Abolition Should be the Goal
I recently started a thread on critical race studies and it quickly devolved into a bunch of arguments made up of unsubstantiated claims, and the one guy who did provide some actual content from a proponent of critical race studies read it incorrectly. Thus, I will limit this discussion to one of something less academic and more approachable: I will be criticizing “wokeness” - but not from the right.
Apparently, Bing has a glossary dedicated to anti-racism, which is a little strange, but not totally out of line. I checked it out and it provides some clear definitions, such as this:
BIPOC stands for Black, Indigenous, and people of color. The intention behind the term is to acknowledge that not all people of color (POC) face the same levels of injustice. By listing out Black and Indigenous, the term emphasizes that people from these specific communities face different, and often more severe, forms of injustice and oppression.
The one that is especially important is the one they use for anti-racist:
Anti-racist: A person who actively practices anti-racism by opposing racism in all aspects of life and society, including political, economic, and social. Anti-racism is the practice of actively opposing racism.
This is a reasonable definition. But this definition is consistent with what is called “colorblind racism”, and, furthermore, according to this definition of anti-racism, (some) policies such as only taking one-on-one interviews from black and brown journalists really are indisputably racist – even if you think it is justified because of white privilege (which I believe exists, full stop).
I dug up this definition of color-blind racism from this website: https://www.nssmag.com/en/pills/22654/anti-racism-glossary
It is as follows (and is a prime example of shitty writing): "I don't see colour", a very famous phrase used in the approach of colour blind racism. It’s essentially the idea that the only way to end racial discrimination is by ignoring the reality of their race. This is an issue because by saying you don’t see colour, is saying that you don’t see people of colour. The need for color blindness implies that there is something shameful about the way people of colour and their culture are made we shouldn’t talk about or not see and dismisses the issues which people of colour face. It was an ideology created by white people who are uncomfortable talking about race which does much more bad than it does good.
If this source is not mainstream enough then check out this article in psychology today (the author quite literally says that we should value differences along ethnoracial lines (my issue is with the racial aspect of it; diversity among different cultures should be celebrated)): https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culturally-speaking/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism#:~:text=Currently%2C%20the%20most%20pervasive%20approach%20is%20known%20as,possible%2C%20without%20regard%20to%20race%2C%20culture%2C%20or%20ethnicity.
These people are not anti-racists; say what you will about the importance of achieving equity - and whether racially conscious policies are justified to counterbalance existing systemic and institutional racism - these people do not appear to be pushing for abolition, which should, imo, be the goal of any reasonable leftist.
For instance, consider this article written by Venita Blackburn: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/03/25/white-people-must-save-themselves-from-whiteness/
It is not enough to be an ally; one must save oneself from a characteristic that they cannot even control. White people cannot stop being white and are hardly going to shoot themselves in the kneecaps to even out the slope, even if they can be allies of people of color, acknowledge white privilege, and push for change (or even some form of reparations). This article reads like the writing of a born-again Christian repenting for original sin: “To give up whiteness is to become vulnerable, to confront the deep tears in the psyche gouged over generations, to see hate in the face of a loved one and name it and therefore open yourself up to being seen and ultimately touched.”
While white privilege exists, and racially conscious policies are sometimes justified, this kind of flagellation is equally pathetic as the fanatics that Venita Blackburn criticizes, even if those fanatics are significantly more dangerous.
Apparently, Bing has a glossary dedicated to anti-racism, which is a little strange, but not totally out of line. I checked it out and it provides some clear definitions, such as this:
BIPOC stands for Black, Indigenous, and people of color. The intention behind the term is to acknowledge that not all people of color (POC) face the same levels of injustice. By listing out Black and Indigenous, the term emphasizes that people from these specific communities face different, and often more severe, forms of injustice and oppression.
The one that is especially important is the one they use for anti-racist:
Anti-racist: A person who actively practices anti-racism by opposing racism in all aspects of life and society, including political, economic, and social. Anti-racism is the practice of actively opposing racism.
