Submitted by Blurp2 in Whiteness

I have a plan to eliminate whiteness.

I know that sounds grandiose. Plans to eliminate whiteness are not being found under every bush and tree. Please: bear with me. This is a good plan, and it's going to work. Read the plan and see what you think.

Nothing we have done in the last sixty years has been on point, unfortunately. In order to get this country working on the underlying problem, we have to start telling three very important truths.

The first truth we haven't been telling is that whiteness is a fantasy. Now, plenty of people will agree with this idea, but I think many of them are taking it on faith. Because when it comes to racism, no one wants to get into a fistfight. But it's important to be able to say what you mean when you say whiteness is a fantasy, and to be able to prove it. It's important to get people thinking about the truth.

What I mean when I say whiteness is a fantasy is this: if you're looking for distinctions with real significance, telling people by the color of their skin is like telling them by the color of their eyes, or the shape of their nose. It's senseless.

There are many proofs of the idea. I will take it that you all already know this and move on.

The point is that whenever we use the words "black" or "white" to describe people, we should really say "so called black" or "so called white." That will reinforce the idea and get people thinking along truthful lines. Race is a fantasy, and it's important to repeat that lesson until everyone knows it.

The second step is this: in order to be effective against the perception of whiteness, we have to hit it where it lives. How do we hit it where it lives? We look at the marriage rate between so called white men and so called black women. How do I show that's where whiteness lives? Because fixing that marriage rate will fix whiteness. That's the second important truth we haven't been telling: fixing the marriage rate between so called white men and so called black women will eliminate the perception of whiteness.

What I mean is this: if we raise that marriage rate as high as it will go, and keep it there for a few generations, no more so called white men will be produced in this society. We will become a so called black society. That perception - the so called black society - will still be a fantasy, of course. (This is why it's important to establish the fantasy of race first.) But if we fix that marriage rate, then in a few generations, for the first time ever in America, so called black people will just be people. And that's the goal. For so called black people to just be people.

I realize I'm making it sound much easier than it is. It will require so called white guys to look in their hearts. But it doesn't require anyone to suffer or die! We don't have to break the country up into pieces! No one has to go live in a foreign land! It's not going to break the national budget! In that respect, this is an amazingly easy solution.

I do want to emphasize that what I'm talking about is a MARRIAGE rate. It's not a cohabitation rate; it's not a rate of living together; it's not a rate of deep personal long-term commitment. Marriage is the key. Because so called white guys have been having sex with so called black women since slavery began, and the so called races still are separate. That's why marriage is the thing. Marriage integrates. If it were not so, there would be no marriage barrier and nothing to fix. There would be no racism.

Now for the third fact. Now I ask, what does looking at that marriage rate tell us, and how could that help?

There's a document called MS-3 on the US Census website, and that document gives information that can be used to calculate the marriage rate between so called white men and so called black women between 1960 and 1998. If you do that calculation, and plot the data on a chart, you find that that marriage rate stood at 6 per 10 000 through the sixties and seventies, that it began to rise very very slowly between 1975 and 1985, and that by 1998 it was at 2 per 1000. By 2 per 1000 what I mean is that of every 1000 married so called white men in 1998, 2 were married to so called black women. Now so called black women are at 12% of the population, so if that marriage rate were colorblind the figure would be 120 per 1000. It is 2 per 1000; it should be 120 per 1000. What that means to me is that this country is now at 98% of its capacity for racism. Or was in 1998, and the marriage rate wasn't changing very quickly then and so I don't think it's much different now.

That discrepancy is the third important truth we haven't been telling. If the difference was between 10 per 1000 and 20 per 1000 you could find other reasons for it. Geography, economic differences, family histories, et cetera. You could find excuses. But between 2 and 120? No. That's racism. There's no other reasonable explanation for such an enormous discrepancy. This is an almost completely racist nation.

And I know that may be hard to swallow. Didn't we elect a so called black president? Didn't we stop having race riots, and stop hanging people from trees, and things like that? Didn't we integrate the schools? Isn't that progress?

