White fragility

[Boethius]

10 minutes ago, datamonster said:

Well, when you see a black person does the color of their skin matter more to you in your mind than what type of person they are?

I don't see any conflict between seeing people for who they are beyond their skin color AND understanding that racism is a systemic issue at the same time.

I mean, what are you implying here? That you can only understand systemic racism if you are a racist yourself?

In an earlier comment you said your goal is to return to the state of childhood innocence you had before you became "acquainted" with the n word. Even if you were successful in doing that, it would do nothing to help solve problems like the sort of policing that Black communities receive, the quality of schools that Black children are attending, the likelihood that employers call up candidates who have "Black sounding" names, etc. This is the sort of thing that is meant by "systemic racism". It is racism that is embedded in the systems that govern the various sectors of our society (school, employment, law). Again, it sounds like your focus is on interpersonal racism -- the racism that occurs between a Black person and a white person who are in conversation with each other. Working on healing interpersonal racism is an important and noble goal, but it does not address the problems of systemic racism in any direct way.

Edited March 26, 2021 by Boethius

[Boethius]

12 minutes ago, Woke456 said:

Considering that black people commit 50% of the homicides in the US but only make up 30% of the police shootings, I think you may need to feel a bit of shame yourself for commenting in public.

I see in a previous comment that you refer to POC as "colored people". And you write that we need to "crack down" on a good portion of the "colored" community. Not sure how you look yourself in the mirror in the morning.

[Woke456]

16 minutes ago, Boethius said:

the sort of policing that Black communities receive,

 

the quality of schools that Black children are attending, the likelihood that employers call up candidates who have "Black sounding" names, etc. This is the sort of thing that is meant by "systemic racism". It is racism that is embedded in the systems that govern the various sectors of our society (school, employment, law). Again, it sounds like your focus is on interpersonal racism -- the racism that occurs between a Black person and a white person who are in conversation with each other. Working on healing interpersonal racism is an important and noble goal, but it does not address the problems of systemic racism in any direct way.

An example of "systemic racism" would be one in that the ACTUAL SYSTEM is racist, such as with the Democratic Party and affirmative action, etc.  What you;re taking about is FAITH IN RACISM like it's a religion to you.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Woke456

[Woke456]

11 minutes ago, Boethius said:

I see in a previous comment that you refer to POC as "colored people". And you write that we need to "crack down" on a good portion of the "colored" community. Not sure how you look yourself in the mirror in the morning.

Why can't we crackdown on colored racists?  And are you really going to hide behind nomenclature, right now?  I'm sure however I say it, you'll find a way to be "offended"

[Boethius]

6 hours ago, datamonster said:

Look man, it is not my intention to single-handedly solve all these issues by doing that. I'm just trying to be a good person who doesn't judge people based on race. I really don't get why that's a problem for you.

It's a problem because you keep making yourself the center of a conversation on race/racism. And you do so while engaged in conversation with a biracial woman (Etherial Cat) who has repeatedly expressed frustration about how you're not "getting it". Instead you keep re-directing attention back to how good of a person you are. The goodness of your personal character is not the focus of this thread's conversation; white fragility is the focus.

So congratulations on working to make sure you treat people of color with the same amount of dignity and respect as you accord to white people. Truly. It sounds that like that's been a very heartfelt goal of yours. Now a good next step may be to learn about systemic injustice and to practice "decentering yourself" from conversations about racism. Good luck ?

[Woke456]

7 hours ago, datamonster said:

 I'm just trying to be a good person who doesn't judge people based on race.

@datamonster They're not really concerned about being judged by race.  Rather, they're using race as a political tool, and it's going to continue until they lose elections like they did with Hillary Clinton when they overplayed the gender card.

 

@Boethius I suggest you go watch a movie with like 10 black people by yourself so you actually know what the hell is going on.  Right now, you're just guessing about ridiculous horeshit.

 

[Boethius]

24 minutes ago, Woke456 said:

@Boethius I suggest you go watch a movie with like 10 black people by yourself so you actually know what the hell is going on.  Right now, you're just guessing about ridiculous horeshit.

My focus is on helping to bring healing to the 400+ years of oppression against people of color and against Black folk especially. I suppose it does involve some guesswork as to how to do so effectively and without centering myself in the conversation. But I am grounded in my intention to be helpful, and so I'm comfortable in "feeling out" the best approach for moving the conversation forward.

Now, what is your intention when engaging in conversation around race/racism?

