Recent comments in /f/Whiteness

thekraken wrote

I liked this article, it explains the situation and achieves it's educational goals quite well. I still think using 'whiteness' as a term is a bad "PR" move as it (imo needlessly) puts people on the defensive before you can even attempt to explain the situation to them, but whatever - it's not that big a of a deal.


moonlune wrote

the privileged represent climate change as humanity’s first existential crisis, effectively scrubbing away centuries of oppression that very much targeted the existence of people of color and other marginalized populations.

that's fair.

She believes we shouldn’t reject climate anxiety as an all-encompassing category for thinking about the mental health impacts of the climate crisis. As a tool for mobilizing people to respond to climate change, “it’s actually very effective,” she says.

I agree, "climate anxiety" wasn't a phrase invented with the ambition of being applied to the whole world's experience of climate change, but to be used in US/EU environmentalist youth circles. And that's not a bad thing, just something that shouldn't be forgotten. Thanks for sharing this article/reminder :)

These discussions always bring me back to thinking about Alejandro de Acosta's "To acid words" essay. I love him.


__0 wrote

You make some good points, but I still feel like it is better to be "free" and impoverished and marginalized than it is to be enslaved in 1865.

1865 wasn't really that long ago, but also 1965 wasn't that long ago either...

I don't think acknowledging the historical atrocities of a state that is truly at war with the people within it, stops anyone from seeing what injustice is currently happening.

The fact is that for a long time many living in the states were explicitly not seen as people. The consequences of this still live on in america's culture.

There are so many justifications that america has made for its slavery historically, but I want to also point out that slavery still exists in the states in prisons, and also the fact that globalization has moved so much of production into sweatshops around the world that have working conditions that are illegal and incredibly unethical ...

But yes the conditions globally are terrible, and in the us they suck too, and everything is systematically fucked.

These conditions are held In place by state and industry. The reason these systems are so immovable is that they force so many participants to be complicit... Its truly a hostage situation.


Blurp2 wrote

I'm obsessed. It's an illness. Sorry. But.

I know we don't have race riots any more. But because George Floyd died, that is not progress.

I know we don't hang grandma from trees any more. But because George Floyd died, that is not progress.

I know we elected a black president, and integrated the schools very slightly, and so called black people and so called white people all are careful to wear their happy happy faces with one another when in public (and they're never in private). But because George Floyd died, that is not progress.

The process that killed George Floyd renews itself from day to day, from moment to moment. It is a completely modern, completely now process. It has absolutely nothing to do with history. It can be absolutely guaranteed to kill more people in the future, although possibly not today or tomorrow. If we do nothing, we give it permission to continue. What should we do? What can stop this process?

Only the elimination of whiteness as defined in and reflected by that marriage barrier. If we eliminate whiteness as non-so-called-black minorities define it, of course, you'll just set up a new whiteness as the non-so-called-black minorities take over the same marriage barrier the so called whites abandoned. That marriage barrier is the problem.


Blurp2 wrote

I'm sorry, I know you mean well, but we need to stop saying things are better now. Every time you say things are better now you encourage people to settle for what they've got, to ignore the substandard education so many kids are getting, the outrageously long prison terms so many people are getting - always after pleading down from the certainty of getting much worse, if they insist on trial! Their reward, for saving the state all that money, is a sentence only four times as serious as what they'd get in a civilized country!

And for what, for this drug war that is funding revolutions in South and Central America. No, I'm not saying we need to make drugs legal. I can't go that far. But let's stop penalizing so called criminals as though they were evil. They're no more evil than the rest of us. Let's stop making war on our own people.

But focusing on the progress we've made makes it completely impossible to make more. It communicates - the "second message" is - that you've settled for what you've got and you're OK with stopping here. So called white people say, "Just leave us our personal racism - we'll try our LEVEL BEST to treat one another equal, honest we will!" - in their hearts this is what they say - and they mean it. And that's how political progress has been made to this point, by making explicit, out loud promises that we weren't going to demand that personal racism end. And so we are at fault too. We were wrong. We do need personal racism to end. Personal racism is the problem.

Because they CAN'T treat so called black people equal. It can't be done. When you think of yourself as white you have, right then and there, accepted the low status and consequent worthlessness of so called blacks. We need to stop people thinking of themselves as white. We need to tell so called white people what the problem is and how to fix it. Because if we don't, why would they? They won't, and we'll be stuck HERE. Please. Let's not get stuck here.


__0 wrote

I agree with the sentiment, but also want to say that things are undeniably better than 1865. But also that yes america has a huge problem with structural, and deeply engrained cultural racism and racial violence, and by that I am also including not just physical violence, but state violence, economic violence, cultural violence etc.


tuesday wrote

Reply to comment by Blurp2 in Eliminating Whiteness by Blurp2

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)_/¯


Blurp2 OP wrote

Reply to comment by tuesday in Eliminating Whiteness by Blurp2

"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.


Blurp2 wrote

Well, except that when you focus on Juneteenth, you reinforce the notion that the problem is the government, and it's ancient, and largely handled by now. By focusing on a solved problem, you turn attention away from the current problem. The current problem isn't the government and what happened in 1865; the current problem is the people and what's happening now. George Floyd didn't die back in 1865, and the problem we face didn't start to go away in 1865, and I'm sure no one here expects that Mr. Floyd was the last. There will be more. There probably already have been and we just haven't noticed. That's the problem, and it has nothing - zero - zip - to do with Juneteenth.

The problem hasn't STARTED to go away yet. It has not yet BEGUN to be reduced. And at this rate, it never will.

Nobody but me is saying that, but that's the only way we're ever going to make progress. Oh well, I've said it all before. Never mind.


tuesday wrote

Reply to comment by Blurp2 in Eliminating Whiteness by Blurp2

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

Reply to comment by tuesday in Eliminating Whiteness by Blurp2

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

Reply to comment by Blurp2 in Eliminating Whiteness by Blurp2

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.