I wonder if the people who say stuff like "every white person is racist" realise they are actually spouting racism themselves? To think there are teachers who "teach" this to their students is completely terrifying to me we can only hope the students are smarter than the teacher in this case.
It's definitely an oversimplification.
But in more ways than not, too many white people feed into our racist culture. But then so too do many minorities. It's just especially more harmful when those things are perpetuated by white people cause they hold the majority of economic power in society.
I'd say that everyone is racially biased because of society's influence (i.e. little black girl choosing white doll over black doll), but most minorities will have worked their way out of it after some time just due to life experience with racism, whereas many white people, short of being shamed out of it, will continue on their merry way cause racism doesn't affect them. And in that sense, they continue to uphold a racist structure.
Is every white person racist? No. Is every white person who doesn't actively combat racism guilty of keeping it alive... yes.
Take it from MLK himself
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
But in more ways than not, too many white people feed into our racist culture. But then so too do many minorities. It's just especially more harmful when those things are perpetuated by white people cause they hold the majority of economic power in society.
I'd say that everyone is racially biased because of society's influence (little black girl choosing white doll over black doll), but most minorities will have worked their way out of it after some time just due to life experience, whereas many white people, short of being shamed out of it, will continue on their merry way cause racism doesn't affect them. And in that sense, they continue to uphold a racist structure.
Is every white person racist? No. Is every white person who doesn't actively combat racism guilty of keeping it alive... yes.
I have no problem with people discussing and teaching about racial inequalities such as unequal distribution of wealth, education opportunities, harsher prison sentences for black people and similiar issues. It's the generalised statements such as the one I pointed out that are terrible in my eyes since they mostly benefit no one because they are regressive in nature and cause nothing but devision
Quote:
Is every white person racist? No
Glad we can agree on my initial point.
However my question is what exactly do you consider actively combating racism?
Surely not being racist yourself is a given but is there anything more you require a person to do?
I have no problem with people discussing and teaching about racial inequalities such as unequal distribution of wealth, education opportunities, harsher prison sentences for black people and similiar issues. It's the generalised statements such as the one I pointed out that are terrible in my eyes since they mostly benefit no one because they are regressive in nature and cause nothing but devision
Glad we can agree on my initial point.
However my question is what exactly do you consider actively combating racism?
Surely not being racist yourself is a given but is there anything more you require a person to do?
Right. Generally speaking, hyperboles and overstating the point are terrible ways to communicate. Lol. That, I guess, is a result of the attention-seeking twitter generation today. Everyone wants to be heard, and the more shocking things you say, the more attention you get.
On your question:
Like MLK said, staying silent on injustice is more harmful than what the Klansman do. It maintains the status quo (and allows people like the Klansman to continue what they do). And if that status quo is hurting your fellow men, then you're part of the problem. Because change doesn't come until the majority is swayed. So actively combating racism is anything from being a voice in the cause, to donating to organizations that direct the cause, to playing some part in moving the cause and its message forward.
There's no middle ground when it comes to injustice. You're either for it or against it. And not being racist is the expectation. Nobody gets points for that.
These people are truly doing no one a favor. The videos seem to be directed at people who actually hate muslims and those people have that mindset and won't change it no matter what. They'd spend their time more productively if they looked at Islam in an honest and critical way, owning up to what's wrong with it and then shed light on reformers in the muslim world and support them. All of this would have a much more beneficial effect than mindlessly defending Islam in a deliberately deceitful way.
Right. I can never understand this presentation of Islam.
Surely less people would be inclined to side with extreme anti-Islam sentiments if we (i.e. the generally liberal side) could respectfully challenge some of its more harmful rhetoric. I hate how Islam will get a free pass because of Islamophobia, but there's really no word for being anti-regressive Catholic/Christian teachings.
The double standard is unproductive. Everyone needs to be held to the same moral standard in regard to human rights and dignity. If Christianity could evolve, so can Islam.
Right. Generally speaking, hyperboles and overstating the point are terrible ways to communicate. Lol. That, I guess, is a result of the attention-seeking twitter generation today. Everyone wants to be heard, and the more shocking things you say, the more attention you get.
