Is what you've been doing in this thread critical thinking? Black-on-black crime, black American distrust of police, examples of rich black Americans subverting expectations, these were all true well back into the civil rights era. They're just nonsense things to be bringing up to disprove systemic racism.

What I find interesting about creativesoul's definition of white privilege is that he never actually stipulates what white privilege is insofar as actual statistics or concerns. Which means that you can agree with him regardless of whether you think white privilege is a tiny, insignificant benefit or something of dramatic importance.

He also doesn't stipulate that someone who benefits from white privilege is never going to run into problems as a result of their whiteness. He actually specifically mentions how white privilege can be used to be anti-white and he condemns that - he is not denying racism towards whiteness exists.

Quite frankly, you have only ever introduced statistics which support your argument. Where have you given a balanced account of this topic? Isn't this simply hypocrisy?

What I find interesting about creativesoul's definition of white privilege is that he never actually stipulates what white privilege is insofar as actual statistics or concerns. Which means that you can agree with him regardless of whether you think white privilege is a tiny, insignificant benefit or something of dramatic importance. — Judaka

If they never actually stipulated what white privilege is then how can anyone agree or disagree with it? It doesn't follow that you could agree with it, as it is just as possible to disagree with it. All you are doing is putting words in their mouth so that you might agree with them or not.

This is just more examples of how yours and creativesoul's political arguments are like those made by the fundamentally religious. God is never properly defined so there can't be an instance of agreeing or disagreeing with its existence if its not properly defined. Political parties have adopted religious characteristics - an us. vs. them mentality, an abandoning of proper reasoning in favor of emotional reactions, and a lack of proper definitions that can be agreed on.

All you can do is put words in creativesoul's mouth so that you might agree with what you're saying they said but they never said because you also said they never stipulated what they are actually talking about. You're not agreeing with what creativesoul said. Your agreeing with your own interpretation of what they meant.

He also doesn't stipulate that someone who benefits from white privilege is never going to run into problems as a result of their whiteness. He actually specifically mentions how white privilege can be used to be anti-white and he condemns that - he is not denying racism towards whiteness exists.

Quite frankly, you have only ever introduced statistics which support your argument. Where have you given a balanced account of this topic? Isn't this simply hypocrisy? — Judaka

If the statistics I showed supports what creativesoul said - that blacks can be racist and act on improperly ill-conceived notions, then why didn't creativesoul acknowledge that? This wouldn't be the first time that creativesoul agreed with someone from his side and disagreed with me even though I said the same thing. It's because they already have this preconceived notion about me and anything I say is wrong, even though it's what they said, or someone else said and they agreed with. It has become a waste of time to read anything that creativesoul writes because they are so inconsistent.

And, I haven't provided only stats. I provided thought-experiments and asked questions about it, none of which were addressed. It's about how the idea of systemic racism is exaggerated for racist purposes and how the idea can snowball and cause black men to be resistant to cops that aren't being racist, which can then result in them being shot and the non-racist cop is accused of being racist.

Black-on-black crime, black American distrust of police, examples of rich black Americans subverting expectations, these were all true well back into the civil rights era. — Judaka

What are you saying, that nothing has changed since the civil rights era? You have politicians like Biden making the same promises that they have been making for nearly 50 years, and blacks are still voting for them. It severely limits the power of your argument that white privilege is still a problem when they vote for the same people that are part of the problem. It makes it obvious that you aren't interested in justice, rather you are interested in pushing an agenda.

What about the high rate of broken families and absent fathers in the black community? That is something more recent, that wasn't the case before the civil rights movement and the authoritarian socialists "Democrats" had a had in creating with their government "hand-outs".

If they never actually stipulated what white privilege is then how can anyone agree or disagree with it? — Harry Hindu

It was stipulated precisely what "white privilege is" conceptually, which is what is being agreed with. Just as if we agreed there is an intelligence privilege or attractiveness privilege, we can agree that there are benefits to being intelligent or attractive without agreeing on whether it's slightly beneficial or extremely beneficial, without agreeing on where it is beneficial or how. You can agree that it's beneficial to be intelligent in our society without me listing all of the contexts where I think being intelligent is beneficial.

