Support NeoGAF

[cdyhybrid]

Great article and much truth in it.

But one thing that worries me lately, and this is coming from my experience in college academia both learning about and teaching critical race theory is that our ability to speak complexly on race issues has become too dependent on terms that are esoteric and require their own study to grasp. Concepts and truths like privilege, white privilege, white fragility, white guilt, violence, safety, oppression, equity, etc are not only difficult to understand but simultaneously require a genuine commitment by all parties to negotiate the very difficult emotional journey that goes along with them.

I don't know how this kind of education can take place at the everyday level, in casual conversation, or even in K-12 education. It seems like a college education or very formal educational trappings are needed to really educate people about race, but that immediately narrows who is even reachable.

Getting our public education out of the gutter would be a great start.

Spoiler

Why do you think the GOP wants to gut education?

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Smart enough to figure Blue Lies Matter, Police Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, and all the others to shut down conversations

Yes, Blue Lies do matter, because they're what help some law enforcement get away with murder.

 

[watershed]

Getting our public education out of the gutter would be a great start.

Spoiler

Why do you think the GOP wants to gut education?

In the case of how effectively or ineffectively we teach people about race, I think its far less about money and far more about ideology. Poor, racially diverse schools, in my experience, do a much better job of teaching students about race and racial history because there is an urgency and need to do so along with (sometimes) serious commitment from school leadership to do so. It is considered educationally valuable. In other schools, much less so due to different beliefs. To me that's not down to money but rather ideology and educational priorities.

 

[Trident]

If you're going to trip yourself up deliberately over the term as if you don't understand it, no one will take anything you have to say seriously. Different levels for different folks. Some of this needs to be graduated up to for some I guess.

What is the benefit of using exaggerated language other than to egg on the sort of dismissive defensiveness in the listener that this very article is correctly critiquing? We already have other words to accurately describe the wrong.

I mean, I'm Jewish, but I can still recognize the difference between stating Mein Kampf inspired violence and claiming it itself is violence.

 

[Syncytia]

Great article and much truth in it.

But one thing that worries me lately, and this is coming from my experience in college academia both learning about and teaching critical race theory is that our ability to speak complexly on race issues has become too dependent on terms that are esoteric and require their own study to grasp. Concepts and truths like privilege, white privilege, white fragility, white guilt, violence, safety, oppression, equity, etc are not only difficult to understand but simultaneously require a genuine commitment by all parties to negotiate the very difficult emotional journey that goes along with them.

I don't know how this kind of education can take place at the everyday level, in casual conversation, or even in K-12 education. It seems like a college education or very formal educational trappings are needed to really educate people about race, but that immediately narrows who is even reachable.

This is a very good point. Explaining structural racism to my college educated father was a two week project.

 

[SENPAIatLARGE]

When all you know is privilege, equality feels like oppression

 

[Funkyhamster]

I read an op-ed on Vox or Slate recently that presented an argument for why "identity politics" are important and should not be ignored (it was part of the backlash against the backlash). It had a small aside in which the author criticized some aspects of today's activism, and in it, she argued in favor of re-branding these issues as matters of "civil rights" or "equality" rather than "privilege." She wrote something to the effect of, "vanishingly few people are interested in dismantling their own privilege." Unfortunately, I don't have a link, but I thought that the point is worth considering.

I had a conversation with a male friend recently about social issues in which he stated, point blank, "if feminism is about equal power for women, then why should I support it? Why shouldn't I want to keep my power?" I worry that these attitudes are not that rare, and that fundamentally, privileged people know exactly what they're really arguing for and genuinely just don't care.

Especially if defensive reactions against accusations of privilege are conscious, but even if they're unconscious, is expecting that defensiveness to stop a viable strategy? Or should we figure out rhetorical strategies to get around that defensiveness? Such strategies could include using terms that are more palatable to privileged people, or reframing arguments in a way that appeals either to self-interest ("diverse companies are more successful") or to specific moral codes that people follow ("the teachings of Christianity say that you should love your neighbor").

Maybe these thoughts ultimately stem from a cynicism I have about human nature lately. It seems like humans are inherently sort of selfish, tribalist, and generally shitty, and that positive change happens when we somehow manage to overcome those instincts. If that impression is correct, is it reasonable to expect that people will magically "snap out of it" and feel like dismantling their own privilege? Or do we have to more methodically coax them into caring about other people?

I want to note that I'm not suggesting that oppressed people have a moral obligation to be nice to their oppressors. Far from it -- I think that Trump voters have committed an act of moral failure, and I recognize that this country is built on a series of injustices that are perpetuated constantly in modern society. I just wonder if, tactically, it might be more effective to appeal more to peoples' self-interest than to their selflessness in the service of making positive change happen.

 

[Deepwater]

I read an op-ed on Vox or Slate recently that presented an argument for why "identity politics" are important and should not be ignored (it was part of the backlash against the backlash). It had a small aside in which the author criticized some aspects of today's activism, and in it, she argued in favor of re-branding these issues as matters of "civil rights" or "equality" rather than "privilege." She wrote something to the effect of, "vanishingly few people are interested in dismantling their own privilege." Unfortunately, I don't have a link, but I thought that the point is worth considering.

I had a conversation with a male friend recently about social issues in which he stated, point blank, "if feminism is about equal power for women, then why should I support it? Why shouldn't I want to keep my power?" I worry that these attitudes are not that rare, and that fundamentally, privileged people know exactly what they're really arguing for and genuinely just don't care.

Especially if defensive reactions against accusations of privilege are conscious, but even if they're unconscious, is expecting that defensiveness to stop a viable strategy? Or should we figure out rhetorical strategies to get around that defensiveness? Such strategies could include using terms that are more palatable to privileged people, or reframing arguments in a way that appeals either to self-interest ("diverse companies are more successful") or to specific moral codes that people follow ("the teachings of Christianity say that you should love your neighbor").

Maybe these thoughts ultimately stem from a cynicism I have about human nature lately. It seems like humans are inherently sort of selfish, tribalist, and generally shitty, and that positive change happens when we somehow manage to overcome those instincts. If that impression is correct, is it reasonable to expect that people will magically "snap out of it" and feel like dismantling their own privilege? Or do we have to more methodically coax them into caring about other people?

I want to note that I'm not suggesting that oppressed people have a moral obligation to be nice to their oppressors. Far from it -- I think that Trump voters have committed an egregious act of moral failure, and I recognize that this country is built on a series of injustices that are perpetuated constantly in modern society. I just wonder if, tactically, it might be more effective to appeal more to peoples' self-interest than to their selflessness in the service of making positive change happen.

Sometimes the right path isn't the path of least resistance

 

[PBalfredo]

Sorry, but this is tripping me up; why is the article referring rhetorical counterattacks of uncomfortable white people, as shitty and disingenuous as they are, as violence? I initially though the premise of the article was linking white fragility to actual violence, like police shootings.

Semantics aside, I do agree with the article. So often we see criticism interpreted as an attack, that some feel the need to immediately counterattack. It reminds me of how even the benign criticism of media, things like Tropes Vs Women, is often misrepresented by GGers and the like as calls for censorship.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Less than your ignorance

He's not ignorant, just being needlessly provocative. He always spouts this crap and knows full well it's trash.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Sorry, but this is tripping me up; why is the article referring rhetorical counterattacks of uncomfortable white people, as shitty and disingenuous as they are, as violence? I initially though the premise of the article was linking white fragility to actual violence, like police shootings.

Semantics aside, I do agree with the article. So often we see criticism interpreted as an attack, that some feel the need to immediately counterattack. It reminds me of how even the benign criticism of media, things like Tropes Vs Women, is often misrepresented by GGers and the like as calls for censorship.

There are more types of violence than simply physical violence.

 

[D i Z]

What is the benefit of using exaggerated language other than to egg on the sort of dismissive defensiveness in the listener that this very article is correctly critiquing? We already have other words to accurately describe the wrong.

