Segregation: A Modest Proposal

[coffin_dodger]

One has to read the articles to even begin an attempt at an intelligent assessment.

For a supposedly caring humble man, you project a mighty superior attitude.

Best you put me back on ignore.

[jakell]

Biologically speaking, there’s no such thing as race.

Like I always say, the only reason the concept of "race" even persists is all these assholes who insist on walking around with their eyes open.

Edit: I'll revise my opinions of Joel if, somehow, "biologically speaking" implies something different from, you know, scientifically speaking.

I find the simplistic dichotomy "Is race real, or a social construct?" used on both sides of the divide (ie the race deniers, and the race 'realists'). The inadequacy of a supposed dichotomy can be used to make an opponent's position look erroneous, as it does one's own, but this latter get downplayed

My answer for a while now has been " it is both real and a social construct". Enough people seem to recognise someone's race, with little to no prompting, to make it real enough.

[Luther Blissett]

Nah, I'm actually anti-racist. And I don't even want any white people to die.

This leap from wanting equivalency to promoting genocide is some pretty crazy fantasy.

And given that I work for equivalency, I refuse to be scared of an imaginary conspiracy coming up from people with less power who are plotting as a group to kill me, hurt me, steal my stuff, take my job or my house. It just doesn't exist.

And yes, you caught me. My majority-black neighborhood is not very ideologically diverse; it doesn't have a lot of republican voters for instance. Still probably a pretty big difference between the Eritreans and the hippies though. I didn't think it was any secret that physical proximity in urban areas can promote peace and understanding (one factor countering this is when deep poverty exists in the community) and that children of any race do better in diverse classrooms. I'm not saying it's impossible in rural situations but that's a major uphill battle.

[backtoiam]

I'm not saying it's impossible in rural situations but that's a major uphill battle.

That gave me a chuckle. People that don't live in so called "rural" areas have no idea what the relationship between black and white people is truly like these days other than the stereotype they have been handed. We don't just tolerate one another, we mesh very cohesively, and we enjoy one another. There are a small handfull, very small, of both colors, that don't want to mix but I promise you that they are the exception to the rule. Rosa Parks is history in our minds.

[Luther Blissett]

While I don't doubt your experiences, you don't hear that very often. At least I can say that Rosa Parks is a distant memory here too. I live close enough to rural areas that I can visit all the time and wonder where the black people are, but maybe that's just my region. At least your comment gives me some hope for economic justice outside of the orthodoxy of the models.

But at the same time, this country is urbanizing, with more and more people moving into cities. And as Wombat keeps reiterating, some major cities in certain parts of the country will be host to more and more climate and conflict refugees. I can't imagine many realistic scenarios in which the trend will shift towards ruralization.

[General Patton]

And given that I work for equivalency, I refuse to be scared of an imaginary conspiracy coming up from people with less power who are plotting as a group to kill me, hurt me, steal my stuff, take my job or my house. It just doesn't exist.

Self-organization is a thing. Patterns and behavior that appear to be "conspiracy" can emerge from complex interactions.

I didn't think it was any secret that physical proximity in urban areas can promote peace and understanding (one factor countering this is when deep poverty exists in the community) and that children of any race do better in diverse classrooms.

Apparently it is a secret. I'm aware that injury related death, particularly automobile related ones are higher in rural areas than in urban ones. But this doesn't say anything about peace, understanding or violent crimes. I will say that America has usually done a better job at integrating immigrants and ethnic groups in cities in a peaceful way v. Europe. Then again Europeans are also desperate to replace their aging population as fast as humanly possible, foregoing assimilation altogether.

I'm not saying it's impossible in rural situations but that's a major uphill battle.

Complete cultural victory is hard to accomplish.

I'll be blunter: You're not really anti-racists. You're just anti-capitalists translating everything into racial terms for the rhetorical leverage. If in the near/distant future a brutal campaign of racist persecution against white people could topple capitalism and bring about the revolution you fantasize about, you'd find a way to rationalize away that racism as a form of "anti-racism" or "justice"...in fact, those rationalizations are already being prepared, e.g., whites make spaces unsafe, only whites can ever commit certain sins, white peopl...er, "whiteness" is synonymous with evil, all whites are born responsible for centuries of injustice.

The likely outcome is more walls, more no-go zones.

Another amusing topic: Conservatives do not trust police spokesmen or the media to tell the truth about Polar Bear/Knockout Games/Flashmob attacks that target whites despite normally fully endorsing and trusting police/media statements about criminals, but liberals make a single exception and tend to fully trust their statements that deny any racial bias in the attacks.

