I'm gonna try to take this slowly, but there is a lot to reply to.
I almost regretted raising the topic, such is it's potential for volatility, but so far nobody has been unkind to me.
I've led a long life, with many experiences, it's been hard, I've suffered, and had it's ups and downs; I've become familiar with all kinds of social theories, read about them in depth. I was always broadly sympathetic to socialism, but am very sceptical that you can treat a 'class' as a single unit, even if they are broadly helpful academically. Most academics know they are very fluid. I have policed myself carefully from being a small child, to never speak in a racist or sexist way, to just be compassionate to others.
But I can't get behind showing hate or derision, even in comedy, to a sometimes privileged group, as a way of breaking racism. Good conduct is not something you apply only to the oppressed, but to all. Inflicting pain on others is never acceptable. When I was a practising Buddhist years ago, my Lama pointed out the difference between helpful comedy and unhelpful comedy; one celebrates life and breaks down illusion/prejudices, and the other is about belittling others or resentment. One can reveal the stupidity of our social systems, the other entrenches hate. Buddhism isn't for everyone, but I found those ideas stayed with me as logical.
I am also unsure about how Americans apply the term white. Irish people were once treated as a subhuman race. How can their people share the same history as all other whites? How can a Belorussian or Georgian? The term slave originates from the ethnic name 'Slav', because for many centuries, slaves were white, not even just Slavic, and many living whites who abide in poverty in Europe, are descended from slaves. America broadcasting her idea of who is a descendant of slaves and who isn't onto the world may have hurt their quest for social justice.
I think this comment displays shocking disregard for life.
There is a poster in my workplace that runs off the following stats.
"One in six men will suffer domestic abuse in their lifetime."
"One in five men suffering abuse will do so for more than one year."
"One man is killed every fortnight by a current or ex partner."
[Followed by details of four helplines.]
- The Gender Equality Network, formerly called Women's Network
Women suffer these crimes more than men. But men suffer them too. By arguing that misandry does not exist, when people are suffering, is dangerously cruel to those who are in that group. I can't believe a person who genuinely believes in equality would ever ignore the suffering of ANY group, no matter how disproportionate their incidence (the stats for women are 1 in 4). Here in Britain I hear plenty of casual prejudice toward men in the office; "they can't be trusted", "they are all alike", etc, etc. Do you seriously think this is okay, when I wouldn't care to do it to others, or that it does not engender unconscious bias? In your rush to define a system, you seem to have left out people who don't fit into the definition, as all systems do without allowing for exceptions.
With respect, I think this lacks compassion for all human beings, as the Buddha might say.
Two wrong do not make a right.
So, I don't think adding psychological problems to another group of people about their identity is right. We all know how gay people have been made to feel about who they are; uncomfortable in their own skin due to society's prejudice. Parents telling them "can't you not be gay", making them feel like an aberration, that they can choose to correct. Causing a self-doubt like that is utterly destructive. Black people know this well too. It's wrong, categorically and utterly. Inflicting it on another group, is also categorically wrong. "Your ancestors are responsible for colonialism", is similar to anti-Semitism, and is also historically incorrect. All humans, man or woman, are descended from imperialists, murderers, rapists, and thieves. If you divide people into convenient but illusionary categories, in order to fight their cause in isolation, it will cause exceptions and injustices. The real battle with injustice is a fight against all prejudice, irrespective of it's origin or target.
I also object to the way the term white is applied.
Say that a person was told "you are white and therefore have historical priviledge" to a person from Belarus or some former Ottoman colony. As far as I know, Eastern Europe was never a participant in transatlantic slavery, but their ethnic group with it's unique history is being lumped as "white". Likewise, a black man living in Northern Nigeria might have historical privilege as a slave-owner of Southern Nigerians, and ethnic groups lumped together as black in US discourse have hugely different origins and history.
I don't know if you are aware of the power and reach of American popular culture, but American narratives of what race is, who is black and who is white, are being thrust onto cultures with very different racial histories to America.
I will reply to this, in earnest, as I always do, but....