This is a reasonable definition. But this definition is consistent with what is called “colorblind racism”, and, furthermore, according to this definition of anti-racism, (some) policies such as only taking one-on-one interviews from black and brown journalists really are indisputably racist – even if you think it is justified because of white privilege (which I believe exists, full stop).
I dug up this definition of color-blind racism from this website: https://www.nssmag.com/en/pills/22654/anti-racism-glossary
It is as follows (and is a prime example of shitty writing): "I don't see colour", a very famous phrase used in the approach of colour blind racism. It’s essentially the idea that the only way to end racial discrimination is by ignoring the reality of their race. This is an issue because by saying you don’t see colour, is saying that you don’t see people of colour. The need for color blindness implies that there is something shameful about the way people of colour and their culture are made we shouldn’t talk about or not see and dismisses the issues which people of colour face. It was an ideology created by white people who are uncomfortable talking about race which does much more bad than it does good.
If this source is not mainstream enough then check out this article in psychology today (the author quite literally says that we should value differences along ethnoracial lines (my issue is with the racial aspect of it; diversity among different cultures should be celebrated)): https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culturally-speaking/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism#:~:text=Currently%2C%20the%20most%20pervasive%20approach%20is%20known%20as,possible%2C%20without%20regard%20to%20race%2C%20culture%2C%20or%20ethnicity.
These people are not anti-racists; say what you will about the importance of achieving equity - and whether racially conscious policies are justified to counterbalance existing systemic and institutional racism - these people do not appear to be pushing for abolition, which should, imo, be the goal of any reasonable leftist.
For instance, consider this article written by Venita Blackburn: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/03/25/white-people-must-save-themselves-from-whiteness/
It is not enough to be an ally; one must save oneself from a characteristic that they cannot even control. White people cannot stop being white and are hardly going to shoot themselves in the kneecaps to even out the slope, even if they can be allies of people of color, acknowledge white privilege, and push for change (or even some form of reparations). This article reads like the writing of a born-again Christian repenting for original sin: “To give up whiteness is to become vulnerable, to confront the deep tears in the psyche gouged over generations, to see hate in the face of a loved one and name it and therefore open yourself up to being seen and ultimately touched.”
While white privilege exists, and racially conscious policies are sometimes justified, this kind of flagellation is equally pathetic as the fanatics that Venita Blackburn criticizes, even if those fanatics are significantly more dangerous.
Comments (34)
Just out of curiosity, how would you define "critical race studies", "white privilege", "racial equality" and similar concepts because it looks like they tend to be interpreted differently by different people?
For all of the sympathy that I have for Anarchist Black Cross and the prison abolition movement, I think that they ultimately have somewhat naive, if not somehow fanatical, ideas as it concerns abolition. Something that ABC does that rather bothers me is to be kind of vehemently critical of Amnesty International. AI does what they can from the place in the world that they have. The intention of their criticism is only so much in the vein of making certain points about political prisoners and is moreso done to convince people that, as castigating human rights advocates will have the effect of marginalizing and isolating you from the rest of society, they can convince people who join their organization that they will have to remain dedicated to it forever. It's very cultish and self-defeating. Though I would doubt that AI would be terribly willing to work with Anarchists, as they do have their publicity to maintain, just not criticizing them to a point of excess would both make things go a lot better for ABC and produce a better socio-political environment for everyone. I also think that both ABC and the prison abolition movement fail to take into account that there are situations in which people have no option but to go to some form of law enforcement or another. In cases of domestic violence, terrorism, particularly that perpetuated by the far-Right, mafia coercion, and certain political or economic crimes, it is only law enforcement who can adequately deal with the situations. This idea that we can just instantly do away with prisons and the police is also just kind of absurd. Ideally, I do think that people should imagine a society that only has an extraordinarily limited form of restorative, which is to say, in no ways punitive, justice or even social configurations that are capable of dealing with situations by just simply coming together as a community to mediate them, but, when we still have more or less an exclusively punitive criminal justice system, I don't understand why anyone thinks that the police can be completely defunded and the security apparatus immediately dismantled.
