Hundreds marched in Glasgow, Scotland yesterday in a rally (opens short video, 1:17) to call for an end racism. According to this report, the march and rally were organized to remind people of the dangers of allowing prejudice and discrimination to go unchallenged, and was organized by the STUC, a labor union. Reading the news about this anti-racism rally in Glasgow got me wondering, why aren’t there more of these in the U.S.? While I recognize that a rally is not the same thing as a social movement, but it is noteworthy that the only time there’s an anti-racism rally here, it’s in response to a KKK (or other white racist group) rally, and there’s not a sustained anti-racist movement in the U.S.
There’s some recent research by sociologists Jill McCorkel and Jason Rodriguez that may shed some light on this question (recently highlighted in Contexts). McCorkel and Rodriguez explored the experience of those who participate in movements dominated by people of other races, specifically, they used multi-year participant observation to study how white people become accepted in civil rights organizations dominated by African Americans (e.g., “pro-black” abolitionism and “conscious” hip hop). They found that white people are rarely recruited into such organizations and, when a white person seeks membership, they’re often relegated to “supporter” roles rather than given full membership. In order to move into the core of the movement, white people had to prove their “realness”— that is, their commitment to political struggle. But regardless of their efforts to “fit-in,” white participants in black social movements never could become full members. (You can read the entire article in the journal Social Problems, March 2009).
While McCorkel and Rodriguez’s research is focused more on the challenges that an influx of progressive, anti-racist whites posed to two racially progressive movements, their research also suggests a few speculative explanations for why there’s not a robust anti-racist movement in the U.S. First, it suggests that whites are rarely seen as natural allies by people leading organizations focused on racial equality. Further, it suggests that anti-racist whites are not organizing among themselves to form a movement against racism, but rather are seeking out organizations dominated by African Americans. Yet, once in those organizations, anti-racist whites must do the work of proving their “realness” to others rather than engaging work that might change structural inequality, dismantle institutional racism, or raise the consciousness of other whites. Perhaps anti-racist whites who want to see real social change should work on doing something to change the school-to-prison pipeline, as just one example, rather than trying to get demonstrate how “real” they are.
Or, maybe like whites in Glasgow, whites here in the U.S. could organize an old-fashioned anti-racism rally.
Yeah, this is a tough question. I think it’s only fair that whites have to prove their commitment to the cause because all too often, we see situations where either whites try to call shots or they accuse pro-poc organizations of “reverse racism.” To be clear, by shot calling both in terms of decision-making and the imposition of the white racial frame. Plus, some groups recognize that even anti-racist pocs have internalized racism and that promoting whites to the ranks of leadership may reinforce internalized racism among young people; so we try to guard against that.
I’m not sure how useful a seperate anti-racist white organization might be. Again, their commitment to the cause will be questioned; the intentions behind starting a separate group will be questioned; and theres the risk of an echo-chamber reinforcing some racism even amongst anti-racist whites.
I agree, Jessie, that for whites who don’t care to prove their commitment, other options may prove more beneficial, both to themselves and the movements. This is especially true on a local level as, for example, whites are more likely to vote for other whites for positions on the school board; and that’s a place where an anti-racist white could make a very real and impactful difference.
When it comes to rallies, one thing anti-racist whites could do is rally with majority-poc groups. For example, I don’t remember many white faces in the Jena 6 rallies. (So what blacks see and know about whites as a collective is that when there’s a real threat against the black community, you’re nowhere; but when there’s no threat against the white community, you throw tea party protests. That’s in part why anti-racist whites have to prove themselves.)
Hey No1 ~ Thanks for your thoughtful reply. This post, like so many here, grows out of my own experience attempting to do this work. At anti-racism rallies here, such as the one against the NYPost cartoon last February, I was one of only a handful of white faces in that crowd. The protest was organized by Rev. Sharpton’s National Action Network, which I happen to like a lot – but is flawed. I just don’t have time or interest in proving my ‘realness’ and committment in that group (although it’s completely understandable why I should have to), but there’s not much else happening in anti-racism activism here in NYC that I’ve seen. The further complicating factor is that in the anti-racist organizations and actions I’ve been involved in, there’s a real lack of attention to intersections of gender and sexuality. So, I end up feeling more than a little alienated by that.
“Yet, once in those organizations, anti-racist whites must do the work of proving their “realness” to others rather than engaging work that might change structural inequality, dismantle institutional racism, or raise the consciousness of other whites”
Has anyone done any work to ferret out this anti-white racism? I’m not sure this sort of thing helps bolster the validity of these groups: the fact that discrimination, indeed – racism, is common in ‘anti-racism’ organizations. I wonder if we could find other evidence of racism as well – perhaps if we studied a large, random sample of these organizations, to find if there’s a particular ‘race’ they focus on, or target, as singularly evil. Surely that would be evidence of racism. Does anyone here have any relevant numbers or info?
I absolutely understand the lack of desire to prove one’s self. So yeah, we do have to think of other ways anti-racist whites can be involved. Attending the rallies is one, and though I’m not from NY, or associated with Sharpton’s group, I really do appreciate that you attended. There’s no denying that whites are more apt to listen to whites than poc, so I think it’s important for anti-racist whites to speak up. And who knows? You attend enough rallies, maybe they’ll accept your sincerity.
But when you talk about sexism within pro-black groups, whew! Honey, you ain’t never lied! as is said in my community. But that’s a whole nother post!
“I think it’s only fair that whites have to prove their commitment to the cause”
So you favor discriminating against whites?
>So you favor discriminating against whites?
Toddler, take your pacifier and think before you type your brainless responses.
>They found that white people are rarely recruited into such organizations and, when a white person seeks membership, they’re often relegated to “supporter” roles rather than given full membership.
Whites should learn to act based on their own true conviction. Perhaps CURE is such an organization http://www.reparationsthecure.org/
There are ways to be a supporter without interfering in organizations of POC
>There’s no denying that whites are more apt to listen to whites than poc, so I think it’s important for anti-racist whites to speak up.
And this is something I question, whites may be more willing perhaps to listen to other whites, but this does not mean that they are then more willing or able to actually understand what these whites say.
And when in Germany at the moment whites or news talk a little bit about racism because of Günther Wallraff’s movie (a white German going in blackface through Germany to show the racism) this only demonstrates the racism again, but won’t change anything.
The only experts about racism are those affected by it and nobody else and as long as whites are even not able to acknowledge this simple fact, all their anti-racist attempts remain empty I think.
And yes, your example with Jena indicates that, back then I wondered where there are those alleged white anti-racists. I think there was also a great white absence in the rallies after the shooting of Sean Bell and therefore yes, I think the question is legitimate to ask, how serious are most white anti-racists?
First, there’s simply not much documented anti-white bias in N. America. Claims to the contrary are more ideological than scientific. Even amidst people of color, as evidenced by the now famous Clarke & Clark doll studies and recent studies of implicit bias, most folks hold a pro-white bias by which people, language, organizations, etc that are symbolically coded as “white” are framed as better, moral, pure, superior, etc. In this vein, there is often a form of “hegemonic whiteness” (the ideal type of white identity that is sought after and/or deemed best) that many folks across contexts share. It is connected to Feagin’s “white racial frame,” but is often manifest in practices of identity formation. In fact, my own ethnographic research among both white nationalists and white antiracists evidenced that both groups, despite political differences, shared a vision of a proper and ideal whiteness, and those folks that did not pursue or achieve this ideal were often marginalized or understood as biologically or culturally lacking. It’s a fascinating and troubling phenomenon. Anyhow, the paranoid antiwhite bias shtick reminds me of a character in The Great Gatsby: “Civilization’s going to pieces.” Perhaps “chicken little” is a more appropriate analogy… Ideological claims to the contrary, such a sense of white fragility and culture-war motivated claims to a white crisis are in part a product of the extraordinary claims of superiority and difference made on whiteness’ behalf. As sociologist Charles Gallagher (1995: 169) wrote, “… many whites see themselves as victims of the multicultural, pc, feminist onslaught [and this] would be laughable if it were not for the sense of mental crisis and the reactionary backlash that underpin these beliefs.”
