The "white man"

Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance Grief & Praise
#17

It seems to me like people are talking past each other because they are using different meanings for “race” and “racism.” If you think of racism as the overt hatred displayed by white supremacists, then it makes sense to talk about “what the white man did to the Indians.” (glossing over the fact that the U.S. government is still in the process of screwing over Indians, but I think that was covered in the other thread.) However, if you are talking about racism as a cultural system that favors people with light skin over those with dark skin, it’s a different story.

Is it productive to blame everything on white men? I’m not sure. On the one hand, it’s sort of true. But it’s kind of like when Daniel Quinn wrote that humans aren’t destroying the world, our culture is destroying the world. It’s true that white men benefit the most from racism/sexism, but these days, most of them don’t do it on purpose, and some of them don’t even realize it’s happening. It’s hard to see your own privilege if you’re not looking for it. That kind of language alienates people who could be allies if you explained the situation to them differently.

#18

Thanks for pointing that out, starfish. I think I had forgotten that myself. This conversation did become oriented around “people’s treatment of other people”. Thank you for reminding us.

(I may just be rewording things already said, and forgive me if I am, but please understand I’m only doing so to see if I am understanding what is being said.) If we want someone to understand the problems, it helps to not make them feel entirely to blame. I guess when we blame specific persons entirely, it’s more like we are attacking their personalities. But what if their personalities would emerge in better actions if they understood the flaws of the culture? Maybe they would be more likely to explore and learn about the influence of civilized culture, and the insanity it promotes, if they didn’t feel like guilt was being placed directly onto them as individuals or groups (such as race.)

(also, I suppose I wasn’t aware if I’ve been talking past anyone. If I am, would you have a suggestion? I’m always looking to improve my communication. Or do you just mean that, in using the same word for different uses/meanings, are we maybe confusing each other? :slight_smile: )

What are your views on trying to teach people, or reach people?

I’ve had times where I wanted to use opportunities to explain the issue of culture when people have voiced frustration or anger towards people who “don’t seem to care how they effect others.” It’s usually worked in a “not everyone has experienced the world as you have, there are other possibilities” kind of context. I suppose I’m curious how this kind of thing has gone for you or others, or whether there is even an inclination.

#19
It seems to me like people are talking past each other

I didn’t mean to blame anyone personally when I said that, just trying to clarify things by pointing out that we have two different definitions of racism floating around. When you said earlier:

I don't think we need to define ourselves based on racial concepts.
If you mean the first definition of racism, overt racism, than I agree. However when I think about it in terms of the second definition, institutionalized racism, I disagree. Whether [i]we[/i] define ourselves by race or not, society defines us that way. We can't make racism go away by ignoring it. We have to acknowledge it, talk about it, and bring all of our unexamined assumptions into the light before we can stamp it out.

As far as trying to teach people… I don’t know. I think most people don’t want to know. You have to wait for them to ask the question before you can teach them anything. I guess just planting the seed, like what you have been doing is the best way. It probably won’t blow their minds or anything. Maybe they’ll just forget about it, but maybe it will stay in the back of their minds.

#20

[quote=“bereal, post:13, topic:1525”]I think that “race” definitely exists, but to me it means the exact same thing as “culture”. Saying the “white race” means the same thing to me as saying “white culture” - meaning the culture that arose from Europe, i.e. western civilization.
…
And actually, I don’t think it really matters whether or not “white” refers to a race or a culture, or whether race as a concept makes sense. None of that changes the fact that “whiteness” has a real, tangible effect on a huge chunk of the world’s population…
For that reason, I try to see myself (as a “white” person) from the perspective of others who aren’t “white”. They can much more easily perceive “white” privilege and “white” racism than I can, so when they say that “whiteness” exists and has real effects on their lives, and the world, I listen.[/quote]
Race meaning culture could be a good approach. But race as really different appearance, blood or even DNA, would be quite inaccurate. As soon as i started studying history in early school, i learnt about how migrations started in prehistory, and what could then be called races mixed completely as soon as colonization started by cultures like the Roman. I dont feel I am white, since all along the history of our species and in recent times the people in the region where I was born, were a mix of people from many different places. How could i say “i am white” been so obvious that i probably have blood from the muslim peoples who were living in the region for so many years??? Still, there are loads of people in the region where i was born, who feel proud of the color of their skin.
Anyway, i respect the perspective of the ones who were oppressed by my ancestors.

If we want to be so accurate about semantic things, then “Western Culture” would also not be a good term for defining what differs from early cultures all around the world only by size.

On the other hand, i think for been “completely correct” we could well use the Hawaiian term “haole”.
For me, culturally, the biggest differences are between who is civilized, who wants not to be and who is not.

I started reading this thread curious about the “Hot Topic” icon. For me, it is a quite amazing how we spend so much energy talking about whats different in our points of view, instead of talking about what we have in common. Of course, this is a forum, and thats what forums are for; but still, it seems so easy to find things for which we have contrary opinions, … and it seems we all like so much to discuss about this kind of stuff… sometimes it feels like discussing about differences attracts more attention that discussing about common ideas.

