It’s unreasonable to echo a political slogan in public and then complain that people don’t assume your neutrality. You cannot say “it’s okay to be white” and expect others to consider it neutral, in much the same way that you can’t say “blood and soil”.
You voice your thoughts, fully expecting the audience to consider it neutral, but it so happens that your words pattern-match to a phrase that became a political slogan somewhen in the last few months, and boom, your audience hates you. You just stepped on a political landmine[0].
It seems to me than in the past 5-10 years, social discourse became littered with such political landmines, and at this rate, it's very hard to keep up with the list of phrases that can blow up in your face.
--
It's the same concept as dogwhistling at its core. Like the terms "urban", or "big government", or "states' rights", or "law and order". Completely "neutral phrases" that are often used to communicate a hidden message with plausible deniability. I mean after all, who could disagree that "all lives matter" – it's obvious isn't it?
I don't really accept it's all that hard to be aware of the implications of the language you use to communicate. I suppose you might theoretically step on a "landmine", but I'll tell you what – I am virtually certain that nobody who has said "it's okay to be white" to their audience has accidentally stumbled upon a neutral phrase with good intentions.
These are terms used earnestly in neutral ways by academics, professionals and bureaucrats from all over the political spectrum. Does anyone seriously thing the NHTSA or some sociology professor is dog whistling when they use words like "urban environments" or "law and order"?
Yes, you can communicate a hidden message with them but you can communicate a hidden message with damn near any words in the english language if you want to.
So then someone whose politics favors authoritarianism and centralization will propose some federal power grab, opponents will make arguments favoring local control and the authoritarians will try to tar them with slavery and Jim Crow even if the subject is unrelated, e.g. whether the FDA should be overruling the states on whether or not to ban a thing in their state.
It's essentially an attempt to prevent anyone from taking the neutral position by making an accusation of guilt by association. Nazis are bad, Nazis built roads, therefore roads are bad.
It is quite dishonest to claim that this phrase is neutral and not a political slogan.
Why do black lives matter? Because: All lives matter.
That is a non-racist perspective, and it was attacked viciously because it undercuts a propaganda effort.
I don't think that's an honest portrayal of the actual actions that took place or their motivations. In the context of disproportionate black deaths, mischaracterizing focusing on that specific issue:
1) does not inspire any positive change itself,
2) prevents positive change by demonizing those who are bringing awareness to and proposing solutions to the problem.
Rarely do you see the "all lives matter" crowd calling for increased police accountability; in fact, given their close association with Blue Lives Matter, I believe those who throw the slogan around tend to fight for quite the opposite.
Those people are then caught off-guard when they use the phrase and find themselves labeled “racist.”
I just don’t see how the vilification of a specific phrasing of a common sentiment moves us forward. To me it feels like playing power games with words.
[1]: https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles/1st
For example, here's a case of a Democratic governor, running for president, getting caught by this:
https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/martin-omalley-all-l...
And here is Hillary Clinton, falling into the same trap:
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/41711...
At the time, women couldn't vote, Black people could be owned, and all people could be indentured servants, which significantly undermines the "Thomas Jefferson said 'All Lives Matter' almost 250 years ago" argument.
People wanted to say they don't like being left out of the message.
Nobody seriously opposed "black lives matter", but noticed that proponents of that phrase got vicious when faced with "all lives matter"; the latter is not a political slogan, but a litmus test for racism.
Do black lives matter? absolutely, of course. Is it okay for me to be white? why is your response to berate me for saying so?
(And in the incredibly unlikely situation where you'd somehow been exposed to enough of the discourse to come up with these phrases on their own, but NOT so much that you hadn't heard them yet, they're still terrible concepts that have been roundly denounced on their own merits. For just one example: https://www.instagram.com/p/CAsrVFXD3Ju/?utm_source=ig_embed...)
This confusion was created the other side's choice of name, whether purposely or not.
You start off with a phrase like Black Lives Matter. This is clearly a political slogan designed to provoke opponents into taking the negation of it, i.e. into claiming that black lives don't matter.
The problem with it is that it's too clever by half, because it gives opponents the ability to claim the middle. All Lives Matter.
