Can we stop this “it actually goes back to” argument style.
Look I understand that racism is very entrenched in America from its very beginning, just like every other country on Earth. To frame an argument like that is to say through subtext that no act of reformation can ever be enough.
It reframes humans as inherently ignorant which I hope we all know isn’t the case, any of us who know better only do so because we were taught to think critically.
I understand it’s important to have historical context when defining issues of race and inequity but the issue comes from it being a way to sweep all talk of change under the rug.
It also gives current figures moral cover by saying that no one person is specifically responsible, letting any recent figures off the hook when they’re very culpable. It frames racism as an issue of human nature which it may be but it’s in tandem with ignorance, something only some of us were able to escape because of education.
It’s weaponizing historical context to take away our feeling of agency which is something that has been a tactic on the right and particularly in Russia for years.
Racist rhetoric didn’t begin with Trump but the scale, centrality, and normalization is like no other.
Deep roots should never be a way to absolve recent actors. So while I think historical framing is important, I think it’s also important that we’re mindful we don’t weaponize it to both belittle our progress and erase the possibility for change.
Of course the system has systemic inequality and racism, of course we should work to change that and we should use historical context to identify the disadvantages that have been given to people and how we can fix them. But in the meantime we can still hold the people here and now accountable for what they have done to accelerate the normalization of direct racist tones.
To spend your life tracing only original sin would be to miss the nuance of how it’s evolved.
One of the most important pieces of Trump’s 2024 election was getting the Hispanic vote. Sure, he spent years before, during, and after his first term talking about cracking down on immigration on the southern border, talking about how all of the people coming from Mexico or further south were a bunch of criminals and drug dealers. BUT he courted the Cuban population in southern Florida - mostly the descendants of people who were wealthy enough to have their wealth redistributed by Castro. By calling Harris a communist he was able to get their votes, win Florida, and that would have made the difference in the election.
The very concept of who counts as “white” changes depending on what the racists of the time want. In the not-too-distant past, Irish and Italian people were not considered white. I still don’t know if Bernie Sanders or other Jews are considered white or not.
Even for data like this… Is it really a black women vs white women issue, or is it a rich person vs poor person issue? And yes, those economic division have deep roots in the history of racism, but that doesn’t explain the whole picture.
Look at the people around Trump. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is one of those Cuban south Floridians. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer is a Hispanic woman. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is part Samoan, born in Somoa. FBI Director Kash Patel is Indian - his family fled persecution in Uganada.
And then there’s foreign policy. Trump seems to largely be pushing the USA away from predominantly white European countries that have historically been allies. Trying to break up NATO and undermine the EU, making threats against Canada and Greenland. Cozying up to Muhammed Bin Salman.
The people in power love when the masses fight amongst themselves.
couldn’t agree more, divide and conquer taken to the world stage. Division down on race, background, employment and anything else to keep us busy while the rich rob us blind and Trump’s cabinet lines their pockets
To frame an argument like that is to say through subtext that no act of reformation can ever be enough.
That’s the point though. When you frame it that way you turn it into an extreme issue, to which you allowed an extreme reaction. You can never acknowledge progress or growth or change. It’s can therefore be perpetual ragebait. And Americans eat this up. They love it.
One of the key tenants of modern leftist ID politics is that racism is a form of original sin that can never be washed clean, and often ti goes so far to claim that being white is makes you irredeemable racist, thus you own an infinite debt to minorities. And you must spend your life perpetual seeking forgiveness for your racism and being forever vigilant at any possibly racist thoughts you or anyone you know has.
One of the key tenants of modern leftist ID politics is that racism is a form of original sin that can never be washed clean, and often ti goes so far to claim that being white is makes you irredeemable racist, thus you own an infinite debt to minorities. And you must spend your life perpetual seeking forgiveness for your racism and being forever vigilant at any possibly racist thoughts you or anyone you know has.
You’re right, just trying to be a voice for change.
Can we stop this “it actually goes back to” argument style.
Look I understand that racism is very entrenched in America from its very beginning, just like every other country on Earth. To frame an argument like that is to say through subtext that no act of reformation can ever be enough.
It reframes humans as inherently ignorant which I hope we all know isn’t the case, any of us who know better only do so because we were taught to think critically.
I understand it’s important to have historical context when defining issues of race and inequity but the issue comes from it being a way to sweep all talk of change under the rug.
It also gives current figures moral cover by saying that no one person is specifically responsible, letting any recent figures off the hook when they’re very culpable. It frames racism as an issue of human nature which it may be but it’s in tandem with ignorance, something only some of us were able to escape because of education.
It’s weaponizing historical context to take away our feeling of agency which is something that has been a tactic on the right and particularly in Russia for years.
Racist rhetoric didn’t begin with Trump but the scale, centrality, and normalization is like no other.
Deep roots should never be a way to absolve recent actors. So while I think historical framing is important, I think it’s also important that we’re mindful we don’t weaponize it to both belittle our progress and erase the possibility for change.
Of course the system has systemic inequality and racism, of course we should work to change that and we should use historical context to identify the disadvantages that have been given to people and how we can fix them. But in the meantime we can still hold the people here and now accountable for what they have done to accelerate the normalization of direct racist tones.
To spend your life tracing only original sin would be to miss the nuance of how it’s evolved.
One of the most important pieces of Trump’s 2024 election was getting the Hispanic vote. Sure, he spent years before, during, and after his first term talking about cracking down on immigration on the southern border, talking about how all of the people coming from Mexico or further south were a bunch of criminals and drug dealers. BUT he courted the Cuban population in southern Florida - mostly the descendants of people who were wealthy enough to have their wealth redistributed by Castro. By calling Harris a communist he was able to get their votes, win Florida, and that would have made the difference in the election.
The very concept of who counts as “white” changes depending on what the racists of the time want. In the not-too-distant past, Irish and Italian people were not considered white. I still don’t know if Bernie Sanders or other Jews are considered white or not.
Even for data like this… Is it really a black women vs white women issue, or is it a rich person vs poor person issue? And yes, those economic division have deep roots in the history of racism, but that doesn’t explain the whole picture.
Look at the people around Trump. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is one of those Cuban south Floridians. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer is a Hispanic woman. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is part Samoan, born in Somoa. FBI Director Kash Patel is Indian - his family fled persecution in Uganada.
And then there’s foreign policy. Trump seems to largely be pushing the USA away from predominantly white European countries that have historically been allies. Trying to break up NATO and undermine the EU, making threats against Canada and Greenland. Cozying up to Muhammed Bin Salman.
The people in power love when the masses fight amongst themselves.
couldn’t agree more, divide and conquer taken to the world stage. Division down on race, background, employment and anything else to keep us busy while the rich rob us blind and Trump’s cabinet lines their pockets
That’s the point though. When you frame it that way you turn it into an extreme issue, to which you allowed an extreme reaction. You can never acknowledge progress or growth or change. It’s can therefore be perpetual ragebait. And Americans eat this up. They love it.
One of the key tenants of modern leftist ID politics is that racism is a form of original sin that can never be washed clean, and often ti goes so far to claim that being white is makes you irredeemable racist, thus you own an infinite debt to minorities. And you must spend your life perpetual seeking forgiveness for your racism and being forever vigilant at any possibly racist thoughts you or anyone you know has.
You’re right, just trying to be a voice for change.