[Exophase]

Verasev, on 23 November 2016 - 06:45 PM, said:

What part of their perspective on race do we need a better understanding of? I understand we should empathise with their economic issues but that's not the issues being discussed by this article. And I can link you to studies showing that race was a factor in this election.

1) Go ahead and link them. I doubt they're that conclusive. Correlation doesn't always imply causation, so even if you identify more racism among some group it doesn't mean that it was a major factor.
2) What's referred to as racism today is pretty broad so yeah, it helps to understand what the person's actual motivations are. They're usually just swept under the rug of "white supremacy" which I doubt is that universally applicable.
3) The article you linked is discussing a completely assumed pretense, "Clearly, a lot of US voters either shared Trump’s prejudiced views or, at the very least, didn’t find such ideas to be fundamental deal breakers. That suggests there’s a lot of racism — or at least the enabling of it — in America, perhaps even more than one would think in 2016." No actually, voting for Trump doesn't mean that there's more racism than "one" would think. It doesn't work like these people think it does and I'm shocked that there isn't more reflection about how flawed the two party system is and how much that led to Trump.

Verasev, on 23 November 2016 - 06:45 PM, said:

People of color have claimed white defensiveness is more disproportionate.

Based on what exactly?

Verasev, on 23 November 2016 - 06:45 PM, said:

In any case, white people have a greater need to get over their defensiveness.

I don't think so. I strongly disagree with the notion that we apply different standards of whether defensiveness is justified or not based on what group someone belongs to. Either a person is being treated fairly and reasonably or they aren't, regardless of whatever you feel like blaming their group for.

Verasev, on 23 November 2016 - 06:45 PM, said:

There does need to be term for someone that does something mildly racist that isn't so explosive as racist because very mild racism is actually fairly common.

Will we be allowed to use that one for people who aren't white?

Verasev, on 23 November 2016 - 06:45 PM, said:

To be fair, the ones that claim people of color can't be racist usually say they can be prejudiced. They draw a distinction between the institutional nature of racism and common prejudice.

1) I rarely see them talk about non-white people having racial prejudiced.
2) When they do it's used to dismiss the topic, I have never seen anyone on this criticize or rebuke someone for said prejudice. Not once. Ever.
3) The whole thing is a double standard. You yourself happily say that "very mild racism is actually fairly common" - do you mean to tell me this is all institutional? Well I'm sure that's the idea but I find that argument incredibly unconvincing. It's starting with a philosophical position first and forcing everything else to conform to it.

When you get down to it, people need to start realizing that no one is exempt from the mindsets that give rise to racism, xenophobia and so on. This is a human problem and yes, it's informed by history and circumstances but these things change and they're not universal or absolute. If society at large comes to think that some groups are perpetual oppressors and others can't be then they're making the transition inevitable.

I'm seeing the white fragility paper get cited more and more these days and it's troubling because that paper has some really bad ideas, in my opinion. It goes on a long rant against individualism, which doesn't surprise me because when you get down to it I think individualism vs collectivism is what this is all about. But the racists were never on the side of individualism.

[Dr Lancer-X]

Quote

I'm seeing the white fragility paper get cited more and more these days and it's troubling because that paper has some really bad ideas, in my opinion. It goes on a long rant against individualism, which doesn't surprise me because when you get down to it I think individualism vs collectivism is what this is all about. But the racists were never on the side of individualism.

Some people get really pissy when you point this out, though. It's all 'There's no such thing as cultural marxism' 'Frankfurt school conspiracy theory' 'We're not commies, I swear' and I wonder who they're trying to convince...

Anyway, in terms of the institutional racism thing:
1) There's multiple definitions of racism. You can tell which definition is in use from context.
2) The definition of racism that is institutional racism can be told apart from the standard definition because institional racism only applies when talking about institutions. Whenever people are mentioned, especially individuals, the form of racism described is plain ol' garden variety racism.
3) Institutional racism is a bad term. Institutional inequality is a better term. After all, racism is something that really requires hate, or at the very least a belief that certain races are superior to other races, or better off, or more privileged.

Doesn't mean the concerns aren't legitimate, but 'racism' is a term that carries certain connotations - it's an emotionally charged word that inspires a lot of revulsion in people. This means overloading it to cover the injustices that people experience because of systems set in place that historically weren't designed to represent them is potentially not a good idea. The cat may already be out of the bag on that issue though,

[Verasev]

Exophase, on 23 November 2016 - 10:02 PM, said:

1) Go ahead and link them. I doubt they're that conclusive. Correlation doesn't always imply causation, so even if you identify more racism among some group it doesn't mean that it was a major factor.

http://www.reuters.c...e-idUSKCN0ZE2SW

Quote

2) What's referred to as racism today is pretty broad so yeah, it helps to understand what the person's actual motivations are. They're usually just swept under the rug of "white supremacy" which I doubt is that universally applicable.

