5 ms·

Definitions are everything. Consider someone for whom "white supremacy" means "it is right and appropriate to act deliberately to create and preserve white dom

Definitions are everything. Consider someone for whom "white supremacy" means "it is right and appropriate to act deliberately to create and preserve white dominance of other races". Versus someone for whom it means "privilege exists in many, though often subtle ways, and advantages white, male, older, cis, het people". It's a lot like how "defund police" means radically different things.

moduspol 5y ago
True, but none of this is by mistake or accident.
jariel 5y ago
That's not quite the right example though. CRT definitions of 'White Supremacy' are not about 'people acting deliberately' to support it. CRT laments that 'regular people' doing 'regular things' act unconsciously to support oppressive systems, hence 'White Supremacy'. Making a film about 'something' and hiring those people you know to make it, who by virtue of your social network might be 'mostly white' - would be an example of 'White Supremacy'. Ergo - in their view, unless you are actively fighting to dismantle the concept of whiteness - you're supporting 'White Supremacy'. I believe there is a kernel of truth in systematic, even unconsciously biased systems, however, I don't remotely agree with many of the assertions. Unfortunately, to disagree with their assertions makes you a 'bad person' in their view. Have a read [1]. A thesis of 'self examination' i.e. a fairly progressive individual addressing their own 'white supremacy' due to their lack of active assertion of issues of equity etc.. http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2019/06/25/dismantling-white-supremacy-starts-inside/ http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2019/06/25/disman...
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  The problem lies in the assumption that we live in a society which is systemically racist. The people not dismantling the system are not white supremacists, they just don't believe we have systemic racism. I'm definitely not a white supremacist (I'm not even white) and I can't find a single instance of systemic racism. Sure, I met a bunch of racist individuals, but that doesn't prove systemic racism.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > I can't find a single instance of systemic racism. https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2020/05/05/veil-darkness-reas-traffic-stops/ https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2020/05/05/veil-dar... "The largest-ever study of alleged racial profiling during traffic stops has found that blacks, who are pulled over more frequently than whites by day, are much less likely to be stopped after sunset, when “a veil of darkness” masks their race." > Creating that database enabled the team to find the statistical evidence that a “veil of darkness” partially immunized blacks against traffic stops. That term and idea has been around since 2006 when it was used in a study that compared the race of 8,000 drivers in Oakland, California, who were stopped at any time of day or night over a six month period. But the findings from that study were inconclusive because the sample was too small to prove a link between the darkness of the sky and the race of the stopped drivers. > The Stanford team decided to repeat the analysis using the much larger dataset that they had gathered. First, they narrowed the range of variables they had to analyze by choosing a specific time of day – around 7 p.m. – when the probable causes for a stop were more or less constant. Next, they took advantage of the fact that, in the months before and after daylight saving time each year, the sky gets a little darker or lighter, day by day. Because they had such a massive database, the researchers were able to find 113,000 traffic stops, from all of the locations in their database, that occurred on those days, before or after clocks sprang forward or fell back, when the sky was growing darker or lighter at around 7 p.m. local time. > This dataset provided a statistically valid sample with two important variables – the race of the driver being stopped, and the darkness of the sky at around 7 p.m. The analysis left no doubt that the darker it got, the less likely it became that a black driver would be stopped. The reverse was true when the sky was lighter.
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      Aggregating everything and taking an average doesn't prove 'everything is racist', it just proves some portion of people are. It's not traffic stops, 'the police', or 'the system' that is racist, it's individual cops making the decision to pull over one person and not another. If this were an example of systemic racism, there would be a systemic fix, but there isn't. The only way to fix this would be to wipe out or even out the biases of the individual officers. Police departments in the bay area are very ethnically diverse: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/do-bay-area-police-departments-look-like-the-communities-they-serve/2301570 https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/do-bay-area-police-dep...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
keithnz 5y ago
the fact they got into battles over what labels are appropriate and the possible different "definitions" shows they had no idea how to deal with this situation.
eplanit 5y ago
Then those vying for change should consider using less offensive, divisive, and frankly ridiculous (i.e. defund the police), language. It's now tiresome to hear the defense "oh defund doesn't mean _defund_...." -- then don't say it. If the charge of white supremacy isn't meant to insult people based on race (overt racism, itself), then maybe convey the thought more clearly.

