Pages

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Positive White Identity


This is a new idea I'm developing in the wake of recent events discussing anti-racist issues which, for me, is as much a personal conflict as a form of activism.

See, I am White, and yet I cannot fully embrace myself as a White person because Whiteness stands for so many oppressive things: hegemony, racism, and particularly undeserved privilege at the expense of other races of people.

So how do I reconcile this? How do I affirm my Whiteness in a way that doesn't support White supremacy or White nationalism? (Because both disgust me.) How do I love my race, which is such a fundamental part of my identity in this country, when the reality is that there are so many reasons to hate it, and by extension hate myself for being White?

Now, I do not want to engage in self-hatred, nor do I want to make myself colorblind to the reality of my skin-color by refusing to acknowledge or identity myself as White.

So what do I do? What do any of us White people do?

Well, as it turns out, I'm not the only person to have had this crisis of identity -- nor the only one to turn it into a moment of personal growth.


I recently found a lovely little document by the Unitarian Universalist Association. It outlines the six steps of White, racial identity development by Janet Helms, and asks many of the same questions I asked myself recently. While obviously it is a document written by people of a completely different faith than my own, it nonetheless manages to talk me off the ledge I found myself with regards to my racial identity.

Many would call this process "navel-gazing", or "wishy-washy", but I honestly feel that -- not just for White people, but all people -- self-reflection and self-improvement are the only ways we can become useful allies against structural racism. More importantly, it is this process of growth into a better person who is no longer conflicted or guilty about their race or defensive about their racism that is important to live a happy life, particularly in a diverse society like America.

Yeah yeah, call me cheesy. So it goes.

One thing that the UUA's document prescribes is that White people form accountable relationships with People of Color. This means we need to make ourselves, essentially, employees of the PoC-run campaign of anti-racism. We need to un-segregate ourselves, and work together in serious and significant ways. While the UUA only speaks to work done in anti-racism, I believe this can be taken to a more expansive level. We need to be accountable to PoC who are our bosses, our seniors, our teachers, our leaders in whatever venue we find ourselves in. We also need to reach out (with both hands, and feet perhaps?) to People of Color that are our peers and create common ground for regular social interaction, which I believe will breed understanding, compassion, and peace.

Many people feel that racism will never be over. Some even think that White people will always be racist.

I do not. I think racism will end, someday. Maybe not in my lifetime, and maybe not in the next century, but someday I know it will end. Through the passage of time many impossible things come to pass. Many Jews never imagined we would ever have a country of our own in Israel. Many Americans believed slavery would never end, many believed man would never land on the moon, and some of us never imagined people would watch shows like American Idol! But yet these things have come to pass over time, because people took action to make them happen.

I believe that many White people are beginning to reject their racism and may yet find redemption as I am beginning to, as any of us (Black, White, Brown, Yellow, Red, and whatever other pigment you fancy) may find redemption for our racism, even those we commit unknowingly, and without malice.


Perhaps this is the privilege of my Whiteness. Perhaps it is the naivete of my soul. Or perhaps it is merely the heritage I was born with, to struggle, to overcome, and through the passage of time find myself in a better world. It worked for the Jews, and I do not see why it cannot work for everyone else if we but try.

Meanwhile, developing my positive White identity means a lot of humbling moments mixed with frightening periods of uncertainty. Ultimately I find myself in the 5th stage of Helm's model. The Immersion/Emersion stage, where I attempt to connect to my racial identity, and other White people who are going through the same process.

However, this does not mean talking with White supremacists and White nationalists, whose version of a White identity is based on Jared Taylor or the American Renaissance (a terrible, and hypocritical subversion of the phrase). Positive White identity does not mean White nationalism, White supremacy, or any form of racism. Rather it means connecting with individuals, peers, who believe what I/you/we do and want to help make a better world where they can also be a better person.

This is the start of my idea, which in reality isn't so much MY idea as it is a discovery a la Christopher Colombus. I discovered a new land already populated by indigenous people who've been living here for centuries, and only now do I realize that a wider world exists.

(But unlike Mr. Colombus, I think I'll avoid starting a genocidal period of conquest, thank you very much!)



Cheers

***BONUS***

Here is a bonus starting resource for ya'll to peruse.

Link

39 footnotes:

bingregory said...

May the force be with you. Another good online resource is a (lengthy, annotated) summary of the book The Invention of the White Race by it's author, Theodore Allen. If you'll permit the link: http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/allen.html

Asher said...

Okay, what you seem to be saying is simply that PoC are the only legitimate arbiters of what it means to be white and moral. I vaguely followed your conversations with abagond and it pretty much seems like there's little difference between your approach to anti-racism and his approach. No offense, but you just seem to apply a little bit of "please, don't hurt my feelings, too much" veneer to an abject supplication as a complete moral inferior to PoC. The logical conclusion is that "morality is whatever I say it is ends up being a tyranny of the momentary whims of the arbiter.