On your question:
Like MLK said, staying silent on injustice is more harmful than what the Klansman do. It maintains the status quo (and allows people like the Klansman to continue what they do). And if that status quo is hurting your fellow men, then you're part of the problem. Because change doesn't come until the majority is swayed. So actively combating racism is anything from being a voice in the cause, to donating to organizations that direct the cause, to playing some part in moving the cause and its message forward.
There's no middle ground when it comes to injustice. You're either for it or against it. And not being racist is the expectation. Nobody gets points for that.
Yes, it's very similiar to the the-louder-I-am-the-more-I-am-right-approach that is way too common these days. Also agree on what you said in the bolded part.
Speaking out and causing conversion to take place is the easiest way to get involved.
To have discussions with people you know, electing politicians who have intentions to do something about it and protesting peacefully if necessary
Right. I can never understand this presentation of Islam.
Surely less people would be inclined to side with extreme anti-Islam sentiments if we (i.e. the generally liberal side) could respectfully challenge some of its more harmful rhetoric. I hate how Islam will get a free pass because of Islamophobia, but there's really no word for being anti-regressive Catholic/Christian teachings.
The double standard is unproductive. Everyone needs to be held to the same moral standard in regard to human rights and dignity. If Christianity could evolve, so can Islam.
yeah, religions have bad laws. Political laws can reform, religious can't, so the best way is to drop the religious views back where they belong: in the past with other religions that came and disappear.
I agree, everything she and Arielle said about this topic is true
Very much agree with what they are saying.
I understand that everyone experiences life differently and that no one is 100% made of feminine or masculine traits but this constant coming up with new labels is beyond pointless.
For example I love Gilmore Girls and it's usually considered to be a feminine show but that doesn't mean I am non-binary or bi-gender. Neither does cutting your hair short as a girl and wearing "masculine" clothing. It's just being a normal person with different personality traits,experimenting with fashion and having varied interests that may not always fit the classic expecatations for your gender. There's no need to make up a new word for every tiny thing.
I fully support people's right to indentify as whatever they want to and I hope they find people who will keep up with their made up pronouns and gender identities but pushing this through law and attacking everyone who doesn't "get it" is not going to do their "cause" any favors and is frankly annoying as hell.
Don't know what Arielle's views are as I don't follow her or care about her but what she said in that video was on point. Instead of trying to attack someone as usual for stuff that isn't relevant to the topic at hand maybe try to adress the points she makes in that video if you want to respond to it?
Onision using the classic "no one needs your opinion white,cisgirl" tactic
A perfect display of the core problem with intersectionality when it's used by cluesless people and that is that it completely invalidates any criticism of it. If you don't belong to that group you have to "check your privilege" and your opinion is rendered worthless If you do belong to that group and criticize it you are accused of having "internalised raicms,tansphobia etc." and your opinion is, again, rendered worthless.
Don't know what Arielle's views are as I don't follow her or care about her but what she said in that video was on point. Instead of trying to attack someone as usual for stuff that isn't relevant to the topic at hand maybe try to adress the points she makes in that video if you want to respond to it?
Onision using the classic "no one needs your opinion white,cisgirl" tactic
A perfect display of the core problem with intersectionality when it's used by cluesless people and that is that it completely invalidates any criticism of it. If you don't belong to that group you have to "check your privilege" and your opinion is rendered worthless If you do belong to that group and criticize it you are accused of having "internalised raicms,tansphobia etc." and your opinion is, again, rendered worthless.
exactly!
speaking of trans folks, didn't Blaire White ended that Kat girl from the last video?
The idea of the West being a rape culture is definitely disrespectful to women who live in actual cultures where they have no legal rights when it comes to rape or women who are raped before being stoned to death for it . The analogy of the homeless guy asking for money=mugging culture Blaire put forth was spot on.
I mean I am sorry there are creepy idiots out there who can't deal with rejection and are stubborn even where there clearly is no interest and catcall but overblowing this issue is not the solution.
But obviously calling it "getting unwanted compliments on the street culture" is not going to get people interested in your movement and idiology now is it?
I also hate how there are people who try to demean people who teach girls how to protect themselves. The idea is so asinene and dangerous. It is not victim blaming to tell girls that they have to be careful.
