White antiracists appropriate the words of people of colour to advance their thesis.

When most people imagine a world without racism, they imagine a world that looks very similar to our current world. Indeed, most people think that racism no longer exists today in “post-racial” America or “multicultural” Canada.

However, in a world without racism, people of colour would not be concentrated in subservient positions, and white people would not dominate positions of power. It is not the case that people of colour (e.g., Asians) are serving food to white people because they enjoy being servants, nor it is part of their “culture” to be in the food industry; it is an sign of social inequality that white people are not serving food to people of colour in the same proportion. It is not the case that women of colour are taking care of white children because they are naturally nurturant and self-sacrificial; it is a sign of social inequality that white people are not nannies of children of colour in the same proportion.

Basically, it is not the case that people of colour are underrepresented in the knowledge industry because they could care less about the written word and have a genetic preference for the spoken word. The written words of people of colour are being eschewed because of racism.

This means that antiracist communities should not recreate this same hierarchy in which whites are authorities over people of colour. It is not the job of the white antiracist to extract the words of people of colour, “translate” them into his own words, and “interpret” them within his own framework to advance his thesis. When the white antiracist assumes that the words of a person of colour need to be paraphrased by a white person to count as human understanding about race and racism, it is a reproduction of white supremacy. The words of people of colour are not flora and fauna that need to be recorded and interpreted by a human observer. When people of colour write about race and racism, they are the human observers. White antiracists should not treat the words of people of colour as “raw data” that require intellectual processing.

Unfortunately, too many white antiracists cannot comprehend this.


Related links:

63 Responses to “White antiracists appropriate the words of people of colour to advance their thesis.”

  1. links for 2009-04-22 « The Mustard Seed Says:

    […] White antiracists appropriate the words of people of colour to advance their thesis. « Restructure! "White antiracists should not treat the words of people of colour as “raw data” that require intellectual processing." (tags: blog northamerica race) […]

  2. Lorraine Says:

    I don’t know how often I do this–if I do it at all it’s privileged on my part. So, it doesn’t really matter “how often” I do it. How dumb!

    But anyway, I will definitely think about, find it in my own thinking and writings/actions, and correct it where it exists.

    Thanks for the thoughts.

  3. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    If “most people think that racism no longer exists today” then this is either true or false. The implication is that it is false, but you don’t seem to dig deeper as to why there is this dissonance between perception and reality?

    The fact of the matter is that “racism” (notion of superiority based on race) has been and will always be an aspect of the human condition whether you’re a believer in MET or a believer in the Creator.

    Although, this does not answer the question of why people no longer think they are superior based on racial comparison and why you think “racism” really still exists on a broad scale.

    The answer is quite easy. As liberals naturally liberalize the meaning of “racism,” less and less people can see it definitively and therefore see “racism” as something that no longer exists. Likewise, as the liberal liberalizes his definition of “racism” to encompass a greater and greater scope of human interaction, he sees more and more of the “invisible” and “subtle” racism all around him.

    So who is right and who is wrong?

  4. Restructure! Says:

    thordaddy,

    If “most people think that racism no longer exists today” then this is either true or false.

    OK.

    The fact of the matter is that “racism” (notion of superiority based on race) has been and will always be an aspect of the human condition whether you’re a believer in MET or a believer in the Creator.

    So according to you, racism today still exists.

    Although, this does not answer the question of why people no longer think they are superior based on racial comparison and why you think “racism” really still exists on a broad scale.

    Now you’re suggesting that racism no longer exists.

    You contradict yourself and violate your own claim that it is either true or false.

  5. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    The argument is going to be hard for you to follow if you can’t recognize your own liberalism.

    Racism exists because notions of superiority HAVE AND WILL ALWAYS EXIST. Notions of superiority and inferiority are inherent and definitive in the real world. The fact that you CLAIM a person’s skin color to be an illegitimate criteria for deciding superiority or inferiority does nothing to undermine the understanding that things are in many respects superior or inferior to each other.

    Now, you claim racism still exists, but you can’t figure out why people no longer think that this is the case. I agree racism still exists, but such an acknowledgement is hardly groundbreaking because racism is to a large extent a psychological expression. But because liberals have done what liberals do, “racism” is no longer something identifiable and knowable to the average person. “Racism” is now largely the mere perception of the aggrieved party and this perception does, just a liberalism requires, encompasses a larger and larger swath of what was yesterday merely the interactions of normal people.

    Do you get it? Your liberalism IS WHY people no longer think “racism” exists.

  6. Restructure! Says:

    thordaddy,

    The argument is going to be hard for you to follow if you can’t recognize your own liberalism.

    I recognize my own radicalism, because it is not mainstream. Do you recognize your own conservatism?

    Racism exists because notions of superiority HAVE AND WILL ALWAYS EXIST.

    What is evidence that notions of superiority (1) have (always) existed; and (2) will always exist?

    Notions of superiority and inferiority are inherent and definitive in the real world. The fact that you CLAIM a person’s skin color to be an illegitimate criteria for deciding superiority or inferiority does nothing to undermine the understanding that things are in many respects superior or inferior to each other.

    How are non-white people inferior to white people?

    But because liberals have done what liberals do, “racism” is no longer something identifiable and knowable to the average person.

    By ‘average person’, do you mean ‘average white person’?

    “Racism” is now largely the mere perception of the aggrieved party and this perception does, just a liberalism requires, encompasses a larger and larger swath of what was yesterday merely the interactions of normal people.

    Yes, the concept of “racism” has expanded, but these inequalities were always there. Progressives work under the assumption that our society is progressing from inequality to equality, so issues of “racism” from yesteryear were more urgent than issues of “racism” today. For example, the slavery of African Americans was considered racist after slavery was abolished, but during that time slavery was considered “merely the interactions of normal people.” When state-sanctioned racial segregation existed in the United States, it was considered “merely the interactions of normal people”, while slavery was considered obviously “racist”. Slavery had to be abolished first before racial segregation was made illegal, because treating African Americans as citizens comes before treating African American citizens as equal to White American citizens.

