The New White Supremacy Opposes Color Blindness

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you blame the fact that black people need less sunscreen on how humans classify?

I'm confused. Are you just trying to avoid the obvious differences?

What? Do you remember your question?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


That was never one of his dreams and it has been discussed many times over.

“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

That is not the same as saying he wanted us to be color blind.

Why not?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

Thats not white privilege. Thats a racist system.

Meanwhile cajuns amd gypsies mostly get left out of this perceived privilege

No matter what we want to call it, I think you would agree that it exists.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


That was never one of his dreams and it has been discussed many times over.

“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

That is not the same as saying he wanted us to be color blind.

Why not?

To judge people by the content of their character is the right thing to do. To be color blind is to be ignorant.

Regardless, that is a minor point compared to the rest of your OP, which as I stated is incorrect.

a reply to: introvert

I believe its not white privilege. I believe that its more the remnants of a political and law enforcement system that was based on suppressing the newly freed slaves.

Its not really a debate that the Civil War was less about freeing slaves, and more about economics, politics, and preserving the union by asserting federalism. This can be seen by the rampant racism that pervaded the north AND south after the freeing of the slaves. Add to this that having all these new workers in the system didn't help people struggling financially (especially in the south where reconstruction made a painful situation out of sheer spite, and increased racial division out of return spite)

So you end up with stuff like the sentiment that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote, or own firearms. How do you make this happen, after SCOTUS has already made suppressing these rights illegal? Create the fallacy of "felons". This allows you to then create law that targets typical cultural behaviors seen in this isolated minority (at the time, anyway), turning them into felons.

If you want to remove white privilege, or what passes for it, the real answer is removing the hurdles that were put in place a couple of generations ago which keep black people from finding success. The proof is in the statistics we talk about daily. Black men are imprisoned much more frequently, and for longer periods of time, than any other race. Fix that, restore the family unit to that community, and lets see how much strength begins to develop.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


That was never one of his dreams and it has been discussed many times over.

“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

That is not the same as saying he wanted us to be color blind.

Why not?

To judge people by the content of their character is the right thing to do. To be color blind is to be ignorant.

Regardless, that is a minor point compared to the rest of your OP, which as I stated is incorrect.

Judging people by the content of their character, and not their skin color, is color blind-ness. Doesn’t sound ignorant to me. It sounds rational. But like I said, MLKs children are being judged by the color of their skin, for the reasons I stated.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I would not disagree one bit and I think you have hit the nail on the head.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


That was never one of his dreams and it has been discussed many times over.

“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

That is not the same as saying he wanted us to be color blind.

Why not?

To judge people by the content of their character is the right thing to do. To be color blind is to be ignorant.

Regardless, that is a minor point compared to the rest of your OP, which as I stated is incorrect.

Judging people by the content of their character, and not their skin color, is color blind-ness.

No it is not. That is judging people by the content of their character. In doing so, you can still be aware of someone's color and what that may mean to them in regards of history, culture, etc.

The most significant issue to be addressed by this essay is how Martin Luther King, Jr.'s legacy has been misused in support of the colorblind thesis. As noted in the prologue, King dreamed that one day his "four little children [would] live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." This statement has been wrenched out of the social and political context in which King lived and died and has been misappropriated by some proponents of colorblindness who erroneously argue that "if colorblindness was good enough for Martin Luther King. . .then it ought to be good enough for a society that still aspires to the movement's goals of equality and fair treatment." This incorrect and ahistorical perversion of King's statement distorts his actual views and legacy, and illustrates the dangers of the misuse of "acontextual snippets."

academic.udayton.edu...

And Like I said earlier, this is but a small point compared to your overall thesis, which is incorrect.

a reply to: introvert

Allowing your skin color or racial background to "mean something" is part of where racism derives from. When it "means something" it becomes a pillar of ego.

That is the handbasket we ride to this hell in, as any challenge to the ego is met with irrational extremeness.

a reply to: introvert

No it is not. That is judging people by the content of their character. In doing so, you can still be aware of someone's color and what that may mean to them in regards of history, culture, etc.

