Harvard professor argues for 'abolishing' white race

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I still want someone to acknowledge that 'watching the language' doesn't apply to this person while it applys to the teacher that taught their kids what 'niggardly' meant and if someone wrong 'Abolishing the Black Race'.

Who opposed the use of niggardly?

[MrFun]

David -- I patiently await for your reply to my post.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who opposed the use of niggardly?

Carver for one. But there was a big hubbub about it.

[David Floyd]

David -- I patiently await for your reply to my post.

I thought I did

[Sikander]

I would like to see the idea of race relegated to the history books myself. There is no biological basis for it, and it is today mainly a confusing way to speak about culture without using the word culture. It is also of course used by the worst sorts of people for the worst sorts of purposes, namely to divide people who share the same political space along cultural - familial lines like it was used by Milosevic until very recently and is being used by Mugabe now.

It seems a very simple thing to destroy this bogus concept that dare not even use it's real name lest it give away too much of it's own power. Let's simply stop using it. There is no need to destroy anything. Useful distinctions like culture can be simply called culture. Heritage can simply be called heritage, and men and women can simply be called men and women. There is no need to force everyone into a few ill-fitting categories in order to fulfill some promise made when most people actually believed in the idea of race. There is no reason whatsoever.

Why destroy anything at all? The author of the piece is talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he says that we can simply starve the concept of the white race to death in a relatively peaceful revolution, and on the other he talks of bashing everything that smacks of "whiteness". This is because this author is conflicted between his intellectual side that sees to at least some extent what a bankrupt concept race is, and his emotional side which is still addicted to the attention that making outrageous statements and picking fights has gotten him throughout his life.

A quick look at his history as a Marxist union organizer (with an arrest for throwing a paint bomb at a member of the proletariate who failed to show the proper zeal for the revolution) in the United States tells us all we need to know about his need for conflict and attention. Now he has moved on to greener pastures, and at least as of the 1990s there are no pastures any greener than those of a white radical in a black studies department. In my opinion this man's opinions as reflected by the article don't say anything new or particularly useful as conflicted as they are, though his use of inflammatory language does recommend him as a mediocre to moderately successful academic troll should there ever be a shortage to be filled.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I thought I did

Yep -- you did.

Where's a DOH smilie when ya need one?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd

If I said I was more comfortable around whites, and thus I would only hang out with white people, would you see a problem? Would you blame anyone besides myself for this attitude?

Of course not -- there are black students in some classes of mine, and I chat with them. But I have not yet made any friends with them -- the ones that I have befriended so far, are white (ok -- one Asian student too).
So does mean that I have racist tendency? Probably not.

Originally posted by David Floyd
For example....?

Example of a behavior involving sub-conscious racism, would be if you saw a lone black man at night, outside, approaching from the opposite direction, and you cross the street.
Then the next night, you see the same occurence, but this time he's white, and you merely pass him by on the same side of the street he is on.
Both persons lets say, have the same similar clothing and walked in the same casual demeanor.

That is sub-conscious racism.

[Ramo]

I completely agree with Sikander. Race is an anachronism.

[Tingkai]

Sikander is right that we would be better off without the illogical divisions of people into races, but I think the Harvard prof's point is that the concept of race is more than just a poor label.

For various reasons, being white in a western society provides benefits, and not being white incurs disadvantages. What we must do is destroy these advantages and disadvantages.

The prof is saying the key to this process is eliminating the priviledges of white skin.

I disagree with this claim, in the sense that I think there must be a united effort on both sides.

As Speer points out: "Some minorities see being successful as selling out your people or origins to become 'white'."

We need to get rid of that self-defeating attitude as well.

However, the destruction of these concepts is not easy and will take decades to achieve.

[Seeker]

Interesting perspective from over here in South Korea...

It's a totally 'racially' homogenous society.

Japan is cosmopolitan by comparison.

Personally, I think that many American minorities have a persecution or victim thing going on to a large extent.

Real racial persecution looks different.

I can't think of a single instance of something being granted to me by 'white priveledge'.

