The Anything But Racism Argument.

[laughing dog]

My written words in no way suggested "only". No qualification is required to denote something less than "only" since that is the implied meaning of the statement in the absence of a qualification that one is referring to the extreme and rare case of "only". When someone says "I like chocolate ice cream", do you infer that this is the only thing in the universe that the person likes and do infer that they are claiming that they are the only person in the universe that likes it? Of course not, no person capable of basic language comprehension would do that. "Only" could added to almost any utterance and to every verb and every noun in every utterance. Yet, no one does this and so people very rarely add a qualifier to clarify that "only" was not meant.
Thus, either you are one of the only people in existence that interprets the absence of "only" as meaning "only" and thus you constantly misrepresent what everyone speaking to you means, or your just pretending that its reasonable to interpret it this way because it serves your strawman-building rhetorical style.

An ironic diatribe caused from pointing out that you could have been clearer and her response was not a "straw man".

Because you claimed her OP accurately characterized arguments that are "pervasive" and made by people on these boards.

For some reason, you left out the relevant part of the sentence (in bold italics) "Why I would have to quote "tons of examples" (a standard I have no idea how to measure, since words have no weight) that AA attributes to them" which might explain your misrepresentation of the meaning. I see no reason to limit examples of "Anything but Racism" to such a narrow field. I find it interesting you felt the need to personalize the issue.

And you defended the reasonableness of her OP as an attempt to reference arguments being made in the other current threads.

No, I did not. You should be able to point something I actually wrote to support your claim.

Your making claims, yet you cannot grasp why you would be asked to support them with evidence. Gee, how surprising.

That is also a misreading of my post (see above).

Wow, you almost accidentally made a correct assertion.

Given your entire response, I am surprised you recognized a correct assertion.

It is "Independent of any individual", in the sense that no individual has made the argument that she and you are falsely claiming people make frequently, yet cannot show a single example of or even realize why you should need to.

Taking partial statements out of context is conducive to misreading and misrepresentation. In the context of the post it meant that no one was accusing anyone in particular of the "Anything but Racism" argument. It does not mean that no individual has made the argument.

It is obvious to all honest and reasonable observers that the OP is attempting to criticize arguments by people on this board, and specifically arguments in the Brown shooting thread. She admitted as much, and just hours before in that other thread had misrepresented my argument in just this way. The fact that she cannot be bothered to even build her own strawman fallacies and relies on some other ideologue who is equally disinterested in reasoned argument doesn't change that.

Another misrepresentation. Saying something is an outgrowth of another thread does not necessarily mean that it is a criticism of anyone in particular. It may very well mean that the other thread brought this topic to mind and rather than derail the original thread, another one was started.

IOW, you are admitting that whenever you give your opinion on a question of fact, it is clear that you have zero support for that position.

Yet another misrepresentation. It is clear my response was specific to your claim In order to provide support for the underlined part, I would have to be able to accurately mind read. No one can.

Most of us here sort of prefer to have rational support for our opinions, because that is what these boards are kinda about, but I guess its good that at least aware of how your approach differs.

Yes, my approach does differ from those who believe they can read minds and who consistently misrepresent the content of posts of others.

It isn't addressed to me. If she wanted to address me, she wouldn't have just responded to my requests in the other thread that she show evidence for her claim that I dismiss the very existence of racism and refuse to acknowledge that it ever has an impact on the world. It not addressed to me, but given that she had just made the same strawman mischaracterization of my argument in that thread, it is a clear attempt to criticize my and other efforts to merely ask for evidence to support claims of racism in specific situations by criticizing strawman versions of those arguments as made by a fictional person who cannot possibly defend themselves (because a fictional person is the only kind of person that can't dismantle such fallacious and absurd misrepresentations).

