Rise of White Supremacists stems from Trump or from Identity Politics?

[Crazy Eddie]

Yeah, it kind of does. It may be a perfectly sound policy, but if it negatively affects one kind of person, it's usually an unfair one.

Is it? I can think of many examples where that isn't true at all. There are good reasons to have bans on knives on particular places. That effects more Sikhs than anybody else...

... and thus the ban would be unfair to Sikhs. Which is why many such laws have exceptions built into them, to make them fair.

Street crime laws effect more black people than white people.

Only to the extent that street crime laws put harsher penalties on crimes committed by black people than by white people. Drug enforcement policy has this feature in many cases: "street drugs" have high mandatory minimums for simple possession where other party drugs can be punished with probation and/or rehab. This was also why vagrancy laws were eventually ruled unconstitutional: they became an excuse for courts to just randomly arrest and harass black people on the grounds that they didn't have regular employment (which, in the south, pretty much went without saying at the time). It's also the reason Joe Arpaio was convicted of contempt of court.

If you passed a law that required a minimum 5 year sentence for shoplifting, this is a law that would negatively affect poor and homeless people way more strongly than it affects anyone else, and taken as a whole would be massively unfair in a country where a man convicted of millions of dollars in fraud might get off with community service.

When we focus on the soundness of the actual policy, we can get to the actual issues, and not mired in this smokescreen of identity politics that you and the white supremacists you keep talking about are pushing.

White supremacists aren't pushing identity politics. White supremacists are pushing white supremacy. These two things are NOT the same, white supremacists merely pretend they are when talking to people outside of their movement in an attempt to legitimize themselves. It's similar to the way jihadists compare their suicide bombers and child murderers to U.S. Marines and fighter pilots. A terrorist is NOT the same thing as a soldier, but pretending that they are makes the terrorists look like maybe their actions might be in some way justifiable.

And speaking against giving people special rights or obligations because of their race" is actually the polar opposite of white supremacy....

To repeat again: the white supremacist argument (though it's really more of a marketing slogan) is that forcing white people to share America with colored people is a "special obligation" that unfairly burdens white people, and all they REALLY want is to remove that burden and make things fair again so that all the different minority groups should have to compete on a level playing field.

Aside from the fact that this is a bullshit argument (the field has never EVER been level in the past and it certainly isn't today) it's also massively disingenuous. Stripping protections for minorities is necessary to give the majority maneuvering room to enact legal protections for THEMSELVES at the expense of minorities, always with the go-to line available of "If you don't like the law, you should vote against it. If you don't like democracy, get out of our country."

Historical example: "States rights" is the common argument against the Civil Rights Act and against the abolition of slavery. Which sounds all well and good until you realize that they are talking about the rights of the states to oppress and enslave people. In this case -- that is, in the white supremacist talking point you are uncritically repeating -- the "special rights" black people are asking for is the right not to be oppressed by white people, and the "special obligation" is the requirement that white people not maintain their already-existing god-given superiority.

An analogy: When two wolves and a lamb are voting on what to have for lunch, the wolves do not get to complain that the lamb is asking for "special rights because of his species" just because he wants the right to not be eaten by wolves, nor do the wolves get to complain about "special obligations" just because they are not allowed to eat the lamb.

Yes, even if those assignments are "separate but equal". If there are two identical water fountains, but one is designated for black people and the other for white people, yes that really is a problem in and of itself.

Yes, it's a PROBLEM, which is why segregation was struck down. That doesn't make it UNFAIR, which is actually unrelated to the problem.

Racial segregation is and has been problematic for numerous reasons. "Fairness" is far from the most important of them.

The problem with segregation wasn't the separation of the races.

Now you are quoting white nationalists. Do you realize that this is a core point of theirs, and one that many of them do genuinely believe?

No. White nationalists say that "the separation of races wasn't a problem." Not the same thing.

This is because, as the very next sentence you omitted says, the problem with segregation was the fact that separating the races amplifies economic, educational, social and political distance between them and inevitably benefits whichever group was already the stronger. Implemented in this way, it becomes a tool of oppression and exploitation.

Segregation was ended so that barriers to the exchange of economic, cultural and economic capital could be removed and society progress on more equitable terms for everyone involved. White nationalists believe that this sort of pooling of resources and opportunities is unfair to white people since it forces them to compete with non-white people for space, jobs, homes and opportunities. That that competition is beneficent to minorities is THE ENTIRE POINT of desegregation. But the that it is also, in the long run, beneficent to white people too is a much harder sell, and the unwillingness of white people to believe this is the main reason why white nationalism is a thing.

That, by the way, is the reason why segregation remains problematic even when it IS fair, which at the present time is the centerpiece of the debate over de facto segregation in schools and neighborhoods. Republicans and their white nationalist allies now argue that segregation is happening for economic and institutional reasons and NOT, as it were, as a deliberate effort to separate the races; the opposition counters that it makes no difference WHY segregation occurs, because the RESULT of segregation is the concentration of poverty of the lack of access by the isolated population to educational, economic and political opportunity.

Well, there you go then, maybe you should stop suggesting segregation is a good idea.

At this point I'm suggesting that reading comprehension is a good idea since I already made it pretty explicit that it is not.

The answer to the above isn't to help black people out poverty. It is to help all people out of poverty, which just happens to help black people out of poverty, but not in a racist way.

