Monday, December 10, 2012

white = rich

the racism of social justice warriors: erasing the black middle class (2012)

I was listening to community radio this morning when a couple of older, and possibly white, guys began talking about who the police serve. One said it was the "over class" and when asked to define that, said it was white men.

Which social justice warriors would agree with. In their view of the world, white men have the power.

Now, you could argue that the fact the richest man in the world is brown is an exception, and so is the fact that the tenth and fifteenth richest people are female.

But where is the black middle class in this view of power? Where are the people who produced Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and Barack Obama?

In SJW terms, SJWs erase the black middle class.

ETA: Apologies for erasing the rest of their erasure, the erasing of prosperous Hispanics and Asians.

Pro-equality or anti-what? (2007)

From Colorblindness on the U.S. Supreme Court:
In my opinion, the most interesting aspect of Chopra's commentary was a turn of phrase in its ending:
Despite the overwhelming public support for school integration in both Seattle and Louisville, five powerful white males were enough to squash a society's better nature. A pall hangs over the court for what they did, to the English language as much as to fair play.
The five "powerful white males" in question? Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito Jr., Anthony Kennedy -- and Clarence Thomas.
The pro-choice and pro-life movements were wise enough to choose names of support rather than denial, because the problem of being anti-choice or anti-life was obvious. But most "anti" groups fell into a trap: If you call yourself an "anti", your name perpetuates the idea you oppose. That's especially true for anti-racists; "race" is a social construct that's only a few centuries old, yet those who choose to be antiracists validate the concept of race with their name.

The simple alternative to being any of the popular "antis" is to be pro-equality. It even implies being pro-peace: if you believe everyone is equal, who can you happily kill?

But being pro-equality means you believe in equality for everyone. Some anti-racists like the idea of having poor people to serve them. Whether it was a careful choice or a revealing typo, that's why Deepak Chopra called Clarence Thomas "white." As a rich liberal, Chopra is reluctant to talk about class, but as an antiracist who accepts the labels of race, he's comfortable saying that rich conservatives are "white."

A part of me likes this redefinition of race, where the colors have nothing to do with the hue of your skin and are simply markers of tribal allegiance: as a communist, my race is "red", and as a conservative capitalist, Thomas is "white," but what is Deepak Chopra? If the American dollar was still the most important measure of wealth, I would say he was "green," but greens are either ecologists or a party of socialists. It's better to reject the old labels of race than to redeploy them.

There's another reason some people prefer to be "anti" rather than "pro." Being "pro" implies work: if you're pro-peace, you must do something to show your support of peace. If you're pro-equality, you must do something to support everyone, no matter how different others may think they are.

"I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." Thomas Paine