I honestly couldn't tell at the time if this was serious, or a really clever parody.
You told a mixed race man, apparently without irony, "you aren't aware of the concept of privilege", "you need to do more research on privilege", and "you need to recognise how white males still dominate you". Talk about talking down to someone.
But let's move on.
This sounds just like what authors always warned about the Soviet Union's identity politics. That you can't treat groups as absolutes. The Soviets famously demonized a class of land-owning farmer, known as 'Kulaks'. They eventually lynched this former privileged group en masse, having worked the population into a frenzy. I very much doubt that every member of the Kulak class was evil; some were probably compassionate people who suffered themselves in life. You see, I believe in class, and I am a democratic socialist; but individuals must be judged on their own, never in groups, as an essential protection against mass discrimination; this is fundamental to the western way, and has prevented pogroms since the time of the French Revolution. When the Chinese army entered Tibet, they instructed the Tibetans, who were content with their monarchy, that they were "victims of imperialism", and extolled them to see themselves as victims; please don't tell me what a minority like me should feel about identity and privilege; I will make up my own mind.
Racism was originally a pseudo-scientific idea originating in the 19th century; that some groups on Earth represented a racial category apart from others. Biology has demolished this idea. Racism then came to be applied to people who hated others based on their skin colour, without any theory behind it. In your view, it seems racism no longer means "prejudice based on appearance", but now means "specifically white prejudice, confined to America and Europe, towards minorities", because otherwise your comment makes no sense; Indians are privileged in India, so the potential for a non-white racist to discriminate exists (any Indian can tell you, India has a deep problem with racism, which it is confronting with great gusto as a free democracy). I dispute and reject your definition. For me, as for most people, racism means any discrimination based on ethnic appearance. Note that this does not dispute the existence of privilege, it moves it more properly, onto all power groups.
It is relevant because they are now your culture too.
Global culture, entwined with the west via trade, entertainment and academia, or literally your neighbours.
Here are a couple of facts - in London and New York, the two cultural capitals of Earth - 800 languages are spoken. Is teaching "English guilt" to a class of people from 12 cultures is any longer good enough? Some white pupils are poor and probably descended from slaves of the Saxons - some of the non-white people sitting at the desks had grandfathers who rode on horseback raping and killing minorities - some white people had ancestors who were being shot for their resistance to the British landed elite - some non-white people are descended form a landed elite. How can you group them into privileged and not privileged with such finality, without exceptions?
Prejudice from a minority resulted in 1400 white women being selected for their ethnicity, and raped by Muslim gangs in Rotherham, between 1997 and 2013. Police were reportedly afraid to investigate for fear of being labelled racist. The media also reported them as 'asians' for months, probably out of fear again, despite none of them being Hindu or Buddhist or Taoist, or Vietnamese, Indian or Chinese, which could be seen as deeply unfair and unrepresentative. Even if you disagree with that last part and feel we should all be tarred by the actions of another community, ignoring the prejudices of minorities risks the real suffering of the innocent.
Indian and Chinese Britons/Americans, tend to perform better than the white majority in Britain and America, academically. I'm not sure someone who lives in silicon valley can be grouped as 'white' with a Appalachian living in poverty. Nor an Irishman, who suffered historic anti-Catholic prejudice and racial prejudice.
You should never feel guilt for your identity.
That's self-hate, something black people, gays, etc, are well aware of; your psyche will suffer.
A friend of mine at work says he does not want to have any kids. I asked why, and more or less, the answer was "well, there are too many people in the world" (incorrect Malthusian view, we merely need to be more environmentally sustainable), and "the British are responsible for everything bad" (incorrect). He is Welsh by ethnicity, a formerly colonised group, and intelligent. I feel deeply uncomfortable about this; his British culture has given me so many things I love, from JRR Tolkien, which my mother read to me as a child, to institutions that protect me and allow my atheism, as well as Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism, etc. It's also not a perfect society (I have been on the bad end of Britain's sadistic unemployment policies), but it's a process. When I, as a non-Muslim, hear people say that British culture is no better or worse than some deeply racist culture like Saudi Arabia that regards atheism, aka my people, as capital criminals, I cannot fathom it; ethics everywhere say suffering is to be avoided, and this is a state that causes deliberate suffering, being compared to one that abolished slavery 200 years ago. If my colleague does not instill his western liberal values into the next generation, there is no guarantee that incoming patriarchal cultures will show anything like the same progressivism that the British have shown minorities and women. You could make a case that this focus on individualism was a result of the Protestant Reformation, or Britain's unique history, or the Scientific Enlightenment; all European phenomena, informed by contact with other cultures. I would say he needs to feel better about himself; understand his place in the world, that he is worth something, and how to be a kind man in face of these attacks on his identity. I have gone through the same battle.
Maybe because you don't apply the same standards to the entire globe, or even to all ethnic groups.
The central conceit of the US Constitution, which I think is a remarkable document, historically speaking, coming straight out of the enlightenment, is that rights apply to all humans, or none at all, and that they are natural laws, as far as we can reason. Everyone has a right to life and liberty. I am aware theorists who disagree with any kind of universalism, and their reasons. But I disagree with them utterly, I think it is universal, for all practical purposes.
Perhaps western civilization needs to have greater faith in it's secular and culturally Christian ideals to function healthily, or people start to hate themselves and not take part in the institutions of life; a sense of faith in your civilization's mission gives you the strength to overcome. Americans generally do seem to believe in their ideals, Europeans seem less gung ho, having been fed this narrative that faith in your culture's good, leads to colonialism 2.0.
Political authority is tied to moral authority, if you are genuinely good, genuinely trying to welcome all humans as your equals, then I don't think that a westerner should feel bad about promoting western culture in defiance of say, Musulim theocracy; let those cultures that act with callous institutional evil, reap the rewards; pour money at missionaries and secularists, and show up their hypocrisy. Keep your culture honest, battle prejudice, do your small part as an individual without taking the world's problems on your shoulders, and feel good in yourself.
I almost regretted raising the topic, such is it's potential for volatility, but so far nobody has been unkind to me.
I've led a long life, with many experiences, it's been hard, I've suffered, and had it's ups and downs; I've become familiar with all kinds of social theories, read about them in depth. I was always broadly sympathetic to socialism, but am very sceptical that you can treat a 'class' as a single unit, even if they are broadly helpful academically. Most academics know they are very fluid. I have policed myself carefully from being a small child, to never speak in a racist or sexist way, to just be compassionate to others.
But I can't get behind showing hate or derision, even in comedy, to a sometimes privileged group, as a way of breaking racism. Good conduct is not something you apply only to the oppressed, but to all. Inflicting pain on others is never acceptable. When I was a practising Buddhist years ago, my Lama pointed out the difference between helpful comedy and unhelpful comedy; one celebrates life and breaks down illusion/prejudices, and the other is about belittling others or resentment. One can reveal the stupidity of our social systems, the other entrenches hate. Buddhism isn't for everyone, but I found those ideas stayed with me as logical.
I am also unsure about how Americans apply the term white. Irish people were once treated as a subhuman race. How can their people share the same history as all other whites? How can a Belorussian or Georgian? The term slave originates from the ethnic name 'Slav', because for many centuries, slaves were white, not even just Slavic, and many living whites who abide in poverty in Europe, are descended from slaves. America broadcasting her idea of who is a descendant of slaves and who isn't onto the world may have hurt their quest for social justice.
I think this comment displays shocking disregard for life.
There is a poster in my workplace that runs off the following stats.
"One in six men will suffer domestic abuse in their lifetime."
"One in five men suffering abuse will do so for more than one year."
"One man is killed every fortnight by a current or ex partner."
[Followed by details of four helplines.]
- The Gender Equality Network, formerly called Women's Network
Women suffer these crimes more than men. But men suffer them too. By arguing that misandry does not exist, when people are suffering, is dangerously cruel to those who are in that group. I can't believe a person who genuinely believes in equality would ever ignore the suffering of ANY group, no matter how disproportionate their incidence (the stats for women are 1 in 4). Here in Britain I hear plenty of casual prejudice toward men in the office; "they can't be trusted", "they are all alike", etc, etc. Do you seriously think this is okay, when I wouldn't care to do it to others, or that it does not engender unconscious bias? In your rush to define a system, you seem to have left out people who don't fit into the definition, as all systems do without allowing for exceptions.
With respect, I think this lacks compassion for all human beings, as the Buddha might say.
Two wrong do not make a right.
So, I don't think adding psychological problems to another group of people about their identity is right. We all know how gay people have been made to feel about who they are; uncomfortable in their own skin due to society's prejudice. Parents telling them "can't you not be gay", making them feel like an aberration, that they can choose to correct. Causing a self-doubt like that is utterly destructive. Black people know this well too. It's wrong, categorically and utterly. Inflicting it on another group, is also categorically wrong. "Your ancestors are responsible for colonialism", is similar to anti-Semitism, and is also historically incorrect. All humans, man or woman, are descended from imperialists, murderers, rapists, and thieves. If you divide people into convenient but illusionary categories, in order to fight their cause in isolation, it will cause exceptions and injustices. The real battle with injustice is a fight against all prejudice, irrespective of it's origin or target.
I also object to the way the term white is applied.
Say that a person was told "you are white and therefore have historical priviledge" to a person from Belarus or some former Ottoman colony. As far as I know, Eastern Europe was never a participant in transatlantic slavery, but their ethnic group with it's unique history is being lumped as "white". Likewise, a black man living in Northern Nigeria might have historical privilege as a slave-owner of Southern Nigerians, and ethnic groups lumped together as black in US discourse have hugely different origins and history.
I don't know if you are aware of the power and reach of American popular culture, but American narratives of what race is, who is black and who is white, are being thrust onto cultures with very different racial histories to America.
I will reply to this, in earnest, as I always do, but....
I honestly couldn't tell at the time if this was serious, or a really clever parody.
You told a mixed race man, apparently without irony, "you aren't aware of the concept of privilege", "you need to do more research on privilege", and "you need to recognise how white males still dominate you". Talk about talking down to someone.
But let's move on.
This sounds just like what authors always warned about the Soviet Union's identity politics. That you can't treat groups as absolutes. The Soviets famously demonized a class of land-owning farmer, known as 'Kulaks'. They eventually lynched this former privileged group en masse, having worked the population into a frenzy. I very much doubt that every member of the Kulak class was evil; some were probably compassionate people who suffered themselves in life. You see, I believe in class, and I am a democratic socialist; but individuals must be judged on their own, never in groups, as an essential protection against mass discrimination; this is fundamental to the western way, and has prevented pogroms since the time of the French Revolution. When the Chinese army entered Tibet, they instructed the Tibetans, who were content with their monarchy, that they were "victims of imperialism", and extolled them to see themselves as victims; please don't tell me what a minority like me should feel about identity and privilege; I will make up my own mind.
Racism was originally a pseudo-scientific idea originating in the 19th century; that some groups on Earth represented a racial category apart from others. Biology has demolished this idea. Racism then came to be applied to people who hated others based on their skin colour, without any theory behind it. In your view, it seems racism no longer means "prejudice based on appearance", but now means "specifically white prejudice, confined to America and Europe, towards minorities", because otherwise your comment makes no sense; Indians are privileged in India, so the potential for a non-white racist to discriminate exists (any Indian can tell you, India has a deep problem with racism, which it is confronting with great gusto as a free democracy). I dispute and reject your definition. For me, as for most people, racism means any discrimination based on ethnic appearance. Note that this does not dispute the existence of privilege, it moves it more properly, onto all power groups.
It is relevant because they are now your culture too.
Global culture, entwined with the west via trade, entertainment and academia, or literally your neighbours.
Here are a couple of facts - in London and New York, the two cultural capitals of Earth - 800 languages are spoken. Is teaching "English guilt" to a class of people from 12 cultures is any longer good enough? Some white pupils are poor and probably descended from slaves of the Saxons - some of the non-white people sitting at the desks had grandfathers who rode on horseback raping and killing minorities - some white people had ancestors who were being shot for their resistance to the British landed elite - some non-white people are descended form a landed elite. How can you group them into privileged and not privileged with such finality, without exceptions?
Prejudice from a minority resulted in 1400 white women being selected for their ethnicity, and raped by Muslim gangs in Rotherham, between 1997 and 2013. Police were reportedly afraid to investigate for fear of being labelled racist. The media also reported them as 'asians' for months, probably out of fear again, despite none of them being Hindu or Buddhist or Taoist, or Vietnamese, Indian or Chinese, which could be seen as deeply unfair and unrepresentative. Even if you disagree with that last part and feel we should all be tarred by the actions of another community, ignoring the prejudices of minorities risks the real suffering of the innocent.
Indian and Chinese Britons/Americans, tend to perform better than the white majority in Britain and America, academically. I'm not sure someone who lives in silicon valley can be grouped as 'white' with a Appalachian living in poverty. Nor an Irishman, who suffered historic anti-Catholic prejudice and racial prejudice.
You should never feel guilt for your identity.
That's self-hate, something black people, gays, etc, are well aware of; your psyche will suffer.
A friend of mine at work says he does not want to have any kids. I asked why, and more or less, the answer was "well, there are too many people in the world" (incorrect Malthusian view, we merely need to be more environmentally sustainable), and "the British are responsible for everything bad" (incorrect). He is Welsh by ethnicity, a formerly colonised group, and intelligent. I feel deeply uncomfortable about this; his British culture has given me so many things I love, from JRR Tolkien, which my mother read to me as a child, to institutions that protect me and allow my atheism, as well as Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism, etc. It's also not a perfect society (I have been on the bad end of Britain's sadistic unemployment policies), but it's a process. When I, as a non-Muslim, hear people say that British culture is no better or worse than some deeply racist culture like Saudi Arabia that regards atheism, aka my people, as capital criminals, I cannot fathom it; ethics everywhere say suffering is to be avoided, and this is a state that causes deliberate suffering, being compared to one that abolished slavery 200 years ago. If my colleague does not instill his western liberal values into the next generation, there is no guarantee that incoming patriarchal cultures will show anything like the same progressivism that the British have shown minorities and women. You could make a case that this focus on individualism was a result of the Protestant Reformation, or Britain's unique history, or the Scientific Enlightenment; all European phenomena, informed by contact with other cultures. I would say he needs to feel better about himself; understand his place in the world, that he is worth something, and how to be a kind man in face of these attacks on his identity. I have gone through the same battle.
Maybe because you don't apply the same standards to the entire globe, or even to all ethnic groups.
The central conceit of the US Constitution, which I think is a remarkable document, historically speaking, coming straight out of the enlightenment, is that rights apply to all humans, or none at all, and that they are natural laws, as far as we can reason. Everyone has a right to life and liberty. I am aware theorists who disagree with any kind of universalism, and their reasons. But I disagree with them utterly, I think it is universal, for all practical purposes.
Perhaps western civilization needs to have greater faith in it's secular and culturally Christian ideals to function healthily, or people start to hate themselves and not take part in the institutions of life; a sense of faith in your civilization's mission gives you the strength to overcome. Americans generally do seem to believe in their ideals, Europeans seem less gung ho, having been fed this narrative that faith in your culture's good, leads to colonialism 2.0.
Political authority is tied to moral authority, if you are genuinely good, genuinely trying to welcome all humans as your equals, then I don't think that a westerner should feel bad about promoting western culture in defiance of say, Musulim theocracy; let those cultures that act with callous institutional evil, reap the rewards; pour money at missionaries and secularists, and show up their hypocrisy. Keep your culture honest, battle prejudice, do your small part as an individual without taking the world's problems on your shoulders, and feel good in yourself.