This is just more examples of how yours and creativesoul's political arguments are like those made by the fundamentally religious. — Harry Hindu

It's more examples of how pathetic your refutations are, it's embarrassing to listen to you because you criticise the very behaviour you exhibit. That you paint yourself in a positive light despite this, only shows further your bias and dishonesty.

If the statistics I showed supports what creativesoul said - that blacks can be racist and act on improperly ill-conceived notions, then why didn't creativesoul acknowledge that? — Harry Hindu

As far as I can tell, he doesn't appear to be giving you the time of day, that appears to be the reason why he's not acknowledging what you're saying as opposed to intellectual dishonesty.

If they feel like non whites are attacking them personally because of the fact that they are white, it is very hard to convince them that those non whites are not racist, regardless of whether or not they actually are.

Such frameworks using white privilege do not promote the kind of cohesion that's necessary for ending racism. It does little to create solidarity between people of different races to stand up and fight for one another. In fact, it can have quite the opposite affect/effect. It can lessen the desire to stand up for and fight alongside those who suffer from racism, because it ends up feeling like those people are fighting against the white individual because they are white. — creativesoul

And, I haven't provided only stats. I provided thought-experiments and asked questions about it, none of which were addressed. — Harry Hindu

Yes, they were all silly and haven't I already addressed them?

It's about how the idea of systemic racism is exaggerated for racist purposes and how the idea can snowball and cause black men to be resistant to cops that aren't being racist, which can then result in them being shot and the non-racist cop is accused of being racist. — Harry Hindu

That's certainly a serious problem, most of this discussion has been about such concerns. I was opposed to the term white privilege for similar reasons but the appropriation of the term by ill-intentioned goons is the problem, as opposed to the idea that white privilege exists. We can criticise interpretations, descriptions, appropriations, reactions and so on to the term without trying to deny systemic racism exists.

What are you saying, that nothing has changed since the civil rights era? — Harry Hindu

That's one hell of a paraphrase but no, you're a very honest and upstanding debater.

It severely limits the power of your argument that white privilege is still a problem when they vote for the same people that are part of the problem. It makes it obvious that you aren't interested in justice, rather you are interested in pushing an agenda. — Harry Hindu

Just wow. This is you? That you even tie the two together demonstrates how much of an ideologue you are. "They"? Black Americans? Haha. What changes if they vote "correctly"? American democracy can barely even be called as such, what does it matter who "they" vote for?

What about the high rate of broken families and absent fathers in the black community? — Harry Hindu

Yes, a great part of this is due to drug-related problems which weren't around back then. The war on drugs is definitely not a good place to start to refute systemic racism.

Honestly, you seem to have deluded yourself into thinking that you know me well, I've met plenty like you, give yourself a free pass because you're biased. Happy to judge but the first to complain about being judged, right? Creativesoul treats you differently because of whatever but, you would never treat me differently due to your own biases right? Of course not! Haha.

All you are doing is putting words in their mouth... — Harry Hindu

Page seven and eight Harry. seems to understand those words just fine. His defense here is a nice surprise. I'll discuss with you whatever you like so long as it's relevant to what I've written and what that entails. I suggest first setting your own preconceptions about that aside though, because I'm not inclined to argue against stuff that I've not said or doesn't follow from what I have.

I do this in my spare time, and that is currently in short supply. Make it count.

It has become a waste of time to read anything that creativesoul writes because they are so inconsistent. — Harry Hindu

I've been accused of much, but that one does not happen very often at all. Perhaps after reading through page seven and eight to get a feel for what white privilege is, you could then go straight to the source by clicking on my avatar and perusing my comments.

Care to show these purported inconsistencies by quoting them and placing them beside one another?

I'm going to try this again. You both claim:

1. White Americans do not benefit from systemic racism in the United States.

Perhaps my usage of "systemic racism" is nonstandard, but I take it to refer to things like the Black-white wealth gap:

In 2016, white families had the highest level of both median and mean family wealth: $171,000 and $933,700, respectively (figure 1). Black and Hispanic families have considerably less wealth than white families. Black families' median and mean net worth is less than 15 percent that of white families, at $17,600 and $138,200, respectively. Hispanic families' median and mean net worth was $20,700 and $191,200, respectively.
— The Federal Reserve

In American society, as currently constituted, whites have one hell of a lot more money than Blacks!

