Anti-racism is just and should be applied when possible. However, post racism PTSD may not be beneficial in that the PTSD causes people to see racism where there is none or they may use racism to explain away everything negative about where they are. Furthermore, yelling racism where there is none is detrimental to the cause of ending racism. I am fully aware that some may say it is racist to question excessive anti-racism as detrimental, but in a sense they are making my point by the critique.
I don't expect you to see the video, but just know that some black folks are starting to see anti-racism as a religion.
I *really* don't see any need for a purported 'even-handedness' on the issue of (institutional) racism, because the racism demonstrably *exists* -- it's *killer cops*, foremostly.
How about let's *get rid* of racism *first*, and then we can do all that other philosophizing stuff and touchy-feely stuff *after*.
Thanks for the URL.
The problem I see with the anti-racist movement is another 'ISM".
What does that *mean*? What do *you* mean? I've heard that phrase before, and it just sounds too casually *dismissive*.
An uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.
An attitude toward the past dominated by present-day attitudes and experiences.
Presentism | Definition of Presentism by Merriam-Websterwww.merriam-webster.com
A large component of the anti-racist movement is to constantly relive the past. It is OK to explain the effects of the past event into the present. However, it is not Ok to beat up white people or to embrace the noble victim status. The past should be analyzed academically so we can learn from it.
You may choose to be critical of the *social scene* around the politics of anti-racism, but then that's no longer really being *political* -- you're then a *social critic* of some kind, and maybe you want to sell your written observations to the New Yorker, or something.
If you stick to the *politics* of the matter then you won't be blurring any lines, and you won't have any confusion over your social-scene role -- this, incidentally, is how I do my own participation. I tend to *compartmentalize* according to these three categories, by scale:
History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle
By the same reasoning you're *correct* -- that 'lifestyle', or, more broadly, the context of on-the-ground interpersonal *civil society*, is not usually explicitly political, so beating up a random white person wouldn't typically be commonly seen as 'political', and so it's not, and shouldn't be done, because it would more normally be seen as *criminal*, especially to the victim. (At a fascist rally, it's a different story, due to the explicitly *political* context.)
I'll just add, as a sidenote, that an 'academic' analysis isn't necessarily the *correct* one, because it tends to be somewhat *privileged* in nature, and *liberal* / reformist on the political spectrum. As a revolutionary I'd say that the *class* analysis matters most since it's the most deterministic social dynamic throughout all of human social history, and is at the very *top* of my 'history' taxonomy graphic above.
Aristotle thought women were only good for sex and procreation. That does not negate the greatness of Aristotle. Jefferson and Washington were creatures of another era and made errors, however they are the pillars of America. I would assume a well educated person would accept that and move on------unless the amygdala in the limbic system takes over due to racial PTSD.
As for Lincoln: His intentions were likely to be much more complex than compassion for slaves. I suspect that he was a man of that era even if he did not own slaves. Nevertheless, he ended slavery.
I do not like the emancipation statue with the slave kneeling. I understand the statue was solely paid funds from ex-slaves. This brings another subject of racism: The concept of insecurity. I can see why that statue would bother someone that is a bit insecure. OTOH, a person with great self esteem would acknowledge the statue without suffering any anguish. With regards to that statue I would simply remodel it to show the slave standing up next to Lincoln.
Or maybe a statue of a full-blast *slave rebellion* of several people....
America was founded by Englishmen and the English at one time owned 33% of the world. BTW, the English also looked down on the Scotts and the Irish. They made fun of their culture and accent.