How are Cathode Ray Tubes gonna make white people feel bad?
When you tie them down in your pickup and slap them to say “That’s not going anywhere”, sometimes they break 😔
Hot take but racial identity in general is fucked as a concept. You like your skin color? Cool me too. Don’t base your personality around it.
Racial identity other than white identity has largely arisen in response to white supremacy, at least in the West.
ie “If you say nonwhite is bad, fuck you, we’re going to say nonwhite is good”
Insofar as it is involved in combating White identity politics and the associated cultural hegemony, it’s positive, and will likely continue to be needed in the near-future. But in the long-term, yes, it’s silly. Race is just a social construct.
Yeah I agree with that. Of course, through the distortion of media, that is how most people who support white identity see their own cause as well. “The liberal media and elites constantly put down white people and tell us we should be ashamed, so fuck you we are going to say that white is good”.
I’ve heard that John Brown was a white savior type who didn’t actually talk to BIPOCs, so you don’t look up to him unless you’re also the racist white savior type.
Then again, the person who told me this was also adamant that talking about the class war was also racist, and that being privileged meant my life was easier than his, despite me being a homeless sex worker at the time.
I’ve heard that John Brown was a white savior type who didn’t actually talk to BIPOCs, so you don’t look up to him unless you’re also the racist white savior type.
That’s incredibly false. John Brown personally connected with several of the leading Black figures of the era (including his ~20 year friendship with Frederick Douglass).
Then again, the person who told me this was also adamant that talking about the class war was also racist, and that being privileged meant my life was easier than his, despite me being a homeless sex worker at the time.
Yeah, not sure they’re a great source.
I have no idea why anyone would be ashamed of something someone else did, generations ago. Little fella, that wasn’t you. It doesn’t have to ever be you. Learn from what those other folks did, and make better choices. That way, you’ll have nothing to be ashamed of.
because propaganda convinces them of communal guilt. identity politics sees your ethnicity as an original sin. If you are born white you are forever responsible for all ‘whiteness’ ever. That’s why it’s such a messed up way to view the world. (it’s also basically the same structure as racist theories that see someone’s race/sex as inherently inferior.)
It’s very similar to extremist christian views, which are used to control people by telling them they are unworthy sinners and must constantly seek redemption.
I have no idea why anyone would be ashamed of something someone else did, generations ago. Little fella, that wasn’t you. It doesn’t have to ever be you. Learn from what those other folks did, and make better choices. That way, you’ll have nothing to be ashamed of.
This is why I strongly oppose all forms of identity politics as a Marxist-Leninist. When the socialist revolution installs a dictatorship of the vanguard party, we won’t be engaging in things like critical race theory or native title. The indigenous reservations will be torn down and replaced with factories. All will work for the good of the state, and all will be equal.
This is also how I feel about people who get literal depression when “their” sports team doesn’t do well.
I always ask them when they got on the second string or bought the team.
Oh critical race theory not the monitors
That tweak I got at 14 moving the TV from the living room to my grandparents’ bedroom has decided to come back 26 years later.
That’s precisely what I was here to discuss lol. I think I might just be too old, but I still have a large hernia from lifting my 40” Sony Wega CRT television.
I am not sure about the specific wording of laws in the US before the Civil War, but I do know that many of the Confederacy’s documents specifically used the term “negro slavery”. You cannot separate the race from their victimization. It is not racist to say that black people were slaves in America’s past. Even if there were a few exceptions, much of it was encoded into law.
On the other hand, like the tweets say, just because a person was white doesn’t mean they owned slaves, or that they weren’t abolitionists.
Yeah I never got why conservatives are like “YOURE ASHAMED TO BE WHITE.”
Maybe it’s because some liberals claim to be ashamed of being white? Like I’m not ashamed but I’m not proud either. It’s just a colour of person I am and I’ve never actually had to be seriously challenged by society because of the colour of my skin so there’s not really a want to feel proud of it.
I am angry at the inequalities created by people in the past and severely annoyed with the other white people around that make us look like racist assholes though. But they aren’t my kind and my heroes aren’t their heroes.
It’s projection.
Their heroes - yes, the racist, bigoted cunts who were on the wrong side of history - are being torn down, and instead of letting them go, like any sane person would, they’re clinging into the feigned positive image.
They also understand that they should be ashamed of still putting these people on pedestals. Obviously they aren’t but they get the implication that they should be.
Therefore they go and ignore all the positive white people like John Brown, and project that theoretical shame onto others as the last option, the last attempt to fight back.
Remember, right wingers, especially alt righties and fascists, will always fight based on emotions, feelings, and not based on logical arguments. They’re emotionally attached to their heroes, unable to accept the fact that those heroes were actually horrible people, therefore the immediate tactic is to disarm, discredit, and eliminate those who dare say otherwise - because then you don’t have to bring logical arguments to the table. There’s no need to defend your beliefs against the accusations of being racist, bigoted, ass-backwards, if you can claim that all those accusations are fake news, made up, hoax, or that the person making those accusations is a horrible person and nobody should be listening to them.
The rightoid mindset really is THAT simple. The debate capability of a four year old, combined with ignorance and a fiery belief of being right.
Idk I think for a lot of people its also a LOT of disinformation going around. People I know have parrotted that the civil war wasn’t about slavery. They believe that shit.
