Question for the "Woke" Among Us:

[Manc Skipper]

If by woke you mean "decent", then there are a few enlightened people here.

 

[bomberfox]

I am not sure there is any law that can be passed at this point. I mean, you could change your 1A to forbid racist speech, but America will never go for that, so it's a pointless suggestion, but more than that it won't solve the problem that America (and other nations) face, which is hearts and minds. You can't win those over with laws...I would suggest that laws push that further away, tbh....not that that's a reason to get rid of the laws...

I think we've entered into the educate / shame phase of societal change. The laws that should limit the impacts of racism are in place, for the most part, now it's time to work on those hearts and minds. I think this is a longer proposition, which will be driven one part by education, one part by time. Working from home, and being across the room from my 8 year old son who is attending virtual school, I've been impressed with the education part. This Black History month has been interesting, for example, though the lessons they did on Indigenous issues was interesting as well. They are teaching empathy, not guilt, with a focus on how to be better going forward. I am aligned fully with that approach.

As for the time piece, well...those old attitudes have a shelf life that rather closely matches human life expectancy, when combatted with education. That ingrained hatred (or simply other-ism) will fade with every new obituary section. Understand, I'm not celebrating the death of those generations...it's simply how progress has always marched forward.

Using a hearts and minds approach wont fix it because its systemic.

 

[bomberfox]

I don’t care what Dems call Repubs. I’m never going go to agree that white people are inherently racist or that the country is fundamentally white supremacist and all the other white guilt bullshit Dems require for their approval.

I kinda dont care if you feel guilty. I dont feel guilty as a white person. I do this because i want less misery in the world.

 

[bomberfox]

"How to be antiracist" or ie: How to be racist against whites.
(Thats basically what "antiracist" is)

Yeahhhhhhhhhh........not sure thats going to improve anything though. Just a hunch.

Ummm.... you said you wanted thoughtful discussions.... right?..

 

[bomberfox]

The White Guilt indoctrination isn't ever going to take with me either. I just dont buy it.

Conservative talking points just dont do it for me ever.

 

[bomberfox]

My my must be a slow day for the trolls elsewhere.

 

[Moot]

I think Blacks pretty much stopped using the term "woke" after it became appropriated, overused and bastardized by whites. Anyone still using the term today outside of it's original context is seriously "unwoke".

How being "woke" lost its meaning

Stay woke: How a Black activist watchword got co-opted in the culture war.

www.vox.com

 

[Alizia Tyler]

It is also interesting to note that Aristotle the philosopher held to and expressed ideas that today would get him 'cancelled' beyond any doubt. So, I recognize that you (Visbek) just selected an avatar for whatever reason and that it might not mean much at all (and possibly nothing) but it is interesting to note that Aristotle and the Greeks generally held to views, and defended them rationally, that are today a) vilified and shunned and b) crimethink.

This is from a googled site on 'Aristotle and Race'.

 

[george48]

It also depends on what you mean by woke...

There certainly is this reactionary group of people who are against all social progress who would call all of it "woke"... those who would have opposed the civil rights act for instance...

BUT it is undeniable, it seems to me, that, what liberal writer for the WaPo Max Boot calls "uber-woke", which he says remind him of the hard core Trump voters, is highly problamatic.

This subset of the left who are intolerant of/have demanded or demand:

1.all opposing viewpoints
2.want to rename schools named after Lincoln by conflating him with confederates and by having this narrowminded view were they refuse to see the nuanced person Lincoln was to just dismiss him as "bad" (quite like the far right uses Lincoln for their purposes by negating all the negative)
3. Wanna get rid of Shakespeare in the classroom, because his plays were written 400 years ago and hence are not written with modern seniblities in mind...
4. Wanna cancel all people who slightly disagree with their strict ideology, to which total allegience is demanded, instead of having a debate, in the form of huge twitter mobs who harrass people's employers...(some who are even worse, quite a lot worse, than the purists have threatened a guy who wanted to screen a Jordan Peterson film which made him not do it...)
4. Turning the very noble fight for equality into nonsense like "be less white"
5. Are, as I alluded to before, totally unable to see any nuance. Totally ideologically rigid and dogmatic and hence are totally humourless. Comedy is frowned upon.
6.No thought provocing stuff, debate argument, just total ideological conformity and losing their crap when you disagree with a very small part of their ideology...quite like the Trump cultists, that subset of Trump voters, der from all.
7. No forgiveness, no grace.