    Do you think that slavery was justified, since at one time, it was considered “merely the interactions of normal people”?

  7. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    You are attempting to avoid your own dilemma.

    You said that “racism” exists, but the masses aren’t really seeing it that way…

    Indeed, most people think that racism no longer exists today…

    WHY? Why do people think that “racism” no longer exists TODAY…? Because liberalism is the dominant ideology of our societies.

    Your liberalism, i.e., your attempt at making things unknowable/meaningless or “equal” as you call it, is the reason the masses no longer see “racism.”

    Can you not see this?

  8. Nquest Says:

    When the white antiracist assumes that the words of a person of colour need to be paraphrased by a white person to count as human understanding about race and racism, it is a reproduction of white supremacy.

    That’s compounded when the white anti-racist(s) states how s/he believes or is aware of the way in which Whites view other Whites as (more) credible (and/or more comfortable) when the topic is racism, White Privilege, WHITE SUPREMACY, etc. than POC. I don’t know whether you would call that the “reproduction of WHITE SUPREMACY” but it definitely acquiesces to WS.

    And it is beyond amazing how so many white antiracists cannot comprehend this. I’ll never forget when a certain White anti-racist insisted on arguing that he was a “good summarizer of Black opinion” and, essentially, was right to assume the role as “summarizer” or had a right to be a “summarizer” with no regard for what he called a “claim” (like proof was needed to establish) — the fact that “black people can summarize their own opinions quite well on their own.”

  9. Restructure! Says:

    Thanks for the reminder Nquest. I updated the post linking to the classic quotes:

    “Many posts on my blog effectively summarize black observation and opinion and black reportage of personal experience”

    as well as

    “And yet, if I’m reading your post right, you offer no guidelines for proper forms of generalization by whites about the racial experiences of people of color.”

  10. Stella Says:

    thordaddy, you’re operating on the assumption that racism is always premeditated and overt. Sometimes it is a case where somebody just plain thinks that white people are the superior race over all others and this is obviously a problem. What happens more often however is that people, particularly white people, believe that they are the superior race without fully realizing it. This is because they live in a world that is tailored to them. White people are the “norm” while the rest are “the minorities”. Race is something that “other” people have. White is the standard by which all is measured in our society, thus making it “superior” to all others. We live in a racist society but nobody thinks it is, because White people don’t see it as such. Can you see the problem with that?

  11. jwbe Says:

    This certain white anti-racist sometimes or often writes as if he lives in a vacuum, disconnected also from white reality. He sounds like the average white, walking through life and seeing nothing wrong with the system or white people itself. SWPD, or like he wants to claim, some white folks do, is very often I assume just things a certain white guy does.
    And when it comes to whites who prefer believing other whites more than PoC when it comes to racism, I think some whites feel guilt and are embarrassed to listen to PoC and I also think that the M’s manage it to write in a way where the average white still can feel good because he/she is able to identify somebody else as racist but not him/herself thanks to such writing and also the “so good white” is addressed and encouraged.
    And I admit that I don’t have the impression that whites like to listen to me when it comes to white supremacy, neither online nor in rl, let it be my style or what I say, I don’t know.

  12. thordaddy Says:

    Stella,

    The problem with your take is that it is textbook liberalism. And because you fail to account for the consequences of that liberalism, you too are stuck in a dilemma where you see more and more “racism” all around you and yet others see less and less.

    When you say I operate with “the assumption that racism is always premeditated and overt,” in reality, racism is no different than it ever was unless you view the world through modern liberalism.

    What your take conveys is not the real life experience of the average white person, but rather, it conveys that you are rather good at parroting the liberal worldview.

    How many whites are actually taught that they are the “norm?” How many whites are actually taught that they are “superior?” Have you been taught such things or do you know people who have?

    The fact of the matter is that “white supremacy” is strictly verboten in our society and the vast majority of those that cite its existence are PoC. Meaning, you just simply assert that “white supremacy” is playing this unarguably destructive role in society while simultaneously acknowledging that “racism” is more subconscious and covert. Such a take leads to the inevitable conclusion that “racism” today is both hard to identify and actually knowable. This state of affairs is a direct effect of the adoption of liberalism.

    In short, your liberalism allows you to “see” more and more “racism,” but it also makes your claim and/or perspective less and less credible.

  13. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    I just reread the entry and it seems really paradoxical (can I say that your theme seems paradoxical or is that racist?). I’ve bounced around the…, what shall we call it… (is even asking you a sign of “white supremacy?) …PoC blogosphere. And I must say that most of the authors (is that unfair and biased to say “most?”) never seem to have suffered the kind of racism that they claim is so prevalent (is my mere unpersuaded state of mind another sign of my “white supremacy?”). This would include you and ye ye. You seem to be expropriating the experiences of others and giving them life. This seems to be the same thing you are chatising white people for doing. And ye ye seems to be expropriating abstract theories from a certain niche liberalism.

    In addition, you take agency away from PoC when you claim it a “social inequality” that they are serving and nannying whites at a disproportional rate. First, what does “social inequality” actually mean? Please provide YOUR definition or the one that has a consensus. Secondly, how in a free and liberal society are PoC not free to work in whatever capacity they choose? Aren’t you really saying that PoC either choose to be subservient (you actually said they wouldn’t, but this can’t be true for ALL PoC ) or they really have no choice in the matter? How true is the latter “reality?”

    And if the white society is not compatible with the desires of the PoC, then are their options outside of defeating “white supremacy?” Are there compatible societies for PoC?

  14. Restructure! Says:

    thordaddy,

    You actually have some interesting questions this time.