Were you aware that is a simultaneous denial and affirmation?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And it goes like the this

The logical reasoning goes like this:
1.Racism is pretty much dead. Only the Klan, skinheads and people who use the n-word are still racist.
2.Therefore a case of racial inequality must have some other cause. Sure, there is still some racism, but it is so rare that it must be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt. Like murder or an appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
3.Since it is not white people who are screwed up, it must be blacks.

But the emotional reasoning goes like this:
1.Holy crap!
2.White people are not racist! They are good people! No one I know is racist – well, except maybe my grandmother. This cannot be right. There must be some mistake.
3.There must be some Perfectly Logical Reason that has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Racism. What is it? Think, think, think.
4.I know, I can buy time by making them “prove” it was racism. Demand peer-reviewed articles, statistics, all of it. Buy more time by finding holes in those.
5.If all else fails, derail: “Blacks are the racist ones,”, etc.

This is not to say that the “It Must Racism” argument is any better. It is just as extreme.

thanks to
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/the-anything-but-racism-argument/
For the lists.

WARNING: The above list uses the literary device known as hyperbole and is not to be taken literally. Thank you

Now there is nothing wrong with questioning the reason behind a phenomenon. That is a good thing. And the EVERYTHING IS RACISM trope is a real thing.

HOWEVER...

The “It Could Be Racism” argument needs to be seriously and honestly considered. To dismiss it out of hand or not even consider it, ... , is not level-headed.​

So how can you tell when a criticism of racism as a cause of problem is legitimate?
you can start with these three questions

1. Does the critique take into consideration the actual existence of racism?
2. Does the critique take the experiences and intellectual capacity of the minorities involved seriously?
3. Does the critique entertain the possibility that the members of the majority involved might be the problem?

If the criticism fails to answer these questions in the affirmative, you might want to take said criticisms with whatever size grain of salt needed to get it down.

And understand too that other causes could and normally do bring about social phenomena that end in racially unjust outcomes, but the existence of those other causes does not in and of itself negate the presence or possibility of any racism (or sexism, classism, ageism, etc.) being involved whatsoever.

You may be overthinking it just a TEENY bit.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And it goes like the this



thanks to
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/the-anything-but-racism-argument/
For the lists.

WARNING: The above list uses the literary device known as hyperbole and is not to be taken literally. Thank you

Now there is nothing wrong with questioning the reason behind a phenomenon. That is a good thing. And the EVERYTHING IS RACISM trope is a real thing.

HOWEVER...

The “It Could Be Racism” argument needs to be seriously and honestly considered. To dismiss it out of hand or not even consider it, ... , is not level-headed.​

So how can you tell when a criticism of racism as a cause of problem is legitimate?
you can start with these three questions

1. Does the critique take into consideration the actual existence of racism?
2. Does the critique take the experiences and intellectual capacity of the minorities involved seriously?
3. Does the critique entertain the possibility that the members of the majority involved might be the problem?

If the criticism fails to answer these questions in the affirmative, you might want to take said criticisms with whatever size grain of salt needed to get it down.

And understand too that other causes could and normally do bring about social phenomena that end in racially unjust outcomes, but the existence of those other causes does not in and of itself negate the presence or possibility of any racism (or sexism, classism, ageism, etc.) being involved whatsoever.

View attachment 889

You may be overthinking it just a TEENY bit.

perhaps

And then perhaps not

 

[RavenSky]

Interesting article:

...people on Twitter wondered, "If they gunned me down, which picture would they use?" Using the hashtag #IfTheyGunnedMeDown, users posted side-by-side photos, demonstrating the power that news outlets wield in portraying victims based on images they select.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/media-black-victims_n_5673291.html

 

[Crazy Eddie]

perhaps

And then perhaps not

Most likely you are. I think you're simply under-estimating the sensitivity of white guilt and are not realizing that the "anything but racism" action is rally borne of those creeping insecurities. You can't really be white in modern America without being on some level aware of the attrocities comitted by white people on non-white people for blatantly racist reasons in the not-so-distant past. John Oliver put it best when he said being British is a bit like being an alcoholic: There's a bunch of stupid stuff you totally don't remember doing, but everyone knows you did it (there's video and photos and even a police report) and they just won't let it go.

