At what point does trying to stop racism CREATE racism?

[Trunkage]

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.

How they were right or wrong? Other than that seems to be a term that economist wouldn't use, its also not very granular. I mean the Paradox of Thrift seems to not make sense. Any savings could be used by the banks to fund other endeavour and create velocity through the economy. But then you look at the GFC. Many companies have been hording money which should then be useful for the banks as they could lend more but the opposite has happened and its tanking the economy. So I am totally conflicted on this one. And more important how is it right or wrong? As with Hayekian or Monetarists theories, they seem to work most of the time but not all. Also, does disproving the effect of the stimulus or the Paradox of Thrift debunk all of Keynes' ideas? Or shouldn't the increasing government intervention over the last 100 years with mostly positive results prove that Hayek and Mesis is wrong? Or the progress of China in the last 20 years? We can look at things that drive better policy (if such a thing was real), but calling a school of thought right or wrong is not possible as it wouldn't have arisen as an explanation of the economy.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...That's a fairly harmless question. Mainly because it sounds like it's citing shit you've studied in the year (i.e. the Intergenerative Awareness Phase and the White racial identity development parts), and the idea of 'becoming a nonracist White Euro-American' feels less like a claim of 'all whites are racist' and more a claim of identifying as a nonracist white (because you can totally identify as racist or neither) which makes the answer being 'all of the above' not being a strange thing.

So, uhhhh, to the topic question... only in extreme situations that aren't this one?

When black women start yelling at white dudes for having dreadlocks because its cultural appropriation and violence.

Dear god, I remember that video. What are up with those sort of people

I honestly thought it was a prank. Like an April fools day joke from College Humor or maybe the Onion. Something to purposefully trigger anti-SJWs at how extreme she was.

But no. It was real. She - and I'm going to use this term because its a micro-aggression and I know it'd piss her off - manhandled him, even as he tried to walk away.

I just saw this yesterday, ya know I'm a pretty liberal person but there at limits and that is pretty much the exact reason I don't put much stuck in things like cultural appropriation. Cause at a certain point, one is taking issues with things like a persons hair. Who the hell can function like that?

Oh it did piss me off so much that he does the right thing and tries to leave peacefully and she puts her hands on him. Who the fuck she thinks she is, and then she has the nerve to say "don't touch me" fucking people.

Well, I imagine she thinks she's superior, when in reality she's probably an asshole. Assault is always a dick move.

Though, the thing with hair is that... it can be cultural appropriation? Mainly because some cultures do put a lot of stock into certain hair styles, so someone wearing that just because it looks 'cool' is, while not necessarily a 'bad' thing, is a little blunt and is best done when you have actual knowledge/respect the culture the style came from.

Certainly not something to assault someone over, but I can understand people getting frustrated over seeing someone wearing the style without understanding the culture it came from. It's like getting random chinese letters as a tattoo - sure, you might think it's cool, but show it to someone who knows the language and they'll find it pretty weird you got 'Spicy Chicken Noodles' inked across your chest.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

...That's a fairly harmless question. Mainly because it sounds like it's citing shit you've studied in the year (i.e. the Intergenerative Awareness Phase and the White racial identity development parts), and the idea of 'becoming a nonracist White Euro-American' feels less like a claim of 'all whites are racist' and more a claim of identifying as a nonracist white (because you can totally identify as racist or neither) which makes the answer being 'all of the above' not being a strange thing.

So, uhhhh, to the topic question... only in extreme situations that aren't this one?

When black women start yelling at white dudes for having dreadlocks because its cultural appropriation and violence.

Dear god, I remember that video. What are up with those sort of people

I honestly thought it was a prank. Like an April fools day joke from College Humor or maybe the Onion. Something to purposefully trigger anti-SJWs at how extreme she was.

But no. It was real. She - and I'm going to use this term because its a micro-aggression and I know it'd piss her off - manhandled him, even as he tried to walk away.

I just saw this yesterday, ya know I'm a pretty liberal person but there at limits and that is pretty much the exact reason I don't put much stuck in things like cultural appropriation. Cause at a certain point, one is taking issues with things like a persons hair. Who the hell can function like that?

Oh it did piss me off so much that he does the right thing and tries to leave peacefully and she puts her hands on him. Who the fuck she thinks she is, and then she has the nerve to say "don't touch me" fucking people.

Well, I imagine she thinks she's superior, when in reality she's probably an asshole. Assault is always a dick move.