That sounds good on paper. But who, exactly, is most concerned with ending the concentration of poverty? What movement is most energized on that subject and is most focused on making that happen? At the moment, that appears to be the number one concern of the Congressional Black Caucus and, by extension, the black and latino communities, which find themselves to be, by and large, herded into the "inner cities" where poverty is concentrated highest, with all the social problems that involves. But because poor people AS A GROUP have very few resources politically or economically, they reach out to other interested parties who are better equipped and appeal to them on terms that oblige them to help. This, then, is where the cultural/social aspect comes into it: "Hey, I know you're not poor like us, but you grew up in the same kind of neighborhood as us, your ancestors were slaves like ours were, we have the same culture and traditions and you can relate to our struggle on some level... maybe you could help us by contributing to the cause of eliminating the segregation of neighborhoods and the concentration of poverty in the inner cities that is systematically strangling an entire generation of people who happen to be mostly black and latino?"

There, again, is the issue of GETTING PEOPLE TO CARE. Human beings basically suck, as a rule, and we're unlikely to care about things that don't affect us. But if you tie a cause to some aspect of a person's identity, he's more likely to care about that issue and actually do something about it. This is why identity politics is a thing: because there are some issues that nobody wants to advocate for because all of the people who have a stake in that issue don't actually have the power to DO anything about it, so they find ways to draw in people who, by all other measures, don't have a reason to care.

Are you not arguing that a law that inconveniences one race for the sake of another is a racist law? What, then, is your objection to the claim that integration inconveniences "white" people for the sake of blacks?

A law that inconveniences one race for the sake of another is a racist law, yes, because it is treating people by their race rather than as individuals. Where did I write that integration inconveniences whites for the sake of blacks? Lowering standards does. Giving unfair advantages to people just because of their skin colour does. Is that the only way you see integration happening?

It's the only way white nationalists see integration happening, given the assumption that blacks and latinos are inherently inferior and therefore COULD NOT be integrated without the lowering of standards. And they back this up with economic data: that blacks and latinos are more likely to be poor and, statistically speaking, are more often involved in crimes than white people. And when challenged, they will say it isn't about "race" at all, it's about "culture" because "thug culture" and "machismo culture" are not wholly compatible with academic success and that culture is as good an indicator as any to decide a students' fitness for a particular institution.

Now pay attention here, because you missed this before: 90% of the time, these arguments are bullshit. Yes, there is actual data to back them up, statistics carefully cherry-picked to support that conclusion. The people who did the cherrypicking in the first place did so with the intention of finding a substantive argument they could sell TO THE PUBLIC without having to support a racist/white nationalist agenda held in private. Which is where the other 10% of those arguments come in: they're quoted by people (like you, for example) who are unaware that the initial argument was bullshit and was constructed as a logical fig leaf for an intentionally racist policy.

"Most attempts at integration are merely the lowering of standards to let poor students into successful schools" is a white supremacist talking point. That does not mean it is a talking point of the white supremacist movement; it is a talking point USED BY white supremacists to push their agenda on people (like you) who simply don't know any better.

An analogy: you go to a STEM school where everyone has a strong social bias against religion being taught in classrooms. You decide you want to teach a creationism lesson in your science class... so you come up with all kinds of non-religious reasons why creationism is a good thing to teach in a science and mathematics academy, and then you dare anyone to argue with the substance of your arguments. And a few well-intentioned people might say "Well, he has a good argument. By that logic, creationism might be taught in the classroom as a comparative sociology lesson..." All of which is smoke and mirrors for the fact that creationism in ANY form is a manifestation of literalist religious thought. "We can't teach religion in schools!" is hard to argue against, but you can argue in circles around it if you come up with a smelly enough red herring.

Same thing in this case: "We don't want niggers in our schools" isn't going to hold water in mixed company. But "All forms of integration depend on some form of affirmative action," not so much. 90% of the time, the basic sentiment behind them is exactly the same; the other 10% of the time, it's the second argument being quoted by a useful idiot who isn't aware that the sentiment behind them is exactly the same.

... but refuse to take seriously the inherent challenges of LIVING in a racially diverse community.

I live in one of the most racially diverse communities on the planet.

Racial diversity comes with a certain amount of confusion and tension that results from people not being able to understand each other in really basic ways. It takes ALOT of work to smooth things over in communities like that. That you seem unaware of this very basic fact leads me to believe that this claim is bullshit.

Perhaps you mean that you live in a racially diverse city? That is not the same thing as a racially diverse community. You might want to double check on that.

No, we can't wish racism away with a magic wand. But it can be eroded and replaced over time by shared values as individuals.

Exactly. And how do you propose we share values as individuals if we don't take the time to figure out what other people's cultural values actually ARE? The whole point of SHARING values is the assumption that our values are different somehow and taking the time to exchange those values and talk about them to find out HOW different. You can get used to just about anything given enough time, and the only way to normalize "surrounded by people with different values than me" is to DEAL with people who have different values than you on a regular basis for a long period of time. You learn to cope, then you learn to accept, then you learn to appreciate those differences and respect them.

Your insistence on pushing racial pride doesn't help.

There's no "push" needed. People are already proud of who and what they are. Respect is what happens when YOU can be proud of them too.

