comment 0

Racism without Racists: Colour-Blind Racism

I did a search and found Racism without Racists.

In practice, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva sees race colour blindness different.

Race Blind_2nd definition

He believes that race colour blindness is another form of racism:

Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America

Here’s his analysis:

Four frames of colour-blind ideology to examine current racial issues in the US:

1) abstract liberalism
2) naturalization of personal preferences
3) cultural racism
4) minimization

Abstract liberalism

Abstract Liberalism

The ethnic majority (before 2043: White people) see every racial group gaining equal access to education, housing, and employment.

Racism is now an individual act of interpersonal racism.

The largest ethnic group uses abstract liberalism to emphasize the concept of how people of colour should work hard to reach their goal without special support, such as Affirmative Action programs.

Naturalization of personal preferences

Naturalization of preferences

The largest ethnic demographic tends to justify racial inequalities as if they were natural occurrences. Or the largest demographic claims that “preferences” — like choosing to not go to an All White School, but instead attending a school that has peers who are ethnically like you — are natural, and result from a normal social process.

Cultural racism

Cultural racism.jpg

The dominant ethnic group often denounces Indigenous people, or Black Americans, for failure because they did not make the right choice to adapt to the culture of the dominant demographic.

Minimization

Minimization

The dominant demographic (White people) perceive that racism is no longer pervasive after the struggles of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. So today, ethnic minorities are considered “hypersensitive” and “too race conscious.”

comment 0

Race Blind & White Privilege: White Privilege today is no longer a privilege

Here’s the rub:

A few or many White people (those who identity as non-Hispanic White), have been raised by their Baby Boomer parents to be race blind.

Race Blind

Race Blind is supposed to work just fine in theory.

It was promised to re-educate White people to first look at a person as a human being and to avoid first looking at a person’s race, which was to avoid evaluating them by their ethnicity.

Race Blind_2nd definition

I was taught to be race blind by my Baby Boomer parents.

Here’s why:

Social psychological research done in the 1980s and early 1990s generally supported
the view that drawing attention to race in any way would automatically result in
stereotyping and that such stereotyping would invariably lead to prejudice and discrimination.
Many social psychologists therefore concluded that it would be best to
divert attention away from race and toward individual characteristics or higher-level
categories such as humanity. (The Dangers of Not Speaking About Race, KIRWAN INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF RACE AND ETHNICITY | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY)

Of course, my parents meant well, and I can’t be cruel with ridiculous high expectations that they should have not taught me to be race blind.

They were doing what academics, education professionals were highly recommending during the 1980s.

Seriously, the lesson here is to be skeptical, and also be cautious of any professional who highly recommends that their research is a best practice.

Anyway, another example of education professionals being wrong would be found within the public schools — during the 1980s & 90s in Canada & the U.S. — where the principals and teachers highly recommended Ritalin.

Example:

Parents should be aware that these medicines do not ‘drug’ or ‘alter’ the brain of the child. They make the child ‘normal.’ ” (The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder, New York Times)

The principal or teacher read the above from the Novartis pharmaceutical company brochure directly to any parent. At the time, during the 1990s, Novartis was known as Ciba-Geigy.

Education professionals highly recommended during the 80s & 90s that kids who couldn’t sit for more than 2 minutes, or who were Autistic, fidgety, or who had high energy had to take Ritalin because Ritalin was the solution to the problems those kids had.

Yeah right. Those academics with their education credentials really knew what they were talking about. They didn’t.

In the 2000s and 2010s, the adults who were the kids that were prescribed Ritalin just to be allowed to still attend a public school have sued by class action law suits. And good for them for doing that.

Thankfully, my own parents didn’t believe that my brother should have taken Ritalin.

The teachers at the Canmore Lawrence Grassi & Elizabeth Rummel elementary schools pushed Ritalin during the 1980s and 1990s.

My parents were debated with during Parent/Teacher meetings to give Ritalin to my brother.

