I'm not going to call merely describing reality while identifying people by their races is racist, I do that and have done it many times this thread. — Judaka

I'm not against calling people black and white, I've done that throughout this thread.

What utter nonsense!

Racial discrimination is all about the color of one's skin. You cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing upon it. You cannot focus upon it without focusing upon skin color. — creativesoul

Racial discrimination is all about discrimination, skin colour is just the thing being discriminated against. You asked me for my experience with it, I don't have a personal story but I have Chinese friends who I've seen deal with it. Yes, I'm aware my friend is Chinese but that's not the problem, the issue is the person who is saying racist remarks to my friend. My friend could be Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, Russian - it doesn't matter. I don't actually see why it matters at all that my friend is Chinese and not some other ethnicity. I don't understand how this is even about him, he didn't do anything except meet the wrong people.

I really just don't understand why you're saying this.

No longer interested

What matters is that they are a body (with a skin colour) which is treated with respect, given a place on a society, etc., so it's not a simple matter of ignoring race.

It's not good enough to say, "Race never matters, ignore it and just think about other things". If there are people of a certain skin colour who are treated badly in a society, it is an act upon them, upon their body, with its skin colour.

The equitable society cannot just ignore bodies different skin colour, as if it didn't matter where they occurred or they were treated. They have to understand a body of any skin colour is to be respected, understood to belong, treated justly, etc.

It must actively understand each individual, with their skin colour, is valued and belongs. It is not colorblind. It gets up and pronounces each person belongs in their own skin: a society in which White, Black, Asian, etc., such that it matters how each of those bodies is treated by society.

Making assumptions based on race; depends a lot of how it's done, no? Is it in intellectual act of critique which highlights socio-economic-legal disparities ("privileges")? In this context assumptions based on race are neutral on the metaphysics of race *; it doesn't have to matter what race is for the purposes of showing what it does. You don't hold any opinions of any individual, you hold opinions of a population based on disparities that the population has been shown to face.

That is much different, I hope is clear, from holding a negative opinion or treating someone badly in a manner rooted in their race. — fdrake

Yes, I know others have called white privilege a racist term but I don't believe that is fair. The name aside, you are merely describing reality to the best of your ability and I agree that that way includes talking about race. As I said, using the white privilege framing doesn't make you a "racial discriminator" (are we not using the word racist here?).

socio-economic-legal disparities — fdrake

Excellent, thanks.

By systemic discrimination I understand a socio-economic mechanism that increases the chances of negative outcomes for members of a group * based upon their membership of that group. — fdrake

I wasn't expecting this response but since you gave it, I am interested, do you account for historical explanations? For example, if we eradicated all forms of systemic racism in the US (magically, instantly) but black Americans are still disproportionately poor (not changed), would that be a problem for you?

A discriminatory prejudice is a negative judgement of a person that results in holding an unsubstantiated negative opinion of their character, capacities, and possible behaviours causally derived from an agent's recognition of their membership in a group. A racial prejudice is a discriminatory prejudice where the group assignment mechanism is race — fdrake

I mostly agree. Another topic I'm interested in is examining the consequences of being attractive versus being unattractive in the modern era. I think that just as someone who thinks about this topic a lot, the chances of me prejudicing against someone based on their looks simply skyrockets. Of course, I am not aiming to do that but when someone is not thinking about looks in this analytical way and to the degree that I have, they are just simply less likely to prejudice on it. Though I am not saying nobody should talk about race or attractiveness and challenge what kind of impact it has on society.

I think besides just talking about it a lot, it's how you talk about it and for me, systemic racism should focus on the act of discrimination as opposed to differences between the races. It's kind of unavoidable to talk about the attractiveness of the person because that's the subject but here, we are not aiming to talk about blackness or whiteness, we are aiming to talk about racism. I am against talking about racism in terms like "white privilege" because the focus is not on the cause, it's on a race. The consequences of talking about race and focusing on race are increased chances of being racist, increased likelihood of race becoming interpretatively relevant (used to understand) for people. That's what I believe at least.

For example, if we eradicated all forms of systemic racism in the US (magically, instantly) but black Americans are still disproportionately poor (not changed), would that be a problem for you? — Judaka

The economic disparity is one of the major examples of systematic racism. If it has not been eliminated, all forms of systematic racism have not been ended.