Just applying this idea to different scenarios shows how dumb this logic is:
"Don't teach kids to look left and right before crossing the road, teach drivers not to run someone over"
"Don't teach people to watch out while going through a questionable neighborhood, teach the people not to commit homicide"
If we could get rid off rapists,muderers and other dangerous people by something as simple as teaching them not to do it we would've gotten rid off them long ago.
Don't know what Arielle's views are as I don't follow her or care about her but what she said in that video was on point. Instead of trying to attack someone as usual for stuff that isn't relevant to the topic at hand maybe try to adress the points she makes in that video if you want to respond to it?
...not relevant?
She's talking about nonbinary folks.
Nonbinary folks are trans. Being nonbinary inherently makes you trans.
She even USES trans folks as a chip to invalidate NB trans folks ("some ACTUALLY trans folks I know don't even think there are more than 2 genders!"). She's transphobic regarding binary trans people, so her transphobic ass needs to keep her mouth shut re: nonbinary trans folks.
And what valid points? She gave her opinion with literally no back-up ("I just think there's 2 genders, anything else is gender expression" - okay, explain the scientific reasoning behind it. The human mind is complex enough than any other species that gender identity is even a thing, but you MAGICALLY think it could only imagine 2. Arielle seems to hate science and the human brain). She literally only offers anecdotes ("most NB people I know are under 25!"). Y'all might as well be posting David Duke's opinion on how many races there are.
Nonbinary folks are trans. Being nonbinary inherently makes you trans.
She even USES trans folks as a chip to invalidate NB trans folks ("some ACTUALLY trans folks I know don't even think there are more than 2 genders!"). She's transphobic regarding binary trans people, so her transphobic ass needs to keep her mouth shut re: nonbinary trans folks.
And what valid points? She gave her opinion with literally no back-up ("I just think there's 2 genders, anything else is gender expression" - okay, explain the scientific reasoning behind it. The human mind is complex enough than any other species that gender identity is even a thing, but you MAGICALLY think it could only imagine 2. Arielle seems to hate science and the human brain). She literally only offers anecdotes ("most NB people I know are under 25!"). Y'all might as well be posting David Duke's opinion on how many races there are.
Why would you ask for scientific evidence when scientific evidence suggests that there are two genders? Calling anecdotal evidence pointless in your position seems strange since all the "evidence" for NB identities is anecdotal and not scientific?
At least I have never heard of a credible paper,reasearch or study that supports non-binary identities( if you know of some I'd love to read them).
And again no one is suggesting there are two strict identities that fit everyone and I agree on gender being a spectrum in the sense that hardly anyone fits 100% feminine or masculine expectations and people vary in this area but you don't need a new label for every gradation along the way.
Science tells us there's (mainly) two sexes. This is not gender.
What you're doing is like race biologists trying to measure the skulls of human beings and make "categories" of races based on certain data (which.....led to really awful things and people studying how to eliminate specific races).
The way, for example, many anthropologists as scientists in the last few decades classified and examined "race" with groupings like mongoloid, negroid, etc. (many of whom would go on to later suggest being "mongoloid" was linked to having downs syndrome...) was deemed unethical and IS clearly different from the way PEOPLE see race as a social construction. If you can't separate how something exists as a social construction to a very rigid (often outdated) scientific way to tackle it, you have a very rigid view of the 'sciences' that lacks nuance.
White latinos are considered white in certain cultures, but people of color in others because racialization is a social phenomena and the way race is socially constructed varies by societal system. Should we then say unless white latinos' skulls in America don't vary from white latinos' skulls in Colombia, words like "racialization" and "people of color" are useless? Of course not, because science does not start and stop at biology, does not start and stop in the realm of a science lab where views on the world are restricted to just test tubes and the physical. If you don't consider the social sciences, your "science is law" approach is just dishonest and fraudulent.
If you can't recognize that gender identity is something socially constructed and completely different (and almost impossible for us to tackle scientifically, just as the way race is socially constructed and cannot truly be summed up by very outdated and offensive racial biology) than your very clinical grasp on the sexes, you can't have this conversation honestly. Until you recognize the reality that sex =/= gender, everything you say will be intellectually dishonest.
we can only hope the students are smarter than the teacher in this case.
Take it from MLK himself