    First of all, I’ve had some personal online interactions via comments with Macon D that I think fall into the “white antiracists appropriate the words of people of colour to advance their thesis” category. One example is this comment, in which he paraphrases what I had just said, contributing no new idea to the thread. It’s as if he was rewriting it in his own words to acknowledge that what I just said was sound. The ‘novelty’ aspect of his comment comes from the fact that he is understanding a racial subtlety while white. There is another example I’m thinking of, but I’ll deal with that later.

    Secondly, the examples in the post may not be directed at me as a person, but I still suffer the consequences. For example in “SWPD: Consider themselves trustworthy”, white people may say something racist to me within the first 1 minute to 2 minutes of meeting me, yet if they read his post, they would assume that I am standoffish because of the colour of their skin, not because of their actions in the first 1-2 minutes of meeting me. The “Digital Colonialism” post did not reference me, but the assumptions behind the piece (e.g., that if a white blogger makes a point that PoC bloggers have already made, the point becomes valid; or that if a white blogger brings attention to points that PoC bloggers have already made, the white blogger is generating knowledge) are assumptions that affect me because they assume that the domain of knowledge belongs to whites, that understanding means white understanding. This is dehumanizes and objectifies PoC, since we are not recognized as sentient beings, which they would recognize of fellow whites.

  15. Nquest Says:

    You’re welcome, Restructure. And you’re right. Those quotes are classic and the most amazing thing about it is how that whole conversion revolved around an unfounded claim about how I “see” him.

  16. Nquest Says:

    (()) thordaddy, You actually have some interesting questions this time.

    What Thordaddy actually has is an ‘interesting’ (not) way of showing the standard (read: typical) hypocritical kind of projection seen on right vs. left political blog. Thordaddy has this contrived notion (as in pre-fab; already assumed and asserted just to have an argumentative angle) that POC “never seem to have suffered the kind of racism that they claim is so prevalent.” Of course, he expects us to take his word for it.

    This is nothing more than an adoptation or an extension of the inane “no Blacks alive today have been slaves” non-argument prevalent in reparations discussions and, again, the idea that most POC haven’t experience the kind of racism that “they claim is so prevalent” is something Thordaddy comes into a conversation claiming with no regard for (1) whether his contrived “gotcha” angle even applies AND (2) whether most POC commenting have experienced the kind of racism being discussed.

    That’s exactly what he did on SWPD on the thread regarding Shopping While Black (SWB) — i.e. he disregarded statements from 3 of the first commenters who stated they had experienced SWB as he posted after they did and suggested no one in the thread indicated they had experienced SWB. (He also failed to show how his citing his own experience of not experiencing/witnessing SWB was RELEVANT.)

    Anyway… I’ll leave it for others to decide whether its the IDIOTIC CONSERVATIVE mindset or the typical stupidity of Whites who float racial superiority notions that had Thordaddy running his mouth about something (below) that he failed to demonstrate was true at all, much less something he experienced.

    His claim:

    AA . . . premise was and will always be about expropriating real wealth from white people to black people for past injustices.

    So, Thordaddy, you’re on the clock and on the spot. Either you come up with PROOF that “real wealth” has been “expropriated” from you and given to Black people under the guise of AA or nothing you claim with this Larry Fine routine (“I can’t see… I got my eyes close” routine) about POC can ever have any credibility.

  17. jwbe Says:

    >How many whites are actually taught that they are the “norm?” How many whites are actually taught that they are “superior?” Have you been taught such things or do you know people who have?

    you are a perfect example.
    There are many ways to teach superiority and whites being the norm without actually saying this and you have been very receptive.
    Somebody who claims that there is good white privilege acknowledges the existence of wp and therefore also acknowledges racism. Because you see nothing wrong with privileging whites you see nothing wrong with discriminating against PoC. Somebody who believes that equality would lead to the extermination of whites is sick. Somebody who constantly has to call other people who are not like you ‘liberal’ has a very limited way of thinking and can’t be the brightest guy. Internet is probably the only audience you get.
    Your curiosity about personal experiences of PoC is nothing else than sensationalism.

  18. jwbe Says:

    and OT, does anybody else have problems to download Macon’s site? I can no longer read there

  19. Nquest Says:

    (()) you see nothing wrong with privileging whites

    What he sees is White Inferiority which is why he prefers for Whites to be privileged. Equality would end White Privilege and, for him, that would be the equivalent to death because his own White Inferiority and Inadequacy would be exposed in all its nakedness = shame.

    That’s why he promotes the anti-math. While he claims all people/races aren’t equal, he’s too afraid of a society that would treat said “unequals” as equals because that would expose he’s wishful thinking for the fraud it is. What he actually believes in is WHITE INFERIORITY and so he’s come up with ideas regarding “equality” (e.g. his opposition to affirmative action; his transparent and blatant denials of racism/WP/WS) to compensate and camouflage his true, core belief.

    Nothing else explains why his apparent choice is C.

    If all people are not equal or, for the purposes of the nation-state, shouldn’t be considered “equal”… how should the nation-state deal with this?

    A. Provide the less fortunate/less endowed with more privileges to equalize their situation with the more fortunate/better endowed?

    B. Treat the nation’s “unequals” as equals granting them all equal privileges regardless of who is less fortunate/lesser endowed or who is more fortunate/better endowed?

    C. Provide the more fortunate/better endowed with more privileges because their aggregate numbers or aggregate history in the nation-state justifies granting them more privileges?

  20. Nquest Says:

    Your curiosity about personal experiences of PoC is nothing else than sensationalism.

    I ran across a pretty decent post on Angry Black Woman that covered Thordaddy’s patterned-typical denial:

    the thing that I kept seeing in these discussions was a refusal on the part of some white-identified folks to accept the “authority” that people of color have in discussions of racism. . . PoC aren’t always right about what is racist, goes the refrain; sometimes they’re too angry to be reasonable, or too emotional to see the big picture, or too personally-involved to have the necessary detachment when they’re evaluating a situation. (Not like those always-rational white folks.)
    Some of them have hidden agendas which require them to make a racist mountain out of an innocuous molehill. . . Or sometimes the problem is White Guilt, which leads white people to anxiously accept everything a brown person says as truth.