Hot take: it’s ok as a white person to be ashamed of the history and ongoing racial injustice in the USA. Like I’m not ashamed to be white but I’m also not going to pretend like white privilege isn’t a thing or that we don’t have a history of violence against people of color in our nation.
I think “white guilt” is just a turn of phrase that’s been co-opted into something it is not. As a matter of fact I think as white people maybe we should feel some guilt, it’s a good thing to feel guilty about all the heinous shit that’s happened and still happens because of a person’s skin color. That’s the appropriate feeling to have when you’re reading about say idk the prison industrial complex and feeding black men into it as a form of neo slavery.
It’s not about feeling guilty for being white, it’s about recognizing your privilege and understanding our past and present problems with race as a country.
I’m not american but I understand your point. I think the terms for how we talk about these issues should change though. Because I don’t feel guilty, I feel enraged. I want to fix it, I want it to stop, I want to right the wrongs, not because I feel guilt for them. Because I feel ANGRY about them.
“White” is not really the word, because folks from the Caucasus region are Muslim AF and literal caucasians, lol. Western European culture/identity is more fitting, with America being the unholy spawn of British and France, influenced as well by post-WW2 Germany (Operation Paperclip and all of that).
Western European culture/identity is more fitting,
But that’s also not it, since ‘whiteness’ includes a milieu far outside of Western Europe, including people without Western European ancestry. Conversely, those who are steeped in Western European culture and identity are not always recognized as white.
influenced as well by post-WW2 Germany (Operation Paperclip and all of that).
… no, not at all. White identity was not only long-established by then, but the post-WW2 consensus, cultivated in part by the backlash against Nazism, was the beginning of the dismantling of white identity hegemony, a process that laboriously continues to this day.
I like the vibe they’re going for, but the responding made a whoopsie defending ‘revisionist history’ instead of actual history that’s not whitewashed. lol
EDIT: Looked it up and I guess the term covers both good and bad versions… One that challenges old orthodox that may be remembering things purposefully wrong … and one where actual history is revised and corrupted to reflect new orthodoxy.
Terms are annoying sometimes…
I’m not sure I understand what you mean?
I was just reading “revisionist history” as the negative meaning, where the understanding of history is changed to be less accurate for what ever motivation. I looked it up and apparently good reexamination of history and bad rewriting of history are both called historical revisionism. Although apparently those in the field call the bad form “historical negationism”.
I edited my original comment to reflect the finding. lol
Ah, yeah. ‘Revisionism’ is sometimes used pejoratively, but in the field it’s a largely neutral (and relative) term - most understandings of history today were ‘revisionist’ views back in the 70s, for example.
Likewise, understandings of history through a CRT lens are technically revisionist - in that they seek to revise our understanding of the recent past by contextualizing the long-standing issue of racism starting in the early modern period.
I read a brief history of the Civil War recently when I was trapped somewhere without my computer (HORROR OF HORRORS 😭) and uh, it shows that it was written in the 80s even without the least hint of ‘overt’ racism.
Give me (rigorous, reasoned) revisionism any day - just with the understanding that it itself may be subject to revisionism in the future XD
I see revisionist history mostly in terms of interpreting it to push forward a political agenda. and much of CRT certainly does this. As does pretty much anyone with an political agenda to justify and push.
All historical narratives are political. The idea of the ‘apolitical’ historical narrative died in the 80s and 90s, and good riddance, since ‘apolitical’ was only code for ‘conservative narrative’.
Just because something is unpopular doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Yes, it’s true that the notion of objectivity/neutrality is no longer popular. But it still exists. Some scholars still aspire to it.
The idea that there is no truth entirely serves those who only see history and scientific inquiry as means to an end and having no worth in and of themselves.
It sounds like you think any neutral history that might not share your liberal political views is ‘conservative’ and ‘bad’. You are basically saying history, for you, only serves it’s purpose if it furthers your own agenda. Not everyone has an agenda in tehir interest of history. I do not. I actually quite enjoy history when it is inconvenient to my own political beliefs.
Just because something is unpopular doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Yes, it’s true that the notion of objectivity/neutrality is no longer popular. But it still exists. Some scholars still aspire to it.
The idea of ‘apolitical’ historical narratives has run into the core problem that constructing narratives is inherently political, from Herodotus on down. That is the purpose of History as a discipline - to construct narratives, not simply to record facts.
The idea that narratives can be apolitical is itself political, as it constructs a bloodless interpretation as ‘neutrality’ instead of ‘a failure to address the implications of the status quo’. What is an ‘apolitical’ narrative of the US Civil War? A timeline of major events with names and dates? That’s not history, that’s a chronicle.
The idea that there is no truth entirely serves those who only see history and scientific inquiry as means to an end and having no worth in and of themselves.
“Pilate saith, ‘What is truth?’”
The idea that truth is apolitical ignores that subjective values of observers ensure that there is always dispute, even when all the facts are known and agreed upon.
It sounds like you think any neutral history that might not share your liberal political views is ‘conservative’ and ‘bad’. You are basically saying history, for you, only serves it’s purpose if it furthers your own agenda.
Fucking what.
Not everyone has an agenda in tehir interest of history. I do not. I actually quite enjoy history when it is inconvenient to my own political beliefs.
I don’t think you understand what’s being said.
