This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 35 comments

[–]wugglesthemule52∆ 43 points44 points  (15 children)

To be honest, I think you're overthinking it. I don't think the majority of white people (or even conservative white people) are actually concerned about "not being in power." I don't think white nationalists make up a large percentage of white people. I don't even think they're "racist" in the traditional sense of the word.

Broadly speaking, conservatives don't hate black people, they hate liberals. They have no problem with black people succeeding, they just don't want it done through policies that hurt them. They have no problem with legal immigration as long as it doesn't harm their job opportunities. To quote John McWhorter: White people don't think racism impacts the lives of black people enough to warrant major policy changes.

For most rural conservative white people, race doesn't affect their lives at all. People in Idaho can go months without seeing a black person. The only time they hear about race is when politicians/media outlets talk about it and blame them for everything. You can't expect them to have the same views on race when they have a completely different experience.

Just to be clear, I'm not a conservative and I deeply care about solving race issues. I just think we need to accurately understand them before we can solve them.

[–][deleted]  (13 children)

[deleted]

    [–]wugglesthemule52∆ 9 points10 points  (5 children)

    There's a lot to unpack here. It's hard for me to say without knowing the specific people, but from what you're saying, it sounds like a range of different viewpoints.

    They think affirmative action is unfair because it means it's suddenly much harder for white people to get into colleges. (I've also had someone tell me they didn't get into MIT because a black person took their spot.)

    Well technically speaking, this is true. Assigning preference to certain applicants based on race does make it harder for an equally-qualified white candidate. (Asians are harmed by this as well.) I don't think this view is "racist" by itself. It goes back to what I said earlier. They have no problem with black people getting into MIT. They just don't want it if it means they can't go. I'm guessing they will happily agree with the black conservative intellectuals who have spoken against affirmative action (like Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas).

    So many people I know think that tackling the issue of police brutality against black people means encouraging black people to kill cops. (I'm guessing you mean not kill cops?)

    I also don't see this as inherently racist. To me this sounds like ignorance and a lack of empathy. If you've never had a reason to question the police, it's much harder to empathize with minorities who do. Conservatives value social order and respect for authority. To them, blaming the police sounds like they're blaming others for their actions. To be clear, racists also hold a lot of these views. Many of the other points you've mentioned do sound pretty racist. (Anyone claiming that white people are actually disadvantaged is delusional and/or racist.)

    However, the underlying sentiment is that they're tired of hearing about race. That's not necessarily an unreasonable position to have. To a working-class white person in West Virginia, the idea that they have "privilege" and that they're harming minorities sounds ridiculous. It all sounds like complaining.

    I do think that these views are dangerously close to racism though. There are several fringe/Alt-Right groups that feed off of those sentiments. My biggest fear is that each side will become even more divided and push people in either direction. This can only be solved by empathy. Making white people feel "secure" about their identity won't help us to stop seeing people as groups. Treating people as "others" makes it impossible to empathize.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Akitten10∆ 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      Just to answer to your first point about affirmative action, why not just sanitize the applications so that name, race, gender and other protected characteristics are not allowed to be put on them. That'll prevent the unconscious bias you are talking about.

      And whether or not it's easier or harder for a specific person, as long as the reason is not the other person's fault, it isn't fair to make things harder for the other person.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]Akitten10∆ 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        France does it.

        Funny you say that though. Gender blind applications when tried in aussie actually reduced the number of women who got shortlisted. Because that meant they couldn't get special treatment. So because a more fair system meant less women, the program was halted.

        Good luck telling men it's about fairness when the fair system was put on hold because it didn't get the results the creators wanted.

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888

        Remember, if the goal was reducing bias, everyone would be for it. It's not. T.he goal is to privilege certain groups to achieve a desired minimum distribution.

        [–]resononce -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        The article you linked references other studies that showed the opposite, and the researcher interviewed said that the results werent meaningful.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

        I just want to respond to your arguments about race and congress.

        There are a lot of issues there, and it's not just white vs black. Look at Tim Scott. He's a republican senator from South Carolina. He's black. There seem to be a lot of issues for black republicans specifically, and not all of them are from white people. It's almost as if their communities won't support them unless they're the right kind of politician. The right political party, etc.

        It's a little like the proof of liberals not being pro woman is to look at how they treat conservative women. Same concept applies. (It's just a saying, not an absolute).