You have that backwards. When you don't care about race, and encourage others not to care about race, you stop paying attention to race, and find yourself mingling with people based on your actual interests and values, which is bound to have people of other races....

... until you accidentally say something that pisses them off, and suddenly you're in an argument -- potentially BITTER argument -- and have no idea why. And then suddenly OTHER people are getting involved and they're pissed off at you too, and you find out it's because you said something that was racially insensitive.

You can do one of two things in that case:
1) Apologize and try to figure out what you did wrong so it won't happen again (which means having to put your "I don't care about race" nonsense aside for a few minutes and actually listen to them)
or
2) Lecture them about how race doesn't matter and then stop listening to them because they're all a bunch of racists anyway.

You don't know "diverse communities" until you've seen a white transgender woman shouted out of a gay bar for saying her brother's boyfriend looks "mulatto." This shit gets CONFUSING, and it's not even helped by the fact that "mulatto" isn't even a slur for NORTHERN blacks, despite the fact that you can be punched in the face for using it in the south, despite the fact that it's basically a term of art in California, despite the fact that nobody outside of America has any idea what it means.

Basic communication strategy: telling someone "your feelings don't matter" is pretty much the worst tactic you can use when someone is angry with you.

You can't get to "our race matters more than anyone else" if you don't accept that race matters. And by pushing that race matters, you are well on your way to "our race matters more than anyone else"

To the extent that walking down the front steps of your house is "well on your way" to walking to Mexico. But if the many billions of people who live on this planet and believe that race matters for some reason or another, very few of them ever adopt a supremacist ideology that seeks to oppress others. Why do you think that is?

Why do you say that? There is more genetic diversity in black people than in white people, and I keep hearing that weird rule whereby a tiny bit of "black" in a person makes them "black"

Race is a social concept, not a genetic one. Aside from the fact that there is a lot more phenotypical diversity in the "white" races, there's the fact that there's a greater depth and variation of cultural and ethnic backgrounds in the "white" races in general. While this is also true of black people, the cultural lines had been blurred and warped by a number of recent migratory events (the Harlem Renaissance, the end of peonage, the great urban migrations of the 1960s and 70s) and society and language simply haven't caught up yet.

So by that logic if "white race" is a laughable concept, "black race" is even more of a laughable concept.

It IS. The current standard of what makes someone "black" in america is called the "one drop rule." It is a complete bullshit concept that bears no resemblance to reality and is deeply confusing and stifling to social progress in this country.

The problem is, the people who came up with this rule -- and their like-minded successors -- still dominate the language and the culture and keep those traditions alive. This is why Barrack Obama is considered to be "black" where in most Latin-speaking countries he would be considered mixed or possibly even white because one of his parents was white.

Hell, people in Scottland consider ME white. No one in America would ever agree with them. The simple reason for this is that American racial categories are complete bullshit and everyone here is confused and anxious because they're clinging to identities that don't really capture who and what they are inside. That doesn't mean racial identity is irrelevant; quite the opposite, racial identity is and has always been relevant in America and, for that matter, everywhere else. The problem is, the OLD reason it was relevant is because one racial category was for inferiors and the other was for masters. That old system has been abolished, but we haven't figured out what to replace it with and now we're all "NOW what the fuck are we supposed to do?"

tl;dr: the old racial power structure of America is in collapse (thank god) and we have a choice between holding on to the outdated terms until something new comes around, or submitting to complete chaos. Unsurprisingly, we've decided to do a little bit of both. The only real way out of the chaos is some sort of Bullworthian racial deconstruction (everyone keep fucking everyone else until we're all the same color) and the only way that's going to happen is if we all make a conscious effort to get to know each other way better than we currently do.

My race is not my background. My background is my background.

Good for you. But there are people for whom their race IS part of their background. The best way to piss them off is to tell them that their background doesn't matter.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Is it? I can think of many examples where that isn't true at all. There are good reasons to have bans on knives on particular places. That effects more Sikhs than anybody else...

... and thus the ban would be unfair to Sikhs. Which is why many such laws have exceptions built into them, to make them fair.

You really think it unfair to Sikhs that they are not allowed to carry weapons through airport security? You really think that they, and not you, should be allowed to?

Do you also think it unfair to Muslimas that they not be permitted in banks wearing masks? Do you think that they, and not you, should be allowed to?

White supremacists aren't pushing identity politics. White supremacists are pushing white supremacy. These two things are NOT the same, white supremacists merely pretend they are when talking to people outside of their movement in an attempt to legitimize themselves.

Which is politics based on their identity of being white. That's identity politics. Who they are talking to or and that they are attempting to legitimize themselves doesn't make it not politics and doesn't make it not about their white identity.

And speaking against giving people special rights or obligations because of their race" is actually the polar opposite of white supremacy....

To repeat again: the white supremacist argument (though it's really more of a marketing slogan) is that forcing white people to share America with colored people is a "special obligation" that unfairly burdens white people, and all they REALLY want is to remove that burden and make things fair again so that all the different minority groups should have to compete on a level playing field.

So they are not being honest and straight forward in saying that they are speaking against giving people special rights or obligations because of their race. So your trying to link what I was saying to what they say is a dishonest attempt at association to silence an important point. People, any people, including white people, should not be given special rights or obligations because of their race. That DOES have a place in this discussion. It is core to it. It is what not being racist is all about.

When two wolves and a lamb are voting on what to have for lunch, the wolves do not get to complain that the lamb is asking for "special rights because of his species" just because he wants the right to not be eaten by wolves, nor do the wolves get to complain about "special obligations" just because they are not allowed to eat the lamb.

I'm pretty sure it is still illegal for white people to eat black people. Is there any point being made by you here that relates to what I have been writing and not your sideline into white supremacy? Do you think this analogy somehow fits cries for special rights such as lower admittance standards to schools because of skin colour or poverty relief based on skin colour?

Yes, it's a PROBLEM, which is why segregation was struck down. That doesn't make it UNFAIR, which is actually unrelated to the problem.

What do you think of assigned gender roles? Do you take issue with women welding or men nursing? What do you think of transexuals who decide to present themselves as the opposite of their birth gender? Do you not object to laws prohibiting such things? How about "cultural appropriation"? Should I as an Asian person get to prohibit you as a round-eye from using chopsticks when eating the food of "my people", even if you grew up in China as I grew up in Toronto?

Forced segregation is wrong. Individuals should not be shackled by the group identity that is assigned to them.

The answer to the above isn't to help black people out poverty. It is to help all people out of poverty, which just happens to help black people out of poverty, but not in a racist way.

That sounds good on paper. But who, exactly, is most concerned with ending the concentration of poverty?

I don't know his or her name. If you mean as a group, probably the poor and those who care about the poor.

What movement is most energized on that subject and is most focused on making that happen?

Habitat for Humanity? Doctors Without Borders? I don't know.

At the moment, that appears to be the number one concern of the Congressional Black Caucus and, by extension, the black and latino communities, which find themselves to be, by and large, herded into the "inner cities" where poverty is concentrated highest, with all the social problems that involves. But because poor people AS A GROUP have very few resources politically or economically, they reach out to other interested parties who are better equipped and appeal to them on terms that oblige them to help. This, then, is where the cultural/social aspect comes into it: "Hey, I know you're not poor like us, but you grew up in the same kind of neighborhood as us, your ancestors were slaves like ours were, we have the same culture and traditions and you can relate to our struggle on some level... maybe you could help us by contributing to the cause of eliminating the segregation of neighborhoods and the concentration of poverty in the inner cities that is systematically strangling an entire generation of people who happen to be mostly black and latino?"

Or how about dropping all the racism in that and caring about the poor, and helping the poor because they are poor? How about not discriminating against the poor white people, asian people, first nations people, and brown people that you didn't include with black and latino?

There, again, is the issue of GETTING PEOPLE TO CARE. Human beings basically suck, as a rule, and we're unlikely to care about things that don't affect us. But if you tie a cause to some aspect of a person's identity, he's more likely to care about that issue and actually do something about it.

So you want to keep racism alive so you can harness it to do good? That's an interesting approach.

This is why identity politics is a thing: because there are some issues that nobody wants to advocate for because all of the people who have a stake in that issue don't actually have the power to DO anything about it, so they find ways to draw in people who, by all other measures, don't have a reason to care.

Even the rich can lose their millions. Everybody has that reason to care. People are fellow human beings regardless of race too, which is another reason to care, and one blocked or inhibited by pushing racial divisions. You are pushing for the "they are like us so lets help them" approach and pushing race commonality to get there, but in doing so you are separating people out who are not of that race. You are giving the white guy a reason NOT to care, by emphasizing that the poor black guy is NOT like him.

A law that inconveniences one race for the sake of another is a racist law, yes, because it is treating people by their race rather than as individuals. Where did I write that integration inconveniences whites for the sake of blacks? Lowering standards does. Giving unfair advantages to people just because of their skin colour does. Is that the only way you see integration happening?

It's the only way white nationalists see integration happening, given the assumption that blacks and latinos are inherently inferior and therefore COULD NOT be integrated without the lowering of standards. And they back this up with economic data: that blacks and latinos are more likely to be poor and, statistically speaking, are more often involved in crimes than white people. And when challenged, they will say it isn't about "race" at all, it's about "culture" because "thug culture" and "machismo culture" are not wholly compatible with academic success and that culture is as good an indicator as any to decide a students' fitness for a particular institution.

Your obsession with white nationalists is noted. But you didn't answer the question.

"Most attempts at integration are merely the lowering of standards to let poor students into successful schools" is a white supremacist talking point. That does not mean it is a talking point of the white supremacist movement; it is a talking point USED BY white supremacists to push their agenda on people (like you) who simply don't know any better.

You wrote poor students. Did you mean black students? I've never seen white supremacists say the former. Are you subconsciously confusing poor for black? That would be rather racist if so.

I also don't see why this is relevant. Do you or do you not agree that a law is racist if it assigns special benefits or obligations based on race? All this stuff about white supremacists looks like a smokescreen.

Perhaps you mean that you live in a racially diverse city? That is not the same thing as a racially diverse community. You might want to double check on that.