You can support (1) by also claiming:

2. A white household with a net worth of $171,000 derives no benefit from a Black household having a net worth of only $17,600.

The total wealth of Americans is not a fixed number to be carved up like a pie; white households don't have higher net worth because non-white households have lower net worth. If it counts as evidence that our system is racist, it's not because there is white benefit here, but because there is non-white deprivation. — Srap Tasmaner

This is all consistent with my position, probably reinforces it. I have said from the beginning that oversimplifying this to purely race without including the dimensions of wealth and class is an inaccurate framing of the issue. You correctly note that your data supports the conclusion of a disadvantaging of one group but does not clearly demonstrate a blanket "privilege" to another (much larger) group.

I would also point out that your data shows that no matter your race the ratio between mean and median net worths is in the 8:1 range, which is a great argument for massively uneven distribution of wealth among all Americans. In short, the ones "benefitting" from the system are the rich, not "all white people."

The best ways to address this are race-neutral, e.g. raising the minimum wage or first-time home buyer credits or student loan forgiveness. Such policies will disproportionately benefit minorities and assist them in wealth building over time. The policies should be paid for by taxes directed at the richest individuals and corporations, which is race-neutral but will disproportionately effect whites. Thus we address systemic racism without reinforcing categories of race and their attending stereotypes.

The major exception to all of this is the criminal justice system which remains in Jim Crow mode and must be fundamentally reworked since they don't seem inclined to address their behavior internally. This is the movement we are seeing right now and every decent person should do what they can to reinforce it.

You understand that in the last paragraph of mine you quoted I was speaking for the position I intended to refute in the paragraphs right after that, yes?

Also "blanket" is kind of a weasel word. Statistics don't show, don't expect to show, that every white household has more money than every black household.

Also this post is not about what I would call "white privilege" but about systemic racism.

All that said, I tend overwhelmingly to agree with your post, and with the approach to remediation you champion. (Baby bonds are also interesting.)

Thanks for coming back to this.

You understand that in the last paragraph of mine you quoted I was speaking for the position I intended to refute in the paragraphs right after that, yes? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I understood that. I was saying that I think the analysis holds up right there. I think to go further is to stretch beyond what the data supports.

Also "blanket" is kind of a weasel word. Statistics don't show, don't expect to show, that every white household has more money than every black household.

Also this post is not about what I would call "white privilege" but about systemic racism. — Srap Tasmaner

This goes back to the argument that has perpetuated this thread for 21 pages and counting - the meaning behind the term "white privilege" and whether it refers to anything observable and/or useful. I have never denied that there is systemic racism - it is quite obviously real. I use the word "blanket" in criticism of "white privilege" which is too broad and poorly defined (among its other shortcomings I have enumerated repeatedly). I was using the economic statistics you provided to support the idea that racism is systemic, but to the extent anyone "benefits" from it one is better off looking at the wealth gap between the rich and everyone else than trying to imply some widespread benefit to all white people.

The fall back position has seemed to relocate itself into interpersonal racism (e.g., white people don't get harassed by police officers the way blacks do). I agree that there are differences in treatment of individuals on a large scale and that there is an undeniable racial element to this - but I don't think it logically can be joined up to the broad systemic scale to say "all white people are benefited by this." In fact, I think it detracts from real issues like the fact that white supremacists are gravitating toward jobs in law enforcement and those organizations are doing nothing to police their behaviors, allowing them to create horrifyingly racist institutional norms. The current demonstrations as embodied by ideas like "Black Lives Matter" keep the focus on this difficult problem without explicitly seeking to create "discomfort" among all white people, which I see as beside the point and counterproductive.

So tactically I agree with you, and I have my own reservations about how "privilege" plays into America's self improvement thing.

On the other hand, I think there are interesting things to say about positions of dominance people are unaware they hold. When I see a young man and a young woman at a coffee shop and the guy is talking 90% of the time, I think, "I used to be that asshat." (And there's data on speaking time in conversations between men and women.) I think that kind of thing is worth knowing about for so many reasons.

