Kaiserschmarrn wrote:So I would recommend that @ingliz and @The Immortal Goon try and ask people who think too much whiteness may be a problem. And while you are at it, you may also want to try and find out how BLM define "black" when they say "black lives matter".
School integration and the concept of white privilige are hardly racist against whites. Both, in fact, merely reinforce the initial problem that we both went over and most other people are mocking the right for on this thread: what exactly does it mean to be white in this context?
We've shown that at various times in various ways Germans, French, Russians, Eastern Europeans, Irish, Italians, Scots, etc, have all been thought of as non-white by experts in their day.
In this context, to be white is to only mean "to be part of a privileged caste." To say that "to be part of a priviliged caste" has it's priviliges is to speak the obvious (which, apparently your rightwing sources whine about). So far as school integration, I'm not sure how much addressing a symptom while ignoring the root of the problem (capitalism) will help; but if it aids even one poor child at the expense of rightwingers crying about what victims they are (which they do ceaselessly anyway), it seems to be worth it.
As to define black, that's typically the "one drop rule." After the Civil War when there was no more actual slave caste, the black caste was extended to include all former slaves and free blacks. Theoretically nothing could be done to save them.
This is not true for Indians or Latinos. The former could achieve whiteness after generations of interbreeding, and Latinos could be arbitrarily declared white:
[url=http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/01/21/race-and-the-census-the-“negro”-controversy/]Pew[/url] wrote:Persons who were mixed “White and Negro blood” were to be counted as “Negro” (apparently capitalized) no matter how small the share of “Negro blood.” (This so-called “one-drop rule” or variations of it appeared in census instructions beginning in 1870.) Persons who were mixed white-Indian were to be counted as Indian “except where the percentage of Indian blood was very small or where he or she was regarded as White in the community.” Any person who was “white” and “colored” was to be counted according to the “colored” race, and mixed colored races were to be counted according to the race of the father. There was an attempt in this census only to obtain figures for “Mex” (Mexicans), who were defined as “all persons born in Mexico, or having parents born in Mexico, who were not definitely White, Negro, Indian, Chinese, or Japanese.”
In 1940, the only change was the elimination of the “Mex” category, and Mexicans “were to be listed as White unless they were definitely Indian or some race other than White.”
Again, white is just a category here for a class of people that are sometimes in the club and not.
So, again, the question again goes back to the person asking. Is it okay to be white? Nobody would say no as, by definition, it means that you're part of the okay club.
But why does this club feel the need to get on to their knees and demand the affirmation of everyone else to pet them and mew over their imagined victimhood?
Aside from rightwingers just being tear-stained victim-mongers in general, it is sort of groveling for everyone to affirm what a nice social category that they have.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
- By wat0n
- By FiveofSwords