↪Number2018

It seems to me that that account is an oversimplification based upon a couple of false equivalencies. Supporting X is not equivalent to not challenging X.

Complicity requires knowledge of that which one is an accomplice to and the intent to be an accomplice. Typically it is some illegal action and/or wrongdoing. Typically speaking many white people - particularly those lacking close relationships with non whites - are not aware of the everyday struggles that non whites suffer simply for being non white. White privilege is a benefit that many(perhaps most poor) whites do not realize that they have. To say that they are complicit in systemic racism is problematic to say the very least. To say that they are responsible for something that was otherwise completely out of their control, is wrong-minded to say the least. There are much better approaches. — creativesoul

Thank you for responding to that so I didn't have to.

Yeah. You seem to think that names only refer to people(or perhaps that only proper nouns are names?). Names pick something out of this world to the exclusion of all else. Not just people have names. The red brick has a name too. "Red brick" is the name we've given to red bricks. "Red brick" is not a red brick. Houses are made of red bricks, not "red bricks". When I name the object I want you to hand me, if it is a red brick, I call it by it's name. "Hand me a red brick". — creativesoul

I didn't say anything about people. I said a brick's name was Sergio. Names are arbitrary titles given to specific instances of things. But that's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the people who catalog what our words mean based on how they are used:

name
/nām/
noun
1. a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to.
"my name is Parsons, John Parsons"

so,

"White privilege" is a name that refers to the immunity that all white individuals have from suffering injury because one is non white. Below are explicit descriptions of white privilege. — creativesoul

...is not correct. It is an attempt to describe the phenomenon, using those specific words.

If it were really nothing more than a name, why would you fight so hard against changing it? We've all agreed that it is broadly irritating when deployed against people who are not privy to academic discussions of race. You see that as a feature, I see it as a bug.

If you could name it anything, why would you choose something that makes large numbers of people instantly denounce it upon its utterance, unless you felt that label had specific descriptive powers? Maybe the working title was "Final Solution", but then "White Privilege" was settled on as being slightly less controversial?

You can't have it both ways. Either (A) the words "white privilege" mean what they say they mean and were specifically chosen to convey those ideas (the facts support this entirely), or (B) "white privilege" is just an arbitrary "name", and it has no meaning, and you shouldn't care or be surprised when people tell you it's a stupid name.

If you choose option A, then you need to confront my arguments that it fails as a description because it falsely attempts to create a privilege in an overly broad and poorly defined case, instead of focusing on the real detriment in a different case. It also fails as an attempt to combat racism because it reinforces concepts of race that are artificial and need to be wiped out entirely, not perpetuated by created new ways to use (weaponize?) them.

If you choose option B, then you need to change the name to something better. I suggest "systemic racism".

Therefore, individuals may exercise acts of systemic racism unbeknownst to themselves, or even contrary to their intentions, — Number2018

There is no such thing as an "act of systemic racism". Systemic racism is system-wide, by definition. It is not contained in specific instances, it is perpetually present by virtue of the system in which it lives. Acts of racism are interpersonal, not systemic. You argument holds true if you make this distinction, but fails if you do not.

People engaged in discrete acts of interpersonal racism absolutely bear responsibility for those acts. There is no such thing as systemic responsibility. The results of enforcing such a concept would be laughably insane.

Supporting X is not equivalent to not challenging X. — creativesoul

Aside from complicity, how would you describe the following thing MLK highlights:

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

?

For me there's a distinction between complicity - what I think MLK diagnoses as the system justifying behaviour of the "white moderate" in a different vocabulary - and collaboration, like the FBI's actions against black civil rights movements in COINTELPRO + within Garvey's movement. Complicity's "The wrong life cannot be lived rightly" vs collaboration's being an agent that works to promote or sustain the unjust conditions of life.

For me there's a distinction between complicity - what I think MLK diagnoses as the system justifying behaviour of the "white moderate" in a different vocabulary - and collaboration, like the FBI's actions against black civil rights movements in COINTELPRO + within Garvey's movement. Complicity's "The wrong life cannot be lived rightly" vs collaboration's being an agent that works to promote or sustain the unjust conditions of life. — fdrake

You're trying to create a distinction where there is no difference. Accomplice and collaborator mean more or less the same thing. Both require direct, knowledgeable involvement in a previously determined illegal act. Neither of them apply in this case, as even @creativesoul has been telling you.