I mean, I'm Jewish, but I can still recognize the difference between stating Mein Kampf inspired violence and claiming it itself is violence.

Well the way I see it is this is using language in a form to educate, but not in a measured way that we use to dumb down concepts.

Definition of violence

1
a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroyb : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

2
: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage

3
a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm>b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance

4
: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

I don't see this language used this way as a persuasive tool, but rather a way to elevate the discussion beyond the common terminology that is inadequate.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Sorry, but this is tripping me up; why is the article referring rhetorical counterattacks of uncomfortable white people, as shitty and disingenuous as they are, as violence? I initially though the premise of the article was linking white fragility to actual violence, like police shootings.

Semantics aside, I do agree with the article. So often we see criticism interpreted as an attack, that some feel the need to immediately counterattack. It reminds me of how even the benign criticism of media, things like Tropes Vs Women, is often misrepresented by GGers and the like as calls for censorship.

Look up violence. It's not limited to physical harm. Here's a video on it.

 

[watershed]

Sorry, but this is tripping me up; why is the article referring rhetorical counterattacks of uncomfortable white people, as shitty and disingenuous as they are, as violence? I initially though the premise of the article was linking white fragility to actual violence, like police shootings.

Semantics aside, I do agree with the article. So often we see criticism interpreted as an attack, that some feel the need to immediately counterattack. It reminds me of how even the benign criticism of media, things like Tropes Vs Women, is often misrepresented by GGers and the like as calls for censorship.

Think of it as a kind of psychological/intellectual/emotional violence. Language or non-physical actions that attack or question the legitimacy of someone else's lived experiences or identity. Its a term that has taken on meaning in a specific discourse that is different from general usage. So again you kind of have to learn the terms before you can access the discourse.

 

[NobleXenon]

So this is how white people will fall. Most minorities have been through the worst since birth; most white people not so much. Now that fragile white people are going for a scorched earth policy, they won't have any previous life experience to combat the damage that's about to be inflicted on them.

It won't shock me if the white life expectancy plummets the next few years.

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

Snowflakes that need safe spaces,

 

[watershed]

So this is how white people will fall. Most minorities have been through the worst since birth; most white people not so much. Now that fragile white people are going for a scorched earth policy, they won't have any previous life experience to combat the damage that's about to be inflicted on them.

It won't shock me if the white life expectancy plummets the next few years.

That's already happening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/health/life-expectancy-decline-mortality.html?_r=0

The article is old but it was a quick google search. Both Hispanic males and African American males' life expectancy rose while White American males' life expectancy fell in 2014. Analysis puts it down to hardship and anxiety. Maybe white people, and males in particular, are not ready for a society where they do not hold all the power and privilege. Like, white anxiety for real.

 

[Davide]

Kaeprnick is the perfect example. Most passive form of protest and suddenly it is an attack on the military and veterans, still can't figure how

The guy said Trump and Hillary were no difference. Gets no sympathy from me.

 

[UltimaPooh]

The guy said Trump and Hillary were no difference. Gets no sympathy from me.

Yeah... sympathy for him waned much more when he decided not to vote as well.

 

[gblues]

We watched "Road to Freedom" on the History channel on Monday--me, my wife, and my 10-year old son. It was pretty sobering, and it broke my son's heart. Mine too. We talked about how before Brown V. Board of Education, he wouldn't be allowed to go to the same school as most of his friends.

I showed him the tweet from Biloxi, MS that generated some controversy for calling MLK Day "Great Americans Day," and explained to him that the reason Mississippi created "Great Americans Day" was because a bunch of white people got upset that a black man got a holiday named after him. I used that as an intro to institutional racism--the idea that racism can get codified into rules and processes that persist long after the people who implemented it have left, and it continues to do harm because white people have no incentive to change something that works in their favor.

I think it mostly went over his head, but I think he got at least the gist of it.

 

[Trident]

Look up violence. It's not limited to physical harm. Here's a video on it.