There's no way to rationalize it, it's all feelings. White people just want to move on, put it behind them, so they come up with silly excuses to avoid talking about how the fallout from yesteryear's nationwide racist institutions are still the cause of existing problems in the world. They can't change what happened, they're tired of apologizing for it, so they don't want to talk about it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

perhaps

And then perhaps not

Most likely you are. I think you're simply under-estimating the sensitivity of white guilt and are not realizing that the "anything but racism" action is rally borne of those creeping insecurities. You can't really be white in modern America without being on some level aware of the attrocities comitted by white people on non-white people for blatantly racist reasons in the not-so-distant past. John Oliver put it best when he said being British is a bit like being an alcoholic: There's a bunch of stupid stuff you totally don't remember doing, but everyone knows you did it (there's video and photos and even a police report) and they just won't let it go.

There's no way to rationalize it, it's all feelings. White people just want to move on, put it behind them, so they come up with silly excuses to avoid talking about how the fallout from yesteryear's nationwide racist institutions are still the cause of existing problems in the world. They can't change what happened, they're tired of apologizing for it, so they don't want to talk about it.

That gives an explanation of why they make the argument not that the argument is wrong or incomplete.

Plus I think there is more to it.

There is more than one racial narrative in US history. along with Tara and Miz Scarlett and Prissy, there are also stories of John Fairfield, Prudence Crandell, and Levi Coffin. throughout our history there have been white men and women of good conscience who took the side brotherhood over racism. But we don't teach our children or ourselves about them.

Why?

There are outreach programs, public and private, all over this nation starving for volunteers.

Why?

People complain about having black history month. Just teach history they say. Yet these people seldom if ever show up at a school board meeting demanding a more inclusive text be used to teach history.

Why?

People see the disparirities, they judge the people, not help them. Why?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Most likely you are. I think you're simply under-estimating the sensitivity of white guilt and are not realizing that the "anything but racism" action is rally borne of those creeping insecurities. You can't really be white in modern America without being on some level aware of the attrocities comitted by white people on non-white people for blatantly racist reasons in the not-so-distant past. John Oliver put it best when he said being British is a bit like being an alcoholic: There's a bunch of stupid stuff you totally don't remember doing, but everyone knows you did it (there's video and photos and even a police report) and they just won't let it go.

There's no way to rationalize it, it's all feelings. White people just want to move on, put it behind them, so they come up with silly excuses to avoid talking about how the fallout from yesteryear's nationwide racist institutions are still the cause of existing problems in the world. They can't change what happened, they're tired of apologizing for it, so they don't want to talk about it.

That gives an explanation of why they make the argument not that the argument is wrong or incomplete.

Right. But I'm saying the argument is IRRELEVANT because it's really just an attempt to rationalize a fundamentally irrational process. It's not the argument you have to deconstruct, it's the emotions behind it.

You'll notice that white people who have grown up with, lived and worked extensively with black people don't fall into that trap. It might be a different experience or it might be a generational gap, but for a lot of people there's the sense that the racial background of America isn't something one group did to a bunch of other people, but is rather a painful chapter in a shared past that really WAS somebody else's fault anyway (so they get together and shake their multi-racial fists at the government and their immediate predecessors who created this mess in the first place). It's only when the influence of white privilege begins to manifest -- dividing friendships and communities along racial lines (see "gentrification") -- that the collective fist-shaking becomes "don't blame me, I didn't do this."

 

[AthenaAwakened]

That gives an explanation of why they make the argument not that the argument is wrong or incomplete.

Right. But I'm saying the argument is IRRELEVANT because it's really just an attempt to rationalize a fundamentally irrational process. It's not the argument you have to deconstruct, it's the emotions behind it.

yes, and?

No where in the argument does it say "Stop here. This is the final answer." the argument is a starting point for further discussion, which with your posting here, has proven itself to be just that.