To clarify, I live in Mississauga, Ontario (which is about 50% white, 20% East Indian, 20% Asian, 10% other) in an apartment building that is roughly an even three way split between black people, white people, and others. I worked in Brampton for a decade (which is about 50% East Indian, 25% white, 25% other) in an office where I was the sole non-Punjabi Indian person (and there were no white people) and 90% of our clients were Punjabi. I now have an office in Markham (which is about 50% Asian, 25% white, 25% other) and our clients are about an even split on race. My sister married somebody outside her race and my nephews are bi-racial. I'm currently dating a hispanic woman whose black best friend often hangs out with us in my apartment. I'm also bisexual. So what little box do you assign as my "community"?

No, we can't wish racism away with a magic wand. But it can be eroded and replaced over time by shared values as individuals.

Exactly. And how do you propose we share values as individuals if we don't take the time to figure out what other people's cultural values actually ARE?

By treating them as individuals and not representatives of their race.

You don't know "diverse communities" until you've seen a white transgender woman shouted out of a gay bar for saying her brother's boyfriend looks "mulatto." This shit gets CONFUSING, and it's not even helped by the fact that "mulatto" isn't even a slur for NORTHERN blacks, despite the fact that you can be punched in the face for using it in the south, despite the fact that it's basically a term of art in California, despite the fact that nobody outside of America has any idea what it means.

It gets confusing, and it gets stupid and pointless. The ridiculous list of gender pronouns those claiming to speak for transexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, non-gendered, etc is also laughable. And it SHOULD be laughed at. I'm not in agreement with Jordan Peterson on everything, but he is right on this point.

The simple reason for this is that American racial categories are complete bullshit and everyone here is confused and anxious because they're clinging to identities that don't really capture who and what they are inside. That doesn't mean racial identity is irrelevant; quite the opposite, racial identity is and has always been relevant in America and, for that matter, everywhere else. The problem is, the OLD reason it was relevant is because one racial category was for inferiors and the other was for masters. That old system has been abolished, but we haven't figured out what to replace it with and now we're all "NOW what the fuck are we supposed to do?"

And the answer is treat people as individuals, instead of mashing them into these little boxes of yours.

The only real way out of the chaos is some sort of Bullworthian racial deconstruction (everyone keep fucking everyone else until we're all the same color) and the only way that's going to happen is if we all make a conscious effort to get to know each other way better than we currently do.

And that can be done without your racial pride thing. My nephews are bi-racial. My own kids will very likely be bi-racial, all without paying any special attention to race, and a little because we've paid no special attention to race. I don't care that my girlfriend isn't Asian. I care that she is herself. She doesn't care that I am Asian. She care's that I'm me.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

... and thus the ban would be unfair to Sikhs. Which is why many such laws have exceptions built into them, to make them fair.

You really think it unfair to Sikhs that they are not allowed to carry weapons through airport security?

Yes, I do.

Not being a Skih, though, I don't really care enough about it to spend time and energy getting the rule changed, nor do I think enough people care enough to join me. So it's an unfair rule that has no chance of being changed any time soon.

Do you also think it unfair to Muslimas that they not be permitted in banks wearing masks?

Yes. And a lot more people agree with this, which is why many banks DO allow this. Significantly, there are alot more Muslims in America than Sikhs, which probably explains why/how the rule got changed. This is yet another example of identity politics in action: who else but Muslim women would even NEED to wear a head/face covering in a bank, let alone care enough about the rule to demand an exception be made?

Which is politics based on their identity of being white.

No, it's politics based on their desire to forcibly suppress everyone who doesn't meet their arbitrary standard of racial purity. Identity is not the same thing as dominance.

I, for example, am a man, so I am likely to complain when I go to Target and discover that the entire men's wear section consists of three t-shirts and a pair of socks, and I might go and ask the manager one day "Your store doesn't offer a lot of selections for men in this store. I think you should change that." That is a VERY different thing from saying "Your store should only sell men's clothing and women should have to go and browse for stuff in the basement because strictly speaking they ought to be in the kitchen anyway."

Racial identity and racial dominance are not the same thing. The majority of Americans are keenly aware of their racial identities, but the need to dominate other races is not something most people share.

So they are not being honest and straight forward in saying that they are speaking against giving people special rights or obligations because of their race. So your trying to link what I was saying to what they say is a dishonest attempt at association to silence an important point.

That's just it: it's NOT an important point, because that's not and has never been the ACTUAL PROBLEM. Oppression and inequality isn't the result of "special rights and obligations." It's the result of deliberate and targeted oppression of black people by white supremacists in positions of political power.

Which is the point I made earlier about the issue with segregation. Segregation as a system wasn't the problem; segregation was being used as a means of socioeconomic control of black people by white supremacists who had total and unrestricted control of how those laws were interpreted and enforced. In short, segregationists were the problem, not segregation itself. The Civil Rights Movement and its leaders had to make a decision on whether or not to try to reform segregation to put it on equal terms, or else abolish it altogether. They decided for the most part that it was easier and more effective to abolish it. Not everyone agreed with this, but by the 1950s that was the end goal that had the most support and that is what ended up happening.

Looking at South Africa in the years after Aprtheid, hindsight tells us that this was the right call. Racial segregation really CAN'T be implemented fairly, primarily due to humanity's endless capacity to fuck things up. Of course, the white supremacists would (and did) say that imperfect segregation is better than chaos and that integration is what happens when "perfect" is the enemy of "good." But fuck those guys.

Forced segregation is wrong.