I'm getting pretty tired of social sciences diluting the definition of words when they can just use other words, or add adjectives, or create new words. "Violence" is an impactful term because of what it defines - if we blur its definition to include, as the author of this article does, "think piece violence" - the impact of the word won't necessarily sustain indefinitely.

 

[D i Z]

I'm getting pretty tired of social sciences diluting the definition of words when they can just use other words, or add adjectives, or create new words. "Violence" is an impactful term because of what it defines - if we blur its definition to include, as the author of this article does, "think piece violence" - the impact of the word won't necessarily sustain indefinitely.

Nothing is being blurred or diluted. It is the literal definition of the word. What holds people back more than anything in evolving discussions are the limits that are impose on their own vocabulary, and the expectations that others do the same by using select phrases and concepts. The expressive languages and education where the first targets in this war on intellectualism.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I'm getting pretty tired of social sciences diluting the definition of words when they can just use other words, or add adjectives, or create new words. "Violence" is an impactful term because of what it defines - if we blur its definition to include, as the author of this article does, "think piece violence" - the impact of the word won't necessarily sustain indefinitely.

Oh piss off. Language is fluid. Nothing is beig 'diluted'. If your oversensitive logical mind can't deal with a different implementation of language then stick to numbers.

 

[7DollarHagane]

As a white person, I want to do my part to improve race relations in this country but I have no idea how.

I just try to be nice to and respect everybody I can in person and teach my kids to do the same.

That an individual did something great or stupid or inconsequential should not translate into a thought about some group that person belongs to, but only a thought about that person.

 

[Firefoxprime]

I dunno man. This feels like an echo chamber of well meaning open minded people, and your occasional "slighty" bitter jaded person. My question is how do we apply this glaringly apparent knowledge on a daily basis? My plan is to just love everyone with that Jesus factor(i know most don't flow that stream), and that doesn't mean compromise the truth....

I'm a NYC born and raised Jamaican decent dude(if that even matters at all) now living in Florida since 08'. I missed the whole "Progressive" movement back home with Obama, but steadied this ship here in the south.

I kinda hate that I have to switch off my "ignorant southern white people" shades whenever I visit NYC. It's just such a different culture down here. If NYC is an all you can eat international buffet, South Fl is like KFC with a side of cuban crackers and Mexican Coke. Just my 2 cents.

You can really smell the ignorance on people.
1 will treat you like a real person/human being. The other will treat you a walking stereotype.

 

[UltimaPooh]

As a white person, I want to do my part to improve race relations in this country but I have no idea how.

As a white person... You need to call out others when they are being racist or entitled or using prejudice language. Even in private with them.

 

[Infinite]

I'm getting pretty tired of social sciences diluting the definition of words when they can just use other words, or add adjectives, or create new words. "Violence" is an impactful term because of what it defines - if we blur its definition to include, as the author of this article does, "think piece violence" - the impact of the word won't necessarily sustain indefinitely.

Don't be fucking dense.

 

[Trident]

Oh piss off. Language is fluid. Nothing is beig 'diluted'. If your oversensitive logical mind can't deal with a different implementation of language then stick to numbers.

Language is naturally fluid, but that fluidity can have positive and negative effects - and people can put forward a concerned effort to change it in ways that will have positive or negative effects. And those efforts can be criticized.

Beyond that, stating something naturally 'is' doesn't mean it's a good thing. I can make a pretty obvious list if you need.

Edit: ah, forget it. I don't want to derail when I agree with the main points of the article. Nevermind me, everyone. I'll take my axe to grind elsewhere.

 

[Deepwater]

I'm getting pretty tired of social sciences diluting the definition of words when they can just use other words, or add adjectives, or create new words. "Violence" is an impactful term because of what it defines - if we blur its definition to include, as the author of this article does, "think piece violence" - the impact of the word won't necessarily sustain indefinitely.

