Any statement of the form "[Racial identifier] men/women/people are [criticizing adjective]" is per se racist.
If one wants to argue that wide-ranging systemic racism is worse than incidental one-off racist comments, I totally get that and I'm inclined to agree. But trying to redefine "racism" to exclude racism against a certain group is not acceptable.
1984 was a cautionary tale, not a how-to guide. If a proposed method of political argument requires redefining the English language, that should give one pause.
It's a bigoted statement, but holds no power over white people, and so is not racist. Racism is about the systematic oppression of certain groups. White people are not systematically oppressed in America, unlike black people. It's not great to have bigoted views either way, but it's not a threat to whites the same way as blacks due to America's societal structure. I'm sure that doesn't make you feel better to have someone call you fragile, but it doesn't harm your ability to live your life.
This is the Marxist conception of racism, because Marxists believe that any interaction between two people is primarily one of power. People who don't believe that every single interaction they have with someone is predicated on the power struggle between the groups they belong to, have no problem excluding systemic oppression from their definition of racism, because they believe that interactions exist between two individuals. If one individual makes a blanket statement about a person because of a racial group that they belong to, then that's racist, if you believe in the divinity of the individual.
No, it's a concept of racism that originates with people who abandoned Marxism for bourgeois identity politics. The right likes to call it “Marxist” because it originated with former Marxists and exists within a dialectical framework which replaces the Marxist class-conflict framework with a racial-conflict one, but it is very much not—and in some ways fundamentally opposed to—Marxism.
Stop and really think about what it means to be systematically oppressed, and who exactly this is happening to. You can start with the lawsuit attacking Harvard for systematic oppression of Asians, and then notice that there is a whole ranking of races. You can also look at the federal contracting rules which systematically oppress companies that are run by people who happen to be white.
So yes, there is systematic oppression, but it doesn't run in the direction you assume it does. If systematic oppression really gives one a get-out-of-racism-free card, then please note who that card belongs to.
12 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 40.9 ms ] threadIf one wants to argue that wide-ranging systemic racism is worse than incidental one-off racist comments, I totally get that and I'm inclined to agree. But trying to redefine "racism" to exclude racism against a certain group is not acceptable.
1984 was a cautionary tale, not a how-to guide. If a proposed method of political argument requires redefining the English language, that should give one pause.
No, it's a concept of racism that originates with people who abandoned Marxism for bourgeois identity politics. The right likes to call it “Marxist” because it originated with former Marxists and exists within a dialectical framework which replaces the Marxist class-conflict framework with a racial-conflict one, but it is very much not—and in some ways fundamentally opposed to—Marxism.
So yes, there is systematic oppression, but it doesn't run in the direction you assume it does. If systematic oppression really gives one a get-out-of-racism-free card, then please note who that card belongs to.
I guess this is a good thing in that the worse censorship gets, the more people will realize we need decentralized web services.