Look, every time I hear about "anti-racism" it pretty much boils down to "you're a racist if you don't submit to whatever is demanded by PoC". I doubt that's going to attract many buyers, certainly, not me.

Zek J Evets said...

Asher,

When you use words like "seem to be saying", and "vaguely followed" it kind of gives me the impression that you're making assumptions and don't really know what you're talking about ...

That said, if you think I said the things you claim, please provide evidence that I said them. A direct quote would suffice.

I'll wait.

Meanwhile please do not project other conversations you've had or transfer your feelings about them to me merely because *you think* what I've said "seems" like the exact thing as someone else, whose blog you've been arguing at extensively. (Yes, I've been lurking and reading the comments on the "Quoting MLK" post.

Anyhoo, as it is I'm not trying to attract "buyers", as this isn't a automobile dealership -- this is about ethical morality and anti-racism. But notice that I myself have had my own issues dealing with what you call the "tyranny" of "arbiters" in anti-racism (at the self-same blog you've been at lately) and how even anti-racists can still be racist.

Overall, your comment reads like a burst of frustration, selective reading, projection, and ranting. Now, while I can sympathize (being guilty of those things myself!) I hope you'll excuse me as I not-so-politely disagree.

Maybe you should come back when you've had time to think and compose yourself.

Cheers boyo.

Franklin said...

Oh boy! Asher is posting here too? Seems we have "a new degenerate on the block." His posts are nothing more than blatant white rage masked behind (what he thinks and tries to pass off as) well thought out and eloguent speech.

Franklin said...

As for you Mr. Zek, embracing Whiteness shouldn't be too hard. Although that's just my non-whiteness speaking, notice that no one really objects when white folks embrace anything nationality based. Unfortunately, there is FAR too thick a layer of blood on the term "Whiteness" these days. One that keeps getting thicker by modern day white racists and soap-box white degenerates/racist white bloggers.

I really do wish I could help more with this problem, because it's actually something that bugs me. It's like how Nazi Skinheads co-opt'd and warped the entire Skinhead lifestyle. Which originally, was not racist in any way. It was just about working class white folks developing a style that was unique to them.

Zek J Evets said...

Franklin,

embracing Whiteness shouldn't be too hard.

Yeah, but what about embracing a Whiteness that isn't based on privilege at the expense of people of color. What about embracing Whiteness that isn't based on supremacy, hegemony, nationalism, or racism?

See, now that is the challenge. And I think on that, we both can understand and agree.

Franklin said...

@ Zek

Absolutely. That horrible baggage that is lugged along with "Whiteness" makes it very hard, or at the moment, seemingly impossible to embrace it. I would say "Stay vigilant!" or "Keep Up the Good Fight!" in terms of engaging in a tug of war against those that keep the negative status quo (of whiteness). But that sounds so cliched.

My advice is to attempt to take the label back by engaging in cultural endeavors, while NOT (which I know you don't do) insulting other cultures or comparing them with a barbarian-esque nationalist fashion like White Nationalists do. Not only that, but most importantly lambasting those whites who DO these things, when they join you. It seems like the lack of that last thing in particular, is what keeps damaging Whiteness.

While the whole confusing "Skinfolk with Kinfolk" thing is prevalent in many groups, no other group has created a movement as hate filled as White Nationalists/Supremacists. Whether that's due to them embracing their similarities in moderation while not going as overboard or what have you, I dunno. But clearly they're doing something "whiteness embracing whites" aren't.

Mira said...

I don't know. I don't identify myself with being white. I mean, I know I'm white but I don't identify with it.

Then again, I live in a place where race isn't an issue, so I am not prompted to identify with it.

Zek J Evets said...

Mira,

I didn't identity myself with being White either. I just called myself Jewish. (Actually, I still do much of the time think of myself as just Jewish, not White.)

But in America, part of dealing with racism -- if you're White -- is acknowledging your privilege etc., and the only way to do that is to come to terms with your Whiteness, to "see" your race.

Did you check out the six steps by Janet Helms? They probably explain it better than I do ; )

Asher said...

@Zek

you said "One thing that the UUA's document prescribes is that White people form accountable relationships with People of Color. This means we need to make ourselves, essentially, employees of the PoC-run campaign of anti-racism."

That is the language of metaphor" and like all metaphor it requires interpretation to make it practically applicable.

Now when I read that metaphor, I interpret it. My interpretation of it is this: "if you don't do whatever PoC tell you, then you are no better than a Nazi". I've had bosses, and, in all cases, during the employment relationship, if I didn't do what I was told I was fired, or at least would have been.

So, either you need to change your metaphor or you need to interpret it for me as to how you see it practically applied. Once you throw out a metaphor, expect people to interpret it, and, if you don't like the interpretation, it is your responsibility to change metaphor or offer an alternative interpretation. Also, when you claim that white anti-racists need to establish relationships that make them accountable to PoC, it looks like you misunderstand (or maybe not) the nature of mutual, adult relationships.