White supremacy is probably better understood as a set of habitual tendencies than as a conscious motivation. A lot of it's pretty subtle stuff.

Quote

3) The article you linked is discussing a completely assumed pretense, "Clearly, a lot of US voters either shared Trump’s prejudiced views or, at the very least, didn’t find such ideas to be fundamental deal breakers. That suggests there’s a lot of racism — or at least the enabling of it — in America, perhaps even more than one would think in 2016." No actually, voting for Trump doesn't mean that there's more racism than "one" would think. It doesn't work like these people think it does and I'm shocked that there isn't more reflection about how flawed the two party system is and how much that led to Trump.

Well, I agree that the two party system played a major role. I just think that racism played a role as well.

Quote

Based on what exactly?

Personal experience, I presume. I guess it depends on how willing you are to take them at their word.

Quote

I don't think so. I strongly disagree with the notion that we apply different standards of whether defensiveness is justified or not based on what group someone belongs to. Either a person is being treated fairly and reasonably or they aren't, regardless of whatever you feel like blaming their group for.

Does that really solve the issue, though, when one group has historically had far more privilege than the other and that privilege plays into every interaction between them? Different groups are held to different standards right from the start; this is an attempt to rebalance the equation.

Quote

Will we be allowed to use that one for people who aren't white?

Depends on if the term references social structures and advantages non whites typically haven't been granted, I guess.

Quote

1) I rarely see them talk about non-white people having racial prejudiced.

Bigger fish to fry, institutional racism against non whites being a far bigger deal. But I'll bite. How much time do we need to spend talking about racial prejudice from people of color for it to be fair?

Quote

2) When they do it's used to dismiss the topic, I have never seen anyone on this criticize or rebuke someone for said prejudice. Not once. Ever.

I suggest you look harder.

Quote

3) The whole thing is a double standard. You yourself happily say that "very mild racism is actually fairly common" - do you mean to tell me this is all institutional? Well I'm sure that's the idea but I find that argument incredibly unconvincing. It's starting with a philosophical position first and forcing everything else to conform to it.

Did I say that it was all institutional. Pretty sure I didn't.

[Dr Lancer-X]

It's been pointed out before, but Trump got more votes from blacks, hispanics etc. than Romney did. I think, if anything, race played less of a role this election (potentially because the choice was between two white people) than in the last. Additionally, this can also be attributed to those minorities occupying a larger portion of the voting public than previously - obviously if more blacks and hispanics are voting, there will be more of them voting for Trump.

It could also be affected by the fact that allegations of racism are starting to lose their edge a little. Trump's very good at saying things that aren't racist, even though they sound sorta racist - and every time someone calls him a racist for something not quite racist he said, the accusation loses some of its weight. At some point it seemed like he started doing it on purpose. Once there's enough points in that column Trump can say or do something that is outright racist and he'll be called a racist and it won't matter. Pretty good strategy.

People dislike the comparison but Trump's ascendancy reminds me of Obama a lot, down to people making increasingly desperate and ludicrous accusations and claims about what he's going to do when in power. All it does is ruin the credibility of those accusers and give the accused more power to make really questionable decisions upon becoming President and largely get away with it. Things are a little different this time because Trump is loathed by both sides, but if anything that means there's nobody left to take him to account that anyone will take seriously.

[Exophase]

Verasev, on 25 November 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

http://www.reuters.c...e-idUSKCN0ZE2SW

This doesn't actually show that "race was a factor", eg that these people would have ever voted for Hillary Clinton (or a non-Republican), or that they would have voted for Trump's competitors in the primary. There is an important distinction.

Verasev, on 25 November 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

White supremacy is probably better understood as a set of habitual tendencies than as a conscious motivation. A lot of it's pretty subtle stuff.

Actually the way people commonly understand the term is as something that's anything but subtle, a belief of superiority or entitlement of white people at the exclusion of all people who aren't white. This is a much stronger position than having (conscious or subconscious) biases and prejudices against groups based on their race. It takes causes like lack of exposure to certain groups, media representation/stereotyping of certain groups, misrepresentation of statistical trends for certain groups, and replaces them with a very simplistic and reductionist model of "thinks white people are the best." It's really just another attempt to redefine racism as something only white people can take part in, because no one would really argue that white supremacy is featured by people who aren't white, at least not in any real capacity.

Verasev, on 25 November 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

Well, I agree that the two party system played a major role. I just think that racism played a role as well.