[Tolls]

Oh well.
Not much to add here that hasn't already been pointed out by those that read the article and realised what he was going on about.

He runs a magazine thing on the web:

http://racetraitor.org/

which is essentially more of the same thing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Damn, gotta hand in my "White boy, get twice of everything for half the trouble" card.

The only thing I ever specifically got on account of my race was denied financial aid for college, on account of the fact that my parents who lived a thousand miles away and had nothing to do with my support made too much money, and since I was white, I wasn't entitled to any consideration of the fact that I was self-supporting and trying to go to college on *my* income. No biggie, in the long run.

I really have a hard time taking seriously anything from a Cambridge, Mass living liberal fop, especially having recently spent time there and seeing how rough the "intellectual elite" have it.

I wonder how he'd reconcile his views on "white privilege" after spending some time in cracker white ****holes like the coal country in West Virginia, and then going to yuppie havens out here where "race" is pretty much a non-issue among the moneyed crowd.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Seeker
I can't think of a single instance of something being granted to me by 'white priveledge'.

But would you notice it?

The greatest "privilege" as a white in North American society is that you don't have to put up with much discrimation. The Native American applying for a job is routinely considered a suspect alcoholic, criminal or idiot. The white person is not. Many of my Black Canadian friends are routinely pulled over while driving their cars lawfully, something that doesn't happen much to my white friends. A white person who goes for a job never has to deal with the question of whether they were hired on merit or because of their skin colour. Whites are automatically treated as native born citizens, Chinese-Canadians are automatically assumed to be immigrants.

Whites, of course, do face racism, but I would say the vast majority of white people rarely encounter racial discrimination.

The prof is using aggressive language, but I suspect that most of us would agree with his basic concept that we need to get rid of these racial benefits.

The problem I have with this guy is his claim that:
"The existence of the white race [priviledges] depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse."

I think that is just mumbo-jumbo crap.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The only thing I ever specifically got on account of my race was denied financial aid for college, on account of the fact that my parents who lived a thousand miles away and had nothing to do with my support made too much money, and since I was white, I wasn't entitled to any consideration of the fact that I was self-supporting and trying to go to college on *my* income. No biggie, in the long run.

When I applied for a university student grant, I received about $30 (my family is lower middle class). I guess the only reason I got that money was because I'm Chinese-Canadian.

[Seeker]

Semantic issue:

Lack of persecution should be the norm for a social group in a liberal society. (sounds romantic doesn't it?)

I don't see it as a 'benefit'.

We should eliminate actual, real discrimination.

I wouldn't call it destroying white priviledge (sp?), but guaranteeing normal rights, not a 'special benefit'.




The Author brought up an interesting issue:

The 'whitewashing' of ethnic minorities like Eastern Europeans, Irish, Italians, Polacks, etc. Time was, an Irish Catholic in Ontario faced widespread discrimination.

One might argue that 'Asian' people have 'made the journey' to 'good as white'.

What does that racist phrase 'good as white' mean? It seems to be purely economic!!

When the Irish and Italians moved into the suburbs, owned property, and paid a lot of municipal property taxes, they were 'good as white'.

Now, in areas of high Asian immigration, Asian immigrants have made a similar transition.

Is 'good as white' = racial equality? Not initially, it is a condescending, 'he thinks he's people' statement, isn't it? But gradually, in the case of Japanese, Chinese, Italian, and Irish, it seems to have become equality...?

For 'good as white' to become 'equality', does the ethnic group have to become more assimilated? Is that the price?

Seems to be. A 5th generation Italian or Irish Immigrant, because their skins are white, are accepted.

Even a 5th generation East Asian, despite external differences, are also accepted.

So 'blacks' are denied equality because of their* refusal, and maybe even contempt for, to assimilate to 'white' norms.

*Meaning by and large, in the USA, in big cities.

So what the heck are these cultural norms? Why are they in conflict? Which ones can we get rid of?

Is one of them a culture of victimhood? Is the other the still existing sense of unconscious superiority?