3 ms·

Because we white men are the default As a person of color, I have to say that this is one of the most corrosively racist concepts there is, flat out. White peo

Because we white men are the default As a person of color, I have to say that this is one of the most corrosively racist concepts there is, flat out. White people aren't special. They aren't a "default." Everyone else isn't a flavor of the month. The "everyman" isn't a white man. Because to say such is to relegate everyone else to 2nd rate status. I'm not saying all complaints about identity politics are illegitimate. Just that when white men are practicing identity politics, one tool they use is to complain about identity politics. It sure sounds like you're saying that all complaints from white men about identity politics are illegitimate or are somehow special because they come from white men. That strikes me as racist. Also, it sure makes white people sound special somehow.

wpietri 10y ago
Let me take the second point first. I'll make the statement generic: "A way people in a dominant group reinforce the power of the dominant group is to try to prevent discussions where non-dominant groups explicitly discuss their experience as non-dominant groups and how they relate to the dominant group." That's pretty clearly not a racist statement. Now let's take another statement: in America from the 1700s onward, white men are the dominant group. This is explicitly in the foundations of the country, and although it has become less true over time, looking at things like wealth distribution, positions of power, and access to power, it's still not an unfair statement. That statement describes a racist system, but I don't believe to be racist in itself. What do we get when we combine the two statements, using the generic thought expressed in the first and the historical specificity of the second? "The way white men practice identity politics is to complain about identity politics." So I believe that's not a racist statement either. I also think you over-apply it. As I already explained once, I am explicitly not saying all complaints about identity politics are illegitimate. I am saying that white men acting to maintain their societal dominance will complain about identity politics as a means. Now to your first bit, I believe what you say is correct, but you miss my point. The reason I'm bringing it up is as part of pointing out edblarney's treating of men as the default. I agree with you it's wrong that white men are treated as the generic. But in pointing it out, I'm trying to undermine it. (In case you're curious, the technical names for the phenomena that I'm concerned about here are erasure [1] and the unmarked case [2], and I'm opposed to both.) [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/magazine/the-painful-consequences-of-erasure.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/magazine/the-painful-conse... [2] http://www2.bakersfieldcollege.edu/driess/Readings_files/Marked%20Women.pdf http://www2.bakersfieldcollege.edu/driess/Readings_files/Mar...
- wpietri 10y ago
  I don't have time to keep monitoring this for replies, but feel free to email me if you want to discuss this further.

wpietri 10y ago

Let me take the second point first. I'll make the statement generic: "A way people in a dominant group reinforce the power of the dominant group is to try to prevent discussions where non-dominant groups explicitly discuss their experience as non-dominant groups and how they relate to the dominant group." That's pretty clearly not a racist statement. Now let's take another statement: in America from the 1700s onward, white men are the dominant group. This is explicitly in the foundations of the country, and although it has become less true over time, looking at things like wealth distribution, positions of power, and access to power, it's still not an unfair statement. That statement describes a racist system, but I don't believe to be racist in itself. What do we get when we combine the two statements, using the generic thought expressed in the first and the historical specificity of the second? "The way white men practice identity politics is to complain about identity politics." So I believe that's not a racist statement either. I also think you over-apply it. As I already explained once, I am explicitly not saying all complaints about identity politics are illegitimate. I am saying that white men acting to maintain their societal dominance will complain about identity politics as a means. Now to your first bit, I believe what you say is correct, but you miss my point. The reason I'm bringing it up is as part of pointing out edblarney's treating of men as the default. I agree with you it's wrong that white men are treated as the generic. But in pointing it out, I'm trying to undermine it. (In case you're curious, the technical names for the phenomena that I'm concerned about here are erasure [1] and the unmarked case [2], and I'm opposed to both.) [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/magazine/the-painful-consequences-of-erasure.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/magazine/the-painful-conse... [2] http://www2.bakersfieldcollege.edu/driess/Readings_files/Marked%20Women.pdf http://www2.bakersfieldcollege.edu/driess/Readings_files/Mar...

wpietri 10y ago
I don't have time to keep monitoring this for replies, but feel free to email me if you want to discuss this further.