I also think that there's a certain degree of pretense to abolitionism. Everyone makes like they just wouldn't ever collaborate with the police, but what happens when they show up? Anarchists also have a habit of accusing other activists of being police informants and fail to understand that, as such people are who attracts police attention, more often than not, actual police informants turn out to be more explicitly radical. Bommi Bauman, for instance, whose memoir, How It All Began is a rather moving read that I recommend, was an informant. If you've ever seen If A Tree Falls, you'll know that it was the most ardent supporter of direct action that gave the other members of the Earth Liberation Front up to the FBI.
The reason that people believe that total abolition is even possible is because of that they believe in a revolutionary catholicon. Given a an actual effective revolution, even if they only kill the limited number of political opponents that they have to in order to follow through with it, there will still be people who they just can't justify killing and, so, there will still be some form of criminal justice system, one that I don't necessarily trust to be arbitrated to be as minimal as possible. Regardless as to whether or not a revolution could be ethical, it just isn't happening. It doesn't matter what anyone does; it's not happening. Something like the Seattle General Strike is possible. A global spontaneous revolution just simply is not. They think that revolution can just solve every problem in the world, though. In a way, abolition is kind of like the IWW's demand for a four-hour workday. I would have no qualms whatsoever with a four-hour work day. I would even take it one step further and implement a four day work week. Implementing that, however, can just simply not be done without a revolution. The IWW is actually good about admitting that, but that they have remained a revolutionary organization is more or less the reason why I haven't started a branch in one of my many difficult work environments already. These people come up with this pie-in-the-sky idea of completely defunding the police and completely dismantling the security apparatus without telling anyone of that they will have to wage a revolution in order to do so so as to leave people within kind of a lot of self-defeating activist organizations until they, at least, come to their senses. The revolution is just a ruse to con people into remaining within what is ultimately a political racket.
That's kind of a lengthy exposition on such notions. Most people who profess these ideas are fairly well-meaning, but the radicals behind them are ultimately duplicitous and fairly nefarious.
Being said, there are serious problems with law enforcement agencies around the world, racism, perhaps, being the most widely discussed, and prison abolition is a somewhat lofty goal. I just kind of have a personal gripe against hipsters using who may or may not be a police informant to control who gets to feel welcome at shows.
This seems like an extremely uncharitable interpretation of a common platitude that simply means you don't give a shit about what others look like, you care abut who they are in terms of character, common interests, etc. The questionable assumption is that who someone really is is not essentially related (if it's at all related) to their race, which seems pretty ridiculous and insensitive when applied to black people and other non-whites who've been "othered" and dehumanized for so long.
But I don't think the phrase itself must necessarily come from a bad or even an ignorant place. I grew up in late-Cold War 1980s USA listening to "Ebony and Ivory" and "We are the World" and watching shows like "Different Strokes" and the aspirational color-blindness was imho positive. I knew that racism continued to be a huge issue but it felt like things were getting better, however slowly. That feeling lingers on if I'm being honest (not that things are getting better, but that the aspiration is humane and worth fighting for) - the idea of minimizing the importance of immutable traits - and that's why I find some of the more aggressive stuff out there now a bit off-putting and alienating.
Some people genuinely do not care about race, and that profession of color-blindness isn't always used to avoid addressing tough racial issues.
Race: the Power of an Illusion puts forth a good defense of multicultural "color blindness". I think that the general trend against such an ethos has been created in response to a lack of meaningful, effective, or lasting change in the favor of people of color.
Yeah, I think you're right. I know the shift in direction away from colorblindness and toward racial identity politics predates Trump (eg black separatist movement of Marcus Garvey and early Malcolm X) but his election seems to have accelerated the process big-time by disabusing many the idea that racists were a small irrelevant minority. That's the post-Trump perception at least, and while I may find the old aspirational colorblindness far more congenial, this newer, less idealistic approach is not without merit.
