Racism can be a slippery concept. At what point is a racial disparity definitive evidence of racism? At what point does a racist’s involvement in an activity make the activity racist? At what point does a racist’s presence become an attempted take-over?
“Because veganism has significant moral, ethical, and political components to it that makes it really important for folks to understand how veganism contributes to environmental racism.“
WTF? I’m not a vegan so would someone enlighten me on how veganism “contributes to environmental racism“. I mean that just seems so far out there.
Weeel, it's 3:30pm in Ohio, and I've been up for about 13.5 hours and I'm fading fast. I read this, and the "Anti-Racism Is Becoming..." Each twice. I MAY try for a brighter perspective in the future, but right now the solutions look to be so far down the road that I don't see but somewhere around a 50% chance that Western society will be around that long. From "Three-month-olds, but not newborns, prefer own-race faces:"
"The findings imply that adults' perceptions of ethnic differences are learned and derived from differences in exposure to own- versus other-race faces during early development."
I take this to be gospel, and the solution to a LARGE array of difficulties seems to be fully-paid 1-5 year-old, integrated, Pre-School, right? Why not?
But the pessimism comes from what I once gave thought to writing a book about: Trumpism on the Left. Which states the general principle that if You get enough people to "say" the same LIES, then gullible people, who generally will believe just about everything they "hear" anyway, will go along with this alternate reality.
As far as I know, this is what's been happening on the subject of racism.
I'm always willing to re-evaluate my views, based on new information. I spend most-a my time reading, to get a WIDE variety of angles. I think one-a the problems that has infested this discussion from the very beginning of the so-called "legal theory" of CRT is that "lived experience" is the soundest basis for knowledge of a subject. This was "theorized" by highly-educated Brown people. (I'll use "Black" people in a specific context.) I say they are "Brown" people because it's a FACT that in the coming decades, the MAJORITY of people, if we live that long, will be people with BOTH white and Brown cultures in the backgrounds of their parents and grandparents.
I guess there's no need to guess WHY "lived experience" became primary. But I'm pretty sure is was ENTIRELY intentional to have this effect: Only Brown people actually EXPERIENCED racism so, therefore, the only people who could voice an opinion on racism where Brown people. That had the IMMEDIATE beneficial aspect, for BROWN people only, that if You could get enough of a monolith together among Brown people, then ANY definition of racism they wanted to DREAM up would be taken as FACT.
Maybe it's just because I'm an old, white man. But I'm not seeing where anything that is so circumscribed so TIGHTLY can even be taken as a DISCUSSION. Thinking now, I guess that WAS the point. There WOULD not be any discussion. There would be a more-or-less SINGULAR view among Black Racists, and it would be no problem to Black Racists if some among them were Caucasian.
I, being somewhat of an iconoclast, would venture a different view:
When I look back to the 60s (and I'm STILL trying to get around to finishing MLKs book on the subject)... Well, one thing DPLs (Dangerous Progressive LOSERs) REFUSE to look at is that progress has been made. A LOT of progress in the area of race relations, which is just more convenient for DPLs to ignore.
But anyone with a minimum amount of study MIGHT contend that there really isn't such a thing as "institutional," "systemic," "structural" white supremacy racism that "permeates" society. In the 60s, there can be NO DOUBT there was. In the 20s? To me, a LOTTA doubt that it exists in that form today. In any where NEAR that form today. It just DOESN'T. That's LIE #1.
Instituitions, therefore, do not need to be torn down. Systems don't need to be dismantled. Especially not so Marxists can build society back from the ground up the way they'd like to. That's LIE #2.
I read today from someone I recently "met" by reading a couple GREAT posts. He says he's not convinced that integration will bring racial harmony. I hope he takes the time to reply, because I'd like to "hear" more on this.
But I'd have a REAL hard time believing that segregation WILL bring about racial harmony, and even if it did, would be workable, let alone beneficial to our countries.
Ah well... Me? I start the backups at 4, eat at 5, and in bed by 6. Dull life, I admit. Pleasure reading these days is HIDDEN FIGURES by Shetterly. How a group of Brown mathematicians overcame the disadvantages of white supremacy in the 40s and 50s, to help put a man into space in the 60s. THIS, instead-a that racist, garbage CRT "stuff," should be REQUIRED reading by all races in high school, as far as I know. If not that, at least I'M learning new stuff every day. 😁
“Because veganism has significant moral, ethical, and political components to it that makes it really important for folks to understand how veganism contributes to environmental racism.“
WTF? I’m not a vegan so would someone enlighten me on how veganism “contributes to environmental racism“. I mean that just seems so far out there.