moduspol 5y ago

True, but none of this is by mistake or accident.

jariel 5y ago

That's not quite the right example though. CRT definitions of 'White Supremacy' are not about 'people acting deliberately' to support it. CRT laments that 'regular people' doing 'regular things' act unconsciously to support oppressive systems, hence 'White Supremacy'. Making a film about 'something' and hiring those people you know to make it, who by virtue of your social network might be 'mostly white' - would be an example of 'White Supremacy'. Ergo - in their view, unless you are actively fighting to dismantle the concept of whiteness - you're supporting 'White Supremacy'. I believe there is a kernel of truth in systematic, even unconsciously biased systems, however, I don't remotely agree with many of the assertions. Unfortunately, to disagree with their assertions makes you a 'bad person' in their view. Have a read [1]. A thesis of 'self examination' i.e. a fairly progressive individual addressing their own 'white supremacy' due to their lack of active assertion of issues of equity etc.. http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2019/06/25/dismantling-white-supremacy-starts-inside/ http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2019/06/25/disman...

jokethrowaway 5y ago
The problem lies in the assumption that we live in a society which is systemically racist. The people not dismantling the system are not white supremacists, they just don't believe we have systemic racism. I'm definitely not a white supremacist (I'm not even white) and I can't find a single instance of systemic racism. Sure, I met a bunch of racist individuals, but that doesn't prove systemic racism.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > I can't find a single instance of systemic racism. https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2020/05/05/veil-darkness-reas-traffic-stops/ https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2020/05/05/veil-dar... "The largest-ever study of alleged racial profiling during traffic stops has found that blacks, who are pulled over more frequently than whites by day, are much less likely to be stopped after sunset, when “a veil of darkness” masks their race." > Creating that database enabled the team to find the statistical evidence that a “veil of darkness” partially immunized blacks against traffic stops. That term and idea has been around since 2006 when it was used in a study that compared the race of 8,000 drivers in Oakland, California, who were stopped at any time of day or night over a six month period. But the findings from that study were inconclusive because the sample was too small to prove a link between the darkness of the sky and the race of the stopped drivers. > The Stanford team decided to repeat the analysis using the much larger dataset that they had gathered. First, they narrowed the range of variables they had to analyze by choosing a specific time of day – around 7 p.m. – when the probable causes for a stop were more or less constant. Next, they took advantage of the fact that, in the months before and after daylight saving time each year, the sky gets a little darker or lighter, day by day. Because they had such a massive database, the researchers were able to find 113,000 traffic stops, from all of the locations in their database, that occurred on those days, before or after clocks sprang forward or fell back, when the sky was growing darker or lighter at around 7 p.m. local time. > This dataset provided a statistically valid sample with two important variables – the race of the driver being stopped, and the darkness of the sky at around 7 p.m. The analysis left no doubt that the darker it got, the less likely it became that a black driver would be stopped. The reverse was true when the sky was lighter.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    Aggregating everything and taking an average doesn't prove 'everything is racist', it just proves some portion of people are. It's not traffic stops, 'the police', or 'the system' that is racist, it's individual cops making the decision to pull over one person and not another. If this were an example of systemic racism, there would be a systemic fix, but there isn't. The only way to fix this would be to wipe out or even out the biases of the individual officers. Police departments in the bay area are very ethnically diverse: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/do-bay-area-police-departments-look-like-the-communities-they-serve/2301570 https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/do-bay-area-police-dep...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

keithnz 5y ago

the fact they got into battles over what labels are appropriate and the possible different "definitions" shows they had no idea how to deal with this situation.

eplanit 5y ago

Then those vying for change should consider using less offensive, divisive, and frankly ridiculous (i.e. defund the police), language. It's now tiresome to hear the defense "oh defund doesn't mean _defund_...." -- then don't say it. If the charge of white supremacy isn't meant to insult people based on race (overt racism, itself), then maybe convey the thought more clearly.