Yes, it certainly IS wrong. But being wrong and being UNFAIR are two separate things. We definitely DO have forced segregation in many fields for men and women -- particularly on the subject of bathrooms and changing rooms -- due to centuries-old taboos about sexuality that are as firmly rooted in our society as white supremacy was (and to a certain extent, still is) in southern culture. But there isn't a mass movement demanding the abolition of bathroom segregation by sex because -- surprise surprise! -- women's and men's bathrooms are built to the same standards for the most part and the system is implemented relatively fairly. They even have baby-changing tables in the men's rooms now.

But now because we have more social awareness of transexualism in America, it's becoming an issue where the sexual discrimination in bathrooms is becoming problematic. Segregation on that or any other basis is not actually all that productive and in many cases causes more problems than it seeks out to solve. Again: this does NOT mean segregation is unfair. Just unnecessary and unhelpful.

Or how about dropping all the racism in that and caring about the poor, and helping the poor because they are poor?

This is America. Nobody gives a shit about the poor. In fact, most Americans are preconditioned to despise and loathe the poor. This is such an ingrained fact of life that most poor people will go to some elaborate lengths to pretend that they are NOT poor just so people will stop looking down on them.

How about not discriminating against the poor white people, asian people, first nations people, and brown people that you didn't include with black and latino?

Cram huge numbers of those people into the same neighborhoods with poor blacks and latinos, and that becomes a hell of a lot easier. Getting black people to even care about latinos in their own neighborhoods is tricky enough; that conversation is difficult to start just because they don't travel in the same social circles and ALOT of rapport building takes place before you can get them to coordinate on anything. Once you get to that point, though, they become pretty damn powerful. Drawing in poor whites and first nations into that mix requires a degree of proximity and local common ground that doesn't really exist in most neighborhoods, mainly because they're separated by geography, religion, and in some cases even additional language barriers (ever tried to get a bunch of black people to have a conversation with a bunch of Mexicans when only half of the latter even speak English? I have. It is NOT fun. Adding a group of polish speakers to that clusterfuck would give me an anneurism).

I'm beginning to realize that the difference between you and me is that I've actually spent years trying and failing to do exactly what you describe and am speaking from a position of experience rather than theory. I'm simply telling you that the world doesn't work the way you think it works, or even the way you think it SHOULD work, and it's unlikely it ever will.

In fact, I'm beginning to realize that this is the difference between us in pretty much EVERY topic, actually.

So you want to keep racism alive so you can harness it to do good?

Caring about members of your own racial group is NOT the same thing as racism, and you need to stop pretending that it is.

Even the rich can lose their millions. Everybody has that reason to care.

But no one actually cares for reasons. People come up with reasons to justify what they already care about.

You are pushing for the "they are like us so lets help them" approach and pushing race commonality to get there, but in doing so you are separating people out who are not of that race.

Failure to include a particular person is NOT the same thing as exclusion. When you find someone who can benefit from a cause, you try hard as hell to find some common ground so you can say "Hey, you're like us too! Want to get in on this?"

It doesn't always work, and when it does work the coalition rarely survives past the issue at hand and then everyone goes off on their own, seeking their own local/tribal/neighborhood interests. People are small like that, and getting people 8 different ethnic/racial/advocacy groups to all coordinate on a common goal is like trying to get a roomful of kindergartners to all agree on a pizza topping.

But again, it's obvious that this is something you have no experience with and therefore have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

You are giving the white guy a reason NOT to care, by emphasizing that the poor black guy is NOT like him.

But he IS like him, which is my point. People don't notice similarities, they notice differences, primarily because similarities are obvious and numerous where as differences are conspicuous and few. Differences distract people. Differences make people uncomfortable. So it is differences, NOT similarities, that need to be dealt with.

So if I want them to work together, I have to figure out all the things they see about each other that lead them to believe they're not, and then get them to understand why those differences exist. A difference you understand isn't a difference, it's just a fact you know about someone else. Differences can be problematic for people, and problems do not cease to exist unless you take the time and effort to solve them. You cannot reconcile differences by ignoring them any more than you can solve problems by pretending they don't exist.

You wrote poor students. Did you mean black students? I've never seen white supremacists say the former.

That does not really surprise me. But I have.

So what little box do you assign as my "community"?

Evidently "People I know and never bother to talk to about themselves."

She doesn't care that I am Asian. She care's that I'm me.

... who is asian. Therefore, she cares that you are Asian. It makes a difference.

Just because it doesn't make a NEGATIVE difference doesn't negate the fact that it matters. I care that my wife's father died years before I met her and she has spent years processing that grief in ways I sometimes find hard to relate to. That's part of who she is; it's not and has never been a deal breaker, just part of the landscape. I also care that my son is one quarter Irish, since I -- not being Irish at all -- have no idea how to present Irish traditions or culture to him and am going to need a shitload of help for that IF AND WHEN he becomes interested in that.

"I care" and "It's a problem" are not the same thing. Because caring about race and being a racist are not the same thing, and you should stop pretending they are.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You really think it unfair to Sikhs that they are not allowed to carry weapons through airport security?

Yes, I do.

Seriously? You think that it is unfair for us to prevent them from carrying a weapon through a security sensitive area? How about the redneck who really really likes his rifle "Betsy" and insists on taking her everywhere? He doesn't feel complete without her. Do you really want to make special rules for people based on their beliefs?