[Woke456]

 

56 minutes ago, Boethius said:

My focus is on helping to bring healing to the 400+ years of oppression

Clever, if you cant find examples now, just go back in time to find ammunition.  The problem with thinking this is a uniquely racial thing is that almost everyone in general has been oppressed for the past 50,000 years.  Things started to change when the Magna Carta was signed, after several other events like the American Revolution, and US Civil War, but for the overwhelming majority of history (and prehistory), on all continents and of all races, people were oppressed.

Be more inclusive with the Mythos and you've already done a lot.

But something tells me "healing" isn't the real goal.  Usually, it's a combination of other things such as:

1.  Focusing on a crusade to avoid putting your own life in order

2.  Sneakily making an argument to promote Marxism since our society is poorly educated on how that turned into multiple Holocausts

3.  Virtue signaling for things you don't understand instead of being the change by doing something like renting an apartment in a black neighborhood

1 hour ago, Boethius said:

Now, what is your intention when engaging in conversation around race/racism?

The book's goal is to prevent white people from having discussions that aren't pertinent to the author's goals.  It's also designed  to normalize racism from the left in today's political climate.  

[Boethius]

1 hour ago, Woke456 said:

 

Clever, if you cant find examples now, just go back in time to find ammunition.  The problem with thinking this is a uniquely racial thing is that almost everyone in general has been oppressed for the past 50,000 years.  Things started to change when the Magna Carta was signed, after several other events like the American Revolution, and US Civil War, but for the overwhelming majority of history (and prehistory), on all continents and of all races, people were oppressed.

Be more inclusive with the Mythos and you've already done a lot.

But something tells me "healing" isn't the real goal.  Usually, it's a combination of other things such as:

1.  Focusing on a crusade to avoid putting your own life in order

2.  Sneakily making an argument to promote Marxism since our society is poorly educated on how that turned into multiple Holocausts

3.  Virtue signaling for things you don't understand instead of being the change by doing something like renting an apartment in a black neighborhood

The book's goal is to prevent white people from having discussions that aren't pertinent to the author's goals.  It's also designed  to normalize racism from the left in today's political climate.  

OK. So what does racial healing look like to you?

[Woke456]

1 hour ago, Boethius said:

OK. So what does racial healing look like to you?

You in particular wont get over this until you actually go out there.

[Boethius]

23 hours ago, datamonster said:

LOL! If anything, you are making me the center of attention by writing lengthy comments projecting your preconceived ideas of what I am and how I think. If it wasn't for you I would've been outta here already.

Fair enough. I guess I was talking "past you" on this topic. You said you're trying to be a good person, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Based on what you've written, it seems that when you're talking about race/racism with a Black person your idea of appropriate conversation is to prove to them that you're not racist. That you're *trying* to not judge them based on the color of their skin. I wonder why you think they do, or should, give a shit about your attempts to be not racist?

Let's try this thought experiment: if I told a woman that I try my best to not call women b*****s, but that otherwise I don't really care about "women's issues" (equal pay, sexual harassment, access to affordable abortions) how would you, as a woman, feel about that? Would it lead you to think that I was a "good man"?

If you want to talk with POC about what you two are watching on Netflix, then the colorblind approach is perfectly workable. But if you want to talk with POC about issues of race/racism, then they probably don't want to hear about your attempts to be not racist. To make a big stink of your struggle with not being racist is IN ITSELF the height of white fragility, which of course is the focus of this entire thread in the first place.

[Forestluv]

44 minutes ago, datamonster said:

You can still understand the issues with systemic racism and be an ally to people who are struggling with oppression and discrimination, be it race-related or of any other type, at the same time. 

Yet that doesn’t seem to be what you are advocating for. You seem to be making the point to simply see a person beyond color. Yet if you don’t see a person’s color and understand how how discrimination might impact them, how can you be an ally to them regarding the discrimination they may face? 

Part of being an ally is to listen to poc and trying to understand their life experience and POV. Then, to be supportive to them - rather than saying “I see beyond color” and trying to control the narrative. 

[Gesundheit]

Everyone is a racist, but not everyone realizes that.

Just different forms of racism.

[Forestluv]

35 minutes ago, datamonster said:

By adapting to the situation and being mentally flexible. If you meet a person of color for the first time, just treat them like any other person. If a black friend of yours is struggling with racism and discrimination, then ofc color is relevant in this context, so just be a good friend. 