Anyhow thanks for the recommendation - I'll have a look.
There are all kinds of grossly misguided initiatives to have proceeded from the movement for black liberation that, as, as someone who is not black, I don't feel like it is my place to attempt to secure any agency over their movement, I have found to be fairly difficult to address. Black supremacism, black separatism, the biological belief in race, and attitudes towards political violence to have proceeded from Frantz Fannon, nevermind, of course, that the United States is not a country in Africa, have found their way into the general movement for black liberation and created considerable problems for them. Despite the certain degree of veracity there is to Fannon's arguments, those which are effectively summarized as that the language of violence is the only language that the colonizer understands, there is a certain degree of what you might call "revolutionary machismo" that you really kind of can cite as having created the gang violence to follow the race riots in the late 1960s. There are a lot of great things that the Black Power Movement did to better both black communities and to elevate the status of black people within the United States and even the rest of the world. That there is still kind of a strain of revolutionary fanaticism within anti-racist activism, however, can be extraordinarily difficult to get across, particularly to either radicals or anyone who does happen to be black, as neither parties are all that willing to listen to the kind of nonviolent left-wing activists whom they felt were doing all too little all too later before Students for a Democratic Society was effectively destroyed by The Weather Underground.
I watched that documentary in a Cultural Anthropology class ages ago. It's a very good deconstruction of the biological concept of race. You'd be surprised as to how common such a myth is even today.
What's in in black liberation circles now is Afro-pessimism. It's effectively the black equivalent of Nihilism. Orlando Patterson's Slavery and Social Death seems like a landmark work of Critical Theory and of the history of slavery. I can't, however, imagine that, though they have yet to, these Afro-Pessimists will put anything forth as a way to cope with either the real or perceived situation that they call to light other than the Nihilist imperative to, despite their belief, like mine, that any revolution is just simply an impossibility, effectively wage acts of terror à la l'art pour l'art. Like any Nihilist, they're just kind of angst ridden and pretentious, and, so, unlikely to ever engage in such "propaganda of the deed", but these kind of demoralizations and vengeful imperatives do kind of have a detrimental impact.
As before, I neither can nor really want to tell them what to do, but considering what of the Black Power Movement was actually effective and did actually create a good social environment an proceeding from there is the best advice that I have to give.
Apologies for venting. As Pacifism has become wildly unpopular in the wake of 1968, I just a lot of grievances to address.
For all of the critiques of the Civil Rights Movement that there are to make, it did bring a formal end to segregation and ought to be celebrated by that account. People seem to think that succession will somehow prevent the contemporary onslaught of gentrification for some reason, however.
Vent away. You seem to know a lot more about this topic than I do and I'm always eager to assimilate new knowledge and ideas into my hopefully larger and broader perspective. (Yet another banality I continue to take seriously.)
I have said my peace already, but am glad not to have been a bother. Everything and nothing is banal, anyways.
True. I suppose it all depends on the seriousness with which one engages these issues and ideas, ideas that contain(ed) genuine insight but have become vacuous through repeated, often thoughtless use, or even tools of political manipulation. That distinction comes out in the course of the conversation.
And it's no bother at all. This is a massively important issue, especially for Americans, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm perplexed as to how to approach it best, being sensitive to alternative perspectives and blind spots while not wavering in my fundamental (colorblind) belief that my friends include anyone who's good to my family, anyone who's supported me in tough times, anyone who shares my guiding values and assumptions about "the good life" etc. regardless of what they look like or who they have sex with or almost anything else.
I know that's not a sophisticated viewpoint these days but it's deeply rooted in the way I was brought up and the way I continue to live my life.
