4 ms·

I posit that "racists are winning elections" precisely because of the broken race ideology that was meant to combat racism in the first place (not just in admis

I posit that "racists are winning elections" precisely because of the broken race ideology that was meant to combat racism in the first place (not just in admissions and hiring, but all over our discourse). The stuff we do in the name of fighting racism looks like exactly the sort of thing one would do if they wanted to create a thoroughly racist society--get everyone to hyper-identify with their race and create separate and mete out rewards and consequences on the basis of race. Imply that fault and victimhood are racial (rather than individual) attributes. Deal only in abstractions and ignore intra-racial variance. Police people to make sure they don't explore ("appropriate") cultures outside of their own. Use "nazi" and "white supremacy" as liberally as possible--make sure those words have no power to censure actual, bonafide racists. Stuff like this.

tootie 4y ago
I think that's a completely specious perspective and one that is peddled by conservative politicians as propaganda. Being antiracist is not about assigning blame or curing racism with HR policy and certainly not about curing all societal ills. It's about taking small steps to counteract injustice instead of just saying "I'm not racist" and washing your hands. Trying to teach kids accurate history of deplorable things done by some people's ancestors is just teaching accurate history. Out of control name-calling is happening in all quarters but all I'm saying that we are electing racists and we definitely are. The past president's response to the Charlottesville car attack was incredibly ambivalent and the perpetrator could be accurately described as a nazi.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > I think that's a completely specious perspective and one that is peddled by conservative politicians as propaganda. Liberals have been talking about this long before the words “woke” or “CRT” fell upon conservative ears. “Conservatives say this” is merely the latest way to dismiss criticism. > It's about taking small steps to counteract injustice instead of just saying "I'm not racist" and washing your hands. The problem is that “counteracting injustice” is naively formulated. Specifically, it often means “reducing disparities between the median people of each race” which practically demands injustice: to make the average white person closer to the average black person, we have to push white people down. And which white people are going to get pushed down? The poorest (which is why we vilify poor, rural whites more so than wealthy coastal elites). Similarly, which black folks are going to get lifted up in order to raise the median? The poor or the rich (whose communities have experienced the largest post-BLM crime surges?)? Moreover, a whole shitton of violence was perpetrated (and rationalized, justified, and excused) in the name of “antiracism”, which is not what I expect from a movement about “counteracting injustice”. Moreover, “colorblind antiracism” doesn’t imply shrugging—you can advocate for others to be more colorblind. There are approaches that don’t require tokenizing people, and I posit they’ve worked far, far better. > Trying to teach kids accurate history of deplorable things done by some people's ancestors is just teaching accurate history. I’m not opposed to teaching accurate history (we covered lots of civil rights stuff when I was in school, but critically I wasn’t taught to feel guilty for having white skin), but (1) that’s not what is happening (lots of historians have significant issues with the 1619 series for example) and (2) the wrongdoers weren’t the ancestors of a lot of people (e.g., lots of white people’s ancestors didn’t immigrate until after the civil war and they didn’t have any major hand in Jim Crow, etc anyway) and (3) there shouldn’t be an implication of guilt based on something your ancestors did anyway and (4) the “antiracist” perspective also seems to take issue with any non-racialized historical lens (or even one in which the US isn’t the absolute worst). > Out of control name-calling is happening in all quarters but all I'm saying that we are electing racists and we definitely are. I agree, I just think that’s an effect of so-called antiracism. I don’t think doubling down is going to solve the problem. > The past president's response to the Charlottesville car attack was incredibly ambivalent and the perpetrator could be accurately described as a nazi. I won’t argue with you here. This all seems agreeable to me. Let’s make fewer Nazis.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure that everyone now living has ancestors who have done deplorable things at some time in the past. Refraining from all sorts of deplorable things, by and large, is a very recent social innovation. (Steven Pinker is especially clear on this.)
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      Agreed. Not only that, but there’s also a debate among historians about “presentism”—judging the past by present standards rather than by the standards of the time. For example, most (so-called) antiracists are presentists, which is why they advocate for tearing down statues of Lincoln and the like—people who were very progressive for their day, but who fell short of the standards of today (as though the people who are antiracist today would be as strident as they are if they grew up in the culture of Lincoln’s time).
      - tootie 4y ago
        I don't follow. We live in the present so presentism seems pretty practical. Besides, this isn't ancient history. Civil Rights was only like 60 years ago. Strom Thurmond served in Congress this century. Is there any point in history that it would be acceptable to have a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest on public land?
        throwaway894345 4y ago
        > We live in the present so presentism seems pretty practical. Well, I live now. I’m very liberal, but am I more noble for doing fuck-all about civil rights (apart from voting) than the abolitionists who literally died to end slavery? Does the woke college student really deserve a statue more than MLK? > Besides, this isn't ancient history. Granted, but I don’t see the relevance. You should still judge people of the civil rights era according to the standards of their time. > Is there any point in history that it would be acceptable to have a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest on public land? I’m not very well-versed in Forrest, but he seems like he wasn’t progressive for his time, so the answer would be “no” irrespective of presentism.

tootie 4y ago

I think that's a completely specious perspective and one that is peddled by conservative politicians as propaganda. Being antiracist is not about assigning blame or curing racism with HR policy and certainly not about curing all societal ills. It's about taking small steps to counteract injustice instead of just saying "I'm not racist" and washing your hands. Trying to teach kids accurate history of deplorable things done by some people's ancestors is just teaching accurate history. Out of control name-calling is happening in all quarters but all I'm saying that we are electing racists and we definitely are. The past president's response to the Charlottesville car attack was incredibly ambivalent and the perpetrator could be accurately described as a nazi.

throwaway894345 4y ago
> I think that's a completely specious perspective and one that is peddled by conservative politicians as propaganda. Liberals have been talking about this long before the words “woke” or “CRT” fell upon conservative ears. “Conservatives say this” is merely the latest way to dismiss criticism. > It's about taking small steps to counteract injustice instead of just saying "I'm not racist" and washing your hands. The problem is that “counteracting injustice” is naively formulated. Specifically, it often means “reducing disparities between the median people of each race” which practically demands injustice: to make the average white person closer to the average black person, we have to push white people down. And which white people are going to get pushed down? The poorest (which is why we vilify poor, rural whites more so than wealthy coastal elites). Similarly, which black folks are going to get lifted up in order to raise the median? The poor or the rich (whose communities have experienced the largest post-BLM crime surges?)? Moreover, a whole shitton of violence was perpetrated (and rationalized, justified, and excused) in the name of “antiracism”, which is not what I expect from a movement about “counteracting injustice”. Moreover, “colorblind antiracism” doesn’t imply shrugging—you can advocate for others to be more colorblind. There are approaches that don’t require tokenizing people, and I posit they’ve worked far, far better. > Trying to teach kids accurate history of deplorable things done by some people's ancestors is just teaching accurate history. I’m not opposed to teaching accurate history (we covered lots of civil rights stuff when I was in school, but critically I wasn’t taught to feel guilty for having white skin), but (1) that’s not what is happening (lots of historians have significant issues with the 1619 series for example) and (2) the wrongdoers weren’t the ancestors of a lot of people (e.g., lots of white people’s ancestors didn’t immigrate until after the civil war and they didn’t have any major hand in Jim Crow, etc anyway) and (3) there shouldn’t be an implication of guilt based on something your ancestors did anyway and (4) the “antiracist” perspective also seems to take issue with any non-racialized historical lens (or even one in which the US isn’t the absolute worst). > Out of control name-calling is happening in all quarters but all I'm saying that we are electing racists and we definitely are. I agree, I just think that’s an effect of so-called antiracism. I don’t think doubling down is going to solve the problem. > The past president's response to the Charlottesville car attack was incredibly ambivalent and the perpetrator could be accurately described as a nazi. I won’t argue with you here. This all seems agreeable to me. Let’s make fewer Nazis.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure that everyone now living has ancestors who have done deplorable things at some time in the past. Refraining from all sorts of deplorable things, by and large, is a very recent social innovation. (Steven Pinker is especially clear on this.)
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Agreed. Not only that, but there’s also a debate among historians about “presentism”—judging the past by present standards rather than by the standards of the time. For example, most (so-called) antiracists are presentists, which is why they advocate for tearing down statues of Lincoln and the like—people who were very progressive for their day, but who fell short of the standards of today (as though the people who are antiracist today would be as strident as they are if they grew up in the culture of Lincoln’s time).
    - tootie 4y ago
      I don't follow. We live in the present so presentism seems pretty practical. Besides, this isn't ancient history. Civil Rights was only like 60 years ago. Strom Thurmond served in Congress this century. Is there any point in history that it would be acceptable to have a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest on public land?
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        > We live in the present so presentism seems pretty practical. Well, I live now. I’m very liberal, but am I more noble for doing fuck-all about civil rights (apart from voting) than the abolitionists who literally died to end slavery? Does the woke college student really deserve a statue more than MLK? > Besides, this isn't ancient history. Granted, but I don’t see the relevance. You should still judge people of the civil rights era according to the standards of their time. > Is there any point in history that it would be acceptable to have a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest on public land? I’m not very well-versed in Forrest, but he seems like he wasn’t progressive for his time, so the answer would be “no” irrespective of presentism.