And it's a two party system so now both the center and the right are standing under the banner of the neutral slogan. Now BLM declares that ALM are really just a bunch of secret racists because otherwise they have to eat the rhetorical self-own.
But this is just an attempt to reassert the politically-motivated original framing, i.e. that anyone who disagrees with any BLM political position -- even if the disagreement comes from the center -- is saying they think black lives don't matter. Which is not necessarily the case.
This seems more like a "you're with us or against us" trick.
"I care about protecting all children" is still neutral, right? But if someone popularized "ICAPBC", by your argument "ICAPAC" would innately become a shibboleth? Something doesn't seem right here, where neutral positions automatically get converted to dog-whistles without any proof.
Yes, there was violence at a small fraction of protests, and it's fair to have pushback on that. That seems a separate issue than rejecting BLM on the face of it with an expression like ALM.
From there, you look around and you see that blacks and Hispanics seem to have injustice happening to them in ways that don't often happen to whites. (Not sure about Asians; but my perception is that they may experience injustice, but less of it than blacks.) And then, coming from a position that all injustice matters, when you seen injustice happening more to specific groups, you say "That injustice matters." Not that it's the only injustice that matters, or that other injustice doesn't, but that specific injustice seems to happen a lot, and it's not OK. We need to do something about it.
In contrast "Black Lives Matter" describes the issue exactly, succinctly and pithily. As a bonus it outs the people who want to remain willfully ignorant about it.
Hol' up, "it is ok to be white," is a terrible concept denounced on its own merits? Lol ok
It's a good thing that under Critical Theory, since race is a social construction (that's why Black is supposed to be capitalized, because it refers to the construction, not the color) there's no reason besides being "roundly denounced" (which will happen eventually to you anyway if you're an untermensch White) that you can't be transracial.
I'm not White, I'm a light tan person. Get off my lawn with your racist Theory.
But, it has been established that chan trolls came together to figure out a slogan that they could use to stir up heated arguments exactly like you are making. They settled on "it is ok to be white" and started using it to troll people into saying things that can be interpreted as hating white people. Then the arguments based on misunderstanding start and trolls laugh at you while they feed on your outrage and frustration.
If you disagree, then please explain what happened here with coke: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/366132 "Coca-Cola Asks Its Workers to Be 'Less White' to Fight Racism"
"The seminar entitled 'Facing Racism' , given by Robin DiAngelo , was presented through LinkedIn Education publicly, although not free of charge. The company admitted that, in effect, it invited its workers to take the course, but they clarify that it was not mandator"
I would assume that Robin DiAngelo would be on the left.
For all I know the slides she presents from Robin DiAngelo’s lecture were taken out of context. I think this is a pretty poor example. Can you do better?
However, from the article, you can see several of the slides that are presented. I find it hard to believe that there's some other context than race being referred to in these slides. Do you have reason to believe that the "white" in the slides is referring to something other than race? And if not, could you provide a possible greater context that doesn't place these slides under the guise of making broad generalizations about a group of people based on their identity? I am trying to think of one myself; however, I am failing to do so.
Here's a more bland article on the incident: https://www.fox5dc.com/news/coca-cola-staff-told-in-online-t...
Robin DiAngelo is talking about empathy. She asks people to put them self in the sues of a minority, knowing how boring it is, she puts the words “Try to be less white” on the slide in an attempt to humor.
Another possibility:
She has been working up the argument that whiteness is a social construct, and in this context, “being white” is the same as “being socially constructed to perceive your self as superior”. In that context asking people “to be less white” is not a judgement on the color of the skin.
It may be something entirely different though, point is it is not hard to come up with a context where these slides are not criticizing the color of people’s skin.
I agree that your above scenarios could change the context.
However, given that I perceived the slides in a different manner, and several others did as well (if no one perceived this to mean white people, then there would have been no news). Would you agree that using "white" to mean something other than the race in a seminar titled 'Facing Racism' is less likely than 'white' being used to refer to race? If not, would you agree that the Robin's usage of 'white' was poorly thought out, considering that people ended up with the conclusion that she was referring to race?