So what you think is that if Trump were less associated with racism he would have lost? Of course it depends what we consider racism.. Trump's immigration reform pitches are considered racist but wouldn't look that out of place coming from Democrats a few decades ago.

Verasev, on 25 November 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

Personal experience, I presume. I guess it depends on how willing you are to take them at their word.

If a bunch of white people told you they had "personal experience" that black people were more sensitive about being called racists than they were I somehow doubt you'd consider it credible. This is extremely subjective.

Verasev, on 25 November 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

Does that really solve the issue, though, when one group has historically had far more privilege than the other and that privilege plays into every interaction between them? Different groups are held to different standards right from the start; this is an attempt to rebalance the equation.

Yes, I think it does. If people are systematically disadvantaged today it can help to offer them extra support. But you don't "rebalance" anything by shitting on people because of their so-called privilege. Even if I thought this was fair and justified (and I don't) I think the signs are becoming blatant that it's not working or helping.

Verasev, on 25 November 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

Depends on if the term references social structures and advantages non whites typically haven't been granted, I guess.

It very often doesn't.

Verasev, on 25 November 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

Bigger fish to fry, institutional racism against non whites being a far bigger deal. But I'll bite. How much time do we need to spend talking about racial prejudice from people of color for it to be fair?

I'm sure you've seen the fallacy of relative privation thrown around before, but no I don't think that we need to spend time talking about anything for fairness, I think we as a society need to agree that racism and collective guilt are both things we should avoid and focus on not tolerating tribalistic divisions. Period, as a matter of simple principle. Instead of dancing around terms to enable and even encourage this.

Verasev, on 25 November 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

I suggest you look harder.

I've looked pretty hard and have asked people before to show me because I really hoped it was happening somewhere. I suggest you show me. "Look harder"? May as well tell me to educate myself. Either you have a refutation or you don't. Something like an article or video would be preferable but I guess even something like a tweet among the "only white people can be racist" crowd calling out a non-white person for prejudice against white people would mean something.

Verasev, on 25 November 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

Did I say that it was all institutional. Pretty sure I didn't.

You were defending or at least clarifying the notion put forth by others that people who aren't white can't be racist. So I suppose you actually reject this notion?

[Verasev]

Exophase, on 25 November 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

This doesn't actually show that "race was a factor", eg that these people would have ever voted for Hillary Clinton (or a non-Republican), or that they would have voted for Trump's competitors in the primary. There is an important distinction.

Fair enough.

Quote

So what you think is that if Trump were less associated with racism he would have lost? Of course it depends what we consider racism.. Trump's immigration reform pitches are considered racist but wouldn't look that out of place coming from Democrats a few decades ago.

They might not have looked out of place but that doesn't exclude them from being racist policies or stop people from voting for them for racist reasons. The Democrats can be racist as well (see Bill Clinton and the war on drugs).

Quote

Yes, I think it does. If people are systematically disadvantaged today it can help to offer them extra support. But you don't "rebalance" anything by shitting on people because of their so-called privilege. Even if I thought this was fair and justified (and I don't) I think the signs are becoming blatant that it's not working or helping.

Conceded.

Quote

I'm sure you've seen the fallacy of relative privation thrown around before, but no I don't think that we need to spend time talking about anything for fairness, I think we as a society need to agree that racism and collective guilt are both things we should avoid and focus on not tolerating tribalistic divisions. Period, as a matter of simple principle. Instead of dancing around terms to enable and even encourage this.

Fair enough.

Quote

I've looked pretty hard and have asked people before to show me because I really hoped it was happening somewhere. I suggest you show me. "Look harder"? May as well tell me to educate myself. Either you have a refutation or you don't. Something like an article or video would be preferable but I guess even something like a tweet among the "only white people can be racist" crowd calling out a non-white person for prejudice against white people would mean something.

I confess that I can't find an example of such, though I do note that the Southern Poverty Law Center characterizes movements such as the New Black Panther Party as racist hate groups specifically for anti white and anti semitic racism. Tell you what, how about an experiment. How about we find a blogger or some such that believes black people can't be racist and ask their opinion on the New Black Panther Party or a similar group. I suspect we might get some hemming and hawwing but ultimately I don't think they're gonna go "no, that's fine."

Quote

You were defending or at least clarifying the notion put forth by others that people who aren't white can't be racist. So I suppose you actually reject this notion?

To be honest I don't know if I support or reject this notion. I feel like I don't know enough to decide yet.

This post has been edited by Verasev: 27 November 2016 - 06:20 PM

[Exophase]

Verasev, on 27 November 2016 - 01:20 PM, said:

They might not have looked out of place but that doesn't exclude them from being racist policies or stop people from voting for them for racist reasons. The Democrats can be racist as well (see Bill Clinton and the war on drugs).

It's really a matter of perspective. I don't think Bill Clinton had racist policies or was himself a racist, or someone who had any particular appeal to racism or racists. He may have supported or signed into law positions that ultimately disproportionately impacted black people, either intrinsically or because they were unevenly enforced. But I really don't think that was his intention, and I do think intention matters in something like this.

It's the same thing with Hillary and her now much maligned "super predators" comment. I'm far from her biggest fan, but I don't think the criticism she's received recently on that is fair and it comes off as highly opportunistic. In hindsight it might not look that good, like she's dismissing the societal issues that have caused black people in some areas to be more likely to succumb to gang violence. But at the time I really do believe her intentions were in helping the black communities that were suffering from the effects of this violence. I really don't think she was being racist.

That's not to say that even relatively recent political policies haven't been enacted from a place of explicit racism though. AFAIK Nixon's aids admitted his war on drugs was about this, and republicans have recently admitted voter ID laws were made to disenfranchise black voters (I guess there's some question of whether this is racially motivated or just trying to deflate a bloc that votes for the opposing party, but neither are okay)

Verasev, on 27 November 2016 - 01:20 PM, said:

I confess that I can't find an example of such, though I do note that the Southern Poverty Law Center characterizes movements such as the New Black Panther Party as racist hate groups specifically for anti white and anti semitic racism. Tell you what, how about an experiment. How about we find a blogger or some such that believes black people can't be racist and ask their opinion on the New Black Panther Party or a similar group. I suspect we might get some hemming and hawwing but ultimately I don't think they're gonna go "no, that's fine."

If you're volunteering I'd like to see the result of this.. with all due respect I'm not personally going to subject myself to this. I get the feeling that I'd get attacked for it.

[Verasev]

I sent out two emails regarding the above, one to Baltimore Racial Justice Action, another to a blogger called sistahvegan. Both of these have expressed the notion that people color can't be racist, only prejudiced. I'll let you know if I get any replies. I also started a topic on reddit about it here:

https://www.reddit.c...ieve_people_of/

[Exophase]

Thanks, I'll be interested to see if anything comes up.

On somewhat of a tangent, I kind of have some trouble with the question as posed:

"To what extent are people of color required to call out this kind of racism or prejudice?"

I don't think that people should ever have an elevated responsibility to call out or confront others just because they have some kind of shared intrinsic traits.

Especially when the commonality is something as incredibly broad as simply not being white. I have a lot of problems with how much people of color are treated as some monolith, I have a really hard time understanding that; it only really makes sense to me in white supremacist language (which is built on incredibly bad principles)

I see people reacting like this a lot. Like how it's my job as a man to call out men who are misbehaving, as if being male is some kind of opt-in self-governed community. And how many times I see people saying they're ashamed to be their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc because of the actions of other people.

[Verasev]

Here is the conversation with Baltimore Racial Justice Action so far:

Date: Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 2:35 PM
Subject: White racism and black prejudice
To: bmoreantiracist@gmai

Subject: White racism and black prejudice

Message Body:
We were having a discussion about the difference between racism and prejudice when groups like the New Black Panther Party were brought up. Does your organization believe groups such as these to be prejudiced towards white people? To what extent do you think or feel people of color are required to call out prejudice against white people? Thank you for your time.

-----------------------------------------------

GE,

And thank you for writing! (Smile)

I hope you won't mind if I ask questions, for clarity's sake. Your answers will assist me in understanding where you and maybe your group (?) is on its journey re these issues so that I can more fully answer the questions you posed.

First, what is the difference between "racism" and "prejudice", in your/your group's view? How would you define those terms?

Next, what did your group members know about the New Black Panther Party at the time this discussion occurred? I am assuming from your question -- maybe incorrectly -- that some/all in the group questioned whether the NBPP was prejudiced or racist toward white people. If this is a correct assumption (about the group assuming this re NBPP), on what basis was it made?

And finally, at the time of your discussion, where did members get their perspective/information about the New Black Panther Party that informed their assumptions about it?

Again, knowing all of the above will help give me the "landscape" in which these questions occurred, which is very important.

Looking forward to the conversation!

In Peace and With Thanks,

Adar
___________________________
A. Adar Ayira
BRJA Advisory Board
BRJA Senior Trainer / Facilitator

This post has been edited by Verasev: 29 November 2016 - 03:38 PM

[Verasev]

My personal understanding of racism is that it's institutional, that it requires historical power for it to count as racism. Prejudice is merely negatively pre-judging someone for a characteristic they can't control. My opponent in this loosely affiliated group felt this was mincing words and that racism served as an adequate enough term for all prejudice.