In mutual, adult relationships there is equal accountability going both ways. If accountability only goes one way that is a parent-child, lord-serf, master-slave relationship.

I mean this is pretty much stock stuff from the anti-racism writings I've encountered. I consider it intellectually deceitful. On one hand, it promises a mutualist, equitable future. On the other, it claims to achieve that through non-mutualist means.

Zek J Evets said...

Asher,

Now when I read that metaphor, I interpret it.

Yep, you definitely interpreted it. However it seems like you're being disingenuous when you start violating Godwin's Law by saying things like: "if you don't do whatever PoC tell you, then you are no better than a Nazi".

Y'know, I'd really like to know who mentioned ANYTHING about Nazi's?

Which is why when you say you're guessing, making assumptions, and interpreting things, but all your statements reflect hyperbolic rhetoric I can't help feeling that you're not interested in what I'm actually saying and more interested in ranting about something else.

Case in point: I said White anti-racists need to form accountable relationships with PoC. But where did I say that this doesn't mean PoC wouldn't reciprocate this? Who's saying they don't already? As it seems to me, White privilege functions to make PoC de facto accountable to White people already. More importantly, I stated they needed to do so in situations in which PoC are their superiors! (Like at work, or in school, etc.) But certainly in anti-racism this is also true, because most White people are just starting out in anti-racism, but most PoC have been doing it for, well, their whole lives.

Anyhoo, I would like to mention one last thing. When you start come to someone's blog, start projecting negative things onto them, and then tell them that the misunderstanding is their fault and that they need to do this or that because it's their responsibility (as opposed to yours for projecting, or for misunderstanding) to correct themselves... well, it kinda makes you look like an asshole ; )

So listen: stop being so damned antagonistic. If you want to have a real conversation, I'm game, but I'm not going to bother if you're just going to be a douche -- in my house, no less -- and attack me for saying things I never said, or for positions I've never taken, or for misunderstandings that you've created, or for assumptions you made.

Better yet, take my advice. Go chill out for a bit and then come back to the conversation later.

RVCBard said...

Y'know, I've talked a great deal about oppression, both online and IRL, and I have yet to feel compelled to invoke Nazis in any of those discussions except where the topic of discussion was, y'know, Nazis.

Zek J Evets said...

Asher,

Unfortunately I won't be approving your last comment. Apparently you aren't having a conversation with me so much as spewing your own verbal diarrhea all over the place. I mean, saying that calling someone "racist" is equivalent to calling them "Hitler"?

Seriously? Are you fucking kidding me? Because we all know racists commit genocide while waging a war against most of the world on the regular. I mean, look at Rick Perry -- he's a racist. Totally using that camp of his to gas my fellow Jews and prepare for the blitzkrieg. (Have you noticed the sarcasm?)

You've officially jumped the shark with that one. Apparently you're operating under a different world of logic and language than the rest of humanity, because most people do not see "Hitler" as a synonym for "racist". They're two different words. And it's strange because it took you an essay's worth of words to reiterate this point as if it's not only true, but that it explains everything about racism!

Well, hallelujah! Thanks for finding the keystone to the debate. Everything having to do with racism in America is about calling people Nazis. It's all a scam to show White people that they're evil and are basically Hitler. What a genius you are, sir. I'm so glad the suffering of my people can help you prove why racism doesn't exist.

But y'know, the only person who mentioned Nazi's THE ENTIRE TIME has been you, right? So let me ask you: projecting much?

Actually, don't answer. Just get the fuck out, dumbass.

Zek J Evets said...

RR,

Remember that movie Bambi? Remember what Thumper's mom said?

Yeah... and apparently you need to read the comment policy.

RR said...

Zek,

I thought I was being nice:)

White people have done stuff other than oppress people. As I stated before, white Christians were the first to recognize the evil of slavery and white Christians did end the trans-atlantic slave trade. For that I am personally grateful. White people get a lot of stuff right. Maybe, on the whole, it is a wash and you can stop feeling guilty.

Zek J Evets said...

RR,

I'm not sure if White Christians were "the first" to recognize that slavery is evil. As I recall, my own people, the Jews, recognized the evils of slavery when they fled Egypt -- and at that time they certainly weren't White!

Also, I'm kinda ambivalent about giving credit to White people for ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade after they were such major participants in it.

That said, I don't want anyone to feel grateful to me based on my race. We get stuff right; we get stuff wrong. We're just peeps y'know.

RR said...

Zek,

The Jews recognized the fact that it sucks to be a slave. They didn't do anything to bring about the end of the institution itself. White Christians did that. In that effort, White Christians furthered civilization. I'm grateful for that.

Yes, white Christians participated in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. But so did Arabs, Jews and blacks themselves. It was only white Christians who objected to the institution itself and brought about its end.