    This was almost verbatim the argument Thordaddy made on SWPD in the Shopping While Black thread as he tried to problematize the idea of considering POC credible when POC report/charge “racism” is present. In his typical please believe me, do you believe me? fashion, Thordaddy was incredulous and figured he’d be persuasive with this textbook fallacious argument:

    now “racism” is just whatever a black person claims it to be. But we know that this can’t always be the case, can it?

    (Like I said… please believe me, do you believe me? He continued that rhetorical tactic when he begged JW to believe him/his implicit argument:

    are you going to claim that you can’t judge either and that the truth of the matter (whether this racism actually means anything significant) is purely the domain of the “victim’s” perception?

    Lord knows we can’t trust the victims to tell the truth. Yet, at no time did Thordaddy acknowledge what we know to be true:

    too often white people bring defensiveness, fetishization, exotification, implicit associations, and their own hidden agendas to the conversation. . . To be fair, some PoC bring these things to the table too. . . But one of the commonalities of the PoC experience in colonized/white-dominant countries is that eventually, most of us look around and notice the system, because its negative effects become impossible to deny. And in noticing the system, we do assume some moral authority. . . The white experience has the opposite commonality — denial of the system’s existence, and of its beneficial effect on their lives. . . Denial of PoC authority is just another manifestation of it.

    So, yes, despite all his transparent denials, Thordaddy — the professional dittohead who never met a script he didn’t like — is like so many other White people who, by all appearances, have been trained, taught, indoctrinated, dipped and fried with the assumption that they are superior [read: they have a right to be in a superior social position (see Abraham Lincoln) FOR OBVIOUS “FEAR FACTOR” REASONS] and, in this case, are the superior, more honest/objective judge of what is and isn’t racism.

    The point here is that Thordaddy was quick to cast aspersions and question what ABW called the “[moral] authority” POC have when the topic is racism but, outside of his juvenile attack on White liberals, Thordaddy has never talked about the things that make Whites less than objective judges of what is and isn’t racism. Apparently, White people are the final, if not the only, “authority” on the topic which explains why he feels like each and every individual PoC must report to him the experiences they’ve personally had with every particular type of racism POC discuss. Obviously, POC have to have him validate their experiences and he has final say on whether what they experienced is racism or “anything significant” in terms of limiting their freedom in a “liberal society.”

    Again, this is the guy who, in any other conversation, wants to promote the idea that all people are not equal. (Really, he tries hard to convince himself but it’s hard to overcome his core/fundamental belief in WHITE INFERIORITY.) Indeed, he’s voiced his displeasure with affirmative action because, as he claims, “is the attempt to claim we’re all really equal” and “Afterall, no one says thordaddy believes in equality.”

  21. Nquest Says:

    JWBE,

    I don’t have a problem getting/viewing Macon’s site. You may want to delete your cookies or make sure you have the right url.

  22. Lxy Says:

    It’s amusing that ThorBoy is always ranting about Liberals, as if they are much different from Conservatives on issues of race.

    He confuses the *image* that Liberals like to peddle about themselves on race (i.e. that they are more tolerant, etc) with the actual political reality that the Liberals believe in White dominance, as much as he or Conservatives do.

    In other words, Thorboy, you are hating on your political brethren and kinsman (or is that klansman?).

  23. Nquest Says:

    Exactly, LXY…

    Over the weekend, on one of the boards I post on, someone posted an old research study about things that “define what makes a political conservative.” One of the things mentioned in the article, beside taking a direct cue from Thordaddy, characterized one of the “key” dimensions of conservatism as “an endorsement of inequality.”

    It doesn’t take much to show how the “actual political reality” has White CONservatives and White Liberals alike adhering to beliefs in White dominance (this thread is more or less about a manifestation of just that by so-called “liberal” Whites, even White “anti-racist”).

  24. Anonymous Says:

    >Equality would end White Privilege and, for him, that would be the equivalent to death because his own White Inferiority and Inadequacy

    I think it was 92% or so of persons in the US in higher/leading positions are white and male.
    According a German article about 60 % of males in Germany aren’t in top positions because of qualification but because of them being [white] males. This also means that whites via white privilege ‘vote’ for incompetence even if this means that they loose their job because of the white male incompetence.

    >the thing that I kept seeing in these discussions was a refusal on the part of some white-identified folks to accept the “authority” that people of color have in discussions of racism. . .

    and the other problem is that some/many take PoC who say that racism is not the problem as an example. I also don’t know why whites assume that people should tell them their personal experiences or also political thoughts or should tell them their true thoughts about issues, most of all when one can already realize that the way a question is asked will lead to ‘white defense’.
    And sometimes the naivity of whites, what I [somebody white] don’t see does not exist as well as what I don’t experience nobody else experiences.

    >I don’t have a problem getting/viewing Macon’s site. You may want to delete your cookies

    thanks, now it works

  25. thordaddy Says:

    ye ye,

    We can keep dancing around all day long, but that does nothing to lend credibility to the idea that as a liberal, you can be credible… You CAN’T until you renounce your liberalism as first principle.

    If your subconscious liberalism allows you to redefine words, claim unequal things are equal, say we must treat different things the same then you are your own worst enemy in establishing any credibility. This has nothing to do with conservatism or my “whiteness” and everything to do with the fact that your own radical liberalism undercuts ALL you have to say.

    You say white privilege = racism.

    This is both a false statement and an example of your liberalism.

    You say Barack Obama is your “Christian brother.”

    This is both false and an example of your liberalism.

    Why should we take anything you say to be credible when you spew these falsehoods in the name of your ideology?

  26. Anonymous Says:

    >Why should we take anything you say to be credible

    who is we?
    Or do you suffer from a multiple personality?