Weeel, it's 3:30pm in Ohio, and I've been up for about 13.5 hours and I'm fading fast. I read this, and the "Anti-Racism Is Becoming..." Each twice. I MAY try for a brighter perspective in the future, but right now the solutions look to be so far down the road that I don't see but somewhere around a 50% chance that Western society will be around that long. From "Three-month-olds, but not newborns, prefer own-race faces:"
"The findings imply that adults' perceptions of ethnic differences are learned and derived from differences in exposure to own- versus other-race faces during early development."
I take this to be gospel, and the solution to a LARGE array of difficulties seems to be fully-paid 1-5 year-old, integrated, Pre-School, right? Why not?
But the pessimism comes from what I once gave thought to writing a book about: Trumpism on the Left. Which states the general principle that if You get enough people to "say" the same LIES, then gullible people, who generally will believe just about everything they "hear" anyway, will go along with this alternate reality.
As far as I know, this is what's been happening on the subject of racism.
I'm always willing to re-evaluate my views, based on new information. I spend most-a my time reading, to get a WIDE variety of angles. I think one-a the problems that has infested this discussion from the very beginning of the so-called "legal theory" of CRT is that "lived experience" is the soundest basis for knowledge of a subject. This was "theorized" by highly-educated Brown people. (I'll use "Black" people in a specific context.) I say they are "Brown" people because it's a FACT that in the coming decades, the MAJORITY of people, if we live that long, will be people with BOTH white and Brown cultures in the backgrounds of their parents and grandparents.
I guess there's no need to guess WHY "lived experience" became primary. But I'm pretty sure is was ENTIRELY intentional to have this effect: Only Brown people actually EXPERIENCED racism so, therefore, the only people who could voice an opinion on racism where Brown people. That had the IMMEDIATE beneficial aspect, for BROWN people only, that if You could get enough of a monolith together among Brown people, then ANY definition of racism they wanted to DREAM up would be taken as FACT.
Maybe it's just because I'm an old, white man. But I'm not seeing where anything that is so circumscribed so TIGHTLY can even be taken as a DISCUSSION. Thinking now, I guess that WAS the point. There WOULD not be any discussion. There would be a more-or-less SINGULAR view among Black Racists, and it would be no problem to Black Racists if some among them were Caucasian.
I, being somewhat of an iconoclast, would venture a different view:
When I look back to the 60s (and I'm STILL trying to get around to finishing MLKs book on the subject)... Well, one thing DPLs (Dangerous Progressive LOSERs) REFUSE to look at is that progress has been made. A LOT of progress in the area of race relations, which is just more convenient for DPLs to ignore.
But anyone with a minimum amount of study MIGHT contend that there really isn't such a thing as "institutional," "systemic," "structural" white supremacy racism that "permeates" society. In the 60s, there can be NO DOUBT there was. In the 20s? To me, a LOTTA doubt that it exists in that form today. In any where NEAR that form today. It just DOESN'T. That's LIE #1.
Instituitions, therefore, do not need to be torn down. Systems don't need to be dismantled. Especially not so Marxists can build society back from the ground up the way they'd like to. That's LIE #2.
I read today from someone I recently "met" by reading a couple GREAT posts. He says he's not convinced that integration will bring racial harmony. I hope he takes the time to reply, because I'd like to "hear" more on this.
But I'd have a REAL hard time believing that segregation WILL bring about racial harmony, and even if it did, would be workable, let alone beneficial to our countries.
Ah well... Me? I start the backups at 4, eat at 5, and in bed by 6. Dull life, I admit. Pleasure reading these days is HIDDEN FIGURES by Shetterly. How a group of Brown mathematicians overcame the disadvantages of white supremacy in the 40s and 50s, to help put a man into space in the 60s. THIS, instead-a that racist, garbage CRT "stuff," should be REQUIRED reading by all races in high school, as far as I know. If not that, at least I'M learning new stuff every day. 😁
Quick fly-by just to say GREAT, per usual, Steve. MAY have time to read again. :)