The Racist Foundation of Identity Politics

[NatMorton]

I was reading a good piece in the City Journal today and came across a great observation. Robin DiAngelo, who (I read) is a famous "diversity trainer," instructs her classes that “White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Her assertion is clearly rooted in the central tenet of identity politics: the group matters and the individual does not. But I ask you, how is this any different from the racist ideology of the 19th and 20th centuries that asserted members of a non-white race were inferior regardless of their individual worth?

The simple truth is this: at its core, woke-ism is no different than traditional forms of racism. You are judged by your skin color and not the content of your character.

 

[ecofarm]

Is this your 5th race rage thread today?

 

[highroller]

Absolute statements are always wrong

 

[poweRob]

I was reading a good piece in the City Journal today and came across a great observation. Robin DiAngelo, who (I read) is a famous "diversity trainer," instructs her classes that “White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Her assertion is clearly rooted in the central tenet of identity politics: the group matters and the individual does not. But I ask you, how is this any different from the racist ideology of the 19th and 20th centuries that asserted members of a non-white race were inferior regardless of their individual worth?

The simple truth is this: at its core, woke-ism is no different than traditional forms of racism. You are judged by your skin color and not the content of your character.

Lessons on racism from a nationalist?

 

[Helix]

white people are very, very mistreated. a lot of people are saying that, believe me. i'm not sure how white people even manage to get up in the morning to eat their cocoa pebbles. even those turn the milk brown. coincidence? i think not. it's indoctrination.

 

[NatMorton]

And as could be expected, the light and fluffy replies are drifting in.

 

[ecofarm]

And as could be expected, the light and fluffy replies are drifting in.

You spam race threads and complain. What do you expect? If you had any clue what you're talking about, you wouldn't need to spam idiotic threads asking questions about "why" and "how".

We're supposed to entertain your ignorance-based race victim complaints?

 

[lwf]

I was reading a good piece in the City Journal today and came across a great observation. Robin DiAngelo, who (I read) is a famous "diversity trainer," instructs her classes that “White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Her assertion is clearly rooted in the central tenet of identity politics: the group matters and the individual does not. But I ask you, how is this any different from the racist ideology of the 19th and 20th centuries that asserted members of a non-white race were inferior regardless of their individual worth?

The simple truth is this: at its core, woke-ism is no different than traditional forms of racism. You are judged by your skin color and not the content of your character.

Like many poorly-worded liberal tropes, the idea that "only white people can be racist" is a very ineffective and misleading way to communicate a logical conclusion based on the modern sociological definition of "Racism," rather than on its most common use solely as "prejudice based on race." Modern sociologists have redefined racism as to only apply to minority groups and cultures and never to the dominant culture.

Minority groups can absolutely be prejudiced against a particular race that is represented by the dominant culture, and this is of course a bad thing, and while this falls into the definition of racism as commonly used, this does not fall into the definition of "Racism" as defined by sociologists.

And there is good reason for this distinction: A minority group being prejudiced against me because I am white is objectively wrong, but this wrong causes me very little harm. A majority group being prejudiced against a person of a minority race because of their race is just as wrong, but the damage to this person is much much worse due to the fact that his or her culture is not the dominant culture. The two are not even comparable, therefore there should absolutely be a distinction between white on black racism and black on white racism in the United States. If they are both "racism" by the common definition, then we need another word to differentiate the massive disparity in consequences for the victims.

 

[Cameron]

I was reading a good piece in the City Journal today and came across a great observation. Robin DiAngelo, who (I read) is a famous "diversity trainer," instructs her classes that “White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Her assertion is clearly rooted in the central tenet of identity politics: the group matters and the individual does not. But I ask you, how is this any different from the racist ideology of the 19th and 20th centuries that asserted members of a non-white race were inferior regardless of their individual worth?

The simple truth is this: at its core, woke-ism is no different than traditional forms of racism. You are judged by your skin color and not the content of your character.

I haven't read this person before, but I did read this interview:

Robin DiAngelo: How 'white fragility' supports racism and how whites can stop it | CNN

The author of one of the best selling books on racism, Robin DiAngelo tells us about how "white fragility" contributes to racism, and how white people can stop it.

www.cnn.com

I think there is a difference between privilege and racism. White "privilege" I don't think is something white people need to apologize for or feel bad about. Why should I feel bad that nobody has ever called the police on me while I'm sitting in Starbucks? That's how it should be for everyone, regardless of skin color.

