3 ms·

White supremacy is the idea that white people are inherently better and more capable and therefore more deserving. Hence, for something to be white supremacy, i

by rocqua 5y ago

White supremacy is the idea that white people are inherently better and more capable and therefore more deserving. Hence, for something to be white supremacy, it doesn't just need to have a bias favoring white people. It should also have a justification of this favoring based on white people deserving better or being better. Racist systems that have encoded societies biases are generally not white supremacist. The 'justification' for those systems is often things like "this is just the way it is" or "this was easier to do like this" or "I went with my own experience". These days a lot of racism does not come from white supremacy. It either comes from something like familiarity bias of people in power, or from following the status quo mindlessly. Calling those acts white supremacist can be dangerous. It allows the real white supremacists to hide among the unknowing. It also pushes people who unintentionally did something racist way into the defensive if you tell them they are white supremacist. And pushing people who unintentionally did racist things into defending their actions is not going to make things better.

ygjb 5y ago
> White supremacy is the idea that white people are inherently better and more capable and therefore more deserving. That's a common dictionary or encyclopedia definition of the white supremacy. More broadly, white supremacy also refers to the systems and structures of power that are built into most of "western" (a better term might be post-colonial) societies that favor both white people, and people who support or uphold the balance of power in those post-colonial societies. > Racist systems that have encoded societies biases are generally not white supremacist I agree, however I think that those racist systems that are not inherently white supremacist in nature are largely rooted in non-colonial countries (basically countries other than the European colonial powers, and the countries that grew out of those colonies). > It also pushes people who unintentionally did something racist way into the defensive if you tell them they are white supremacist. And pushing people who unintentionally did racist things into defending their actions is not going to make things better. That is just not true. If someone does or says something racist, they can and should be challenged on it. If they become defensive, there are multiple reasons that could happen, but if the reason is that they simply didn't know better, it's just the way their society is, or if the reason is that they are opposed to "wokeness" (which is a catch-all for intersectionality, critical race theory, and many other modern perspectives and ideologies that are largely centered on dismantling power structures and reducing bias and discrimination), then it's likely that they are supporting white supremacy out of ignorance (whether that ignorance is from being uninformed or uneducated, or the more malicious willful ignorance of people who choose to use or engage in racist norms because they are opposed to "wokeness" from an ideological or other perspective). Pushing people who do things that could be cast as unintentionally racist is the only way to a) educate them, so they can do better, or b) determine if it was an intentional act. I know this from practical experience, and it was only from going through the hard and painful experience of being called out on harmful "unintentionally" racist jokes and behaviour that I learned to do better after being raised by a family that had (and for the most part, still has) some pretty racist and discriminatory views.
- visarga 5y ago
  > the systems and structures of power what a vague concept lumping together unrelated things the systems of power in one place are different from another place, they are unrelated, can't be reified like this
- rocqua 5y ago
  Lets not devolve into a semantic discussion about white supremacy. Under your definition I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I still think we should not tell people who do racist things "you are being a white supremacist". Instead we should say "that thing you did was a bit racist" or even "that thing you did could be seen as racist". We should _definitely_ challenge those people. But if you are trying to get someone to change their mind or behavior, you gotta be real careful about their feelings. Calling someone a white supremacist is going to hurt their feelings quite a bit. And that isn't going to make them more likely to consider if they should change or did something wrong. That doesn't mean don't challenge people on their actions. That means challenge people on their actions very gently. If we don't treat these people gently, then we lose the less introspective part of the population. They start getting reactionary, start 'banding together' against these annoying people. They start 'fighting back in the culture war'. Basically, getting this wrong is how you create republicans. All of the above means I think we should be considerate in how we challenge racists. And I think part of that involves being really careful about the term white-supremacy.
sophacles 5y ago
There's an old saying: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" (often attributed to Upton Sinclair, not sure if that's true or not tho). Id like to suggest that what you are calling "familiarity bias" might have a component of the quote in it too. Not salary in this case, but social position. That is in the racist system, one race of folks get better treatment, and if they want to maintain better treatment, the status quo must be maintained. The group of people at top of a racial hierarchy (that is in the supreme position), are incentivized to keep the racist system. When race is considered a bad reason to judge a person, they still are incentivized to maintain the system, just find different words to justify the status quo. I guess a different way of saying this is - white supremacy describes a race based social hierarchy where white people are at the highest level. It has also been used to describe the lowlife Nazi or KKK wannabes that advocate for it in the baldest terms, but they are bigots who advocate for white supremacy using racist terms like "inferior genetics" or worse. Compare the term racist itself - there are folks who would have you believe that the term is limited to personal bigotry against people of a different race, and has nothing to do with the rules and actions of systems (a position I think you don't hold due to your description of racist systems).

