"Racially Conscious" Without Being "Racist"?

I'm not convinced that the concept of "race" refers to anything real. Indeed, I am convinced it is a concept that was created to justify the re-introduction of slavery to Europe following its elimination by Christianity, once Portugal developed new trade routes to a West Africa that was hungry for trade but that had nothing much of value to offer but other human beings.

Still, the New Republic is pretty invested in the idea that race is real at least for some people, and that a connection to others of one's race -- performed at the ballot box -- yields something like social justice. So it's interesting to see them talking this way.
In a study of white Americans’ attitudes and candidate preferences, we found that Trump’s success reflects the rise of “white identity politics”—an attempt to protect the collective interests of white voters via the ballot box. Whereas racial prejudice refers to animosity toward other racial groups, white identity reflects a sense of connection to fellow white Americans.
Fair enough, I guess, but what are those interests? A defense of mores, of home, of culture? Aren't we usually told that having that interest is per se racist, as it suggests that one prefers (or worse, thinks superior) one's own versus another's culture or mores?


Anonymous said...

Who are the bigots? The ones over at The Donald subreddit, who give a rowdy welcome to the ladies, hispanics, jews, Muslims, and LGBTers, their candidate, who states his goal as making the country great for all of its citizens, or the political party that insists that people must vote their skin color or biological parts, or sex lives?


Grim said...

I think it's pretty obvious that the clearly stated intent of altering the electorate in a pro-Democratic Party fashion through mass immigration is provoking what they are calling "white identity politics." It's clearly a reaction to something they started, with the purpose of suppressing these same voters' control over their own nation.

So, you know, if people on the left don't like this -- well, you shouldn't have made it.

But that doesn't tell me what to do. I didn't make it, and I'm not sure how much I like it. I would much rather we had an identity movement built around something better than "whiteness," like for example Christianity.

Anonymous said...

I don't like identity politics at all, and if the 30 years' War and the 100 years' war and the Troubles are any indicator, identity movements based on somebody's idea of Christianity aren't all that wonderful, either.

You are absolutely right, however, that the concept of "race" does not refer to anything real in this country. Aside from all the scientific stuff that shows we are all the same species, black people in the US aren't black according to the standards of their distant ancestors' homelands. That's because they are nearly all blends.

Most of them would be "white" in Africa, due to their obvious genetic heritage.


Eric Blair said...

Grim is exactly right. This is fall out or blow back or push back or what ever you want to call it of the 'white-people-bad-non-white-people-good' thinking, although that even founders on its own cognitive dissonances, when it's been shown that universities are actively trying to limit the number of Asian students because they are academically prone to beating out everybody else.

Grim said...

... if the 30 years' War and the 100 years' war and the Troubles are any indicator...

Hey, the Hundred Years War was the high point of human civilization. :) Although, it also wasn't in any meaningful sense a religious war. They were all Catholics in those days.

raven said...

There are accounts of US blacks going to Africa, in various NGO type situations, peace Corp., etc, expecting to find "solidarity" with the Africans, and being shocked that the Africans considered them white.

IIRC, it was not so much the color, as the culture- they were from the US, hence rich, hence white, to the Africans.

Also, being immediately asked what tribe they were was a bit startling.

Grim said...

Tribes that may not even exist any more, if the answer were known, because the ancestors of the Africans still there rounded them up and sold them as slaves.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

As the geographic center of Christianity is moving to Africa and Southern Asia, and the isolated free market and individual freedom sectors are growing in those regions as well, I feel pretty confident in saying that it's not skin color I am interested in, but culture. If I could come back in 150 years I admit I would be interested in what my direct descendants were up to, but beyond that i would be asking "Where are the churches and what are they doing?" "Where are the free countries and how are they faring?" I'm thinking China and West Africa might be most interesting to me.

Gringo said...

Hey, the Hundred Years War was the high point of human civilization. :) Although, it also wasn't in any meaningful sense a religious war. They were all Catholics in those days.
While it began as a religious war, with Protestants-plenty of them in Germany by 1618- on one side and Catholics on the other, the sides later reverted to Protestants and Catholics on one side and Protestants and Catholics on the other.

Grim said...

That's the Thirty Years War, Gringo. The Hundred Years War began during the Second War of Scottish Independence, when the English decided it would be fun to fight in France and Scotland at the same time, and carried on until 1453. It is often said to mark the height of chivalry, and resulted in Malory's Le Morte D'arthur among other things, which is why I was referring to it as the height of human civilization. :)

Ymar Sakar said...

Hundred Years War was the one Jean De Arc ended, when English king was trying to take Normandy and the entire north of France, from the Daulphine or rather disinherited Prince of France.

The Burgundians, due to some previous setback or betrayal from the French kings, sided with the English.