Rather than apologize for privilege, I think some white people just need to be better at acknowledging that many people of color have had different experiences than we have which form the basis for their relationships with and attitudes toward other people and issues, particularly authority figures. IMO, many conservatives do not even attempt to try to see things from the viewpoint of people of color.

I think the point of diversity training should be to make people aware of the things they might do/say that can offend people of different backgrounds. I don't see what is wrong with that; it is obviously important especially in an employment context to foster an inclusive and respectful culture, both among employees and between employees and customers. Diversity training shouldn't be about making anyone feel like they are a bad person, it should be about providing skills to make people better communicators and more respecful colleagues. Also, I've participated in many diversity trainings and that is virtually always the case; I have never witnessed an actual diversity training that was anything remotely similar to the kind of "anti-white" propoganda conservatives seem to think all diversity training is like.

 

[beefheart]

I was reading a good piece in the City Journal today and came across a great observation. Robin DiAngelo, who (I read) is a famous "diversity trainer," instructs her classes that “White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Her assertion is clearly rooted in the central tenet of identity politics: the group matters and the individual does not. But I ask you, how is this any different from the racist ideology of the 19th and 20th centuries that asserted members of a non-white race were inferior regardless of their individual worth?

The simple truth is this: at its core, woke-ism is no different than traditional forms of racism. You are judged by your skin color and not the content of your character.

We get it...you don't like people unless they are as white as you.

 

[joko104]

Like many poorly-worded liberal tropes, the idea that "only white people can be racist" is a very ineffective and misleading way to communicate a logical conclusion based on the modern sociological definition of "Racism," rather than on its most common use solely as "prejudice based on race." Modern sociologists have redefined racism as to only apply to minority groups and cultures and never to the dominant culture.

Minority groups can absolutely be prejudiced against a particular race that is represented by the dominant culture, and this is of course a bad thing, and while this falls into the definition of racism as commonly used, this does not fall into the definition of "Racism" as defined by sociologists.

And there is good reason for this distinction: A minority group being prejudiced against me because I am white is objectively wrong, but this wrong causes me very little harm. A majority group being prejudiced against a person of a minority race because of their race is just as wrong, but the damage to this person is much much worse due to the fact that his or her culture is not the dominant culture. The two are not even comparable, therefore there should absolutely be a distinction between white on black racism and black on white racism in the United States. If they are both "racism" by the common definition, then we need another word to differentiate the massive disparity in consequences for the victims.

Your message is true toyou only because you approved of black on white violence, claiming it is at best irrelevant.

Aren't you white? Shouldn't this have been you? It's not like that white guy was caused any real harm - according to you anyway.
blob:https://nypost.com/d8a528f2-c60f-4b76-b70f-23d1f0f38b12

 

[NatMorton]

Like many poorly-worded liberal tropes, the idea that "only white people can be racist" is a very ineffective and misleading way to communicate a logical conclusion based on the modern sociological definition of "Racism,

Not sure I buy this. It seem to be another version of "well, yes, 'defund the police' is a lousy slogan, but that's not what they really mean ..."

I think we should start giving the social justice warriors the respect they deserve and begin taking them at their word.

 

[NatMorton]

We get it...you don't like people unless they are as white as you.

Your reply demonstrates you get nothing.

 

[ecofarm]

Like many poorly-worded liberal tropes, the idea that "only white people can be racist" is a very ineffective and misleading way to communicate a logical conclusion based on the modern sociological definition of "Racism," rather than on its most common use solely as "prejudice based on race." Modern sociologists have redefined racism as to only apply to minority groups and cultures and never to the dominant culture.

Minority groups can absolutely be prejudiced against a particular race that is represented by the dominant culture, and this is of course a bad thing, and while this falls into the definition of racism as commonly used, this does not fall into the definition of "Racism" as defined by sociologists.

And there is good reason for this distinction: A minority group being prejudiced against me because I am white is objectively wrong, but this wrong causes me very little harm. A majority group being prejudiced against a person of a minority race because of their race is just as wrong, but the damage to this person is much much worse due to the fact that his or her culture is not the dominant culture. The two are not even comparable, therefore there should absolutely be a distinction between white on black racism and black on white racism in the United States. If they are both "racism" by the common definition, then we need another word to differentiate the massive disparity in consequences for the victims.