Currently, non-whites aren’t grateful to individual whites for anything, which is as it should be. But whites are being shamed in some quarters (Abagond’s blog, Tim Wise’s never ending anti-white schtick, even your blog at times) for the injustices perpetrated by their ancestors. If anti-racists are going to condemn whites for their historic crimes, shouldn’t they also laud whites for the virtuous things they have done throughout history? My preference is that whites be neither condemned nor lauded as a group, but what do I know. I'm not an anti-racist.

Anti-racists think they are doing blacks a favor by demonizing whites. What they are really doing is giving a back-handed compliment to whites and patronizing blacks. Abagond’s knee-jerk categorization of whites is lamentable, but perfectly in keeping with anti-racist sentiment. Anti-racists expect whites to self-flagellate into perpetuity. Those whites willing to do that get what they deserve, because they don’t really respect blacks, or minorities in general. They want to feel superior to those other whites. As Sailer has pointed out, the anti-racism racket is basically a status competition among whites, with minorities (especially blacks) as props. I believe you are going to do a 180 with respect to your views on race. It will be intense for you, but I believe you will recover from that and eventually come to terms with racial differences and treat blacks as individuals, instead of a cause.

Zek J Evets said...

RR,

Umm, White people didn't bring about an end to the institution of slavery AT ALL. Slavery still exists, and White people still benefit from it -- blood diamonds and sweatshop labor are two examples.

But by all means, if you really believe this to be true, provide some proof maybe?

Anyways, with regards to your thoughts I have to disagree. You don't seem to know much about anti-racism if you call it a "racket" or that about status competition.

It seems like you've kinda gotten to the point where you're engaging in doublethink -- the real racists are people fighting against racism is what you seem to believe. But it's not true. Indeed, most of your criticism of anti-racism seems based on hurt feelings that they (anti-racists) are not nice enough!

This is a common conservative strategy. When a conservative group (i.e The Tea Baggers) engages in activism it's portrayed quite positively, but when non-conservative groups do this -- even when they're saying the exact same thing about the issue -- conservatives tend to complain and cast suspicion like, "Oh I don't know about those [blanks]..."

In the end, your problem is not with the message or the cause, but apparently the movement. Probably because you seem to only see one small piece, project your own issues on it, and then take it for the whole.

So it goes though.

RR said...

Zek,

I am aware that slavery is alive and well. Supposedly, there are more slaves in existence today than any other time in history. Please read what I wrote. I wrote that White Christians ended the trans-Atlantic slave trade, which they did.

I know quite a bit about anti-racism, and it is a racket. From Cornel West and Al Sharpton to Tim Wise and Noel Ignatiev. It’s not a total racket. Sometimes anti-racists take righteous stands, but for the most part, their righteous stands are mainly in their own imaginations. You wrote:

the real racists are people fighting against racism is what you seem to believe.

Every group has its hypocrites. Surely you know this. But it isn’t so much that the anti-racism movement is racist. It is the sheer illogic of its foundation. Racism is not like a disease that can be eradicated. Racism is part of the human condition. Family->Tribe->Race. We can certainly work to minimize the darker parts of our natures, but we must recognize that nature in itself. This is where anti-racists err. They err in the belief that they can change human nature. And they are rather arrogant and dogmatic in that belief.

When a conservative group (i.e The Tea Baggers) engages in activism it's portrayed quite positively

Portrayed positively? Where? Perhaps you don’t read the NYTimes or the Washington post. The fact that you referred to them as “Tea Baggers” says it all. Anti-racists are intolerant of dissent, which is why you were pilloried at Abagond’s. You don’t get the irony of your situation because I don’t think you have thought about it deeply enough yet. But as you continue to explore your white identity, you will think deeply about race and its significance to you as a white person.

In the end, your problem is not with the message or the cause, but apparently the movement

I have a problem with the message and the movement. The message and the movement are illogical. Abagond’s pronouncements are illogical. He is completely married to the notion of inherent white animus and black virtue, as it the anti-racism movement itself. When was the last time the anti-racism movement targeted a black racist, like Al Sharpton? To my knowledge, this has never been done. And don’t tell me that black racists don’t exist.

Zek J Evets said...

RR,

They didn't do anything to bring about the end of the institution itself. White Christians did that.

This is what made it seem like you were saying that White people ended slavery in general. Obviously they didn't. And in fact they were major participants in it, and not just a few but MOST up until the Civil War in which most did not participate but silently accepted its existence. (Remember slavery wasn't ended because White people thought it was evil. They ended it to help beat the South and increase economic production. Only a few abolitionists actually felt slavery was evil at the time.)

Racism is part of the human condition.

I disagree. Racism is not mere tribalism because racism is enculturated. Racism as we know it does not exist in humans inherently, and it was upon this point that led to me fight with Abagond, because he guessed that White people are inherently racist. Racism is a *learned* behavior, and constitutes prejudice + power in its most basic form.

Portrayed positively? Where?

