I see your point but I take issue with a couple things. The overall tone of hate and division isn't helpful to having realistic conversation and debate on these issues. It's disappointing coming from someone who nominally wants to change minds. But more importantly, this argument is extremely Americentric and historically blind. There are places like Ireland that are full of angry white men that have been horribly mistreated long times before African slavery started. Ever wonder where the "Gingers have no soul" meme comes from? And African descendants have plenty of blood in the past too, look up what Shaka Zulu did to Zwide's mother. Does that mean that the sins of the father should be visited on the sons perpetually? I don't think it does for anyone. I'd like to discuss your theorem: "What is a negative stereotype of an angry white man? There aren't any." I'd just like to point the obvious. They're shallow, closed minded, insular, pedantic, and self-centered. It's the Fox News greatest hits. You also have a misconception about the term "Social Justice Warrior". You seem to think it's a dig against social justice as a category, when it's not. It's a rejection of the idea that social justice can only be accomplished by war. That it can only be, as you so painfully put it, "a zero-sum game". Why must we crater the beautiful idea that diversity, inclusion, and equality enrich us all? What happened to Dr King and his Dream? Look back at Jesus, Gandi, and MLK. Then, and tell me what has changed more than love and peace. Hate isn't the answer. This blurb had a defeatist and pandering attitude, full of casual racism and I feel it wouldn't serve to change one mind that didn't already believe your tenant. Your arguments were malformed and your barbs missed the target. But I thank you for sharing your thoughts and hope you don't take my criticism too harshly. I just think race relations are too complicated for either a Tumblr blog or /r/GamerGate. Please respond, I'm very interested in your take on this. ^_^ (also, please excuse any autocorrect shenanigans, this was typed on mobile.)
Put the tone argument away. What he's posted is not unrealistic, and you don't get to dismiss it as that because of its tone. By White Men, right? Of course non-white societies have disputes too. How is that proving anything here? All I'm hearing is "What about the black on black violence, huh?" It doesn't prove that "It's a white man's world" is Americentric or historically blind. Racial segregation wasn't Americentric. Racial inequality in western societies today isn't Americentric. The self-centered angry white man is ambitious. The insular angry white man is strategic. The closed minded angry white man is focused. The shallow angry white man is discerning. The pedantic angry white man is someone who pays attention to detail. These are the traits that are framed as beneficial. Angry women are clearly at that time of the month. Not to mention vain (shallow), defensive (closed minded), cliquey (insular), naggy (pedantic) and manipulative (self-centered). Why would you do that...There are places like Ireland that are full of angry white men that have been horribly mistreated
look up what Shaka Zulu did
They're shallow, closed minded, insular, pedantic, and self-centered.
/r/GamerGate
So I wasn't going to get involved, but seeing as you so elegantly dismissed 800 years of Irish oppression as "lol, white people", I will. You're just demanding AdonisGksu put away his argument without addressing it, which has a very valid point. There is a very real atmosphere with a lot of groups of "division and hatred". Remember that video that surfaced a few days ago of that guy being kicked out of a public space for being white at a Black Lives Matter protest? What does anybody gain by division and hatred? It baffles me when I hear about "People of Colour only" spaces. Why would you ever want to promote segregation? What does anybody gain? Surely you're just increasing the rift between the two sides? Surely the goal of anti-racism is a world where nobody sees a "black person" or "white person" but just a "person"? It would be infinitely more productive to focus on the actual injustice that minorities face in the western world, rather than focusing on hating and barricading yourselves from people with a different skin colour than yourself. There is an argument I see thrown around a lot which concludes that a) White people are inherently racist and b) It is impossible for a non-white person to be racist. People who make these conclusions always point back to a system of power form which white people have benefited over hundreds of years. Irish people are, for the most part, white. We were under pretty tyrannical British rule for roughly 800 years. We did not benefit from any sort of "system of power" for that whole time, and yet, Irish people are still happily pushed under the blanket term of "racist white people." The model doesn't work outside of the United States, and is therefore US-centric.Put the tone argument away. What he's posted is not unrealistic, and you don't get to dismiss it as that because of its tone.