Social Science lexicon is having trouble permeating throughout regular American lexicon only because America is anti-intellectual as hell. This post is definitely speaks to that sentiment

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Language is naturally fluid, but that fluidity can have positive and negative effects - and people can put forward a concerned effort to change it in ways that will have positive or negative effects. And those efforts can be criticized.

Beyond that, stating something naturally 'is' doesn't mean it's a good thing. I can make a pretty obvious list if you need.

Do as you deem necessary. The language used in the article is fine. If anyone has issue with the use of 'violence' in it then that's fully their own deficiency. You are always welcome to replace the terms with something you deem more appropriate in your mind. Even if one weren't to agree with hate speech being violent then at the very least they should reasonably be able to extrapolate that it condones or leads to violence. Same thing goes with an oppressive government or state. Or anything, really.

 

[remist]

Nothing is being blurred or diluted. It is the literal definition of the word.

It's the definition brought to its philosophical extremis. It's interesting, but if you are simply trying to communicate with the average person it's best just to be as explicit as you possibly can about what you are trying to convey.

 

[TheOctodad]

I'm guilty of it. Grown a lot over the years, but still catch myself sometimes. I get frustrated with myself.

Grew up in the deep south - had "black friends" and was never overtly racist. My parents genuinely would have beat my ass if I said anything close to that. They were good people, but we were still a product of being middle class, suburban people living in a predominantly white neighborhood.

I learned about MLK, Malcom X, Rosa Parks, etc. My mom always spoke highly of Rosa Parks especially for some reason (probably because she was local). My mom is gone now, but I think she would have been far more progressive if she were alive today and I had been able to have discussions with her. I miss that.

Since then though I've moved up to the North and realized how the underpinnings of our society and just total lack of awareness were, in many ways, racist. Robert E. Lee was hailed as a cool dude who made some mistakes, but was a good leader. Racism was bad, but it ended and now we're cool for the most part! Confederate flags were around, but they were just cultural. And meanwhile black people generally lived in worse parts of town, but I was told/assumed it was because they didn't work as hard!

And really, I was just never in a place where I saw bad stuff or racist stuff happen. I was insulated and assumed that was the way the world works. Once my friends and I were goofing off a bit late at a Wal-Mart right after we turned 16. A police officer made us come talk to her because there were reports of vandalism. I was polite, gave her my parents number, said she's happy to call them if she was proof it was us and she said thanks and left us. Other friends of mine's dads were police officers and FBI agents - they were very kind and friendly. One of my friend's dad was a police officer and died on Christmas eve trying to help someone change their tire when another car hit them and killed him.

This was the context of my world. Authority figures were friendly and helpful. Police and run-ins could be solved by being polite and just showing respect. Show respect and get respect. If something were to ever go wrong, I'd call my friends dad or have my parents talk to the police and everything would surely get sorted out. Unless I did something horrible that deserved to be in trouble, nothing bad would happen.

I know the world doesn't work this way for everyone now. But it's actually a weird cognitive effort for me. Youtube and videos have helped more than anything because I genuinely feel like it's a different world than I had growing up. But really, it was always there I just was too privileged to see it or be aware of it.

But if you'd told me as a youth that I was privileged, I would have denied. My fairly well off family legitimately struggled sometimes. My dad got laid off and for over a year worked two retail jobs to keep us afloat. I remember we only went out to eat 4 times that year and it was for big events and all we could afford was McDonalds or Burger king. Privileged? My family worked hard. But I didn't understand that that's not the whole picture.

For what it's worth, I'm sorry for all the ways my silence and lack of awareness contributed to the problem. I try to do better. I still suck at it sometimes, but I try to speak up, vote, and get involved in a number of different ways. But I really am sorry for the ways that our society and people like me have perpetuated the problem.

 

[Carcetti]

I'm getting pretty tired of social sciences diluting the definition of words when they can just use other words, or add adjectives, or create new words. "Violence" is an impactful term because of what it defines - if we blur its definition to include, as the author of this article does, "think piece violence" - the impact of the word won't necessarily sustain indefinitely.

