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? — Srap Tasmaner

No it's absolutely experience, and it's that experience that informs thought. When one doesn't experience racial marking in one's day-to-day, then racism unsurprisingly ends up being some kind of pick-your-own-adventure story where if you just 'reject' it, it can't exist. A kind of Disney anti-racism. When racism isn't lived, the most it apparently can become is just a matter of words - as if it's real locus isn't at every level social behaviour. The white experience of race is largely one of having experiences which are not racially marked at all, which is why the "solution" ends up being a kind of "if I can do it so can you!". Easy, of course, for this person to say - given that 'saying' is all they know - informed by their own experience of non-experience.

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. — fdrake

I understand that and I understand where you're coming from. I agree. However, just because something works a given way doesn't mean we ought to throw our hands up in the air and just accept it. As individuals, we can teach society our own racial/ethnic backgrounds and the cultural nuances associated with it. I understand society might largely see me as white, but this really isn't an adequate descriptor of my racial/ethnic identity (I'm an Ashkenazi Jew). As individuals we need to educate society. Society labels; we fight back.

Also keep in mind that these labels: white, black, etc. are political. They're not simple descriptors. Whether we like it or not whiteness has certain associations.

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. — StreetlightX

Yes, because all white people just get to "sail through life."

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. — StreetlightX

We are literally reasoning about this over a metaphorical coffee table. That is the context of this conversation. I am saying that within these confines, we should strive for language and thinking that is more accurate and nuanced than "white people bad!". Not just because it is totally inaccurate, but because it is unproductive. In the "real" world, i have repeatedly expressed my belief in a movement like "Black Lives Matter" to show these inequities in practice and stoke public outrage against them. These are two entirely separate conversations, but you cannot seem to follow that point. Or you don't want to because it would undercut your whole "pedantic asshole" vibe. Your arguments are weak and mostly all end up as ad hominem attacks. Before you say it, what I have done was make a coherent argument and then follow it with an ad hominem attack.

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. — StreetlightX

You know absolutely zero about my experience, but it is clear that you hold yourself as an authority on things you know nothing about, so I know that won't stop you.

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. — StreetlightX

"Give me Liberty, or give me death!"

"I have a dream!"

"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

Disavowing a thing in a clear strong voice is a critical part of every successful resistance effort in history. George Floyd did "reject" his treatment. "I can't breathe!" is a battle cry now. It is a call to arms to resist oppression. It has been carried into the streets. This, hopefully, will foster some real progress.

How can you not register the difference between that and a purely intellectual discussion playing out on a philosophy forum?

I am saying that within these confines, we should strive for language and thinking that is more accurate and nuanced than "white people bad!" — Pro Hominem

Cool, 'cause that's not what white privilege is or implies - although I understand that for you, seeing the word 'white' can mean nothing other than some kind of slight because at no point have you ever had to deal with being racially marked in that way.

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

It has far fewer consequences than if they identified me as black. But what does that have to do with this conversation? "Many people engage in lazy and fallacious thinking, therefore..." What? I have to think that way too?

It is the position of the (apparent) majority here on this board that the answer to racism is to double down on racially categorizing people. "If you're going to say that blacks are bad, we're going to show you how whites are bad - that'll teach you!" What's actually bad is ascribing qualities to an individual based on their skin tone. That is what systemic racism fosters. I don't see how the answer to this is to ascribe qualities to individuals based on skin tone. It's the same mistake in a different direction.

Let's change the conversation. Let's consider saying skin tone might not actually tell you anything about a person and see where that takes us. This is clearly a minority position, but I feel it is the more rational of the two.

When one doesn't experience racial marking in one's day-to-day — StreetlightX

Okay, again, this is what I don't get, and don't get in particular in a discussion of white privilege. Everyone is racially marked.

An attempt at an example. Suppose I'm in a situation, an officer-involved situation, and I demand that my rights be respected. I think I'm acting only as a person, because I universalize my experience. Now let's suppose the cop acquiesces to my demands because he marks me as white. (It could be otherwise, and I'm stipulating that it isn't.) Whether he knows this is why he's doing it or not, same result for me. I have an experience that reinforces my view of myself as a raceless person, by having an experience as a white person, an experience that, with this cop in this moment, only a white person can have. I go on my oblivious way, not recognizing the role my race plays in my experience.