Racism is a social construct of which a minority power is not capable. Racism is not an individual act. Racism is global.

The term has been dumbed down to the benefit of racists and, of course, whitey (the power structure) is good with that.

 

[NatMorton]

A minority group being prejudiced against me because I am white is objectively wrong, but this wrong causes me very little harm.

What if a member of the minority group in question is your boss? Or the judge hearing your case? Or the President of the United States?

 

[NatMorton]

Lessons on racism from a nationalist?

Lessons in ad hominem.

 

[ecofarm]

What if a member of the minority group in question is your boss? Or the judge hearing your case? Or the President of the United States?

It's not about individuals. It's about a group, as a whole, being oppressed. Black people are not oppressed because one black person happens to be oppressed for some reason. Black people are oppressed because black people, as a whole, are oppressed.

White people are the majority power and thus are not oppressed. They have the power. Context is global.

 

[Rogue Valley]

This Robin DeAngelo?

 

[mrjurrs]

I was reading a good piece in the City Journal today and came across a great observation. Robin DiAngelo, who (I read) is a famous "diversity trainer," instructs her classes that “White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Her assertion is clearly rooted in the central tenet of identity politics: the group matters and the individual does not. But I ask you, how is this any different from the racist ideology of the 19th and 20th centuries that asserted members of a non-white race were inferior regardless of their individual worth?

The simple truth is this: at its core, woke-ism is no different than traditional forms of racism. You are judged by your skin color and not the content of your character.

I'd suggest you read her words and not someone else's description of her words. Let me do a poor job of interpreting for you. White identity is inherently racist because it involves no thought of race as an issue. Are there any jobs white people feel they should not apply for because of their race? How about neighborhoods to buy a house in, or people you may want to date? Our white identity has been formed outside of thinking about race. We don't recognize the racist power structures that surround us because they benefit us.

Here is an easy example. Students across America are entitled to to a free, equal, education. Yet we fund our public schools with property taxes. I am not responsible for this decision, but I benefit from it. Funding education by property taxes penalizes students from low tax base neighborhoods. Lower tax neighborhoods are more likely to be neighborhoods of color. Therefore, those schools are funded unequally. and white identifiers benefit.

Claiming to be a victim of racism while suffering zero of its impact is disingenuous at best.

 

[lwf]

Not sure I buy this. It seem to be another version of "well, yes, 'defund the police' is a lousy slogan, but that's not what they really mean ..."

I think we should start giving the social justice warriors the respect they deserve and begin taking them at their word.

It is. And I agree that liberals have a catchphrase problem. "Defund the police" would be better stated as "Reform the police," but that doesn't grab headlines and doesn't have that hint of controversy.

"Black lives matter" would be better stated as "Black lives matter too."

"Believe women" would be better stated as "take all allegations seriously." But again, which is more catchy?

Conservatives have their own issues with this sort of thing as well of course. "Alternative facts," "stand back and stand by," "but her emails" etc.

You're welcome to assume that these catchphrases mean what you think they appear to mean on the surface rather than the best argument that they are intended to represent, but this is attacking a straw man, and your rebuttal would be an illusion rather than a refutation.

 

[poweRob]

Lessons in ad hominem.

Are you not a nationalist NatMorton?

 

[NatMorton]

"Defund the police" would be better stated as "Reform the police," but that doesn't grab headlines and doesn't have that hint of controversy.

Sorry, but no. When members of the Seattle City Council say "Defund the Police" and then propose an immediate 50% cut to the police department budget I think they've done what it says on the tin.

I realize some merely mean "reform," but to say that's all the phrase has ever meant is simply wrong.

 

[NatMorton]

Are you not a nationalist NatMorton?

Do you still beat your wife?

 

[NatMorton]

White identity is inherently racist because it involves no thought of race as an issue.

We can stop there. This is no different than saying Blacks are inherently lazy or Asians are inscrutable.

These -- including yours -- are racist statements.

 

[Linc]

Your reply demonstrates you get nothing.

Trumpism has its Roots in 1920s Indiana and Italy.