Both require direct, knowledgeable involvement in a previously determined illegal act. — Pro Hominem

If complicity and collaboration in an injustice both require that that injustice is illegal, it becomes impossible to be complicit with or collaborate in the execution of an unjust law; since by definition it is legal.

Edit, example: So something like Operation Legacy, in which administrative agents of the British Empire destroyed their meticulous internal documentation of Britain's human rights violations in order to avoid something like the Nuremburg Trials happening to Britain... Perfectly legal. So impossible to be complicit in; despite all those turning a blind eye, and all those failing to sequester documents; and impossible to collaborate with; despite people burning down archive buildings. If someone who literally burned incriminating documents to stop the British Empire being held to account legally for its crimes in an international tribunal is not a collaborator in the crimes of Empire, I don't know what remains of the meaning of the term.

Racist = uses racial categories in arguments = can think about people in terms of races. — fdrake

Ok, this is the crux of the miscommunication. This is absolutely not what Judaka and I are saying. I would say it's a straw man, but I think you think this is what you're actually arguing against.

We are saying:
Racist = personally defines or categorizes people by the color of their skin, according to a made up concept called "race"

Racist =/= being able to understand, describe, and discuss the fact that (most) people think this way, resulting in a range of undesirable effects

Thus, there is a difference between recognizing the "mass incarceration of blacks" as a real problem based on a range of factors (which include defining people as "black" in the first place), and using a statement like "black power" or "white privilege" which indicates a personally held belief that all people are members of these distinct "races".

There are, of course, nuances to this. I dislike the reinforcement of the concept of "blackness" that "Black Lives Matter" implies, but I recognize that in this moment that language is necessary, I think the message and the goals of this movement are obviously beneficial, and the benefits of this framing far outweigh the detriment of its reinforcement of the race concept.

That said, I believe (and I think Judaka believes, but it's not my place to say so) that the ultimate goal is to stop using these terms at all. There is no need nor benefit to referring to people as black or white in the way that we do. I realize terms like "dark-skinned" or "pale-skinned" may have utility as descriptive terms, similar to saying someone has black hair or green eyes, but we must stop using these words "black" and "white" unless we can collectively understand we are not describing ANYTHING beyond the color of their skin.

As long as we continue to employ the language and symbolism of the race-based view of the world, we will never live in a "post-racist" world. This is my concern with most anything that uses the "black" or "white" labels. If every one of us just stopped believing those terms correlated to something real in the world, racism would immediately disappear. That is what the end of racism looks like.

If complicity and collaboration in an injustice both require that that injustice is illegal, it becomes impossible to be complicit in or collaborate in the execution of an unjust law; since by definition it is legal — fdrake

Yes, this is correct. You must campaign for the changing of the law. Or, in the inverse, if one cannot be charged with a crime or be held liable for a behavior, then one can also not be held as an accomplice to that crime or behavior.

So this is how vast a philosophical debate can get huh.

As long as we continue to employ the language and symbolism of the race-based view of the world, we will never live in a "post-racist" world. This is my concern with most anything that uses the "black" or "white" labels. If every one of us just stopped believing those terms correlated to something real in the world, racism would immediately disappear. That is what the end of racism looks like. — Pro Hominem

Oh absolutely; there will be no need to use race categories to call a spade a spade here after systemic racism has been abolished. Until then, insofar as a system is systemically racist, it requires a vocabulary to describe the mechanisms of its systemic racism in order to address them. It's a cart and horse thing; systemic racism is doing all the pulling, not how we speak about race. What would abolish the need to use race as a concept is the end of systemic racism - the only reason it seems plausible that abolishing the vocabulary of race would end systemic racism are that how people think and socio-economic conditions relate to each other. No one's going to get more free by everyone agreeing to use words differently in isolation, and so long as systemic racism exists it will engender racial stereotyping and other prejudices.

I see this as a much different discussion than on what race is - an interlinking collection of categories that is re/produced by a process of racialization. It's not just words. If someone's going to believe that a person is gonna be lazy because they're black, that's nowhere near using race categories to describe systemic discrimination that's rooted in how those categories propagate+sustain themselves over time and people!

Magically abolish racial categorisation in language alone, there would still be systemic racism, and it won't be long after that until racial stereotypes crop up.

Racial discrimination is all about the color of one's skin. — creativesoul

I am tentatively agreeing with this. I think it's correct, but it's very broad so reserving the right to re-examine. This is me agreeing with you.

You cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing upon it. You cannot focus upon it without focusing upon skin color. — creativesoul

To finish this syllogism, "therefore you cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing on skin color." I would argue this is false. This is certainly one of the key points of difference in our arguments. I would say that "focusing on skin color" is the very root of the problem of racial discrimination. If the goal is the end of racism, life in a post-racist world, then skin color must become a non-issue, not a focus.

If however, one perceives the situation as a "race war" or believes that the distinction between "white" people and "black" people is a real thing that cannot be discarded, then I guess you are trapped in this cycle until one group exterminates the other. I believe this scenario is demonstrably false, but even if I thought it might be true I'd fight against it because I see it as a horribly evil thing.

You seem to have referenced having a daily personal stake in acts of racial discrimination, so perhaps your insistence is born of the moment. I have been in that same circumstance, but I am not anymore. Perhaps I have the luxury of the long view from my perspective, but that isn't satisfying from your perspective.

I'd like to reiterate what I said several pages back - I think we want the same things. If you identify with my "post-race" scenario, then we are in agreement, and are just in different places on a similar path. If you agree with the "race war" or "race is real" formulation, however, then that would explain why it is so difficult to reach any accord here.

Since you have accused me repeatedly of trying to put words in your mouth, I'll let you speak for yourself on this matter. If you think about the "solution" to systemic racism, what does that look like in your mind?

Magically abolish racial categorisation in language, there would still be systemic discrimination, and it won't be long after that until racial stereotypes crop up — fdrake

So racism is inevitable? I could not more vehemently disagree.

Your straw man formulations are wearing thin as well. I am not saying "If people could not say the word 'black', then racism would end." That's just stupid. I'm saying it is possible to conceive of a world in which people do not infer anything about others based on their skin tone, but it is necessary to stop labeling people based on skin tone before that can happen.

This is a long term view, by the way. Systemic racism is still very real, but it has been diminishing for the last few decades. If we continue that trend, eventually it will be necessary to jettison the vocabulary of race. Why not start on that now?

Immunity is a thing. Exemption is a thing.

So racism is inevitable? I could not more vehemently disagree. — Pro Hominem

Oh no. That's not what I meant at all. I simply meant that how we talk about race isn't the primary means by which systemic racism re/produces itself - in my view the primary means are economic and legal (function of the enforcement of law rather than letter of the law). Say when Glasgow Council decided to tackle the systemic risk of knife crime, they didn't intervene on how people spoke about each other, they treated it as a public health and education issue; effectively increasing the social capital of the target communities to address the conditions that lead to knife crime being more commonplace in those areas. They did not and could not stop anyone referring to community members as neds or schemies, but they could address the disadvantages that increased the risk of knife crime for the targets of the words.

"Defund the Police" from the BLM protests wants a similar shift in strategic focus; public health over punishment, prevention through addressing the economic issues that lead to higher crime rates over the punitive treatment of the symptoms of those issues. The focus on socio-economy over discourse is instructive.

Why not start on that now? — Pro Hominem

In a time where "Black Lives Matter" is an effective rallying slogan, and "white privilege" as a concept is forcing us to discuss systemic racism like this, it is still completely necessary. Why start jettisoning the vocabulary that will be needed to address the issues while they're still a huge thing? And why does this difficult deconstructive labour of race concepts have to be done in the same breath as the problem naming slogan of "white privilege"? Different problems, different strategies.

Oh no. That's not what I meant at all. I simply meant that how we talk about race isn't the primary means by which systemic racism re/produces itself - in my view the primary means are economic and legal (function of the enforcement of law rather than letter of the law). Say when Glasgow Council decided to tackle the systemic risk of knife crime, they didn't intervene on how people spoke about each other, they treated it as a public health and education issue; effectively increasing the social capital of the target communities to address the conditions that lead to knife crime being more commonplace in those areas. They did not and could not stop anyone referring to community members as neds or schemies, but they could address the disadvantages that increased the risk of knife crime for the targets of the words.

"Defund the Police" from the BLM protests wants a similar shift in strategic focus; public health over punishment, prevention through addressing the economic issues that lead to higher crime rates over the punitive treatment of the symptoms of those issues — fdrake

Straw manning again. I did not say that vocabulary was sufficient to end racism. I said it was a factor. Obviously addressing the conditions that support the racist fiction is a bigger factor. I would never say otherwise, and have in fact said that I don't think the "white privilege" framing is somehow fatal to progress in race issues - I just think it's unproductive.