On the other hand, I think there are interesting things to say about positions of dominance people are unaware they hold. When I see a young man and a young woman at a coffee shop and the guy is talking 90% of the time, I think, "I used to be that asshat." (And there's data on speaking time in conversations between men and women.) I think that kind of thing is worth knowing about for so many reasons. — Srap Tasmaner

Totally agree. I think we can certainly argue for self-awareness and gender equality without having to resort to "male assholery" as a crucial element of the discussion. In my experience, most people are unaware of these inequalities when they engage in them. That's natural since it requires so much effort to stop seeing the world purely through one's own eyes. It's like George Carlin said, "our shit is stuff, but everyone else's shit is just shit." Finding ways to help people see these undesirable behaviors is a worthwhile exercise. Almost as much as learning to see them in ourselves.

To bring this full circle, there are racists. There are misogynists. Mostly though, there are people who live their lives in a culture that has these elements woven into it historically, and they personally don't intend to abuse the dignity of other people in a flagrant way. Call out the minority of people who are bigots, and build bridges to the rest.

I'm good with that. We agree on so much, I think the remaining differences are mostly semantic. If I have new thoughts I'll come back to this.

It was a good discussion and I look forward to seeing you elsewhere on the forum.

↪Pro Hominem

I'm good with that. We agree on so much, I think the remaining differences are mostly semantic. If I have new thoughts I'll come back to this.

It was a good discussion and I look forward to seeing you elsewhere on the forum. — Srap Tasmaner

Cheers. When two people engage in civil discussion with thoughtful sincerity, they actually CAN come to an agreement.

I applaud your decorum. Quite rare and much appreciated.

"CR: It’s about separating economic privilege from white privilege. Because what you actually get with whiteness is the ability to move freely, and to live. And people don’t understand that before they are negotiating economics, they have been given the right to just live in their poverty or their wealth. That’s the piece of the conversation that I think needs to be said more, because the minute they hear privilege they think money, and we’re not talking about money. Also, they can’t conceptualise it because none of us should have to conceptualise it. None of us should have to be living with the precarity of [thinking that] maybe if we leave our house, we will be shot for no reason at all simply because of the colour of our skin. They cannot comprehend that, because that should not exist. White people think when I say white privilege I mean economic privilege but I mean white living. The ability to stay alive."

https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/sep/05/claudia-rankine-by-white-privilege-i-mean-the-ability-to-stay-alive

That's nothing that raising the minimum wage won't fix... quit talking about race!

:roll:

This is sarcastic in tone... to be clear.

I mean, I get it. It's not easy to think that one can be arbitrarily murdered on the basis of one's skin alone - and equally, not arbitrarily executed because of one's skin. Much easier to translate this all into economic terms - less horrific, more palatable. Even if it means blinding oneself to reality because it's more comfortable that way.

Even if it means blinding oneself to reality because it's more comfortable that way. — StreetlightX

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion:
What airs in dress an gait wad lea'es us,
An ev'n devotion!

The question that interests me is, what part of the way others see me that differs from the way I see myself -- a difference I'm not even aware of -- is down to my race? What part of my behavior is enabled and encouraged (note) by awareness, on the part of others, of my race, when my race is the furthest thing from my mind?

Added: "or resented"? This paragraph is missing some stuff. It should also have a point about the way I see myself, my expectation about how the world will receive me, and that those expectations can be both due to my race and oblivious that I even have a race. Some of the world encourages this part of me; some of the world has just been putting up with it.

I think there's a strongish sense in which this is simply unknowable for an individual; people don't go around as a collection of parts but as wholes. Do you defer to that guy because he's your boss, because he's tall, fit, and well-dressed, because he's white, because he's well-spoken, because he makes more money than you, because he's a cis-gender male, because he's kind and reasonable, because he makes a point of being considerate of others and listening to other points of view, because he's unfailingly respectful?

What we can do is look for patterns in society at large and assume they apply to us just as much as they do to anyone else. And then try to act accordingly, despite never receiving the "giftie".

The question that interests me is, what part of the way others see me that differs from the way I see myself -- a difference I'm not even aware of -- is down to my race? What part of my behavior is enabled and encouraged (note) by awareness, on the part of others, of my race, when my race is the furthest thing from my mind? — Srap Tasmaner

One of the markers of white privilege in an overwhelmingly racist society is, of course, the luxury of being able to have one's race being 'the furthest thing from one's mind'. For a great deal of others, the mark of one's race is just what one is reminded of at every point of social interaction, from the shopkeep who follows you around to the officer who shoots you multiple times in the back. For the racially marked, the issue isn't the 'unknowability' of how one's race determines their interactions with others, but the overwhelming, crushing, and often fatal knowability of it.