Which is politics based on their identity of being white.

No, it's politics based on their desire to forcibly suppress everyone who doesn't meet their arbitrary standard of racial purity. Identity is not the same thing as dominance.

The politics is one of dominance, but it is based on their identity. It is identity politics. This isn't complicated.

That's just it: it's NOT an important point, because that's not and has never been the ACTUAL PROBLEM. Oppression and inequality isn't the result of "special rights and obligations."

Yes it has. White people had special rights. That was both wrong and unfair. Some were given preferential treatment based on being "white". That's racist. So is giving "black" people preferential treatment based on being "black". Treating people differently and making assumptions about them merely because of race is racial discrimination; racism. You endorse that shit?

Which is the point I made earlier about the issue with segregation. Segregation as a system wasn't the problem; segregation was being used as a means of socioeconomic control of black people by white supremacists who had total and unrestricted control of how those laws were interpreted and enforced.

Yes, forced segregation is wrong, and it is unfair. Some will be pleased with where you assign them and others want to go the other way. That isn't fair treatment. It is a restriction on freedom for no justifiable reason. It is arbitrary, stupid, wrong, and unfair.

Yes, racial segregation IS a problem. Using it as a means of socioeconomic control makes a bad thing even worse, but even if it is done without malice and even if you intend to treat everybody well, you are treating people unfairly.

Cram huge numbers of those people into the same neighborhoods with poor blacks and latinos, and that becomes a hell of a lot easier. Getting black people to even care about latinos in their own neighborhoods is tricky enough; that conversation is difficult to start just because they don't travel in the same social circles and ALOT of rapport building takes place before you can get them to coordinate on anything.

You have a very low opinion of humanity. You presume these black people will be racist against hispanic people if not prompted to by society pushing identity politics as you are encouraging here? What we need to do is to convince as many as possible to stop caring about race, and then their common interests (in this case about poverty) can prompt them to work together, instead of pushing for racial gangs.

ever tried to get a bunch of black people to have a conversation with a bunch of Mexicans when only half of the latter even speak English? I have. It is NOT fun. Adding a group of polish speakers to that clusterfuck would give me an anneurism

Maybe because you are pushing them as being black, mexican and polish. Yes, I have had conversations that included black people, mexicans, and people from other countries, that had nothing whatsoever to do with race and wherein people got along just fine. Just 5 minutes ago I saw a group of black guys, hispanic guys, white guys, and I think a native guy (hard to tell) playing basketball together and having fun. I think I saw an asian (or maybe half asian) girl in that game as well. What's your problem with this? I don't think any of them cared about how each other looked (except maybe the girl since she looked hot lol)

So you want to keep racism alive so you can harness it to do good?

Caring about members of your own racial group is NOT the same thing as racism, and you need to stop pretending that it is.

Caring about people in your own "racial group" to the exclusion of people of other "racial groups" is exactly what racism is about.

But again, it's obvious that this is something you have no experience with and therefore have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Your arrogance is noted. You push "racial pride". You think racism is a good thing. And now you want to be arrogant about it. Fun.

So if I want them to work together, I have to figure out all the things they see about each other that lead them to believe they're not, and then get them to understand why those differences exist.

Yeah, and you can start by not presuming everybody cares about race, because they don't. And then if you learn that they are racists, you try to encourage them realize how stupid that is and how much they actually have in common with people they say are other races. As individuals, they may come to realize that they actually share more interests with those people than many who are their own race.

You cannot reconcile differences by ignoring them any more than you can solve problems by pretending they don't exist.

That only applies to differences that matter. Race doesn't. And people shouldn't be encouraged to think that it does.

You wrote poor students. Did you mean black students? I've never seen white supremacists say the former.

That does not really surprise me. But I have.

Yes, you confuse poor for black (which is rather racist) and slipped up and written it explicitly. And now you are back-peddling.

She doesn't care that I am Asian. She care's that I'm me.

... who is asian. Therefore, she cares that you are Asian. It makes a difference.

No, it doesn't really. The last guy she dated wasn't Asian. She doesn't seem to care about my race.

I met her and she has spent years processing that grief in ways I sometimes find hard to relate to. That's part of who she is; it's not and has never been a deal breaker, just part of the landscape.

That is her individual personal experience. That has nothing to do with her skin colour.

Because caring about race and being a racist are not the same thing, and you should stop pretending they are.

Yeah, they are. And we are going around in circles, so I'll leave it at that and move on to something else unless you've got something new on this topic.

 

[laughing dog]

"I care" and "It's a problem" are not the same thing. Because caring about race and being a racist are not the same thing,

A very simple concept that appears to elude so many people.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Trump stems from identity politics, so even if they are a result of Trump they are the result of the result of identity politics.

I just noticed this post way back on page one. You hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Do you really want to make special rules for people based on their beliefs?

No. I said it was unfair, not that I actually want to do anything about it. LOTS of shit that happens in this country is unfair. Just because something is unfair doesn't make it problematic; just because something is fair doesn't make it okay.

The politics is one of dominance, but it is based on their identity...

... which is also based on dominance. Do you not comprehend the difference between white people and white supremacists? These are very different things.

White people had special rights...

No they didn't. They had REGULAR rights just like everyone else was supposed to enjoy. They were never given "special" rights at all, they were given exactly what they were entitled to under the Constitution.