Eric Cantor comes to mind. Check my post on the Occupy Wall Street movement for more on THAT hypocrisy. But suffice to say, conservatives are simply incapable of trusting any perspective outside of a very narrow ideology. Liberals are just as judgmental as conservatives for what they believe to bad ideas, but notice that they're sympathies always lie with the many, the poor, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, and the sub-altern. Meanwhile, conservatives seem to defend only the few, the rich and the powerful. Both are partisan, but I sincerely believe that one is better than another because one cares about the people more than another.

And don’t tell me that black racists don’t exist.

Black racists do exist, in the colloquial sense. But racism (as I mentioned above) is prejudice + power. So when Rick Perry, who is governor of Texas holds racist ideas about Black people and Latinos, his ignorance translates into oppression. Whereas at worst, Al Sharpton can just hurt someone's feelings when he makes anti-Semitic comments about Jews.

foosrock! said...

Anti-racists expect whites to self-flagellate into perpetuity. Those whites willing to do that get what they deserve, because they don’t really respect blacks, or minorities in general. They want to feel superior to those other whites

Lol, I agree somewhat. Most of my very good Swiss friends are conservatives. Vote mostly for SVP(www.svp-zuerich.ch), but we have lively(Swiss standards), open and painfully honest conversations with each other and that's truly a feat as the Swiss are terribly reserve, private people. I know they're like that with me because I refuse to be labelled a victim(am NOT a child), and we treat each other with respect knowing that we're educated enough to fully understand and acknowledge each other's stance or lot in life. Besides I've grown to be protectionist, not unreasonably so, but if left up to the liberals, Switzerland would be overrun with drug dealing Nigerians!.

Zek,
I've read all your articles on this matter, (without clicking on the links to other blogs you've provided, mind) and you do come across as the typical white liberal. People I tend to avoid in real life. I dig your blog, but perhaps more because you're with that hottie Jasmin. Allow this older lady her fantasy, bitte. Honestly though, I like reading your stance and seeing your growth. Keep on. It never ends.

Oh, am so getting your book. When you're huge and famous, I can tell my old biddy friends that I used to cyber talk with you. Cool beans!.

RVCBard said...

I've been thinking about what I want from White allies, and the closest approximation is what's expected of a Jewish convert (insofar as that's consistent).

The basic idea is to cast one's lot with the Jewish people. This, more than one's individual beliefs, defines the sincere convert. The idea that one's fate as a human being is directly linked to the fate of a people is a model that I wish I saw more of in social justice. That shared fate cannot be discussed or argued into being. It must be demonstrated by learning and sharing in the language, laws, customs, and stories of the people.

Is that more than what is expected of people born into this fate? Yes. But it's the best we have to offer, and it definitely works.

Zek J Evets said...

foosrock!,

I'm not entirely sure Swiss people make for a good comparison to White Americans, given that neither have comparable experiences in regards to racism. I mean, Switzerland is a pretty homogeneous population, whereas the US is (and is portrayed) as a more diverse society.

That said, worrying about your country being ovverrun with bad immigrants is kinda typical nativist fare, and that point-of-view has generally been on the wrong side of history -- particularly in America, when the Know-Nothings were so embarrassed of their bigotry that they actually disavowed membership when asked.

you do come across as the typical white liberal. People I tend to avoid in real life. I dig your blog, but perhaps more because you're with that hottie Jasmin.

Haha, I get that a lot. Black women seem to treat me way different when they know I'm in a relationship with a Black woman.

But still, let me wax a little Walt Whitman: "I give you fair warning before you attempt me further, I am not what you supposed, but far different." -- Calamus.

Anyhoo, thanks for buying me book! (If you still end up doing so.)

=)

Zek J Evets said...

RVCBard,

I get your meaning, but Jewish converts then are allowed to make Jew-jokes, criticize the community, and generally take stances without having their "Jew-card" revoked.

Somehow I doubt that White anti-racists would be given such leeway among PoC, certainly not to criticize the community like I regularly criticize my fellow Jews!

But I like how you put this idea: The basic idea is to cast one's lot with the Jewish people.

I think that should be a central idea for any person advocating for social justice.

RVCBard said...

I get your meaning, but Jewish converts then are allowed to make Jew-jokes, criticize the community, and generally take stances without having their "Jew-card" revoked.

Hence, my use of the phrase, "closest approximation."

foosrock! said...

Did purchase your book. Barnes and Noble. Shipping cost nearly as much, mind!!!!!. But alas, am part of that dreaded 1%.....Not hardly!.

Will thread carefully, my cyber friend, or as much as my Caribbean roots will allow....

Am digging RVCBard's idea. Why do you have to spoil it with your liberal analysis?. Just do!.

RR said...

White Christians didn’t end slavery in general, but they were the first to recognize the evil of the institution and were the first to take action against it. The trans-Atlantic slave trade WAS ended because
English Christians thought it was evil and compelled the government of Great Britain to use its navy to end the transporting of slaves from West Africa. This didn’t end the selling of slaves in America, but it did put an effective end to the importation of slaves. This was a major advance and led ultimately to the demise of legal slavery in the Western hemisphere.