  27. thordaddy Says:

    “We” is the audience at Restructure’s blog…

  28. jwbe Says:

    so you are trying in a weak attempt to tell us, the audience of this blog, that you are credible while Nquest is not.
    You actually believe that your stupid and boring comments actually make any sense?

  29. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    If you would kindly quote one of my falsehoods then we can put the credibility question to the test.

    I’ve given you two falsehoods that ye ye spews. In fact, you spew one of the falsehoods too. This makes you less than credible in ALL that you say.

    Further, I stated that if one redefines words, claims unequal things are equal and says we must treat different things the same then one undercuts their own credibility.

    Do you disagree?

  30. Restructure! Says:

    thordaddy,

    I googled your name, and I see that you have spent a lot of time trolling all over the progressive blogosphere. I do not understand why you would spend so much of your life trolling. Since you believe that giving somebody the “benefit of the doubt” means that you assume that they are espousing false beliefs knowingly, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and consider you a troll.

    Do you (1) consider yourself a troll? (2) consider the following an accurate description of your motivation as a troll?

    Why do trolls do it?

    I believe that most trolls are sad people, living their lonely lives vicariously through those they see as strong and successful.

    Disrupting a stable newsgroup gives the illusion of power, just as for a few, stalking a strong person allows them to think they are strong, too.

    For trolls, any response is ‘recognition’; they are unable to distinguish between irritation and admiration; their ego grows directly in proportion to the response, regardless of the form or content of that response.

    Trolls, rather surprisingly, dispute this, claiming that it’s a game or joke; this merely confirms the diagnosis; how sad do you have to be to find such mind-numbingly trivial timewasting to be funny?

    Remember that trolls are cowards; they’ll usually post just enough to get an argument going, then sit back and count the responses (Yes, that’s what they do!).

  31. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    Is this worthy of rebuttal? How about we talk about your belief system? Isn’t calling someone a “troll” go against the principles you espouse? Is there something wrong with hanging out in “progressive” circles? What is “progressive” about being unwilling to have your beliefs analyzed and deconstructed?

    You espouse very toxic beliefs in a society you seem alienated from. Am I not supposed to notice?

  32. Nquest Says:

    IF your subconscious liberalism allows you to redefine words

    Notice the big, fraudulent and highlighted *IF*…
    In other words, THANKS FOR PLAYING.

    Re: Credibility…

    1. Whereas you’ve presented no information about your own personal experience with having “real wealth expropriated” from you (a White person) and given to Black people under the guise of AA, per your claim made on SWPD…

    Be it resolved that YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY… by your own standard.

    2. Whereas in response to a question related to your claim about UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE and WHEREAS the definition of UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE from DICTIONARY.COM was presented to you by me…

    Be it resolved that YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY… by your own standard.

    3. Whereas the multiple choice question of how a nation-state should deal with its overall population “if all people are not equal” was presented to you several times for you to state clearly the full extent (and logical extension-conclusion) of your belief and WHEREAS you had made several statements espousing a belief in the notion present in choice-option C and WHEREAS such a belief represents the “anti-math” — i.e. a false test of the implicit idea behind your belief that all people/races are not equal — and WHEREAS such a belief has as its foundation an inherent belief in WHITE INFERIORITY and WHEREAS such a belief exposes your anxiety and opposition to social equality as a desperate attempt to conceal this inherent belief in WHITE INFERIORITY…

    Be it resolved that YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY…

    NONE

    ((( END OF NEGATIVE ATTENTION )))

  33. Restructure! Says:

    thordaddy,

    I am asking whether you consider yourself a troll.

    I think that taken literally, what you say is crazy. You, however, think that given the choice between considering someone crazy and assuming that the person espouses false beliefs knowingly, the latter is more charitable. I find this odd, and I take it to be a reflection of yourself. That is, you think that it is more likely that someone espouses false beliefs knowingly than espouses false beliefs unknowingly, probably because it is true for yourself, and so you think it is true for others as well.

    I’d rather not call people trolls, but you certainly act like a troll, and I am giving you the opportunity to defend yourself from the accusation of being a troll. I’ve been called a troll a few times before for calling or suggesting that what somebody said was racist. However, I disagreed with this assessment, since I was trying to make a point, but others perceived that my purpose was to offend.

    There is nothing wrong with having my beliefs analyzed and deconstructed, but it appears that you are not willing to have your own beliefs analyzed and deconstructed. It is like you are being dense on purpose. Hence, you appear to be trolling.

  34. Nquest Says:

    Note: Regarding #2, Thordaddy chose to REDEFINE universal suffrage with his inane, pre-K style of focusing solely on a part of the concept as a way to fit his IDIOTIC idea that no universal suffrage exists because minors, freakin’ 4 and 5 year olds like himself, don’t have the right to vote.

    Dictionaries be damn, Thordaddy, Troll All-Mite-TEE, in the final authority of what things mean (according to the bs that is Thordaddy logic). So, DICTIONARY.COM was wrong and Thordaddy was right, let him tell it.

    The definition of REDEFINING WORDS…

    |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

    4. WHEREAS you were caught employing the FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION as you tried to discount what’s been said about White Privilege and WHEREAS you continued to try to resurrect the manure scented straw man that all White Privilege can’t be “bad” which relied heavily on your use of the FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION (i.e. REDEFINING words)….

    Be it resolved that YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY… by your own standard.