What happened was BLACK people were STRIPPED of their rights by slavery, by Jim Crow laws and by terrorist violence of white supremacists. The basic logic of white supremacy is to what extent black people are even SUPPOSED to have the same rights as white people, and whether or not elevating them to the same level AS white people involves overlooking their obvious deficiencies and giving them opportunities they clearly do not deserve. The White Supremacist position has traditionally been that black people are NATURALLY INFERIOR, therefore equality for black people can only be achieved by tipping the scales to offset that inferiority (seriously, we fought a whole fucking war over this idea, it's a pretty popular notion).

In modern times, a "soft" white supremacist will drop the "naturally" from that slogan and just claim that black people are inferior for historical reasons -- they have a "ghetto culture" or "inner city values" or "lack education" or "poorly motivated" or whatever other stereotype you can think of -- but still arrive at the same conclusion: ANY system intended to close the wage/achievement/employment gap between black and white people is an unfair advantage to black people. And again the same argument recycled from the Civil War era: that this forced elevation is demoralizing and humiliating for blacks, that they don't really know what to do with these favors and will basically just waste them the first chance they get so you might as well not bother helping them in the first place.

So is giving "black" people preferential treatment based on being "black"...

... which no program in this country actually does, or (arguably) ever did. Despite the massive nationwide whining campaign by butthurt college applicants who got passed over for better-qualified minorities, despite sporadic race-baiting by workers who magically know that every other black person who works for/with them is a "diversity hire" that never would have been there if not for his skin color, despite the right-wing memes that broadly imply this is true of the majority of black people in academia, in the corporate world, in the military and in politics, despite the fact that even BARRACK FUCKING OBAMA was referred to as the "affirmative action candidate" on national television.

Preferential treatment "based on being black" is not a real thing.

You have a very low opinion of humanity.

Don't I just.

You presume these black people will be racist against hispanic people...

No, I assume they won't get along very well unless a lot of effort is made to smooth things over first.

And I also know -- not assume, but KNOW -- that hispanics will be racist against black people because that's just the way it fucking works in Chicago and there's not a whole lot you can do about it except keep talking to people and try to work through it.

What we need to do is to convince as many as possible to stop caring about race, and then their common interests (in this case about poverty) can prompt them to work together, instead of pushing for racial gangs.

I go to the streets and tell people "We need to stop caring about race!" I get some pious nods and some pats on the back and somebody tries to sell me a socialist newspaper.

I go to the streets and tell people "The South Austin Community stands in solidarity with the Anti Defamation League and we will not tolerate white supremacist violence against our neighbors!" And I get phone calls from rabbis who want to organize counter-protest rallies AND from the local baptist churches that want to take control of the situation before Antifa and the black bloc get involved.

Because racism is a problem. Because RACISTS are a problem. Because white nationalists are marching in the streets, running people over with their cars, threatening people with guns and bombs; because people like this have a well documented history of making good on those kinds of threats, and even if WE don't see race, THEY sure as hell do, and we know exactly who they are likely to target first. Those who are on the top of their ethnic cleansing hit list have every reason in the world to be most active in opposing them, collectively as a bloc, individually, and along with as many allies from as many different races, ethnicities and interest groups and they can possibly muster to the cause. Because that's what you do when someone declares war on you: you don't declare that borders are bullshit and therefore war is obsolete (unless you're an idiot), you gather up as many allies as you can and put them on the border, ready to fight.

So go right ahead, sit there with your new age hippy bullshit and toast some marshmellows in your post-racial commune. The rest of us have actual work to do.

Your arrogance is noted. You push "racial pride"

I literally just sat through 3 days of speeches from high school and college kids about how proud they are of their Mexican/Filipino/Polish/Russian/Puerto Rican heritage. And some of them were pretty awesome speeches, and those kids are pretty damn passionate about it (especially the Chicanos, to the extent that's even still a thing). It's hardly a "push," dude. People are proud of who they are. Why do you think they shouldn't be?

You think racism is a good thing.

Being aware of your own race is not the same thing as racism, and you should stop pretending that it is.

Yeah, and you can start by not presuming everybody cares about race, because they don't.

Everyone cares about race. The majority care for good reasons. Good reasons can be explored to build meaningful and interesting friendships. Bad reasons need to be confronted and corrected.

Yes, you confuse poor for black

No, I have literally heard white supremacists argue that keeping "poor students" out of better-achieving schools is an ideal solution. There's no confusion there. The most recent time was when one of the members of the local school board, after making this argument for YEARS, was exposed as a contributor to a Christian Identity newsletter after one of his staff found an incomplete article on his computer with his pen name still on it. The guy LITERALLY used the term "poor students" as shorthand for "niggers." Which makes a hell of a lot of sense in a town whose median income is something like $95,000 per year.

That is her individual personal experience. That has nothing to do with her skin colour.

Racial background is part of EVERYONE'S personal experience. Everyone experiences it differently. Everyone interprets it differently. It shapes everyone in various ways, and some of us are conscious of those ways while others of us are not.

But just because race isn't a problem doesn't mean it's irrelevant. If you disappeared tomorrow and your girlfriend had to describe you to a police officer, you'd be kind of fucked if it turns out she never noticed you were Asian.