A plus effort on moving the discussion away from the actual content of the thread and on to an issue you just invented. Deflectors on full power, captain.

 

[Syncytia]

I'm getting pretty tired of social sciences diluting the definition of words when they can just use other words, or add adjectives, or create new words. "Violence" is an impactful term because of what it defines - if we blur its definition to include, as the author of this article does, "think piece violence" - the impact of the word won't necessarily sustain indefinitely.

Look up structural violence and do some research/reading and see where that leads you on the topic. Paul Farmer's Pathologies of Power is a very good book to read for some insight.

Also - the word violence is used both because it is an accurate term for what is being described and it is indeed impactful. If that impact frightens you or makes you uncomfortable, dare I say, exposes your fragility, then think about why you are so worried about the supposed semantics of using the word and the actual harm of the subject matter - inequality, discrimination, and racism.

 

[Greddleok]

The article was pretty good, but I did have a problem with this sentence:

The oft-uttered ”Not all white people" is a form of white violence.

It is not violence. It is definitely a "silencing" tactic, but calling it violence is just silly, and I think it downplays the real acts of violence that happen. This kind of thing really bugs me, because after reading it I immediately have a reaction of "oh this person has a clear agenda that's bullshit if they're willing to call a hashtag violence" and that's not a mindset I want to be in when reading something sensitive like this.

Maybe that's my problem, but I'm sure other people also rolled their eyes at this statement.

Edit: Looks like it's already been discussed.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

The article was pretty good, but I did have a problem with this sentence:



It is not violence. It is definitely a "silencing" tactic, but calling it violence is just silly, and I think it downplays the real acts of violence that happen. This kind of thing really bugs me, because after reading it I immediately have a reaction of "oh this person has a clear agenda that's bullshit if they're willing to call a hashtag violence" and that's not a mindset I want to be in when reading something sensitive like this.

Maybe that's my problem, but I'm sure other people also rolled their eyes at this statement.

I mean if you had read the thread you'd clearly see other people had issue with it. And it's been given rebuttals. Violence isn't limited to the physically gruesome. I have absolutely no idea how you could think it downplays "real" (which I presume you mean as physical) violence in your head. Do you only think in binary? Are you not capable of thinking in degrees?

 

[Chichikov]

I'm getting pretty tired of social sciences diluting the definition of words when they can just use other words, or add adjectives, or create new words. "Violence" is an impactful term because of what it defines - if we blur its definition to include, as the author of this article does, "think piece violence" - the impact of the word won't necessarily sustain indefinitely.

The word violence has not been limited to describing physical harm since at least the 16th century.
You're not only being pedantic, you're being wrong.

 

[ruxtpin]

As a white person... You need to call out others when they are being racist or entitled or using prejudice language. Even in private with them.

This is something I'm not great at, calling others out because I'm not sure how to argue my point sometimes. Just tonight a conversation about unconscious bias with a colleague led to him saying, "I'm not a racist if I see a single black woman with a child and assume she's on welfare." I was floored, because I wanted to turn to him and say - "the fuck? That's exactly racism." But this guy - literally - makes shit up in everyday conversation, and went on to say that we should define racist thoughts/actions. And that's where I falter, because as a white guy I don't feel know how to explicitly define racist thoughts/actions; therefore I wasn't even sure where to start with my colleague to tell him how he's wrong (and a fucking idiot to boot).

 

[Frozenprince]

Kaeprnick is the perfect example. Most passive form of protest and suddenly it is an attack on the military and veterans, still can't figure how

Literally received daily, if not hourly death threats, for kneeling during a damn song.

 

[commedieu]

Your hyperbole is more detrimental than you realize

Oh shit. Everyone... duck!!!

 

[Barzul]

White people know what Black Lives Matter means. Deep down most of them do. But admitting it, means admitting to themselves they've engaged in racism or racially unsympathetic/insensitive behavior. That thing Clinton said on the debate stage. Implicit bias. Saying Black Lives Matter would mean accepting that they engage in it.