Dylann Roof was welcomed with open arms into a black church, and look where that got the churchgoers. The point of black-only, or POC-only, or women-only spaces is to feel a certain level of safety and be able to discuss one's experiences and perspectives without having white people/men dominate the conversation. Usually whites/men do this without even realizing it besause they are just used to their own entitlement. I have to agree it'd pretty absurd. Some of the most extreme ugliness I've seen was between Asians and blacks.It baffles me when I hear about "People of Colour only" spaces. Why would you ever want to promote segregation?
There is an argument I see thrown around a lot which concludes that [...] It is impossible for a non-white person to be racist.
What Roof did was truly despicable. Nobody will be turned away from a church, and he knew that. It is an example of the work of a twisted, sick individual who is in no way representative of anyone at all. If you want to use what he did to promote segregation, then you shouldn't be opposed to other people excluding others for similar crimes. For example, in light of many terrorist attacks, should people then exclude Muslims from certain events? Personally, I don't think so. These disasters are the work of terrorists who don't represent any functioning member of the general public at all. EDIT: With regards to your point about excluding people because they might take over the conversation; that's a fair point that I'll need to think over. I had a conversation with Herunar a little way down there who made the same point. At the moment however, I am unconvinced that the good outweighs the bad in the idea of self-segregation.
My point is that there is a lack of trust among many black Americans about white people entering their spaces. The church shooting crystalized that distrust among a lot of black people I know. I'm not sure how to explain the categorical difference between a group of black activists excluding whites versus a government or company excluding Muslims from an airplane. Well, one difference is de jure discrimination versus de facto, but even that is not what I'm getting at. Additionally, the message from a lot of the Black Lives Matter groups has been to encourage white people to form their own auxillary groups to support BLM.
Eeeeh, I see where you're coming from (and I most certainly agree that the Irish people were treated horrifically by the British and, later, America as well) but I think you're missing the point about the PoC only spaces. That video you're referring to I believe was of Bernie Sanders having the mic taken away from his at a political event - this wasn't done by the broader BLM movement but rather two extremists whose views are fairly atypical. He wasn't kicked out for being white, though - he had the mic taken from him because these two activists wanted to shed more light on racial issues in the US, particularly concerning the African American community, because they felt white progressives sort of ignored them. And they do, honestly - I think Bernie Sanders is an exception to this, though. But any POC spaces (I mean, I don't even know to what extent they actually exist, to be honest with ya) exist just to give people a bit of a safe space where they can discuss issues that frankly a lot of people can't really empathize with just because they haven't experienced racism in the same way. It's all very well and good to say "We should see each other as people, not colors guys!" but that doesn't really work when the system is so ultimately rigged to see people as inherently different. You gotta start somewhere to get that ultimate egalitarian goal - and even then, it's a goal that will probably never, ever be achieved because people are a bit shit at treating others as equals, as the occupation of Ireland very clearly showed. Shit, if you had a English guy in 17th century Ireland walking into a pub and declaring HEY GUYS LET'S JUST GET OVER THIS DISCRIMINATORY DIVIDE AND BE COOL, he'd get a pretty rude answer. I mean, fuck, if you had an English person today going into Ireland or Northern Ireland and just saying "Oh hey that's all water under the bridge, you don't have to be so bitter about it all, couldn't have been that bad, amirite?" he'd get a rude response, and deservedly so. White people aren't inherently racist. I don't agree with anyone who says otherwise. But it's important to note that Irish people weren't seen as human - heck I don't even think they were seen as white. They were seen, much like Asians and Africans and etc were, as a different race. So you could argue that because they weren't seen as white they didn't get the benefits of being white. The same goes for the Polish and Eastern Europeans and people from the Caucasus.
Thanks for the response, you make some pretty compelling points. The video I was talking about was this one, but thanks for the clarification about the Bernie Sanders one; I was curious about what the whole hubbub about it was and was tempted to use it as an illustration as well. In any case, I don't know enough about the race issues currently facing the United States, so I'll try and gear my thoughts more towards the issues in a more general sense. In any case, I agree Ireland is hardly a glimmering bastion of hope when it comes to overcoming racial adversity. My ex-girlfriend was English who grew up in a primarily Irish Catholic area of Belfast, she went through hell just for being there. I do believe that that a huge part racial problems stems from the us-them mentality. I agree with you, eliminating this idea is not something than can be done easily, but it is the place to start. Taking my ex's ordeals in Belfast as an example, a lot of the problems occurred because Catholics and Protestants refused to associate with one another. Now, there is no obvious solution I can see to the issues in the north, but, by creating a "white only" or "PoC-only" space you are creating an issue that parallels the issues in Northern Ireland. You are creating and/or deepening an us-them mentality, when the goal should be to obliterate it. Even if the intention of this segregation is innocuous, it will still result in a huge mess. Your last argument is an interesting one and I'll have to mull over it for awhile, but nevertheless my previous point still stands. All of those people didn't benefit from a historical hierarchy of power, and so the "all white people are inherently racist" argument still doesn't hold. Anyways, I'm glad to see you don't subscribe to that ideology, and that tells me that at least on the whole we're in agreement, and right now we're just discussing the details and nuances.
Mmm, now, the thing is, I do think most of this discussion revolves around the US (there is probably even more racism against minority groups in certain European countries but I think it's a very different sort) and the thing is, racial politics in the US are probably as virulent as the Northern Irish sectarian conflict, but also very different. Now, from what I heard from my Catholic Northern Irish friends, Protestants and Catholics make up an almost even amount of the population there - the Protestants have a small majority, but it very small. In the US we aren't creating an issue that parallels what is happening in NI. That issue is already there and has been for a long time, simply because the white majority (and I say white in the context of the US here again - not all white people, like people you could call minority whites like Polish immigrants or the Jewish community and etc) was in a position that was inherently superior to African Americans in particular as well as the Asian and Hispanic community, among other non-white minorities. They completely outnumbered them, held a disproportionate amount of power and for a long time the US was basically an apartheid state in some respects. That isn't to say that EVERY SINGLE WHITE PERSON who benefited from their advantages was racist or at fault - I doubt anyone would argue that, but the system was most certainly rigged in their favor. Do you see how radically different that is from NI? The Protestants may have some advantages but you could argue that the Catholics held their own pretty well. The advantages that the white ruling classes had over minorities in the US is nothing like that - the us-them mentality has been there for ages. And just as you pointed out there is no obvious solution in the north, there is no easy, obvious solution in the States. It will take time to really heal all those wounds and because of institutional racism African Americans in particular still suffer a lot of injustice today. That's why those safe spaces are pretty important. But once again, I really don't think many of those exist to the extent that the media portrays them. I don't have a problem with them though, much in the way I don't have a problem with, for example, a gaming convention that caters to the LGBT crowd exclusively or Feminist Clubs/Societies that have 'women-only' nights to discuss pertinent issues that only they can really empathize with and fully understand. These safe spaces for marginalized and minority communities are so very, very important, just because that minority identity often forms a pretty core part of their everyday experience and life in a way that being part of the majority doesn't. I think there are very, very few people that sincerely believe "all white people are inherently racist". From a US perspective and context, I think a lot of people are often very frustrated and scared for their safety and their communities, and that frustration can often translate into statements that may come across as a bit inflammatory but are actually sorta understandable if you consider their perspective.
I don't really want to get too bogged down in the history of The Troubles, I was more trying to use it as an illustration for segregation/the us-them mentality. I see the point you're driving at in your third paragraph, I agree/disagree to a certain extent but just so that I don't end up going into too much history (and a lot of Irish history is very contentious) I'll just leave it. You may well be right, the phenomenon of self-segregation could just be amplified by the media. Personally, I'm pretty unconvinced that it's a net-good. In my eyes, it's just preaching to the choir, and opening up rifts even more. Which of us is right, I don't know, but I see where you're coming from and take it into consideration. There are a few Americanisms that spill across the water over here, and I've begun to see in recent years more people here in Ireland discussing the race issues here in the same way that you would discuss race issues in America. Some of my interest in the matter stems from my opinion that the commentary on your side of the Atlantic simply doesn't translate over to our side because our histories are far too different; and yet I do see some of it translating over directly. Anyways, thanks for the discussion! I really appreciate interesting conversation and it's given me quite a bit to think about!
I'd be a terrible politician, because I generally address myself to people that are either already of the opinion that I hold, or they could be brought to it pretty easily. I'm not going to win over people on the other side of the fence, and I don't try. I don't think there's a middle ground that we should be converging on. They're wrong, their positions are vulgar, and accepting any of it in the name of mutual understanding is out of the question. The people I'm concerned with are the moderates. The people who can see that MRAs, nativists, and anarcho-capitalists are burning down the house, but for whatever reason don't feel compelled to do anything about it. And to those people I'm stating a call to action: Call this shit out and let people that are getting roughed up know that you're on their side. In the context of an online community it means showing support for the "others" that get piled on by a vocal, racist/misogynistic minority. If the silent majority let's that slide those people might very well leave. And I think that we don't want that. In the broader political landscape there are a lot of implications. MLK Jr. talks about the "white moderate" in Letter from Birmingham Jail and it's something I've come back to a lot in my personal considerations. A silent majority is complicit if an empowered minority brutalizes a marginalized minority. As for the zero-sum game, I think it would be difficult to conceive of it any other way. White, male America is the beneficiary of years of injustice. The dynamic is different in other countries and at different times, but that is the reality here and now. Equality would absolutely benefit everyone, but it will come at the cost of a crooked privilege being revoked from those that are rulers now. To them it can only be viewed as a loss. This is short-sighted and egotistical, but I don't think pointing that out is going to change anyone's behavior. If someone with a broken moral compass has 10 yachts, and you tell them they can only have 6 "in the name of equality" they're going to view it as a zero-sum game in which the violence is visited on them. That they would get to live in a healthier society as a result of this isn't going to win hearts and minds in that camp. As for casual racism, I'm not sure what you mean. I'm a stereotypical white guy. I don't hate white people, or men, but I'm sick of seeing the violence a segment of my group is doing in the world. I don't think we need to be polite about it. But again, I'd be a shitty politician.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ They're angry at mexicans and they're angry at women. They're angry at a Big Government that ostensibly serves the interests of minorities and women, exclusively. When an angry white man talks about "social justice warriors" he is laying his mind bare to you; justice is necessarily a war on white men because that is who injustice serves. I'd be remiss to leave out the economic elephant in the room: the angry white man is all the more angry because privilege is delegated by class as well as race and gender. That the angry white man should blame other angry white men for his economic woes is something that doesn't occur to him, amazingly. Who the fuck are these angry white men you're talking about? They're clearly not stereotypical white men, because you're one of those and you don't display any of the qualities you've attributed to them: anger at minorities, fear of progress, viewing any increase in equality as a loss. Could these angry white men be the Red Tribe?I'm a stereotypical white guy.
a lot of white men are angry.
An attack on injustice is a proxy war on the white man.
White, male America is the beneficiary of years of injustice. The dynamic is different in other countries and at different times, but that is the reality here and now. Equality would absolutely benefit everyone, but it will come at the cost of a crooked privilege being revoked from those that are rulers now. To them it can only be viewed as a loss.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for being civil in your response. I meant my comment in that way so I appreciate you doing the same. Personally I feel like lately there has been too little civil disagreement and resulting refinement of dialogue within the social justice movement. To me, that's the real power in debate, the ability to refine your arguments until they're razor honed and unassailable. So, thank you for responding. On your main point I'll agree to disagree. But I'll say that two things. First, in my experience positivity always is more powerful and affects more lasting change than negativity. I have yet to see calling it out work to change hearts. Most people react defensively to being put on the spot like that and it takes a lot of concerted effort to retrain yourself to handle it better. To me, the presupposition of that much internal change would be better spent on the actual problems instead of taking the easy way out of calling someone a racist douche. Second, in my own life I've seen that social respect and equality is never a zero sum game. There is no limit on the amount of love and appreciation we can give out. But if we're moving into economic realms, yes there are a finite number of pennies running around. 10 yachts versus 6 is an entirely different question. After all, one can be dirt poor and still be happier than any billionaire. But we can do better, that's obvious. And about the casual racism, you can do with that what you will. I've read a lot about racism only being from white people, or the 3rd wave let's-rewrite-the-dictionary "power+privilege" and I reject the premise there. I personally don't think the color of your skin makes any difference if you're saying things that attribute negative characteristics to a large portion of a race of people. If you're white and you say racist things about black people, that's racist. If you're black and say racist things about white people, that's racist. If you're white and you say racist things about white people, that's racist. But I may have been painting with a broad brush, so feel free to ignore if you don't think it applies.