Don't be "Not A Racist", Be an Antiracist



rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
25,848
Is That Kúnt Black ? ?
But remember, he's definitely not a racist - I think it's time you went to PI and spent the rest of your days bored stiff singing to the choir.

Toodles.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
12,985
Twitter
Deiscirt
The OP enjoins us to be "Anti-racist" without, I think, actually understanding what is really meant by the term by those advancing it. This two minute read, in the form of an open letter explains why "anti-racism" (note sneer quotes. It's thoroughly racialized and regressive ideology) not just won't improve race relations, it is divisive political extremism.

 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,192
The OP enjoins us to be "Anti-racist" without, I think, actually understanding what is really meant by the term by those advancing it. This two minute read, in the form of an open letter explains why "anti-racism" (note sneer quotes. It's thoroughly racialized and regressive ideology) not just won't improve race relations, it is divisive political extremism.

So how is racism best opposed then? Given the record of racism in provoking multiple catastrophic outcomes from genocide to blighted lives, does it not deserve to be a Fifth Horseman, along with War, Pestilence, Famine & Death?

Of all magazines to turn to justify a cause, the Spectator would not be my choice. I thought the article another sterile effort to make opposing racism a front in an inane culture war against any sort of change, except (in English terms) anything supported by Boris Johnson's Tories. I agree with a single sentence "Where racism exists, it should be unapologetically challenged", which actually sums up the OP fairly well.

MLK did not catalyse change just by making eloquent speeches against racism. He put his and his followers' bodies on the line to provoke confrontation and effect change. And if you read Letter from Birmingham Jail, you should realise he regarded anodyne articles like this one in the Spectator to be fundamentally opposed to what he was trying to do.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
12,985
Twitter
Deiscirt
So how is racism best opposed then? Given the record of racism in provoking multiple catastrophic outcomes from genocide to blighted lives, does it not deserve to be a Fifth Horseman, along with War, Pestilence, Famine & Death?

Of all magazines to turn to justify a cause, the Spectator would not be my choice. I thought the article another sterile effort to make opposing racism a front in an inane culture war against any sort of change, except (in English terms) anything supported by Boris Johnson's Tories. I agree with a single sentence "Where racism exists, it should be unapologetically challenged", which actually sums up the OP fairly well.

MLK did not catalyse change just by making eloquent speeches against racism. He put his and his followers' bodies on the line to provoke confrontation and effect change. And if you read Letter from Birmingham Jail, you should realise he regarded anodyne articles like this one in the Spectator to be fundamentally opposed to what he was trying to do.
It's a complicated problem. I don't have the answers. If there is one thing I feel fairly certain about however, is that we're not going to get to a place where skin color is as consequential as hair color by constantly defining and dividing people by it. Which is what "anti-racism" does.
 

Super Caley

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2014
Messages
1,215
So how is racism best opposed then? Given the record of racism in provoking multiple catastrophic outcomes from genocide to blighted lives, does it not deserve to be a Fifth Horseman, along with War, Pestilence, Famine & Death?
With the concept of inclusivity.

This avoids the pitfalls inherent in concepts like "equality" or "race", which invite one group to compare their lot with a rival group which, given the human propensity to self serving bias, inevitably leads to both groups perceiving grievances which they set about putting right. But of course as neither group perceived the other's grievance as legitimate, they each perceive the other's "putting right" as a further grievance of their own, which in turn needs to be put right, and so on and so on throughout human history, leading to, as you say, catastrophic outcomes such a war genocide and countless blighted lives.

In this respect, I see little difference between BLM or proactive "anti-racism" and the belligerents in any sectarian conflict or conventional war you care to mention. All sides invariably perceive that they, and they alone have right on their side and go about dehumanising the enemy.
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
93,452
The OP enjoins us to be "Anti-racist" without, I think, actually understanding what is really meant by the term by those advancing it. This two minute read, in the form of an open letter explains why "anti-racism" (note sneer quotes. It's thoroughly racialized and regressive ideology) not just won't improve race relations, it is divisive political extremism.

It doesn’t explain anything, though. What it does do is offer a thorough misrepresentation of anti-racism, though whether this is a result of ignorance or malice is not obvious.

If you want to understand a concept, the best way to do so is to read the work of those who advocate for it. You’ve chosen an exceptionally poor source in that regard.
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
93,452
It's a complicated problem. I don't have the answers. If there is one thing I feel fairly certain about however, is that we're not going to get to a place where skin color is as consequential as hair color by constantly defining and dividing people by it. Which is what "anti-racism" does.
It’s what racism does. What you’re advocating for here, whether you know it or not, is a “colour-blind” approach to racism - this approach is very popular even to this day among white liberals because it demands the least of them, but it has been thoroughly discredited (as have its analogous approaches to other forms of oppression) for a long time among theorists of colour.