    5. WHEREAS you made an unsupported claim that the examples of White Privilege from Peggy McIntosh’s “Invisible Knapsack” were not actual forms of White Privilege since, according your WEAK MAN’S rhetorical question, Blacks could also “arrange to be in the company of people of [their] race most of the time” and WHEREAS you foolishly objected to my contention that Black people cannot “arrange to be in the company of people of [their] race” with the same ease and same frequency as Whites given the demographics of the American workplace, American schools and American travel landscape — the USofAmerica being what you yourself called “a majority white nation” — and WHEREAS you begged to whine about my use of the term “frequency” and WHEREAS “frequency” the very idea expressed with the phrase “MOST OF THE TIME”…

    Be it resolved that YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY…

  35. Slumberjack Says:

    Racialized people, I’ve discovered, have developed various forms of terminology to describe racism, privilege, and all the things that go with it. When white AR allies undertake processes and education to unlearn, there’s often no other alternative to avoiding the phraseology that exists, and obviously, in attempting to creating our own, where on earth would we begin :) Neither the words, and certainly not the experiences, are universal. I believe that for any white AR ally, personalizing is just another form of patriarchy. In support however, through the continual effort to remove the scales, and in doing so, having the awareness to affect positive change within our own surroundings, we’d be better off understanding our own place in things, and perhaps then the words and terminology of others might take on real meaning.

  36. thordaddy Says:

    ye ye says,

    Whereas you’ve presented no information about your own personal experience with having “real wealth expropriated” from you (a White person) and given to Black people under the guise of AA, per your claim made on SWPD…

    Why would I need to if I only stated the premise for AA. Why is your demand a logical necessity? Anyway, you haven’t agreed on a basic presupposition. As in, your take about any transfers of wealth actually being reparations?

    Have you stated your premise for AA yet?

    Then you say,

    Whereas in response to a question related to your claim about UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE and WHEREAS the definition of UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE from DICTIONARY.COM was presented to you by me…

    You claimed we have “universal suffrage” and I say we have limited suffrage. You then redefine “universal” to mean “limited” (as in NOT ALL adults can vote in America) and call me on my credibility? LOL!

    Can all adults vote in America…? No universal suffrage!

    Next you spew,

    WHEREAS you were caught employing the FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION as you tried to discount what’s been said about White Privilege and WHEREAS you continued to try to resurrect the manure scented straw man that all White Privilege can’t be “bad” which relied heavily on your use of the FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION (i.e. REDEFINING words)….

    In reality, I said that white privilege can be both good and bad. You can check the thread as I said it several times. So you spew straight lies now!

    Your game is weak because you have no foundation on which to judge the truth of your claims. Your liberalism makes you weak in the face of someone more ready to judge, discriminate and critique the claims you make. And what are you left to do…? Be everything you claim your not… Discriminatory, bigoted, profane and anti-intellectual. This is the beauty of liberalism and why you aren’t really a hypocrite.

  37. Restructure! Says:

    Slumberjack,

    Yeah, it’s not paraphrasing itself that bothers me; I personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with paraphrasing from within. What bothers me is that the paraphrase is presented as a new discovery.

    I think that the first example (“digital colonialism”) is an example of paraphrasing, as WoC have already said that. It’s like they are acting as if their restatement and pretentious high-level summary style with pseudo-academic footnotes is what makes it academic material. Originality is asking a lot, yes, but even micro-originality should be credited to the primary source, not the person from the in-group who “found” a new idea from the out-group. (It’s ironic that they use the term “digital colonialism”.)

    In addition, the “digital colonialism” post makes unsupported claims and pretends that the pseudo-footnotes to WoC posts support their claims, when they don’t. They write,

    Let’s be honest: blogs are businesses. They sell a product (writing) to their customers (readers) in exchange for revenue (via donation buttons, advertising dollars, referral programs, speaker’s fees, and book deals[10]).

    The footnote links to a post at bfpfinal. BFP does not claim that her purpose in blogging is to secure a book deal. In fact, she seems to claim the opposite, that her complaints are not personal, not about BFP wanting a book deal, not about money and fame. It’s possible I misinterpreted, but either way, the bfpfinal post does not explicitly support their claim that blogs are for business. Brittany and Mandy used BFP to advance their pre-determined thesis/agenda (arguably without understanding the subtleties of what she was saying). So not only are they paraphrasing or restating the general idea that feminism is white-centred, but they are also using WoC to prove additional points, points that are not the points that WoC are making, but there is still the perceived PoC stamp of approval.

    The second (‘believe others consider them trustworthy’) and third (‘refuse to listen to black anger’) links do this as well. In ‘believe others consider them trustworthy’, Macon D takes the words of three black people and makes a generalization:

    Just as white folks tend to size up new black individuals in racial terms, waiting for the black person to prove herself better than “other black people” (and I believe that most whites do this, whether they realize it or not), black people often do the same thing to white people.

    But I don’t think that’s what they were saying. Even if I am wrong, it’s just stupid to make a generalization about what black people do (and he says it’s about non-white people in other parts of the post) based on what three black people have said. You have to have serious delusions of racial expertise and psychological understanding of an entire race to do something like that.

    In ‘refuse to listen to black anger’, Macon D doesn’t take what Rev. Wright says seriously and instead offers his own interpretation, that Wright is just venting anger because he is an oppressed black person. Moreover, in the update, he says that Angry Black Woman “says some of things I was trying to say here better than I did”, which serves as a black stamp of approval/ventriloquy, even when she is arguably saying something quite different.

    In these two examples, the words of PoC are again being used by a white person to make a point/advance a thesis/agenda. The point/thesis/agenda may be whatever they were trying to prove before reading the words of PoC, reading into the words of PoC what they wanted to see, but at another level, the point/thesis/agenda is to be the best/smartest/most creative/most insightful AR among their white peers. They do not consider PoC their peers; they are competing with other whites for cred.

  38. Nquest Says:

    Why would I need to if I only stated the premise for AA.

    Dude, you really need to do something about all these IF’s you’re prone to using… Beyond that, IT’S YOUR FREAKIN’ STANDARD!

    Either you can practice what you preach or you need to STFU! It’s just that simple. So, YOU NEED to show how AA has personally impacted you (a White person) and expropriated “real wealth ” from you that was then given to Black people.

