"Whitesplaining"

[Jack89]

Don't people see how messed up this article is?  The only thing I need to say is that Miss Johnson is telling us to to judge others by the color of their skin.  If you're white, you're automatically biased so tread carefully.  And she prefaced it by making the same claim about gender. 

This is what identity politics does to your brain.  Wow.

[GSOgymrat]

I have to admit, I don't particularly get this line of thought...

"Don't talk about an issue, because white people might get offended and not listen."

Since when did that ever matter? Hasn't a very recurring theme here been, "It doesn't matter if you are offended by the truth, the truth has no obligation to not offend?". So why is talking about the truth of racial inequality or that white people (and minorities) exhibit behaviour of unconscious or cultural racism a topic of, "talk about anything offensive but that because it might hurt white people's feelings?".

Racism is not going to disappear by not talking about it, just like we aren't going to fix the economy by pretending it's okay or get socialized medical care by just hoping it will magically come to us one day. It takes work to deal with it, and it takes it being addressed.

Basically anything to do with racial injustice, "white people" (as a group and not so much as individuals) either instantly assume that everyone is racist against them, that it is "too extreme" to have to hear about it or some other reason why it's too inconvenient to hear, so just don't talk about it and everything will be fine. It's easy to say that when you are on the side not having issues... it's telling a starving person to just shut up about being hungry when you hold all the food supply, because it's making you feel bad and that he is being too "radical" by being upset.

I agree that race needs to be talked about and ignoring the problem won't make it go away. As with most things, I'm most interested in what is effective, what actually promotes change. I do think the approach described by Maisha Z Johnson is probably effective for liberal leaning people who have some education regarding civil rights and social justice. For people who are not versed on the topic I think it can push them away. Unlike identity politics, which emphasize group identity and difference, I think most people would respond better to an approach of inclusion. Minorities need to be viewed by the majority as "one of us." Ideally the message would be tailored to the audience based on their values: Christians- we are all God's children, Republicans- we are all Americans, Libertarians- we all deserve individual rights. Once people accept minorities are part of the tribe then inequalities can be addressed, e.g. here is evidence that black men are treated unjustly by the criminal justice system and all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law. I feel that identity politics is great for pulling a minority group together, raising consciousness and motivating for change but when the minority group confronts the majority an inclusive message, such as one based on rights or ethics, is probably more effective.

I'm open to ideas on how to address the problem of race. Changing attitudes that have been entrenched for generations is incredibly difficult and require different approaches.
From the article I cited above:

... In The Science of Equality, Godsil and her co-authors proposed several tactics that seem, based on the research, promising: presenting people with examples that break stereotypes, asking them to think about people of color as individuals rather than as a group, tasking them with taking on first-person perspectives of people of color, and increasing contact between people of different races. All of these interventions appear to reduce subconscious racial biases, while interracial contact appears most promising for reducing racial anxiety more broadly.

Of course, interracial contact can be hard to achieve in communities that are racially homogeneous â€" in other words, a lot of rural white communities. But the researchers note that even indirect contact â€" for example, knowing that one of your white neighbors is friends with a person of color â€" can reduce prejudice, suggesting there are ways to reduce racial anxiety without direct contact. ...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I spent a lot of time in countries where whites weren't the  majority. Nobody killed me for being white.

[Shiranu]

Don't people see how messed up this article is?  The only thing I need to say is that Miss Johnson is telling us to to judge others by the color of their skin.  If you're white, you're automatically biased so tread carefully.  And she prefaced it by making the same claim about gender. 

This is what identity politics does to your brain.  Wow.

One coin, two sides I guess. We read to different articles; the one I read said that is exactly NOT what is happening.


And I guess that's my biggest problem... I don't understand how this article, which is specifically saying it's not an attack on you but rather an issue much larger than the individual, is being taken as a personal attack. How can you ever address large scale issues if people refuse to admit they exist because they are uncomfortable?

[Shiranu]

Unlike identity politics, which emphasize group identity and difference, I think most people would respond better to an approach of inclusion. Minorities need to be viewed by the majority as "one of us."

I completely agree, but the major problem is as an outsider I have no ability to make that change. That is a conclusion they have to come to on their own. And sitting around singing kumbiaya and hoping they notice they are wrong is simply not going to work, they will just continue going on as normal.

I don't know what the solution is, but we have tried just keeping our heads down and hoping people treat us equally... and it hasn't worked for minorities, it hasn't worked for Muslims, it hasn't worked for the LGBT community and it hasn't worked for liberals. I think the biggest thing is what both you and APA hinted at; surrounding people with more minorities so they seem more "normal". But unfortunately... even though we no longer have gated communities to keep them out, neighbourhoods are still predominately one race or another, and even at universities the people who really need to be exposed join frats that are almost all white our stick with cliques that reaffirm their biases... and despite what certain posters here want to imply, the "Great Satan" of higher education is not infact teaching "Cultural Marxism" and destroying the white race. I have had a professor tell a black girl not to participate in a survey because it would skew his results. Does that sound like "Cultural Marxism"?