What we know of the New Black Panther Party comes directly from the Southern Poverty Law Center's website and wikipedia. These are admittedly limited sources of information. Our assumption that this group was prejudiced against white people was based on the description given by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

I hope this helps and, again, thank you so much for your time.

------------------------------------------------------------------

GM, and thank you for your response.

This conversation, should you choose to continue it, might be longer than you expected because we try to encourage pathways of critical thinking. It would be easier to give a straight-forward answer, which would help you in this situation but not assist you in other conversations and other situations on topics of America's continuing racism/white supremacy.

So, again, I am interested in engaging to encourage your adopting a pathway that can help in any situation where issues of race and additional intersectionalities arise. I would also encourage you to invest in a training by Baltimore Racial Justice Action, not only to strengthen and expand your knowledge on these issues, but also to build your network of individuals who are on the same path, and who can help challenge and support you.

As for the NBPP, have you read their website? What do you think about what they said on their website?

Here are some things to think about:

- In what context are groups speaking? For instance, why are groups such as the KKK considered "hate groups"? Is it because of statements that they've made, or because of their histories (actions that they have taken)? If you look at both the NBPP and the KKK and compare their histories, are they comparable? HOW?

- What percentage of this country's history has been one of legalized racism/white supremacy? Is this country still a racist/white supremacist nation (you might examine the recent rhetoric of this election cycle to answer that one...)? How might this influence groups like the NBPP or La Raza or other groups that represent people who have been historically marginalized?

- We know that white supremacist groups resonate with the new president-elect and some individuals with strong ties to these groups are now nominated as members of his cabinet (Steve Bannon, for one). Would anyone from a NBPP be allowed into a top position such as that? If not, why not? And what does it say to people of color that individuals with out-and-out white supremacist leanings / white supremacists are allowed in this administration?

Looking at things such as these within the larger context of society, how then, would that impact perceptions of NBPP and other groups? And how should we evaluate statements that they've made: by their offensiveness to our individual sensitivities? By their power to actually impact policy and life's chances and choices for whole segments of the population? Within the context of the history of this country? All of the above? None of the above? Other?

We often want to impose a false equivalency on things without considering the context in which they occur.

We also pay more attention to "mainstream" and other media / groups that seek to "interpret" without considering context OR UNDERSTANDING that which they try to "interpret."

As activists, we must do better, especially when we are seeking to engage with other people on these topics.

And to do that, we must strengthen our own learnings and frame.

As to the concepts of "racism" and "prejudice": your friend is not correct. Anyone can be prejudiced, either with overly positive or overly negative, and usually with completely unsubstantiated opinions.

As you pointed out, "racism" has a power component: legally, culturally, economically, in terms of all societal norms. Prejudice by itself has no power. For instance, if the NBPP is "prejudiced against white people", what societal power / institutional backing do they have to enforce that prejudice? For the KKK, what societal power / institutional backing do they have to enforce that prejudice (historically, there have been many white supremacist presidents, Supreme Court Justices, police, lawyers, business people, etc. . .)? Or put another way: what power does the NBPP have over your life or the lives of those in your loosely affiliated group? And what power will those who are white supremacist-leaning / white supremacist in the new administration have over my life and the lives of my loved ones?

Okay, thoughts?

In Peace and With Thanks,

Adar

This post has been edited by Verasev: 29 November 2016 - 03:39 PM

[Verasev]

So any ideas where to take the conversation next?

[Exophase]

Verasev, on 29 November 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

So any ideas where to take the conversation next?

Honestly, not really. Does this even really seem like a conversation? I don't think the answer provided anything outside of the well understood orthodoxy and I don't think either of us really needed a lecture on power + prejudice sociology, the question was whether or not those staunchly disseminating this view would have any issue with prejudice by itself. And the best I can really discern from this is that it's harmless because of the side it falls on a very simplistic power/effect binary, which I don't agree with at all.

Bannon seems like a very convenient sudden development for their argument. Could Obama have appointed a black nationalist to a cabinet position? Sure, but he's not that kind of person.. most presidents in modern history aren't, we're in uncharted territory with a very weird president elect doesn't care what anyone thinks about his terrible decisions. But no, I don't think it's correct at all that only one side has any possible influence whatsoever on policy or avenues of shaping public discourse.

[Verasev]

Exophase, on 29 November 2016 - 10:51 AM, said:

Honestly, not really. Does this even really seem like a conversation? I don't think the answer provided anything outside of the well understood orthodoxy and I don't think either of us really needed a lecture on power + prejudice sociology, the question was whether or not those staunchly disseminating this view would have any issue with prejudice by itself.