Personally think it's incredible that it's even in discussion. I grew up in a majority Black Country and still had biases (tribal). Some Americans, with all this country's fucked up history on race thinks sweeping 400 years of racial imbalance under the rug is actually a thing that can be done. &#128514;&#128514;

 

[MistakenMobius]

This is quite interesting even if as usual Americano centric.

I feel this could easily explain the cultural behavior in Muslim country were any perceived slight ends up in violence. (Like that topic on women in France)

 

[Professor Beef]

Literally received daily, if not hourly death threats, for kneeling during a damn song.

Kneeling during a song that I'm sure people just tune out before games.

 

[EatinOlives]

I'm guilty of it. Grown a lot over the years, but still catch myself sometimes. I get frustrated with myself.

Grew up in the deep south - had "black friends" and was never overtly racist. My parents genuinely would have beat my ass if I said anything close to that. They were good people, but we were still a product of being middle class, suburban people living in a predominantly white neighborhood.

I learned about MLK, Malcom X, Rosa Parks, etc. My mom always spoke highly of Rosa Parks especially for some reason (probably because she was local). My mom is gone now, but I think she would have been far more progressive if she were alive today and I had been able to have discussions with her. I miss that.

Since then though I've moved up to the North and realized how the underpinnings of our society and just total lack of awareness were, in many ways, racist. Robert E. Lee was hailed as a cool dude who made some mistakes, but was a good leader. Racism was bad, but it ended and now we're cool for the most part! Confederate flags were around, but they were just cultural. And meanwhile black people generally lived in worse parts of town, but I was told/assumed it was because they didn't work as hard!

And really, I was just never in a place where I saw bad stuff or racist stuff happen. I was insulated and assumed that was the way the world works. Once my friends and I were goofing off a bit late at a Wal-Mart right after we turned 16. A police officer made us come talk to her because there were reports of vandalism. I was polite, gave her my parents number, said she's happy to call them if she was proof it was us and she said thanks and left us. Other friends of mine's dads were police officers and FBI agents - they were very kind and friendly. One of my friend's dad was a police officer and died on Christmas eve trying to help someone change their tire when another car hit them and killed him.

This was the context of my world. Authority figures were friendly and helpful. Police and run-ins could be solved by being polite and just showing respect. Show respect and get respect. If something were to ever go wrong, I'd call my friends dad or have my parents talk to the police and everything would surely get sorted out. Unless I did something horrible that deserved to be in trouble, nothing bad would happen.

I know the world doesn't work this way for everyone now. But it's actually a weird cognitive effort for me. Youtube and videos have helped more than anything because I genuinely feel like it's a different world than I had growing up. But really, it was always there I just was too privileged to see it or be aware of it.

But if you'd told me as a youth that I was privileged, I would have denied. My fairly well off family legitimately struggled sometimes. My dad got laid off and for over a year worked two retail jobs to keep us afloat. I remember we only went out to eat 4 times that year and it was for big events and all we could afford was McDonalds or Burger king. Privileged? My family worked hard. But I didn't understand that that's not the whole picture.

For what it's worth, I'm sorry for all the ways my silence and lack of awareness contributed to the problem. I try to do better. I still suck at it sometimes, but I try to speak up, vote, and get involved in a number of different ways. But I really am sorry for the ways that our society and people like me have perpetuated the problem.

Amazing post.

From my time in Central Texas (some of it being during middle and high school), pretty much every word you say is true. And I don't think it's a particularly southern thing either.

The bolded is key. White people hear "privilege" and say "of course I'm not privileged! I worked hard for what I have! I have struggles!" Which is all true, but not at all what people are getting at when they think of privilege. As you said, it's a lot more complicated than that, and while people lead generally happy and insulated lives that aren't without occasional conflict or hardship, people are simply not having any real conversations about the DIFFERENCES of the hardships that exist throughout.