This seems to be a shift in position. The original position seemed to be 'I acknowledge racism at the systems level, yet I see beyond race at the individual level'. The new position now seems to be 'I'm mentally flexible and can both see beyond the race of an individual and see the race of the individual, depending on context". That is a different position.

And there are many more nuances. For example. . . why wait to be aware of the impact of racial discrimination until a poc has been so negatively impacted by it that they approach you about it? That puts the burden on the poc. It is a very low level of awareness and sensitivity. We can expand our awareness and be more pro-active. 

I work at a college. Imagine I have the mentality that I see beyond the race of each of my students - unless they are suffering so bad from discrimination that they come to my office to discuss it. That puts the burden on the poc and puts extreme pressure on them. It would be very unlikely that a poc would even approach a white professor or administrator that had that mentality. It would be much more likely that the student of color would approach a professor or administrator of color. Or the student of color may drop out.

Imo, it's not fair to put such burdens on poc - that is part of systemic racism. We need to be working on this together. That involves being proactive about systemic changes, yet also having an awareness of the inter-relationship between the system and the individual components that make up that system. It's not always a good idea to put attention on race, yet it's good to have a background awareness that race within systems impacts individuals within that system. If a black pre-med student enters my office, I won't start off saying "I see you are black. As a black pre-med student, you will have these five major issues of discrimination". I can see beyond race and I might not put any attention on race (unless the issue up). Yet I also have a background awareness that racial inputs have factored into this student's life experience and conditioning. And it racial inputs factor into this person's experience presently in the college and during the career path in the future. With this background awareness, I can be an ally pro-actively. For example, I can put supportive symbols on my office door to let everyone know they are welcomed. I can give a vibe of being accepting and supportive. I don't need to wait until the student is so distraught confronting discrimination that they come to my office at a breaking point. And that would unlikely happen. If I don't show awareness of racial dynamics upfront, they won't come to me with issues - because they will know I don't 'get it'. People that have to deal with racial discrimination every day develop certain expertise regarding who 'gets it', intentions of another and the degree of their racism. 

[Forestluv]

52 minutes ago, datamonster said:

No, it's still the first position. I just don't see how being able to see beyond race within one's own mind, must automatically imply that you're somehow colorblind and incapable of understanding race-related issues and can no longer help people who are struggling with racism. You simply assumed that it does for me.

I would draw a distinction between the following two statements:

A) "I see beyond the race of the individual" and

B) "I see beyond the race of the individual in a context-dependent manner".

There is overlap, yet also distinctions. 

52 minutes ago, datamonster said:

I just don't see how being able to see beyond race within one's own mind, must automatically imply that you're somehow colorblind and incapable of understanding race-related issues and can no longer help people who are struggling with racism. 

It depends on whether one subscribes to position (A) or (B) above. If I have the mentality that "I always see beyond one's race", that is the same as saying "I am colorblind". If one "always sees beyond race" how can they see or address racial dynamics? They always see beyond it!!

If I am looking at the sunset beyond the beach, I now longer see the beach - I am "beach-blind". If I am always looking beyond the beach, I will not be able to see the beach or any issues occurring on the beach. However, this is different than looking at the sunset and being aware of the beach and how the beach contributes to the entire experience. 

52 minutes ago, datamonster said:

Do whatever you feel is appropriate and necessary. If you see an opportunity to be proactive, great, more power to you. But I don't usually find myself in situations where that kinda approach makes sense.

That is a "nonracist" position. It doesn't intensify racism, yet it passively allows the status quo of racism to continue. It's much easier for a white person to have this mentality because they aren't impacted by racism like minorities are. As a white male, I don't have to be pro-active or confront racism. I can let it be the problem of minorities. This is a form of 'white privilege'. Poc don't have this privilege. They have to deal with some form of racism most days of their life. They don't have the luxury of saying: I don't usually find myself in situations where that kinda approach makes sense, so I'm not pro-active. 

If you were the recipient of daily discrimination, you would have to deal with it and be pro-active at times. 

Yet there are many different issues in the world and now one person can be pro-active for all of them, so I don't see a nonracist position as problematic. Some people want to focus on other things in life. Yet it becomes problematic if one cloaks themself in non-racism to block progress on racial issues. 

52 minutes ago, datamonster said:

The other day I met a new Ethiopian colleague at work. I think I would've made him feel quite uncomfortable if I immediately brought up racism and the fact that he looks "different" tbh.

This is not the level of consciousness I'm pointing to. 