Colorblindness (when it comes to race) is not about being pretending to be unaware of the color of one's skin. That's an absurd misrepresentation, as are the rest of your remarks, which are incorrect.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Allowing your skin color or racial background to "mean something" is part of where racism derives from. When it "means something" it becomes a pillar of ego.

Just because someone's skin color means something to them in the context of history or culture, etc, does not mean they believe their race is superior to others, which is the definition of racism.

a reply to: introvert

Knowing your cultural history...no problem.

Taking pride in your cultural history...thats the problem.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Colorblindness (when it comes to race) is not about being pretending to be unaware of the color of one's skin.

That is not what I said. Please re-read my post for full context. And we are talking about colorblindness in a social context, not governmental, etc.

That's an absurd misrepresentation, as are the rest of your remarks, which are incorrect.

By definition, your OP is incorrect. The people and situations you describe do not advocate for racial superiority of one race over the other, which is what white supremacy is.

It's a false equivalence.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

Knowing your cultural history...no problem.

Taking pride in your cultural history...thats the problem.

I do not see what's wrong with taking pride in cultural history, if that's what one wants to do. It's when they take that pride and begin to assert that their race is somehow more superior in any manner is when the problems start.

a reply to: introvert

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." - Einstein

Although he wrote this with the Nazi's in mind, I think we can find that it applies throughout recorded history. I firmly believe that nationalism is a lowbrow pursuit.

Nationalism begets racism, at least in any context we are familiar with.

Pride is the starting point for this. To have pride implies a perceived superiority. DOes this mean you are going to march with effigy's of various outlying groups? No. But it does seem to indicate participating in borrowed valor, as your cultures pro's and con's have nothing to do with you individually. Implied superiority based on no actions of your own, other than being born in the proper location.

I like people taking pride in themselves. Be proud of who you are, and if you aren't, make some changes. But pride in something that you are only a part of, and have had no real impact in creating to begin with, seems like resting on the laurels of our ancestors.

a reply to: introvert

By definition, your OP is incorrect. The people and situations you describe do not advocate for racial superiority of one race over the other, which is what white supremacy is.

It's a false equivalence.

The notion that there is only one definition of racism is incorrect.

Race-ism, the root word "race" appended with the suffix "-ism", (and racialism) is literally the belief in race, that human beings can be subdivided into races. No appeal to definition will change that.

Just from a brief look at Wikipedia:

The term racism is a noun describing the state of being racist, i.e., subscribing to the belief that the human population can or should be classified into races with differential abilities and dispositions, which in turn may motivate a political ideology in which rights and privileges are differentially distributed based on racial categories.

Racism

Now these deviations in definition may represent our own cultural differences, and we could argue over definitions, but this is the way I am using the term.

That is not what I said. Please re-read my post for full context. And we are talking about colorblindness in a social context, not governmental, etc.

I am talking about colorblindness as a principle. Principles can and do apply to everything.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I like people taking pride in themselves. Be proud of who you are, and if you aren't, make some changes. But pride in something that you are only a part of, and have had no real impact in creating to begin with, seems like resting on the laurels of our ancestors.

I can agree with that, but as you just said, it's ok to take pride in oneself. For who they are, etc.

That does not mean they think they are superior in any manner. Much like nationalism. Being proud of one's country for what they have achieved is just fine. Being an ultra-nationalist and thinking their nation is better than others is dangerous.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Now these deviations in definition may represent our own cultural differences, and we could argue over definitions, but this is the way I am using the term.

That makes no sense either because you are literally comparing these people to white supremacists, who think their race is superior, which coincides with the definition I referred to.

Also, the people you describe are not "subscribing to the belief that the human population can or should be classified into races with differential abilities and dispositions, which in turn may motivate a political ideology in which rights and privileges are differentially distributed based on racial categories."

I think what you are describing is placating or pandering. Racism, whether you use your definition or not, does not seem applicable.

a reply to: introvert

That makes no sense either because you are literally comparing these people to white supremacists, who think their race is superior, which coincides with the definition I referred to.

Yes I am comparing them to white supremacists, as I stipulated in both the title and in the arguments. You're arguing over what racism means, not what white supremacy is.