Hmm, I can't see that question providing any useful answer anyway so this whole experiment was probably pointless. I highly doubt they are going to say it's OK for the NBPP to call for the extermination of white south Africans or for the killing of white babies.

Quote

Bannon seems like a very convenient sudden development for their argument. Could Obama have appointed a black nationalist to a cabinet position? Sure, but he's not that kind of person.. most presidents in modern history aren't, we're in uncharted territory with a very weird president elect doesn't care what anyone thinks about his terrible decisions. But no, I don't think it's correct at all that only one side has any possible influence whatsoever on policy or avenues of shaping public discourse.

One can't help but wonder what the reaction would have been if Obama had chosen a black nationalist for his cabinet. It certainly would have been a first!

In any case, I'm gonna finish out the conversation/interaction/whatever you would choose to characterize it as.

This post has been edited by Verasev: 29 November 2016 - 08:34 PM

[Exophase]

Verasev, on 29 November 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

Hmm, I can't see that question providing any useful answer anyway so this whole experiment was probably pointless. I highly doubt they are going to say it's OK for the NBPP to call for the extermination of white south Africans or for the killing of white babies.

I honestly don't know. That e-mail definitely sounded like it was asking you to lay off the NBPP, but the writer may not have been aware of these things.

Verasev, on 29 November 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

One can't help but wonder what the reaction would have been if Obama had chosen a black nationalist for his cabinet. It certainly would have been a first!

The reaction would have been very negative. But like with Trump, I don't think anyone would have stopped him and I doubt people would be resigning in protest.

Verasev, on 29 November 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

In any case, I'm gonna finish out the conversation/interaction/whatever you would choose to characterize it as.

Sorry, I thought you were asking about where to take what you had over e-mail.. I wouldn't say what we're doing now isn't a conversation. I might be a little confused right now.

[Verasev]

What they said on their website seems challenging but ultimately non-prejudiced. The have, however, said some things that have seemed highly prejudiced. For example, calling for the extermination of white south Africans and the killing of white babies (both according to Wikipedia). This is in addition to the anti-Semitic remarks recorded on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website. They have also called for violence against the police.

They haven't taken such actions but it within their power to kill white babies, police officers, and some white south Africans, if not all of them. They can't influence public policy toward these but white supremacists can't really put similar things into public policy anymore either.

I would not say the KKK and NBPP are comparable and would not try to make such a comparison. It does, however, seem that the NBPP party are prejudiced in word, if not in deed.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a black nationalist were to picked as a presidential cabinet member. Technically, nothing could stop it from happening. There would likely be protests similar to the protests Bannon has inspired, although likely louder and angrier. It'd be worth seeing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

During 9/11, we were calling for the deaths of those who attacked America, the twin towers. And no one said WE were prejudiced; in fact, they felt that we were "justified" since we had been attacked. Just about every other day, we read about another Black man or woman who has been killed by police. And more than that, those of us who live in Black or Brown communities know how those communities are under attack by an increasingly militarized police force. And these are facts, not Wikipedia entries. We don't know the authors of those entries, nor their framing, yet we take those entries at face value while ignoring the information we receive "...from the horse's mouth..."

Although I prefer to stay within the context of the U.S. because Americans really don't know enough about the historical context of other countries to speak with accuracy about what is going on in those countries, we do know how Apartheid targeted, jailed, and murdered Black people for generations, as well as stole the resources from those indigenous to that part of Africa. We also know that America, for generations, defended and supported Apartheid when countries like Cuba supported the ANC and Nelson Mandela. We also know that 88% of this country's history has been one of legal racial Apartheid supporting enslavement, Black Codes, Jim Crow, lynchings and murders of African Descendants. Yet there are many who STILL argue that America IS NOT prejudiced or racist against African Descendants -- even in light of generations of evidence to the contrary.

I'm saying all this to say that the way we frame things -- such as "violence against the police" as opposed to putting calls for resistance within the context of police murdering unarmed people -- oftentimes depends on what side of the gun we are on: the hand holding it or the body that is in line to receive the bullet.

You share that "they haven't taken such actions but it is within their power to kill white babies, police officers..." This is true. But what happens when they do? They are promptly rounded up, tried, convicted. What happens when police officers or white citizens, such as George Zimmerman, kill unarmed Black people? History shows very little, if those people are white. THAT is the difference. Anyone can, as you state, commit acts of violence. Being "covered" by institutional and structural racism dictates who is punished and who isn't.