You'll notice that white people who have grown up with, lived and worked extensively with black people don't fall into that trap. It might be a different experience or it might be a generational gap, but for a lot of people there's the sense that the racial background of America isn't something one group did to a bunch of other people, but is rather a painful chapter in a shared past that really WAS somebody else's fault anyway (so they get together and shake their multi-racial fists at the government and their immediate predecessors who created this mess in the first place). It's only when the influence of white privilege begins to manifest -- dividing friendships and communities along racial lines (see "gentrification") -- that the collective fist-shaking becomes "don't blame me, I didn't do this."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not all white people??

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Not all white people??

I see what you did there

But allow me to take that further

Of course, not all white people. Not even most white people. Only a minority of white people subscribe religiously to the anything but racism argument. Everyone, at one time or another, will brush aside a charge of racism, and that person may very well be right to do so. Most of the time, people will say "Yeah, you're probably right. If what you are saying is true, So-and-So is probably a racist, but he or his racism isn't your biggest problem. You didn't get that promotion because you missed 7 deadlines in 11 months. Did your racist boss make your work life hell? Probably, but you didn't tell anyone until you missed this promotion. Oh you complained to anyone who would listen, but you didn't report any harassment through proper channels during your entire time here at XYZ corporation. And because there is no paper trail, because you let your work suffer instead of getting help, and because in all your complaining to co-worker, you have on several documented occasions broken the confidentiality agreement YOU signed; you don't really have a racial harassment case."

That was an actual conversation I had with a complainent as a company where I was hired to mediate a claim of racial discrimination. Since I started doing diversity consulting and mediation, I have had quite a few conversations like that. The employee usually does have a legitimate complaint sometimes involving everything from various microaggressions, to blatant and repeated racist threats. But they usually also have none too clean work histories and incidents of their own harassing behavior towards others.

None of this means there wasn't racism, just that there was a lot of other stuff too. Other stuff that not only can legitimately deny you a promotion, but can get you fired.

 

[Emily Lake]

Most likely you are. I think you're simply under-estimating the sensitivity of white guilt and are not realizing that the "anything but racism" action is rally borne of those creeping insecurities. You can't really be white in modern America without being on some level aware of the attrocities comitted by white people on non-white people for blatantly racist reasons in the not-so-distant past. John Oliver put it best when he said being British is a bit like being an alcoholic: There's a bunch of stupid stuff you totally don't remember doing, but everyone knows you did it (there's video and photos and even a police report) and they just won't let it go.

There's no way to rationalize it, it's all feelings. White people just want to move on, put it behind them, so they come up with silly excuses to avoid talking about how the fallout from yesteryear's nationwide racist institutions are still the cause of existing problems in the world. They can't change what happened, they're tired of apologizing for it, so they don't want to talk about it.

I think it's perhaps a bit more complicated than that. See, I think i'ts more like being the grandchild of an alcoholic. Yes, you're aware of the horrible things that your drunkard grandpa did at those parties, and the times he peed on the neighbor's roses, and all the rest. You've been shown the videos of your grandpa's poor behavior and that time he ran over Mrs. Jenkin's dog. You understand that the whole town hates your grandpa, and you don't blame them - he was a jerk. But you are not your grandpa, and after the first couple of times saying "Yeah, I'm sorry my grandpa was such a jerk", you get a bit tired of people expecting you to keep on apologizing for what someone else did. And you start to think maybe it's just a bit unseemly that the whole town seems to think you ought to be out making amends for what someone else did, and taking responsibility for his actions, and basically beating yourself up for it as if you were the one who called Mr. Collin's baby boy an ugly lump of lard!

The truth is probably somewhere in between, and includes seventeen other possible interpretations as well...