Simply put, colour-blind approaches (and their equivalents in other areas of oppression) seek to solve a problem by ignoring it, as if pretending that racism does not exist will somehow make it go away. As I mentioned above, it is especially seductive as an approach for those who are more or less happy with the status quo and who do not want to feel challenged to actually do anything about racism in society.
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
93,452
With the concept of inclusivity.

This avoids the pitfalls inherent in concepts like "equality" or "race", which invite one group to compare their lot with a rival group which, given the human propensity to self serving bias, inevitably leads to both groups perceiving grievances which they set about putting right. But of course as neither group perceived the other's grievance as legitimate, they each perceive the other's "putting right" as a further grievance of their own, which in turn needs to be put right, and so on and so on throughout human history, leading to, as you say, catastrophic outcomes such a war genocide and countless blighted lives.

In this respect, I see little difference between BLM or proactive "anti-racism" and the belligerents in any sectarian conflict or conventional war you care to mention. All sides invariably perceive that they, and they alone have right on their side and go about dehumanising the enemy.
There’s just one tiny problem with that analysis which is that anti-racists obviously do have right on their side since racism is a moral evil. And contrary to your suggestion above, there are plenty of white people who recognise that.
 

JamesCoughlin

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
95
It’s what racism does. What you’re advocating for here, whether you know it or not, is a “colour-blind” approach to racism - this approach is very popular even to this day among white liberals because it demands the least of them, but it has been thoroughly discredited (as have its analogous approaches to other forms of oppression) for a long time among theorists of colour.

Simply put, colour-blind approaches (and their equivalents in other areas of oppression) seek to solve a problem by ignoring it, as if pretending that racism does not exist will somehow make it go away. As I mentioned above, it is especially seductive as an approach for those who are more or less happy with the status quo and who do not want to feel challenged to actually do anything about racism in society.
Oh christ shut the f**k up. Constantly referring to people by their skin colour as if that's all they are instead of an individual person with their own thoughts and beliefs is incredibly racist. That why woke people are racists. All they see is victims and someone to attempt to help so they can stroke their own ego. Do you ever have any doubts about your own beliefs.
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
93,452
Oh christ shut the f**k up. Constantly referring to people by their skin colour as if that's all they are instead of an individual person with their own thoughts and beliefs is incredibly racist. That why woke people are racists. All they see is victims and someone to attempt to help so they can stroke their own ego. Do you ever have any doubts about your own beliefs.
You seem upset by the notion that people should care about racism. I wonder why that is.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
12,985
Twitter
Deiscirt
It’s what racism does. What you’re advocating for here, whether you know it or not, is a “colour-blind” approach to racism - this approach is very popular even to this day among white liberals because it demands the least of them, but it has been thoroughly discredited (as have its analogous approaches to other forms of oppression) for a long time among theorists of colour.

Simply put, colour-blind approaches (and their equivalents in other areas of oppression) seek to solve a problem by ignoring it, as if pretending that racism does not exist will somehow make it go away. As I mentioned above, it is especially seductive as an approach for those who are more or less happy with the status quo and who do not want to feel challenged to actually do anything about racism in society.
Well, at least you're putting forward an argument here rather than reciting dogma. You say it's been thoroughly discredited but the reality is it has been partially discredited and only by a fringe of "theorists" (of a set of unfalsifiable claims) and is simply rejected by most people. The "thoroughly discredited" approach has made huge strides over the decades resulting in western societies being the least racist societies (as well as we can measure) ever. There is simply no credible proof that dumping a color blind approach for the corrosive and divisive and regressive ideas of "critical race theory" could ever be "imposed" on society let alone actually work. President Obama anyone? Leo Vardkar? Priti Patel? Chuka Umunna? Ursula Burns (Black female CEO of Xerox)? Kenneth I. Chenault (Black CEO of American Express)? There is no evidence I am aware of that shows this progress has stalled, but we should just dump in in pursuit of a fringe theory from a tiny section of academia? All of whom exist on the extreme far left fringes of politics (and therefore biased in the direction of radical change by default)? I don't think so.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
12,985
Twitter
Deiscirt
There’s just one tiny problem with that analysis which is that anti-racists obviously do have right on their side since racism is a moral evil.
Assumes "anti-racism" is not racist. When it seeks to solve the problem of in-group/out-group human psychology by trying to apply use the same mechanics of racism "judge people by the color of their skin" in reverse.
And contrary to your suggestion above, there are plenty of white people who recognise that.
There are plenty of people who think vaccines cause autism too.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
18,830
The biggest difference in life outcomes is strategy. The smallest difference is skin colour. Which one will be headline news again today?
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
12,985
Twitter
Deiscirt
The biggest difference in life outcomes is strategy. The smallest difference is skin colour. Which one will be headline news again today?
There is no doubt that strategy plays a role but prejudice is real. A good kid from a black ghetto in South Chicago has to jump a lot more hurdles just to get to the same "starting position" as a good white kid from rural New York or a good Indian-American good kid born in Silicon valley. These problems are multi-faceted and complex. They've also never been smaller and won't be solved by the neo-segregationism and racialism of the woke.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom