Forums

[sebastian_dangerfield]

[*]You think that people who don't live near racially diverse people are agnostic about race in a country where every single person's status is measure by race

That's not what I said. What I meant by agnostic on race is what I said -- people who don't even think about the subject. These people exist.

[*]You don't understand that "not having to think about race" really just means: These people have isolated themselves such that they aren't personally confronted with racial unpleasantness

Or they live somewhere where race issues do not occur. And it's interesting that you assume these people isolate themselves. Have you considered that growing up in an area where race issues are not prominent could be unintentional? I highly doubt anyone in NE British Columbia runs into race issues very often. Has this person isolated himself? If you grow up in a town where nearly everyone is white, by dumb chance of birth, are you isolating yourself? You seem to suggest culpability in your use of "isolated themselves." Are you suggesting ignorance of race matters is negligent, or a bad act, on the part of such people?

[*]You haven't realized that all of the ideas that people who aren't personally exposed to people of color have about people of color is based on ignorance and the definitions of race they're bombarded with

This can be applied to any group. If you grow up in the North and have never visited the South, your view of Southerners is based on second hand definitions. If you've never met a German, your view of Germans is based on second hand definitions.

You can apply this reasoning to any group of people with whom you've not interacted. I don't understand the point being made here.

[*]You think it's possible for people in this country (no matter where they live) to not think about race

I do. I myself am thinking about race here, for the purposes of this discussion. I will be on vacation in two weeks, at which point I will not watch TV and will try to avoid newspapers. I will not think about race. At all. I will see people of various races, but I will have no reason to think about the fact that we come from different backgrounds, as it will be immaterial.

If I grew up on a farm in Utah, I'd never think about race. I think there are a ton of people out there exactly like me.

If you say these people have had the luxury of not thinking about race, I'd say that's true. I'd also say this has nothing to do with my point, and actually proves my point: There are a lot of people out there who don't think about race. And there are even more people out there who don't think about race very much.

Nah. You chose an example of something that is as innocuous as possible because you don't really want to confront the issue. Someone said a racist joke around you and you didn't respond, which doesn't make you racist? It's a stupid example.

You asked me a question about a bigoted country club. I was responding to your inquiry.

I don't care what someone's choices are or how much they want a President who is itching for a stupid trade war. If they vote for someone who is racist and who they knew was racist when they ran (and who ran almost exclusively on racism) and that person does racist things because that voter put them in office, that voter owns those racist things.

For the 10th time, I AGREE WITH THAT. What I do not agree with was Adder's loopy extensions of this reasoning to the propositions:

1. All Americans are racist; and,
2. All of our grandparents were racist;
3. Because America is comprised of systems which incorporate and perpetuate structural racism.

But if you vote GOP, do you own the fact that you're enabling racists within the party? ABSOLUTELY.

The fact that you always err on the side of, "that farmer voted for Trump despite his racism" instead of because of his racism given Trump's rhetoric, the Republican Party's history with race, and the realities in this country (especially after 8 years of the first black man holding the Presidency ever) is astounding. All signs point to that farmer voted for him because that farmer is fucking racist. But you would rather invent any other reason and you have pushed every single one on this board instead. You consistently ignore or shoo away the studies that say that the white working class voted for Trump because of a loss of status because you need smoking gun proof. And you consistently give credence to every single other theory of why he won without requiring smoking gun proof of any of it.

No, that's you and everyone here bristling at any challenge to the narrative. When I offer skepticism about the studies you cite to prove the point that the Trump vote was all about racism, I do so because, while those studies are evidentiary, they don't prove the point convincingly. And they certainly don't prove the point to the extent Adder or anyone else can run around here saying "All GOP voters are racists."

Trump has a significant amount of racist supporters. He also has a significant amount of supporters who are just greedy, want manufacturing jobs, hated Hillary, always vote GOP, etc. The list of reasons people voted for Trump and he was elected is a very long one.

Is racism a big part of it? Yes. But when you say it's the only part of it, or discuss it exclusively without reference to the other reasons people voted for Trump (which creates the narrative racism is the only cause), you're off, and someone needs to pick up the other side of the argument. When I disagree with you on this point, it's an argument of degree.

Ty will ask why I feel the need to do this. And if one buys into the logic that it's all defensiveness, white fragility, they'll try to discount my challenge as emotional. It's not. I join the statement that a large segment of Trump voters are racist. I will not join the statement that all or nearly all of them are racists. That's a step too far. And it is flatly absurd to state that all Americans are racist using the reasoning Adder and Ty have offered. That a person is born into a society filled with racist impacts, with structural racism, renders him an automatic racist strikes me as such a profoundly illogical statement, I have to wonder how someone could ever absorb it. (My suspicion is because studies on issues of race and gender are not done by the most rigorous academic minds, who tend to go into hard sciences, and because anthropology and psychology are inherently soft sciences. This has led to a body of credentialed but dubious work people like Ty and Adder will either buy into or use as intellectual cover.)

Racism is the default in this country. You seem to think it's the other way around. Burden of proof, given our history and current racial realities, is for one to prove race wasn't the driving factor. You squeeze your eyes closed as tight as you can and say, "prove it beyond any inkling of doubt."

We are never going to see eye to eye on that burden of proof. I accept it in certain situations (law enforcement, certain regions of the country, certain fields), but that burden shifting does not apply universally.

TM[/QUOTE]