White Guilt

What do you think of this opinion in the Wall Street Journal by Shelby Steele a research fellow at the Hoover Institution?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008318

He is one of the few conservative writers in this country who can say it as it is without being called a racist because he is black himself.

Even though there are no more "serious advocates of white supremacy in America today" the guilt carried around by many, because of our past history, prevents us, as a country, from dealing with our problems that involve race (i.e.immigration, war on terror) in an effective manner.

While I believe his opinion may apply on a national scale on a social level, I don't think it applies toward international diplomacy. International diplomacy sees only one color - green.

Please word your opinions politely folks, the site rules apply to all threads on the forums.

The offending post (and quote of it) have been removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Even though there are no more "serious advocates of white supremacy in America today" the guilt carried around by many, because of our past history, prevents us, as a country, from dealing with our problems that involve race (i.e.immigration, war on terror) in an effective manner.

---

Frankly, I don't buy into the idea that we are reformed because of the lack of "serious advocates of white supremacy". I am unsurprised to find people being overtly racist around me because they expect me to share their views. I think the only thing that has changed in this country is that the racists don't feel free to speak publicly.

I don't think it's a guilt thing, I sincerely believe most people are racist, whether they're white, black, hispanic, arab, whatever. Instead of guilt though, it's more of a fear of being viewed as a racist because of the rash of **** you'd get for it. I really doubt anyone feels guilty about being racist, just afraid of being caught. Unfortunately, that leads to some poor decisions being made in order to steer far away from the appearence of racism. Take racial profiling for example. Completely warrented and logical in many, many cases, but God forbid someone catches you doing it.

So many of the people I experience are "racist" - but not on an overt scale.

Using stereotypical references to people - pigeon-holing a group based on some "external" characteristic. Usually "mocking" the "group" - somehow that elevates them - makes them feel better :sick:

These people will continue the "racist" mind-set - giving it to their children.

This drives me crazy - I usually walk away from conversations like this, as I cannot stand to be part of a "stupid" rant.

I think the article has missed the point.

He has pontificated so much, and more importantly in a style that he chose to criticise that it's hard to derive any real meaning from the essay.

Racism is a term applied to people. Society has assigned this term to people of extreme belief which is why it is now offensive to be called a racist.

Fundamentalism suffers from the same problem. We, as programmers, have all heard the term KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid) This is a fundamental style of programming, but how many of us would call ourselves fundamentalists? None? I sure wouldn't. Fundamentalism has been assigned to religious maniacs who twist their religion for a political purpose. Anyone who resides within a religion would probably be happy to take their beliefs down to their fundamental level - it provides clarity and purpose in exactly the same way KISS does for us. Occams Razor is another example of a fundamental philosophy of an approach . . .

Who hijacks these terms? I think it's the media. This is unfortunate because this is where we all get our information from.

Now we have a new term. White guilt. This, I presume, it entirely meant to be attributed to people of Anglo-Saxon appearance. The fact he wants to talk about appearance is the problem. If he called it Western Guilt, there'd be no problem, I'd just dismiss him as I don't agree with his views, and I can't see any rational justification for the opinion he appears to hold.. But he doesn't; he chose to use appearance to label a whole swath of opinion against the West, and in particular, America.

The guy, by default of using appearance to label, has prejudice. He's sufficiently vague enough so that we can't quite see or understand where from. But it's there; and worse of all; he's trying to keep it quiet in an introvert fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I think the article has missed the point.

He has pontificated so much, and more importantly in a style that he chose to criticise that it's hard to derive any real meaning from the essay.

Racism is a term applied to people. Society has assigned this term to people of extreme belief which is why it is now offensive to be called a racist.

Fundamentalism suffers from the same problem. We, as programmers, have all heard the term KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid) This is a fundamental style of programming, but how many of us would call ourselves fundamentalists? None? I sure wouldn't. Fundamentalism has been assigned to religious maniacs who twist their religion for a political purpose. Anyone who resides within a religion would probably be happy to take their beliefs down to their fundamental level - it provides clarity and purpose in exactly the same way KISS does for us. Occams Razor is another example of a fundamental philosophy of an approach . . .

Who hijacks these terms? I think it's the media. This is unfortunate because this is where we all get our information from.

Now we have a new term. White guilt. This, I presume, it entirely meant to be attributed to people of Anglo-Saxon appearance. The fact he wants to talk about appearance is the problem. If he called it Western Guilt, there'd be no problem, I'd just dismiss him as I don't agree with his views, and I can't see any rational justification for the opinion he appears to hold.. But he doesn't; he chose to use appearance to label a whole swath of opinion against the West, and in particular, America.