I do believe that Robin was referring to 'white' in terms of race; however, I'm willing to explore the possibility that this wasn't the case.
In the event that my assumption is correct - that Robin is referring to race - would you then agree that Robin is a member of the left who believes that white culture should be viewed negatively based on the content of the slides within the seminar?
The "privilege" concept is original sin, and you can't even be absolved of it.
Colorblindness (aka. not being racist by the old definition) is considered white supremacy.
"There's only one human race" is white supremacy.
"All Lives Matter" is white supremacy.
"Cultural appropriation" is white supremacy.
Being an "ally" is white supremacy.
Meritocracy is white supremacy.
Celebrating Columbus Day is white supremacy.
Being attracted to people of your own race is white supremacy.
Questioning the white privilege theory in the first place is white supremacy.
...and many more.
source: https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1267529522041282563
You're being played.
"It's OK to be white" isn't just a dogwhistle. (It may be that, but it isn't just that.) It's an explicit rejection of that kind of "all whites are guilty racists" baloney.
Yes, there are some people out there in social media who have taken to hating white people for being white. That's not OK. Call it out. But, don't dance for the trolls in the process.
But you said they were trolls? And we should call it out? Isn't that what the poster above you was doing?
Talking in circles, in circles...
There's the group of anti-white haters who need to be called out. There's the vast majority of people who don't want any form of racial hatred. And, then there's the white supremacist trolls (and just plain trolls) who want to trick the vast majority of people into fighting themselves and in the process make it look like anti-white hatred is much, much more common than it really is.
"It's OK to be white" is a troll campaign that is actively being used to bait people into fighting each other and to have both sides come out thinking the other is far more racist than they really are.
I'm sure you can see the problem there, and I would encourage you to think about whether you've fallen down a similar hole.
Is a phrase a "shibboleth" when intended to promote peace, unity, and mutual aid?
The only reason to say "all lives matter" is to trivialize the phrase "black lives matter". It may appeal to neutrality, but the context is far from neutral.
If so please provide a cite or link.
Although out of thousands of cops in the USA I am sure there are some genuine racists the notion that in 2020 cops would be killing blacks intentionally at a higher rate seems ridiculous. 99.999% of cops want to have an easy shift, get a donut or two, write a couple tickets, watch the years go by, retire early and collect a pension. Plenty of poor and middle class whites have been killed by abusive individual cops over the years and yet the reaction is not tribalism, rioting or generalising the actions of few bad cops to the police force as a whole. I agree America has massive problem with overly militarised police but this is not a racial issue. It stems from the drug war and the ease with which criminals can get high powered weapons in America. See North Hollywood Shootout.
The grinding oppression of every day life in terms of policing has been shown in study after study. It is disproportionately felt by black people, mostly men, but it has been steadily expanding to all demographics for decades now.
| Plenty of poor and middle class whites
Yeah and a lot of poor and middle class white people were out supporting the protests because of their own experiences too.
Daniel Shaver's death is not argument against BLM's goals, it's an argument in favor of them.
Those who make hay out of the name and have ignored the movement itself for almost a decade now are a small, ineffective minority.
The largest civil rights protest movement in American history doesn't need to spend its time focus-grouping and hand-wringing about people like that.
Do they? I'm not sure what leads you to think that. I have no evidence other than anecdote, but from what I see, I'm not sure that your claim is true.
No movement has ever changed anything by seeking to get 100% of everyone on board, least of all those most uninformed, hostile, and acting in bad faith.
Exactly. I've seen far more outrage about the death of a white man from those who say black lives matter than from those saying all lives matter.
#BLM Activists Call Attention To Graphic Video Of Daniel Shaver's Death At The Hands Of Arizona Police
Black Lives Matter is against police brutality of all forms and against all people.
Shaver isn't the only non-Black victim of police violence that BLM has been involved in supporting either. While their focus has always been Black people, they have never operated in an exclusive way at all.
Please stop with this racist skewing of statistics. There are thousands of factors involved. A bad faith person will always be able to stack them up in a way that favors their cause. Experts in criminology pretty much agree that racial justice is a problem in urban and sub urban USA, including police violence. The only reason to disagree and to skew the statistics in your favor is to entertain racist believes.