I mean, the ones who rule always find it quite easy to get to an agreement, but the ones who dont want to be ruled find it easy to discuss about just how we differ about using words.

sorry, maybe I’m getting to a completely different point.

#21

I think the discussion is important, though. Since we were raised in this toxic, unhealthy culture, we can’t just take the things we were taught at face value. We have to go through our cultural baggage and ask, “Is this something good that I can take on my rewilding journey or will it hold me back?”

“Does this help me reconnect with the humans and non-humans around me or does it put barriers between us?”

#22

[quote=“incomplete, post:20, topic:1525”]On the other hand, i think for been “completely correct” we could well use the Hawaiian term “haole”.
For me, culturally, the biggest differences are between who is civilized, who wants not to be and who is not.[/quote]

I agree. Personally I resonate with the Native American term wetiko to describe the civilized mindset/culture. It basically translates to “cannibal”, meaning one who consumes others’ lives for personal gain - in a toxic, abusive way as opposed to a healthy way, which would be eating others (plants & animals) with respect and love. I recently read the book “Columbus and Other Cannibals” by Jack Forbes (highly highly recommended), where he uses the term to denote a mental/spiritual/cultural sickness, that is spread and infects people like any other disease.

#23

wetiko then
there is no day i dont learn something new

yeah, if i start to work again i will for sure buy this one

#24

I think that the belief in race is Racism, the belief in states is Statism, nations Nationalism, and belief in humans (as opposed to all other life, if necessary), Humanist. I personally believe in tribes. I am a Tribalist. “Anglo-saxon” is a racial term, but “caucasian” just means someone from the Caucasus Mountains area (Georgia, Armenia, etc). For reference, here is a map of tribal territory in “England” just before the Normans conquered them and dissolved the tribal boundaries: http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/medieval/labyrinth/library/oe/texts/hidage.html

#25

I have a problem with the statement, “I don’t believe in race.” That statement erases the experience of people of color who live in civilization.

#26

I agree. A great blog post on this subject articulates the reason why better than I could - http://whitepriv.blogspot.com/2006/09/little-white-lie-im-not-racist-im.html:

To be "colorblind" is to neglect a fundamental part of humanism: of the many realities we exist in, the most compelling, consuming, and dire reality, is our social reality. It is the reality that will determine our fate.While race is not a biological reality, it is a social one. Not seeing color is to not see reality; it is to not see adversity. Colorblindness is a fantasy world in which we don't truly know one another. It would seem then that to not see someone's struggles (struggles often related to race) is to not see them at all.

…Colorblindness implies also that since we are all the same, we have all had equal opportunity. This implication has lead to enormous power diffentials economically and politically that persist to this day.

It is doubtful that we can achieve a genuine equality without dealing honestly with our social reality. The social reality is that we are a diverse human family and that race affects every aspect of our lives. White people often have a hard time seeing this. It is as if they are blind.

#27

How much color is color? Irish was just as bad as black at one point. Further, the disbelief in race doesnt “erase” the enslavement, discrimination, etc., it just paints it in a new light. The african-descended population in the US and other American countries are just as descended from tribes as anyone else and their culture shows this in many ways. The fact that they are now one people only puts them in the ranks of Metis, Mestizo and other groups of urbanized and de-cultured victims of civilization steam-rolling.
Putting all “people of color” together is imo of very limited usefulness and often hides important details and differences.

#28

You’re right. It does not literally erase people’s experiences. It just gives the impression that they don’t matter and are not worthy of discussion.

In a general discussion of race, the term “people of color” is shorthand for “people who have experienced discrimination based on their skin color.” I use it because it seems to be the preferred terminology at this time. I think ethnicity is a separate issue from race, although of course the two are related.

#29

Good for you, you’re “enlightened” enough to ignore race.

But understanding that race is a cultural construct doesn’t change the fact that cultural constructs have real effects. The anthropological community for the most part took that stance for decades, and in doing so missed the chance to affect real change and contribute to the discourse.

Just because you recognize something is a delusion doesn’t mean you can ignore it. Race is real because people make it real. Recognizing that it has effects is also not the same as believing in it.

And am I the only one who notices that it’s only ever white folks who make that sort of statement? It’s easy to ignore the effects of a cultural construct when you’re the one benefiting from it.

#30

Exactly.

I’m reminded of a sample in a Dead Prez song (don’t know who is speaking, possibly a Black Panther), where someone says:

“I’m born black, I live black, and I’m gonna die, partly because I’m black, because some cracker that knows I’m black, better than you nigga, is probably gonna put a bullet in the back of my head.” (I’ve tried to write it as accurately as I can).

What I’ve heard from people of color is that they are constantly reminded, every day, of their “race”, because of their actual experiences living in this racist culture. It is not an abstraction to them, it is real, lived experience. Personally, I don’t want the concept of race to have meaning in the real world, any more than I want to be racist. But I have to acknowledge the racism inherent in this culture and how it affects people (some negatively and others positively, depending on one’s perceived “race”), the same that I have to acknowledge the racism inside me due to my enculturation, that I’ll probably spend the rest of my life trying to get rid of.