 

[george48]

I kinda dont care if you feel guilty. I dont feel guilty as a white person. I do this because i want less misery in the world.

That is kinda the point...white people should strive to be "less white"

Fighting for anti racism? Sure...very important....

This fringe of uber woke with "try to be less white" is so counterproductive and aiding far right loons

 

[screenwriter]

That is kinda the point...white people should strive to be "less white"

Fighting for anti racism? Sure...very important....

This fringe of uber woke with "try to be less white" is so counterproductive and aiding far right loons

Want to tell Rachel Dolezal she should be "less white"? Oh wait - she did and just look what happened.

 

[Logophile]

Lots of talk about race etc these days. I have a question. Two questions actually. This pertains to government legislation ie: "regulation" so I think it belongs here.
1) How do you define "racism" specifically. I am aware of the textbook/dictionary definition, I want to know how *you* are defining "racism". You want to end it, thats great, what *specifically* must be ended in your opinion? Is it saying certain words or thinking certain thoughts? Certain actions?
There are laws prohibiting discrimination already. Discrimination is a byproduct of "racism" or at least a part of racism. So that is my first question, what specifically is "racism".
And 2) What piece of legislation, SPECIFICALLY, do you want to see instituted that you believe will end "racism", other than the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
What SPECIFICALLY do you feel should be added to where "racism" will be legislated away? Or is this something that will be accomplished via social media by "shaming" people and so forth?
We can never arrive at any destination or goal without first having a clear understanding of what specifically has to be done to get there.

This is a legitimate question(s) from an academic and scholarly standpoint, and I already know that many will "answer" by calling me "racist", insulting my intelligence (or trying to), insinuating/implying that I have moral shortcomings for not simply grasping the "obvious" that I should be able to understand, etc.
I am looking for real answers here please.
And thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned responses.
Go ahead. Tell me what law you see being passed. Tell me your solution to "end racism" as you define it. Go.

Pervasive racism is a myth. It's a lie promoted for nefarious reasons, promoted as a device to divide and cause tension among the citizens of the US and western democracies. It's designed to weaken nations. And it's a shame that so many "woke" - albeit the term should be "woken" - people have fallen prey to it. Racism is nothing more than a vague accusation that cannot be substantively proven in this day and age, which is why it can be promoted without case and points, but merely demonstrated through nebulous interpretation of incidents or events, and why - despite all the successes of black men and women leading to this moment in time - it is intentionally and immorally declared, flaunted and aggressively marketed. Thanks!!

 

[Hannu]

Lots of talk about race etc these days. I have a question. Two questions actually. This pertains to government legislation ie: "regulation" so I think it belongs here.
1) How do you define "racism" specifically. I am aware of the textbook/dictionary definition, I want to know how *you* are defining "racism". You want to end it, thats great, what *specifically* must be ended in your opinion? Is it saying certain words or thinking certain thoughts? Certain actions?
There are laws prohibiting discrimination already. Discrimination is a byproduct of "racism" or at least a part of racism. So that is my first question, what specifically is "racism".
And 2) What piece of legislation, SPECIFICALLY, do you want to see instituted that you believe will end "racism", other than the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
What SPECIFICALLY do you feel should be added to where "racism" will be legislated away? Or is this something that will be accomplished via social media by "shaming" people and so forth?
We can never arrive at any destination or goal without first having a clear understanding of what specifically has to be done to get there.

This is a legitimate question(s) from an academic and scholarly standpoint, and I already know that many will "answer" by calling me "racist", insulting my intelligence (or trying to), insinuating/implying that I have moral shortcomings for not simply grasping the "obvious" that I should be able to understand, etc.
I am looking for real answers here please.
And thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned responses.
Go ahead. Tell me what law you see being passed. Tell me your solution to "end racism" as you define it. Go.