Racism and tribalism are different, but only in degree. Racism is tribalism scaled upward. People have a habit of favoring their own. THIS IS HUMAN NATURE. Hatred of other groups can be taught, but favoring one’s own group over others doesn’t have to be taught. People generally date/marry people of their own racial/ethnic background not because they hate other people, but mainly because they just prefer their own.

You wrote:

Eric Cantor comes to mind.

Eric Cantor is a politician and obviously partisan. Con I was referring to a MSM organization like the NYTimes.

Liberals are just as judgmental as conservatives for what they believe to bad ideas, but notice that they're sympathies always lie with the many, the poor, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, and the sub-altern.

Perhaps, so long as the poor, the oppressed, etc. are not white Christians. What they are, as Abagond has so convincingly shown, is anti-white. To even assert that Liberals are sympathetic to the down-trodden is inaccurate. Obama is just as big a war-monger as George Bush. He voted in favor of bailing out Wall St. when he was in Congress. He has not directed the Justice Dept to prosecute even ONE investment bank involved in the housing crisis. During this time of high unemployment, Obama wants to import millions more people to this country to compete with currently unemployed blacks and Hispanics. And the Left-wing establishment is right behind him.

But racism (as I mentioned above) is prejudice + power.

This is one of the stupidest ideological constructions ever devised. All human beings have some power. Thus ALL human beings have the power to be racists. A thug on the street might have a smaller degree of power than the CEO of Goldman-Sachs, but he still has power and he can exercise that power in racist ways. Al Sharpton CLEARLY did more than just hurt the feelings of white people. He caused untold hardship for Vincent Pagones and the others he falsely accused of assaulting Tawana Brawley. So much so that Pagones won a lawsuit against Al Sharpton for his role in the Tawanna Brawley fiasco. Then there was Sharpton’s role in inciting a follower to murder people and set fire to a business establishment in Harlem. You can’t possibly be serious here Zek.

RR said...

It is the dogmatism of anti-racist and their dedication to encouraging blacks (and others) to nurse their grievances that that does the most damage. They have helped to instill a sense of entitlement among blacks that is harmful to both whites and blacks. Just take your set-to with miss Faith. She felt that she had the right to call you a misogynist simply because you are white and male. She felt justified because she was black and female. She didn’t have to substantiate the charge. Her emotions, along with her sex and her race, justified the accusation. Or take my set-to with “She who will not be named” (SWWNBN). In my situation, SWWNBN accused me of stalking her simply because she was losing an argument regarding the merits of Affirmative Action :

http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/equality/#comment-44827
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/equality/#comment-45005
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/equality/#comment-45091
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/equality/#comment-45108
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/equality/#comment-45110

SWWNBN made the accusation because she knew, as a black woman commenting on an anti-racist blog, she could get away with it without having to prove anything. And Abagond, being the good anti-racist that he is, let her get away with it.

Blacks are indulged by the anti-racist movement, to the detriment of blacks and whites. Anti-racism is an intellectually specious movement that encourages weak argumentation and intellectual intolerance. I found this article insightful. The author of the piece was able to see her own intolerance of those who disagreed with her. You have experienced Abagond’s intolerance firsthand. Are you going to come to the realization that the anti-racist movement itself is an intolerant echo-chamber?

Zek J Evets said...

RVCBard,

Touche!

foosrock!,

Shipping is ALWAYS expensive. But thanks so much! =)

And I'll try not to spoil things too much with my pesky chronic contrarian-ness.

Zek J Evets said...

RR,

White Christians didn’t end slavery in general, but they were the first to recognize the evil of the institution

White Christians were not the first to recognize the evil of the institutions. Shoot, the Jews realized it before them, and they weren't even the first! Why are you trying to put White people ona pedestal that doesn't apply? And they certainly weren't the first to take action against it either. If you believe so, then please provide some proof?

Racism is not tribalism. Tribalism includes inter-racial friction, so I think you need a new theory to continue being apathetic about racism.

on I was referring to a MSM organization like the NYTimes.

Which one?

Fair enough in your criticism of Obama. I certainly don't like some of the things he's done, however he is FAR better than the alternatives, and many of his policies are things I've been hoping for (like the end of DADT). So again, liberals may not the perfect, but they are far more concerned with the masses than conservatives have been.

This is one of the stupidest ideological constructions ever devised.

No, it's the truth. Racism is prejudice + power. Al Sharpton can be a bigot or anti-Semite, and do some messed-up shit, but he cannot leave an entire city to sink beneath the Gulf of Mexico, like George W. Bush. Rick Perry has ruined the lives of more innocent people with his racist policies on the death penalty and immigration. Al Sharpton's sins don't hold a candle to those of racist Whites in power. So please, don't be naive.

Anyhoo, regarding your other comment. Frankly Abagond is very intolerant of other forms of oppression, from sexism to homophobia. Certainly you stalked, and got what you deserved for it, but it has hardly seemed to really effect you in any lasting way -- negatively or positively. But I doubt Abagond would have done anything if not for public pressure from his commenters.

jas0nburns said...