Imagine that you lived in an Ethiopian village for five years. You were the only white person in this village. Now, you get to experience race in a very different context. You will now have direct experience of what it's like to be the only person of a race in a society. You would get direct experience what it's like to be the recipient of racism. You would get experience what it's like feeling non-belonging based on race. And what it's like for people in Ethiopia to be subjugated to discrimination from other cultures. You would be exposed to issues and perspectives that you didn't even know existed. . . Now imagine that you marry an Ethiopian woman and have two children together. Then your family returns to Germany, where you have to deal with racial issues you never even knew existed. Then one day at work, a person from Ethiopia enters.  Of course, you wouldn't say "You look different", because your understanding and connection would be much deeper than that. 

What I'm pointing at isn't a surface level understanding, it's much deeper holism than that. It includes understanding the paradigm you are stating and beyond. It would be like a Brit who has only lived in England and only speaks having a discussion on inter-national linguistics. They could have a lot to offer, yet they are limited. Someone who spoke 20 different languages and lived in a dozen different cultures would have a much broader understanding. 

[Woke456]

 

55 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

You will now have direct experience of what it's like to be the only person of a race in a society

Luckily for me, I've had that experience.  Well, there are other people from my race here, but we are certainly the minority.  Like overwhelmingly.

And as someone with direct experience in that situation, I can tell you your imagination has gotten the better of you.  Like everything from the whole f-ing book you just wrote on the post above came from your imagination.

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Woke456 said:

Luckily for me, I've had that experience.  Well, there are other people from my race here, but we are certainly the minority.  Like overwhelmingly.

And as someone with direct experience in that situation, I can tell you your imagination has gotten the better of you.  Like everything from the whole f-ing book you just wrote on the post above came from your imagination.

It's all imagination, including what you are imagining.

You are in a different domain than what I am describing. You won't  be able to connect with the lens you are wearing. You would need to remove that lens of interpretation and look with fresh eyes. Yet you seem very attached to your lens. 

2 hours ago, datamonster said:

@Forestluv Sorry, but what are you trying to achieve here?

I don't see it as trying to "achieve" something. I am much more process-oriented than product-oriented.

Imagine exploring a forest with someone and they ask you "what are you trying to achieve here"? 

If I was to choose an achievement, I would say the achievement of seeing a larger system and increasing the number of inter-connections within that system. 

2 hours ago, datamonster said:

@Forestluv 

I feel this is kind of nitpicking and debating about single words that have been or have not been said is really counterproductive and may even result in turning allies into enemies.

And frankly, if you really want to make a positive contribution, I believe there are better ways to spend your time than criticizing those who are already on your side and talking down their approach.

I suppose one could interpret as criticism, yet that isn't my orientation. 

I think the ideas you present have value. I'm not saying those ideas are wrong. Rather, those ideas are within one component of a larger map. Imagine we were constructing a map of Europe and someone pointed out that our map only included Germany and that there are other countries in the larger map of Europe. The map of Germany isn't wrong. Rather, Germany is within Europe and our map is incomplete without other European countries. 

You don't seem interested in looking at other components, which is fine. I wish you the best, 

[Woke456]

41 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

It's all imagination, including what you are imagining.

You are in a different domain than what I am describing. You won't  be able to connect with the lens you are wearing. You would need to remove that lens of interpretation and look with fresh eyes. Yet you seem very attached to your lens. 

My lens is direct experience, yours is race rallying for political purposes.

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, Woke456 said:

My lens is direct experience, yours is race rallying for political purposes.

If the mind is immersed within a paradigm, it will not be able to see how that paradigm is constructed. Notice how you are defending a single lens by saying "my lens is direct experience". This highlights a mind that is attached and identified to *my one lens* and projects a single lens onto another. 

There is a metacognitive view that can observe these dynamics, yet it would mean letting go of one's attachment/identification to a single lens - which you don't seem interested in doing. 

[Woke456]

3 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

If the mind is immersed within a paradigm, it will not be able to see how that paradigm is constructed. Notice how you are defending a single lens by saying "my lens is direct experience". This highlights a mind that is attached and identified to *my one lens* and projects a single lens onto another. 

There is a metacognitive view that can observe these dynamics, yet it would mean letting go of one's attachment/identification to a single lens - which you don't seem interested in doing. 

Sitting around taking psychadelics is passive.  If you want to enhance your cognitive abilities, I would recommend breathing exercises so you can participate much easier in civilization instead of knocking out the part of your brain that categorizes.