    You placed the importance on actual personal experience and, indeed, created the “personal experience” litmus test as the measure of credibility and validity…

    “…I must say that most of the authors… never seem to have suffered the kind of racism that they claim is so prevalent…”

    It’s a LOGICAL NECESSITY because you have to show how you’re not a HYPOCRITE when it comes to “expropriating the experiences of others” assuming you can [AND YOU CAN’T] even begin to show how your UNFOUNDED idea [that AA expropriated “real wealth” from Whites to Blacks] even exists AND you have to show how you’re not a full-of-sh*t HYPOCRITE when you say things like:

    “Racism” is now largely the mere perception of the aggrieved party and this perception does…

    It’s a LOGICAL NECESSITY because we have to know whether you’re just MAKING SHIT UP, having some Perception Problems or just plain bat-shit-crazy. We know you can’t establish something that is simply not true. Plus you’ve already tried to weasel your way out from under the tons-of-bs you packed into your UNFOUNDED claim that AA expropriated “real wealth” from Whites and transferred it to Blacks.

    You have absolutely NOTHING you can use to support this idea. But I have a ready counter. The current economy notwithstanding, there have been numerous news reports projecting Baby Boomers (people born between 1946 and 1964) inheriting trillions of dollars in intergenerational wealth transfers from [WHITE] THEIR PARENTS in the coming years. That means that much of the wealth being transferred was accumulated before there AA existed.

    At the same time, real data about real wealth in the real world (not to be confused with your Bizarro world) indicates that there is an
    WEALTH GAP between Blacks and Whites that increased/increasing.

    And unless you can show me when AA consisted of Whites transferring the deeds to wealth-building homes to Blacks for them to own and build wealth off of (because Homeownership [is the] Top Wealth Builder in U.S.A.) then I know your claim it unmitigated, contrived bs.

  39. Nquest Says:

    You then redefine “universal” to mean “limited”

    Stop LYING. I referenced and used the definition published on DICTIONARY.COM.

    The definition nor any perceived “redefinition” isn’t mine. It’s DICTIONARY.COM. So you’ve just announced your TROLL-hood loud and clear claiming I “redefined” what UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE is when I quoted directly from DICTIONARY.COM.

  40. Nquest Says:

    In these two examples, the words of PoC are again being used by a white person to make a point

    Whether there was some element of “cred” boosting in it or not, Macon D more or less acknowledged that he had an agenda and indicated how his aim/motivation was to basically teach White people a lesson.

  41. thordaddy Says:

    ye ye,

    You’re so all over the place that it’s hard to get any idea of what you are actually saying.

    If I state that such and such (enter your studied understanding) is the premise for such and such action then why would I need to provide how such and such action had an effect on me? Or even, how such and such action had no effect on me?

    How does either answer negate the premise for such and such action?

    Secondly, why keep fibbing about the SWB thread? YOU’RE the one that likes to tells us how “racism” is largely covert and invisible. Meaning, none of us can really see it and we MUST take the word of the aggrieved “victim.” But, if you and those like you aren’t really suffering the kind of “racism” that we saw on the video then who is? And given your record of defying the truth, how is any claim of racism by you, credible?

    The point is that you are expropriating the “racism” suffered by others and claiming it as your own. That’s pathetic!

    Lastly, is “universal” universal or not? And does America have “universal suffrage?” …Yes or no? And if it does, should it? And if it doesn’t, what kind of suffrage do we have if not limited?

  42. Slumberjack Says:

    Yes, the ventriloquism you mentioned, it’s just another form of denial when we conjure up references, ‘friends,’ and sources like they’re on speed dial at our beck and call. No, PoC are not considered peers in those cases, it’s doubtful that any of their experiences could be taken at face value without being re-analyzed and interpreted into something more readily comprehensible. When we engage in these shell games we’re fooling no one but ourselves, because can’t be anything other than obvious to everyone else what is occurring. Of course ‘you’d’ be wrong to point it out, what with us being the experts and all. Perhaps we’re about attempting to establish ally cred as well, like some sort of hobby. The result is the same, we’re seeking to be in charge so that we can stand atop yet another conquest and survey all that we’ve accomplished..all on our own with our real friends who are just like us.

  43. Restructure! Says:

    Nquest,

    Please ignore thordaddy. He’s not even denying that he’s a troll, and I’m considering banning him.

  44. Lxy Says:

    Thordaddy–or Trolldaddy, as jwbe has dubbed him–is entertaining, in a perverse way.

    I think he may be off his meds, though.

  45. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    Only in the world of the radical liberal can the guy who has constantly written profanity-laced comments get the nod of approval while the guy who has done nothing but tried to pin the radical liberal down to some knowable and credible definitions gets banned.

    Restructure, you are the perfect example of everything I speak and then you wonder why you aren’t taken seriously by non-liberals? LOL!

  46. Nquest Says:

    Nquest,
    Please ignore thordaddy.

    Done. ((()))

  47. thordaddy Says:

    You take a lil’ breather, baby Buster…

  48. Restructure! Says:

    @Slumberjack: Can you tell Maysie that her links are broken, and logins for commenting is probably too much of a barrier?

  49. Slumberjack Says:

    I’ve mentioned it before regarding the links. Some work, while others do not. I believe she mentioned something about moving to something more accessable eventually, as time permits.

    A mighty fine blog you have here btw.

  50. Restructure! Says:

    Thanks.

  51. Chris Diaz Says:

    I’m a Chicano male (disclaimer). I struggle with this issue soooooooooo much. I really, really appreciate the White people that are reaching out to make this country better. You are, in fact, in the dominant group and it would be easy for you to not get involved. I honestly respect that alot. So, it really, really bugs me when I go online or in person and scold White liberals for what I perceive to be unrealistic or inaccurate representations, it’s a no-win situation. Here I am, chiding people, many of whom have a sincere desire to help me. So my choice is either a) remain silent out of respect for their intentions, or b) tell the truth as best I know it and potentially hurt the feelings and/or turn off what is, even if a bit confused, an strong potential ally. Furthermore, I don’t want to destroy some of the fragile unity we have all managed to build or give ammunition to white supremacist right wingers. Also, let’s face it, it’s gotta be hard to be White and told that perhaps you but at least people that look like you are part of a problem. I imagine it can make one easily defensive, hence I value White speakers on the issue of racism because White audiences are more likely to actually listen to them. For me, it’s a crappy situation all around that makes me feel bad either way, but I have to tell the truth, as I know it, or I just can’t sleep at night.