Well, yes, it is progress. But it's not progress against racism where it lives. Those are all good things, but none of them affected racism at its home at all. Just because we don't hang people from trees any more, doesn't mean racism is lower. Racism at home can be measured, as I've just described, and it's not lower. Integrating the schools did not reduce racism. Everybody getting real careful about what they say and what they think did not reduce racism. We've been charging up good hills, hills we need to clear the enemy off of - but racism was not at the top of those hills. If the goal was to eliminate racism, well, we didn't do it. Not even close.

But the point is, now that we know what the solution is, we can do anything we put our minds to. Anything. Now that we know what the solution is, it's not a matter of if whiteness will be eliminated, it's a matter of when. How long it will take. That's why this is a very hopeful message. We're going to succeed. We actually cannot fail. Because while race is a fantasy, although it's a very powerful fantasy, education and understanding are real, and therefore they are just simply stronger than hallucinations and illusions, no matter how urgent or distorting.

But it could take a while. We do actually have to work on it, and not sit around waiting for others to work on it.

So those are the three uncomfortable truths we all need to be aware of. Race is a fantasy; fixing the marriage rate of so called white men with so called black women will fix whiteness; and whiteness is a much more serious problem than most people have yet imagined. Now how do we publicize the idea? How do we make sure that everyone knows what the solution is?

For the broadest possible discussion and the most comprehensive education, we need a constitutional amendment. And not just any constitutional amendment: we need the very first constitutional amendment that makes no new law. That's right: we need the very first educational constitutional amendment. It could look something like this:

Race is a fantasy. Distinguishing people by the color of their skin is like distinguishing people by the shape of their nose, or the color of their eyes. It's senseless. Therefore, wherever racism is, it should be eliminated.

Racism works by a marriage barrier. If historically we see a barrier to marriage between one so called race and another, then between these so called races there is racism. A marriage barrier is defined as a difference of greater than 20% between the theoretical, colorblind marriage rate and the actual marriage rate. Currently the marriage barrier between so called white men and so called black women is almost complete: 118 over 120, or 98%.

The solution to racism is to raise the marriage rate between so called races. This solution is found in the hearts of those who cannot now realistically imagine falling in love with, and ultimately marrying, those of another so called race. And since guys do the asking, it's guys who must make this change in their hearts.

The solution to racism is individual, but that alone doesn't make individuals racists. Until we have a test for who's NOT a racist, accusations of personal racism can have no limit, and therefore no meaning. This racist society belongs to all of us, and we all support it on a daily basis. People who have not yet fixed their hearts are only broken hearted, and no more or less evil than the rest of us.

So that's it. That's the plan. Please tell me what you think.



You must log in or register to comment.

Styx wrote (edited )

Why do you only ever mention white men and black women marrying? You know there are black men married to white women too, and any other possible interracial combination? And what's up with your fixation on marriage?


Blurp2 OP wrote

I've heard your first question before, and I have two answers: first, because if all the so called black women are marrying so called white men, of course the so called black men will have to marry so called white women. So if we do it from this end that end will take care of itself. Second, suppose I'm wrong, and simple education doesn't work fast enough. Suppose we decide to move to actual persuasion. Now it's a very fuzzy line between persuasion and forcing people to do things. Certain forms of persuasion that I might see clearly as persuasion, you might see as forcing. We don't want to approach forcing women to make these choices. So those are the two reasons I focus on so called white men and so called black women.

As far as other racial combinations are concerned, in my view the ONLY so called races in America are the so called white and the so called black races. Asians are not a race, hispanics are not a race, Muslims are not a race and why: because there is no marriage barrier. At least, none that I'm aware of. I don't think Asians hesitate to marry so called whites, and I don't think so called whites hesitate to marry Asians - therefore Asians are so called white, in reality. It's the marriage barrier that makes it racism.

Which brings us to your second question, which I actually addressed in my 11th paragraph above. So called white guys have been having sex with so called black women since slavery began, and the races still are separate. Marriage integrates. That's really why we find a marriage barrier between so called white guys and so called black women: it's the marriage barrier that is the true source of the difference.


moonlune wrote (edited )

so called black

u don't need to "so called" each time you mention skin color, races exist in the same way borders exist: there are not physically there but they've been thought and acted into existence over the course of centuries. CF link further down

it's the marriage barrier that is the true source of the difference.

This is a shit take, no black person ever has said that racism is cause by a lack of interracial marriage. If you want to work towards being more anti-racist you should start by listening to black people (random google result, you might be interested in point 1 and 6 in particular).


Blurp2 OP wrote

I've listened to a lot of so called black people. I've heard them saying that so called white people will never understand racism, because they don't really experience it. I've heard them talking about what they really need, to fight racism, is more guns and better organization. I've never heard one say anything that sounded to me like it had a hope in hell of reducing racism even a little bit.

I think most so called black people probably agree with me that racism is at a high level in this country. But none of them know how to fix it because they're all complaining about the mule poop and none of them are looking at the mule. The mule is that marriage rate. Fix that, and it'll fix everything else.

I would just point out that this country is currently at 98% (or more) of its capacity for racism - in the foundational dimension of racism, that is, in the dimension of racism which has to be reduced to reduce racism - and so what so called black people have been saying FOR THE LAST 60 YEARS hasn't been helping at all. Not even a little bit. Maybe so called black people need to start thinking and saying different things.


Styx wrote

And unlike anarchisticism, I actually have an interest in law.

This is why I asked how you found this site, which is primarily for the people with an interest in anarchism.


Blurp2 OP wrote

Hmm. I wonder.

Would it interest you to know that anarchy rules our legal system, here in America? True. The legal system is dominated by practicing anarchists - they don't admit it of course, but they are - whose decisions about the fates of everyone who enters the legal system as an Accused Person are governed by only the most tangential relationship to anything a legislature cooked up, as punishment for crime.

So you see the law has a great deal to do with anarchy, in this country. Does that interest you?


bloodrose wrote

I've listened to a lot of so called black people.

Wait, so you are not a black person, then, right?

But none of them know how to fix it because they're all complaining about the mule poop and none of them are looking at the mule.

But you are 100% sure you know the right answer for black people?

This comes of really creepy. Very savior-y. Have you heard that critique before? How do you respond when people feel that way?


Blurp2 OP wrote

I'm not so called black... but if you go by the one-drop rule, which most people seem to, at least in America, then all people on earth are technically black, because half a million years ago every single one of our ancestors was so called black. So there are different perspectives on my "actual" color.

100% sure... I wouldn't go quite that far. I've sent the ideas to a LOT of people who make their living rearranging words, and had absolutely no comment from them. Something about the plan scares them, I think. And this is odd, because normally I get responses from thoughtful people, when I send them messages. Normally they recognize me as a thoughtful guy, and they respond appropriately. I had an email from Noam Chomsky, a couple emails from Albert Alschuler, who used to teach law at the University of Chicago, a couple emails from geneticists... it's really surprising for me to get absolutely no response from university professors.

Less thoughtful people... sometimes they like it, sometimes they don't, sometimes they LOVE it - a guy in jail once gave me his breakfast biscuits because he liked it so much lol!!! Another one taught me one of his gang signs, just as a result of this plan.

And sometimes they HATE it. I've never before had so called black people hate it to my face, or give me any reason to believe they hated it. Those that hate it - there aren't many - have, as far as I can tell, all been so called white.


Blurp2 OP wrote

... and as far as "coming off savior-y" goes, I've never heard that criticism before, maybe because in person I don't. I'll give it some more thought; but just as a first take, it's a very ad hominem argument. We should criticize the thought, not the person? For example, just because Thomas Jefferson slept with his enslaved persons, that doesn't mean his ideas about freedom were bad ideas, does it? So even if the idea "comes off as" this or that, the idea itself still stands, I think...


Blurp2 OP wrote

I should have said, anarchy rules our system of CRIMINAL law. A University of Chicago professor of law named Zimring did a study, back in 1976, of how homicides in Philadelphia were disposed in 1970. 85% of the perpetrators as identified by the police got 2y or less; 15% got 5y or more. We use the plea bargaining system more today than we did then. Every year, thousands go to prison who, if they had trials, would be walking free; every year, thousands walk free who, if they had trials, would be doing long stretches in prison. That's what I mean by anarchy. No legislature designed this system; our system as designed presumes that people get trials when they are accused. In fact, however, they don't.


bloodrose wrote

For example, just because Thomas Jefferson slept with his enslaved persons, that doesn't mean his ideas about freedom were bad ideas, does it?

He didn't just fuck his slaves. He also enslaved the children from those relations. Motherfucker enslaved his own children. I don't give two shits about what he has to say if he's enslaving his own fucking children.

But also, he did a bunch of bullshit. He was the first instance of presidential overreach that created an awful fucking precedent that remains to this day. He literally talked about making a 4% profit on the birth of black children.

I....just....I would never listen to a word Thomas Jefferson had to say about anything. They had to have the constitutional congress when he was in France because he was such a tool he'd fuck it up....just...weird person to go to there.


tuesday wrote

If this isn't the system working as intended then why hasn't the legislature fixed it? Is this the system they designed? No, but they seem entirely content to do absolutely nothing about it so we're left to conclude that according to the people with power to do anything this is fine.


Blurp2 OP wrote

Well, I hate to admit it, but I've been wrestling with that question myself. It's a good point. But just because the legislature hasn't fixed something, doesn't mean it's what they designed, and it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean it's not anarchic.

I notice you don't maintain that thousands of people don't go to prison every year, who if they had trials, would be walking free, or that thousands of people don't walk free every year, who if they had trials, would be in prison. I don't know if you know this, but Germany gives everybody trials. They don't put people in prison without having a trial first. It can be done, and we should be doing it.

I would also point out that this is contrary to the ideal of the rule of law and the right our Constitution - illegitimate though it may be - says everyone has to a speedy trial. Imagine if we were to design a Constitution that said everyone accused of a crime shall have the right, not to a trial, but to bargain the chance that a jury will free them against the certainty of an outrageously long prison term if they're wrong. In other words, imagine that our Constitution actually described our justice system. No sane legislator could vote for something like that. No sane schoolchild could admire it. Our reputation as a country of law and order would be dead. It couldn't be done. If you can't write a Constitution that describes your actual practice, there's something wrong with your actual practice.

One further thought. Dr. Albert Alschuler wrote an article recently, called "Plea Bargaining and Mass Incarceration," published in the NYU Annual Survey of American Law, that pointed out that with 5% of the world's population, America incarcerates 25% of its prisoners. Our incarceration rate is 7 times that of West European democracies. Our reasons for this have little or nothing to do with differing crime rates. Our incarceration rate is higher than that in Russia, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. He goes on to say: Do you imagine that these people are punished less than they deserve? Do you think it's even remotely possible that such long sentences are required to protect the public? Do you think we got here by punishing 95% of all offenders too lightly to accomplish whatever it is that the prison system is supposed to achieve? I hope I don't have to tell you that the burden of this incarceration falls disproportionately on so called black people.

I think he's got some very good points, and I think the anarchy that currently rules our criminal justice system should be scrapped. And the fact that legislatures aren't prepared to do that doesn't mean they'd design a system that works this way, or that they did design it, or that it's not anarchic.


tuesday wrote

You keep using the word anarchy to mean things it doesn't mean. The legal system isn't chaotic so even going by that definition you're incorrect. It makes your argument really ridiculous.

Anyway the right to a speedy trial, like everything else in the Constitution, is up for debate based on what the court imagines that the Constitution means.

Anyway: read Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742

Plea bargains are Constitutional.


Blurp2 OP wrote

"read Brady v US"... yeesh. Read Dred Scott. Read Plessy v Ferguson. Just because a court said something doesn't make it right.

You seem to think anarchy is a synonym for chaos. It's not. What little reading I've done, of anarchistic texts, leads me to believe that anarchists differ as much among themselves as to what it "really" is as socialists do about socialism.

I think any system that operates without proper government, without the balancing of powers and the checks and balances and the legislative government that we associate with our democracy, can fairly be described as anarchic, and perhaps tyrannous. Who knows what principles govern plea bargaining? I don't. I bet you don't either.

You seem to imagine that I thought all this up myself. I didn't. I took an idea from here and an idea from there, from people that are good at thinking and experienced in the law. Read Alschuler's article on Plea Bargaining and Mass Incarceration. Read Jed Rakoff's article, Why Innocent People Plead Guilty. Read Francis Allen's article, Erosion of Legality in American Criminal Justice. These people are not fools.


tuesday wrote

I've read Dread Scott and I've read Plessy. The point is that the system, that you're so valiantly trying to reform, is fundamentally flawed and cannot be saved. It is working as intended. This is by design.

Is it fair? No, of course not. But it's how things are.

Read more about anarchism. Or don't. ¯_(ツ)_/¯