7 ms·

Also, I apologize for not directly responding to your actual point. Is it racist for a charity to only work with black farmers? The reason I wrote what I wrote

Also, I apologize for not directly responding to your actual point. Is it racist for a charity to only work with black farmers? The reason I wrote what I wrote is that the answer entirely depends on whether your definition of racism includes the systemic oppression of the less powerful for the specific purpose of keeping them less powerful into the future. Based on my research, a conservative (and I am using these terms to describe teams, so it could be "shirts" vs. "skins") would say it's racist because it consciously discriminates against white people. End of story. A progressive would contend that white farmers already have all of the inherent advantages of their whiteness, and therefore it's wholly appropriate for a self-organizing group to serve less powerful communities to the exclusion of the ruling class. (Class as in group, not social strata, although I'm confident that black farmers are farmers who are black, and therefore part of an oppressed class. They are free to decide who is oppressed in the same way an editor is free to decide who to publish.) The truth is not up to me to decide, but it's a shame that we can't have two parallel conversations where both views have a good point.

ur-whale 8y ago
So, if we assume for the sake of discussion that the author of the article is not playing identity politics games and is truly trying - to sort of quote you - to help those in greatest need, then don't you think the criteria should objectively be those in greatest need instead of relying on some sort of questionable correlation between one's skin color and one's economic condition to pick and choose who's most deserving of their help? I think what is truly driving a certain category of people (which I belong to) nuts when they hear that folks base their decision on people's skin color is exactly that: instead of relying on some dubious, questionable, to-be-proven, and most certainly never a 100% accurate, equivalence relation between one's skin color and one's economic (or other) condition, why not just call an effing cat a cat and just say you're trying to help people who need it the most? To me, there's only two explanations: you're either not very smart by equating two very different things, or you have an identity politics agenda. Either is a source of frustration. Finally, "the inherent advantages of their whiteness" . And you're trying to tell me you want a constructive conversation when using language like this? Please. The 50's are long gone, time to move on.
- peteforde 8y ago
  For the first three paragraphs: Yes. I agree with you, in the ways that are important. Fourth paragraph: I was doing my best to represent the thinking and position of that group of well-intentioned people. You don't have to agree that there's an inherent advantage to whiteness. I don't have to agree, either. I believe that there's an inherent advantage to being of the majority and that whenever a class has power, it will work overtime to stay in that position of power. Do I think that the issue of race equality was solved in the 60s? No sir, I do not.

ur-whale 8y ago

So, if we assume for the sake of discussion that the author of the article is not playing identity politics games and is truly trying - to sort of quote you - to help those in greatest need, then don't you think the criteria should objectively be those in greatest need instead of relying on some sort of questionable correlation between one's skin color and one's economic condition to pick and choose who's most deserving of their help? I think what is truly driving a certain category of people (which I belong to) nuts when they hear that folks base their decision on people's skin color is exactly that: instead of relying on some dubious, questionable, to-be-proven, and most certainly never a 100% accurate, equivalence relation between one's skin color and one's economic (or other) condition, why not just call an effing cat a cat and just say you're trying to help people who need it the most? To me, there's only two explanations: you're either not very smart by equating two very different things, or you have an identity politics agenda. Either is a source of frustration. Finally, "the inherent advantages of their whiteness" . And you're trying to tell me you want a constructive conversation when using language like this? Please. The 50's are long gone, time to move on.

peteforde 8y ago
For the first three paragraphs: Yes. I agree with you, in the ways that are important. Fourth paragraph: I was doing my best to represent the thinking and position of that group of well-intentioned people. You don't have to agree that there's an inherent advantage to whiteness. I don't have to agree, either. I believe that there's an inherent advantage to being of the majority and that whenever a class has power, it will work overtime to stay in that position of power. Do I think that the issue of race equality was solved in the 60s? No sir, I do not.