  52. thordaddy Says:

    Chris Diaz,

    It’s hard to tell the truth if you don’t know the truth. When you say white people are the “problem,” what does that mean other than white people don’t give non-whites what they want or whites take away what non-whites want or have? This is the entire “racist” exploitation scheme in a nutshell.

    The problem though is that in the year 2009 in American it is a large swath of white liberals allying with the Diaz’s of the world to assert superiority over a small traditional-minded white America. You are, with your white liberal cohorts, on an imperial undertaking. Your silly instance that “racism” actually thwarts your freedom to such an extent that you must extinguish any thought of such a thing is thoroughly rebutted by your self-evident freedom to spew to global audience.

  53. Chris Diaz Says:

    That’s cool Thordaddy, the great Nordic commenter. Your speaking your piece as you should be. The real, real, real problem is, in my opinion, the issue of class. The top 1% have like 40% of the wealth. The masses are fighting over gruel with the few are eating filet mignons. But, the White working class and the White working class alone are most responsible for this phenomenon. By actively or passively accepting this system wherein they get an extra ladel of gruel relative to what is received by minorities, they keep us all divided. The White working class, as a whole, is the house negro of American economics. So, why don’t you grab your magic hammer and start helping out instead of being part of the problem?

  54. Restructure! Says:

    – I am not white; I am not in the dominant group.

    – thordaddy is a troll. Please ignore him.

  55. Chris Diaz Says:

    Restructure,
    Thanks for the tip.

  56. thordaddy Says:

    troll: one who does not subscribe to anti-white radical liberalism.

    I guess that makes me a troll. But Chris, you make sure to follow Restructures demands, ok?

  57. Slumberjack Says:

    Hey Chris Diaz:

    It isn’t difficult to be white. It’s easy in fact. If white ‘allies’ are fragile to the extent that their feelings get hurt if we’re told that our race’s actions and beliefs are the problem, then they aren’t of much use as allies. Racism isn’t about our feelings as whites. If white audencies are more likely to listen when white people speak on the issue of racism, and white people take it upon themselves to be the spokespersons, then both are deluding themselves in their mutual privledge. White allies do not belong on center stage within anti-oppression activities, because they are not the experts. At best, we can be supporters only when there is an awareness in both in mind and in deeds that we do not own the processes, it is not about us.

  58. Chris Diaz Says:

    Slumberjack,

    I appreciate those thoughts and I agree. But, you have to work with what you’ve got. It is a question of idealism vs pragmatism. The vast majority of white people are not where you are at, mentally.

    To put it another way, imagine three guys are robbing your house and you overhear their plan to kill you afterwards. Now, imagine that one of them starts feeling guilty and ask you if you’d like to him to try to convince the other two just to take the stuff, but leave you alive. Is that justice? No. Are you gonna turn it down? Hell no.

  59. Slumberjack Says:

    Interesting example Chris, the house invasion analogy. I suppose the victim in that scenario, extrapolated to the reality of our system, would be mindful of the ‘stockholm’ syndrome, they would be in a position to see the pointlessness in becoming effusive in their gratitude for being permitted to exist alongside a helper…the helper would just be reinforcing the dominant situation through the privledge of choice in the matter. The victim on the other hand awaits that choice, so the tragedy plays out one way or the other, one harm being reduced through a lesser one to be sure, but the residule still remains at a whim. It is better in that situation if the helper had done whatever that could be done to convince the other two merely through the example of not going there, in deflecting it towards something more positive. There’s my loose change view anyway.

  60. Chris Diaz Says:

    Slumberjack,

    Yeah, I feel you man. There’s such a weird combination of things to be sure. But, there is a wave building. There are so many of us that, mixed up as we may be, are learning and communicating….adjusting strategies and advocating. I think the internet is a big part of that.

    Really, for maybe the first time in history, the masses have the opportunity to actually investigate issues and think critically, rather than to simply rely on compromised and beholden heresay and mainstream media.

    On the flip side, America, as a country is very lazy intellectually and poluted with prejudiced thinking. As a result, we have millions on the internet who uncritically accept information from hate propaganda sites.

    We’ll just have to keep chugging along.

  61. Slumberjack Says:

    Most times, it’s the mainstream sources of information, as opposed to the pure hate sites, that perpetuates systemic racism, even as it trys to present itself as anything other than what it is. And it isn’t confined to America. As an example, a relatively popular news daily north of the border in Canada recently published this article:

    http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/634117

    Note the use of terms such as articulate in the second paragraph. It gets far worse from there.

    A rather poignant analysis of this article which exposes line by line the racism riddled throughout it, is found here:

    http://maysie.web.net/

    It’s but one example of how the dominant North American society and it’s propaganda outlets reinforces itself by racializing on a daily basis.

  62. thordaddy Says:

    Chris Diaz says,

    On the flip side, America, as a country is very lazy intellectually and poluted with prejudiced thinking.

    One can only conclude that this phenomenon is the result of the country becoming more non-white and liberal.

    But more to the point, what is “intellectual” about anti-racism? What is “intellectual” about conforming to the idea that notions of superiority and inferiority on issues of race are verboten?

    You certainly aren’t an anti-intellectualist are you, Chris? You wouldn’t claim that judging people by a notion of superior or inferior intellect to be verboten, bigoted, prejudiced or the like, would you?

    Why is anti-racism an intellectual position?

  63. White Anti-Racists who hope to be White Saviours believe in White Supremacy. « Restructure! Says:

    […] White antiracists appropriate the words of people of colour to advance their thesis. by Restructure! […]


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: