Her comment got buried under other comments, but I have read it.
TLDR History – Rebecca Bradley wrote an article that I disagreed with about racism and privilege. I wrote a rebuttal, she wrote a rebuttal to that and that’s in the comments. Now we are here.
You seem to think I misrepresented or exaggerated the claims of Critical Race Theory. If you check them out, you will find I did not. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the literature? The redefinition of “racism” is fundamental; the denial that POC can be racist, the automatic stuffing of all whites into some category of racist, the suspicion regarding those who succeed within the system – all those are textbook-axiomatic. The subtext is a great white conspiracy to oppress minorities in defense of a white patriarchal power structure. I do, in fact, understand the concept of “privilege” – I just don’t buy it as it’s defined in CRT, or by you.
You clearly don’t understand the concept.
White people are the majority. Society is dictated by them. And we all come from various cultures which were biased to different ethnic groups. Oh yes including Indians.
Critical Race Theory is an indication that SOCIETY is more biased against people of colour because a lot of bad habits are rooted into western society by centuries of dominance by people who would today be considered racist. While the individual white person may not be consciously doing racist things (or indeed sexist or homophobic things) they are doing things which hurt and harm other people. Often out of “good intentions”.
Critical Race Theory is born out of a society that once listened to the KKK or “Rivers of Blood” and still hasn’t shed some of those viewpoints. It’s not a great white conspiracy in most cases, it’s just people being ignorant.
CRT recognizes that racism is part the systems within American society. The individual racist does not need to exist to perpetrate institutional racism which is pervasive in the dominant mainstream culture. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of colour often through ignorance or sheltered thinking rather than overt hate.
It’s not that people hate the pakis, it’s that they they don’t pick us for football until the end. Even if we are good at it…
Being skeptical of “white privilege” is not even in the same ball park as denying that racism lives on. (It is interesting, however, that you would make that equation.) I see instances of racism in Canada, going both ways; have been the target of it in other parts of the world, have studied its long, tragic history, and track it currently. And I continue to maintain that divisive, grossly simplistic models like CRT actually promote racism rather than the reverse.
You mean the infamous reverse racism?
The fact of the matter is that CRT is a purely american construct designed and aimed at the society within the USA which as I pointed out is still kind of racist. The white presidential candidate born in another country was not scrutinised over his passport as Obama was over his. The Tea Party’s frankly racist bullshit while less crazy than say the Nation of Islam or the KKK or Zionists or any other supremacist group, was taken SERIOUSLY. They were not told “you are stupid we are ignoring you”. Why? Because the Tea Party were a surprisingly huge amount of Americans who straight up cannot accept that a Black Man has won an election. That it HAS to be a conspiracy.
If he was called William McLeod you would not have these ass clowns claiming her is the Highlander or a secret Scottish plot to fry all your food. Yet we have everything from Anti-Christ to Secret Kenyan Plot to Kill All Christians being taken seriously. Why?
Because we rarely get to such positions of power over others. People straight up voted against him because he was black. When people of colour are racist their racism has less societal effect so the Nation of Islam who can be equated to stuff like the KKK as a hate group in level of hate, have less societal effect than the Tea Party Racism.
Really? You’ve just encapsulated the lunacy of white-privilege theory. You honestly believe that a white panhandler or office boy has a higher chance of making CEO than any Indian, Black or GLBT person? That a white panhandler enjoys more systemic privilege than, say, a well-dressed lesbian? Or the university-educated son of a middle-class black? Statistically speaking, there are indeed many more white than black CEOs at the moment, but they are drawn from a very, very small pool; the overwhelming majority of white males have exactly the same chance of cracking the executive ceiling as the majority of POC – vanishingly small to zero.
No. I don’t think you understand this problem.
I stated that a WHITE Pan Handler has a greater chance of becoming a CEO than a POC Pan Handler or a GLBT Pan Handler. Not someone of a different economic and social demography.
The issues that a panhandler faces are different to that of a lesbian. No one is yelling “dyke” and “queer” at the white Pan Handler. No one is trying to actually fudge the system to denigrate Pan Handlers like they are to Lesbians.
Yes and while that chance is very very small, the white guy has a HIGHER very small chance than the POC’s very small chance. If we were to talk about the structure of major companies, that without progressive hiring practices you would actually see very few POC’s in the upper echleons as they wouldn’t get promotions.
1 in a billion is a small chance, 5 in a billion is also a small chance yet is higher than 1 in a billion.
No one? The people who give credence to them are young people of colour – the same demographic targeted by the melanin scholars, the Portland Baseline essays, the ludicrous theories of people like Frances Cress Welsing, and other pseudoscientific expressions of black supremacy. (And, for that matter, the pseudohistorical underpinnings of CRT.) The result is to promote racial resentment and scientific illiteracy, and ultimately to hold back advances towards equality and social justice. But I am not surprised that you would so easily discount them, because they do not fit well into CRT’s assumptions.
13% of the USA still don’t think Obama is an American. 25% of Republicans straight up cannot process the notion that a black guy isn’t a rapper or basketball player and does say stereotypical shit like “Hell naw!”. There were laws nearly passed and people demanded investigations.
The President of the FUCKING USA had to prove that he wasn’t foreign. He had to prove that he wasn’t part of a conspiracy where a pregnant woman leaves her home to go overseas to have a child in secret so that there is no passport (despite the child being an American by birth to an American Citizen). This same person is in cahoots with someone with the ability to smuggle that very same child, back in to the USA so that now there was no government record of his birth. And having the amazing foresight to place birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers? Just so that some kid named Barack Obama could run for President 50 years or so down the line.
Jesus Fucking Christ. You cannot sit there and compare the Nation of Islam’s small time wankery to this epic scale of wank. Literally this argument in all it’s stupidity was taken seriously because sufficient amounts of white people couldn’t believe that a black person won an election.
And I’m sure you can recognize a false dichotomy when you see it. Are those honestly the only attitudes you consider possible? As for CRT attitudes towards white would-be allies, did you follow the link provided?
It’s not a CRT attitude, it’s a stupid person attitude. We can get help from white people. We don’t like the “You are a credit to your race” kind of help though. CRT actually says nothing about that, some POC think this way and I think it’s stupid. As long as people are willing to listen to our issues and indeed take sensible steps to rectify the issues then it’s fine.
I recognized two of them – why did you assume I wouldn’t? The third I hadn’t heard of under either name, possibly because of my age. But presenting them as evidence of systemic racism is very close to dishonest, for two reasons. The first is just misrepresenting the specific back-stories. Freddie Mercury? Freddie was Farrokh’s preferred nickname from his schooldays in India; Mercury was assumed at the same time as he changed the band’s name from “Smile” to “Queen”, and for the same reason other musicians of the time changed their names: to be hip. Ever hear of Paul Gadd? Gordon Sumner? Reginald Dwight? William Broad? Arnold Dorsey for that matter, another singer with a subcontinental heritage? As for Ben Kingsley, the way he tells it, he wanted a name that was more pronounceable after a casting assistant mangled his at an audition; the suggestion came from his Gujerati-origin father, aka Ben.
Farrokh did it to avoid racism. All his talent didn’t mean a damn thing because no one came to see him. What? KRISHNA is easy to mangle but KINGSLEY isn’t? Oh for the love of fuck do you realise how stupid that sounds?
Arnold Dorsey’s mother comes from a group of people called Anglo Indians. They literally were people who threw away their culture to fit into the echleons of the Raj. His mum took on that well known Indian Name. Olive.
Think of them as the Mandarins who took names like Bruce so that the white colonialists gave them benefits over those who insisted on being called Thamizhan. This trope in Indian culture is old. We have been doing this for centuries. We have been trading our names so that people can pronounce it properly. We have been trading our culture for benefits in order to survive for centuries.
My brother is called Anand.
Not Andy. He goes by it out of choice to fit in. My dad unfortunately has no white guy name but goes by Ram. That’s not his name.
And the example isn’t just for you.
The second reason? You’re way out of date. Non-Anglo-Saxon names are no longer a bar to success in the entertainment world. In fact, quite the reverse. What did Chiwetel Ejiofor, for example, change his name to? That’s right, he didn’t. Indeed, the name changes may now go the other way. Who is Dana Owens? Sean Combs? Caryn Johnson? Shaun Carter? Marshall Mathers? Tracy Morrow? Which of these is white? Like many of the ridiculous items in the vintage “invisible backpack”, the under-representation of POC in the media, advertising, and entertainment is thankfully a thing of the past. Which fits in with other visible, measurable progress, from the halving of poverty rates among POC, all the way up to the advent of black CEOs in the Fortune 500.
Kal Pen was born in 1977. He is a modern contemporary actor who pointed out that his callback rate went up by 50% after JUST a name change.
And a special word on Rap Names.
Rap music was born out of a protest movement. Honestly? The First rappers sat around dilapidated warehouses just rapping about “life”. A lot of it was things like KRS One’s Sound of Da Police and Public Enemy’s 911 is a joke. Black people TODAY regularly see themselves not get jobs if they have “black names”. Now it sounds stupid to you but remember they have no original culture. So they created one of their own and part of that is their name system which actually harms them. Black people called Michael do better than Black people called Dfwon.
Rap Names are like Band Names. It’s branded and it’s part of Rap’s culture. In fact we know the “Rap Band” that made it popular. Everyone’s favourite Rap/Kung Fu connection. The Wu Tang Clan (Who aren’t anything to fuck with… Allegedly) due to their roster of ever changing names and personas and silliness. They were so influential that people started imitating them.
So while some of the names are weird (Puff Daddy? P. Diddy?) some of them are kind of smart (Eminem = MnM = Marshall Mathers) and indeed some of them MEAN something. These weren’t names they took to be successful, these were personas they put on to be like their heroes who were famous for creating a style and genre.
You’re Indian? Congratulations! In the US, the wellspring of CRT, you would be a member of the most favoured demographic of all, as measured by income, employment rate, and educational level. So perhaps the answer would be none – but you apparently feel comfortable in using the hypothetical as evidence of victimization.
Actually that has more to do with how Indians arrived in the USA. Indians solely arrived as middle class workers often doing jobs that no one else could do or were willing to do or as businessmen filling in a niche role. Income is due to the fact that many of us come in as Doctors and are “well paid”. Our employment rates are high because if we don’t get jobs we get deported. And our educational level is high because those who don’t have education don’t get into the country. In addition? If you are upper middle class, chances are your kids will be upper middle class too.
Really? The things Indians have in the USA is not because we are “favoured” but because we were willing to sacrifice a lot of our culture to TAKE stuff. We were more willing to fight and indeed we were used to fighting uphill. Indians in the west also have something called the REVERSE crab bucket. We nullify the disadvantages of novelty through camaraderie.
We fight the system in a different way. Our temples feed the starving Indian kids who come looking for work. Our families often play host to the kids of friends till they get settled. It is a leg up in a small way.
The majority of Indians who come to your country are already rich and privileged and educated. They are not fighting from below. They are fighting on an equal playing field to white guys at their social and economic strata with all the benefits they had growing up. In fact due to our cultural value on education we have a bigger advantage in a country fascinated by standardised tests.
But the thing is when we do work we do see racism in the form of fewer call backs to interviews and having to do more to be equal. It’s just that Indians as a culture are willing to do that more to be economically equal. We do suffer a lot of racism and to simply toss out our experiences is pretty much par for the course. We expect people to ignore our experiences.