This is a feeling I share. Most liberals would agree with what we were saying if we specified we were talking about systemic racism, but will continue to insist that their version of individualized racism is what’s important and what they’re talking about.
Maybe the correct way to go about this argument is to point out that whiteness isn’t a race, but the absence of race. Whiteness doesn’t exist as a concept until Blackness is invented, and Blackness was invented at a pretty specific time and place historically. That’s why the rules that race scientists put to describe whiteness always result in it shrinking over time, and why new groups have to be imported into it regularly in order to keep it a relevant one.
that’s a good point, although if we’re talking about tactics internal consistency isn’t 100% necessary. more important that the rhetoric we choose resonates in the way we intend with the audience we’re engaging with
“whiteness is the absence of race” is an interesting way of framing it that the average person probably hasn’t thought about before. could then segue into the arbitrary nature of white/nonwhite and how it ties into power structures and class relations. ideally sidesteps defenses and encourages novel/critical thought
also could avoid internal consistency issues simply by wording it like “the way I like to look at it is…” rather than a strong assertion.
The part you’re quoting isn’t so much about coalition building as it is agitation to try and break through the cultural wall most people are programmed with.
To me coalition building entails finding common ground between already-existing organizations and movements.
As a parallel, the Marxism 101 that we agitate with is reductive to the point of inaccuracy, but it’s meant to be an approachable starting point. Similar pedagogical methods for physics and other things, although less ideologically loaded.
This is a feeling I share. Most liberals would agree with what we were saying if we specified we were talking about systemic racism, but will continue to insist that their version of individualized racism is what’s important and what they’re talking about.
Maybe the correct way to go about this argument is to point out that whiteness isn’t a race, but the absence of race. Whiteness doesn’t exist as a concept until Blackness is invented, and Blackness was invented at a pretty specific time and place historically. That’s why the rules that race scientists put to describe whiteness always result in it shrinking over time, and why new groups have to be imported into it regularly in order to keep it a relevant one.
If you’re already ceding a descriptivist account of language, arguing that white isn’t a race is probably foreclosed.
that’s a good point, although if we’re talking about tactics internal consistency isn’t 100% necessary. more important that the rhetoric we choose resonates in the way we intend with the audience we’re engaging with
“whiteness is the absence of race” is an interesting way of framing it that the average person probably hasn’t thought about before. could then segue into the arbitrary nature of white/nonwhite and how it ties into power structures and class relations. ideally sidesteps defenses and encourages novel/critical thought
also could avoid internal consistency issues simply by wording it like “the way I like to look at it is…” rather than a strong assertion.
Removed by mod
The part you’re quoting isn’t so much about coalition building as it is agitation to try and break through the cultural wall most people are programmed with.
To me coalition building entails finding common ground between already-existing organizations and movements.
As a parallel, the Marxism 101 that we agitate with is reductive to the point of inaccuracy, but it’s meant to be an approachable starting point. Similar pedagogical methods for physics and other things, although less ideologically loaded.
You hit the correct way to go about this on the head.