5 ms·

I reckon you're just being edgy for the sake of it but it's still a shitty take. The only thing that an ancient greek, a renaissance italian, and a modern amer

I reckon you're just being edgy for the sake of it but it's still a shitty take. The only thing that an ancient greek, a renaissance italian, and a modern american share is that the american thinks they are all white. Otherwise these groups share almost nothing in culture, religion, ancestry, worldview. Being able to have this open-ended ability to cherry pick things from highly disparate times and places and consider them "white" is white supremacy. A modern palestinian is culturally closer to an ancient greek than you are. These things simply are not yours to claim, or at least not any more than they are all of ours.

hasty_pudding 3y ago
[flagged]
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  It's shitty because only whiteness is defined negatively by what it is not. Africans may disagree about what it means to be african, but there is long-term near consensus on who is african and why. What defines white people, other than who is not part of it? What is it that all white people share, other than whiteness itself? Those other groups do share some of ancestry, history, culture, religion, especially certain historical experiences. Within those groups you mentioned, there are certainly interesting discussions about what comprises it. I don't, for example, know of any mainstream thinkers who frame a unified african people, except one defined by an experience of exploitation and colonialism. Certainly in contrast to african americans, who do share the culture and history of having their culture and history forcibly removed from them, and forging a new one in a place they did not choose. As an exercise though, define "white people" in a way that is useful and coherent, and extends from the present back through the sistine chapel and to the ancient greeks. All of the others groups you mentioned are able to do this within their own histories so it should be straightforward. You shouldn't have to use something so crude as skin color, of course, since I'm sure there's much more to your people than that.
  - joenot443 3y ago
    Have you read Scott's piece on this subject? [1] He pretty confidently dismantles the arguments you're making, particularly the isolated demand for rigor. I don't agree at all with the individual you're replying to, I'd just like to point out that "white people don't exist" is a pretty silly hill to die on and if anything it's making the rest of your argument seem a lot weaker. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/12/does-race-exist-does-culture/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/12/does-race-exist-does-c...
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      I'm not saying white people don't exist I'm saying it's only a useful category if you define it negatively in terms of who is not in it. I haven't read anything by alexander in a long time but it doesn't surprise me that he has essays promoting white supremacist talking points since I strongly suspect that that is a key goal of his whole project.
      - joenot443 3y ago
        > I'm saying it's only a useful category if you define it negatively in terms of who is not in it. Fascinating. That's a position I haven't heard before. It's too bad you're unable to take the time to read the piece, it's quite good. Sounds like we have pretty divergent views on Scott and his writing. I'd encourage you to give it another chance, at the very least to expand what I'm sensing is a pretty solidly cemented worldview. I admit I'm disappointed that in a community like HN you'd be so willing to paint anyone who disagrees on such minutia with such a broad and mean-spirited brush, but I suppose that's your prerogative. God bless.
      - hasty_pudding 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - hasty_pudding 3y ago
    [flagged]

hasty_pudding 3y ago

[flagged]

giraffe_lady 3y ago
It's shitty because only whiteness is defined negatively by what it is not. Africans may disagree about what it means to be african, but there is long-term near consensus on who is african and why. What defines white people, other than who is not part of it? What is it that all white people share, other than whiteness itself? Those other groups do share some of ancestry, history, culture, religion, especially certain historical experiences. Within those groups you mentioned, there are certainly interesting discussions about what comprises it. I don't, for example, know of any mainstream thinkers who frame a unified african people, except one defined by an experience of exploitation and colonialism. Certainly in contrast to african americans, who do share the culture and history of having their culture and history forcibly removed from them, and forging a new one in a place they did not choose. As an exercise though, define "white people" in a way that is useful and coherent, and extends from the present back through the sistine chapel and to the ancient greeks. All of the others groups you mentioned are able to do this within their own histories so it should be straightforward. You shouldn't have to use something so crude as skin color, of course, since I'm sure there's much more to your people than that.
- joenot443 3y ago
  Have you read Scott's piece on this subject? [1] He pretty confidently dismantles the arguments you're making, particularly the isolated demand for rigor. I don't agree at all with the individual you're replying to, I'd just like to point out that "white people don't exist" is a pretty silly hill to die on and if anything it's making the rest of your argument seem a lot weaker. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/12/does-race-exist-does-culture/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/12/does-race-exist-does-c...
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    I'm not saying white people don't exist I'm saying it's only a useful category if you define it negatively in terms of who is not in it. I haven't read anything by alexander in a long time but it doesn't surprise me that he has essays promoting white supremacist talking points since I strongly suspect that that is a key goal of his whole project.
    - joenot443 3y ago
      > I'm saying it's only a useful category if you define it negatively in terms of who is not in it. Fascinating. That's a position I haven't heard before. It's too bad you're unable to take the time to read the piece, it's quite good. Sounds like we have pretty divergent views on Scott and his writing. I'd encourage you to give it another chance, at the very least to expand what I'm sensing is a pretty solidly cemented worldview. I admit I'm disappointed that in a community like HN you'd be so willing to paint anyone who disagrees on such minutia with such a broad and mean-spirited brush, but I suppose that's your prerogative. God bless.
    - hasty_pudding 3y ago
      [flagged]
- hasty_pudding 3y ago
  [flagged]