Part of the resistance to the discourse of white privilege is nothing more than the desire to maintain the blissful, bambi-like state in which one can go around wondering - as though some kind of intellectual exercise - but how does race affect me? What's that stuff got to do with me? For little bourgeois white boys who have been told their whole life that they're the masters of their own destiny, there's nothing more traumatic than the idea that their skin - something over which they have no control of - may in fact have played a role in the outcome of their lives. Hence the consistent desire to translate the terms of race into, say, the terms of economics, which are far more 'controllable', far more amenable to intellectual grappling than the sheer irrationality of being treated like a subhuman - and conversely, a proper human - because of a contingency of melanin.

3. "membership" - this is semantic, I'll grant, but doesn't this word imply awareness? Do we typically describe people as being members of something without their knowledge? Is it even appropriately applied in a circumstance where one cannot opt out of membership? I feel that there are problems of attribution here arising from oversimplifying something complex. — Pro Hominem

Can you opt out of how your clothes look once you're in them? No.

You can't opt out of your skin colour, you're born in it. The idea is that by having a skin colour; something you have no control over , you will be racialised as non-white and be exposed to more risks - racial profiling etc. There are less direct signifiers of non-whiteness - names, voices, clothing...

If you want an awareness neutral concept of membership, think of it is set membership - you belong in a group whether you like it or not.

With regard to how one is racialised - what racial class you end up in and why - you don't have a choice in it. It's not like "becoming a goth", or much to do with self identification at all. Babies are racialised before they're born!

the terms of economics, which are far more 'controllable', far more amenable to intellectual grappling than the sheer irrationality of being treated like a subhuman - and conversely, a proper human - because of a contingency of melanin. — StreetlightX

"No, it doesn't have to make any sense, it's simply a norm. Norms are what make sense" - the economic aspects of systemic racism are a gateway drug to realising the following contradiction:

(1) It's completely unjustifiable (rationally and morally) to discriminate based on race - one's race should not influence the extent to which one is treated well or badly.
(2) It routinely does.

If the mechanisms of racism seem illogical, it's ultimately because they are. They're more norm than reason.

Acknowledging systemic racism doesn't mean treating the issues of black Americans as an issue with poverty. It means you acknowledge real institutional and social racism, you're simply strawmanning here. Now I expect that out of Banno and streetlightx, their posts consist of virtual signalling and more virtue signalling but do you seriously still not understand what you're arguing against here? How can someone acknowledge systemic racism but also deny there's a racial element to that? It is beyond strawman, it's just complete avoidance to deal with the actual criticism taking place here.

(1) Criminal Justice (Injustice)
No disagreement, we all see black Americans being disproportionately selected for undesirable outcomes and realise that because the problem is the "blackness" of black Americans, there is no sense in trying to prevent race-based solutions here. Sad for Streetlightx, of course, he wants to monopolise this but he can still virtue signal, it never made sense anyway no worries.

(2) Economic Inequality
This is probably the most contentious category, mostly for both political reasons and moral reasons, we are arguing that race-neutral solutions are more pragmatic here. Again, we condemn racial discrimination, that's the centrepiece of our position but outside of that, choosing who to lift out of poverty based on their race is a bad idea. It is a highly controversial, divisive and difficult to sell. It is immoral. If you need then don't think about this as black vs white, just by introducing Hispanic Americans, the situation becomes stupidly complex. How can you advocate for the US government to prioritise black Americans in poverty over Hispanic Americans in poverty solely because black Americans in poverty are black? Isn't that what reparations achieve? Assuming it actually selected only poor black Americans, that might not make sense though.

(3) Private Institutions / Citizens
Businesses and importantly businesses with important socio-economic responsibilities such as banks, real estate, the film industry, news reporting, universities and so on. Landlords, elected officials and so on. Basically acknowledging that power within society can be and is wielded to bring about disproportionately negative outcomes based on race. Again, racial discrimination is not acceptable, the problem is being recognised, is there a point of difference here?