Interesting questions. I do not consider myself "woke", but some comments from another country... about racism: In ideal society race or ethnicity would have no role at all on how people think or act. Any deviation of this is racism. By this definition about everyone is racist, to a lesser or greater degree. I certainly do not claim to be rid of all racial or ethnic stereotypies. The general solution in answering racism is to avoid both extremes: both the moral puritanism of trying to eliminate all evil/vices in human minds (just does not work) or lazy moral relativism (no need to try at all, both sides do it. whatever excuse) and choose a middle ground of focusing on biggest things and being more understanding with minor things. Also, of course, racism is by no mean a vice existing only among western white people. I think this thing is better understood in US with centuries of experience than in many European countries with maybe a few decades of experience with large scale immigration. For example, one particularly disgusting form of racism is surely the ISIS attitude of accepting literary enslaving "infidel" yesidis.
I have in mind no special laws or specific solutions - only general lines - (again, I do not consider myself "woke") but what I would advice in general is focusing on poverty and income difference issues instead of race in itself. It is much more usual to think poor people are of lesser value as human beings than that blacks are of less value than whites. Also, I would like to ask how much behind the police violence is discrimination against blacks and how much discrimination against poor people? Not living in US but I would think a poor, poorly dressed white would be in more danger of being shot by police than a finely dressed black. A rich and influential person being killed is a big news, poor people being killed rarely so. Still, black people are more often poor than white people so even if true this argument would only somewhat blunt, not negate, the racial factor.
So the best policy imo is to mainly focus on income difference injustices regardless of race; like minimum wage and labor rights. People have their own worries; and if they are not taken into consideration by politicians, they usually do not care about other peoples worries either. If social injustice is of importance only if they are whites or only if they are colored, the result probably is the neglected group will begin to hate the other group, whose needs are cared for. Also, focusing in income diffence and injustice regardless of race instead of race in itself will guarantee enough votes among hard working, poor or middle class whites for dems so that they will remain in power to influence these things; where as driving those people away because they are not "woke enough" would mean GOP wins in elections and that dems would no more be in power to decide about these things. Thats how I see the matters.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Interesting questions. I do not consider myself "woke", but some comments from another country... about racism: In ideal society race or ethnicity would have no role at all on how people think or act. Any deviation of this is racism. By this definition about everyone is racist, to a lesser or greater degree. I certainly do not claim to be rid of all racial or ethnic stereotypies. The general solution in answering racism is to avoid both extremes: both the moral puritanism of trying to eliminate all evil/vices in human minds (just does not work) or lazy moral relativism (no need to try at all, both sides do it. whatever excuse) and choose a middle ground of focusing on biggest things and being more understanding with minor things. Also, of course, racism is by no mean a vice existing only among western white people. I think this thing is better understood in US with centuries of experience than in many European countries with maybe a few decades of experience with large scale immigration. For example, one particularly disgusting form of racism is surely the ISIS attitude of accepting literary enslaving "infidel" yesidis.
I have in mind no special laws or specific solutions - only general lines - (again, I do not consider myself "woke") but what I would advice in general is focusing on poverty and income difference issues instead of race in itself. It is much more usual to think poor people are of lesser value as human beings than that blacks are of less value than whites. Also, I would like to ask how much behind the police violence is discrimination against blacks and how much discrimination against poor people? Not living in US but I would think a poor, poorly dressed white would be in more danger of being shot by police than a finely dressed black. A rich and influential person being killed is a big news, poor people being killed rarely so. Still, black people are more often poor than white people so even if true this argument would only somewhat blunt, not negate, the racial factor.
So the best policy imo is to mainly focus on income difference injustices regardless of race; like minimum wage and labor rights. People have their own worries; and if they are not taken into consideration by politicians, they usually do not care about other peoples worries either. If social injustice is of importance only if they are whites or only if they are colored, the result probably is the neglected group will begin to hate the other group, whose needs are cared for. Also, focusing in income diffence and injustice regardless of race instead of race in itself will guarantee enough votes among hard working, poor or middle class whites for dems so that they will remain in power to influence these things; where as driving those people away because they are not "woke enough" would mean GOP wins in elections and that dems would no more be in power to decide about these things. Thats how I see the matters.

This is exactly the kind of *quality* response that I was looking for.
It will take me some time and consideration to respond, and I do not have time to do that right now: possibly not until another day.
But I will respond. Thank you.

 

[dixon01767]

Lots of talk about race etc these days. I have a question. Two questions actually. This pertains to government legislation ie: "regulation" so I think it belongs here.
1) How do you define "racism" specifically. .

Im not woke but those who are are pretty explicit in their definition.
"When I See Racial Disparities, I See Racism" Kendi

 

[dixon01767]

View attachment 67321014

It is also interesting to note that Aristotle the philosopher held to and expressed ideas that today would get him 'cancelled' beyond any doubt. So, I recognize that you (Visbek) just selected an avatar for whatever reason and that it might not mean much at all (and possibly nothing) but it is interesting to note that Aristotle and the Greeks generally held to views, and defended them rationally, that are today a) vilified and shunned and b) crimethink.

This is from a googled site on 'Aristotle and Race'.