On another note, you say that "technically", nothing can stop a Black Nationalist from becoming a presidential cabinet member. And TECHNICALLY, that is true. However, look at the backlash from the Obama presidency --the first Black person elected to the presidency in the history of this country. This backlash, encouraged by the racialized campaign of Donald Trump, fueled Trump all the way to the presidency. When you look at how so many derided President Obama for ONLY having the experience of being a state senator, and then look how Donald Trump received 50+% of white people's votes, you have to wonder why his lack of any policy experience did not disqualify him. And actually, you don't have to wonder. Much analysis has now been done on the racialized propensities of his supporters. So, TECHNICALLY, we could talk about the world being destroyed by an asteroid -- TECHNICALLY, it could happen. But will it? I'd say, historically speaking, that we have about the same chance of that happening as we do a Black Nationalist being picked as a cabinet post member (smile).

I want to ask you to examine your own deflections on this. For example, your saying that "...white supremacists can't really put similar things into public policy anymore either." We know that Trump has chosen three white supremacists to be in his cabinet. We know that our president-elect regularly tweets racialized tweets directly from white supremacists websites. We know that his campaign was rife with racialized dog-whistles and a racialized bullhorn. So when you make statements like that, I can only take it as a deflection or denial because that which you say cannot happen is happening right under our noses. . .in the open.

Again, I am asking you to think critically about these issues and I encourage you to take a BRJA workshop. Our White Anti-Racism Network is a group of teachers and learners who can provide support for people really trying to work through these issues and develop their racial equity lens. BRJA also has public dialogue events on the 13th of every month. It is a great way of engaging around these issues. You can look on the BRJA website to see what the topic, time, and location will be for any given month.

In Peace and With Thanks,

Adar
___________________________
A. Adar Ayira
443.801.3977
coreconcepts.md@gmail.com

[Exophase]

This argument is just...

Yes, there were people who derided Obama in any way they could and criticized him in ways which would be much more applicable to Trump. Both of them were elected president. But Obama was elected with a much, much higher favorable rating, a much higher percentage of the popular vote, and he will almost certainly leave office with a higher approval rating than Trump will enter with (or probably ever obtain), which is a really huge distinction for a president. Obama was roundly praised by many sources while Trump is roundly criticized. He was fairly well supported by a media who has for the most part been very hostile towards Trump. I don't see a nobel peace prize in Trump's future.

It's an absolute farce to try to paint some kind of equivalency between the two and how they're regarded by the country. It hardly follows that people voted for Trump as part of a racist backlash against Obama. There were pretty much two groups of people who voted for Trump: people who were going to vote Republican and people who voted for Obama in the first place. So yes, it's frustrating looking at how terribly unsuited he is to be president and wondering why that didn't disqualify him, but the simple fact is that there's no such thing as disqualification when enough people refuse to vote for the other person running. There are tons of ways in which we can talk about how African Americans are marginalized in society and how we have a lot of work to do to make things better. Obama is not one of them, he is not a lightning rod for racism, not even remotely.

Literally any president ever elected will have staunch detractors and this is more true this generation than it has been in probably a really long time because two party politics in America have been extremely divisive and polarizing. Similarly, there will always be people who will stand by and vote for someone regardless of how awful they are because again, that's the nature of politics in this country today. Someone running for president is always going to be representing at least some major positions of their party and being a change in direction from the last party whom everyone blames for their problems because they were the ones who were in charge. Then somewhere buried in all that the qualities of the actual candidate start to matter.

Maybe we need more constitutional requirements to even be eligible for president but that's not currently how this works. What we did have is an opposing party that was angling to push a candidate like Trump or Carson by deriding their more mainstream/moderate competitors in the primaries in order to have easier competition in the generals (seriously, look up Podesta's "Pied Piper" email if you haven't already). Well they got what they wanted then ran an extremely cocky and negative campaign and it backfired badly.

And for crying out loud, tweets aren't public policy. Trump tweeted just recently that he thinks people should lose naturalized citizenship over burning the flag. Fortunately, the president doesn't pass legislation and whatever might be introduced is certainly not by tweets.

Anyway, thanks for pushing this forward, although I'm guessing you're asking things on my behalf that you don't agree with per se ;p Or maybe playing devil's advocate?

[Verasev]

https://www.reddit.c...tions_argument/

[Exophase]

Verasev, on 04 December 2016 - 05:36 PM, said:

https://www.reddit.c...tions_argument/

I'd like to hear your thoughts too, just a link is kind of enigmatic

As for my own... not to sound completely contrarian (well, not purposefully), but I've always felt like this argument was a conservative strawman.

Nobody absolves marginalized groups because they think they're helpless fools who just deserve a pass due to their own inherent lack of standing. Of course everyone agrees this isn't an explicit argument, but I doubt the sentiment exists on any level. They're not criticized or confronted (by activists) because they're not believed to be at fault. When so much more boils down to circumstance, history, group affiliation, well...