Though, the thing with hair is that... it can be cultural appropriation? Mainly because some cultures do put a lot of stock into certain hair styles, so someone wearing that just because it looks 'cool' is, while not necessarily a 'bad' thing, is a little blunt and is best done when you have actual knowledge/respect the culture the style came from.

Certainly not something to assault someone over, but I can understand people getting frustrated over seeing someone wearing the style without understanding the culture it came from. It's like getting random chinese letters as a tattoo - sure, you might think it's cool, but show it to someone who knows the language and they'll find it pretty weird you got 'Spicy Chicken Noodles' inked across your chest.

Oh I totally completely rationally understand it, and there is a point to be made.

But... I gotta draw a line somewhere, and I really hate to sound like a right wing idiot, but I feel this kinda restrictive of freedom. It's this guys own body, who the fuck is she to have ANY say over what the hell he does with it? She's allowed not to like it, but I take issue with the fact she corners him and demands an explanation.

He's a virtual stranger to her! He owes her nothing!

Maybe I lack a full perspective here. There are valid things to complain about ya know, like white privilege. But this? This seems so fucking petty to me from my perspective. How deeply do you have to give a shit about what another person is wearing that you have to fucking stop them in the hallway and tell them your unsolicited opinion, ya know? Be annoyed at it sure, maybe write a vague tweet or a blog post, but go on with your fucking life.

I'm feeling pretty right of center politically saying that, and that's a pretty good indication that maybe I'm in the wrong... But ya know what I'm trying say. Homegirl is entitled to whatever shes feeling, but homeboy isn't entitled to have to listen to her bullshit. It's like the freaking Goth kids in high school calling a new kid wearing zipper jeans a poser because he never wore it before.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

Oh I totally completely rationally understand it, and there is a point to be made.

But... I gotta draw a line somewhere, and I really hate to sound like a right wing idiot, but I feel this kinda restrictive of freedom. It's this guys own body, who the fuck is she to have ANY say over what the hell he does with it? She's allowed not to like it, but I take issue with the fact she corners him and demands an explanation.

He's a virtual stranger to her! He owes her nothing!

Maybe I lack a full perspective here. There are valid things to complain about ya know, like white privilege. But this? This seems so fucking petty to me from my perspective. How deeply do you have to give a shit about what another person is wearing that you have to fucking stop them in the hallway and tell them your unsolicited opinion, ya know? Be annoyed at it sure, maybe write a vague tweet or a blog post, but go on with your fucking life.

I'm feeling pretty right of center politically saying that, and that's a pretty good indication that maybe I'm in the wrong... But ya know what I'm trying say. Homegirl is entitled to whatever shes feeling, but homeboy isn't entitled to have to listen to her bullshit. It's like the freaking Goth kids in high school calling a new kid wearing zipper jeans a poser because he never wore it before.

Nah, I don't think you're sounding like a right wing idiot or anything here. While Cultural appropriation is an important thing to discuss and teach people about (it's not that dramatic a thing, it's really just going 'hey if you're going to do stuff from another culture, just try and learn stuff about that culture'), it's not something you pull random people up for in the street, or demand they justify it (and again, not something you assault someone over).

There's a time, a place and a method to talk about these kinds of things, and cornering someone to do it (I haven't seen this video, mind you, but I'll take everyone's word for it) isn't really the 'good' option. If it is something to call someone out on, a 'Hey mate' is a better choice than an 'Oi ************!'.

...well, depending on why you're calling someone out, but you get the gist.

 

[Strazdas]

How they were right or wrong? Other than that seems to be a term that economist wouldn't use, its also not very granular. I mean the Paradox of Thrift seems to not make sense. Any savings could be used by the banks to fund other endeavour and create velocity through the economy. But then you look at the GFC. Many companies have been hording money which should then be useful for the banks as they could lend more but the opposite has happened and its tanking the economy. So I am totally conflicted on this one. And more important how is it right or wrong? As with Hayekian or Monetarists theories, they seem to work most of the time but not all. Also, does disproving the effect of the stimulus or the Paradox of Thrift debunk all of Keynes' ideas? Or shouldn't the increasing government intervention over the last 100 years with mostly positive results prove that Hayek and Mesis is wrong? Or the progress of China in the last 20 years? We can look at things that drive better policy (if such a thing was real), but calling a school of thought right or wrong is not possible as it wouldn't have arisen as an explanation of the economy.

I didnt say they were right or wrong, i said students thought they were right or wrong. Theres plenty of that even among the best qualification specialists. For example see the IMF pushing for Smithsonian economics (despite it not working out at all for them) as a world leading example of considering one school to be the right one. Economics are biased as fuck.

 

[Saltyk]

When you start deciding the value of a person's opinion based on their race. "You have no right to talk, you're [insert race here]."

It's fine to see race. It's not fine to judge people, or their opinions, for their race.

 

[mduncan50]

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.

I think maybe you need to crack open a book if you want to pass this class because you are completely not understanding the identity development models that you are trying to learn about, or you are purposefully trying to obfuscate what the intent is of the material you are learning.

I'm not going to go into heavy depth on this (do your own homework) but the Integrative Awareness Stage of the Racial/Cultural Identity Model is the final step in which one is able to be comfortable and understanding of one's own race/culture as well as those of different people, and have the ability to analyze the pros and cons of all cultures without considering one superior to any other, and completely unaccepting of any and all forms of oppression.

One of the of fundamentals of this model is that there is are differences in the paths traveled to reach that stage, and the end goals of the stage itself based on whether one is a member of the majority or minority in that society, which is why a Caucasian example was singled out in the question since you are speaking about the United States where that is the societal majority.

At no time did anyone say that people are more racist or unethical because they are white, so if that's what you read then that is your issue to deal with, and again, could have been avoided if you had just done the homework.

 

[Kameburger]

No matter what anyone tells you, you're not born racist and by default being white doesn't make you racist. I think to your topic sentence, when you back someone into a corner and make them defensive of something they have no control over about themselves that's how people develop the kinds of resentment that lead to racism. If that sounds kinda like it could be applied to both sides, that's because it can. But here's the thing. This is the internet. People are defined by the words they type, but the sum of all these words we type doesn't determine who we are.

I know I'm not a racist, and I'll continue to treat everyone with respect that I can. I know there are advantages to being white, but there are disadvantages as well. If I decide to dwell on either of those things I'm going to lose confidence. The truth is that we don't have to accept this narrative, that we're inherently sinful. Just try to be a good human being, then go out and actually be one, and you won't have any doubts.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I know I'm not a racist

How do you know this? Surely the vast majority of racist people think they aren't racist?

Now, I'm not saying that you are racist, it's just that assuming that you aren't seem to be a requirement to be so.

 

[MeatMachine]

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.

The primary reason I disagree with your concerns is that I've demonstrated an eagerness to learn.

Assuming your point that the Integrated Awareness Phase of White Social Identity Development is scientific and credible, I'm merely in the early stages of adopting a healthier societal attitude and awareness. If I'm not there yet, than isn't openly struggling to comprehend it at least a respectable sign of progress? According to that very model, I am consciously, willfully working these things out for myself.

Assuming my point that the Integrated Awareness Phase of White Social Identity Development is flawed, overgeneralized, or otherwise worthy of reconsideration or review, isn't this what academic-minded people are supposed to do to better understand the world they live in? Use critical thinking, and sincerely open themselves up to the positions of others, so that they can both challenge AND be challenged? It would be easy for me to simply dismiss all of this because it feels uncomfortable and rewarding, thus perpetrating the problem of whites being unconcerned or twisting the arguments of others; no one should simply accept things as universal truths without giving it some thought, so why would it be reasonable to argue that one should purge themselves of their entire existing worldview and supplant it with another?

I want to make it clear that I am only a sophomore in college, and not a licensed, practicing social worker. I am not there yet - I don't even have client-services experience under my belt. I know full-well the difference between being a student and a professional worker, and can differentiate the appropriateness between challenging ideas presented to me by educators and peers in a classroom, and challenging the validity of the beliefs and experiences of vulnerable clients who I am responsible for helping to the best of my abilities: if that delineation I claim to have isn't demonstrated in this thread, it is because everyone here is more like a peer, and not at all client who's livelihood rests on my actions or beliefs. Can you make that distinction, or do you agree or disagree as to whether that distinction is accurate?

As far as your point about showing insensitivity towards the struggle of others, and exhibiting subjective racist and sexist statements... these are messy and uncomfortable topics for everyone. As I said before, I am an inexperienced student, and it's completely natural for students of these fields to struggle with these concepts in constructive ways when they see something as a gendered, racial, or other kind of demographic slant. The only way to break out of this mentality is to make sense of it and understand it, and give yourself a sincere chance to listen to the people that aren't effected by it the way you are. This is why I posted this here - I've got an instructor with a busy schedule, and about 7 other students who aren't nearly as invested or interested in challenging themselves in this way as I am. The internet gives me a large pool of diverse perspectives to draw from... so if I said something sexist or racist, yeah, I probably did. That's what we do in order to learn WHY they are sexist and racist, and understand HOW those things can be changed or overcome.

In other words, thank you for not patting me on the back and saying I am doing fine - your feedback sincerely helps me to improve, even if I don't agree with every notion and rationality you suggest.

 

[Nemmerle]

I know I'm not a racist

How do you know this? Surely the vast majority of racist people think they aren't racist?

Now, I'm not saying that you are racist, it's just that assuming that you aren't seem to be a requirement to be so.

That seems like an easy out, at least for anyone whose definition of racism is even slightly different

 

[mduncan50]

I know I'm not a racist

How do you know this? Surely the vast majority of racist people think they aren't racist?

Now, I'm not saying that you are racist, it's just that assuming that you aren't seem to be a requirement to be so.

I've got to disagree with that. Sure, there are lots of people that probably have racist thoughts or beliefs and believe they are not racist (actually we all have out own built in biases that we have to try to be aware of), but the straight up racists know they are racist. I'm sure a lot of them will claim not to be racist in order to try to convince others of their righteousness, but you don't want to build a wall to keep out your equals. You don't put on a white hood to lynch black people, send Jews to gas chambers, or fly a plane into a building to kill as many Americans as possible, without tacitly knowing that you believe "your" people to be better than "them".

 

[Lacedaemonius]

I know I'm not a racist

How do you know this? Surely the vast majority of racist people think they aren't racist?

Now, I'm not saying that you are racist, it's just that assuming that you aren't seem to be a requirement to be so.

I've got to disagree with that. Sure, there are lots of people that probably have racist thoughts or beliefs and believe they are not racist (actually we all have out own built in biases that we have to try to be aware of), but the straight up racists know they are racist. I'm sure a lot of them will claim not to be racist in order to try to convince others of their righteousness, but you don't want to build a wall to keep out your equals. You don't put on a white hood to lynch black people, send Jews to gas chambers, or fly a plane into a building to kill as many Americans as possible, without tacitly knowing that you believe "your" people to be better than "them".

...And you think that those people believe they're "Racist"? They just believe that they're "Right". Everyone is the hero of their own story.

 

[mduncan50]

...And you think that those people believe they're "Racist"? They just believe that they're "Right". Everyone is the hero of their own story.

Oh absolutely they are convinced that they are right, but whether or not they would accept the title (and many would proudly) they are well aware that their thoughts and actions are based on the race of an individual.

 

[mduncan50]

...And you think that those people believe they're "Racist"? They just believe that they're "Right". Everyone is the hero of their own story.

I disagree; I'm just a traumatic event in someone else's story.

If you want you can be an NPC in mine. Do you happen to have any quests that need doing?

 

[MeatMachine]

I think maybe you need to crack open a book if you want to pass this class because you are completely not understanding the identity development models that you are trying to learn about, or you are purposefully trying to obfuscate what the intent is of the material you are learning.

I'm not going to go into heavy depth on this (do your own homework) but the Integrative Awareness Stage of the Racial/Cultural Identity Model is the final step in which one is able to be comfortable and understanding of one's own race/culture as well as those of different people, and have the ability to analyze the pros and cons of all cultures without considering one superior to any other, and completely unaccepting of any and all forms of oppression.

One of the of fundamentals of this model is that there is are differences in the paths traveled to reach that stage, and the end goals of the stage itself based on whether one is a member of the majority or minority in that society, which is why a Caucasian example was singled out in the question since you are speaking about the United States where that is the societal majority.

At no time did anyone say that people are more racist or unethical because they are white, so if that's what you read then that is your issue to deal with, and again, could have been avoided if you had just done the homework.

Ethnocentricism and the compartmentalization of culture and cultural values do protect whites from having to confront the intrinsically-stacked systems of preference; The United States is predominantly white, and it clearly reflects whiteness as "default" - mass media, for example, often centers its themes around white characters within broader white culture, and introduces atypical side characters (as protagonists or antagonist, matters little what their role is) who don't quite fit in as the device both to stir up the plot AND as a means of deflecting criticism that the program is still fundamentally focused on a white perspective.

Taking this a few steps further (and into real life), whenever this whiteness default begins to shift, or the status quo is challenged, whites naturally see it as an unnecessary change in an otherwise balanced state - a state that works perfectly fine for them, and doesn't work so well for others because they refuse to adequately integrate. Whites are not economically as stratified as minorities, for example, and are more likely to cite personal shortcomings as causes for lack of success; poor work ethic, or unwillingness to self-sacrifice is often seen by them as the primary reasons why people stay in their respective class or social environment; other factors that include racial or sexual barriers, which are not as easily demonstrable or universally applicable, are viewed as excuses because they are rarely faced by those who are members of the "default" population.

This is where white social workers must fundamentally understand that white culture is dominant across most of the United States, and must be capable of overcoming their encapsulated prejudices to understand the more intricate issues of "outsiderness" minorities can and often face that whites, even if they were in an identical situation, would not have to contend with.

-

I guess one of the things I didn't consider when making this thread is drawing a distinction between my personal and professional life, and how certain social work concepts don't quite transition perfectly into different environments. I perfectly get why you think I didn't do my homework and research - my original post did a pretty shitty job reflecting that I am a sincerely-driven social work major, rather than a simple-minded forum user with a reactive opinion and no background in the field.

Looking back now, it's clear to me that the only reason I felt as much frustration as I did about the midterm question is because I was taking the midterm exam at home, on a Sunday night, after hours of just browsing Netflix and riding my bike; not in my classroom, a professional environment, where my surroundings remind me to distance myself from my own worldview. Believe it or not, I am capable of overcoming my cultural encapsulation, and strive to do so as much as I can - when daily life kicks in for over 48 hours and my profession is not on my mind at all, it's hard to remember to distance myself from my reactive thinking. Being capable of doing this often is a skill, and like all skills, it takes a lot of practice to get good at.

In fact, it is for everyone, which is the whole point of identity development. People live in their social bubbles, and whites are particularly more comfortable in theirs due to the prevailing dominance of white culture. I still don't believe that a preference for this (conscious or not) make them "racist", even if it continues to perpetuates privilege; but for someone striving to become a competent social worker, I need to improve on my ability of having the foresight of remembering these things and keeping them easily accessible in my mind, even when I'm not currently immersed in the professional environment that rekindles my insight about them.

I think the last two paragraphs are more or less what intelligent people mean when they say "check your privilege."

Oh, and one last thing: intuitively, I struggle with some of these concepts, and believe it or not, trying to work through them in my classroom just derails the instructor and irritates my peers. This is one reason why I posted my frustrations here: on the internet, I know I can rely on people who are more than eager to freely, uninhibitedly call me out on what I don't know, and why I don't know it. So thank you - I daresay the feedback I'm receiving in this thread is helping me process what I'm learning more than my actual undergraduate classes are.

 

[mduncan50]

In fact, it is for everyone, which is the whole point of identity development. People live in their social bubbles, and whites are particularly more comfortable in theirs due to the prevailing dominance of white culture. I still don't believe that a preference for this (conscious or not) make them "racist", even if it continues to perpetuates privilege; but for someone striving to become a competent social worker, I need to improve on my ability of having the foresight of remembering these things and keeping them easily accessible in my mind, even when I'm not currently immersed in the professional environment that rekindles my insight about these things.

That last sentence is what intelligent people mean when they say "check your privilege."

While I would agree with you that the people in the better "social bubbles" of a society (and I'm not saying just whites, because it depends on where you're talking about) being very comfortable in those bubbles does not make them racist, where we tend to see increases in racism is when their dominance in culture begins to ebb, and those people try to prevent this from happening. This is why we've seen such a rise in racism towards Latinos over the past few decades, as they have become a larger segment of the American population. They are magically able to both steal all of our jobs and sit on their butts all day collecting welfare, all while refusing to learn how to "speak American".

And for the record, I think my own post came off harsher than I meant it to, as I meant it more in a teasing manner. I respect the fact that you are willing and able to see that you may have erred in your thinking, and even more that you actually work to improve your thought process in the future. I never believed you to be racist since, unfortunately, becoming a social worker means that you will be helping an inordinate proportion of minorities, which I'm sure you were aware of. It is a noble calling and I wish you well in it. Just make sure you do your homework.