(4) Social Racism
We agree that individuals are more likely to be selected for racism based on their skin colour, for insults specific to their skin colour. Again, the centrepiece of our position is about recognising and being against racial discrimination, you don't like it either, is there a difference? Whether it's stereotyping, insults, prejudice, bias or whatever.

(5) Governmental racism
Public institutions which again, disproportionately select either predominantly black American communities or black American individuals for negative outcomes in contexts besides criminal justice. Again, wow, again! It is racial discrimination, we acknowledge the problems and want to to see this kind of behaviour disincentivised or punished. We can look at the policies which lead to these outcomes and ask what needs to be changed. What's your complaint?

What exactly do you think you're arguing against? Genuinely interested to know. I am honestly worried because you say good things but you defend Banno when he is anti-white, you don't criticise streetlightx when he constructs a narrative about people based on their race. Do you see how logically inconsistent this is? Just give me the ability to do what banno and streetlightx do, I will create rock-solid justifications for real, overt racism against black Americans with no trouble. Yet we're supposed to pretend like what they're doing is justifiable? I really don't understand you because I would expect based on what you've written, not to be on board with this but it seems that in practice, you are.

Are you and I just focusing on different ends of a spectrum?

I'm supposing that everyone moves through the world to some degree unaware of the way they affect those around them; all the usual suspects have a part here (race, sex, class, appearance, etc. etc. etc.) but it is also, I firmly agree with Burns, just the human condition.

I'll give you an example. As a young intellectual, I was, as I see it now, kind of an arrogant prick. I didn't see it that way at the time, and I like to think I've mellowed somewhat with age, so when a coworker told me, referring to some other employees in the building, "They're all scared of you," I was genuinely taken aback. I don't even interact with these people much, and I have no idea what I did to make them feel intimidated. But it's a fact. Have I been up to my old tricks without realizing it? Would make sense, but I don't know that; they might find me intimidating for some reason completely unrelated to the swagger I used to affect in my twenties.

All I can say is that something has put me in a position of dominance or privilege that I was unaware of and that I have been acting as the dominant without having any such intention. Sometimes when you learn something like that, it can be eye-opening. (I'm a sucker for epiphanies. One of my favorite moments in film history is when Alec Guinness says, 'My God, what have I done?')

You're focusing on people who refuse to have that eye-opening experience despite being given the opportunity; they engage in denial, in willful ignorance. This happens, no question, and it's pretty clear that two of the big reasons are (a) a sort of contra-Burns desire to maintain the image of yourself you've grown accustomed to and like, and (b) the simplicity of not dealing with decidedly unpleasant issues like sexism, racism, oppression, and your role in them (and so back to (a)).

Maybe the difference is something like this: we all lack some awareness of how we affect others -- and you can't quite call this a lack of self awareness because others are involved from the start (this is why I had so much trouble formulating my last post) -- but this is your immediate environment we're talking about; but then there's lack of awareness of the society you're a part of, what goes on in it, what the experiences of others, especially others unlike you, are like, and, to get to the point, the experiences of others unlike you interacting with people quite a bit like you. Burns doesn't say anything stops us from seeing and understanding that stuff; if we don't, that's a failing beyond what he talks about, a failure to see or a failure to draw connections between what you see "out there" and your own life.

If you want an awareness neutral concept of membership, think of it is set membership - you belong in a group whether you like it or not — fdrake

This is, in simple point of fact, racism. The conjuring of race as a concept, followed by the distribution of all people according to this manufactured set of categories.

I denounce this. It is not necessary to view the world in this way. I can acknowledge that people do hold this view, but I reject it and I push for everyone else to reject it as well.

Thus, you may ascribe "white membership" to me, but I do not accept it, nor do I wish to define myself or anyone else this way.

Thus, you may ascribe "white membership" to me, but I do not accept it, nor do I wish to define myself or anyone else this way. — Pro Hominem

But you're not going to deny that a whole lot of people count you as white and that this has consequences, are you?

This is, in simple point of fact, racism. The conjuring of race as a concept, followed by the distribution of all people according to this manufactured set of categories. — Pro Hominem

This looks like a deflection. You seem to fully understand racialisation as a societal mechanism (people are sorted into racial categories by skin colour blah blah blah) and now apparently me pointing out that this happens regardless of individuals' choices to identify as a race member is a racist act.

But yes, indeed, racialisation is part of systemic discrimination. If only I could end it with my own will.

I denounce this. It is not necessary to view the world in this way. I can acknowledge that people do hold this view, but I reject it and I push for everyone else to reject it as well. — Pro Hominem

I still think it's a social fact that people are racialised. That's what I'm pointing out. The lack of scientific basis for sorting people into races biologically and blah blah is something much different.

Thus, you may ascribe "white membership" to me, but I do not accept it, nor do I wish to define myself or anyone else this way. — Pro Hominem

If you're white or black, you're white or black whether you accept it or not. Those are the breaks. That is the social fact of racialisation. If you are uncomfortable with being seen as your race... Welcome to the racial binning process, please enjoy your stay.

If you're white or black, you're white or black whether you accept it or not. Those are the breaks. That is the social fact of racialisation. — fdrake

It's really not that simple. If someone is 1/8 black are they black or white? Who is society to deny their blackness? Who is society to tell, say, Ashkenazi Jews, that they are "really" white?

It's really not that simple. If someone is 1/8 black are they black or white? Who is society to deny their blackness? Who is society to tell, say, Ashkenazi Jews, that they are "really" white? — BitconnectCarlos

See this post. Racialisation doesn't have to hold together as a logically coherent story. That misses the nature and history of the phenomenon. When people study race with a historical eye, it's shown to be nonsense, when people study race with with a scientific one, it's shown to be nonsense on stilts. Still, racialisation happens. People are put into racial bins and treated differently depending on what bin they're in. Absent historical and scientific validation, but it still happens. That leaves the messy world of social norms.

Effectively, you're putting me in a position where I have to give you a check list of who counts as what and for what reasons - but the process by which people are put into racial bins just doesn't work like a logical definition of anything. From my position, the question you ask is loaded.

Racialisation works through norms; it's a societal process, a social fact; and it works associatively rather than logically.

This looks like a deflection. You seem to fully understand racialisation as a societal mechanism (people are sorted into racial categories by skin colour blah blah blah) and now apparently me pointing out that this happens regardless of individuals' choices to identify as a race member is a racist act — fdrake

This is a recurring thing in this conversation. People keep jumping back and forth from the general to the specific whenever it suits them. One can acknowledge the presence of racism without "doing" racism. In the same way one can acknowledge the existence of sociopaths without having to be one. I did not say that you were committing a "racist act". I said that the predilection to sort people according to perceptions of skin tone is racism. I try very hard never to do this, and I would not ever do it if it wasn't necessary at times only because so many other people do it.

I still think it's a social fact that people are racialised. That's what I'm pointing out. The lack of scientific basis for sorting people into races biologically and blah blah is something much different. — fdrake

I read an implication in what you're saying here. That implication is "racism is a fact and we just have to accept it." Correct me if that inference is not accurate. If it is accurate, I wholly disagree. Racism did not always exist. There is no "need" for it to exist. It remains at least in part because we as a culture do not seem very motivated to rid ourselves of it. Even those who are upset about "racist acts" still perpetuate their likelihood by maintaining the race-based view of the world.

We could stop doing this. I have. Teach against the concept in schools for a generation, then never speak of it again. Stop reinforcing it by self-identifying in this way. Stop using its language. Actively teach humanity as a singular whole. There are lots of things that could be done differently and better.

If you're white or black, you're white or black whether you accept it or not. Those are the breaks. That is the social fact of racialisation. If you are uncomfortable with being seen as your race... Welcome to the racial binning process, please enjoy your stay — fdrake

I am painfully aware that this happens. I just took part in a census, which seemed to have establishing the race and gender of everyone in my house as nearly its only purpose. I'm not denying that we as a society do this, I'm just saying we dont have to. We can be better. We can do better. We just need the will to make changes. The easiest change to make is in one's self, and a good place to start is to personally reject race and its signifiers and purge them as much as possible from your mindset. Once you've done that, don't be afraid to counter people using race-based language - make a point to say that "race doesn't really exist". Learn the science and history to support that statement. Truly adopt that belief. Realize that change takes time, but remain persistent. After all, if you aren't willing to do any of this, how can you expect anyone else to?

We all lack some awareness of how we affect others... But then there's lack of awareness of the society you're a part of — Srap Tasmaner

This isn't it though. The language of privilege is simply a discourse meant to de-universalize one's experience and to remind one that one's experience is not some kind of standard or paradigm by which all others are to be measured up against. A reckoning with 'white' privilege in particular is a recognition that the ability to sail through life being racially unmarked is not something that many others are afforded. I mean, there's something comic - truly hilarious - about the dude above who reckons that he can just 'reject' racial labels. One has to ask: how does this play out when you're being shot at by a cop? "I reject this!". Oh goody, racism is cancelled, everyone can go home. I mean these people really think racism is some kind of discursive phenomenon, the kind of thing you can just reason about over a coffee table. Their experience of race - or lack thereof - is so far removed from any reality that they really think it's just some kind of moot-court exercise in which if one disavows with a clear, strong voice, then all will be right with the world. If only George Floyd had 'rejected' being knelt on.

It's not a question of knowing 'how we affect others' or an 'awareness of the society we are part of'; it's a simple question of humility about just how universal one's own experience is.

I mostly agree with you, questions of when and how remain.

Once you've done that, don't be afraid to counter people using race-based language - make a point to say that "race doesn't really exist". Learn the science and history to support that statement. Truly adopt that belief. Realize that change takes time, but remain persistent. After all, if you aren't willing to do any of this, how can you expect anyone else to? — Pro Hominem

We could go around the discussion again; my view is that so long as race based discrimination exists, we'll need to be aware of racialisation and keep race around as a critical category. We could go into whether being aware of racialisation is the same thing as racialising people again, but I don't really feel the need.

Consider these two dialogues:

A: "Black children are 5 times more likely to drown in swimming pools"
B: "You are aware race doesn't really exist, right?"

vs

A: (car fails to start) "These parts are Jewish!"
B: "You are aware race doesn't really exist, right?"

I imagine you imagine you are doing the latter. From my perspective, it looks like you are doing the former. I draw that conclusion because you are being hostile to the concept of race (and that people are racialised) in a discussion regarding a critical concept used to highlight racial disparities rooted in discrimination. Surely the difference between the two is obvious to you.

Their experience of race - or lack thereof - is so far removed from any reality — StreetlightX

This is the part I don't get. I agree completely that a white guy like me grows up thinking his experience is universal in way that is certainly illusory, divorced from reality; but I am connected to reality, to the only one there is. I move through the world thinking of myself as only a person, and that "only" is a delusion; the whole time I am moving through the world also as a white guy, and to this I am simply oblivious, as Peggy McIntosh aptly puts it. I want people like me to see that they do indeed have an experience of race and of sex and of gender and of class and the rest of it.

Are you sure that your rejection of their rejection of race isn't too focused on what they're thinking and too little on how they experience the world? It's probably just a matter of emphasis. I'm not sure we disagree at all.

A: "Black children are 5 times more likely to drown in swimming pools"
B: "You are aware race doesn't really exist, right?"

vs

A: (car fails to start) "These parts are Jewish!"
B: "You are aware race doesn't really exist, right?"

I imagine you imagine you are doing the latter. From my perspective, it looks like you are doing the former. I draw that conclusion because you are being hostile to the concept of race in a discussion regarding a critical concept used to highlight racial disparities rooted in discrimination. Surely the difference between the two is obvious to you. — fdrake

Yes and no. Here are my actual responses:

A: "Black children are 5 times more likely to drown in swimming pools"
B: "If so, it's not because they are black, so what's the real reason?"

and

A: (car fails to start) "These parts are Jewish!"
B: "That's a horribly inappropriate thing to say. You shouldn't speak like that if you don't want people to think you're a bigoted asshole."

Now, imagine this third conversation:

A: "I think we can effectively reduce racist acts and inequality by pushing the concept of "white privilege".
B: "Except that race doesn't really exist and we are reinforcing these false categories with language like that. If we have to do something like this, let's keep the focus on teaching people not to hate and fear others for their skin color rather than trying to convince the majority of people that they are implicit in every racist act simply by virtue of their skin color."

I assume the differences here are obvious to you as well.