This reminds me Ted Chiang (sci-fi writer b. 1967) short story on something he calls calliagnosia, a condition in which the person undergoes a neurological procedure that renders faer unablde to see beauty. He attempts to explore bias against unattractive people :point: Lookism and I'm wondering if there's any link between racism and lookism. Is one the corollary of the other or are the two completely different issues? I suppose all forms of discrimination are ultimately about standards of propriety, appearance, beliefs, etc. - one particular subgroup of the human family feels offended or animosity against other subgroups who fail to meet standards deemed acceptable or good to them.
What I gleaned from Ted Chiang's short story is that the whole issue (lookism specifically but racism ain't so different) is far too complex to lend itself to an easy solution. Too many people from different backgrounds have a stake in it and as they say, you can't make everyone happy.
I have so much of a vested interest in critiquing black intellectual currents as a Pacifist that it's difficult for me to come to an understanding of what is informed by my perspective of the world and what is veritable critique. As much as I can say that I don't want to secure agency over their movement and merely offer advice, what is advice other than that? It's a very strange thing, I think.
I found myself, though no longer am, in a number of fairly either real or perceived precarious situations that involved kind of a lot of dangerous people and what I learned from this is that what matters is who is good to you and that you are good to them in return. What people think about politics or the various social groups that they identify with is really kind of bosh. I've had people from all walks of life treat me well and only really care to do the same in return.
Being said, I do understand why social groups form as they do. It's just too easy to take solidarity for a similar set of interests or social designations. It's really something else entirely, however. My dad likes to tell this story about a German pilot during the Second World War who flew side by side of an Allied pilot who had nearly been shot down so as to ensure his safe travel home. It's his way of affirming his faith in humanity, and rightly so. We don't agree upon any political issue to the point of politics just being a conversation that I generally avoid, but that is what faith there is to have. For me, it's the ecstatic disclosure of such acts that has brought humanity to nearly every pertinent revelation from which substantial change has been meaningfully effected. People say that things or people just don't change, but that's not true. It's things like that that make what seem like small differences in the world become monumental enough to make the kind of differences that we should celebrate. `It's not the sort of thing that everyone understands, though.
Again, being said, of the black liberation movement in general, I do think that we should be understanding. I come from a different perspective that hasn't led me to a similar set of conclusions and have no real desire to be terribly critical by that account.
Excellent.
Lots of wisdom in that post.
I think what we're witnessing here is the end of Utopia. If you believe that no truly just society is possible, what remains is only to reinforce the borders - both the physical and the metaphorical ones.
In such a scenario, the oppressor and the oppressed can never truly integrate, and while their positions can change to the opposite sign, the fundamental dynamic cannot be overcome. Either the oppressed is cast out and shackled, or the oppressor must engage in a continuous process of, as you call it, self-flaggelation to atone for their continued but inescapable oppression.
You started it! kinda back and forth until both sides are utterly exhausted or one side is wiped off the face of the earth or a truce is established or they unite against a common enemy or an asteroid takes them both out. :lol:
Clarification: there are other races being left out of the equation here - it's not just blacks vs whites, what happened to people of other colors?
I don't mean that kind of abolition, but rather abolition from institutional and systemic racism.
Of course a just society is possible! We should not, however, say that whites need to save themselves from something they cannot change about themselves - both physically and metaphorically. I mean, why reinforce borders when we can simply institute policies that will help level the playing field? Of course some idiots will accuse these policies of being racist (I'm looking at you, Tucker Carlson), when really they aren't, imo, if they are intended to reduce discrepancies between whites and people of color. If anything that makes said policies less racist than ones that are indeed totally colorblind; we can only achieve equity by uplifting the disadvantaged.
All of that being said, I believe a society should, ideally, be able to be colorblind once equity is achieved.
Quoting Echarmion
But most white people, while privileged, do not actively oppress people of color. Unless we are talking about unconscious bias, microaggressions, etc. - things that are difficult to correct for. And why do you think that this dynamic is necessary? Do you really think that people of color want to oppress white people - or do they just want to be treated in accordance with the difficulties that they face? My guess is the latter.
Also: I'm not ignoring Native Americans and LGBTQ people - I'm just not focusing on them in this thread because they have different situations. But then again, all of this stuff intersects.
