Its a minefield...

[TheCat]

So....as a white person I'm apparently racist if I dont 'understand that i'll never understand'....and even if I try to understand, its also racist to ask a person of colour (the people who do understand) to explain it to me....

Also...Its 'racial profiling' if I assume that any person of colour understands and can explain it to me, but not racial profiling to assume that i (as not a person of colour) will never understand.

Also, good intentions arent enough, but try getting involved and you're probably a self-appointed White ally or have a white savior complex.

(See attached for more)

For clarity....the police/race issue in the US is clearly a serious problem; as is racism in any form, and we clearly all need to find ways to combat racial prejudice as a society.....but so many serious discussions on this issue are being hampered when the woke-police continue to add layer upon layer of verboten language/questions/behaviour.

I beleive its got to the point that we (more often than not) cant even have a discussion about it? I've seen people taken down on television/social media for not blindly buying into every new catchphrase associated with this issue. (im sure someone will brand me racist for this thread)

But....dont we tell children to ask as many questions as possible? dont we use phrases like "asking questions is how you learn' and 'there are no stupid questions'?

I dont think im alone in wanting an open discussion on some of the more contentious views around this issue, but also not alone in that I dont want to be branded a racist for doing so. So - I'll just stay silent like a good many other people. And probabbly unfort be branded a rascist for doing that too.....

[Orange owl]

You seem quite bright why not have a think

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

What would you like help with?

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Some books to read?

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Because I like attachments, I have added another one.

[TheCat]

So I'm a pretty passionate advocate for combating climate change, but I think the extinction rebellion people (while well meaning) are totally misguided in their approach.

Does that mean I need 'more education' about climate change?

Similaly...Ive read a bit on the racism topic, and while I (like many others)...would consider myself 'anti rascist'...I don't think I need 'more education'. I just happen to disagree with the ultra-progressive narrative in how to combat racial prejudice. I find it, in its purest form, highly divisive.

Allow me to use woke/progressive language to make my point. Black (and other minorities) people, by virtue of their 'lived experience' are the only ones who can truly understand racism, right? But if 'White privilege' is part of the problem, then surely people who've experienced white privelige are also part of the solution. No black person can ever truly understand the mentality and experience of a person with white privilege (according to the same logic). So how can 'the oppressed' hope to find the language and the approach to dictate how the 'oppressors' should act, without ever really understanding what it's like to be an oppressor. Maybe they should just 'understand that they'll never understand'....

Ridiculous right?

People who've experienced racism (systematic or otherwise) surely cannot hold a monopoly on the way the problem (in which EVERYONE is an actor) can be solved. They are or course vital contributors to any solution. But that solution will need to be a solution for ALL to be able to work sustainably. Dialogue, questions, different viewpoints (Ironically enough....diversity is what's needed). Not dismissal of even mild disagreement (with one approach) as simply a lack of 'education'.....

[Blah Blah]

The answer to your question TheCat is in the role that class, money, opportunity, and history, plays in privilege. In most societies, that is owned by a small percentage of the dominant ethnic group and/or in some societies, the dominant cultural group. The issue with Imperialism and Empire, is a historical legacy of that being turned upside down in 'acquired' colonies by a minority group who exploit the rest. This is where the legacy of white privilege finds its roots, with people of other ethnic groups being the ones exploited most. Black people understand this perfectly. So do many white people. And you state, quite rightly, that those who benefit from white privilege need to be part of the solution. However, why would they be incentivised to do anything that compromises the privilege they enjoy? Most of them can't even acknowledge the privilege they enjoy over other white people, let along think they should do anything to level the playing field. Privilege is a self preserving construct. This is why very little actually changes in the social order until it is forced to do so.

[seenbeen]

You forgot gender....

[Ronnijade]

I think anyone who questions racial injustice probably has their priorities a bit muddled. You may not be as well educated as you assume, TheCat. I don?t see the point in this thread.

[TheCat]

Ronnijade Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think anyone who questions racial injustice

> probably has their priorities a bit muddled. You

> may not be as well educated as you assume, TheCat.

> I don?t see the point in this thread.

And herin lies a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I'm not questioning the existence of racial injustice in anyway. But I raise some questions about the narrative surrounding it, and all your blinkered mind sees someone denying racial injustice is a problem?

All topped off by the classic woke-trope of 'educate yourself'...I.e.'you're questioning something that I unquestionably believe, it can't possibly be becuase there might other ways to think about it, it must be because you're ignorant of the things I 'know' to be true...you need to go educate yourself' FFS

[KidKruger]

Cat, people love to jump on this one.

Weirdly, in a way they wouldn't to your face.

Well done bringing it up, there is a sense of "who's entitled to talk about what" on this subject.

[TheCat]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The answer to your question TheCat is in the role

> that class, money, opportunity, and history, plays

> in privilege. In most societies, that is owned by

> a small percentage of the dominant ethnic group

> and/or in some societies, the dominant cultural

> group. The issue with Imperialism and Empire, is a

> historical legacy of that being turned upside down

> in 'acquired' colonies by a minority group who

> exploit the rest. This is where the legacy of

> white privilege finds its roots, with people of

> other ethnic groups being the ones exploited most.

> Black people understand this perfectly. So do many

> white people. And you state, quite rightly, that

> those who benefit from white privilege need to be

> part of the solution. However, why would they be

> incentivised to do anything that compromises the

> privilege they enjoy? Most of them can't even

> acknowledge the privilege they enjoy over other

> white people, let along think they should do

> anything to level the playing field. Privilege is

> a self preserving construct. This is why very

> little actually changes in the social order until

> it is forced to do so.

It seems you have a different definition of privilege than Janaya Khan (co founder of black lives matter), who says that?"Privilege isn't about what you've gone through; it's about what you haven't had to go through."

So, surely by everyone being involved in the dialogue (rather than white people being #MUTEDBUTLISTENING...or #SILENCED depending on your viewpoint) means minorities can be elevated so that no one has to 'go through' it...so no one loses their privilege, just some people gain it.....

[TheCat]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cat, people love to jump on this one.

> Weirdly, in a way they wouldn't to your face.

> Well done bringing it up, there is a sense of

> "who's entitled to talk about what" on this

> subject.

Thanks. Exactly my point. When I see people who I know - who are smart, considered, and very anti-racist - prostrating themselves on social media, and suggesting they are not entitled to talk about the issue, I just don't get it.

I'm guessing it all started with 'listen to the victims' which is fair...but its now morphed into 'listen ONLY to the victims'.....

[pk]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just don't get it.

>

for once we agree

[JohnL]

I don't hear 'listen only to the victims' - I hear research and read and obtain knowledge (and that includes what victims have written as we aren't a folk tale society, we have books and the internet) - you can't experience first hand but you can extrapolate and emphasise (well most can - some apparently can't).

You can go through websites like the below - which is a teaching resource.

https://www.tolerance.org/

[Blah Blah]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It seems you have a different definition of

> privilege than Janaya Khan (co founder of black

> lives matter), who says that?"Privilege isn't

> about what you've gone through; it's about what

> you haven't had to go through."

I am mystified as to how you can conclude that by anything I wrote. Read my post again. It was a valid point on the historical development of entrenched privilege and why it is so hard to compete with. If however you want to debate a quote by Janaya Khan instead, that is fine (I agree with her point too btw). Just don't conflate that with anything I have not actually said ;)

> So, surely by everyone being involved in the

> dialogue (rather than white people being

> #MUTEDBUTLISTENING...or #SILENCED depending on

> your viewpoint) means minorities can be elevated

> so that no one has to 'go through' it...so no one

> loses their privilege, just some people gain

> it.....

But that ignores the central point I made about self preserving entrenchment of class based privilege. That exists. Those who have most never want to give any of it up. If they did, there would be no Monarchy, no public schools, no institution of any sort that rewards people by the luck of who they are born to. Yes we can have detailed debates about that, but none of that changes the inequalities caused by that entrenchment of privilege.

There was a documentary a little while ago that looked at the struggles of Black graduates entering into certain professions, like law, the city etc. All the data shows that black students can go to the same colleges as their white middle/ upper class counterparts, do better in their final results, but fail to be as successful as those counterparts in being recruited to top city firms etc. THAT is an example of white privilege self preserving. It seeks to preserve its own class culture. This is precisely why BAME/ working class/ Women etc struggle to climb ladders and break glass ceilings. And when they do, it because they can play the game, become like those whose club they are allowed into. It rarely changes the other way round.

[KidKruger]

Setting boundaries on subjects people can and cannot talk about is just another form of control.

Trump is doing it right now.