Like I said before, I don't think any WP should expect any kind of general acceptance as an anti-racist from POC at large. Whether or not you are accepted as an anti-racist has absolutely no effect on your ability to actively counter racism in everyday life. You don't need acceptance to question and counter the racist words and actions of your friends, family and co-workers. All you need is a set of guiding principals. Those principals should remain consistent no matter what anyone of any race does or says.

RR said...

Zek,

White Christians were the first to oppose the institution of slavery. The Jews were opposed to THEMSELVES being slaves, but had NO problem with other people being slaves. Here are a few references to the history of the abolition movement. Note that the citations cite Europe as originating the first abolitionist movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
http://apwhwiki.pbworks.com/w/page/363047/Abolition%20of%20Slavery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Abolitionist_movements

My purpose here is not to lionize whites. My purpose is to show that whites are like other groups of people with faults, weaknesses, virtues and strengths. Anti-racists refuse to see white people honestly, as if whites posses some sort of germ that turns them into maniacal racists if they aren’t frequently inoculated with regular doses of anti-white racist rhetoric. All people are racist/tribalist, whites were able to manifest their racism more effectively than most others in the past.

I agree that racism is not tribalism, which I stated before, but the two concepts share much in common. Both concepts allow people to be characterized by some distinguishing characteristics that are then used to foster bias toward a particular group. This is obvious if one studies the history of Europe. Until relatively recently, white European ethnicities were viewed as separate races and they discriminated against each other based on these perceived differences.

You wrote:

Racism is prejudice + power. Al Sharpton can be a bigot or anti-Semite, and do some messed-up shit, but he cannot leave an entire city to sink beneath the Gulf of Mexico, like George W. Bush.

Is Al Sharpton a racist or isn’t he a racist? I would say he is a racist. All people, regardless of their station in life, have a certain amount of power, so all people have the capacity to be racist. Racism is not some sort of tournament where only the top three finishers can lay claim to the title. Whites and blacks have the capacity to be racist irrespective of their degree of influence.

RR said...

You wrote:
So again, liberals may not the perfect, but they are far more concerned with the masses than conservatives have been.

And all this supposed Liberal concern has gotten the masses….where? Liberals are much more interested in feeling superior to other people than initiating actions that bring about improvements to the lives of average citizens. Liberals aren’t much interested in results. They are interested in rhetoric, which makes them feel good. That is why Abagond experienced no compunction in writing what he did about whites. It made him feel good. He didn’t have to do much analysis to substantiate his charges. Abagond’s remarks are what pass for rigorous analysis among Liberals. Facts are meaningless to such types, including you, except when you are on the receiving end of their tirades. For example take your remark:

Certainly you stalked, and got what you deserved for it

How did I stalk? Show me the sentence or sentences that were indicative of stalking? Perhaps we need a working definition of stalking:

Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them via the internet.

When was my attention to SWWNBN obsessive? I was about as obsessive with SWWNBN as I was with Thaddeus, Chic Noir, Natasha, Obsidian, Chuck Ross, Steve Sailer or you. Where was it unwanted? She commented on a public blog. I responded on a public blog. Where was the harassment and intimidation?

Virtually any unwanted contact between two people that directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking.

Where was the direct or indirect threat from me? Read through the thread I listed previously. I defy you to identify anywhere in the thread where my words could have been even remotely construed as threatening! There were no indirect or direct threats from me toward SWWNBN. She felt aggrieved because she was losing an argument so she made up the stalking charge! And she got away with it because she is a black woman This is not to say that she hasn’t been stalked before. I understand that she has had trouble with people stalking her in the past, but I certainly wasn’t one of them. Even assuming I had stalked her, why would she then allow me to post to her blog after the fact. Why would you allow me to post to your blog if you believe I stalked her?

The reality is that blacks don’t have to be held accountable for their words. Women don’t have to be held accountable either. And black women get to have twice the fun, so they really indulge themselves.

but it has hardly seemed to really effect you in any lasting way -- negatively or positively.

This is really beside the point. She defamed me simply because I disagreed with her. This is the point! Defamation is the modus operandi of the left generally and of anti-racists in particular. You have now felt the anti-racist/anti-misogyny lash. Please relish the sting.

foosrock! said...

Al Sharpton can be a bigot or anti-Semite, and do some messed-up shit, but he cannot leave an entire city to sink beneath the Gulf of Mexico, like George W. Bush.

..but he can certainly leave an entire gender (black women) to sink beneath(gang rapes, out of wedlock children, high STDs rates because of prevalent predatory behaviour towards young/teenage females etc etc etc) the misogynistic species that's black American males!!!.

Women don’t have to be held accountable either. And black women get to have twice the fun, so they really indulge themselves.

What world are you living in, RR?. That's total dog poo. But besides that, we're WOMEN. YOU, as man, should be protecting us and NOT sounding bitter and angry because we are wont to spout opinions that sometimes hurt your feelings.