But that's the whole point. If black people are disproportionately shot by police because police are racist, that's a problem with police. If it's because "thousands of factors" cause black people to have disproportionately more encounters with police, but the police themselves are acting with neutrality, then it's a problem somewhere else and you can't fix it through police reform.
The answer is fundamental if you actually want to solve the problem. But not evaluating it is convenient if you just want to keep using it as a political bludgeon forever, because by not even looking in the right places for a solution, the problem is never solved and you can run for office on it over and over.
But my layman understanding of psychology is enough to recognize how experts deal with large number factors in social models. You don’t just pick and choose (in fact that is what I’m accusing racists of doing). There is a large body of literature that experts consults. In an average social psychology study you find something like citations to 30-60 different works to back up something as trivial as a study on the stress relation effects of living in proximity to high noise pollution. It is anything but convenient. To the contrary, it is a ton of work. I’m sure expert criminologists have spent years doing nothing but familiarizing them self with the literature so they can best judge how do deal with different factors in their models. And if they do mess up (which I’m sure they do) the self correcting nature of the scientific method will make sure that the worlds knows how their models were erroneous, and subsequent models will take this extra knowledge into effect.
Because if they don't they are racist. Right?
To me racial justice means that you are not treated differently simply because of your race. In 2021 in America there is no evidence that people are treated differently just because of their race. There is plenty of evidence that people living in high crime areas, engaging in suspicious activities like passing counterfeit money while high on meth and fentanyl are treated differently from your average joe regardless of skin colour.
There are ways to get an idea of the reality of black people. For those who are ok with videos, here are some good but enjoyable ones. You may use 'NewPipe' from fdroid or the youtube-dl command line utility to download them:
[1] How to pretend systemic racism does not exist? (with eng subtitles) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ciwjHVHYg
[2] Let's talk about what it's like to be a black person in the US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD8mWq0Hdcw
[3] Let's talk about being armed and black. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL_IX8yX_JU
[4] How cops are trained to shoot you in your home. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuzQrbio2Qw
Other resources include James Baldwin's books and documentaries. His 'The Fire Next Time' is just 120 pages [5].
'The Price of the Ticket' and 'I Am Not Your Negro' are good documentaries [6][7].
[5] https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Next-Time-James-Baldwin/dp/06797...
[6] https://www.amazon.com/James-Baldwin-Price-Ticket/dp/B01M25W...
[7] https://www.amazon.com/I-Am-Not-Your-Negro/dp/B01MR52U7T
[8] Also the 1965 Baldwin and Buckley debate on the theme "Has the American dream been achieved at the expense of the American negro?" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxLUbKebYvc
English subtitle download: https://amara.org/en/videos/dGI1henIPVYS/en/1338731/
You see the context in which you say things matter. If you should “all lives matter” in response to the death penalty, I bet you’d be met with a ton of leftist support. However if you say it in response to “black lives matter” it is pretty clear that you disagree.
Consider, alternately, these three statements:
"The social contract applies equally to all instances of human life."
"We should eliminate shame in connection with anyone's race, heritage, or other aspects of their origin over which they have no control."
"There is nothing inherent in markets that perpetuates racial prejudice."
These mean about the same thing but are formulated in a way that avoids this kind of gaslighting doublespeak. It's not hard to do. I doubt those statements would offend anyone.
I assume anyone saying "all lives matter" is racist precisely because it is so damn easy to say the same thing neutrally.
> "The social contract applies equally to all instances of human life."
Clearly you're making an argument against abortion.
> "We should eliminate shame in connection with anyone's race, heritage, or other aspects of their origin over which they have no control."
Pedophiles make this argument to justify their urges.
> "There is nothing inherent in markets that perpetuates racial prejudice."
This one might as well be All Lives Matter. It's the common retort against claims of algorithmic racial bias and was used historically in the South to oppose government-mandated desegregation.
These are the claims you're using as examples of neutrality, until somebody puts them in a frame where they're not.
You can do that with everything because even an actually neutral claim is an opposition to a non-neutral claim by someone else, and therefore has political implications.