#31
And am I the only one who notices that it's only ever white folks who make that sort of statement?
nope.

I think it’s hard for white people to talk about race because we’re so afraid of being perceived as racist. The first step is to recognize that you have privilege and admit your own ignorance. The book “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria” by Beverly Tatum is a great primer on race issues, IMO.

#32

I wonder if there’s a point where we can talk about individual prejudice and discrimination and de-emphasize the group thing. Because here’s what it looks like to me: people are not supposed to use race as a factor in their judgment of another person (and face it, we all have to judge people all day long, whether as a potential threat, potential friend, potential employee, or whatever), and yet the message is that “blacks” are discriminated against by “whites” in terrible ways constantly. While this is true, and I’m not suggesting a coverup of the truth, does it not, as a final definition of the situation, perpetuate a division based on group identity?

This is how I feel about feminism as well. If feminists in one corner continually berate the “bad boys” in the other corner for treating them badly, then isn’t the male/female divide just going to get deeper? What if there were a group of people, male and female, black and white, who insisted that people be judged individually? Because seriously, does every single black person consider the entire population of blacks as their people? I, being female, certainly do not consider the entire population of females as my people. I, being white, feel far more connection to and affiliation with my neighbors, black, white and Hmong, than I do with people on the other side of town of any race or ethnicity. If you picked out a random white female in the world and one of my black male neighbors and said, “We’re going to give $1,000 to one of these people, which one?” I’d definitely pick my neighbor. I am completely judging them based on the fact that they are part of my community, and the other person is not. So what if the focus is on building connections and community, instead of standing on a side of the fence that has been built based on skin color, heritage, genitalia, height, class, or any other box that can be checked on an employment application?

In my ideal world, people could certainly talk about how those details of their person affect their experience, and of course join together with anyone they wished to get their story out, but in the end there would be some kind of acknowledgment that a person’s integrity, words and actions are what truly matters, above and beyond the personal details they cannot control. I envision some kind of larger belonging, to a rational and loving humanity, that preserves the identity of whatever smaller affiliations have coalesced, supports their smaller group objectives and welcomes the strength of their perspective, but also ultimately affirms the rights of individuals beyond any particular characteristics.

Post-civ, I think this might be easier, because if we were small tribes focused on survival, encountering other groups with a similar goal, we would certainly have an immediate common ground to stand on, and all other details would end up in the background. Whereas now, the artificial structure of civilization affords us the alienating luxury of inflating the importance of particular details that might otherwise take a back seat to genuine needs and connections.

#33

Mama-love, regarding what we need to move towards (the kind of society/community/worldview we want to create), what you say sounds right on. But I see that as a different question than that of examining the reality of our society, the way it is right now (and why). Only if we acknowledge and clearly examine the latter, unflinchingly and honestly, can the former even become possible. And I don’t mean a passing, one-time acknowledgment, but a daily, continual examination - understanding that we ourselves are products of the current racist reality, and we will never be able to completely get away from that as long as we live. In other words, decolonizing/rewilding ourselves is a lifelong process.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that we should totally work towards the ideal future we want to create, while at the same time understanding that we will never completely reach that goal in our lifetime, because completely undoing the racist underpinnings of modern society (rooted in thousands of years of civilized history) is a task that will span many generations. Thus the need for a continual acknowledgment and examination of the way things currently are, to make forward progress toward our goal possible.

#34

I read a blog post a few years ago and in it a (white) mother talked about wanting to shelter her child from the knowledge that people discriminate against one another based on race, sexual orientation, etc. She wanted him to only see the good in the world instead of acknowledging painful truths. I can understand the impulse. No parent wants to see their child hurting or unhappy. But, to my mind, sheltering a child in that way is counterproductive. A parents job is teach the child how to live in the world, and giving them a false sense of well being doesn’t achieve that. In order to have empathy for others, we have to understand what they go through.

#35

[quote=“bereal, post:30, topic:1525”]I’m reminded of a sample in a Dead Prez song (don’t know who is speaking, possibly a Black Panther), where someone says:

“I’m born black, I live black, and I’m gonna die, partly because I’m black, because some cracker that knows I’m black, better than you nigga, is probably gonna put a bullet in the back of my head.” (I’ve tried to write it as accurately as I can). [/quote]

This quote is actually from a Movie, “The Spook Who Sat By the Door” - a very awesome movie, highly recommend it. Anyhow, the interesting thing about this quote that you won’t see from the text, is the character saying it is a very light skinned person. I’ll let you draw your own thoughts/conclusions from there.

Here’s a clip of it.

#36

I think the relative darkness of their skin is beside the point. The point is the racism inherent in society - the fact that racist white people consider him “other” (“black”), and treat him accordingly, totally irrespective of the fact that he doesn’t actually look very dark. My great-grandparents were totally white (Romanian), and yet the Ku Klux Klan considered them “other” enough that they burned a cross in front of their house.