And the biggest takeaway is that white people, when put on the defensive, are afraid that minorities who point out their privilege are trying to diminish their success, their struggles, and their way of life. People are having a hard time accepting privilege as something they have and not treat it as a scarlet letter, but a lens through which to view the world. It's important for them to take said privilege into account. Nobody can renounce the privilege they had while growing up, it's physically impossible. But they can and should recognize their background and how it may differ from others.

I think yours is a story similar to that of millions'. But sadly they never move from their insulated communities and take the defensive instead of carefully listening.

 

[PKrockin]

With Republicans brainwashed into thinking Christianity is banned in schools, conservatism is banned on college campuses, and they'll be assaulted by SJWs for saying gay sex is ungodly, it's no wonder actual oppression falls on deaf ears for them. The perfect inerrant Word of God tells them Christians will live lives full of persecution, so others must have it much better and yet they still whine!

What really cemented this idea of white fragility for me, before I had really heard of the term, was the "War on Christmas" and then the reaction to Colin Kaepernick. There are many people out there who regard any attempt to acknowledge any minorities in the mainstream as an attack on America, and even more who were clearly not serious about discussing BLM issues "if they'd just protest peacefully"--they just want blacks to shut up.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I don't know how this kind of education can take place at the everyday level, in casual conversation, or even in K-12 education. It seems like a college education or very formal educational trappings are needed to really educate people about race, but that immediately narrows who is even reachable.

I think you just have to honestly want equality and have general empathy for it to start to make sense. I'm a college graduate but it was in a technology field, and I never took an actual class on gender or race or any of that. So I don't really think my schooling contributed to the understanding of my own privilege and how it's associated to race.

Edit: And in the case of white people, we need to be able to accept that criticism is not an implicit attack against us. Too many white people get offended and instantly shutdown when you try to explain privilege because they want to believe they made it to where they were purely on their own merits free of an institutional advantage. That's not how the world works. We're all affected by the actions of others and the structure that community creates.

 

[Syncytia]

I think you just have to honestly want equality and have general empathy for it to start to make sense. I'm a college graduate but it was in a technology field, and I never took an actual class on gender or race or any of that. So I don't really think my schooling contributed to the understanding of my own privilege and how it's associated to race.

The bolded is an interesting prospect. Many people just don't really have it, or just don't think of anything outside of themselves or what they know personally. In my opinion, I think there is a sizable amount of people who just cannot think of people they don't personally know as another human being. If they have a different faith, ethnicity, live on another continent,... if they don't personally know that person then that person may as well not exist.

For example, I know someone who is a nice guy generally doesn't hate on anyone, would've never thought of him as racist or discriminatory in any way. But in a conversation about Syrian refugees he just flat out said, "Well, I don't care about those people." It was pretty shocking to hear. From someone who is a proclaimed "good christian" no less. What approach do you take with someone with that view?

 

[Greddleok]

I mean if you had read the thread you'd clearly see other people had issue with it. And it's been given rebuttals. Violence isn't limited to the physically gruesome. I have absolutely no idea how you could think it downplays "real" (which I presume you mean as physical) violence in your head. Do you only think in binary? Are you not capable of thinking in degrees?

I went back and read the thread. I've never come across violence being used in that context other than to talk about a "violent storm" or such. I don't think it's as common as you believe, but I agree, I am wrong.

 

[Cartman86]

Do we think it's actually guilt? I don't think most people think about history at any level really. Could most certainly be wrong, but in my own experience it's very much about them feeling their own hardships are being downplayed, they are being personally targeted, and the fear that their own privilege is being taken away. At least these are the vibes I get from the "less explicitly racist" out there.

 

[cdyhybrid]

In the case of how effectively or ineffectively we teach people about race, I think its far less about money and far more about ideology. Poor, racially diverse schools, in my experience, do a much better job of teaching students about race and racial history because there is an urgency and need to do so along with (sometimes) serious commitment from school leadership to do so. It is considered educationally valuable. In other schools, much less so due to different beliefs. To me that's not down to money but rather ideology and educational priorities.

I wasn't talking about money