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Most likely you are. I think you're simply under-estimating the sensitivity of white guilt and are not realizing that the "anything but racism" action is rally borne of those creeping insecurities. You can't really be white in modern America without being on some level aware of the attrocities comitted by white people on non-white people for blatantly racist reasons in the not-so-distant past. John Oliver put it best when he said being British is a bit like being an alcoholic: There's a bunch of stupid stuff you totally don't remember doing, but everyone knows you did it (there's video and photos and even a police report) and they just won't let it go.

There's no way to rationalize it, it's all feelings. White people just want to move on, put it behind them, so they come up with silly excuses to avoid talking about how the fallout from yesteryear's nationwide racist institutions are still the cause of existing problems in the world. They can't change what happened, they're tired of apologizing for it, so they don't want to talk about it.

I think it's perhaps a bit more complicated than that. See, I think i'ts more like being the grandchild of an alcoholic. Yes, you're aware of the horrible things that your drunkard grandpa did at those parties, and the times he peed on the neighbor's roses, and all the rest. You've been shown the videos of your grandpa's poor behavior and that time he ran over Mrs. Jenkin's dog. You understand that the whole town hates your grandpa, and you don't blame them - he was a jerk. But you are not your grandpa, and after the first couple of times saying "Yeah, I'm sorry my grandpa was such a jerk", you get a bit tired of people expecting you to keep on apologizing for what someone else did. And you start to think maybe it's just a bit unseemly that the whole town seems to think you ought to be out making amends for what someone else did, and taking responsibility for his actions, and basically beating yourself up for it as if you were the one who called Mr. Collin's baby boy an ugly lump of lard!

The truth is probably somewhere in between, and includes seventeen other possible interpretations as well...

what if you grandpa wasn't a drunk.

What if your grandpa was a loan shark?

You grew up in a nice home, went to private school, have a job at the finance company your grandpa founded. You supplement your income with the trust fund your grandpa set up for you.

And then you find out that the money that has made you life so pleasant did not come from the finance company (that was a front and a money laundering scheme) but loan sharking, blackmail, protection rackets, fraud, and even murder.


Would you feel the same way?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it's perhaps a bit more complicated than that. See, I think i'ts more like being the grandchild of an alcoholic. Yes, you're aware of the horrible things that your drunkard grandpa did at those parties, and the times he peed on the neighbor's roses, and all the rest. You've been shown the videos of your grandpa's poor behavior and that time he ran over Mrs. Jenkin's dog. You understand that the whole town hates your grandpa, and you don't blame them - he was a jerk. But you are not your grandpa, and after the first couple of times saying "Yeah, I'm sorry my grandpa was such a jerk", you get a bit tired of people expecting you to keep on apologizing for what someone else did.

This is the problem... your drunk grandpa didn't shot an unarmed person. A cop just did.

What you are talking about is part of the problem however.

1. Some people want to think that "sorry" is enough, when they aren't actually sorry or feel that it is their business to care.
2. There are still racists out there.
3. Some white people are oblivious to what blacks still have to deal with. One black guy gets shot, blacks protest and then there are dogs out with the police!

And you start to think maybe it's just a bit unseemly that the whole town seems to think you ought to be out making amends for what someone else did, and taking responsibility for his actions, and basically beating yourself up for it as if you were the one who called Mr. Collin's baby boy an ugly lump of lard!

And if passive racism wasn't a problem that needed to be dealt with today, then there would be a point there. Something like 90% of blacks pulled over in the area of the shooting weren't charged with anything. So either the cops are very lenient or ...

 

[doubtingt]

Something like 90% of blacks pulled over in the area of the shooting weren't charged with anything. So either the cops are very lenient or ...

What is this stat referring to? Is it referring to the stop/search/arrest stats in the other thread or to stops more directly related to and since the shooting?

If the former, then its totally false because about 90% of blacks pulled over in Ferguson are given at least a citation, and the same goes for whites.