When people intentionally surround themselves with people who agree with them, you cannot get through to them without forceful language that may step on a few toes, or actions that inconvenience them. The problem is that even people who aren't being accused of anything wrong start to take offense to it, which is ridiculous.

[PickelledEggs]

Oh cool. Another term with the sole purpose to silence a demographic of people.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh cool. Another term with the sole purpose to silence a demographic of people.

Oh, hush! Enough of your adminsplaining.

[Shiranu]

Oh cool. Another term with the sole purpose to silence a demographic of people.

Oh cool. Another person ignoring the actual point to make it all about  how offended they are that a group they belong to could show similar traits.

[PickelledEggs]

Oh cool. Another person ignoring the actual point to make it all about  how offended they are that a group they belong to could show similar traits.

You're assuming. I just woke up and I'm too tired to be offended. Just pointing out the truth of what it is

[PickelledEggs]

I'll read the article in a bit. I need to eat some lunch and jerk off first.

Not necessarily in that order...

[Shiranu]

I just don't buy that truth, but since you didn't read it that's okay.

[PickelledEggs]

I just don't buy that truth, but since you didn't read it that's okay.

Fair enough. I'll read it a little later and get back to you. That's the first thing I thought though when I read "whitesplaining". If it's anything as unnecessarily dismissive as "mansplaining", my assessment of the word is probably going to stay the same.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Shiranu]

I will say I do kinda find these different names obnoxious, but I just don't know what else you can call it at this point. You can't say "ignorant, presumptuous, unconsciously racist"  etc. Because that is too strong of language, but at the same time these words seem more like jokes than serious issues.

[PickelledEggs]

I’m venting about my day, and I tell you I’m angry that a white neighbor told me, “I don’t even see you as Black.”

Would you reassure me that my neighbor meant well? If you do, don’t be surprised if I’m just as annoyed as you would be if a man tried to explain your experience with street harassment to you.

I think this is the key part of the article. If someone thinks "I don't even see you as black" as a "microaggression" they're either overreacting, or they're telling us about the conversation in a very fragmented and out of context way.

After I’ve dealt with microaggressions on a daily basis for so long, it’s just cruel to expect me to minimize my feelings about racism.

Ok. Lets talk about Micro aggressions. I feel like microaggressions is a thing that is particular to each individual person. In addition to that, just because they are offended by it, doesn't mean the person saying it is saying it with malice or the thing being said is any way objectively agressive.... at this point, if it's not objectively aggressive, it's all subjective and on the listener's/audience's ears/eyes/etc.

That is impossible to work around. It's like saying "don't walk on my eggshells that are on the ground" and then you turn out the lights and tell the person to walk across the pitch black room to the door and find their way out of their safe space.

"I don't even see you as black" is something that eliminates race completely. It puts both parties more on equal levels. I don't know what else was included in the conversation, but on it's own. "I don't even see you as black" is a pretty good "equality thing" to say, if you ask me.

Lets take this quote that was included for instance though...

“you’re pretty for a Black girl.”

This is actually kind of insulting...
I don't even have to be black to see how that is insulting. Any time someone says a compliment and follows it up with "... for a [insert demographic here]" it is objectively kind of insulting. Not subjective.

A personal story that the "you're pretty" thing reminded me of. The other day, when I was at work waiting tables, I was waiting on a young couple that was on a date. The girl was fucking gorgeous.
I went up to the host stand and had to get it off my chest and just went "Jesus. The girl at table 81 is fucking gorgeous." and the host goes "You like black girls, Steve?" and I replied "...uhhh.... well I like women.... If someone is attractive, they're attractive."

On another note, I overheard a conversation between two black guys that I work with. The one guy said to the other "Man, you talk like a white guy" He said it as an insult and made sure to be clear of that to the other guy and I thought to my self.... I'm confused at why that's an insult.... is it bad to articulate your words? The guy that said that my other coworker sounds like a white guy slurs his words all the time and you can barely make out what he's saying sometimes.... so I was confused at why "talking like a white guy" was supposed to be an insult lol


But anyway. back on track. The article has a few good points. Some white people are racist and don't know it. Some white people dismiss racism because they don't witness it. But a bunch of the stuff this girl is talking about seems like she drank too much of the "I'm offended" kool-aide

[Draconic Aiur]

Just going to ignore the blatant racism there and say sorry cupcake, that isn't how it works. #Triggered

I'm not racist.