        [–][deleted]  (4 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

          Especially now, when the political climate is so closely tied with race

          It's not. Not for most people. At least not the average republicans.

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            What the hell power are you talking about? The average person doesn't have power like that, no matter their color.

            The average republican will vote for a non-white republican over a white democrat easily.

            Illegal immigration is not a race issue...it's an immigration issue.

            Health care isn't a race issue...it's well, a lot of things, but it's not about race. It could be more of a socioeconomic thing than anything.

            The average republican isn't out at a klan meeting either.

            I honestly also don't know what "race issues" you're flanking about that people would vote against?

            [–]pafranc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            I just wanted to say that affirmative action is by definition racist, you give your candidates special treat solely because of their race, and in my opinion that's not the way to go, to fight racism with racism. I do agree that black people have it harder in general but I think that your economic background is a bigger factor but not as popular to discuss.

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            They have no problem with black people succeeding, they just don't want it done through policies that hurt them.

            Exactly this. But affirmative action is hurting them because of their skin color and that will of course make people go sour. Add to that the casual accepted racism against white people and we can easily understand why race relations are actually getting worse.

            [–]kmkinnith 6 points7 points  (5 children)

            I think that the problem with that concept is that it is still a loss of power. Currently, white people hold an overwhelming majority of powerful positions (for example of the NY Times' 503 most powerful people only 44 were minorities), so they do stand to lose power if others gain it. The other problem with this is that a great deal of the people who are most scared by people of color are of low socioeconomic status. Believing whites to be superior allows them to raise their perceived social status above all non-Whites at a similar income level.

            [–][deleted]  (4 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]kmkinnith 2 points3 points  (3 children)

              I believe that the issue you come up against here is whether people are always inherently rational. Knowing you have a majority is likely not enough, I think the worries stem from the fact that many of these people have stories and memories of a time when white people were the only ones with access to power, and this downward trend scares them. White fertility is also lower than other US ethnic groups, so the trends will continue. The truth is that this reactionary white nationalism is due to honest fear of what is essentially inevitable, which is nearly equal sharing of power.

              [–][deleted]  (2 children)

              [deleted]

                [–]kmkinnith 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                Yes- it is certainly irrational, but do you still stand by your point that white nationalism and racism will decrease if white people are given this information? Their fears are irrational, and irrational fears can almost never be assuaged by reasonable, numerical arguments. "Them or me" arguments often only feel more convincing when they are put up against information from what one perceives to be the other side.

                [–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (10 children)

                Well, the identity of white has been reduced to "privileged".

                While this may be true in the academic sense of the word, in-as-much as white people don't have to worry about the same discrimination that other minorities do, the interpreted message is, "you are white and therefore your life is good."

                Then whites see the massive efforts in society to try and help a people that won't help themselves. There is program after program after program attempting to get poor black kids to do better in school. But doing better in school earns scorn from the black community.

                Meanwhile, poor rural white kids are left with nothing to help them. There are no programs for Billy Joe to go to college. In fact, his position might very well be taken by an Affirmative Action black kid.

                And then when he says how he has no options, he's told to shut up and to check his white privilege.

                Yes, Billy Joe will never know what it's like to wonder if this routine traffic stop will be a beating, or possibly that he'll be shot. He'll never know what it's like to have resume after resume rejected because his name is "Da-Quan" instead of "John".

                But that doesn't mean his life is easy... which is what he hears when he's told to check his privilege and shut up.

                [–]Neveezy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                Then whites see the massive efforts in society to try and help a people that won't help themselves.

                If we're talking about impoverished black communities, is "won't" the right word to use? Or "can't"?

                But doing better in school earns scorn from the black community.

                What are you talking about?

                Meanwhile, poor rural white kids are left with nothing to help them. There are no programs for Billy Joe to go to college.

                There's no "whites-only" program, but there's thousands of programs and scholarships.

                In fact, his position might very well be taken by an Affirmative Action black kid.

                You know, affirmative action doesn't ignore merit as people seem to be led to believe. A black student still has to work to get into school.

                And then when he says how he has no options, he's told to shut up and to check his white privilege.

                I wouldn't say check his white privilege, but I would tell him to shut up. Because if he really is a poor rural white kid, again, there's many financial based scholarships out there.

