> United States society has been problematically lumping people together based on skin tone
Wouldn't the best solution to this problem represent a rejection of such categorization? Wouldn't that necessarily exclude "X for Black People" in the same way it excludes "X for White People"? I'd like to live in a society where skin tone is no more important than hair color. Surely the best way to get there is to de-emphasize skin tone and therefore "blackness" and "whiteness"?
> What evidence do you have that this defines a cultural group (whatever that is)?
From tptacek in another post:
"Black culture ... was created artificially by kidnapping millions of people from the African content and stripping them of their cultures, family ties, and names, prompting those people to construct a new culture (while uniting them for another 100 years in the experience of apartheid and the civil rights movement). It's its own powerful, interesting thing."
I have a hard time disagreeing - it seems to be a distinct cultural group.
> Few people share your distinctions, so it's impractical
I disagree. I would say many people are able to make the distinction, and the lack of appropriate terminology to discuss it is universally frustrating.
> More importantly, it's impossible to distinguish criticism that is racist from that which is not.
It's quite easy. If you criticize a practice of cannibalizing visitors then it's reasonably clear the culture/practices are at issue, not the inherent traits of the people, unless of course we can prove some genetic predisposition to cannibalism.
> arguably non-racist but critical in order to encourage and spread racism
Yes doublespeak is a thing, but that doesn't mean frank discussion should be off the table.
> But being born in a neighborhood to a culture doesn't make you responsible
I would say that it exactly does. Who else can be responsible for a culture's practices than the people who maintain and perpetuate that culture?
> space for criticizing black people. Why is that important? How about we focus on the overwhelming problem, racism?
Because these are intrinsically related. As long as we can't disentangle the criticism and solutionizing of very real problems with black culture and ideology from racist bigotry against black people we'll never solve the problem. As long as black people are in a special class that's protected from serious criticism they can never be equal to the rest of us.
>> United States society has been problematically lumping people together based on skin tone
> Wouldn't the best solution to this problem represent a rejection of such categorization? Wouldn't that necessarily exclude "X for Black People" in the same way it excludes "X for White People"? I'd like to live in a society where skin tone is no more important than hair color. Surely the best way to get there is to de-emphasize skin tone and therefore "blackness" and "whiteness"?
That would be ideal and I want to live in that world too. I also want to live in a world without war, but for now I support having a military because war is still a thing. Today, tomorrow, and likely for years to come, African-Americans do and will suffer from racism and are stereotyped into a class by much of society. Also, they should do whatever they want; who are you and I to tell them what to do? Why do they need your approval?
> As long as black people are in a special class that's protected from serious criticism they can never be equal to the rest of us.
That's not at all what puts African-Americans into a different class and makes them be seen as unequal by racists. The racists and systematic racism are the overwhelming cause; the discrimination and classes is already there; the question is, how do we provide 'liberty and justice for all' to the people in that class, as best we can, while it persists?
>> More importantly, it's impossible to distinguish criticism that is racist from that which is not.
> It's quite easy. If you criticize a practice of cannibalizing visitors then it's reasonably clear the culture/practices are at issue
Again, it's not; you call it double-speak.
>> But being born in a neighborhood to a culture doesn't make you responsible
> I would say that it exactly does. Who else can be responsible for a culture's practices than the people who maintain and perpetuate that culture?
How do you know if that individual 'maintains and perpetuates' the culture - culture being an undefinable, changing thing, defined by you? And if they do, what about you and I therefore maintaining and perpetuating widespread racism, which is common among white people, and which is probably the worst evil of American history?
Why is it so important to you to criticize other people's business? How about we focus on our own 'culture', conduct and its consequences?
They clearly don't. I'm just pointing out that "X for Black People" seems to perpetuate and deepen racial tension and division, rather than helping alleviate them. It's moving the needle in the wrong direction, much like a nuclear arms race would.
> The racists and systematic racism are the overwhelming cause
This is not at all clear, and is hideously complicated (see below). To what degree are cultural practices prevalent in (some) black neighborhoods responsible for outcomes?
Yes but as I said, its existence shouldn't take frank discussion of the table.
> How do you know if that individual 'maintains and perpetuates' the culture
I'm no cultural anthropologist, but if an individual engages in a cultural practice that they learned from the cultural group they are a member of, then they can be seen to be perpetuating that practice.
> And if they do, what about you and I therefore maintaining and perpetuating widespread racism, which is common among white people
It's quite simple: I don't engage in the practice of racial discrimination or bigotry, in spite of the fact that it was a common practice among my family and community. I have therefore identified a cultural practice which I consider wrong (or just plain dumb), and consciously chosen not to engage in the practice and not perpetuate it. I am thus an active participant in the evolution and stewardship of my culture. I expect the same from everyone else.
> Why is it so important to you to criticize other people's business? How about we focus on our own conduct and its consequences?
These are not mutually exclusive. I'm not aware of any issues with my conduct. However given this topic's overall popularity, polarization and the aforementioned problematically overloaded terminology, I find it extremely beneficial that these conversations be had in whatever forums can support them. To me, this is what depolarization looks like.
A bit strange you're not even willing to entertain other causes, or elaborate a even little as to why this is absurd, no? This stuff isn't exactly universally agreed on, academically speaking.
Wouldn't the best solution to this problem represent a rejection of such categorization? Wouldn't that necessarily exclude "X for Black People" in the same way it excludes "X for White People"? I'd like to live in a society where skin tone is no more important than hair color. Surely the best way to get there is to de-emphasize skin tone and therefore "blackness" and "whiteness"?
> What evidence do you have that this defines a cultural group (whatever that is)?
From tptacek in another post:
"Black culture ... was created artificially by kidnapping millions of people from the African content and stripping them of their cultures, family ties, and names, prompting those people to construct a new culture (while uniting them for another 100 years in the experience of apartheid and the civil rights movement). It's its own powerful, interesting thing."
I have a hard time disagreeing - it seems to be a distinct cultural group.
> Few people share your distinctions, so it's impractical
I disagree. I would say many people are able to make the distinction, and the lack of appropriate terminology to discuss it is universally frustrating.
> More importantly, it's impossible to distinguish criticism that is racist from that which is not.
It's quite easy. If you criticize a practice of cannibalizing visitors then it's reasonably clear the culture/practices are at issue, not the inherent traits of the people, unless of course we can prove some genetic predisposition to cannibalism.
> arguably non-racist but critical in order to encourage and spread racism
Yes doublespeak is a thing, but that doesn't mean frank discussion should be off the table.
> But being born in a neighborhood to a culture doesn't make you responsible
I would say that it exactly does. Who else can be responsible for a culture's practices than the people who maintain and perpetuate that culture?
> space for criticizing black people. Why is that important? How about we focus on the overwhelming problem, racism?
Because these are intrinsically related. As long as we can't disentangle the criticism and solutionizing of very real problems with black culture and ideology from racist bigotry against black people we'll never solve the problem. As long as black people are in a special class that's protected from serious criticism they can never be equal to the rest of us.