5 ms·
We (in the US) live in a culture of white supremacy, where the state has a "monopoly on violence". So it makes sense that any non-white-male would have some kin
by ebcode 8y ago
We (in the US) live in a culture of white supremacy, where the state has a "monopoly on violence". So it makes sense that any non-white-male would have some kind of history, whether individually or as a member of a group, of violent oppression by a member, or members, of the dominant group.
It is unfortunate that the authors seem to be tip-toeing around white supremacy, and instead choose to invent a new term like "victimhood culture" to neatly label what is actually a wide-ranging and diverse counter-cultural movement.
Their stance could almost come across as sympathetic to this movement. Instead, they end with "And finally, it’s important to combat victimhood culture and to deal with the problems it creates ...".
To me this reeks of the same old white privilege and condescension that have led our society to this point. We desperately need to address the dominant culture and the problems it has created and continues to create, the latest of which appears to be this book.
Labeling the dominant culture a "dignity culture" is, at this moment in history, beyond the pale.
- b6 8y ago> We (in the US) live in a culture of white supremacy What does this mean? I was born in and grew up in the US and I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm guessing Obama being president does not throw even some slight wrench into this notion?
- mayniac 8y ago>What does this mean? I was born in and grew up in the US and I have no idea what you're talking about That basically proves his point. If you haven't noticed any discrimination then you're likely in a position of supremacy, whether or not you want to be. Talk to minorities, especially in impoverished neighbourhoods, and ask them how they feel about the police. Most of them will have likely felt discrimination at some point. And that's just the quantifiable stuff, there's far more under the surface that makes minorities feel very, very persecuted. There was a good read on HN about this a few weeks ago [1] which I fully recommend reading, it's eye opening. >I'm guessing Obama being president does not throw even some slight wrench into this notion? Well if Obama threw a wrench in, Trump took it back out. And as much as I admire Obama, after the initial high of America finally having a black president wore off after the first year of his first term, not much happened. Dealing with decades, if not centuries, of institutionalised racism in the US is not an easy task, especially when you have to answer to congress/senate and try and appease Republicans who more often than not stood in the way of Obama's goals.....well you can see why he may not have been the end of discrimination. Interracial marriage only became acceptable to a majority of the population in the late 90s, there's still a massive amount of progress that needs to be made. White supremacy in this context does just mean "whites have an advantage" by the way. Nobody is accusing all white people of being white supremacists. I personally hate the term "all whites are racist" or whatever people say nowadays, it has the same intention but is hugely misleading. [1] https://lithub.com/walking-while-black/ https://lithub.com/walking-while-black/ edit: should've had more coffee this morning. Privilege would be a much better word than supremacy in this context.
- ehvatum 8y agoIt's interesting to consider the result of anti-white stigma in South Africa, a once prosperous nation, and Zimbabwe before it. Why is Botswana quietly and miraculously successful, while nations so deeply steeped in racial group identity politics, possessing the finest farmland in the world, starve?