At what point does trying to stop racism CREATE racism?

[MeatMachine]

Please read at least SOME of this post before responding to the topic sentence and picture. Pretty please? If not, then I type my main points like this: emboldened and underlined. Skim if you want.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hey everyone, I've mentioned before in a thread I created months ago some of the many problems I have with my choice of major in college: social work. The primary concern I raised back then was basically, "can you be a good social worker, and not believe in the concept of social justice?" I got a lot of varied responses, with respondents of any given side providing pragmatic feedback.

Now, here I am, several months later, and with another list of concerns. This is a screenshot of one of the questions of a midterm exam in one of my 300-level Social Work classes.

I responded to my graded midterm with the following:
"I completely disagree with the answer for Question 12: 'In the Integrative Awareness Phase in the process of white racial identity development, which is a key part of becoming a nonracist White Euro-American? I'd accept 'All of the above' as the correct answer IF the question asked 'Which is a key part of becoming a competent White Euro-American social worker?' I absolutely abhor the idea that whites are by default racist if they don't 'appreciate diversity' or are not 'committed to eradicating oppression'. If this isn't every racial group's obligation and burden, than it sure as hell isn't solely mine."

I take a lot of issues with this question, and not simply because I feel compelled to defend my ethical integrity as a white man. To me, this is far more than a personal issue, a reactionary feeling of disgust and contempt. What bothers me is how this question utterly bleeds of implicit racism by asserting that an entire demographic (not a group, mind you - a DEMOGRAPHIC) is, by default, in its natural state, ethically defective, and that individuals who are a part of this demographic must learn to recondition their brains to work past their intrinsic, natural-born mental deficiency.

To be clear, I know the importance of not falling for a kafkatrap. Much of my study material for this class talks about topics such as societal privilege, social stratification, and all manners of giving a sincere effort to empathize with people of differing worldviews, from perspectives that may be uncomfortable or massively conflict with our own. I get that, I really do, and I'm not the kind of person who thinks that consideration is weakness or that jumping to conclusions or holding dogmatic, partisan loyalty on complex issues is anything more than a bypass of rational thought... however, WAY too often, when I see values such as cultural competency actually put into practice, it looks like this. It looks fucking ugly, completely devoid of nuance and empathy, and astoundingly hypocritical.

When I think about the progressive stack (or similar ideas), I put great effort into divorcing myself of my already existing opinions and perspective and sincerely try to see the world through the eyes of others. This is what bothers me the most - as a straight, white, middle-class man, not only do I think I NEVER get that courtesy in return, but more often than not, I get outright dismissed or reminded of my bias and how that entirely undermines any conclusion I reach that isn't in total agreement with others who are unfortunate enough to not have the "privilege of being correct by virtue of being born white." (...seriously, those were the words of someone else, not mine). How exactly is this not marginalizing a demographic? Or is marginalizing a demographic an actual solution if that demographic is prevalent, regardless of what individuals or groups INSIDE the demographic think?

The progressive stack is almost inevitably used as a tool to strike at some demographics and assign protection to others, while preaching that the entire point is to eliminate disparity between demographics and establish equilibrium... as if it is okay to cheat social and individual rights, provided the proverbial arbitrary restacking of "privilege" results in an equal outcome. To me, this showcases that "privilege", "prejudice", "bigotry", and every other buzzword attached to contemporary social opinions are not intrinsically unjust, shameful, negative shortcomings that we should strive to minimize, but rather, they are like ideological tools, mental weapons to be used for achieving a desired end outcome. But so long as these tools and weapons are in the hands of the ETHICALLY PURE, then they can be used for good... because good intentions always result in good behavior and good consequences, I guess. Too bad that I, as a white person, I am obviously omitted from ever transcending beyond my savageness to become ethically pure and must entrust these tools to be used responsibly by my moral overlords.

That is why I feel like a concerning number of people who claim to make entire careers out of finding solutions to combat racism are some of the most well-established, deceptive, hoodwinking racists and racist institutions I have ever encountered.

What does everyone else think? I'm sincerely interested in hearing your guys' opinions, because the Escapist forums is one of the few places where I feel I can get a non-reactionary discussion going without being told to go to my privilege cage and reconsider myself until I say the right thing.

 

[Tanis]

That's the kind of question that should be reported to the admin.

I read it as 'so, white people are all born racist unless they: A/b/d/c/etc'.
That question is racist as fuck.

I say this as a tri-racial.

I'd ask your teacher a simple question:
At what percentage does does my 'white' blood made me racist?
1/10th, 2/8th, 3/5th, or one drop?

 

[MeatMachine]

That's the kind of question that should be reported to the admin.

I read it as 'so, white people are all born racist unless they: A/b/d/c/etc'.
That question is racist as fuck.

I say this as a tri-racial.

I'd ask your teacher a simple question:
At what percentage does does my 'white' blood made me racist?
1/10th, 2/8th, 3/5th, or one drop?

I later met with my instructor to have a personal discussion and proposed the following about how fighting racism can quickly descend into simple racism:

"Blacks are naturally lacking in self-control, are prone to acting out with violence as a primary instinct against challenges they face, and are highly fearful of responsibility or working for personal stability. This is demonstrated by their position in society, where single-motherhood rates are upwards of 70% of the black population, and is further reinforced by their disproportionate crime statistics and income levels. Blacks who wish to become productive members of society must work against their natural instincts, come to terms with their cultural flaws, and must remain vigilant so that they may recognize them when they manifest; these are all essential qualities blacks must have, if they wish to succumb their predispositions towards negative thoughts and behaviors."

...and ANY attempt by black people to challenge this notion of intrinsic mental bankruptcy being sewn into their genetics is a perfect example of their "natural fear of accountability and a seething struggle to contain their eager hostility" in action, which simply demonstrates my point.

When I asked her if she understood the sophistry at work here, she completely ignored everything I said, and reminded me about the importance of remaining empathetic and non-racist, and why the example counterpoint I used is insensitive and racist.

I think she saw my hypothetical demonstration of racist logic as a sincere demonstration of racist logic, and proceeded to bury my concerns about the intellectual laziness and prevalence of racist logic with ACTUAL RACIST LOGIC. This is how inescapable the social stigma of being a pitiless white monster has become for me, and why I'm incredibly close to forfeiting my Social Work degree as a lost cause and a massive waste of time and money.

 

[manic_depressive13]

The question asks: "In the Integrative Awareness Phase.... which is..."

I'm presuming that the Integrative Awareness Phase, being capitalised, refers to some theory or schema of understanding racial identity that you would have studied in class. The question is not asking for objective facts. The question is testing your knowledge on the Integrative Awareness Phase of white racial whatever the fuck.

So putting aside our personal opinions, there is nothing wrong with this question.

Edit: And reading all the rest, I support your endeavor to not become a social worker. I'd say that's the best course of action for everyone.

 

[MeatMachine]

The question asks: "In the Integrative Awareness Phase.... which is..."

I'm presuming that the Integrative Awareness Phase, being capitalised, refers to some theory or schema of understanding racial identity that you would have studied in class. The question is not asking for objective facts. The question is testing your knowledge on the Integrative Awareness Phase of white racial whatever the fuck.

So putting aside our personal opinions, there is nothing wrong with this question.

Thank you for catching this, actually - this was one of the points my teacher made. I'm free to disagree with the text, and that it is simply a provision of one model of thought. BUT...

This isn't a history class: we aren't being taught how racism influenced the development of the United States.
This isn't a rhetoric class: we aren't being taught to critically analyze opinions, positions or policies.
This isn't hard science: we aren't being taught objective methods for testing a hypothesis.
This IS a social work class: we ARE being taught that these pre-established conclusions are valid, simply because they are opinions; opinions are both unfalsifiable AND unprovable; therefore, all opinions are equally worthy of consideration.

My concern, then, is that the Integrated Awareness Model of White Identity Development is the ONLY perspective we are being tested on, because it is the ONLY one we are taught: moreover, it is heavily implied to be valid and scientific, and never have we been exposed to (or even suggested the existence of) other qualified theories.

Aside from being the monopoly perspective we are given, the Integrated Awareness models are nothing more than a collection of very strong assertions, fundamentally based on highly debatable and subjective negative preconceptions and presumtions about demographic disparities.

For example, here is the Integrated Awareness Model of Feminist Identity Development, Stage 1: Passive Acceptance:

"During this stage, the female accepts traditional gender roles, sees them as advantageous to her, and considers men to be superior to women. She is unaware of or denies prejudice or discrimination. Male contributions to the arts, business, and theater are valued more than those of women."

...the completely subjective, opinionated premises here being literally the entire paragraph regarding the negativity of traditional gender roles, the self-imposed inferiority of women to men, the casual prevalence of prejudice and discrimination, and the unjustified value of men's work over women's work because of sexism.

You'll notice that everything written in bold is not explicitly stated, but it is very obviously implied - if it WASN'T, then none of the above would be a big deal. Identity Development Models such as these don't merely state how we come to understand ourselves and our society - they are statements which are completely peppered with insidious, 1-sided claims about society being structured to oppress some demographics, and unfairly favor others, but are just vague enough to retain plausible deniability if called out for what they really are - injection of political ideology into a broad, sociological theory.

The Integrated Awareness Models are pretty much baseless ideas of how people shape their own personalities in society, and WHAT YOU THINK indicates HOW DEVELOPED YOUR SOCIAL PERCEPTION IS. Naturally, in the above example, any woman who doesn't believe that we live in a patriarchal society is basically an undeveloped, internally-misogynistic, domesticated animal who hasn't grown out of the first phase of mental maturity; again, any attempt to justify why she may APPRECIATE traditional gender roles, or thinks that her work is appreciated based on MERIT is simply reinforcing her own ignorance of reality.

The Integrative Awareness Models are patronizing and insulting, and are being presented as... well, TRUTH, for understanding our society. Opinions that merely divorce themselves from these models, or even those which don't believe in the fundamental presumptions that shape the rest of the model (like disagreeing that women are oppressed or that whites are not intrinsically racist) naturally fall under the category of "undeveloped thought".

Why is this a problem for ME, then? Because I'm busting my ass to be the best possible member of a helping profession as I can be, and my education is literally poisoning me when this this the basis of my professional development regarding cultural competency and empathetic consideration for other people. But so long as "it's only one opinion" and "I'm free to disagree", there's apparently no issue here.

...even if I am a social worker who, by these standards, is completely undeveloped in any sense of social awareness.

Here's a casual, non-scholarly source of reference for what these are:
http://developmentalobserver.blog.com/2011/12/01/identity-development-models/

 

[Strazdas]

One of the courses in my studies was that of economic theory. Now it is no secret that there are many different schools and takes on how economy works and how it should be run. Our tests graded us on knowledge on how these schools though, regardless of whether we though they were right or wrong. This seems to be the case with your test as well. Although why would such a clearly racist model even be taught to social workers is beyond me.

 

[manic_depressive13]

-

Yes, there is room for disagreement, but that women and racial minorities are oppressed is about as controversial as climate change.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I absolutely abhor the idea that whites are by default racist if they don't 'appreciate diversity' or are not 'committed to eradicating oppression'. If this isn't every racial group's obligation and burden, than it sure as hell isn't solely mine.

Where does it say it's not every group's obligation and burden?

You can't really claim to care about a problem without some commitment to it's eradication (this is not to say that eradicating it is within your power, however).

When I think about the progressive stack (or similar ideas), I put great effort into divorcing myself of my already existing opinions and perspective and sincerely try to see the world through the eyes of others. This is what bothers me the most - as a straight, white, middle-class man, not only do I think I NEVER get that courtesy in return

I have a hard time believing that. The perspective of the straight, white, middle-class man, in our society, happens to be the default, the one all others are compared to. People can't really not see the world through those eyes.

I get outright dismissed or reminded of my bias

Why shouldn't you be? You are going to have a bias which is going to get in the way a lot, and you are going to be completely wrong often.

By comparison, suppose you were to go to Japan, where the society is different and you are in the minority, and you and some native Japanese people are talking about the experiences of being a foreigner in Japan. No matter how good their intentions are, they are going to have severe misunderstands as their own worldviews get in the way, and they are going to have to shut up and listen to you if they want to learn. This is a very difficult thing for people to accept, it's someone that trips, I daresay, literally everyone up. Every single person who has or who will live either struggles to deal with their own biases (and makes a fool of themselves sometimes) or pretends they don't have any (and makes a fool of themselves all the time).

How exactly is this not marginalizing a demographic?

Recognising that a demographic doesn't have experience with marginalisation doesn't somehow make them marginalised.

It's important to note though, that this applies to specific marginalisations. You have people claiming, for example, that they understand the sexism women face because they are gay men. While there may be some similarities, the oppressions are not the same.

The progressive stack is almost inevitably used as a tool to strike at some demographics

Oh, and how have you been struck at? Are you subject to higher incarceration rates, less political representation, lower wages?

Or are you just having people tell you that you aren't automatically worth listening to? Now, admittedly, the latter is quite a strike to people used to privilege, but if you have any real commitment to equality you are going to have to learn to live with that. In all seriousness, that is easier said than done.

...

In answer to the question of the title, it doesn't, at least not in the way you mean, unless you want an excuse to try to stop people trying to stop racism.

 

[aba1]

snip

Welcome to the Red Pill my friend XD.

As a rule of thumb when it comes to these things if you can't reverse any of the groups and not have it be a issues then the statement is inherently prejudice. Putting Feminist and Racial group advocate reteric through this test really just shows a lot of the sexism/ racism just pouring out of these groups. I also find it interesting that "white" people are considered the most privileged in western society despite the fact that "asians" are overwhelmingly the most successful as a group (not that there is anything wrong with that).

The biggest two conclusions I have come to over the years from studying these type subjects (at least when it comes to perceived race) is that

A). Race isn't even a real thing. Race is subjective to everyone and there is no distinctive line of where one race starts and another finishes. What race someone might be can actually vary from person to person. A good example to ask yourself is how dark do you have to be before you become "black" or how light do you have to be before you are "white". If it is all based on where your family comes from then you aren't talking about race you are talking about heritage which even then wouldn't someone from Russia be asian since it is part of Asia? If it is based on culture then how could you possibly tell anything based on appearance since someone can be from anywhere or grow up in any culture without looking similar to everyone else. Race is just a bunch of bull shit and ultimately pointless.

B). Racism will never go away till people choose to no longer identify people by their perceived race. The sheer act of choosing to segregate everyone into arbitrary groups sets out a precedent that the group is inherently different and therefore should be treated differently. Ultimately there will be racism as long as people choose to identify each other that way. Which is why I personally chosen to abstain from the concept all together. I realize that everyone else still chooses to participate in it and so I will recognize and acknowledge that but I personally choose to abstain.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I also find it interesting that "white" people are considered the most privileged in western society despite the fact that "asians" are overwhelmingly the most successful as a group (not that there is anything wrong with that).

White people are the majority in the west, and also hold a disproportionate amount of power in industry, politics, finance, the military, religion etc, though.

A). Race isn't even a real thing. Race is subjective to everyone and there is no distinctive line of where one race starts and another finishes. What race someone might be can actually vary from person to person. A good example to ask yourself is how dark do you have to be before you become "black" or how light do you have to be before you are "white". If it is all based on where your family comes from then you aren't talking about race you are talking about heritage which even then wouldn't someone from Russia be asian since it is part of Asia? If it is based on culture then how could you possibly tell anything based on appearance since someone can be from anywhere or grow up in any culture without looking similar to everyone else. Race is just a bunch of bull shit and ultimately pointless.

Most definitely, yes. As well as that, race is defined differently in different places and at different times.

B). Racism will never go away till people choose to no longer identify people by their perceived race. The sheer act of choosing to segregate everyone into arbitrary groups sets out a precedent that the group is inherently different and therefore should be treated differently. Ultimately there will be racism as long as people choose to identify each other that way. Which is why I personally chosen to abstain from the concept all together. I realize that everyone else still chooses to participate in it and so I will recognize and acknowledge that but I personally choose to abstain.

Well, yes, but there's the problem that whether or not you choose to see race, many other people will. Race isn't real, as such, but it's become real in an arbitrary way because our society says it is.

Abstaining from the concept of race isn't that far away from abstaining from the concept of racism, and the latter definitely exists.

 

[Ubersupersloth]

The moment you start justifying preferential treatment to any demographic due to the collective "privilege" of the group they were born in. *cough* Third-Wave feminism *cough*.

 

[MeatMachine]

Where does it say it's not every group's obligation and burden?

You can't really claim to care about a problem without some commitment to it's eradication (this is not to say that eradicating it is within your power, however).

I'd normally agree with the notion that people who take no action against something they claim to care about doesn't reflect strongly about their sincerity, if care and motivation weren't two separate influences. Many people care about their appearance and their health - doesn't mean they are going to have the motivation to improve them. You could argue this means that they don't care, too, but I think those things are separate from each other, given how many fat people suffer from self-esteem issues.

As far as taking an active role in changing society for the better, I don't think it is anyone's duty unless they decide to make it their duty through career or activism. I do wish more people felt compelled to participate it finding solutions to social problems (seriously, look at the voter turnout rates for elections), but insisting that they are part of the problem if they don't just brews contempt. I believe this goes for everyone - denying someone neutrality is a fast way to make enemies, and not a real respectful way to recruit followers in most cases. This is just a personal opinion though, and one that may have unagreeable priorities in the face of bigger issues to some.

I have a hard time believing that. The perspective of the straight, white, middle-class man, in our society, happens to be the default, the one all others are compared to. People can't really not see the world through those eyes.

Why shouldn't you be? You are going to have a bias which is going to get in the way a lot, and you are going to be completely wrong often. By comparison, suppose you were to go to Japan, where the society is different and you are in the minority, and you and some native Japanese people are talking about the experiences of being a foreigner in Japan. No matter how good their intentions are, they are going to have severe misunderstands as their own worldviews get in the way, and they are going to have to shut up and listen to you if they want to learn. This is a very difficult thing for people to accept, it's someone that trips, I daresay, literally everyone up. Every single person who has or who will live either struggles to deal with their own biases (and makes a fool of themselves sometimes) or pretends they don't have any (and makes a fool of themselves all the time).

It is hard to to accept that 10 people can look at the exact same thing, and claim to see 10 different things. Perpetrating the notion that those with different conclusions simply do not understand what you see, or cannot comprehend what you see, are actually often true statements. I forget that sometimes, trying to visualize a problem from another perspective is not enough - even with the same perspective, the way we reach our conclusions are different. In retrospect, I withdraw my previous statement as a personal failing to remember this; this is a trap everyone falls into all to frequently - claiming their perspective is simply overlooked, while not quite breaking through their own self-focus.

When it comes to projecting one's understanding of reality, it's a mental process about as unconsciously regulated as breathing. If you ever become aware of it, then you can take control of it - the moment your attention inevitably sheds to something else, it becomes automated again. Really having the discipline of identifying when to consider that is a lot harder than I remember when I'm simply self-reflecting... like reverse Ondine's curse, sort of.

Frustration is incredibly blinding, and nothing creates discord like having dozens of secondary groups trying to collaborate to form a consensus for a primary group. Ultimately, I'm sure I'd be justified in claiming that people rarely succeed (or even attempt) in trying to share my vision - very rarely do people do this for anyone, for any reason. But then again, the focus of social work isn't about trying to get everyone to exercise this as much as possible; it's about exercising it yourself for the benefit of other people, without needing the return courtesy.

I guess I conflate my passion for rhetorical debate with the duty of public service. Professional development is separate from sociological conclusiveness; it can be hard to balance those two things, let alone divorce them.

Recognising that a demographic doesn't have experience with marginalisation doesn't somehow make them marginalised.

It's important to note though, that this applies to specific marginalisations. You have people claiming, for example, that they understand the sexism women face because they are gay men. While there may be some similarities, the oppressions are not the same.

There's a point to be made for drawing a distinction between similar problems, and understanding that they may not be entirely relative in every way.

That being said, it happens fairly frequently where people who haven't experienced the same problem in the same way are pretty much told to sit down and shut the fuck up, because their lack of comparative experience dooms them from reaching both an understanding and a proper solution to the topic problem. Saying that someone has biases that shape their perception is reasonable and true; saying that someone doesn't have the RIGHT biases to shape their perception is pretty much confirming that the speaker isn't interested in negotiating much of anything, and is presuming that direct experience is necessary to resolve the problem.

Philosophy about whether or not a substance abuse counselor should have personal experience with addiction, for example, varies. It's not irrational to question if a substance abuse counselor would be more effective in their role if they themselves had real, practical experience in the recovery process to better empathize for their clients. That being said, not many people are actively claiming that coke addicts can ONLY be adequately counseled by substance abuse counselors with a specific history of coke addiction, and that anyone without this specific history would be an unproductive mismatch.

Alternatively, jurors are vetted from duty based on these possible biases, as they are more likely to exhibit confirmation bias in favor of one side over another, thus undermining a fair sense of neutrality which weighs only the value of the provided evidence.

Regarding social work, it's difficult to discern when a client's biases should be respected or challenged - regarding social policy, biases are usually seen only as negative qualities.

Oh, and how have you been struck at? Are you subject to higher incarceration rates, less political representation, lower wages?

Struck at in the sense of being more likely to fall victim to statistical disparities and social injustices, no - rather, this is inverted in such a way that I'm being told that my skin color makes me incapable of ever comprehending the fear that these issues instill in some people for myself (which has some truth), and that my opinion and perspective about these issues are therefore fruitless and irrelevant (which then demands the only proper solution is for me to take a defeatist attitude about myself). If I cannot possibly empathize with these problems, what exactly am I supposed to do? The best I can hope to do, then, is forfeit to the fact that my demographic background is an uncompromising barrier that will do no one any good, or worse, exacerbate the problem due to the notion that my demographic is the one that currently caused all of this.

I don't take it personally, but I don't think shutting out someone who is sincerely trying to contribute to a discussion based on the way they are born is beneficial to finding a big-picture resolution for... not sidelining people based on the way they were born. This is basically the idea of original sin being used to guilt someone into submission; tell them that they are incapable of doing good for themselves and others independently, but through a vessel not tainted, they may achieve salvation.

...the vessel, in this case, being anyone who isn't white.

I know this isn't how a lot of people intend to come across, and isn't the calculated intention of putting anyone in their place, but seriously, what am I supposed to do when browbeaten about all of the problems I uniquely DON'T have? Apologize? Take responsibility? Abdicate myself as an inevitable participant or enabler? There really is nothing constructive I could do, unless you count falling in line as an obedient "ally".

Or are you just having people tell you that you aren't automatically worth listening to? Now, admittedly, the latter is quite a strike to people used to privilege, but if you have any real commitment to equality you are going to have to learn to live with that. In all seriousness, that is easier said than done.

No, I don't think anyone is automatically worth listening to due to birthright, myself included.
I also don't think anyone is automatically worth undignified dismissal due to biological traits, either.

I take issue with the idea that "equality" means suspending the practice of equality any time social equilibrium isn't in place.

I recognize the reality that there are societal advantages that some people arbitrarily have that others do not. I also believe that there are some negative propensities that are imposed onto some people more than others. I respect and admire the motivation for re-balancing these things to create a fairer society; what troubles me are some of the polarizing attitudes picked up along the way in trying to achieve this goal.

I don't want to tell people what the solution here is, because I don't have one that I can confidently propose; I do, however, retain the justification for raising my concerns when I see something disagreeable or unreasonable, and I don't crumble to the dismissive pressure that any protest would simply be a "reluctance to sacrifice my privilege".

Edit: And reading all the rest, I support your endeavor to not become a social worker. I'd say that's the best course of action for everyone.

Why, exactly?

I get that I may have come across as frustrated and defensive, but the entire reason I am posting here is to listen to people who challenge what I say. I have a point to make, but I'm not stubbornly insisting that people should agree with me. As far as I can tell, the best way for me to come to terms with whatever problems I have as a potential social worker (I'm guess you think these are a propensity to get frustrated and defensive,) are to open myself to new perspectives and try to understand them.

So, do you say that because I'm taking the totally wrong approach to personal improvement, or do you really think I'd only ever make a negative impact in this field?

 

[aba1]

I also find it interesting that "white" people are considered the most privileged in western society despite the fact that "asians" are overwhelmingly the most successful as a group (not that there is anything wrong with that).

White people are the majority in the west, and also hold a disproportionate amount of power in industry, politics, finance, the military, religion etc, though.

Sorta that is true for a few of those categories. "Asian" people actually overwhelmingly make more on average than "white" people and they also have the lowest incarceration rates and just in generally do over all very well better than "white" people in most important categories. In fact you are right they would be considered to hold a "disproportionate" amount of power in industry, politics and finances just not in the way you think. And you know what that is ok you can't expect every group to come out perfectly even. Differently people prioritize or aim for different things in life and you can't expect everyone to thrive in the exact same ways.

A). Race isn't even a real thing. Race is subjective to everyone and there is no distinctive line of where one race starts and another finishes. What race someone might be can actually vary from person to person. A good example to ask yourself is how dark do you have to be before you become "black" or how light do you have to be before you are "white". If it is all based on where your family comes from then you aren't talking about race you are talking about heritage which even then wouldn't someone from Russia be asian since it is part of Asia? If it is based on culture then how could you possibly tell anything based on appearance since someone can be from anywhere or grow up in any culture without looking similar to everyone else. Race is just a bunch of bull shit and ultimately pointless.

Most definitely, yes. As well as that, race is defined differently in different places and at different times.

Exactly and if something can change what it means arbitrarily at a whim to suit who ever and what ever need then it really means nothing. You know they old saying a word that means everything means nothing. It is just a arbitrary way to box people in for discrimination.

B). Racism will never go away till people choose to no longer identify people by their perceived race. The sheer act of choosing to segregate everyone into arbitrary groups sets out a precedent that the group is inherently different and therefore should be treated differently. Ultimately there will be racism as long as people choose to identify each other that way. Which is why I personally chosen to abstain from the concept all together. I realize that everyone else still chooses to participate in it and so I will recognize and acknowledge that but I personally choose to abstain.

Well, yes, but there's the problem that whether or not you choose to see race, many other people will. Race isn't real, as such, but it's become real in an arbitrary way because our society says it is.

Abstaining from the concept of race isn't that far away from abstaining from the concept of racism, and the latter definitely exists.

Well you aren't wrong which is why I mentioned I recognize that other people choose to do the whole race thing. The thing is I can't control what other people choose to do or how they think. I can only make decisions for myself so I choose to abstain from the concept and what other people choose to do is on them. I can only be responsible for the decisions and actions I take as a individual. If someone else chooses to be racist then that is their decision. I am not going to start making racist decisions under the presumption that everyone else around me is racist because even if they were (which I doubt it) then how would I be any better then them? I am just sinking to their level and am ultimately the very thing I am attempting to fight against. The only way to solve the issue is just to abstain all together and hope other people choose to follow suit.

 

[MeatMachine]

Welcome to the Red Pill my friend XD.

I sure hope that isn't an introduction to MGTOW, because I'm nowhere near agreeing with their conclusions.

I also find it interesting that "white" people are considered the most privileged in western society despite the fact that "asians" are overwhelmingly the most successful as a group (not that there is anything wrong with that).

I don't think anyone really cares about this, on either side of the issue.
Why? Because people who'd try to use this as a counterpoint of "Asian privilege" superseding "white privilege" don't take this kind of thinking seriously to begin with, and people who do are willing to break out their "white privilege" ledger and provide hundreds of examples that put whites back on top of the oppression pyramid.

 

[kenu12345]

Thats the down side of this sort of thing unfortunely. In the fight to fight racism, some people come to hate certain races or sexes. Apologies if this doesn't seem on topic but it reminds me of this time that I was discussing helping students in school and how if a male and a female were struggling, you should help both. The person I was discussing it with then went on to say how the male didn't deserve to be helped or something like that. Honestly, it all reminds me of the one song, Everyones A Lil Bit Racist

 

[Thaluikhain]

As far as taking an active role in changing society for the better, I don't think it is anyone's duty unless they decide to make it their duty through career or activism. I do wish more people felt compelled to participate it finding solutions to social problems (seriously, look at the voter turnout rates for elections), but insisting that they are part of the problem if they don't just brews contempt. I believe this goes for everyone - denying someone neutrality is a fast way to make enemies, and not a real respectful way to recruit followers in most cases. This is just a personal opinion though, and one that may have unagreeable priorities in the face of bigger issues to some.

Personally, I'd argue that someone living in a society has a responsibility to try to better that society, especially in a democracy where power in entrusted to all voters.

If someone is expressly not expressing disapproval with a social problem, that means at least part of society doesn't see it as a problem. I don't see neutrality as something someone can hold to with social issues.

It is hard to to accept that 10 people can look at the exact same thing, and claim to see 10 different things. Perpetrating the notion that those with different conclusions simply do not understand what you see, or cannot comprehend what you see, are actually often true statements. I forget that sometimes, trying to visualize a problem from another perspective is not enough - even with the same perspective, the way we reach our conclusions are different. In retrospect, I withdraw my previous statement as a personal failing to remember this; this is a trap everyone falls into all to frequently - claiming their perspective is simply overlooked, while not quite breaking through their own self-focus.

When it comes to projecting one's understanding of reality, it's a mental process about as unconsciously regulated as breathing. If you ever become aware of it, then you can take control of it - the moment your attention inevitably sheds to something else, it becomes automated again. Really having the discipline of identifying when to consider that is a lot harder than I remember when I'm simply self-reflecting... like reverse Ondine's curse, sort of.

Frustration is incredibly blinding, and nothing creates discord like having dozens of secondary groups trying to collaborate to form a consensus for a primary group. Ultimately, I'm sure I'd be justified in claiming that people rarely succeed (or even attempt) in trying to share my vision - very rarely do people do this for anyone, for any reason. But then again, the focus of social work isn't about trying to get everyone to exercise this as much as possible; it's about exercising it yourself for the benefit of other people, without needing the return courtesy.

I guess I conflate my passion for rhetorical debate with the duty of public service. Professional development is separate from sociological conclusiveness; it can be hard to balance those two things, let alone divorce them.

That seems fair enough.

There's a point to be made for drawing a distinction between similar problems, and understanding that they may not be entirely relative in every way.

That being said, it happens fairly frequently where people who haven't experienced the same problem in the same way are pretty much told to sit down and shut the fuck up, because their lack of comparative experience dooms them from reaching both an understanding and a proper solution to the topic problem. Saying that someone has biases that shape their perception is reasonable and true; saying that someone doesn't have the RIGHT biases to shape their perception is pretty much confirming that the speaker isn't interested in negotiating much of anything, and is presuming that direct experience is necessary to resolve the problem.

Certainly, yes, but I don't see why that presumption must always be wrong.

Struck at in the sense of being more likely to fall victim to statistical disparities and social injustices, no - rather, this is inverted in such a way that I'm being told that my skin color makes me incapable of ever comprehending the fear that these issues instill in some people for myself (which has some truth), and that my opinion and perspective about these issues are therefore fruitless and irrelevant (which then demands the only proper solution is for me to take a defeatist attitude about myself). If I cannot possibly empathize with these problems, what exactly am I supposed to do? The best I can hope to do, then, is forfeit to the fact that my demographic background is an uncompromising barrier that will do no one any good, or worse, exacerbate the problem due to the notion that my demographic is the one that currently caused all of this.

It's not that you can't empathise, it's just that your understanding will be limited. Racism is bad, this we can all agree on. Exactly how bad, how it works for a given race is something we might not understand.

I don't take it personally, but I don't think shutting out someone who is sincerely trying to contribute to a discussion based on the way they are born is beneficial to finding a big-picture resolution for... not sidelining people based on the way they were born. This is basically the idea of original sin being used to guilt someone into submission; tell them that they are incapable of doing good for themselves and others independently, but through a vessel not tainted, they may achieve salvation.

...the vessel, in this case, being anyone who isn't white.

I know this isn't how a lot of people intend to come across, and isn't the calculated intention of putting anyone in their place, but seriously, what am I supposed to do when browbeaten about all of the problems I uniquely DON'T have? Apologize? Take responsibility? Abdicate myself as an inevitable participant or enabler? There really is nothing constructive I could do, unless you count falling in line as an obedient "ally".

What's wrong with being an ally? When confronted with a problem that needs solving, when you have little experience of it, but are together with someone who has significant experience, surely listening to what they say and following their advice is hardly an unusual thing to do.

No, I don't think anyone is automatically worth listening to due to birthright, myself included.
I also don't think anyone is automatically worth undignified dismissal due to biological traits, either.

I take issue with the idea that "equality" means suspending the practice of equality any time social equilibrium isn't in place.

I recognize the reality that there are societal advantages that some people arbitrarily have that others do not. I also believe that there are some negative propensities that are imposed onto some people more than others. I respect and admire the motivation for re-balancing these things to create a fairer society; what troubles me are some of the polarizing attitudes picked up along the way in trying to achieve this goal.

I don't want to tell people what the solution here is, because I don't have one that I can confidently propose; I do, however, retain the justification for raising my concerns when I see something disagreeable or unreasonable, and I don't crumble to the dismissive pressure that any protest would simply be a "reluctance to sacrifice my privilege".

Ah, but is that to say that no protest is due to a reluctance to sacrifice your privilege? I daresay everyone makes that mistake every so often, and for them to improve, to lessen the chance of it happening again, they need to be told to check their privilege.

This is not fun, by any means, but it's ultimately vital.

Why, exactly?

I get that I may have come across as frustrated and defensive, but the entire reason I am posting here is to listen to people who challenge what I say. I have a point to make, but I'm not stubbornly insisting that people should agree with me. As far as I can tell, the best way for me to come to terms with whatever problems I have as a potential social worker (I'm guess you think these are a propensity to get frustrated and defensive,) are to open myself to new perspectives and try to understand them.

So, do you say that because I'm taking the totally wrong approach to personal improvement, or do you really think I'd only ever make a negative impact in this field?

I can't speak for manic_depressive13, but your OP gave a strong impression that you weren't interested in a discussion, you merely wanted to rant about the oppression of the straight white male. To the extent that I'm rather surprised by how reasonable your reply to me was. I'm sorry if I misjudged you, but then we do get an awful lot of people who want to rant about how the privileged group they are in is actually somehow oppressed, and give a pretence of a discussion to do it with.

Well you aren't wrong which is why I mentioned I recognize that other people choose to do the whole race thing. The thing is I can't control what other people choose to do or how they think. I can only make decisions for myself so I choose to abstain from the concept and what other people choose to do is on them. I can only be responsible for the decisions and actions I take as a individual. If someone else chooses to be racist then that is their decision. I am not going to start making racist decisions under the presumption that everyone else around me is racist because even if they were (which I doubt it) then how would I be any better then them? I am just sinking to their level and am ultimately the very thing I am attempting to fight against. The only way to solve the issue is just to abstain all together and hope other people choose to follow suit.

Oh sure, if you mean that you treat all races equally and so on. It's just that there are plenty of people who will say things along the lines of "I don't see race" to excuse their dismissal of patterns. "I don't see group X oppressing group Y, I just see people being oppressed, and it's totally a coincidence that I'm in group X" is a common sentiment.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Edit: And reading all the rest, I support your endeavor to not become a social worker. I'd say that's the best course of action for everyone.

Why, exactly?

I get that I may have come across as frustrated and defensive, but the entire reason I am posting here is to listen to people who challenge what I say. I have a point to make, but I'm not stubbornly insisting that people should agree with me. As far as I can tell, the best way for me to come to terms with whatever problems I have as a potential social worker (I'm guess you think these are a propensity to get frustrated and defensive,) are to open myself to new perspectives and try to understand them.

So, do you say that because I'm taking the totally wrong approach to personal improvement, or do you really think I'd only ever make a negative impact in this field?

Based on what you have said so far I'm thoroughly concerned at the prospect of you being in a position of power over vulnerable people when you have demonstrated insensitivity to other people's struggles, and dismissed actual legitimate science based on your own feelings. Anyone can get "defensive" or "frustrated". The issue is why you feel that way, and in this case you have said several things that can easily be seen as sexist and racist.

 

[kenu12345]

Edit: And reading all the rest, I support your endeavor to not become a social worker. I'd say that's the best course of action for everyone.

Why, exactly?

I get that I may have come across as frustrated and defensive, but the entire reason I am posting here is to listen to people who challenge what I say. I have a point to make, but I'm not stubbornly insisting that people should agree with me. As far as I can tell, the best way for me to come to terms with whatever problems I have as a potential social worker (I'm guess you think these are a propensity to get frustrated and defensive,) are to open myself to new perspectives and try to understand them.

So, do you say that because I'm taking the totally wrong approach to personal improvement, or do you really think I'd only ever make a negative impact in this field?

Based on what you have said so far I'm thoroughly concerned at the prospect of you being in a position of power over vulnerable people when you have demonstrated insensitivity to other people's struggles, and dismissed actual legitimate science based on your own feelings. Anyone can get "defensive" or "frustrated". The issue is why you feel that way, and in this case you have said several things that can easily be seen as sexist and racist.

Excuse me but where(QM) I looked at the posts of him responding to you and haven't seen any of what you said and the dude seems rather open. Just give him a chance man. He wants a discussion on the issue meaning that he is is willing to hear it out