or who point out that they are USING such privileges in pursuit of some agenda that, in part, makes them 'look better' to their audiences, are being rather blatantly racist.
But even if the above is true, it does not fit in the current understanding of racism. When we are talking about racism we are talking about the concept of the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. In addition, prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior would constitute racism. This is a basic understanding of
racism.
What is not
racism
Fact: Me acknowledging certain unearned benefits I have based on my
ethnic group.
Fact: Me acknowledging certain unearned benefits I have based on my
gender.
Fact: Me acknowledging certain unearned benefits I have based on my
economic status.
I really believe you're conflating in error the idea of acknowledging individual privilege with racism.
I would have gathered a group of people who were in my same position, without looking at what their skin color was, and start talking
How do you know she hasn't? The video we all looked at was a hearing by a committee discussing the violence of white supremacists. The political affiliates such as the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wanted her voice because she is a mother that lost her daughter due to the violence of white supremacy. I don't see how this is hard for you to not understand. It isn't like this woman Ms. Susan Bro just invited herself in to demand everyone to hear her voice. I'm quite sure she was invited to speak out to give her testimony to the direct effect white supremacy has played in her life.
You people forget this is the same woman, a white woman mind you that received death threats from white supremacists for speaking out against racism. This is also the same woman that had to hide the burial location of her daughter for fear that her grave sight would be vandalized. The problem is not with Susan Bro, but its with people like you. As a black man I highly doubt you and I can sit at a table and come to an understanding of the personal experience that I've faced as a black man because just going by what I'm reading here like most conversations with unsympathetic white folks I've encountered the conversation typically shifts back to "well what about me?" This time you have a white woman like Susan Bro that is standing up there explaining how white supremacy and its effects have taken her daughter. The man, Mr. Fields meant to kill black people. His intent was to kill blacks (and frankly anyone who supported BLM) but instead he killed her daughter.
I find her testimony powerful to say the least.
I think that this woman epitomizes this definition, and did so in her first statement.
That is your opinion which is a category fallacy on your part, and no matter how much logic I can display here to show that you're wrong, your brain is wrapped tight on this false notion of racism, creating false dichotomies. Your argument has failed because using your own arguments I've demonstrated that it doesn't align to reason. I firmly believe you're playing words games by changing the definition of racism, typical of people who cannot correctly associate behavior with true terms. I believe the following CNN article has a great explanation on this:
"But some scholars who study language and race say there's another reason to avoid using those words:
Most people use them in the wrong way. They think racism is about bad people who are intentionally mean to people of other races. That's all. But some who study racism say it's more like an iceberg -- 90% of it is submerged. They say it's not just about white hoods and racial slurs. Racism is a system of advantage that's based on race. It does most of its damage below the waterline: a
criminal justice system that
disproportionately targets
people of color; students of color who are
punished at a higher rate than their white peers; mortgage lenders that
discriminate against Latino and black borrowers; job-seekers with "white-sounding" names
who get more callbacks than those with "black-sounding" names.
The iceberg metaphor is what Jennifer Roth-Gordon invokes when talking about racism. She's a linguistic and cultural anthropologist at the University of Arizona who teaches students about race. She tries to avoid using terms like "racist" or "racism."
She says they shift the conversation back to people obsessing over individual behavior -- whether some person said or did something racist. "When people are protesting racism with signs about love, they're playing into the game of people who want to define racism as hate," she says. "It sets this incredibly high bar for what it means to be racist: It has to be intentional. That's the top of the iceberg."
Roth-Gordon prefers using more nuanced terms, like "racial anxiety" or "racial bias." It makes people less defensive and broadens the meaning of racist It also avoids what she calls the racist "guessing game," says Roth-Gordon, who explores racism and language in her book, "Race and the Brazilian Body: Blackness, Whiteness, and Everyday Language in Rio de Janeiro." That's the game where the public obsesses over some individual getting caught committing some crude racial offense. Focus on that type of racism and you don't have to talk about the racism below the surface that many whites benefit from, she says.
"It's safe for white people to play this racist guessing game," she says. "They like the idea that there is some kind of meter or test and some kind of measure that once they start pulling up some of these other examples, they can safely say, 'I would never do that.'-CNN
Source:
The polite way to call someone a racist - CNN