View attachment 67321016

Dont understand the connection between Aristotle and "Negro slavery" Dubois sees. I suspect black slaves were rare or nonexistant in ancient Greece.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Dont understand the connection between Aristotle and "Negro slavery" Dubois sees. I suspect black slaves were rare or nonexistant in ancient Greece.

There is a Wiki page: Natural Slavery.

In his work, the Politics, Aristotle describes a natural slave as "anyone who, while being human, is by nature not his own but of someone else" and further states "he is of someone else when, while being human, he is a piece of property; and a piece of property is a tool for action separate from its owner." From this, Aristotle defines natural slavery in two phases. The first is the natural slave's existence and characteristics. The second is the natural slave in society and in interaction with their master. According to Aristotle, natural slaves' main features include being pieces of property, tools for actions, and belonging to others.

In book I of the Politics, Aristotle addresses the questions of whether slavery can be natural or whether all slavery is contrary to nature and whether it is better for some people to be slaves. He concludes that

those who are as different [from other men] as the soul from the body or man from beast—and they are in this state if their work is the use of the body, and if this is the best that can come from them—are slaves by nature. For them it is better to be ruled in accordance with this sort of rule, if such is the case for the other things mentioned.

 

[RetiredUSN]

When you convince a young person that certain people are always bad, they will most definitely develop prejudices.

Hopefully, they surround themselves with good people at some point in life who set them on the right course with their thinking.

Worked for me.

 

[dixon01767]

There is a Wiki page: Natural Slavery.

That would seem to be a connection to slavery, not "Negro slavery", especially since Aristotle was speaking of white slaves in Greek society.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

That would seem to be a connection to slavery, not "Negro slavery", especially since Aristotle was speaking of white slaves in Greek society.

Ah yes, I see. I would only add that Southern slave-holders often referred to Aristotle to validate their ideology. I imagine the DuBois was referring to that?

 

[Rba1776]

So since American slavery, which was abolished over 150 years ago with the blood of countless white men, is still referenced as a evidence of American Systemic Racism........
When do we start accusing BLACKS of RACISM?
Because obviously you MUST be aware that there were BLACK SLAVE OWNERS. Of course not as many as Whites but that does not excuse the opressive, hateful, dehumanizing behavior of OWNING SLAVES. MORE SO BY FREE BLACK MEN!!!!

 

[Ouroboros]

If Republicans want Democrats to stop calling them racist, they need to take charge and demonstrate love for all people regardless of their race. Step 1 is stop worshiping a white supremacist. There is no way you can like a racist without being a racist.

Now here’s a woke post, should anyone want an example.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Now here’s a woke post, should anyone want an example.

What you do mean by that? The word woke only means "regained consciousness out of sleep."

 

[post]

So since American slavery, which was abolished over 150 years ago with the blood of countless white men, is still referenced as a evidence of American Systemic Racism........
When do we start accusing BLACKS of RACISM?
Because obviously you MUST be aware that there were BLACK SLAVE OWNERS. Of course not as many as Whites but that does not excuse the opressive, hateful, dehumanizing behavior of OWNING SLAVES. MORE SO BY FREE BLACK MEN!!!!

46 U.S. Presidents, first 43, white christian males, # 45 & # 46 white christian males.

History As It Happens: Where are the Black Republicans?

Where are the Black Republicans?

www.washingtontimes.com

"..The GOP’s problems are not relegated to presidential elections. Although the 117th Congress is the most racially diverse in U.S. history with 59 Black members, only three are Republicans (two in the House, one in the Senate). In state-level elections, too, African-Americans continue to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. .."

If you have a point, I hope you make it...
1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_Slave_Revolt_in_the_Cherokee_Nation
"By 1835, the time of removal, the Cherokee owned an estimated total of 1500 slaves of African ancestry (the most black slaves of any of the Five Civilized Tribes). Within five years of removal, 300 mixed-race Cherokee families, most descendants of European traders and Cherokee women for generations, made up an elite class in the Indian Territory.."

That was no typo: The median net worth of black Bostonians ...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ians-really/ze5kxC1jJelx24M3pugFFN/story.html
Dec 11, 2017 The household median net worth was $247,500 for whites; $8 for US blacks (the lowest of all five cities); $12,000 for Caribbean blacks; $3,020 for Puerto Ricans; and $0 for Dominicans (that's ...

 

[Ouroboros]

What you do mean by that? The word woke only means "regained consciousness out of sleep."

In social terms "woke" means a person who easily condemns others, and pays no attention to the beam in his own eye (that's a Biblical paraphrase, if you care to look it up).