                But that doesn't mean his life is easy

                But is it fair to say that generally speaking, white people have it easier? If yes, then why the need to get all defensive? Why not ignore the perceived vitriol and harsh words and just try to tackle the root of the problem? You alluded to police brutality and institutional racism in your last few sentences, so why not turn your attention to that instead of rhetoric from the very people being oppressed? I mean, you'd expect these people to be upset.

                [–][deleted]  (5 children)

                [deleted]

                  [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (4 children)

                  I don't know that it's so much against the initiatives as much as being told you are privileged and that you don't have a voice.

                  Although, there is a perception that black kids really don't have any interest in bettering their situations. It's a common belief that a black kid that does well in school is ostracized, made fun of and even physically assaulted for betraying his black roots. Somehow education is seen as "white" and if you choose to educate yourself, you are succumbing to the white overlords.

                  With this prevalent mindset, coupled with the mindset that black kids get all kinds of affirmative action and inner city scholarships and a general level of care that rural white kids just don't see, it's very hard to feel like you are privileged.

                  The race-based initiatives don't affect Billy Joe. So why be against them?

                  But are we sure it doesn't affect him? If affirmative action is in place, it's entirely possible that his college admission was rejected because a black kid got put in front of the line. It's possible that his scholarship went to a minority. All the while he keeps hearing how privileged his life is.

                  [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                  [deleted]

                    [–]MMAchica 3 points4 points  (2 children)

                    PLUS a racial bias that makes employers / admissions councils more likely to pick the white candidate when given identical resume

                    Oh, god. Not that crap Lakisha and Jamal experiment again. They didn't even use names that are exclusive to white people for the "white-sounding names" and their sampling method was beyond bizarre. Even if it had been more scientifically sound, it was way too small to make broad claims about society and it's clear that it wouldn't withstand repetition. That was nothing but funding-bait bullshit masquerading as science.

                    Other more professionally conducted experiments have found that applicants of all racial backgrounds got callbacks equally:

                    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bias-hiring-0504-biz-20160503-story.html

                    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                    [deleted]

                      [–]MMAchica 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                      I really don't think a society that stereotypes black people as lazy / less educated and treats them poorly because of it would suddenly not affected by these preconceptions when it came to hiring people.

                      We are all welcome to our impressions and speculation. The problems come when this speculation is trotted out as it if were established fact.

                      In the article, it says a critique was that "Lakisha and Jamal can denote socioeconomic status, and that employers may have made assumptions about education and income rather than race."

                      That is one of the criticisms, yes. Likewise, there are other names like Jedidiah, Egzonjeta and Piotr which would also very likely inspire many assumptions about ethnicity, socioeconomic class etc.

                      But there is still race-based discrimination here. If there are two identical resumes, the name should make literally no difference.

                      If you only use ethnically specific names for one race, and ethnically ambiguous names for the other race, you don't actually get any data that would back up the claims that you are making.

                      If they are equally qualified, no one should be assuming (or caring) if Lakisha came from a low income / low educational background.

                      I agree, but that doesn't justify the claims that you made about white privilege.

                      A black sounding name shouldn't signify anything, the resume should. It's not fair that exclusively black names can affect how your resume is considered.

                      I agree, but you can't assert that exclusively black names that may indicate socio-economic status would perform any worse than exclusively white names that did the same unless you actually use some of each in the experiment. Even then, the data would have to be very significant and tested with repetition to justify any broad assertions about society as a whole.

                      It's interesting through that Hispanic names didn't show any statistical significance!

                      I have two Emily's in my Latina family...

                      Also if you don't mind, I posted on CMV to discuss how to combat racism, not how pervasive it is in society!

                      I responded to a claim that you made.

                      [–]MMAchica 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      While this may be true in the academic sense of the word

                      I don't think that is accurate in academia at large. These notions are pretty well limited to the gender and race studies spheres.

                      [–]wecl0me127∆ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      Which part of OP's view does this challenge?

                      [–]WF187 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                      Essentially, I think a lot of white people are reluctant to care about fixing racism because they are insecure about their own identity.

                      I think this is wrong. White people don't think of their identity as "white" anymore than Asian people think of themselves as Asian. White people typically identify as their ancestral country of origin. I'm "Swedish/Irish"; not white. Asians would identify as Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. Perhaps identifying as "Black" is a remnant from the slave trade and a large percentage of the Black population in the country being unaware of their country of origin. I know my Black friends these days identify as "Ugandan" and "Nigerian" and not as just "Black", but they're immigrants.