The guy, by default of using appearance to label, has prejudice. He's sufficiently vague enough so that we can't quite see or understand where from. But it's there; and worse of all; he's trying to keep it quiet in an introvert fashion.

---

Fundamentalists are people who actually follow their religion. We just think they're extreme because they didn't update their religious beliefs with the our post-industrial ethics (racism is bad, women are afforded equal legal rights, punishing by group association is bad)


For example, many religious texts made it clear that it was perfectly moral to destroy entire cities, to have slaves, to murder non-believers.

Now a person, who actually following those passages by the letter would be called extremist-fundamentalist, while the person who is moderate and ignores such passages is called a regular religious person.

But in the past, what we call moderate now would be considered heretic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

Fundamentalists are people who actually follow their religion. We just think they're extreme because they didn't update their religious beliefs with the our post-industrial ethics (racism is bad, women are afforded equal legal rights, punishing by group association is bad)


For example, many religious texts made it clear that it was perfectly moral to destroy entire cities, to have slaves, to murder non-believers.

Now a person, who actually following those passages by the letter would be called extremist-fundamentalist, while the person who is moderate and ignores such passages is called a regular religious person.

But in the past, what we call moderate now would be considered heretic.

---

I agree. Sort of fits nicely in the anthropological evolution of specific terms within a progressing society . . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

What do you think of this opinion in the Wall Street Journal by Shelby Steele a research fellow at the Hoover Institution?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008318

[B]ecause of our past history, prevents us, as a country, from dealing with our problems that involve race (i.e.immigration, war on terror) in an effective manner.

---

Take it from a white teacher in a black school who has hung out with white liberals all his life. Steele is correct. Really correct. I can call poor behavior and poor decisions by their true names because I reject the argument that I am prevented because I should be ashamed of being white, etc. For that reason, I have the same moral authority as my black colleagues.

It took a couple of years, though, to lose the guilt. Nowadays, I sometimes find myself in conversations in public places with white American friends of different philosophical stripes who are aghast when I tell them how things are. Even the conservatives fear that someone might hear me state a painful truth. The funny thing is, I have said the same things in public places while with black American friends, and they don't mind -- because they value the truth.

Quote:

---

I think the article has missed the point.

---

No I think you missed the point of the piece.

I think his opinion is dead on. racism is not being biased for or againts a certain ethnic or racial group or telling stereotypical jokes. Racist acts include things like slavery, lynchings, and laws or policies that take away an individual's freedoms based solely on skin color or cultural background.

As Steele stated we don't have a racism problem in this country any more (although there are still and always will be racists). But many still feel guilty over our country's past record of racism.

He is not talking about "western" guilt he means a guilt specifically associated with race, anyone of a non-white race can give rise to the guilt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

...racism is not being biased for or againts a certain ethnic or racial group or telling stereotypical jokes. Racist acts include things like slavery, lynchings, and laws or policies that take away an individual's freedoms based solely on skin color or cultural background.

---

I believe that those acts - bias and stereotypical references - done by individuals allows the "group" to act in a racist fashion. Until all individuals realize that behavior like that is simply wrong then group-size racism will always exist.

The racist act doesn't have to be as overt as slavery, for example - general suppression of a people based on race is enough to show that racism still exists.

The "individual" bias became racist acts upon those Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib - in my opinion. Those "individuals" became an ugly racist group because of the "individual" beliefs that are still a basic part of there character. With that said I feel the article is doesn't have a strong foundation in reality - might be a neat observation and theory - but it isn't real in my eyes.

I personally have no white-guilt - that seems silly to me. I do not believe it exists, actually. The "western europeans" who should feel the most guilt (if that was even reasonable) appear to me to still foster bias.

I have never considered myself part of that group in any way - being 1/2 Slavic (the original "slaves" from a thousand or so years ago) and 1/2 Italian meant that the "wasps" were never going to make me part of their team - and trust me that was no great loss.

Quote:

---

general suppression of a people based on race is enough to show that racism still exists

---

this would be racism, yes, but this is the sort of thing that does not exist anymore in this country on a scale larger than a few isolated groups.

This essay has a quote or two from Steele: http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=17422

Some other good points: http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9215/racism.htm

I see articles in the paper all the time about students in local schools who feel superior treating those they feel are inferior with hate - this causes permanent harm to these children.

I do not think this is isolated at all - I think it is as widespread as ever before but done on a different level (maybe more emotional and less physical) - mostly because of the cowardice of the bigot.

There are whole organizations in this country that survive only by keeping the idea that racism exists alive. They need victims to defend and perpetrators to prosecute.

It has always been the human experience that groups congregate based on similar cultural traits and have biases against the other groups. This cannot be avoided it is human nature. It is when one such group is allowed to harm another by society or the government that racism exists.