It is also rather odd "logic" to point to a low % of blacks being "charged" with anything as evidence of racism. So then, if the cops found a reason to arrest every black person they pulled over, then you would take this as evidence that the cops are NOT racist, right? Confirmation bias has a funny way of making every piece of data look like its evidence for a hypothesis, logic be damned.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Right. But I'm saying the argument is IRRELEVANT because it's really just an attempt to rationalize a fundamentally irrational process. It's not the argument you have to deconstruct, it's the emotions behind it.

yes, and?

No where in the argument does it say "Stop here. This is the final answer." the argument is a starting point for further discussion...

Which we are moving past, because the ARGUMENT isn't the problem. It's a symptom of something else entirely.

That was an actual conversation I had with a complainent as a company where I was hired to mediate a claim of racial discrimination. Since I started doing diversity consulting and mediation, I have had quite a few conversations like that. The employee usually does have a legitimate complaint sometimes involving everything from various microaggressions, to blatant and repeated racist threats. But they usually also have none too clean work histories and incidents of their own harassing behavior towards others.

The thing is, the underlying behavior manifests in a lot of other surprising ways that don't actually correlate with racism. Remember earlier I mentioned "white privilege" is part of the dynamic; when you consider that racial identity has stopped being a coherent political organizer for most people (even people who grew up in racist environments) then alot of times that will actually manifest as classism, or worse, even cliquish discrimination. A boss who appears to be racist may, on closer examination, simply be a dick to anyone who doesn't kiss his ass enough times, or withhold promotions to anyone his daughter doesn't like.

I've worked with people who formed little clubs of co-workers based entirely on their antipathy for their customers; their friendship and working chemistry was held together almost entirely by their constant griping about how much the customers irritated them, which somehow put them into bitter and ultimately violent confrontation with another group of employees who actually had a positive attitude on site.

If not for the fact that both groups were racially diverse, you would SWEAR that the bitter (ousted) group was a bunch of pissed-off white supremacists (it wasn't: three white guys, two black guys and an Indian). In the end they were just a bunch of over-privileged suburban kids who had gotten most of their advantages in their careers by exploiting the connections of their parents and/or mentors. They came not only to resent anyone else' success, but reacted angrily (and as I mentioned, at one point violently) to the suggestion that they were treating others unfairly.

The Republican rhetoric about "entitlements" being a drain on America's financial resources? I'm 100% sure they are projecting. Their reaction to the racism accusation is just a shade of the same phenomenon: people who start with an advantage become insecure and defensive when the disadvantaged fail to look up to them as superiors.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Something like 90% of blacks pulled over in the area of the shooting weren't charged with anything. So either the cops are very lenient or ...

What is this stat referring to? Is it referring to the stop/search/arrest stats in the other thread or to stops more directly related to and since the shooting?

In general, the stat, as offered on NPR was referring to annual statistics. I'll try and find backup to the claim. ETA: The info is posted in a following post.

If the former, then its totally false because about 90% of blacks pulled over in Ferguson are given at least a citation, and the same goes for whites.

ETA: Nevermind.

It is also rather odd "logic" to point to a low % of blacks being "charged" with anything as evidence of racism. So then, if the cops found a reason to arrest every black person they pulled over, then you would take this as evidence that the cops are NOT racist, right? Confirmation bias has a funny way of making every piece of data look like its evidence for a hypothesis, logic be damned.

Cops don't typically just pull people over. It is hard to see 9 in 10 of pullovers being just let go as being either extremely lenient police or a fishing expedition.

 

[Emily Lake]

what if you grandpa wasn't a drunk.

What if your grandpa was a loan shark?

You grew up in a nice home, went to private school, have a job at the finance company your grandpa founded. You supplement your income with the trust fund your grandpa set up for you.

And then you find out that the money that has made you life so pleasant did not come from the finance company (that was a front and a money laundering scheme) but loan sharking, blackmail, protection rackets, fraud, and even murder.


Would you feel the same way?

Maybe I'd feel a bit worse... but there's still a limit. I didn't commit the crimes, and I didn't intentionally profit from them. Does it make anything better if I give away all of that money and beggar myself in retribution for someone else's crimes? Does my suffering accomplish anything at all? By what rationale should I be held accountable and be punished by proxy for someone else's actions?