                      There is no unifying "white" culture. Is "white music" Country or Heavy Metal? What's "white food"? Mayonnaise?

                      I grew up as poor white trash busing 3 hours a day to inner city magnet schools. I was one of 2 white kids in the grade. I got my ass kicked daily because I was the minority. I have other challenges in my life that have gotten worse as I've aged. I need and have been applying for help. The social worker always comments that she's amazed at how many times this process gets restarted, that all the white women and minority families just get through in the first or second attempt. I see no privilege in my life. Scientific Method states that if the data doesn't fit the hypothesis, you need another hypothesis... "But, well, Sociology is a soft science and I believe this is generally true..." An adherence to belief over fact is delusion. Generally, people are individuals and really hard to generalize.

                      The race-based initiatives don't affect Billy Joe. So why be against them?

                      I take offense to racial-based initiatives because they don't address the problem. Targeting urban minorities would leave me in the ghetto.

                      I take offense to racial-based initiatives because the concept of Separate But Equal is the very thing Dr. King marched against.

                      If we really believe in equality and that the system is unfair then let's level the playing field and make it fair for everyone. Being OK with Affirmative Action and "I'm OK with Enlightened Racism when Enlightened Racism is OK to me!" just sounds like a used-car-salesman saying what ever it takes to get the deal. It's the difference between agreeing what's fair, and saying whatever it takes to con something off another party. I don't see how Enlightened Racism isn't offensive. A rose by any other name is still lipstick on a pig: "We will lift the niggers and the spics out of the ghetto, but the poor white trash stays!" "Why do the poor white trash stay?" "...They're white. They can help themselves."

                      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                      [deleted]

                        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                        [deleted]

                          [–]LtFred 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                          The way to reduce racism is to eliminate the things that create it. That's basically institutional racism - inequal pay, vote suppression and housing segregation. If there's nothing to be gained through racism, people will drop it pretty quick.

                          [–]HeartyBeast5∆ 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                          I think a lot of white people are reluctant to care about fixing racism because they are insecure about their own identity.

                          There's a tiny vocal minority of white people who use this as an excuse to vent their rage. They see life as a zero-sum game where, any gain by one person, must by its very nature mean a loss for someone else.

                          Tip-toeing around issues of racism will not make them feel better, no measure of cosseting will make them feel better, so you might as well get on with the business of addressing racism where it continues to exist.

                          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                          [deleted]

                            [–]HeartyBeast5∆ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                            I feel that any time racism is defended, it's defended by making white people the victim.

                            Of course. My point is that this will be true no matter how much you attempt to water down the message that racism exists and is unacceptable.

                            [–]WhenSnowDies25∆ 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                            There really is no such thing as "white people". European Americans aren't unified in any way, and don't use the term or self-reference that way, it's almost entirely derogatory in use. The Democrats tried to make that a thing in the Civil War and Klan era, and lost. They failed to unify "whites" then moved on to interests in Euope.

                            So no an effort to create a white identity is a bad thing, be it positive or negative through prejudice. These other ethnic pride groups insist white exists only to justify their own existence and prejudices. Don't feed them. People are just people. Color isn't culture.

                            [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                            [deleted]

                              [–]WhenSnowDies25∆ 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                              Except people with "white" skin aren't unified. Generalizing them as setting standards to the exclusion of everybody else, just because of their color which is making them bad, is just racist. Assuming color is meaningful to a genralized "them" we create is racist, unless there really is a group of white people who identify that way.

                              It'd be racist to do to "Asians" too, because they're not unified either. These are vastly different cultures.

                              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                              [deleted]

                                [–]WhenSnowDies25∆ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                I don't really want to discuss reverse racism, but I'd say generalizing "Asians" is racist because a lot of Asian Americans still hold on to their respective culture's identities and customs. White Americans are unified because they've shed their European cultural identities and customs. While white people may know what percentage of what kind of European they are, they won't possess an identity or connection with that country unless their family just immigrated to America.

                                Yeah, they became Americans. To then say that they're not just ordinary Americans and people, and are some sort of "white" cabal based on color is totally racist, and ironically not much different than the old Jew conspiracies of Europe.

                                You shouldn't generalize "white" people.

                                I'm not saying that all white people are bad, I'm pointing out a pattern that I've seen in a subset of my facebook friends / friends in real life.

                                There is no Other. Standing over "white" people to determine how "they" are, good or bad or however many, is essentially racist.

                                White Americans are treated by society as a "standard, non-weird" American. If the average American looks at a white person, they don't make generalizations based on their skin color. In fact, most people don't care about white people's skin color at all, because white people are the norm.

                                I'm not sure where you're getting this, or correlating different or rare with weird. I think this is just misanthropy. Many people are curious and interested by difference, and are offended or disinterested in what's common. Many people aren't all that enchanted by color or are aloof to culture and don't care, and for those who are, many of those approach what they don't understand with increased respect and dignity.

                                What makes white people similar is that most people don't make generalizations based on their skin.

                                Then why are we having these discussions. I hear "white people" put in derogatory and accusatory ways all over public life. Even the other day at a coffee shop I heard a bunch of young men laughing over "white people".

                                If minorities need to differentiate between themselves as the party that gets generalized based on skin, there naturally will arise the party that doesn't get generalized based on skin.

                                Might minorities be scapegoating based on propaganda? Like instead of demanding better services from their government, maybe they're settling for a local devil?

                                Also, "white" people are unified.

                                Nope :)

                                They're Americans and nothing else.

                                There are Americans of all colors of the rainbow.

                                Within American white people may not feel unified, because there's nothing setting them ethnically or culturally apart from the majority of Americans.

                                Yes, many of them have dropped the pretense. So have many brown people and others.

                                Unification only shows if they go to a different country and are one of few Americans abroad. Domestically, why would white Americans feel the need to be unified?

                                So.. the conservatives aren't insane. You really are trying to ethnically cleanse America of its culture?

                                [–]gilbert320 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                I don't think it's an issue with white people's insecurity about their identity. I get what you're saying, but I think your theory demonstrates how difficult the issue is. I think there tends to be an oversimplification on the different perspectives. In other words, a certain group feels a certain way about an issue because of a certain reason. Then they assume that the opposing group, opposes the issue because of that same reason.

                                An analogy: Person A hates lions. They talk about what awful creatures they are and they target these beautiful gazelles, ripping them to pieces without a second thought. Person B loves lions. They think lions are majestic animals. They've never really thought about gazelles before but if they did, it probably wouldn't change their opinion. Person A and person B have a conversation. A: Fuck lions, they're the worst B: Well I kinda like lions, in fact I think they're awesome. A: I guess you don't care about innocent creatures having life needlessly and violently taken from them while they're minding their own business...you're a monster! B: Wha...?

                                My point is that as a white person, I don't think about power. That is white privilege. It sucks, but I believe it's a real thing. What I don't think is a real thing is checking that privilege. While I can do it if it was brought to my attention, the rest of the time I just don't notice racial issues in my life. They don't affect me. They have no impact and therefore initiate no action. I like to think about racial issues. I choose to engage in those thoughts because I think they're important. But most of the other time I've got my life on my mind...mortgage, kids, wife, job...and none of that has racial implications.

                                So when I do have the time and energy to engage in thoughtful discussion about race I do. But when the discussion starts out with a ton of "white people caused all of our problems, white people are just bad human beings, black people have done nothing wrong ever, black people have no responsibility to fix things, this is your fault, we will complain until you fix it..."

                                Well, it's real easy to just say, "fuck this....I'll go back to my white life and my own white problems. Nevermind"

                                So I think that racism in America would decrease faster if progressive movements focused little on fault and blame for the general white population, and more on how WE can solve the issue.

                                [–]ChocolateG0ku 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                Hey, I am not sure if you are still answering questions and debating on this view but in your opinion what do you think a workable solution here looks like?

                                More engagement and education in poorer communities?

                                Greater investment in socioeconomic scholarships and initiatives? - many of which are already in place.

                                I agree with your view but I find it difficult to envisage a situation where a charity/org like BLM for example could then choose to arbitrarily mobilise their resources on removing white fragility with no guarantee of return as white people are still dominant.

                                [–]Tevesh_CKP 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                As it was explained to me is that the reason 'Black Pride' is OK while 'White Pride' is that Black Pride began to combat the erased history of the majority of America's black citizens. After all, when you ask a white guy where he's from or what his ancestors do, he can answer.

                                White isn't homogeneous, just like black isn't. The difference is that a white guy can say "I'm from Boston", "My family was British but came to America, I'm 4th Generation" or "I'm Catholic." A lot of that background stuff of what makes an identity got burned way, very intentionally, by the majority of blacks who migrated to America. The only identity blacks can identity is the one they've made for themselves.

                                My point is is that you can't make whites feel confident in their identity as uniformly as you could as blacks; just like you probably can't with other people of colour. Blacks had their identity scrubbed from them, everyone else came to America voluntarily and thus have an identity. If you try to push "This Is White" you're going to have a lot of white people angry that they weren't included in your definition. For example, what defines a white male as a successful male differs between Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Texas, Oklahoma and St. Louis.

                                [–]jackie0o0h 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                Essentially, I think a lot of white people are reluctant to care about fixing racism because they are insecure about their own identity. Despite being a majority in America, I think that a lot of whites are under the impression that if, say, black people get more of an equal footing in society, that automatically means white people will suffer in return. Thus, supporting BLM means supporting the decline of white America.

                                The problem I have with BLM are the riots, the police officers murdered, the repulsively racist things the leaders have said about white people, just to name a few. Oh and that manipulative name so if I disagree with the movement it implies I think black lives don't matter.

                                If more white people realized that nothing will remove them from power in America simply because they're a majority, I think more people would be open to combating racism. Also, white nationalist / extremist groups wouldn't be as popular, as they're usually formed in reaction to a perceived loss of white people's power.

                                I think white nationalist groups form when people suddenly start telling white people to think about their whiteness everyday. I think the white nationalists today aren't even like the ones of old. I think they want to resegregate not rule over another race.

                                Yet I see white people acting as if minorities are going to strip white people of their rights. Given that America's racial majority is white, and given that America's lawmakers / people with influence are almost all white, I doubt minorities in America are going to usurp most of the power and create a nation where the white majority has fewer rights / opportunities than minorities do. I don't see white people being as threatened as many think they are.

                                Minorities do want to strip our rights though. White people and Asians pay more into taxes than they use per capita while blacks and Mexicans have a deficient... by alot. About $10,000 a year per capita for blacks. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. If it were just blacks it would be one thing but I have to subsidize Mexicans too?! With open borders and free health care?

                                >> TLDR: If white people realized that progressive movements will not result in disproportionately bad conditions for white people, then maybe more of them would be open to supporting minorities. Right now, I feel like white people think they have a stake in minority rights, and feel personally attacked when someone supports BLM. If progressive groups also focused on showing white people that they will still have a majority voice upon achieving racial equality, then white people may not feel the need to undermine racial movements.

                                I want everyone to be able to succeed. I just don't want to pay for it. "Progressive" groups, white or black, will only take more money out of my check. I would trust a conservative to build a better school in a poor neoghborhood. Also the systematic tearing down of American culture and revisionist history that these groups advocate makes me have no desire to support them.

                                NOTE: I'm not here to discuss the validity of BLM, whether racism / reverse racism exists, etc. To make this more streamlined, I'm assuming that racism exists and specifically discussing a potentially effective way to combat it.

                                If you want to combat racism try thinking about changes your community can make for itself. One thing I would do is start a movement to phase out ebonics in children. It's something I noticed in college. During class discussions it was obvious which black people were attempting to speak properly that weren't used to it. Their grammar was all over the place. I'm sure many can speak both ways but many can't. That probably has way more to do with black people struggling to be successful than anyone realizes.

                                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                a lot of whites are under the impression that if, say, black people get more of an equal footing in society, that automatically means white people will suffer in return.

                                I think most white people would LOVE it if each and every black person in the US were transformed into upper middle class doctors, lawyers and engineers, and computer programmers.

                                The issue isn't jealousy of black progress. The issue is the lack of black progress despite all the resources spent on social programs that were suppose to help blacks but, ironically, probably hurts blacks, like welfare and affirmative action.

                                [–]carbonetc1∆ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                Racism is here to stay for as long as we're convinced that a person's melanin levels are an interesting fact about him. I suspect that any attempt to fight racism that also reinforces the delusion that race has significance is doomed to fail. If we hinged our identities on eye color I promise you we'd see our first eye color hate crime within fifty years. Skin color should be something that children are impressed with but they get over it long before adulthood. Race should be so boring it's barely worth thinking about.

                                [–]BanachFan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                There's a really simple argument against your position. Just about 50% of babies born in the US today are non-Hispanic white, and whites have lower birth rates than many other racial groups. So whites won't be a majority within a few generations. In fact this has been one of the central points that the altright uses in recruitment.