My parents repeatedly said: “No. How Ritalin actually works is not known. It’s also an anti-psychotic. We won’t give our son a drug that’s not fully understood.” And good for them for saying “No“.

Anyway, Race colour blindness was supposed to work in reality and Ritalin was believed to be a “best practice” to manage kids who were fidgety. But neither was the best solution to the social problems they were addressing

So what to do right now in 2017 and in the future?

So what to do

I’m cautious of anyone believing that the change they’re doing is the “best practice,” the best “evidence-based” practice, and is the one solution that fixes everything.

There is no such school of thought, social psychological approach, social engineering, or re-education that is the best practice.

So what to do?

A strategy done in 2017 would be thought as the best change to do.

But in 2037, people would perceive the problems that were unintentionally created while this strategy addressed the original problems of 2017.

Well, I would say to any White person (who self identifies as White), to not denigrate their own race while trying to disavow themselves of their White privilege.

Do not denigrate your race

I get really disturbed when I see Millennial White students at universities and colleges who swarm, as a mob, a White male teacher to shout at him that he’s a racist according to what these Millennials have as their beliefs about White privilege.

Bret Weinstein was swarmed by a mob of social justice warrior students, and was literally cornered on Evergreen State College campus and yelled at with bully tactics.

Shout Down

Anyway, when you (as a White person) are dropping your White privilege, can you also ask what White privilege does a White, male, child have right now?

The White male child, in 2017 (and in the future) doesn’t have a privilege over White female children, Asian male children, Asian female children, Indian Asian male & female children, Black American male & female children, Native or Indigenous male & female children, and the list goes on.

I have a son: He’s visibly White, he’s a biological male & his gender is visibly seen as male.

My son is three right now, and I know he doesn’t have White privilege.

I can’t be debated and bullshitted that he has White privilege.

He doesn’t have White privilege in 2017, and he won’t have White privilege in 2027, 2037, etc.

So White privilege is rapidly declining.

White privilege first declined for White male children.

The thing to do is:

If you identify as a non-Hispanic White person, then try to ask the really hard questions of how a non-Hispanic White person should feel self-respect, or be successful, as a person of an ethnic minority when it’s visibly apparent that the White community is an ethnic minority.

What White people can ask when they-re an ethnic minority

comment 0

White Identity: Defining that identity as the identity of an ethnic minority

People of colour have perceived visibly White people (who self identify as White) as unaware of what it means to be White, of what being White has promised in terms of status, access to opportunities, and jobs that are sustaining and secure.

The perception by people of colour of White people being unaware of their White Privilege is damning. People of colour are usually the people who identify as Black American, Chinese American, Indian Asian American, etc.

White Privilege because of ethnic majority

People who are Asian, who are First Nations, or Black American can see White people as being unaware because they (as people of colour) have had to be daily aware of their own ethnicity and what status, opportunities, jobs that are secure, could actually be available to them where they live.

But White people have to become aware today and tomorrow.

The people who identify as White are becoming an ethnic minority in the United States. Same holds true for Canada.

Any person who identifies their race as White has to now define the meaning of their identity across North America in terms of a minority.

So here’s the challenge:

Can the communal identity of the White demographic — the personal values, the culture, and all the stuff that makes ‘visible’ your ethnicity to other races of people — be adapted and still function when it’s a minority identity?

That’s the rub.

The question must be answered on how to be a successful ethnic minority in the country that you live in.

White people are going to have to pay attention to the stories of immigrant success and of a minority’s resilience.

The strategies presented in these stories have to be learned from.

What did the Black American woman do to actually get access to decent education (elementary, high school, post secondary) for her son?

How did this mom get access to the school that was the right institution that would set up her son for success?

How did the son avoid becoming despaired because other guys of his race have repeatedly met the wrong people, had met the bias of the current social climate found within institutions, which barred them enrollment, promotion and accolades by news & social media?

I need these questions answered.

comment 0

Slavery in the U.S., to systemic racism …to what else?

Earlier I wondered where institutional or systemic racism first began in human civilization.


Slavery in the United States was the culprit that germinated systemic racism within it.

However, the United States, is currently the only country on known record where systemic racism directly resulted from institutional slavery.

I say, “on record,” because this modern history is what is currently known while ancient records are few and there are some records that can still be found by archeology.

Anyway, the institutional or systemic slavery that was done in the United States was like ancient slavery, but differed because the slaves’ ethnicity was visually different from the people who traded and bought them.

Differences:

  • Slave (1st generation forced to migrate): Black African, many different tribes & each tribe or related tribes spoke their own language
  • Slave owner (in the United States): European, White, British, spoke English

The stark visual difference was Black and White.

Black Skin colour, hair, shape of nose versus White Skin colour, hair, shape of nose.

That’s sad really.

The European ancestors who settled the British thirteen colonies that became the United States shouldn’t have bought and used slaves to work without their freedom.

These White people of early modern history shouldn’t have done this tragedy.

But they did, and the people of today (their descendants & the descendants of African Americans) experience the fallout.

Systemic racism against Black Americans has been a painful process, since the 1960s, of dropping segregation and dropping inequal access to services and resources.

But I don’t know if race relations in the United States can evolve.

I don’t know if Black & White Americans can move on.

Can Black Americans move on from rehashing past events of slavery and segregation that their ancestors lived and then changed by their resistance?

Could Black Americans live today (2017) and tomorrow without revisiting, again and again, the feelings and the fights that their predecessors did? These predecessors are passed on.

Or I’m asking is more time needed?

Or can the few or many Black Americans no longer rehash the slavery and segregation that was done and not live their life according to that history?

Can they try to move past perceiving White people as a monolith and as a bad monolith?

I’m talking about living Malcom X’s feelings and life again & again.

Is it possible to not rehash and live past resentments, grievances, anger, and historical altercations?

How can you live a life that is your own and not a reanimated life of someone else?

Is honouring history really “ancestor worship” that you have to do again and again, and again do the fights of the past?

Do you have to live a past life to fix the problems you live today and tomorrow?

Some people do. I get that.

However, I feel worried when a whole community hasn’t moved on from viewing the descendants of their oppressors as a monolith, and still as a problem to them.

I personally am not racist. I also can’t be guilty for what someone of my race did before I was born. I can only be responsible for what I do and don’t do.

I also can’t hate and be ashamed of my race because I would become self-loathing and ashamed.

I can’t take in and internalize the resentment & anger felt by many or a few African Americans because if I did, I would feel I’m guilty.

I would feel I’m at fault, born wrong, and can’t do one thing right, because I would feel those feelings as my own.

comment 0

How Racist Are You?

I write this blog without explicitly putting into words what my ethnicity or race is. I also haven’t published what my gender or biological sex is.

You can probably make a guess what my race and gender are by reading my personal experiences.

Anyway, I came across this name: Jane Elliott.

I then had to read about that name.

Jane Elliott is White American (European descent), and is the “White” stereotype that’s found in the United States.

This lady is as White as White can be defined as a Caucasian living in the United States.

I will categorize Jane Elliott by a racist framework. Racist would mean by the framework of institutional racism.

Genographic Criteria of Jane Elliott (with a bit of Sexism included):

Jane Elliott

  1. White or European descent. Natural born to Iowa, United States.
  2. Birthplace: Riceville, Iowa.
  3. Sex: Biological female
  4. Community: Rural, White, American.
  5. Riceville Census:
    • 1930: 807 people
    • 2016: 806 people

In sum: White, Rural, Female.

White-Rural-Female

So, a White Female from a rural American farming community (that being an All White Community, with a 2.2% Hispanic presence) is qualified for what?

Institutional Racism allows or bars access to education (like university, college programs), to certification (like a medical license), and to a variety of services (like government funding for an education, services for your children, funding for your health care, etc.).

The above listed genographic criteria of Jane Elliott bars her access to certification, which would be Anti-racist Diversity Training.

Jane Elliott is self-appointed.

Self-Appointed

She started her mission of racism re-education in 1968, and did her first experiment on 8 & 9 year olds because she was a Grade 3 teacher in Riceville and those kids were a “captive” audience.

But in the 2010s, she would be shut down & shut out because of her being White.

White-Rural-American

How can a White Woman be qualified to be the spokeswoman, the consultant to re-educate White People on the institutional racism that Black people experience in the United States?

If I’m going to listen to Jane Elliott by the framework of institutional racism — which historically means White people being privileged, by institutions, over Black people — then she fails because her race is White.

I can’t let this lady be in authority, have power, and let her Blue Eye/Brown Eye experiment re-educate me.

Jane Elliott is not qualified to accuse her White peers because institutional racism in the United States was established as the institutions that were built by European settlers that privileged White people over Black people up until the 1960s.

Jane Elliott is White, she hails from Iowa. She’s drenched in her White Privilege.

White Privilege

A woman enjoying White Privilege who names all White People criminally racist is not a qualified representative of Black experiences of discrimination and experiences of Blackness in the United States.

Also the census of Riceville hasn’t changed much.

Jane Elliott was born in 1933.

Riceville had 807 people in 1930. In 2016, Riceville has 806 people.

 

She’s White, was born & raised in White Rural America, and she’s a White Female.

 

White Female

So in the 2010s, Jane Elliott as a White female, would be barred entry into let’s say BEYOND QUEER POLITICS: 35 YEARS OF WOMEN’S ACTIVISM AT THE INTERSECTIONS (Pride Toronto newsletter, Tuesday May 3, 2016) because of her genographic criteria.

She would be asked by Debbie Douglas (Dear White People, Please Stop Pretending Reverse Racism Is Real) to sit at the back of the room because she’s White, a biological female, heterosexual and not a transgender woman.

People like Jane Elliott clearly appear to me as a person sitting on a tree branch who’s cutting the branch she’s sitting on.

That person will fall fast, hard, and will break their bones at odd angles when the branch they’re sitting on falls.

Self-Defeating

What I mean is:

Belittling, blaming, only targeting your race for re-education because what their ancestors did also hurts you.

Should people of today segregate themselves, and fight the same fight, feel the same resentment according to the history of their ancestors’ experiences and own fights?

Isn’t reliving history of racist segregation again & again — which is White segregating Black before the 1960s in the U.S., Black segregating White in the 2010s across North America — a problem?

In the school setting, doing the same problem again & again is called not learning.

The teacher would be concerned and have parent/teacher meetings about remedial tutoring.

Anyway, naming your race as Bigoted, Ignorant, the one race on the planet Earth who ever was and currently is institutionally racist is a lie.

It’s self-harming when the lie is a dogma that you rely on to accuse and call your own race criminal.

Dogma

 

Institutional Racism was invented first as Slavery, but not as slavery of Black people by White people in the United States.

Institutional Slavery

 

 

Institutional Racism as institutional slavery hails to the Romans, the Greeks, the Israelites (the paleo Hebrew people), the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Persians, and the list goes on.

The Romans considered the Indigenous White people living in Britain, Scotland, France, Spain, different races. And the Romans enslaved those Indigenous people whenever the Romans could.

So, Institutional Slavery (which created institutional racism), was invented by many races of people on the planet Earth.

The ancient, chiseled in cuneiform on stone, laws of Hammurabi, are proof that systemic racism as created by systemic slavery was alive and well in the area of Iraq thousands of years ago.

Example:

16. “If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.”

Anyway, don’t feel guilt & shame for what the ancestors of your race did to another race. Right now feel self-respect, and do to other people what you want done to yourself.

Respecting yourself (which includes your race) and being respectful of a variety of human beings is probably better than being Jane Elliott.

Don’t take Jane Elliott’s shit.

I-Reject-Your-Reality

comment 0

Introduction to the Idea of God

I, honestly, wish I had this guy as a teacher at the universities and the colleges I went to:

Dr. Jordan Peterson

Or did you ever get amazed by what a teacher was saying?

You got interested and then amazed by a professor because his lecture (and the following discussion) were the questions and, maybe, the few answers on a subject that you have been wondering about for many years?

Or maybe what you believe in — the ideas that you believe in (ideology) — are discussed as questions and, maybe, as a few answers by that professor.

Anyway, Dr. Jordan Peterson has made videos of his Biblical Series lectures.

Now if you’re a person who avoids or dismisses any helpful discussion about the Bible — its stories, laws, ethics, and the thousands of years history complied in it — then you can try to reconsider if you want to hear Dr. Jordan Peterson discuss Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Jung, and so on, during his Biblical Series.

Friedrich Nietzsche was cherry-picked for his statement of “God Is Dead“.

That statement, according to Dr. Peterson’s own understanding, was simply made by Nietzsche to articulate his observation of the disruption of Western nations traditional religion (Christianity) and cultural belief (which had basis in Christianity) by rationality and science.

That also, “In the aftermath of God’s death, he believed humanity, would become entranced, even possessed, by utopian political ideas, such as those of Karl Marx. Nietzsche believed that such possession would kill millions in the twentieth century, as it did.” (Dr. Jordan Peterson on Patreon)

Another way put:

God-is-dead

The idea that “God Is Dead” isn’t that atheism is 100% true, but because “the belief in the Christian God has become unbelievable”, everything that was “built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it”, including “the whole of our European morality”, is destined for “collapse”.

The results of no belief in the God of Judaism and Christianity meant that many people would feel existential anxiety, depression and also nihilism in Western countries.

Nihilism

Whole nations of people, during the 20th century, would war with one another because of their country’s attempt to replace the rejected religion — the culture that was based on that religion — with utopian political ideas. Governments would also kill their own citizens.

The 20th century wars in Europe — the Great War, the Second World War — all happened because of that existential angst and attempts to have utopian political beliefs as the new religion and culture.

The 20th century genocide or political murders done in Asia (such as Cambodia, China) also happened because of attempts to have utopian political beliefs as the new religion and culture of society.

The God of Judaism and Christianity was, of course, not the religion and culture of Cambodia or China.

The political ideas of Karl Marx & Vladimir Lenin were, instead, imported by the Chinese and Cambodians in their attempts to make their societies equal or modern with the technology invented & used by Western nations. China also would no longer harbour a British colony (excluding Hong Kong until 1997), and Cambodia would no longer be a French territory.

Many Chinese intellectuals were attracted by Marxism. Those active in the May 4th Movement, as well as others outside it, saw socialism as a means of preventing the conflicts caused by capitalism — particularly because at a time of great ambivalence toward the West, Marxism could be seen as a western “ism” that could be used against the West. (University of Kansas, Anna M. Cienciala, History 557: “The Communist Nations Since 1917”, Lecture Notes)

Anyway, Dr. Jordan Peterson talks about the, “Introduction to the Idea of God“.

He wonders why the stories, the history, the laws or ethics of the Bible were preserved and still are preserved.

The stories of the Bible, or from the Hebrew Torah & Talmud, were complied by generations of people during thousands of years.

What’s so important about these stories?

Probably because the truth, or the facts, about the natural world (or reality), as well as truths about the reality of the spirit or the supernatural world is what makes people interested in transmitting those stories, and to make them endure.

Also when stories (like those from the Bible) are rejected, then angst, anxiety, depression, nihilism about existence are people’s experiences, and also war is done by nations because of political ideology.

War was always done. It certainly has been done by the religions of Judaism and Christianity.

War has been done by Muslims.

However, the wars in the 20th century have been the most chaotic, disruptive & destructive because of Nazis or Marxist political ideology, and also because of the technology invented & used by Western nations.

comment 0

Institutional Sexism

Institutional sexism historically and also presently in any society, across our planet Earth, was and still is often done by men towards women.

Historic Institutional Sexism

The ethnicity of the woman probably was often an insignificant factor until European men explored and settled present day United States & Canada with their counterpart women.

The European women who settled North America were born into and often accepted their counterpart’s patriarchy (because why not when you don’t know different?).

Patriarchy

White or Caucasian women were usually complicit or accepted patriarchy as the natural form of society, or the way things should be.

However, interpersonal sexism was and is still done by any person or group toward a woman or a man because of their perceived sex or gender.

Interpersonal-Sexism

With that said, in Canada, sexist behaviour has been done by women to men, and men to women.

I can name a straight forward example:

I was in sitting in the classroom of Grade 12 Social Studies at Lockerby Composite Highschool in Sudbury, Ontario, and class was in session.

I witnessed any guy in that classroom immediately getting shouted down or told he was, for certain, wrong by one or a few girls whenever that guy tried to speak his opinion about sexism and how sexism could be directed from women against men.

Interpersonal sexist behaviour is the above personal story.

Shout Down

The few girls who debated the guy who tried to speak his opinion, didn’t first reply with yelling, but they got more annoyed (because the guy was disagreeing), and it was then that they started raising their volume as they rebutted that guy.

 

Anyway, being blind toward your own unconscious bias and also in denial about your sexist behaviour towards men still makes you sexist.

Unconscious Bias

My next question would be, “Are men allowed to enroll in Women’s Studies at universities and colleges?“.

The answer is mostly ‘yes’.

Mostly ‘yes’” because I don’t know if all universities and colleges across North America systemically allow and advertise to guys for them to attend Women’s Studies classes.

Are-Guys-Allowed-To-Attend-Womens-Studies

If guys were forbidden from enrolling in Women’s Studies classes at universities & colleges, then that would be systemic sexism:

Systemic Sexism

 

 

comments 2

Institutional Racism

Institutional racism historically in North America was often done by White or European colonists toward Indigenous and Black people.

Institutional Racism

An example of institutional racism done by the White colonial Canadian government would be the residential schools and the federal laws that compelled and forced Indigenous people to send their children to those schools.

However, interpersonal racism was and is still done by any person, community, and by any ethnic group toward a person with a differently outward appearing race.

Interpersonal-Racism

With that said, in Canada, racist behaviour has been done by anyone of whatever race to anyone else of any visible differing race.

I can name a straight forward example:

I was in the parking lot that’s behind the Allin Clinic in downtown Edmonton, Alberta, and I was trying to pay for parking my car.

I was approached and asked for coined money (you know, change) by an Indigenous lady.

I said ‘No’ because 1) I actually had no coins, and 2) I don’t give money when asked in the parking lot and on any street in downtown Edmonton.

Across the parking lot, and on the sidewalk, an Indigenous man then yelled at me, saying, “This is her land, you stole this land from her. You don’t give her any money, but you stole this land from her.”

That man targeted me for my perceived race (European descent), and then made an interpersonal racist accusation against me because of my perceived ethnicity.

Interpersonal racist behaviour is the above personal story.

It’s done by Indigenous, Black and White Canadians to each other simply because, well, it’s what humans do to each other whenever humans want to be an “us” versus a “them”.

Anyway, in the 2010s, there have been several Indo-Canadian (South Asians) and Black Canadian students at the University of Toronto, Ryerson University, or working in the GTA of Toronto, who publicly insist that they cannot be racist towards White students.

White-People-Stop-Pretending-Reverse-Racism-Is-Real-01

 

White-People-Stop-Pretending-Reverse-Racism-Is-Real-02

But being blind toward your own unconscious bias and also in denial about your sectarian and segregated behaviour towards people of a light or White skin colour still makes you racist.

I like South Asians. I never avoid them. And why would I? I would be racist if I did.

Also, while at a university or college campus, I had never asked for a safe space and for public meetings to be created exclusively for visibly White or Caucasian students. If I did that I would be viewed by the students of colour as racist.

However, in the 2010s, there have been several Indo-Canadian students and Black students who believe and have repeatedly publicly insisted that perceptibly White students should be excluded from their safe spaces, and also from their public meetings simply because the White students are assumed to have never experienced racism, which is either interpersonal racism or systemic institutional racism.

White students have never been racialized.

Yeah right. My one personal story (and there is more) isn’t an experience of racism?

It’s not an experience of being racialized?

It’s only an experience of interpersonal racism?

Interpersonal racism is not racism when compared to institutional racism?

This interpersonal racism should be dismissed?

For certain, my interpersonal experience wasn’t an experience of systemic racism historically experienced by Indigenous, Black, South Asia and Asian Canadians.

Systemic Racism

I know it was never an experience of systemic racism.

But then again…

 

Black-Liberation-Collective_U-of-T-Demands

What’s the harmful irony?

The chapter of the Black Liberation Collective at the U of T wants systemic racism in place at the university, as free education, but to serve Indo-Canadian & Black students while excluding White students.

Another way put:

Implement systemic racism at a Canadian university and make it systemically favour students of colour by the opportunity of free post-secondary education for only them.

comment 0

Microaggression or Am I Projecting?

I’m surprised that students on university and college campuses in the 2010s, primarily in the United States, are actually demanding segregation. This would be segregated safe spaces.

Segregated-Safe-Space

The administration of the universities and colleges have the firmness of a wet noodle, and always quickly agree to the students’ demands.

I’m cautious of these American institution’s submission to the social justice students’ demands.

The students themselves know and state that they are the next generation that will be the university & college administration.

They will be the adults creating “Black & Brown” race-centered & queer-centered policies, and they will be the new Management, the Professors, and will be in HR. In short, they are the future leaders in institutions.

Now, it’s the Black & Brown Coalition at New York University that’s saying “Black & Brown” students.

It’s also funny that anyone who doesn’t identify with the Black Liberation Collective and the Collective also won’t identify that person as a member, the Collective would accuse that person as being racist for saying Black & Brown.

It’s a dangerous funny.

But comics like Russell Peters are the foil to people like the Black & Brown Coalition who make their race a superior moral priority to other social priorities in their society.

In my everyday life, I am race aware (not race blind), and have always been interested in people’s ethnicity, the country they came from (or if they were born in Canada), interested in their history from their country, their language, and their current experience while living in Canada. This is not microaggression. But being friendly, or the other term would be not racist.

However, I had to look up the word microaggression, and its meaning goes too far and includes “unintentional” racial slights and insults. Unintentional insults could be examples found from KIYUN KIM, Racial Microaggressions.

The curious, interested and surprised questions from people, which were “unintentional” and perceived as racial slights and insults by the Asian or Hispanic Millennial students, were about language:

“‘Can you read this?’ He showed me a Japanese character on his phone.”

You don’t speak Spanish?

I, honestly, am amazed at the students in their teens & 20s who actually are feeling offended by being asked if they could read Japanese. I have been asked if I could read French, and I wasn’t offended.

I also am incredulous that being asked if you speak or don’t speak Spanish is worth getting upset over. Again, I was asked if I could speak French, and that wasn’t a question worth trying to perceive as upsetting.

Anyway, I have asked the same question, “Do you speak Spanish?“.

The other person would say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and I would leave it at that.

Now if the other person had actually spent their emotions and thoughts to actually perceive my question as an insult, then the problem actually belonged to that person.

What does “The problem belongs to the other person” actually mean?:

Should-I-see-this-as-a-Microaggression

This means that you intended fairness and friendliness, but the other person decided to feel and think that you meant unfairness and racism. This is what “the problem belongs to the other person” means.

The other person decided to feel negative.

That person could have decided to perceive you as being fair and friendly, but that person decided to fall back on their memory of past grievances and resentments.

That person decided to perceive you as another person who was going to cause them upset.

This would be called projection.

comment 0

Authoritarian Left

I suppose each person has bias or prejudice because each person is a human being.

Prejudice

Human beings are prejudiced about one thing or another, or about a group of other people.

Or humans prefer being tribal with others who look like them (the same race), who behave like them (live and have the same norms), and agree with them (share & speak the same beliefs and opinions).

Probably being in agreement — while living and speaking opinions on a consensus — makes practical sense because people can get things and tasks done with no or very little conflict.

Anyway, the problem which arises from homogeneity or steady consensus would be people’s intolerance and suppression of disagreement of differing beliefs, opinions and lifestyles.

When you read this, you will remember that traditional disagreement and protest of the community’s and culture’s norms was the political left (liberals) protesting the political right (conservatives).

Liberal political protest was done against bigotry, ignorance, sexism, racism and homophobia.

Bigot

Ignorant

Sexism-01

Racist

Homophobic

Protest in the 2010s against transphobia and white privilege are recent.

Transphobic

White Privilege

Also, during this decade of the 2010s, many people’s intolerance toward any disagreement with political correctness is shown by the social justice warriors of the far political left.

While I was watching Jordan Peterson’s Youtube channel, he said something remarkable:

The current inclination of social justice warriors of the political left is to behave authoritarian.

Heard of the Authoritarian Left?

The actions and demands from student social justice warriors to universities & colleges across North America is authoritarian behaviour. Their behaviour is discriminatory, bullying, and self-righteous.

Bully tactics, used by SJW students in their protests at Evergreen State College in the U.S., is apparent.

The SJW students’ intolerance toward anyone who disagrees with them, and their sometimes publicly stated preference for segregation — meaning people of colour should only share the lunchroom with people of colour to recover from racism from any White person — is authoritarian, which is intolerant, sectarian and righteous.

Social justice warriors protesting for segregation is surprising because 1960s Civil Rights leaders in the United States, like Martin Luther King Jr., wanted de-segregation for African Americans.

Now, in the 2010s, the students of colour are insisting on segregation from White or Caucasian students on university and college campuses. The guise of “safe spaces” is segregation.

Anyway, social justice warriors of the far political left are behaving authoritarian, which shows that any human being with an opinion or belief can be authoritarian and righteous in a very problematic way.

Now it’s okay to have morals and to live by them. Morals are the ideas and beliefs that you live by, and are the laws and ethics of a community or society that make possible safety and trust. An example would be: Your body will have safety from rape because of the moral and law that views rape as appalling.

But it’s very harmful and problematic to always assume that your beliefs and morals are superior, and it’s harmful when you behave by that assumption.

It’s also very problematic when a society assumes their morals and laws are superior to another society’s beliefs and laws.

Western countries have several times sent out troops to occupy a country like Afghanistan so as to export democracy to those people. But the Afghans haven’t readily accepted democracy from the occupiers.

Would anyone accept anything from an occupation? Probably not. Unless the occupied territory was a university or college campus.

Anyway, there is a vocabulary of derogatory words used by social justice warriors against anyone who disagrees with them:

Words-use-to-shout-down

These swear words are tools simply used to shut up, shout down, and marginalize any person or group of people who disagree and challenge a politically correct inspired protest.

Shout Down

The most disturbing shouting down of one teacher, who was swarmed by a mob of social justice warrior students, is the incident of Bret Weinstein being literally cornered on Evergreen State College campus and yelled at with bully tactics.

What’s a bully? We all know. But the race, age, gender and face of the bully changes. The tactics of targeting, cornering, yelling at, and belittling haven’t.