Whitesplaining

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's not about expressing an opinion. It's about assuming that you know what you're talking about when you don't. I'll give you the same example that I used earlier.

Plenty of people do this and it's not usually attributed to their race. I'm not sure how having a go at their race is supposed to teach them anything.

When BLM protesters interrupted two campaign events of Bernie Sanders, many supporters took to their keyboards to express their outrage that BLM wasn't automatically supporting Sanders despite the fact that he'd marched with King about fifty years ago. When confronted by black people saying "We want him to talk about what's going on nowadays in terms of unarmed black people being gunned down, and dying in police custody", these activists said "If his record isn't good enough for you, then you haven't been paying attention", and similar things. That was whitesplaining. You know what wasn't whitesplaining? When the campaign itself (which has always been more bearable and intelligent than the majority of supporters) came out with a detailed racial justice platform in response to the complaints, and when Bernie Sanders started directly addressing the issues of police abuse in his stump speeches.

I don't really follow American politics super closely, but when I heard about that incident I just thought it was a shitty thing for a couple of individuals to take it upon themselves to crash an event Bernie Sanders paid for and prevent him from speaking to a crowd that wanted to hear what he had to say. They should never have been allowed to take the mic.

1. And when it's about power relationships with the person in power lecturing the person without power regarding the issues that they're experiencing, it tends to be frowned upon and given a derogatory term to be used in reference.

2. I wasn't a fan of the approach, but the fact is that the media was beginning to turn their attentions away from police abuse and towards the presidential race, so they took the opportunity to remind people that this was still an issue.

[Kubra]

They shouldn't have to even do that. To say that is to say that white people's feelings matter more than black people dying.

Interrupting a man's speech at an event he's funding doesn't save black lives. All it does is validate the egos of black activists.

It got Bernie to take more concise stance on racial issues and in favour of black communities. It may not save lives, but it did what it was supposed to do: make Bernie talk about race.
Those who insist on such moralizing on every issue ain't cut out for politics.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Actually, it was a black person calling a white person a bitch because the white person commented on the black person's political activism.

Said white person had no right to tell said black person how to fucking conduct themselves. The oppressed need to be free to fight for their own rights and recognition without input from oppressors.

Not all white people are oppressors, even if they are beneficiaries of a racially biased system.

[Rock Lobsters]

Whitesplaining? More like Caucasionsplaining have to be politically correct here, no?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Because the white person, no matter what shit he or she has dealt with in life, has not dealt with that particular shit, and any attempt to have a serious discussion on race must take that into account.

That's only true if we assume that both people have lived their whole life in the US. There are other countries where race relations work differently than the US, and it is entirely possible for a white person living overseas to experience forms of discrimination that we don't have to deal with in the US.

And they would probably know even less about how it works in the U.S.

[Yedmnrutika Gavr]

racial privilege? whitesplaining? u sound really butthurt and actually arrogant. many of the rights u have today are the direct result of non-africans choosing to march with mlk and a mostly "white" legislative body. it was in fact necessary and you are disgracing their sacrifice to say otherwise. that truth might sound condescending but at least indiscriminate.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's not about expressing an opinion. It's about assuming that you know what you're talking about when you don't. I'll give you the same example that I used earlier.

When BLM protesters interrupted two campaign events of Bernie Sanders, many supporters took to their keyboards to express their outrage that BLM wasn't automatically supporting Sanders despite the fact that he'd marched with King about fifty years ago.

BLM doesn't have to support Sanders. It just has to let him talk.

Well, they don't have to do anything, which I believe was part of their point.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Whitesplaining? More like Caucasionsplaining have to be politically correct here, no?

Not all white people came down from the Caucasus mountains.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

They shouldn't have to even do that. To say that is to say that white people's feelings matter more than black people dying.

Interrupting a man's speech at an event he's funding doesn't save black lives. All it does is validate the egos of black activists.

And gets a ton of publicity, as can be proven by the fact that we're talking about it a month later.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

racial privilege? whitesplaining? u sound really butthurt and actually arrogant. many of the rights u have today are the direct result of non-africans choosing to march with mlk and a mostly "white" legislative body. it was in fact necessary and you are disgracing their sacrifice to say otherwise. that truth might sound condescending but at least indiscriminate.

How you interpret and how you understand the "truth", however, is bound to be biased. You talk about disgracing all the white people who walked with MLK, yet, you work to limit the African American community's own involvement in their own struggle by making it about non-African-Americans only. White People supported King, sure, there is no doubt, but the "white" legislative body wasn't moved to enact what it did out of the white compassion towards the people they oppressed, it was because of the pressure that black people, themselves, put upon the legislators to do something.

[USS Monitor]

BLM doesn't have to support Sanders. It just has to let him talk.

They shouldn't have to even do that. To say that is to say that white people's feelings matter more than black people dying.

The stuff Sanders was talking about before BLM got in his face (i.e. class issues and the dysfunctional healthcare system) actually kills more people than the stuff BLM wanted him to talk about (police brutality). Poverty and health disparities are less dramatic, but people do die from treatable medical conditions because they waited to seek care due to financial concerns. People die from exposure because of homelessness. These issues are more than just white people's feelings.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

racial privilege? whitesplaining? u sound really butthurt and actually arrogant. many of the rights u have today are the direct result of non-africans choosing to march with mlk and a mostly "white" legislative body. it was in fact necessary and you are disgracing their sacrifice to say otherwise. that truth might sound condescending but at least indiscriminate.

The only reason that these rights were in doubt in the first place is because of white people. The rights, according to our system of law, are not given by man, but are inherent. Black people never should have had to argue for equal treatment under the law in the first place, and obviously have every right and reason to speak up when equal treatment is shown to be more of an ideal than a reality nowadays.

[The Heart of Hypatia]

Plenty of people do this and it's not usually attributed to their race. I'm not sure how having a go at their race is supposed to teach them anything.


I don't really follow American politics super closely, but when I heard about that incident I just thought it was a shitty thing for a couple of individuals to take it upon themselves to crash an event Bernie Sanders paid for and prevent him from speaking to a crowd that wanted to hear what he had to say. They should never have been allowed to take the mic.

1. And when it's about power relationships with the person in power lecturing the person without power regarding the issues that they're experiencing, it tends to be frowned upon and given a derogatory term to be used in reference.

If a person is ignorant about your experiences then frown upon it all you like, I just don't see how it's helpful to attribute that ignorance to their race and then essentially use that as a justification to deny them a place in the discussion. I don't know about you, but to me that sounds a bit racist and will not teach the person anything.

I do keep hearing some nonsense about how it's impossible to be racist toward a member of a group that holds more power than you, but I'm hoping that won't be your response here.

2. I wasn't a fan of the approach, but the fact is that the media was beginning to turn their attentions away from police abuse and towards the presidential race, so they took the opportunity to remind people that this was still an issue.

I'm not even American and I can't stop hearing about American police killing people, believe me there is no attention being taken away from that issue. There is time for both important issues.

[USS Monitor]

So it's totally fine to open fire with a machine gun at your local shopping mall because you're tired of the security guys following you around the store?

Yep, exactly what I said. Nail on the fucking head.

It is what you said. Telling people not to open fire with a machine gun is telling them how to conduct themselves.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Yep, exactly what I said. Nail on the fucking head.

It is what you said. Telling people not to open fire with a machine gun is telling them how to conduct themselves.

Because using aggressive language is equivalent to slaughtering people.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Yep, exactly what I said. Nail on the fucking head.

It is what you said. Telling people not to open fire with a machine gun is telling them how to conduct themselves.

How about in the case where you are segregated and forced into ghettos in your own countries?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It is what you said. Telling people not to open fire with a machine gun is telling them how to conduct themselves.

How about in the case where you are segregated and forced into ghettos in your own countries?

I'd call that a valid reason to wield a weapon, but that's just me.

[Geilinor]

BLM doesn't have to support Sanders. It just has to let him talk.

Well, they don't have to do anything, which I believe was part of their point.

All they had to do was get their own rally.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Well, they don't have to do anything, which I believe was part of their point.

All they had to do was get their own rally.

Wasn't their approach to force Mr Sanders to be more clear about his position regarding race, in which case, having a rally of their own would not have been as effective as what they did?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

All they had to do was get their own rally.

Wasn't their approach to force Mr Sanders to be more clear about his position regarding race, in which case, having a rally of their own would not have been as effective as what they did?

Exactly.

They got what they wanted.

[Hyfling]

All they had to do was get their own rally.

Wasn't their approach to force Mr Sanders to be more clear about his position regarding race, in which case, having a rally of their own would not have been as effective as what they did?

If that's what they were trying to do, they did a pretty crap job of it.

Unless turning potential supporters away from their movement was the goal?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Wasn't their approach to force Mr Sanders to be more clear about his position regarding race, in which case, having a rally of their own would not have been as effective as what they did?

If that's what they were trying to do, they did a pretty crap job of it.

Unless turning potential supporters away from their movement was the goal?

Perhaps this may be enlightening.

[Kubra]

Wasn't their approach to force Mr Sanders to be more clear about his position regarding race, in which case, having a rally of their own would not have been as effective as what they did?

If that's what they were trying to do, they did a pretty crap job of it.

Unless turning potential supporters away from their movement was the goal?

Which potential supports? You?
Cuz idk about you but it seems like what BLM did was successful in getting Bernie to talk about race and address the issues of the black demographic. That's victory, man.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

If that's what they were trying to do, they did a pretty crap job of it.

Unless turning potential supporters away from their movement was the goal?

Which potential supports? You?
Cuz idk about you but it seems like what BLM did was successful in getting Bernie to talk about race and address the issues of the black demographic. That's victory, man.

Right?

Like, seriously, the only people I've seen "turned away" from the BLM movement were people who were already against it.

[USS Monitor]

That's only true if we assume that both people have lived their whole life in the US. There are other countries where race relations work differently than the US, and it is entirely possible for a white person living overseas to experience forms of discrimination that we don't have to deal with in the US.

And they would probably know even less about how it works in the U.S.

If they're American originally? Or if they've been in the US for a long time?

Telling someone else, "That doesn't happen to you people," is not kosher, but talking about how to handle a particular form of discrimination when it is something you've had to deal with yourself is entirely reasonable, even if you aren't the same race and it didn't happen to you in the same place. Same as it's wrong for white people to tell black people what does or doesn't happen to them in the US, it's wrong to tell a white person they have no relevant experience just on the basis of their race without asking about their background. In both cases you're telling someone that you know more about their own life than they do.