Structural racism (and sexism) are both real; I have absolutely no argument with that. They're a legacy of policies that have come before. And we should most definitely and unarguably be working to fix the structure and eliminate that residual racism (and sexism). But I fail to see how holding current people accountable for the actions of their ancestors, and expecting them to feel guilt and remorse over what someone else did, accomplishes or furthers that goal.

Acknowledging privilege, and understanding the impact that it has on one's life, as well as the challenges faced by those who lack those same privileges is important. Expecting people to feel inherently guilty for having them; condemning people because they are the recipients of privilege? To me, that is not productive.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is the problem... your drunk grandpa didn't shot an unarmed person. A cop just did.

What you are talking about is part of the problem however.

1. Some people want to think that "sorry" is enough, when they aren't actually sorry or feel that it is their business to care.
2. There are still racists out there.
3. Some white people are oblivious to what blacks still have to deal with. One black guy gets shot, blacks protest and then there are dogs out with the police!

And if passive racism wasn't a problem that needed to be dealt with today, then there would be a point there. Something like 90% of blacks pulled over in the area of the shooting weren't charged with anything. So either the cops are very lenient or ...

I don't understand how any of your post follows from (or relates to) what I expressed.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

what if you grandpa wasn't a drunk.

What if your grandpa was a loan shark?

You grew up in a nice home, went to private school, have a job at the finance company your grandpa founded. You supplement your income with the trust fund your grandpa set up for you.

And then you find out that the money that has made you life so pleasant did not come from the finance company (that was a front and a money laundering scheme) but loan sharking, blackmail, protection rackets, fraud, and even murder.


Would you feel the same way?

Maybe I'd feel a bit worse... but there's still a limit. I didn't commit the crimes, and I didn't intentionally profit from them. Does it make anything better if I give away all of that money and beggar myself in retribution for someone else's crimes? Does my suffering accomplish anything at all? By what rationale should I be held accountable and be punished by proxy for someone else's actions?

Structural racism (and sexism) are both real; I have absolutely no argument with that. They're a legacy of policies that have come before. And we should most definitely and unarguably be working to fix the structure and eliminate that residual racism (and sexism). But I fail to see how holding current people accountable for the actions of their ancestors, and expecting them to feel guilt and remorse over what someone else did, accomplishes or furthers that goal.

Acknowledging privilege, and understanding the impact that it has on one's life, as well as the challenges faced by those who lack those same privileges is important. Expecting people to feel inherently guilty for having them; condemning people because they are the recipients of privilege? To me, that is not productive.

I am not asking you to feel guilty.

Your feeling guilty doesn't solve anything.

But we all need to acknowledge reality. Only by identifying a problem and seeing it clearly do we have any chance of solving it.


Shame comes from other people. Guilt comes from within.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Acknowledging privilege, and understanding the impact that it has on one's life, as well as the challenges faced by those who lack those same privileges is important. Expecting people to feel inherently guilty for having them; condemning people because they are the recipients of privilege? To me, that is not productive.

Here's the thing though: nobody actually does that. Most of the recognitions of the EXISTENCE of racism are being made by people who are looking to advocate some kind of constructive reform and would prefer to have a dialog on how to move forward.

The problem is, a conversation starts with:
"So, you started with an inherent advantage over everyone else that your family obtained by exploiting my family..."
Is usually interrupted by the other side saying:
"I fail to see how holding me accountable for the actions of my family, and expecting me to feel guilt and remorse over what someone else did, accomplishes or furthers that goal."

The introduction of defensiveness is where the entire dialog shuts down. Because you are insecure about what you have and whether or not you really deserve it, you are much less comfortable discussing a subject of how to help people who didn't have that same advantage; there's always that fear, never far from the surface, that YOU are somehow going to end up being held accountable for the disparity.