Political affiliation is really fascinating, and yeah, this is all inextricably linked to that. So many assumptions both sides make about the motivations and psychological underpinnings of their opponents, terribly missing the mark.. they're probably smart enough not to, but they kind of have to. The right sees the left as pandering and patronizing to those precious demographic votes representing people they don't really care about, when the left do really have a philosophy of equality, service, and reconciliation. The left sees the right as disingenuous bigots curtailing rights out of disdain for groups they want to oppress, when the right really does have a philosophy of uniformity, consistency, and self-determination.

What a mess. Good conversation though.

(addendum: I drink a lot Sunday nights to recalibrate my sleeping schedule.. do a cursory analysis of my posts vs this time sometime, it'll show something >_>)

[Graham]

This might be relevant to the discussion at hand
http://www.npr.org/s...m_medium=social

[Verasev]

Ugh, pizzagate. Something that seems like 4chan's idea of a joke that some how got a foothold on some people's minds as a serious and dire business. Reddit, at least, finally banned the pizzagate subreddits.

I don't know how good calling for fact checking is for stuff like pizzagate, which exists at the intersection of politics and mental illness. The kind of people that fall prey to these stories want to believe them and often have psychological issues that make them prone to believing in them. Having similar issues, I sympathize.

This post has been edited by Verasev: 07 December 2016 - 11:18 PM

[Graham]

Verasev, on 07 December 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

The kind of people that fall prey to these stories want to believe them and often have psychological issues that make them prone to believing in them. Having similar issues, I sympathize.

I wouldn't make that generalization at all. Plenty of intelligent, well meaning people that I know have fallen prey to false media lately. We have busy lives and don't take the time to check the source because we are largely conditioned to believe that media can be trusted as reliable, I think. Well, no more. In this age of social media, you have to be much more careful what you share with people as being factually accurate.

This post has been edited by Graham: 07 December 2016 - 11:39 PM

[Verasev]

No offense, Graham, but how much do you know about pizzagate? Here's a full run down:

http://www.vox.com/p...-pong-fake-news

To sum it up, people believe that Hilary Clinton, the Podesta brothers, and many other members of "the elite" are conducting a child sex slave brothel where they rape children, sacrifice them to Satan or Moloch, and then cannibalize the remains. They do this at a popular pizza joint in DC.

Believing this requires more just a temporary loss in judgement from intelligent, well meaning people. Fake news is what you and the article you linked say it is but you've both made a mistake in thinking pizzagate is anything like normal bogus journalism.

This post has been edited by Verasev: 08 December 2016 - 03:49 AM

[Verasev]

Ffffffffffspspsp http://www.slate.com...n_new_york.html

[Graham]

Verasev, on 07 December 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

No offense, Graham, but how much do you know about pizzagate? Here's a full run down:

http://www.vox.com/p...-pong-fake-news

To sum it up, people believe that Hilary Clinton, the Podesta brothers, and many other members of "the elite" are conducting a child sex slave brothel where they rape children, sacrifice them to Satan or Moloch, and then cannibalize the remains. They do this at a popular pizza joint in DC.

Believing this requires more just a temporary loss in judgement from intelligent, well meaning people. Fake news is what you and the article you linked say it is but you've both made a mistake in thinking pizzagate is anything like normal bogus journalism.

Oh I didn't mean to imply that the fake story about the pizza place isn't loony-bait. I don't think any sane person would buy that one. But the article is about a much larger issue than that alone. It encompasses all fake news, of which there is a lot out there. And a lot of people buy into it because the vast majority of it is much more plausible than that rediculous story. And that's the matter I'm speaking to. Those fake stories that seem plausible and that people believe without questioning is much more dangerous and in a lot of ways nefarious then that silly story.

Another story this article mentions, the one about The Pope supporting Trump, is a good example of that.

This post has been edited by Graham: 08 December 2016 - 03:42 PM

[Exophase]

The big media focus on calling out fake news strikes me as an attempt to make the mainstream sites seem more credible and trustworthy in comparison. There are a lot of total batshit sites out there (some left-leaning ones too, mind you) but I don't think any individual one gets much readership, and the completely crazy conspiracy theories probably spread more on places like 4chan and Reddit. Not that crazy conspiracy theories acting as political smears are anything new, look how big the 9/11 ones were.

As far as I'm concerned the whole ordeal with Pepe and Slate's claims of Trump's server links to Russian banks can be thrown in the fake news pile too. The fact that these outlets believe what they wrote vs some ad scheming ones that ostensibly don't doesn't actually make it any better.