by rocqua 5y ago

ygjb 5y ago

> White supremacy is the idea that white people are inherently better and more capable and therefore more deserving. That's a common dictionary or encyclopedia definition of the white supremacy. More broadly, white supremacy also refers to the systems and structures of power that are built into most of "western" (a better term might be post-colonial) societies that favor both white people, and people who support or uphold the balance of power in those post-colonial societies. > Racist systems that have encoded societies biases are generally not white supremacist I agree, however I think that those racist systems that are not inherently white supremacist in nature are largely rooted in non-colonial countries (basically countries other than the European colonial powers, and the countries that grew out of those colonies). > It also pushes people who unintentionally did something racist way into the defensive if you tell them they are white supremacist. And pushing people who unintentionally did racist things into defending their actions is not going to make things better. That is just not true. If someone does or says something racist, they can and should be challenged on it. If they become defensive, there are multiple reasons that could happen, but if the reason is that they simply didn't know better, it's just the way their society is, or if the reason is that they are opposed to "wokeness" (which is a catch-all for intersectionality, critical race theory, and many other modern perspectives and ideologies that are largely centered on dismantling power structures and reducing bias and discrimination), then it's likely that they are supporting white supremacy out of ignorance (whether that ignorance is from being uninformed or uneducated, or the more malicious willful ignorance of people who choose to use or engage in racist norms because they are opposed to "wokeness" from an ideological or other perspective). Pushing people who do things that could be cast as unintentionally racist is the only way to a) educate them, so they can do better, or b) determine if it was an intentional act. I know this from practical experience, and it was only from going through the hard and painful experience of being called out on harmful "unintentionally" racist jokes and behaviour that I learned to do better after being raised by a family that had (and for the most part, still has) some pretty racist and discriminatory views.

visarga 5y ago
> the systems and structures of power what a vague concept lumping together unrelated things the systems of power in one place are different from another place, they are unrelated, can't be reified like this
rocqua 5y ago
Lets not devolve into a semantic discussion about white supremacy. Under your definition I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I still think we should not tell people who do racist things "you are being a white supremacist". Instead we should say "that thing you did was a bit racist" or even "that thing you did could be seen as racist". We should _definitely_ challenge those people. But if you are trying to get someone to change their mind or behavior, you gotta be real careful about their feelings. Calling someone a white supremacist is going to hurt their feelings quite a bit. And that isn't going to make them more likely to consider if they should change or did something wrong. That doesn't mean don't challenge people on their actions. That means challenge people on their actions very gently. If we don't treat these people gently, then we lose the less introspective part of the population. They start getting reactionary, start 'banding together' against these annoying people. They start 'fighting back in the culture war'. Basically, getting this wrong is how you create republicans. All of the above means I think we should be considerate in how we challenge racists. And I think part of that involves being really careful about the term white-supremacy.

sophacles 5y ago

There's an old saying: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" (often attributed to Upton Sinclair, not sure if that's true or not tho). Id like to suggest that what you are calling "familiarity bias" might have a component of the quote in it too. Not salary in this case, but social position. That is in the racist system, one race of folks get better treatment, and if they want to maintain better treatment, the status quo must be maintained. The group of people at top of a racial hierarchy (that is in the supreme position), are incentivized to keep the racist system. When race is considered a bad reason to judge a person, they still are incentivized to maintain the system, just find different words to justify the status quo. I guess a different way of saying this is - white supremacy describes a race based social hierarchy where white people are at the highest level. It has also been used to describe the lowlife Nazi or KKK wannabes that advocate for it in the baldest terms, but they are bigots who advocate for white supremacy using racist terms like "inferior genetics" or worse. Compare the term racist itself - there are folks who would have you believe that the term is limited to personal bigotry against people of a different race, and has nothing to do with the rules and actions of systems (a position I think you don't hold due to your description of racist systems).