I agree. I didn't want to argue that it isn't, only supply an analysis for why we see heightened identity conflict.
Quoting ToothyMaw
That would perhaps be a natural consequence of a level playing field. Xenophobia will not go away completely, of course, so vigilance is necessary, including concerning one's own prejudices. That's actually a good practice regardless of topic, to be aware of your blind spots and tendencies for bad reasoning.
Quoting ToothyMaw
Essentially the only way to correct for it is equality of outcome across the population groups, which is to say we should see similar distributions of income, wealth etc. Regardless of skin color if a) there are no relevant and statistically significant biological differences and b) there is no conscious or unconscious bias against one group.
Quoting ToothyMaw
I think that people on the extreme end of "wokeness" believe - implicitly or explicitly - that oppression cannot really be overcome, hence their focus on drawing boundaries around groups.
I was referring to the roots of the more radical strains of how it is to abolish institutional and systemic racism. You'll find people within the Black Lives Matter movement who advocate such things without any idea as to what they really are or where they stem from.
Yes, I agree, but I don't think that micro-aggressions and other more implicit forms of prejudice can really be corrected for without severe language policing, which is always a bad thing. Not to mention I don't see how unconscious bias can be addressed at all being that it is unconscious; it cannot be grasped any more than an unconscious desire to have sex with Donald Trump that manifests as hatred.
Quoting Echarmion
Once again, I agree, but I do think that culture plays a (limited) role, whether it is the culture of the impoverished or people of color.
Quoting Echarmion
Good analysis. These people claim to be both anti-racist and agents of progress, too.
I think that some of them get a small taste of power - a high from both virtue signaling and tearing people down - and they just can't help themselves. It reminds me of Ben Shapiro's fans, who just want to feel like they are winning, tearing up the libtard cucks.
I would say, with regards to culture, however, things like the preponderance of poor and working class black single mothers is more the result of the drug war than culture. John McWhorter lays it out pretty well when he writes:
"The War on Drugs destroys black families. It has become a norm for black children to grow up in single-parent homes, their fathers away in prison for long spells and barely knowing them. In poor and working-class black America, a man and a woman raising their children together is, of all things, an unusual sight. The War on Drugs plays a large part in this. It must stop."
This is part of why I advocate for the freeing of nonviolent drug offenders.
CRS is pretty irrelevant to this thread. I would define "white privilege" as the myriad benefits that white people accrue merely for being white. "Racial equality" is a state in which people of all colors share equal opportunity, and, thus, equal outcome. If you think that equal opportunity does not equate to equal outcome, then you must give a reason for any disparities, given there are no significant biological differences between whites and people of color.
So, "racial equality" is defined primarily in economic terms. Or?
Yes, but also educationally and politically.
What about culturally and religiously?
What would cultural equality entail?
No idea. I'm just asking. Presumably, different races have different cultures (and religions).
Or are we to ignore cultural and religious factors and focus on economic, educational, and political factors, exclusively?
I would. There is nothing wrong with black culture imo, and I wouldn't want to see it disappear. As far as religion goes, idk.
I don't think there is anything wrong with it either. By the way, by "black culture" do you mean African culture, Afro American culture, or?
And what do you mean by "I would"?
I said "I wouldn't". And yeah, I just mean the cultures of any POC.
Cultures but not religions?
What is this, some kind of quiz? I think Christianity according to POC is pretty much the same as Christianity according to whites.
I'm just asking. It may sound hard to believe, but as I said, "equality" means so many things to so many people these days that the more I think about it the more confusing it seems. According to some activists "equality" means replacing men with women, whites with blacks, capitalists with communists, etc. etc.
In my opinion, "replacement" doesn't quite sound like the same as "equality". Hence my query.
Besides, there seems to be no one else on this thread.
By races you mean the traditional classification into Caucasian/White, Mongoloid/Asian, Negroid/Black and Australoid, or?