterion for what counts as being racist.
— creativesoul
You are intentionally ignoring the nuances here — Pro Hominem
Accounting malpractices won't do. — creativesoul
I don't like using the word black... — Pro Hominem
I have black loved ones, asian loved ones, and white loved ones, but according to that definition of "racist", I am racist. — creativesoul
This is so common... Funny thing...
All my black friends, family members and loved ones throughout my entire life have called themselves "black". "African American" is used by those who feel strongly about keeping their roots in mind, particularly in the late 80's and since. Even then, none of them have ever had any problem with being black or called "black" or categorized as "black", aside from being subject to injury by white racists. That's certainly a problem with being black. — creativesoul
My argument was given back on page seven, I think. I've given several since. I do not believe you. Use my words, and I'll gladly respond in kind. — creativesoul
If you think about the "solution" to systemic racism, what does that look like in your mind? — Pro Hominem
Therefore, individuals may exercise acts of systemic racism unbeknownst to themselves, or even contrary to their intentions, — Number2018
Probably, you are right: the term act indicates a kind of juridical responsibility. So, let's replace the "act of systemic racism" with "unintentionally and/or unconsciously taking part in or supporting systemic racism practices." (Once again, as I wrote you, it does not work with your apprehension of institutional racism) Since we are talking about the unconscious dimension of activities, the analogy of psychoanalyses may fit here. A neurotic person systematically takes part in behavioural patterns that she is not aware of their hidden meaning. Yet, from the psychoanalytical perspective, the truth of the situation and treatment are known and achievable.There is no such thing as an "act of systemic racism". Systemic racism is system-wide, by definition. It is not contained in specific instances, it is perpetually present by virtue of the system in which it lives. Acts of racism are interpersonal, not systemic. You argument holds true if you make this distinction, but fails if you do not.
People engaged in discrete acts of interpersonal racism absolutely bear responsibility for those acts. There is no such thing as systemic responsibility. — Pro Hominem
Notions of "racism" and "white privilege" and "systemic racism" that are utterly inadequate for discriminating between racists and non racists(the irony) — creativesoul
just plain wrong and/or ignorant by sheer will alone(refusal to carefully consider what's been actually written) — creativesoul
and conflating systemic racism with one of it's many bi-products(white privilege). — creativesoul
"unintentionally and/or unconsciously taking part in or supporting systemic racism practices." — Number2018
It is a challenging question. Probably, it is a false choice between “being white” and “being fully conscious of systemic racism.” We need to avoid a trap of the imposed choices between fixed, rigid, and normative identifications. One of the functions of power is to reduce the complexity of our social reality to the easily recognizable obviousnesses."unintentionally and/or unconsciously taking part in or supporting systemic racism practices."
— Number2018
So where do I fit in? I am fully conscious of systemic racism, but I do not support its practices. Yet I am white. What now? — Pro Hominem
It is a challenging question. I am sorry, but I cannot give you some advice. Probably, it is a false choice between “being white” and “being fully conscious of systemic racism.” We need to avoid a trap of the imposed choices between fixed, rigid, and normative identifications. One of the functions of power is to reduce the complexity of our social reality to the easily recognizable obviousnesses — Number2018
All your consideration is based on the racial premise of skin colour as the most fundamental socio-economic distinction and operator. How can we know that non-white deal with various situations exclusively because they are non-white, and white are exempted just because they are white? One faces complex socio-economic situations, oversimplifies them, then transforms them into mere facts, and finally converts the descriptive truths into the ultimate prescriptive judgements. After all, the final truth has a binding ethical dimension. But who decides that we must accept this truth? Likely, one of the other dimensions is a political will and the intensive enforcement of this will. What if somebody disagrees with one of the stages of the operative process? For example, for a Marxist, the founding social dichotomy is not racial, but the working class and capitalists' opposition.Understanding and/or becoming aware of white privilege requires knowing about enough of the situations that non whites deal with because they are not white. White privilege is the exemption from just these sorts of specific circumstances and/or situations. Those situations are only thought about when a non white individual tells their own story. Until then, the white individual cannot know about all of the injustices that they are themselves immune to. — creativesoul
Actually, you indirectly agree that here is a kind of ‘potential complicity.’ If one unintentionally takes part in systemic racism practices and/or benefit from them, to make it evident, and to make one aware of the wrongdoing or benefiting from “white privilege,” there is the program to develop the process of the enlightenment: the universal truth of systemic racism and white privilege should become widely available, it should become the integral part of the academic curriculum, sportive events, entertainment, the media narratives, etc. After such reinforcement, any dissent, disagreement, or the pretext of being unaware would become nonsensical and almost impossible.After one becomes aware of the wrongdoing they can also become a willing and knowing accomplice of continued wrongdoing. However, at that time they are not yet willing accomplices to any wrongdoing, for let us not forget that they have just became aware of the wrongdoing. So, an otherwise unknowing white individual becomes aware of the residual effects/affects of racism that still pervade American society to this day.
What personal responsibility do they have? That ought be established by the amount of power they have to influence and/or effect change. — creativesoul
I have black loved ones, asian loved ones, and white loved ones, but according to that definition of "racist", I am racist.
So one can be white, be conscious of systemic racism, and be in opposition to it? If that is true, whither "white privilege?" If I denounce any claim to it and actively work against it, how is it properly applied to me? — Pro Hominem
Banno gave a worked example using "stairs" for able-bodied privilege at the start of the thread, then linked an essay later in this (↪Banno) post. ↪creativesoul gave a long explanation. If this question is rooted in a failure of understanding, one of the essays Banno linked has a checklist of ways white privilege works on a day to day individual level (as a manifestation of systemic racism) — fdrake
So one can be white, be conscious of systemic racism, and be in opposition to it? If that is true, whither "white privilege?" If I denounce any claim to it and actively work against it, how is it properly applied to me? — Pro Hominem
I am interested, do you account for historical explanations? For example, if we eradicated all forms of systemic racism in the US (magically, instantly) but black Americans are still disproportionately poor (not changed), would that be a problem for you? — Judaka
They are perfectly adequate, you just don't like the outcomes. I define racism as using the concept of race to define, categorize, or judge people... — Pro Hominem
You have defined racists as "white people who discriminate against colored people." — Pro Hominem
I've demonstrated your shortcomings... — Pro Hominem
kum-ba-yah — StreetlightX
Aside from complicity, how would you describe the following thing MLK highlights:
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
For me there's a distinction between complicity - what I think MLK diagnoses as the system justifying behaviour of the "white moderate" in a different vocabulary - and collaboration, like the FBI's actions against black civil rights movements in COINTELPRO + within Garvey's movement. Complicity's "The wrong life cannot be lived rightly" vs collaboration's being an agent that works to promote or sustain the unjust conditions of life. — fdrake
Systemic racism is an observable fact. White privilege is an argumentative construct. One exists, the other is a tactic (I've explained many times why I think it's a bad tactic, but that won't stop any of you from continuing to use it). — Pro Hominem
I have black loved ones, asian loved ones, and white loved ones, but according to that definition of "racist", I am racist.
— creativesoul
Not speaking about you personally at all, but it is entirely possible for those things to both be true of someone. — Pro Hominem
You’re safe to use adjectives to describe human beings. But races are a taxonomy. So when we start to classify them as members in this taxonomy, we’ve employed the racialist worldview to aid in our judgement of human beings. Once we drop the racialist worldview from our thinking we should have no problem using better foundations — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.