Zek J Evets said...

foosrock!

I don't think it's necessary to criticize Al Sharpton by unfairly generalizing Black American men as a gender with misandry.

Obviously Sharpton has his own problems, but my point still stands.

RR,

I'm not going to keep arguing the point, as I've already made it. Since you disagree, let's just leave it at that, shall we?

RR said...

Zek,

Sure, we can drop it, but let the record show that I challenged you to have a fact based discussion on the following topics but you declined:

1)Abolition of slavery - Specifically how it was white Christians who originated the concept of slavery abolition.

2)The “stalking” charge leveled by SWWNBN at me - I included the offending thread here and defied you to identify any remark I had made that could be construed as “stalkerish”.

RR said...

foosrock,

You are preaching to the choir regarding black men and rape. Rape is an issue that black men don’t take seriously enough. Regarding out-of-wedlock births and STDs, you are on much shakier ground. Black men don’t force black women to have irresponsible sex (outside of rape). Black women are equally culpable with respect to promiscuity among blacks. Black women can’t advocate for women’s sexual liberation and then act surprised when our OOW birth rate and STD rates soar. Black women must be circumspect. Black women must expect to be treated like adults, not guided like children. It is not teenage girls who are bearing the bulk of black children out of wedlock (the fathers of whom are also, by and large, teenagers themselves), but GROWN BLACK WOMEN who are doing it.

I agree that men should protect women, but women must be worthy of protecting. Men will protect women’s virtue if the women are actually virtuous.

You wrote:

YOU, as man, should be protecting us and NOT sounding bitter and angry because we are wont to spout opinions that sometimes hurt your feelings.

I agree. But by the same token women should expect the same in return. Black women should not be offended when presented with fact based arguments that may put them in a less than flattering light.

Zek J Evets said...

RR,

What record??? Haha, you act like there is an objective truth that only you are privy to. However, I think it is secretly an antagonistic attempt to continue trading comments.

There is some truth in your fiction, but sadly not enough to be accurately called "reality".

1. Opposition to, and the abolition of slavery has a far longer history than the creation of Christianity as a religion, or White people as as a socio-cultural construction. Whether Moses & the exiled Jews (NOT other or later periods of Jews -- unless White Christians are to be disqualified because other White Christians were for slavery) or the various Roman slave rebellions, or the Zoroastrians of Persia, or Japanese Shogun Toyotomi Hideyoshi.

Check out the timeline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

2. You posted the exchange and defied me to prove something which you are already convinced isn't true! Tell me, even provided I went through the necessary hoops, jumps, and tricks to show you that you were, in fact, stalkerish, would you *really* believe it? Because don't you have a vested interest in maintaining your own self-image, as your comments here demonstrate?

Frankly dude, you take being right from obsession to insanity in the course of a paragraph. Just walk away, like I am doing.

RR said...

Zek,

Your reference states that Ashoka abolished the slave trade, not slavery itself. Ditto for the Chinese Emperor Wang Mang. The only group worth mentioning in the reference you cite are the Persians. Whether they sought to abolish slavery throughout the empire is debatable:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/b/2007/03/15/ancient-persian-slaves.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Iran

Here is a choice snip from the second reference above:

There were three categories of slaves in the lands conquered by Achaemenian Persia:[4]
1) Captives, transferred to new places, forming settlements of people in a state of slavery.
2) Slaves, mainly from among the captives, used in construction and agricultural work for the aristocracy.
3) Slaves in personal service.


All of the other early references are to instances of European abolition.

You wrote:

You posted the exchange and defied me to prove something which you are already convinced isn't true!

Yes. That’s right. I believe SWWNBN’s statements accusing me of stalking her to be false. You repeated her accusation. I asked you to prove it. What is the problem? My request sounds reasonable to me.

Tell me, even provided I went through the necessary hoops, jumps, and tricks to show you that you were, in fact, stalkerish, would you *really* believe it?

Asking you to prove an assertion doesn’t sound to me as if I’m asking you to jump through hoops. Isn’t it standard operating procedure for one to substantiate an assertion? If you read through the thread and responded with something like:

“Ah hah RR! I have you now! You intimidated and harassed SWWNBN in comment #XXX. This was a direct/indirect threat to her and she was very afraid.”

If you were to write something like the above, it would cause me to check my assumptions. Perhaps there was something in my contributions to that thread that I had overlooked that might give an objective reader the impression that I was threatening SWWNBN. Yes, I could certainly be persuaded. I have a tendency to be tendentious and dogmatic, so if you could show me that I was blinded by my own certitude and that SWWNBN was justly aggrieved, I would welcome that. I and would welcome it mainly because you would have taken the time to read the thread to find out the truth like the reasonable person I know you are, thus reinforcing my faith in humanity. I may not like being shown that I am wrong, but I would certainly grow from it. A little self-reflection on my part couldn’t hurt.