[Iamwhomiam]

FourthBasewrote,
Okay, so: When exactly was "racism" redefined solely as a political power calculation instead of an attitude/stance, and who decided it? (Whoever it was, they apparently decided that "racism" can never be reversed, i.e., it's a sin exclusively and permanently committed by white people.)

"Racism" hasn't been redefined. It's always been a political power exerted by the attitude/stance of the ruing elite. And it has always been used by the ruling elite to misdirect the middle and lower classes (composed of and the race of the racist ruling elite) to focus upon as the root for all their woes, rather than they themselves, the true cause of their discomfort.

Sure, racism can be reversed. And someday it will be. And with predictable results.

As I've said, Minorities in any racist system can only be bigoted. And yes, were the circumstances reversed those bigots would become racists and those who were racists would become bigots. But all members of the formerly racist society will pay the retribution for the sins of their former ruling elite.

And, somehow, that in itself is not racist, despite the fact that ethical standards are being segregated and hierarchized according to race?

No, not really, not necessarily. It is supremacist, though.

It's supremacist? Racial supremacism? Yeah, that's racism, the definition of which should not depend on which arbitrary racial categories happen to possess more or less aggregate political power at any given moment in history because that could all change in the relative blink of an eye. Hence, the fear. Because your concept of racism will blind people to such a possibility.

I guess my question is: what exactly is the fear here?

The fear is that people will be collectively demonized as a race and that "anti-racists" like you will ignore it, minimize it, or perhaps even justify it.

Ah, yes, the aforementioned predictable results, but ...

Hell No! Luther will be running for cover right alongside you! Me too.

A homogenized society will remove "race" as a dividing issue among humans and then "race" will be be relegated to reside along with other artifacts from the past in the annals of human history, [quote]




Edited to correct misplaced and missing quote tags and to add the last paragraph.

[General Patton]

As I've said, Minorities in any racist system can only be bigoted. And yes, were the circumstances reversed those bigots would become racists and those who were racists would become bigots. But all members of the formerly racist society will pay the retribution for the sins of their former ruling elite.

See: South Africa. Not a pretty sight.

[FourthBase]

]

"Racism" hasn't been redefined. It's always been a political power exerted by the attitude/stance of the ruing elite. And it has always been used by the ruling elite to misdirect the middle and lower classes (composed of and the race of the racist ruling elite) to focus upon as the root for all their woes, rather than they themselves, the true cause of their discomfort.

No. Once upon a time, the definition of racism was judging people according to their race, one race being better, another being worse. That changed at some point. Presumably some ideologue redefined it some number of years ago to mean what you now think it means and what you claim it has always meant retroactively. I'd like to know who and when.

[Joao]

If you were really interested in the topic and not just out for rhetorical points, you'd find it's not difficult to research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Definitions

As far as ideologues, splitting hairs over dictionary definitions is often a telltale sign.

I hope the smell from this thread doesn't stick on me.

[General Patton]

If you were really interested in the topic and not just out for rhetorical points, you'd find it's not difficult to research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Definitions

As far as ideologues, splitting hairs over dictionary definitions is often a telltale sign.

There is power in being able to define the term to specifically exclude certain groups a people from the label. When most people think of the term racist, I doubt they immediately think of the academic definition.

[Joao]

Didn't realize this was a least common denominator crowd. Now I know.

[General Patton]

Didn't realize this was a least common denominator crowd. Now I know.

[FourthBase]

If you were really interested in the topic and not just out for rhetorical points, you'd find it's not difficult to research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Definitions

Yeah, I was not under the impression that the prevailing sociologist-speak was hard to find. That wiki entry in particular is rather shitty, too. Thanks, though.

As far as ideologues, splitting hairs over dictionary definitions is often a telltale sign.

Right, it's not like the new definition of racism's formula is so important to preserve as is that it's insistently preached verbatim or recited like a fucking mantra or anything.

I hope the smell from this thread doesn't stick on me.

If your darling ideological concepts are so fragile that exposure to commonsensical non-jargon threatens them, then perhaps you've got less to be patronizing about than you imagine.

[backtoiam]

I am under the impression that fourthbase is simply saying that the definition, and hence the meaning of, the word "racism" has been bastardized and defaced in an intentional manner so that it's an intentional weapon of cultural destruction. If that is his point I can only agree. I'm not sure how this could possibly be news for anybody that reads this forum.

Maybe I don't understand and I am missing something, but if that is his message, I cannot imagine that this is anything new for RI readers.

Our younger generations are picking up these distorted definitions of "racism" and acting as unwitting participants in their own cultural demise.

I am amazed that this seems to be so confusing to so many, and that this topic can garner this much serious debate and discussion around here. Sign of the times I guess, and a representative example of the destructive power of the definition of words and concepts.