In the are I live there are many Asians. Many Asian families teach their kids that their race and culture is superior to other races and even other Asian cultures. Is this racism or pride in ones background?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Is this racism or pride in ones background?

---

I think that kind of segregation will blow up in their faces one or two generations down the line.

My grandfather came from Calabria, Italy around 1905. Not even 20 years old - moved to New York city - opened a shoe-shop and became a successful merchant. There was definately a "group of Italians" - but he served the whole area - and NYC is quite diverse. Maybe having grown up in NYC myself taught me early on that pride-in-culture does a whole lot of nothing for personal growth.

I've heard that Japan is nearly mono-ethnic - I cannot imagine how that position can be maintained or promoted for much longer.

My twin boys don't know what skin-color is. I make a huge effort to never use skin-color to point out another individual - there is always some other "attribute" you can use to distinguish a person in conversation. This might seem silly to some people...

Sorry, but to me the whole thing read like an attempt to paint the American Right as the new victim in order to shut down debate on recent American Foreign Policy and to excuse the slow progress in Iraq. The gist seemed to be "Anyone who disagrees with the invasion of Iraq is only doing so out of political opportunism and anti-Americanism because it's easy to make America look bad and we have to use half measures as a result."

Sorry but that doesn't wash with me at all. If I criticise an American policy it's because I disagree with that policy, not because I hate America. I criticise British policies too, and I sure don't hate being British.

And don't tell me we're fighting with one hand behind our back because your trying to appease me - if you wanted to appease me we wouldn't be there in the first place.

It really irritates me when pundits try to stifle debate in this way (and the left is as guilty of it as the right, and Europeans as guilty as Americans) because I find the proposition that one day a nation, any nation, will be able to go to war without some internal dissension to be terrifying. On that day all of Orwells predictions will have come true.

As for whether Racism is still alive and well, yes it is. Definately in the UK and, viewed from the outside, probably in America too. In the UK it's changed it's face - it's no longer anti-black or anti-asian, now it's anti-Eastern European with a healthy dose of anti Islamic. The BNP just had loads of success in our local elections and this party is lead by a man who was recently exposed giving a speech in which he claimed that Islamists spread their beliefs by raping white women.

And yes, anti-Americanism (which is most definitely a form of racism) is alive and well over here too but that doesn't give the right to call yourself a victim whenever someone criticises a decision you support. Stand up and argue for that decision and tell me why it's the right one. That'll go further toward changing my point of view than trying to tell me I only disagree with you because I hate you. (Last comment directed at folks like Shelby rather than Americans in general)

It's prejudice, not racism. Racism would be to claim that one race of humans is better suited than another and since the nearest other human race (Homo Neanderthalensis) has been extinct for about half a million years I'd say the argument is futile.

It's prejudice against other cultures, other ways of life, other tones of skin even. Poor, misguided thinking that the colour of the skin somehow changes the mental and physical capabilities of another human being.

Good point, Wally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

It's prejudice, not racism. Racism would be to claim that one race of humans is better suited than another and since the nearest other human race (Homo Neanderthalensis) has been extinct for about half a million years I'd say the argument is futile.

It's prejudice against other cultures, other ways of life, other tones of skin even. Poor, misguided thinking that the colour of the skin somehow changes the mental and physical capabilities of another human being.

---

Language changes. It evolves. Ask the editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. New words are added, old words removed. I wonder how many people would understand what "boot to goon" means? If you've studied Chaucer the chances are that you would, but as, I suspect, the vast majority of people have not studied Chaucer, I guess, it's now a dialect of English that exists only in classrooms.

Racism, as I would define it, would be prejudice based on a racial group. It assigns a 'tag' to those who wish to delineate people based solely on their racial group.

A quick google shows that racism is widely understood as "personal (attitudes/beliefs/behaviors), institutional (policies, laws, regulations) and social/cultural (beliefs, customs) that subordinates others based on physical characteristics involves use of power plus privilege
"

Now I understand that other genus (sp?) of the human descendency may have looked different and you can probably make the case of a racist classification if you discriminate against them. As you say, since they haven't been around for a long time, the point is, of course, mute.

But as other genus' are not generally classified as different races I find it hard to follow your argument however pendantic and semantically correct it might look from a quick glance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

it's now a dialect of English that exists only in classrooms.

---

Thank God for that. What a pain in butt! :bigyello:

Of course we kknow that Neanderthals are not another race, but another species.

So if we all decide to gang up on EyeRMonkey - is THAT racism?

It would have to be a large group of eyeRMonkey's ;)

and that would then be speciesm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

and that would then be speciesm.

---

I am sooo guilty.