> they're still terrible concepts that have been roundly denounced on their own merits
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.
You are falling into the trap that was explicitly set up by trolls. If it was not well known to be explicitly set up by trolls, "it is ok to be white” would be a fine, boring statement.
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.
the fact that it's so effective says more about society than the trolls though. if you squint hard enough, it's almost like the reactions provoked when you say "anti-white racism doesn't exist" without further explanation. it's true under the modern definition, but sometimes hard to take in good faith.
The phrase was set up by trolls explicitly to root out those who do not, after all, use corresponding phrases in good faith (and once rooted out, then played). It absolutely should be a fine, boring statement - and its brilliance is that it's not the trolls that make it a trap, but those who choose to fight it.
There are people on the left that assume that if you have white skin, then you must act a certain way, and that way of acting is wrong. This is based solely on the person's race, no individual characteristics need be considered.
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"
edit: Misread the article and grabbed the first name I saw. This edit fixes the reference:
"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.
Five minutes of digging and I found out that this news article is actually just reporting on a tweet[1] by #DrKarlynB[2] which I found out is an organizational psychologists who hates critical race theory. Of her retweets she primarily retweets republicans, and the comment section of her tweets often contains pro-trump rhetoric.
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?
The coco-cola incident made national news, I imagine there are better articles out there; I simply grabbed the first one on google - I should have sought out a better one to link to.
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.
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.
> 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?
Those Coke indoctrination slides say "Try to be less white." Not "Try not to be a white supremacist," but just ... being less white. The sign "It's OK to be white" ought to have zero reaction if what you said is true, but somehow it causes rather a lot of reaction.
The "privilege" concept is original sin, and you can't even be absolved of it.
Every white person has a white privilege and thus is racist and benefits from white supremacy. Same difference. The left doesn't hate white people, they just hate 90% of them.
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.
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.