Second, there are actually quite a few white antiracist orgs: A.W.A.R.E. (Alliance of White Anti Racists Everywhere), C.U.R.E. (Caucasians United for Reparations and Emancipation), the “White Anti-racist Community Action Network” that is affiliated with the Center for the Study of White American Culture, Inc., the “White Allies Organization,” the United Universalism-affiliated “Anti-racism Trainer-Organizer Collective,” and the rather radical group of antiracist skinheads called S.H.A.R.P. (Skin Heads Against Racial Prejudice). As No1 referenced above, many whites join these groups purposefully so they do not unintentionally co-opt antiracist groups of color–this is a historical, not a new phenomenon when you study antiracism (see Anti-Racism in U.S. History The First Two Hundred Years). And that leads us back to the “hegemonic whiteness” problem I mentioned above. Despite the reactionary discourse in our midst, it’s just not that acceptable for whites to get out and overtly protest racism–to do so lends to being labeled a radical or an activist, so many whites avoid it so as not to lose many of the benefits associated with pursuing the hegemonic ideal of white identity. So also, it’s not simply conscious and rational actor-esque, but is embedded in seemingly nonracial aspects of everyday life.
Thanks J-Dub (I hope it’s okay that I call you that. It’s what comes to mind everytime I think of your handle, jwbe!) and Hughey for answer a question I hadn’t realized had been asked.
Yeah, the whole accusation of white discrimination in this is the same sort of thinking that applies to accusations of “crimethink” to those of us who would regulate hate speech. And yeah, it’s kinda of backward thinking that whites only listen to other whites on issues of race; but hey, after a while, it’s what you come to expect. Maybe, an anti-racist white, instead of spelling things out, could say something like, “Listen to the black wo/man. S/he has a point.”
But since this is the first (I think.) question Toddard has specifically directed at me, I’ll try to explain the thought process.
First, whites having to prove their commitment to the cause is no more different than a new employee having to prove his/herself on the job. The same logic applies.
As for not promoting whites to positions of leadership . . . well, I guess all I can say is that there are, I feel, legitimate reasons for this. It’s to promote black self-esteem and empowerment in the face of the shame and powerless that mainstream society ascribes to us. It’s not that we think blacks are smarter; it’s to promote a feeling amongst ourselves that we’re equally smart.
I don’t think that qualifies as discriminating against whites. There’s also a historical element to this that you have to understand, right? Blacks have been discriminated against almost since we first arrived in America, or rather, since Columbus. We have discriminated against for no rhyme or reason beyond promoting white superiority. No, there’s no need to promote white self-esteem and empowerment because mainstream society already ascribes self-esteem and empowerment to whites. So, if in the efforts of building/strengthening the black community, whites are denied positions they’d otherwise receive, I think that’s okay.
I guess it’s something that bears repeating, but blacks have implicit pro-white bias, too. So, being cautious in promoting whites to positions of leadership is also about making sure we don’t give them the same unearned privileges they receive in mainstream society out of a sense that the white man’s ice is colder. In fact, I think it’s something mainstream society needs to model: you have to be intentional and explicit in fighting unintentional and implicit racial bias.
Besides, having white people directing a group of black people in fighting racism – doesn’t that defeat the purpose?
Or, you can think of it like this: how many men do you know of who are in leadership positions in women’s rights organizations? Would you consider it discrimination against men if men were intentionally denied leadership position in women’s rights organizations? If men really support women’s rights, could they be equally effective by working in groups the force men to take responsibility for ending rape and domestic violence?
Lastly, I haven’t been in a class, meeting people for the first time yet where the white students weren’t surprised by my intellect. Well, probably actually 2 classes where my white classmates weren’t visibly surprised and taken off-guard by my intellect. As though they were either surprised at what I knew or that they didn’t know it or both. Every time black people have to interact with white people, we also have to prove we’re equally intelligent or qualified. So I don’t see the problem in asking whites to prove they’re equally anti-racist.
Understand, Toddard, you haven’t raised any objections that haven’t been raised and discredited before. One piece of concrete evidence of the white racial frame is that anytime whites are presented with an anti-racist proposition, you usually all have the same arguments. So if you don’t wanna read and learn or you can’t think of a new angle of attack, could you at least not be rude? Thanks.
**could they be equally effective by working in groups the force men to take responsibility for ending rape and domestic violence?**
That should read –
couldN’T they be equally effective by working in groups thAT force men to
Also, just so we’re clear, I don’t mean that mean should take responsibility in that women don’t work to end rape and domestic violence. But basically, until men start shaming other men for sexism, whether in speech or action, it just makes the task all the more difficult for women.
“Yeah, the whole accusation of white discrimination in this”
So you disagree with the author of the piece, who has written that whites are discriminated against in these self-described “anti-racism” groups, and held to different standards? Has anyone contacted the editor to ask for a correction?
“As for not promoting whites to positions of leadership . . . well, I guess all I can say is that there are, I feel, legitimate reasons for this. It’s to promote black self-esteem and empowerment in the face of the shame and powerless that mainstream society ascribes to us. It’s not that we think blacks are smarter; it’s to promote a feeling amongst ourselves that we’re equally smart.
I don’t think that qualifies as discriminating against whites.”
So holding people to a different standard and denying them promotion based solely on the color of their skin is *not* discrimination?
“is the same sort of thinking that applies to accusations of “crimethink” to those of us who would regulate hate speech”
You would regulate free speech, and specifically ban speech with which you disagree. You may believe it is perfectly reasonable to severely restrict the limits of permissible discourse and have “hate speech” classified as doubleplus ungood crimethink, but you should at least have the conviction to honestly and openly own your position.
“Whites should learn to act based on their own true conviction. Perhaps CURE is such an organization http://www.reparationsthecure.org/
There are ways to be a supporter without interfering in organizations of POC”
I find jwbe’s support of racial segregation in alleged “anti-racism” groups to be fascinating.
I think a very large segment of the black population needs to work on their own image first before blacks expect anti-racist whites to step up to the plate. Many blacks could care less about what whites or even other blacks! think about them.
American crime documentation is filled with black transgressions, and the majority of blacks don’t seem to want to address this, much less answer for it to white people. And the idea that this is all due to racial profiling just doesn’t hold water. Black crime is not discussed on this website from what I’ve seen. But it’s a huge factor in why many whites are hesitant to step up to the plate and create anti-racism rallies. What about black people improving their image regarding crime to whites? The burden of proof is not solely on whites here.
This article was written by an Australian newspaper and it gives us an idea of how black crime looks to other nations. I think many more whites would support anti-racism if blacks, especially males, would take responsibility for 1.supporting their children and acting like a responsible head of the household 2. staying away from drug abuse 3. staying in school and getting an education instead of barely graduating from high school and then working at a low-level job. Community colleges are open to everyone regardless of race, creed, or color. It’s just a matter of wanting to go.
According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.
• Most victims of race crime—about 90 per cent—are white, according to the survey “Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims”, published in 1993.
• Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.
• Blacks committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.
• According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.
Justice Department Statistics About Black On White Race Violence
‘The Race War Of Black Against White’ by Paul Sheehan
The Sydney Morning Herald , Australia, 20 May 1995
While those statistics are as true as they are revealing, Maranda, you have to keep in mind that “anti-racists” (ironically enough) think of blacks not as adults but as wayward children, and therefore don’t consider them responsible for their own actions, even now. For white “anti-racists” it is a patronizing attitude (it allows them the satisfaction of bearing the “white man’s burden”), whereas for blacks it is most likely a self-defense mechanism, I would guess. It’s far more comforting to blame the persistent failures of one’s community on an “other” than to recognize those failures as one’s own.
I appreciate your comments Matthew, jwbe, and No1KState, especially the mentions of additional anti-racist organizations. As for SLToddard and MarandaNJ, your comments simply demonstrate how much we need a viable anti-racist movement in this country.
Matthew makes an excellent point when he writes: “…it’s just not that acceptable for whites to get out and overtly protest racism–to do so lends to being labeled a radical or an activist, so many whites avoid it so as not to lose many of the benefits associated with pursuing the hegemonic ideal of white identity. So also, it’s not simply conscious and rational actor-esque, but is embedded in seemingly nonracial aspects of everyday life.
I agree. What we need are examples – in real life, in popular culture, in mainstream reporting – of whites who confront other whites about their racism, who work for racial / structural justice, and who choose not to reproduce white supremacy.
Here’s yet another black man committing the shooting deaths of 4 police officers in Parkland, Washington over the weekend.If you go to the website, you can see a photo of the suspect.
Unfortunately, when whites see this on the news time and time again, they are afraid to support the black community as a whole. Most whites I know have no problem supporting individual blacks, if they know them to be decent, law-abiding people. But to support the entire black community with this degree of crime to its name is asking whites to overlook the crime records.
Most people, and not just whites but Asians, Hispanics, and people who immigrated from India and Russia, feel the same way about the black crime committed After the Civil Rights Movement. This is 2009, not 1960. I believe racism against blacks would diminish considerably if blacks would address 1.Crime and 2.Lack of Paternal Parental responsibility within their own communities. Many blacks I’ve spoken to feel the same way.
SEATTLE – A suspect in the slaying of four police officers who were gunned down in a suburban coffee shop was surrounded by police at a Seattle house early Monday, wounded and possibly dead, police said.
Negotiators were trying to communicate with Maurice Clemmons, 37, using loudspeakers, explosions and even a robot to try to prod him from hiding. At one point, gunshots rang through the neighborhood, about 30 miles from the original crime scene.
“We have determined that in fact he has been shot,” said Ed Troyer, a spokesman for the Pierce County Sheriff. “He may be deceased from his gunshot wound.”
Clemmons, who has a long criminal history — including a long prison sentence commuted by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee nearly a decade ago — became the prime target Sunday in the search for the killer of Lakewood police Sgt. Mark Renninger, 39, and Officers Ronald Owens, 37, Tina Griswold, 40, and Greg Richards, 42.
>I find jwbe’s support of racial segregation in alleged “anti-racism” groups to be fascinating.
It is this never ending story, you know. This blog tells this story. The story of whites with perhaps good intentions, but good intentions are not enough.
This blog demonstrates why most white people aren’t ‘allies’, this blog would demonstrate some of the failures of white anti-racism, but this would mean to be self-critical and who wants to be that, when the ‘fame’ is so easy to get. Most of all in a Eurocentric society, where appearance is more important than true being.
And it becomes repetitive here, you know. People like Maranda can post their ‘statistics’, completely irrelevant to the topic, while the alleged “education” won’t happen by the blog owners/moderators. But it was just again the chance to post stereotypes and not constructive information.
But oh, the main thing here is somehow the white racial frame. I am surprised how invisible this white racial frame here can be to many. I find this fascinating and it is exactly this were I learn most to understand subtle racist dynamics, not by the articles posted here.
Jessie stated: As for SLToddard and MarandaNJ, your comments simply demonstrate how much we need a viable anti-racist movement in this country.
Please explain to me why white men are responsible for coercing Maurice Clemmons into shooting 4 police officers. What racism is at play here? Isn’t Maurice to be held accountable for his own actions? Is he to be infantalized and not considered a man? I think he is a man. I think he knew right from wrong. Just as I would applaud the accomplishments of any black person, I am also afraid of the crimes of any black person. Unfortunately in the American black community, the crimes outweigh the achievements. And I don’t know why. I simply don’t believe it’s all due to racism by whites.
@jwbe I’m so glad that we can be of service to you.
@marandaNJ – The point is not that ‘white men’ are ‘coercing Maurice Clemmons’ or anyone else – to commit bad acts. The larger point is that people, like you and SLToddard, pay attention to race when black people are the bad actors and are quick to point that out here and elsewhere. Yet, you refuse to see or acknowledge when whites are bad actors, and consistently act in ways that give whites the benefit of the doubt and condemn blacks and other people of color. Your statements and comments in this thread are further evidence of that. Please see the video I just posted as an illustration. I put that up with this discussion in mind.
Now, I have to head out for a full day of work and don’t have time to spend all day on replying to comments here, so I leave it to others to take on anything they might find objectionable here in these comments.
JWBE Stated: But it was just again the chance to post stereotypes and not constructive information.
You think it’s a “stereotype” for a black man to commit crime? I think you’re revealing more here about your racism JWBE than anybody else’s. I think this was a Freudian slip as it were. You are a racist yourself because you admitted you think black crime is the norm.
Maranda wants to be the idiot of the blog who plays stupid?
But perhaps you can read, the topic of this post is: Anti-Racism Rally in Glasgow: Why Not More in the U.S. ?
Oh, I could give you my point of view as an answer to this question, but I am sure nobody wants to hear this, lol.
>@jwbe I’m so glad that we can be of service to you.
you are welcome (irony back to you ;-))
“The larger point is that people, like you and SLToddard, pay attention to race when black people are the bad actors and are quick to point that out here and elsewhere. Yet, you refuse to see or acknowledge when whites are bad actors”
Could you be more specific? When have I personally refused “to see or acknowledge when whites are bad actors”?
“Now, I have to head out for a full day of work and don’t have time to spend all day on replying to comments here…”
What? You mean that you and Joe have duties and responsibilities that exist outside the realm of this blog? Hmpf, I guess I can allow that.. 🙂
The problem with the statistics you mention (in addition to the fact that the article/website you cite has about zero scientific credibility) is that they are devoid of all context (i.e. controlling for socioeconomic status, no mention of how ‘hate-crimes’ were defined or reported, etc). What you are doing is analogous to concluding that whites are more financially corrupt since they commit the lion’s share of white-collar crime (without taking into consideration the fact that whites occupy a vast majority of white-collar jobs). Analyzing various crime statistics in this manner of ‘whiteness’ vs. ‘blackness’ is really just racial sleight of hand–the real issues behind different types of crime are poverty and institutional discrimination.
SL Toddard wrote:
“I find jwbe’s support of racial segregation in alleged “anti-racism” groups to be fascinating.”
Just an FYI, if your arguments and comments can’t rise above the level of “I know you are but what am I?” and “I’m made of rubber and you’re made of glue” status, they will probably be ignored pretty soon.
I read the topic of the post, thanks. It’s about why white America doesn’t hold anti-racist rallies?
Well, it’s because white America has a negative view of the black community because of the inordinate rate of Black Crime.
And it’s not only whites who are uncomfortable living in an all-black neighborhood. Hispanics don’t want to,[anybody read the statistics on Hispanic gangs fighting black gangs lately?] Asians don’t want to, Native Americans don’t want to, people of Indian descent don’t want to, not even black immirgants from Africa want to live near Black American Crime.
Why would whites rally against racism when too many loved ones, neighbors or co-workers have been the victim of black crime? In 2009, there are enough opportunities for blacks to earn a living, with or without a college education, without resorting to obtaining it at gunpoint. Whites will hold anti-racist rallies when they’re Not Afraid of Being Around Black Crime. Question answered.
I also wonder if you can read. The rules for leaving comments include 1.No Name Calling and 2. Being Civil. You wrote: “Maranda wants to be the idiot of the blog who plays stupid?”
Obviously, JWBE, you don’t qualify for leaving civil comments. I didn’t call you names, and if this is the only way to prove your point, I don’t have any respect for your ideas. People who are strong debaters and who truly believe in their cause don’t need to resort to name calling.
>I read the topic of the post, thanks. It’s about why white America doesn’t hold anti-racist rallies?
Well, it’s because white America has a negative view of the black community because of the inordinate rate of Black Crime.
cheap excuse. Try another one and don’t blame the victims of your racism for your own inactivism.
>Whites will hold anti-racist rallies when they’re Not Afraid of Being Around Black Crime.
You are probably stupid enough to actually believe your own bs.
>The rules for leaving comments include 1.No Name Calling and 2. Being Civil.
Oh, so soon? You cry for mama to help you? I am German, I believe in freedom of speech for all, not just the American version of freedom for those in power:-) I love strong debates, I am not easily to be intimidated and the only way to get rid of me here is to ban me. And you will get the answers you deserve, you know, don’t act like an idiot and I won’t call you one.
I also believe in personal responsibility and if you already start so soon to try to get help, but you yourself believe you should be allowed to refer to name calling and also to act in a racist way, this only confirms the white racial frame you are in:-)
But this leads now to some answers how I see it why there are not more white anti-racist rallies in America:
White Americans as a collective are spoiled, you get too much for doing nothing
White Americans as a collective are simple-minded
White Americans as a collective never feel responsible regardless what America did and does.
White Americans as a collective are incapable to endure honesty and truth
Your hyperindividualism makes it impossible for most to understand all things refering to “collective”
It looks like jwbe is hitting some nerves…good lord, the truth hurts white America…hehe 😀
>I didn’t call you names, and if this is the only way to prove your point, I don’t have any respect for your ideas
you won’t never have any respect for my ideas, because my ideas challenge your limited thinking and regardless whether you are trying to blame my ‘style’ for your idiocy in the same way you blame Black people for your racism – you are the only one actually responsible for yourself, regardless how hard you refuse to accept this fact.
You must try your juvenile tactics with less experienced people if you want to be successful
“I am German, I believe in freedom of speech for all, not just the American version of freedom for those in power”
‘Tis a shame what’s happened to poor Germany. Their population has been PC’d to death, crimethink has been duly outlawed, and the German people – dispirited, taught to hate their ancestors and history and therefore themselves – have lost the cultural virility and manly virtues that made theirs one of the great cultures of history (and by “great” I mean discernibly great, with the countless great philosophers, writers, composers, statesmen, inventors etc that are a prerequisite to any claim of cultural greatness). Nowhere has the war to neuter Western man been more successful than in Germany, and it is a shame indeed.
1 – Once you hold for socioeconomic status, the black crime rate is no different from white crime rate. The problem in the black community is disproportionate rate of poverty which is directly due to historical and present racism and discrimination.
2 – I have conviction of my beliefs. I think you’re twisting what I’m saying instead of trying to understand.
3 – No, it’s not just holding whites up to a different standard. And to the extent that it is, I’m okay with it. Again, how many men do you know of who’re in leadership positions in women’s rights groups?
4 – No, it’s no banning speech I disagree with. There’s lots of speech and ideas I disagree with that don’t warrant being banned. What we’re talking about banning is speech that incites violence. There is no absolute right to free speech. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and that’s what we’re talking about. To accuse people of trying to ban speech on the basis of politics is just a way to avoid the real and pertinent issue.
5 – To accuse anti-racist groups of discrimination without acknowledging the logic behind it is just a way to avoid the real and pertinent issue.
Before you look to accuse us of hypocrisy, let’s really think through the issue. If you find our suggestions “fascinating,” then stick around and learn and you’ll understand.
Not that I don’t dig the pink, but . . .
J-dub, I completely agree.
Oh, and by the way, white people are way more likely to be victimized by other white people. So calm down about black crime.
And since we’re on the topic, the rate of crime in the black community is besides the point. Now, if you wanna talk about historical and present income discrimination as it relates to the rate of black crime, then okay. But otherwise, when asking why more white people aren’t anti-racists, the rate of black crime is besides the point. The only reason it’s pointed out is to justify racism.
“But otherwise, when asking why more white people aren’t anti-racists, the rate of black crime is besides the point”
Well, that’s true at least. The reason more white people aren’t “anti-racist” is because by “anti-racist,” anti-racists mean “anti-white”. It takes a good measure of self-loathing and servility for a white person to be “anti-racist” in the way people here mean it, and not everyone has fully succumbed yet to corporate media brainwashing, PC thought-policing and victimological thuggery (as of yet).
As for “income discrimination”, I suppose such a thing exists on some level – I’m sure there are instances where this happens, of course, but one can hardly blame the rather spectacular failure of blacks to earn as much as whites on “income discrimination”. I’m sure it’s comforting to believe that such a thing is the cause – it’s always nice to have a boogeyman to scapegoat (just ask Dick Cheney, or Goebbels) – but I’d need to see some evidence of a pernicious, widespread practice beyond the aforementioned failure. Income discrepancy does not, obviously, equal income discrimination. Absent any conclusive, positive evidence of this allegedly near-universal practice, Occam’s razor dictates that this failure can not be explained by vague conspiracy theories.
“Once you hold for socioeconomic status, the black crime rate is no different from white crime rate”
That sounds probable. Do you have a link to an impartial, nonpartisan source corroborating that claim? It wouldn’t surprise me at all, frankly.
Well, actually whites created the system of racial oppression in the US, over four centuries now. And they created almost all the racialized names too, including ‘white’ and ‘black’ in their racial meanings, and almost all racist epithets… To be anti-racist is to be anti- the racist system, not anti all white people .. There are many anti-racist whites, of course…..See Eillen Obrien’s good book on antiracist white groups.
Yes, there’s evidence! Plenty!
For the love of all that’s good and holy. Will you read the name of the blog? Do a quick read through of the administrators’ bios? And stop assuming we’re pulling stats out of our behinds!
Look. I understand that the way the brain works, it’s difficult to accept evidence that’s contrary to the notions you have that appear to work. Our brains develop pathways that go to work when we see something like . . . grass. See grass, think green. See sky, think blue. Part of the dissonance of Boise St’s football field is that grass is supposed to be green. In that same way, a pathway has developped so that when you think of African Americans, you automatically think . . . high crime, for example. It takes effort to undo these pathways just like it takes effort to stop a bad habit. So really, I understand. But neither truth nor fact support your claims.
Hey. I had my own wrong ideas about black people until I researched on my own, independent of this blog, and discovered the truth.
Take the crime rate for example. Did you know that the media shows black crime at a higher rate than it actually occurs and white crime at a lower rate? It does. You already distrust the corporate driven media; why trust them when it comes to black people?
And by the way, the people who’ve historically had the most to gain by racism are wealth landowners, businesses and corporations. Do you really think large corporations, Wall St, really want to risk even more people voting Dem? Since when have corporations ever by and large supported liberal ideas? What makes you think they’re supporting anti-racism?
Anti-racism doesn’t mean anti-white. Now, if all the white people you know are racist, I can see how you’d think that. But again, talking about the strategies used to combat racism without discussing racism itself is just a way to distract from racism itself.
I will admit, though, that in an anti-racist society, once with justice and liberty for all, whites won’t enjoy the privileges you have now. But that’s not anti-white in “let’s keep the white man in his place” kind of way. That’s justice.
Sorry to disagree,but this thread posed the question: why don’t more white people hold more anti-racist rallies? I’m giving you my answer as a white person. Black crime. Black crime is something that anti-racists choose to excuse because of poverty and discrimination? So blacks commit crimes because they are discriminated against, and selling illegal drugs will put a stop to that discrimination? You mean the image America and foreigners who visit this country have regarding black crime [on the news night after night and day after day] is because America is a nation of racists? So, blacks commit crimes because they don’t have any other options?
And I thought black people had a choice: resort to crime to make a living OR get an education at any basically Free community college and work for a living.
To excuse the fact that this country is composed of 18% blacks and that blacks account for 50% of the crime committed in America is truly wishful thinking. No matter how you throw the dice, it still comes to the fact that a disproportionate number of blacks engage in perpetrating crime. Disproportionate to any other ethnic group.
If you don’t believe me, please have a heart to heart discussion with Black Police Officers. These men have made their choice. They have chosen to make a living by enforcing laws instead of breaking them. They have chosen to lead a life free of illegal drugs and to earn a living to support their wives and children. They chose to attend the police academy to Earn the Right to be a law enforcement officer.
The blacks who commit crimes are not reading racismreview.com. They could care less what whites think. If they cared about their image and reputations, why would they commit crimes? Criminals don’t care what law-abiding citizens think.
Claiming blacks don’t have any choices regarding their behavior is comparing blacks to what? Infants? Mentally disabled people who can’t think for themselves? Blacks are perfectly capable of choosing their own lifestyles. The white man is NOT keeping them from going to a community college or becoming a police officer or from obeying the laws of a community.
If black crime is not excused, that makes one a racist? Sorry. That makes a person cautious and afraid of being the victim of crime.
Of course, white crime is far more extensive than black crime . Wall Street and other corporate crimes just about brought down the US economic system, and may yet do that . Far, far more people are killed and injured by whites’ “white collar” and corporate crime each year than by all the street crime, by blacks and others who are not white. Not to mention the millions white Americans have killed over the centuries in anti-Indian genocide and black enslavement.
No1KState claimed: But otherwise, when asking why more white people aren’t anti-racists, the rate of black crime is besides the point.
Besides the Point? Like it doesn’t matter? Not to a person who wants to keep themselves from being physically assaulted, or robbed or burglarized. And that takes in alot of territory. Not just “Whites”.
What does the rate of crime anywhere have to do with combatting racism?
JWBE claims:White Americans as a collective are spoiled, you get too much for doing nothing
White Americans as a collective are simple-minded
White Americans as a collective never feel responsible regardless what America did and does.
White Americans as a collective are incapable to endure honesty and truth
This coming from a German? I wish I weren’t simple minded. Can you teach me how to be an Intelligent German who murdered 6 million Jews? Can you teach me how to be anti-racist? This is a joke.
By the way, America felt Very Responsible for many lives during WWII. Thanks to America joining the war, the Nazi regime was conquered and people like you get to come to America and trash us. If you really believe all of the above, why in the world are you here?
Don’t you Just Hate America? Go back to Germany where There is No Racism whatsoever [yeah, right!LOL], and everyone Endures Honesty and Truth! What a joke! A German coming to America and telling everybody how idiotic we are? The Berlin Wall just came down..what.. a few days ago? How come the courageous Germans couldn’t even keep the Communists off their backs?
Germans wouldn’t even have an economic base at all if it weren’t for American dollars and financing After WWII. They wouldn’t even be a part of NATO if not for pity from the United Nations. To live on American pity is a sad role huh? But you guys have been doing this for 70 years..probably used to it by now.
Europe could not Survive Without America. Don’t you know any history? We feel sorry for you. And everytime you’re in trouble [like with the Soviet Union!] why do You Cry to Mama America for Help? Because “as a collective you are spoiled” and have used America to hide behind for 70 YEARS!
Blacks are no longer enslaved. Blacks have choices..more choices than they ever had in American history. The fact is that no other ethnic group wants to live in black neighborhoods because of Fear.
You can’t keep using slavery as a means of excusing the black community for crime commited today. How long can you play the slavery concept? Did slavery make that black man murder those 4 police officers this weekend in Parkland, Washington? America sees this on the news and the Last Thing they are thinking about is Slavery. It just doesn’t hold water anymore.
And blacks who do commit crimes are probably laughing as we type! “Look at those racismreview guys who are trying to Save The Blacks but we don’t want to be saved! Selling drugs pays too well.” Like I said Joe, choices! Black people Still have Choices. They can choose a good life like the Black Police Officers or Resort to Crime. Doesn’t have a darn thing to do with Slavery.
‘Tis a shame what’s happened to poor Germany. Their population has been PC’d to death, crimethink has been duly outlawed, and the German people[…]
Don’t address me with your right-wing propaganda
>This coming from a German? I wish I weren’t simple minded. Can you teach me how to be an Intelligent German who murdered 6 million Jews? Can you teach me how to be anti-racist?
Yes, I could teach you how to be anti-racist, but you are too biased to even listen. I know that Americans learn that Germans are the most evil people and Americans the saviours – an easy way to continue with your American myths. Your answer to me perfectly reflects my thoughts about you.
>I’m giving you my answer as a white person. Black crime.
Being free from racial discrimination is a basic human right. Not ‘rallying as whites’ for the basic human rights of all people = against racism, means to be opposed to human rights to all people.
You love a double standard: Human rights for white people, just because they are white, but no human rights for Black people as long as they are not perfect, according to you. Your claim: Human rights must be deserved as long as you are ‘not white’.
Only white people can commit crimes regardless how brutal and none of it will make them ‘non-human’ or will cause you to demand: deny the human rights to white people.
You live in a small world, you want to make the claim, that crime is Black and that whites are somehow innocent or not as bad as Blacks or whatever. And of course your crime statistics won’t include the thousands of Iraqis killed by American white supremacy in an illegal war. And then think about how this war was possible. Propaganda, stereotyping and blaming the victims, denying basic human rights and de-humanizing Muslims.
And too few people worldwide rallied against this illegal invasion of Iraq, because too many were already manipulated enough through propaganda, that Iraq doesn’t deserve their human rights being respected. Because ‘they’ are [fill in any of your stereotypes you may have]…
Jessie tells us:Yet, you refuse to see or acknowledge when whites are bad actors.
Actually, that’s not true. I think white people have done horrendous deeds to the Native Americans and the Blacks [it doesn’t get much worse than enslaving people!]
But I am addressing the situation Today in 2009. Today, the whole world acknowledges that black Americans really do suffer from a negative image due to the degree of crime they are Allegedly [note this word!] responsible for. It’s Very Difficult for the rest of America to Not Believe all the crime they observe commited by blacks on television and in newspapers.
If you are implying this is Entirely a Result of Brainwashing the Public because the Media dislikes blacks? Well, I’m merely explaining what many white Americans feel regarding the black community in general. 1. Anxiety 2. Hesitation 3. Comfortable associating with black friends but not blacks they don’t know. Here’s a black man saying that the crime that is happening in black neighborhoods Is The Same crime that took place 50 years ago. He asks,”It’s your hood. Why destroy your own hood? That’s not smart!” Then he says, “It’s not happening in other races.” If you don’t watch this, then You are Not Listening to the Blacks Themselves.
Um . . . I’m not sure the comment rating thing is working properly. I don’t think jwbe’s commments are worthy of being hidden.
This is another video by CNN about Black Culture of Violence in Chicago. 31 black teenagers were murdered in Chicago in 2008 and the black parents in the film Are Not Blaming Racism! They are asking their Own communities to make an effort to terminate this violence.
The video begins with President Obama asking for support from the black community Plus “Better Policing”. He doesn’t mention anything about racial profiling. In the tape, black people and police officers are suggesting that these things are responsible for the crime: 1. Unemployment 2. Drugs 3. Gangs 4. Guns 5. Poor Parenting. Again, this is the Black Community speaking out. This is not about racism. Whites aren’t decimating black communities, blacks are doing it.
ellen, I mean marandaNJ, and how is it exactly that: “1. Unemployment 2. Drugs 3. Gangs 4. Guns 5. Poor Parenting.” are the result of racism? The last, point 5, I resent hearing from white voices especially.
What does that have to do with anything? Most of the school shooters have been white. The guy who went into the gym and killed several women? White. The man who killed the guard at the Holocaust Museum was white. The people who’ve lied us into 2 or 3 wars were white. The people who wrecked the economy were white. The ponzi schemers have been white.
And I don’t here any talk of never electing another white male for president. Nobody’s talking about not investing money with white men. So really, stop. There’s more than overwhelming evidence of anti-black bias on the part of white people.
Sorry–a correction on my last comment *are NOT the result of racism* And MarandaNJ–you brought up the Pierce County shooting, oh you know the entire State of Washington (90% white population according to the Census and what, like 5% Black population) is all shook up and overwhelmed with the crime committed by the Black communities up there. The shooting is not a fair reflection by any means of the Black communities up there–or anywhere throughout this nation. Quite ignorant and insulting to say the least. Gee. What about the serial killers up there? Hmmmm. They’ve all been white. And all the other sick crap that has happened and goes on? Like a foster mother stabbing the eyes of her foster child with syringes, children being brutally beat to death by their parents, etc. Washington State is a pretty “white” place–why don’t you go up there and stay alone in a white area for a bit? And we have some pretty gruesome fairly recent colonization history up there that involves ongoing genocide and slavery after slavery was legally abolished when it was all Indian Territory (stolen territory) all championed and committed by white people and the white supremacist government. Most of the “crime” up there has been/is committed by white folks even with the racist criminal justice system we have up there. And considering African Americans make up approximately 12% of the national U.S. population and have been enduring white supremacy for centuries now–since the beginnings of this U.S. nation, how is it they are a real threat to white communities? It’s more like the opposite–the REALITY is, that whites are the threats to the Black communities, as well as all other racial and ethnic minority communities, and largely their own.
“Well, actually whites created the system of racial oppression in the US, over four centuries now. [b]And they created almost all the racialized names too, including ‘white’ and ‘black’ in their racial meanings, and almost all racist epithets… “[/b]
It seems to me that by limiting the statement to “in the US” you are able to say something that is both true to some degree, and at the same time incredibly misleading. It gives the impression that the whole concept of racial divide was invented by those white settlers, (or interlopers, depending on your view of those whites.) Are you implying, then, that the Native Americans had no name for the white settlers with which to distinguish them from their own tribe? It would be unusual, since it does seem they had names for the various tribes, to allow distinction. Or are you implying that color is the only way to classify “races?” Because if so, that seems to me a rather arbitrary distinction to draw. It seems to me that the idea that “people not of our group” were considered to be a separate race long before the 1600’s. From Aristotle’s Politics book five;
“Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do not at once acquire a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of a day, any more than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution; for example, the Achaeans who joined the Troezenians in the foundation of Sybaris, becoming later the more numerous, expelled them; hence the curse fell upon Sybaris. At Thurii the Sybarites quarrelled with their fellow-colonists; thinking that the land belonged to them, they wanted too much of it and were driven out.”
And the idea that race should dictate the right of one “race” to oppress others, (keep them as slaves) is also not new or unique to the US. In that same work, “Politics,” Aristotle also says;
“But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say,
It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians;
as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one.”
“Wherefore Hellenes do not like to call Hellenes slaves, but confine the term to barbarians. Yet, in using this language, they really mean the natural slave of whom we spoke at first; for it must be admitted that some are slaves everywhere, others nowhere.”
And in terms of whites creating “almost all” racial epithets, some 400 years ago, I find that a suspicious claim as well though you did throw in the “in the US” to sort of limit the argument against the claim. Although one could also point out that at that time, it was not the US.
In terms of the original topic of the post, I know the reason I have not been more active in “anti-racism” rallies is that one of my ancestors apparently lost our copy of, “Your key to Unlocking the Privileges of Whiteness” and I have been working the same crappy jobs many minorities do while I put myself through college. Without that book, I have not found that I have a lot of rights and privileges that my melatonin rich brethren do not. The systems set up to ensure my success as a “whitey” apparently only work if you know the secret handshake, and so I have not personally noticed them occupying a status significantly different from my own.
I’m so tired of this “if not for that pesky black crime rate, we wouldn’t be so racist” lame excuse. Hardly anyone even knows what the crime rates in their local area actually are (much less how they break down by type of crime and by race of those convicted) until they go looking to justify anti-black racism. That’s why you see them posting in their comments here some random listing of national data in order to support their argument – they just googled it, copy & paste, done. And when you tell them that once you control for social class, the racial gap in particular types of crime largely disappears, but they don’t get it, because they didn’t see that in their copy & paste from the DOJ website.
Let’s please admit that the vast majority of people are going on a hunch or some water cooler talk about this supposed “threat” to life and property from the “black crime rate.” This stuff just allows people to be lazy anyway. It’s a rude awakening when your house in the “good neighborhood” gets broken into, isn’t it, because you assumed that your decision to get away from where the black folks live would protect you.
If when you go to a store, the security guard doesn’t follow you around, that’s one privilege you have that African-Americans don’t. If all your college classmates and dormmates assumed that you were there because you earned it, as opposed to the alleged special privilege of affirmative-action, that’s another privilege you had the most of your classmates of color did not. How many times have you been stopped by the cops, whether just walking or without having made a traffic violation? Never? Only a few? There’re some more privileges you’ve enjoyed that most African Americans do not. Is it fairly easy for you to get a cab? There’s another privilege.
Besides, the point is racism in our society and culture, not your own personal feelings toward other races or your experience as a white person.
Yeah, other groups have ways of making a distinction between us and them. But the idea that skin color makes one person superior to another, intellectually, physically, morally, spiritually, etc and so on, is historically recent. Did England fight France every year for 100 years straight? Yes. But it wasn’t because England felt that by virtue of skin color, they were better than the French. So Joe is right. The concept of white/black/red/yellow, came about when Europe needed some excuse to subjegate peoples and lands they had no claim to. That’s basic history.
No1KState, So you feel that the English had a claim to Ireland? Or did they do the same thing, subjugatea people and land they had no claim to, albeit without skin color as the excuse? They still used the concept of “difference” as part of the justification. Skin color simply wasnt available as an option while doing so. From Wikipedia,
“An early example is the chronicler Gerald of Wales, who visited the island in the company of Prince John. As a result of this he wrote Topographia Hibernia (“Topography of Ireland”) and Expugnatio Hibernia (“Conquest of Ireland”), both of which remained in circulation for centuries afterwards. Ireland, in his view, was rich; but the Irish were backward and lazy;
They use their fields mostly for pasture. Little is cultivated and even less is sown. The problem here is not the quality of the soil but rather the lack of industry on the part of those who should cultivate it. This laziness means that the different types of minerals with which hidden veins of the earth are full are neither mined nor exploited in any way. They do not devote themselves to the manufacture of flax or wool, nor to the practice of any mechanical or mercantile act. Dedicated only to leisure and laziness, this is a truly barbarous people. They depend on their livelihood for animals and they live like animals.”
Obviously I am not saying that they called the Irish black or red or yellow, that would have been ridiculous seeing as they were the same shade as the people who were interested in taking their resources and subjugating them, but how does this differ in any real way? Or is it simply impossible for someone to be “racist” if they are using the term “race” to subdivide people of the same skin color. Why is only ONE definition of racism, the one that is popular at the moment, count as racism, when racism itself has been morphing over thousands of years, and has had any number of variations?
What in your mind justifies the conquest and occupation of a land and her people? What gives one a “claim” to it? Having the same skin color as the current occupant? If so, do darker skinned Israeli’s have a stronger claim to the disputed land in Gaza than the more European complected Israeli’s because they look more like the Palestinians? Or does the right to claim land derive from something other than skin color? And if the “right” to conquer and subjugate people who have held land for a period of time is NOT related to skin color, how is what happened in the Americas fundamentally different from any other intrusion onto someone else’s land, save the fact that now skin color can be added to the laundry list of things that make the original occupants deserving of such treatment, and thus validate the conquest?
The conquerors are still claiming the whole laundry list you provide, “makes one person superior to another, intellectually, physically, morally, spiritually, etc and so on,” however if both sides of the conquest has the same tone to their skin. The claim is still that that “race” of people is all of those things, but when skin color is shared, it cannot be added to the list in that instance. Skin color just happens to be a conveniently conspicuous way of showing a difference. It makes it easier to discriminate if you physically dont look like someone to draw that line, “them and us” but it isnt required for that dynamic to occur. My question is, why is the use of skin color in the 1600’s so novel? Why is it of such note? And why is the date for claiming skin color was a sign that you were inferior set at the 1600’s? We have examples from Polemon of Laodicea,and he died in 144CE, so we know this was written prior to that,
Again from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race,
“Pale skin and light hair were described as signs of barbarism by Polemon of Laodicea in his book Physiognomica. Pseudo-Aristotle (a writer using Aristotle’s name as a pseudonym) noted differences between Greeks and the people of the north, believing that Greek superiority was visible in their medium skin tone, as opposed to pale northerners and dark Africans. He claimed that blue eyes were a sign of a cowardly nature, and that they indicated poor eyesight.”
It just seems arbitrary to me, to single out that time frame among all others in the history of discrimination, racism, or slavery, as unique in some way, other than the fact that it happened at that date. I cannot see how the distinction is being drawn, and all I am hearing are assertions that it is so, for certain, but no “why.”
Sorry, didn’t read the entire thing. But I guess as it pertains to Ireland and England, my answer is . . . yes.
It’s basic history! Terms like white and black and red and yellow only came about with European exploration/colonialism. Yo’re right, skin color wasn’t an option before. That doesn’t change that fact that doesn’t chane the fact that race as a social construct only came about at the certain point in time. And historically, yes, it was just to justify slavery and colonialism.
Again, Columbus arrived in 1492 – historical fact.
Declaration of Independence 1776 – historical fact.
The first printing press in Europe was the Guttenburg – historical fact.
You know what? I’m not being clear. This is what I mean. We don’t have terms making distinctions between people on the basis of skin color until post-Columbus. Historical fact.
Perhaps you should have read the whole thing then, or at least the last three paragraphs. Your “fact” that we do not have people making distinctions between people based on color before 1600 is not just not true.
Secondly, in the distant past, you did not need to say “he is black,” “she is yellow,” it was sufficient to say, “The Kushite,” “The Gaul,” “The Mongol” or whatever. The person hearing that term would instantly know the color of the person being referred to.
Thirdly, we rely on the written word a great deal in determining “historical fact.” The further back in time you go, the less likely it is that you are going to get a complete picture of humanity, as writings have been lost, destroyed, etc. So “lack” of something in writing is not conclusive proof that it never existed at all.
Fourth, We DO have surviving bits of commentary that indicate that “race” (at that time often denoted by region) was used to rationalize enslaving certain groups or “races” of people. We do have specific mention of how certain physical traits were associated with this or that inherent quality, and we do have indications that people used these distinctions to elevate some “races” above others.
That said, if you choose to not even read data that contradicts your beliefs, then that is an indication that you have an emotional attachment to the “facts” you prefer. In which case there really isnt anything I could say or show you that would change your opinion.
Perhaps you should read the suggested book. I read your comment fully. Read the book then come back and then let’s talk and then maybe you wouldn’t have to press No1KState to answer questions that are already fully answered–since you are not satisfied with her most excellent responses. You asked specific questions of which this book fully offers specific answers for.
It’s one thing to say, “Oh, he must be from Kush. Look at his dark skin.”
It’s another thing to say that darker pigment is indicative of some inferiority. That’s the historical distinction I’m making. And Columbus arrived in 1492, so you’re about a hundred years off in your assesment of my comment.
By now, I’ve read through your comment. You don’t say anything that contradicts my beliefs.
Subjegation is wrong whatever the excuse. But the use of race as an excuse and even the idea that you’re doing the oppressed some good by oppressing them, that’s historically recent.
I’ve seen this deal just recently and don’t care to repeat something from the past; so, what’re your beliefs? How do you explain the disparity in both opportunity and outcomes we see in the US? The disparities in the criminal justice system, public education, even healthcare. What’s your explanation for what’s going on RIGHT NOW?
In fact, race as a social construct in its present form came about principly to keep European indentured servant and African slaves from forming rebellions. The stopped the rebellions by freeing the Europeans and giving them higher social status than black slaves solely on the basis of the color of their skin.
Nothing justifies subjegating an entire people and their land. And last I check, the hostilities between Ireland and England do classify as racism if not religious-bias.
But again, you’re missing the point. In this country, the Irish weren’t enslaved for upwards of 400 years, among other things. In this country, the Irish are white, now. So, we’re singling out this era because it’s the one we live in.
What is the amount of time some person or group has to suffer racism in order that it be racism? Is 400 hundred years the cut off on that? Anything less, and it just isnt actually racism? And how does the status of the Irish in this country now have relevance to this discussion? “Nothing bad is happening to them now,” so I suppose whites that suffered injustice in the past should just “get over it?
Where have I heard that before…………..oh wait, it wasnt about the whites. Lol.
And by the way, the quote I put in about the Irish by Gerald of Wales was not written in or after the 1600’s. It was written approx 1188. S again, if that is racism, it existed prior to the 1600s.
Illusions, you asked No1KState the following, “My question is, why is the use of skin color in the 1600’s so novel? Why is it of such note? And why is the date for claiming skin color was a sign that you were inferior set at the 1600’s?” Only to accent and help support her responses to you, there’s a great book that you could read on why that will walk you through all of it also: http://www.amazon.com/White-Over-Black-Attitudes-1550-1812/dp/0807845507/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259969079&sr=8-1
Thanks, I appreciate it.
“In fact, race as a social construct in its present form came about principly to keep European indentured servant and African slaves from forming rebellions. The stopped the rebellions by freeing the Europeans and giving them higher social status than black slaves solely on the basis of the color of their skin.”
Stated like that, I dont disagree with much you say here. Racism was used that way in that time frame. The concept of race was elaborated and stated with “scientific” certainty, using the “science” of its time, much as Aristotle and Poleman elaborated and stated it according to the science of their time. But it did not originate in the 1600’s, nor was that the first time it was used. The 1600 thing was a disagreement I had with a statement Joe made that carried on with you.
Fundamentally, it is the same game humans have been playing with each other for thousands of years. The actors change, the rationalizations change, but the fundamental game does not change. The game is simple self interest. An “us and “them” mentality. “We” are special, more important, our need or entitlement is greater, and “you” are somehow deserving of our exploitation or mistreatment. The things used to justify the idea that the persons being mistreated or exploited changes with the circumstances. If two groups of the same skin color are playing the game, then you find something else to justify it, religion, nationality, you subdivide the same skin color into “races” and attribute innate inferiority or “barbarism” to those not in YOUR group. If the two groups in question are of obvious difference, such as skin color, it just makes it that much easier to play the game of “them and us.” But the fundamental principles of the game are consistent. It is not new, unique to this time frame, other than the fact that it was more recent, and that it was well documented, and the fact that the technology used to implement it and continue it was more advanced, it is exactly the same game.
“It’s one thing to say, “Oh, he must be from Kush. Look at his dark skin.”
It’s another thing to say that darker pigment is indicative of some inferiority. That’s the historical distinction I’m making.”
Then apparently you either did not note that Poleman, “noted differences between Greeks and the people of the north, believing that Greek superiority was visible in their medium skin tone, as opposed to pale northerners and dark Africans. He claimed that blue eyes were a sign of a cowardly nature, and that they indicated poor eyesight.” or you are willfully ignoring it because it doesn’t suit you. It simply isnt a historical distinction. People have been finding reasons to justify their acting on their own self interest most likely as long as their have been anything that could be called people. I would be willing to bet that when the Cro-Magnon ran across a Neanderthal, there was some comment about the difference in appearance. And that when they competed for the same resources, I am sure either side likely felt justified in killing the other simply because they were, “other.” Which is why I disagree that there is any historical distinction to be made to make this some “special” case or instance.
“But the use of race as an excuse and even the idea that you’re doing the oppressed some good by oppressing them, that’s historically recent.”
I disagree. I think that line of reasoning was used prior to the time frame we are discussing. Aristotle seemed to feel that those “naturally slaves” were no better off free. And as Christianity spread northward into Europe, any number of people were violently subjugated “for their own good.”
How do you explain the disparity in both opportunity and outcomes we see in the US? The disparities in the criminal justice system, public education, even healthcare. What’s your explanation for what’s going on RIGHT NOW?
Thats fodder for a whole new thread, and if you want to begin it, I would love to participate. The short answer is, “the same sad game we have been playing forever.” Only now, the actors and the justifications are morphing again. And my prediction is that it would take an incredible stroke of luck, a miracle, to get people to see that it is the game itself we need to examine, rather than just put new players into the same sad old roles.
I willfully ignored it because I don’t recall Greece expanding farther northward and either killing or enslaving the inhabitants as a favor to the inhabitants on the basis of their blue eyes. I could be wrong. I’m not as familiar with ancient European history as I am with US history.
But it really doesn’t matter, does it? Cause the issue on this particular thread is the game (racism) here today (in the US) and why more American whites aren’t anti-racists. American whites showed more outrage about Michael Vick than they did Sean Bell.
So . . . race as a social construct the way it is now was invented by European settlers. Right? So, what is the error you find with the original post or anti-racism altogether?
>But it really doesn’t matter, does it? Cause the issue on this particular thread is the game (racism) here today (in the US) and why more American whites aren’t anti-racists. American whites showed more outrage about Michael Vick than they did Sean Bell.
Being ‘anti-racist’ means being pro-democracy and in the historical context of the USA both never has been reality in America. In the understanding of ‘white’ America it was always assumed to be necessary to oppress certain groups to have a free [white] America.
Democracy and sharing human rights, living without the emotional need of domination and socially disrespecting and excluding an ‘other’ is behavior that must be learned.
Already the OP here indicates, how difficult this seems to be:
There seems to be a normalcy to ignore PoC and their efforts and successes and struggles against white supremacy and ‘white’ is still so much the norm in American thought and behavior. The entire first paragraph of the OP doesn’t mention the term “white people” but we can assume that the OP wants to talk about a white anti-racist movement that does not exist in America. But because there is no such thing as it seems the OP wants to claim that the US doesn’t have an anti-racist movement at all and among all the possible reasons for this, that there is no white anti-racist movement in the US the most important (because mentioned) reason is: Because whites cannot be in the CENTER, but only as SUPPORTERS, and actually have to be honest…
this is an odd reason not to be pro human rights for all
jwbe – Sorry, I’m confused. Sorry. Just so I understand . . .
You’re saying that Jessie in the original post wants to discuss why there isn’t a white anti-racism movement? Why more whites don’t participate in anti-racism activism?
Jessie suggests whites participate in ways that will have results, and I do know that local school boards have an enormous amount of power and just 1 white member who’s willing to challenge white social norming, it can make a tangible difference for children.
So, you’re saying that just because whites would have to be supporters in a group like, for example, a local chapter of the NAACP doesn’t mean they should neglect the movement altogether. I agree with you and I think Jessie would agree as well.
Am I reading you correctly? Also, are you commenting about someone else and just responding to my comment?
no, it wasn’t a direct response to you.
From the OP:
>While I recognize that a rally is not the same thing as a social movement, but it is noteworthy that the only time there’s an anti-racism rally here, it’s in response to a KKK (or other white racist group) rally, and there’s not a sustained anti-racist movement in the U.S.
and the next two paragraphs are looking for an explanation that blames POC that there is allegedly no sustained anti-racist movement.
The US has an anti-racist movement, but white people are missing and for this white people can only blame themselves. Jena for example.
The rally in Glasgow didn’t come ‘out of the blue’ but is also a reaction to the growing power of the BNP and rising right-wing extremism in Europe in general, the Swiss referendum just as a ‘symbol’ of what is truly going on throughout Europe, banning minarets in Switzerland is or can be just the start, because it reflects what Europeans as a collective believe about Islam. Those who initiated the referendum in Switzerland consider the ban as an important step to prevent Switzerland from becoming a ‘Muslim-country’ with Sharia-Law etc. They consider minarets as symbols of domination of Islam over Christianity and as symbols of ‘taking over’ Switzerland (and Europe).
@No1KState wrote: just because whites would have to be supporters in a group like, for example, a local chapter of the NAACP doesn’t mean they should neglect the movement altogether. I agree with you and I think Jessie would agree as well.
Yes, I’d agree with that.
@jwbe wrote: “the next two paragraphs are looking for an explanation that blames POC that there is allegedly no sustained anti-racist movement.”
No, that’s not what I was saying at all in the original post. I don’t blame POC for the lack of a sustained anti-racist movement here in the U.S. I was questioning why whites aren’t creating and/or more involved in such a movement.
>No, that’s not what I was saying at all in the original post. I don’t blame POC for the lack of a sustained anti-racist movement here in the U.S. I was questioning why whites aren’t creating and/or more involved in such a movement.
If you are able, re-read your OP from another perspective and you will see my point.
I just wanted to leave a quick comment on white antiracism not so long ago in the U.S. for white folks in particular, as I don’t think we see this approach today (we here more whites wondering why it is oppressed groups of color refuse to become educated when they have all the opportunities to do so…then of course all these great antiracist discussions too often take place in the walls of ivory towers…the voices that need to be heard most are invisible and silenced, as well as pretty much damned anyway)–Myles Horton is a person we all should be familiar with. He did much to empower oppressed groups, stimulate and promote contagious collective action, and so on, even though he was never assigned a role in the Civil Rights Movements. He worked with Rosa Parks for example. But I think serious antiracism among whites would reflect the approach of Myles Horton (including the Highlander school, which expanded throughout the nation and slowly died out) and mindset that involves direct empowerment, support, organizing, and active involvement with the oppressed sectors. This is fundamentally different from the approach of the segregated education of today. In addition, with his approach there are no concerns regarding conflict of interests in terms of profiting off of the oppressed, be it for symbolic or monetary value…. This approach means giving more than you take or earn or profit or what have you, and stepping aside to let the voices of the oppressed being heard and be central…. Just my own thoughts on white antiracism in the U.S. and part of why we have no movements or action today. Segregation between the privileged/power sources and knowledge and the oppressed groups, as well as the discussions on racism and antiracism remaining largely segregated. Even online–those who most need to be heard often don’t have access to the Internet (here I am referring to both race/ethnicity and class), let alone even know how to use many sources online, including engaging in blogs. Then there’s the elitist aspect where they are blocked from engaging in dialogue due to vocabulary, etc., and then even commentors will insult those who don’t have good grammar, use different language to express themselves, and so on. There’s a serious and quite insensitive gap in many respects. There are some scholars/elites who do go out and get their “hands dirty”…but by and large, segregation in almost every respect reigns in this society.
Anyway, here’s a little bit on Myles Horton for anybody interested (Hallmark of an honest white antiracist in my humble opinion):