In a time where "Black Lives Matter" is an effective rallying slogan, and "white privilege" as a concept is forcing us to discuss systemic racism like this, it is still completely necessary. — fdrake

I'm taking the second part first because it dovetails with my comments above. To say that "white privilege" is a "necessary" concept is pure fiction. It is not "forcing" us to discuss anything. I am going round and round with you people because it amuses me to do so and it just helps that I think you're wrong about this. I am perfectly aware of institutional and systemic racism and have a solid grasp of the problems associated with racist law enforcement policies and practices, and I have reached all these conclusions and understandings without any help from this "white privilege" nonsense. It is in no way necessary to understand or even be aware of that terminology in order to be aware of the systemic nature of racism in this country (sorry if an American bias is present there - I acknowledge it and it doesn't change my point).

As for Black Lives Matter, I have already expressed my support for it because of its obviously beneficial effects and clear goals. I oppose white privilege for its lack of both.

Immunity is a thing. Exemption is a thing. — creativesoul

...and you've decided to "name" those things "white privilege?"

Seriously, what are you saying? That's incoherent.

(sorry if an American bias is present there - I acknowledge it and it doesn't change my point). — Pro Hominem

No worries.

Straw manning again. I did not say that vocabulary was sufficient to end racism. I said it was a factor. — Pro Hominem

Obviously addressing the conditions that support the racist fiction is a bigger factor. I would never say otherwise, and have in fact said that I don't think the "white privilege" framing is somehow fatal to progress in race issues - I just think it's unproductive. — Pro Hominem

What would you replace "white privilege" with? I'm genuinely curious, not asking in a "gotcha" way. Or if you don't agree that the role that concept plays in discourse still needs to be played, why not?

Immunity is a thing. Exemption is a thing.
— creativesoul

...and you've decided to "name" those things "white privilege?"

Seriously, what are you saying? That's incoherent. — Pro Hominem

:brow:

That's totally coherent. It's exactly what I've been saying all along. It also dovetails nicely with the standard dictionary definitions/most common use of the term "privilege". I suggest you re-examine my words with that in mind...

Racial discrimination is all about the color of one's skin.
— creativesoul

I am tentatively agreeing with this. I think it's correct, but it's very broad so reserving the right to re-examine. This is me agreeing with you.

You cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing upon it. You cannot focus upon it without focusing upon skin color.
— creativesoul

To finish this syllogism, "therefore you cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing on skin color." I would argue this is false — Pro Hominem

Well. Do it.

What would you replace "white privilege" with? I'm genuinely curious, not asking in a "gotcha" way. Or if you don't agree that the role that concept plays in discourse still needs to be played, why not? — fdrake

Systemic racism. The concept includes everything that you are trying to say with white privilege with the exception of trying to make it intentionally confrontational and controversial. I understand that those that employ it think the confrontational aspect is a useful thing, but I do not. I think it breeds resistance and resentment.

Racist = personally defines or categorizes people by the color of their skin, according to a made up concept called "race"... — Pro Hominem

Every language user who has ever used the terms "black", "white", "asian", or "multi-racial" is racist according to that criterion for what counts as being racist.

Well. Do it. — creativesoul

Racism:
X is bad
You are X
You are bad

Post racism:
There is no X.

Your formulation (white privilege):
Y says X is bad
some people are X
Y is bad

I have black loved ones, asian loved ones, and white loved ones, but according to that definition of "racist", I am racist.

:brow:

Every language user who has ever used the terms "black", "white", "asian" is racist according to that criterion for what counts as being racist. — creativesoul

You are intentionally ignoring the nuances here. It is possible to use the terms without believing in their descriptive power. I can talk about God without believing that it exists. I can understand what other people mean when they use a term and use that term to interact with them without believing the term is well founded. I don't like using the word black, but I do sometimes because it means something in common usage. I prefer "people of color" because it is less charged and less overbroad, but it is still problematically inexact (and reeks of PC-ness). Ideally I wouldn't have to use this at all because people would stop seeing themselves and others this way and just treat each person as they found them. I do this, so I know it's possible.

Y says X is bad
some people are X
Y is bad — Pro Hominem

Accounting malpractices won't do.