It's a win-win; you create your own privileged (yes, I used that word - oops !!) group through your natural 'entitlement' to speak on it because somehow YOU 'qualify' and all the while the excluded (or 'unqualified') can't interfere.

Basically exclusion by other means.

And that's a bit stupid, because the whole point of pushing for change means those in power have to change, but achieving that by excluding them from having their say is fantasy.

So it's all a bit 'dog calling the cat hairy-arse' (all similarity between the words of this phrase and the UserID of any posters is purely coincidental).

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> KidKruger Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Cat, people love to jump on this one.

> > Weirdly, in a way they wouldn't to your face.

> > Well done bringing it up, there is a sense of

> > "who's entitled to talk about what" on this

> > subject.

>

> Thanks. Exactly my point. When I see people who I

> know - who are smart, considered, and very

> anti-racist - prostrating themselves on social

> media, and suggesting they are not entitled to

> talk about the issue, I just don't get it.

>

> I'm guessing it all started with 'listen to the

> victims' which is fair...but its now morphed into

> 'listen ONLY to the victims'.....

[Blah Blah]

This is an article from the US from three years ago, but all of its content remains relevant today.

https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2017/07/24/10-examples-that-prove-white-privilege-exists-in-every-aspect-imaginable/

Sixty percent of the US population are white Caucasian. So why are other ethnic groups so disproportionately impacted by everything?

[JohnL]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Setting boundaries on subjects people can and

> cannot talk about is just another form of

> control.

> Trump is doing it right now.

> It's a win-win; you create your own privileged

> (yes, I used that word - oops !!) group through

> your natural 'entitlement' to speak on it because

> somehow YOU 'qualify' and all the while the

> excluded (or 'unqualified') can't interfere.

> Basically exclusion by other means.

> And that's a bit stupid, because the whole point

> of pushing for change means those in power have to

> change, but achieving that by excluding them from

> having their say is fantasy.

> So it's all a bit 'dog calling the cat hairy-arse'

> (all similarity between the words of this phrase

> and the UserID of any posters is purely

> coincidental).

But all academic subjects are a bit like that - I can't argue Einsteins General Theory of Relativity is wrong to scientists even though I know it is because all science is wrong (it'll be improved on eventually) without learning the jargon and received wisdom first. I could learn Trumps jargon - It's just I feel Trumps s** isn't worth my time to learn - but we probably should and some people no doubt have just to take it down.

[malumbu]

Cat, go on admit it, this is not a minefield but a goldmine for you as you love a good argument and debate. Not the five minute one here but a full half an hour. Me? Just reinforces my views how much more tolerant and liberal society is in the UK, however imperfect we may be.

To lob a small grenade in how does the last major riots in the UK (2011) compare with what we are seeing in the US. Not the size of course but the background/reasoning/managing. Extracting from Cameron's speech after the riots: This is a great country of good people. Those thugs we saw last week do not represent us, nor do they represent our young people - and they will not drag us down.

It goes into stuff about broken society whether we have the "determination to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations" Interesting reading. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-on-the-fightback-after-the-riots

[Blah Blah]

I am curious to know who exactly TheCat is thinking of when arguing that some people have been taken down on social media for expressing views around this subject ;)

[KidKruger]

I get what you're saying JohnL, but I feel there's a difference between some of the most difficult science in the history of mankind, and moral discussion. Don't you ?!

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

But all academic subjects are a bit like that - I

> can't argue Einsteins General Theory of Relativity

> is wrong to scientists even though I know it is

> because all science is wrong (it'll be improved on

> eventually) without learning the jargon and

> received wisdom first.

[JohnL]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I get what you're saying JohnL, but I feel there's

> a difference between some of the most difficult

> science in the history of mankind, and moral

> discussion. Don't you ?!

>

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> But all academic subjects are a bit like that - I

> > can't argue Einsteins General Theory of

> Relativity

> > is wrong to scientists even though I know it is

> > because all science is wrong (it'll be improved

> on

> > eventually) without learning the jargon and

> > received wisdom first.

Yes - a moral discussion is probably more difficult :).

[JohnL]

Facebook friend who does a lot of football writing sent this just now (first 20 mins is a sort of personal discussion on racism)

https://stadio.football/latest/twofriends

[uncleglen]

How can people have a serious discussion about racism when the hypocrisy manifested in these situations exists.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/27/girls-gangs-sexual-criminal-exploitation-violence