Note that the cop needn't be racist. He could be black.

My experience of (a) being white and treated white but (b) thinking I'm raceless and treated raceless is what I think of as white privilege.

I'm just confused by you saying I'm not racially marked, that I don't experience the society I live in as racist. White people do get the message that race is something other people have, but that message itself is a lie.

The white experience of race is largely one of having experiences which are not racially marked at all — StreetlightX

Maybe this is the better way to put it, and I'm making a lot of nothing. We're probably saying the same thing, but keep swapping who's pointing at the underlying context.

We're probably saying the same thing, but keep swapping who's pointing at the underlying context. — Srap Tasmaner

I think so. By racially marked I simply mean that one's race is, as it were, re-marked upon, whether in word or deed. A kind of racial intentionality as it were - to experience race as race; as distinct from those experiences of race which are not experienced in racial terms - as with your hypothetical police interaction.

It has far fewer consequences than if they identified me as black. — Pro Hominem

I think the consequences are really different, largely invisible, but no fewer.

But as I'm arguing with @StreetlightX, I find I'm not really sure, again.

In a sense, I'm not racially marked; in a sense, I'm racially marked as white; in a sense, I'm marked as raceless by being marked as white; in a sense I'm marked as white but take that as not being marked. I honestly can't figure out right this second what the "right" thing to say is, if there is one, if it even matters, given that the result of all three is the same. Maybe Street will come up with something.

By racially marked I simply mean that one's race is, as it were, re-marked upon, whether in word or deed. — StreetlightX

Oh, you know, that does actually help a lot. It's not just about categorizing.

Okay, this gives me something to think about some more.

Rest of the post good too. You have actually helped me here! Thank you.

I think the consequences are really different, largely invisible, but no fewer. — Srap Tasmaner

That's all that 'white privilege' is meant to bring to the fore! To make visible what is, in the main, invisible.

I am saying that within these confines, we should strive for language and thinking that is more accurate and nuanced than "white people bad!"
— Pro Hominem

Cool, 'cause that's not what white privilege is - although I understand that for you, seeing the word 'white' can mean nothing other than some kind of slight because at no point have you ever had to deal with being racially marked in that way. — StreetlightX

Let me say this as clearly as possible. You have absolutely NO IDEA what my experience is.

You are also apparently unaware that engaging in speculation about it is the textbook definition of the ad hominem fallacy. Based on the entire body of your responses, you lack the ability, if not the intellect, to form or respond to actual arguments in any meaningful way. This is not me attacking you, this is a conclusion drawn from the totality of my experience of your behavior. I invite you to surprise me in the future, but you'll understand if I doubt it will happen.

As you are, you add absolutely nothing constructive to any conversation I've seen you take part in. That could be excusable, but you have somehow married incredible arrogance to a mind of absolutely no consequence. I invite you to just stop posting for a long while and read. Learn from people who are just plain better at this than you are - and I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about almost everyone else on this board. You'd really be doing all of us, including yourself, a favor.

What's actually bad is ascribing qualities to an individual based on their skin tone. That is what systemic racism fosters. — Pro Hominem

Hoping this doesn't derail what is finally the discussion of white privilege we should have, but --

That's not systemic racism -- at least not as I use the term. Systemic racism is differences in experiences and outcomes that correlate to an improbable degree with which race your society, at large, assigns you. It is evidence of the holding, at least now and then, of racist attitudes because, being improbable, it must consist of racist behavior. As I say, "in effect racist".

But when you put the word "systemic" in front of the word "racism", do you mean something else? Something like "racism without gaps"? I truly don't know. Attributing qualities besides skin tone based on skin tone, I would just call "racist". Do you just mean "lots of people having racist ideas"? If so, I suppose I agree after all, I just make allowances for people not to be all-day-everyday racist, in this sense. You only need to be racist once in a while to do your part. (Like maybe you want your dog to have a fun day and that bird-watcher is just so annoying.)

Street and I don't often get along (maybe he's forgotten since I haven't been around for a while), but this is the key post in the thread:

By racially marked I simply mean that one's race is, as it were, re-marked upon, whether in word or deed. A kind of racial intentionality as it were - to experience race as race; as distinct from those experiences of race which are not experienced in racial terms - as with your hypothetical police interaction. — StreetlightX

You don't see anything here or in the last handful of posts he and I have exchanged? Nothing that rings true?

I think the consequences are really different, largely invisible, but no fewer. — Srap Tasmaner

What? I don't really think you believe that. That's just for argument's sake, right? Devil's advocate?

I invite you to enumerate examples of "white consequences" vs "black consequences" that would clarify what you are asserting. For now, I'll proceed within the context of "white privilege" which is the de facto subject of this conversation.

If you look through all the attempts to define "white privilege" in this thread, they are phrased in the negative. It is that white people experience the absence of the oppression non-white people experience. This is no straw man - scroll through the posts, that is what is asserted time and again. Given that definition of "white privilege":

• different - it must be virtually the same, only in the negative. Black people are harassed by cops, white people are not, etc.

• invisible - in order to define something in the negative, one must have its opposite in mind. In other words, if black mistreatment is visible, then white privilege is equally visible, just ignored by many (white people). So it must be equally as obvious to say "black people have a hard time getting home loans", or "black people carry a lot of student debt", as it is to say, "white people have an easy time getting home loans", or "white people don't carry a lot of student debt," if the white privilege construct is accurate.

• no fewer - this must be true because if you define white privilege as the inverse of non-white discrimination, they are mirror images of each other. Every discriminatory act against a non-white person corresponds to an equal "benefit" to white people. A sort of Law of the Conservation of Racism.

If you look at any of this and think it is a bit absurd, then you see what I see. The white privilege concept is poorly defined, not accurate, and leads to conflict instead of resolving it.

But when you put the word "systemic" in front of the word "racism", do you mean something else? Something like "racism without gaps"? I truly don't know. Attributing qualities besides skin tone based on skin tone, I would just call "racist". Do you just mean "lots of people having racist ideas"? If so, I suppose I agree after all, I just make allowances for people not to be all-day-everyday racist, in this sense. You only need to be racist once in a while to do your part. (Like maybe you want your dog to have a fun day and that bird-watcher is just so annoying.) — Srap Tasmaner

No. I mean what "systemic" means. Embodied in a system. Systemic racism is a formal, structural phenomenon whereby institutions deny services or discriminate against people based on race. Systemic racism has been reduced in the aggregate over the last few decades, but it still remains, particularly in the criminal justice system.

Systemic racism is differences in experiences and outcomes that correlates to an improbable degree with which race your society, at large, assigns you. It is evidence of the holding, at least now and then, of racist attitudes because, being improbable, it must consist of racist behavior. As I say, "in effect racist". — Srap Tasmaner

This is actually "interpersonal racism" and is embodied in the interactions of individuals with one another. It is what most people mean when they just say "racism". The key here is "experiences and outcomes" which cannot exist in a vacuum, there must be individuals to have these experiences and outcomes. Systemic racism, on the other hand, exists whether anyone experiences it or not, for example using zoning laws to enforce de facto segregation, or maintaining the criminalization of marijuana to allow for discriminatory enforcement of the laws.

By racially marked I simply mean that one's race is, as it were, re-marked upon, whether in word or deed. A kind of racial intentionality as it were - to experience race as race; as distinct from those experiences of race which are not experienced in racial terms - as with your hypothetical police interaction.
— StreetlightX

You don't see anything here or in the last handful of posts he and I have exchanged? Nothing that rings true? — Srap Tasmaner

Not really. When was the last time someone said anything to you about your whiteness? The reality is that there is ordinary interpersonal interaction, which I acknowledge is the usual standard in an "all-white" group (of course, this can fall apart in the face of someone being Jewish, or Italian, or Irish, etc, so the perceived blanket category of "white" is largely illusory). In many instances, black individuals may experience something less than that standard, but how much depends a lot on the place and the people. It's why I hate painting with these broad brushes. It's also why it's so important to maintain a distinction between acts of interpersonal racism and systemic racism. They are not the same problem and won't have the same solution. One can be legislated, the other, only educated.

And this: "A kind of racial intentionality as it were - to experience race as race; as distinct from those experiences of race which are not experienced in racial terms"? I can't tell if that's circular or just nonsense. What does that even mean?

Sorry for multi-posting here, but you started it :grin:

white people experience the absence of the oppression non-white people experience. This is no straw man - scroll through the posts, that is what is asserted time and again. — Pro Hominem

I agree with your claim that this is how white privilege is often described and how many have described it in this thread, but it's not quite how I see it, and I don't think it's quite what Peggy McIntosh had in mind.

But before dealing with your specific points, let's talk about negation.

Americans, to pick an example, have rights; the rights of Black Americans are frequently violated with impunity; the rights of white Americans aren't. I'll admit, there's something a little underwhelming about saying one group experiences the absence of a denial of something; that's just to say they're treated normal, right? Because I find that at least a little persuasive, I've been more interested in other ways of looking at it, and you won't find me pushing the "absence of denial" approach much.

But think of it this way: system says, this is for everybody; then system pretty consistently grants to one group and very, very inconsistently grants to another. What is that? That looks a lot to me like the system straight up giving more to one group than to another, and it's the "absence of denial" formulation that looks like a ridiculously roundabout way of describing it.

It's not what the system says it's doing -- no question. And by its terms, you'd have to resort to this "absence of denial" thing. But the system is lying.

Let's just call a spade a spade. White Americans have more rights than Black Americans, and they do because the system gives them more rights.

We'll just have to agree on your terms. I make some distinctions I like and find useful but not everyone does.

Some of what you're describing I would call "institutional racism" and it bugs me that Wikipedia redirects "systemic racism" there. I think of institutional racism as the codifying of racist choices within an institutional structure; it allows members of that institution to avoid responsibility. "Look, if it were up to me, I'd hire you. But we just don't hire colored people, company policy. I'm not saying it's right, or that I wouldn't change it if I could, but I just work here."

Some things like mandatory minimums are kind of a grey area for me because they're certainly "in effect racist" but they are not explicitly racist.

I understand society might largely see me as white, but this really isn't an adequate descriptor of my racial/ethnic identity (I'm an Ashkenazi Jew). — BitconnectCarlos

:up:

Also keep in mind that these labels: white, black, etc. are political. They're not simple descriptors. Whether we like it or not whiteness has certain associations. — BitconnectCarlos

:up:

I guess that insight is ultimately an intersectional one, no? You've got enough white signifiers to count as white in most contexts, you'll live absent systemic discrimination in some ways; you're not gonna get racial profiled like a black man will in the US. But you're gonna be lumped in with a global conspiracy that motivates white supremacist terrorists. Being racialised as white doesn't exempt you from being racialised as Jewish and vice versa.

B: "If so, it's not because they are black, so what's the real reason?" — Pro Hominem

But like... social facts are causal too. People drive on the side of the road they drive on because it's a norm. If you're happy to disentangle race from science, and you know the history of the concepts, that doesn't mean disentangling race from causality, no? People really are treated differently because of their race, that's the very essence of racism - be it a personal prejudice, an implicit stereotype, an apartheid system or systemic effects. If someone's racial profiled - yeah, it's because of their race. If someone avoids all of that horrible bollocks; yeah, it's also because of their race.

Racial categorisation isn't rooted in science or an accurate history of how peoples moved about the planet, that doesn't stop racism from causing stuff to happen.

If we're happy to say that people get racially profiled because they're black; it's an act of racism and implicit stereotyping. Then we should be happy to say that people aren't exposed to some risks, or have relative advantages, because they are white. And that's white privilege. And yes, it is racist - a relative benefit, positive discrimination etc etc...

If you want the causal chain spelled out:

skin colour -racial signification> assigned attributes+treatments

When was the last time someone said anything to you about your whiteness? — Pro Hominem

The rarity of this is part of the point.

B: "If so, it's not because they are black, so what's the real reason?"
— Pro Hominem

But like... social facts are causal too. People drive on the side of the road they drive on because it's a norm. If you're happy to disentangle race from science, and you know the history of the concepts, that doesn't mean disentangling race from causality, no? People really are treated differently because of their race, that's the very essence of racism - be it a personal prejudice, an implicit stereotype, an apartheid system or systemic effects. If someone's racial profiled - yeah, it's because of their race. If someone avoids all of that horrible bollocks; yeah, it's also because of their race — fdrake

You've left something out of the quote. The example you gave was about black people drowning in swimming pools. I can't say I'm acquainted with the raw statistical data, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those cases are not because someone drowned them. In other words, the drowning is not racially motivated. There are likely to be socio-economic factors at play - e.g., lower access to swimming lessons for a range of reasons - and that is the proper focus. Race may play a role in that analysis, but it's incredibly lazy to reach a conclusion like "black people drown because they're black."

i would also caution you against lumping "apartheid systems" in with "personal prejudices". They are different things, and operate in different ways.

If we're happy to say that people get racially profiled because they're black; it's an act of racism and implicit stereotyping — fdrake

Black people get racially profiled for two reasons: 1) because police departments train their officers to do it, and 2) because some individual cops are racially prejudiced against blacks. The act is interpersonal racism, the training is systemic racism. Again, they are two different problems with two different solutions. Both are predicated on the fiction of race, and could not exist without it.

Then we should be happy to say that people aren't exposed to some risks, or have relative advantages, because they are white. And that's white privilege. — fdrake

What if there were no "non-whites" in the population? Is their treatment still an advantage? Do they still have white privilege? No, they just have ordinary treatment. But if we add some "other" group and treat them poorly, the same treatment of the original group becomes a privilege? What if over a long period of time that other group is assimilated and there is no discernible difference in treatment? Do they now all have privilege, or does the privilege disappear even though nothing has changed about the underlying treatment? The point is, this is a disingenuous way to talk about these things. Mistreatment exists. It does not transform all other treatment into privilege. That's not what privilege is. Privilege is a unique benefit conferred on a designated person or group. That group is usually restricted in number, and that is implicit in the way the word is used. Except for "white privilege", which has none of these characteristics at all.

If you want the causal chain spelled out:

skin colour -racial signification> assigned attributes+treatments — fdrake

So if we remove racial signification, your chain breaks, yes?

We'll just have to agree on your terms. I make some distinctions I like and find useful but not everyone does.

Some of what you're describing I would call "institutional racism" and it bugs me that Wikipedia redirects "systemic racism" there. I think of institutional racism as the codifying of racist choices within an institutional structure — Srap Tasmaner

They're not mine, they are the common uses of the terms in these conversations, per my growing internet research over the lingering days I continue to participate in this thread. I may be a qualified expert before this is all done. :grin: Your wikipedia frustration is caused by that commonality of usage. In general, I would say that "system" and "institution" are considered synonymous in this case.

it allows members of that institution to avoid responsibility. "Look, if it were up to me, I'd hire you. But we just don't hire colored people, company policy. I'm not saying it's right, or that I wouldn't change it if I could, but I just work here." — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think it necessarily does that, or that's all it does. In your scenario, there are a few possibilities. Either both the institution and the individual are racist, or one is. If it's only the institution, the individual may be genuinely unhappy about it (and they should look for another job). If it's only the individual, hopefully someone finds out about it and that person is fired. The institution can be changed through legal processes, but the individual is much harder and takes longer.

Some things like mandatory minimums are kind of a grey area for me because they're certainly "in effect racist" but they are not explicitly racist — Srap Tasmaner

Are you referring to affirmative action? If so, it is explicitly racist. However, it is an example of an application of the racial fiction that may be necessary to eventually destroy that fiction and/or its lingering effects. I do not believe "white privilege" falls into a similar category of utility.

Are you referring to affirmative action? — Pro Hominem

No no, the differential minimum sentences for crack vs powdered cocaine, famous example of a law that is in effect racist.

There is a legal issue -- since we're here -- about whether a policy (or law or regulation) is known by those enacting it to be in-effect racist, in which case that's a no-no, and counts as discrimination.

I'm allowing for the possibility that a lot of people contribute to a given institution being in-effect racist, while themselves only occasionally and perhaps quite rarely racist, and perhaps not even knowing it.
(As Michel Foucault said, people know what they do, mostly know why they do what they do, rarely know what what-they-do does.)

We'll just have to agree on your terms. — Srap Tasmaner

Oh -- that's not what I meant to type at all! I just mean whatever terms, however used, so long as we understand each other, and I'll keep making whatever distinctions I want.

No no, the differential minimum sentences for crack vs powdered cocaine, famous example of a law that is in effect racist.

There is a legal issue -- since we're here -- about whether a policy (or law or regulation) is known by those enacting it to be in-effect racist, in which case that's a no-no, and counts as discrimination — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I am aware of de facto and de jure discrimination, I just didn't understand what you were referring to when you mentioned minimums above. The de facto legal analysis turns on outcomes; whether the law, correctly applied, results in obviously discriminatory results. If a law is "known" to be discriminatory by those enacting it, that would be de jure discrimination, because it is within the intent of the lawmaker(s).

EDIT: There is a third option, in which the outcomes of a law are discriminatory, but only because it is being incorrectly applied. In this case, the law is held to be not discriminatory at all, and the court recommends for changes in enforcement or oversight, or suggests recourse in civil suits.

I'm allowing for the possibility that a lot of people contribute to a given institution being in-effect racist, while themselves only occasionally and perhaps quite rarely racist, and perhaps not even knowing it.
(As Michel Foucault said, people know what they do, mostly know why they do what they do, rarely know what what-they-do does.) — Srap Tasmaner

I can certainly agree that people are frequently part of institutions that are racist (or sexist, or whatever) and they may not be aware of it. If their participation contributes to that institution, does it necessarily follow that it contributes to the racism? Can we generalize that every part of an organization is responsible for every other part of the organization? Doesn't that result in everyone being guilty of everything? Shouldn't there be rules governing who is effectively responsible for something within a group that the whole group does not directly participate in? These rules already exist, but are you arguing for broadening them to include if not everyone, then a much broader segment of people? Doesn't this seem like a slippery slope to a place we don't want to go?

My experience of (a) being white and treated white but (b) thinking I'm raceless and treated raceless is what I think of as white privilege. — Srap Tasmaner

If you went with "white blindness", or even the more aggressive "white ignorance" here, I could at least see clear reasoning for it, and my only concern would be deploying it in a way that doesn't do more harm than good. But I can't draw a line to "privilege" because it just doesn't connect with the meaning of the word.

Some here have tried defending it by acknowledging it's not particularly descriptive, but that it is impactful, and my response to that is how clear is the evidence that such impact is positive? If the majority of people you communicate this idea to get pissed off (rightly or wrongly) is that the best way to engage them in a fruitful conversation? I see it as something that has limited utility where people are well-known to each other or have a vested interest in remaining in the conversation, but not in the majority of public discussions of race.

It's like Hillary Clinton saying "basket of undesirables". You can think about what she's trying to communicate and understand what she means, and maybe even come around to agreeing with it, but the fact is that most people won't engage the idea for that long, and it backfires as a rallying point for the opposition.

So if we remove racial signification, your chain breaks, yes? — Pro Hominem

In many cases, no. The social relation in question is one of particular bodies. If every human lost their awareness skin colour tomorrow, it would not alter many of the present social relations between bodies. The same bodies would still be in jails, poverty striken communities, etc., and the structures of systematic racism would still be present of the bodies. We would just cease to be aware of them.

Many people make the mistake of analysing these issues in terms of intention towards a skin colour, deliberately granting or harming people is some way because they have one skin colour or another. This is only one aspect of racism. Much of it is just a relation of how a body exists or is treated. A black body does not need someone to deliberately act upon it because it is black, the general systems of society can act to produce an unjust relation without any mention of skin colour-- e.g. a capitalism in which the black bodies are overwhelming in poverty compared to others, a justice system in which black bodies are overwhelming incarcerated, etc.

Just because these systems might act with reasons of employment/profit or in response to crimes, rather than because someone has a skin colour, it doesn't change the impact upon the bodies. Certain bodies, the black ones, are still overwhelming poor, incarcerated, etc. For us to forget concepts of race entirely doesn't alter these circumstances.

If their participation contributes to that institution, does it necessarily follow that it contributes to the racism? — Pro Hominem

No that it is not the tree I'm barking up at all. If, say, a bank lends money to qualified Black applicants at a lower rate than it lends to qualified white applicants, that bank is in effect racist. It gets to be that way because some loan officers made some racist decisions. If you worked at the bank for thirty years and only made one such decision, you contributed some tiny amount to the bank being racist, not just because you worked there, but because of something you did. Maybe once or twice you wondered why someone was being turned down by another loan officer, but didn't raise the issue. More, but still smallish, responsibility, and so on.

Maybe I could be convinced by some argument about enabling __, or supporting __, or contributing to __, or participating in __, or whatever, but I'm certainly not making any such claim now. I'm just talking about what people actually do that's actually in itself not okay. And making one indefensible decision also doesn't make you responsible for the decisions of the virulent racist in the next office, or for the whole bank, just your part.

We could keep messing with this, but I'm not sure it's much help. What suspicions did you have? Did you act on them in any way? Was there an incident which, if you reflected on it, might have led you to check that guy next-door's numbers to see if there's a pattern? I don't need all this for the tiny point I'm making.

And you know I've posted a lot of this stuff and been pretty clear throughout, I thought, that I'm not saying every white person had their knee on George Floyd's neck. The other cops there, who failed to do what I didn't even have the option of doing, none of them actually had their knee on his neck either. I don't see that I'm even committed to saying that anyone benefited from George Floyd's murder, though I hold out some hope that we all do, in a very different way. (I almost posted something on an objection to the concept of white privilege which I was going to describe as "The murder of George Floyd didn't help me pay my mortgage." I decided against it. @StreetlightX would have posted it -- love ya, Street.)

So I'm just going to say: if you're tempted to think I've said that all the racist things are done by all the white people and they're all responsible for all of them and all the white people benefit from all the racist things all the white people do -- that's not me. I can't imagine why I would ever say that.

In many cases, no. The social relation in question is one of particular bodies. If every human lost their awareness skin colour tomorrow, it would not alter many of the present social relations between bodies. The same bodies would still be in jails, poverty striken communities, etc., and the structures of systematic racism would still be present of the bodies. We would just cease to be aware of them — TheWillowOfDarkness

I fundamentally disagree. If we all became effectively "colorless", it wouldn't immediately release people from jails or poverty, but it would dramatically effect how people were processed by the criminal justice system going forward, and it would gradually even out the disparity in wealth accumulation, albeit over several generations. There would still be much to do to address the disparity between rich and poor, and no doubt the rich would invent some other idea to divide us and keep the status quo, but you can't have racism without race.

Totally off topic, but is your screen name a Buffy reference?

But that's the issue: here "racial issues" are just thinking someone ought to have one social position or another because someone has a skin colour or not. It's a material relation of bodies in a community.

So to merely stop thinking concepts of race doesn't actually get us to the position you describe. It might, if the the absence of a concept of race were then to cause future changes in the community, more equitable relationships between certian bodies, etc.

We know, however, this effect will be extremely limited by the way our economic system functions. Poverty runs in a cycle. Those who a poor, usually remain poor. If we just stop thinking about race, the economic disparities will largely remain because the structure of poverty will reproduce or where it already is. Stopping thinking about race will not slove the major issues in this area. The bodies in question will still be overwhelming in poverty. The racism of concern, economic disparities between these bodies, remains the case. Stopping thinking about race doesn't make it disappear.

Yes, it's partly a Buffy reference.