The Future of Racism

[livinghope]

In the wake of National Review’s decision to part ways with its longtime contributor John Derbyshire over a frankly racist provocation published in the far-right website TakiMag, the Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf exhumes a long-ago Derbyshire interview in which he discussed the generational divide in conservative attitudes on race:

… I frequently

Comments

[tabaqui]

This is....really interesting. And i can't actually formulate anything intelligent and coherent right now. I'm going to have to think a bit.

Right off the top of my head, I can't tell if Conor Friedersdorf thinks that this: They are, however, determined to make the multiracial society work, they believe it can be made to work in spite of the hustlers and liberal guilt-mongers, and they are unwilling to read, say, or think anything that could be construed as unkind towards people of other races. The pessimism and cynicism on this topic that you rather commonly find among conservatives - including NR readers - born in 1930, or even 1950, are profoundly unappetizing to these younger conservatives. is good or bad....

[livinghope]

yeah, that's why I wanted to get _p's thoughts on this because some of it seems to be making a good point (that rather than being post-racism, racism has merely evolved) and then some of it just makes me go ".....wut?" IDK I feel like something with this article is really off, I just can't quite put my finger on it.

[tabaqui]

Yeah. That first quote, he seems kind of *annoyed* that 'younger conservatives' don't want to run down poc, but the main article author kind of seems like...'blacks and latinos are racist, too! We're all dooooooomed!!'

Or something. I dunno. The tone of the article is very downer.

[luminescnece]

This sounds like many of my conservative leaning friends, exactly the kind of people I used to alienate all the time when I was making wide, loud generalizations about 'conservatives' based on my understanding of the most radical and far right ass hats among them.

Which when I think about it, is little better or worse than the same said conservative leaning friends that used to make wide, loud generalizations about 'liberals' based on their understanding of the most radical and far left ass hats among us.

[dearmisterecho]

and the fact that white guilt over slavery and segregation - the foundation of the anti-racist consensus at the moment

[deathchibi]

Why is everything having to do with sprouting any sort of sensitivity towards the massive amounts of racism in history always have to turn into white guilt with these people? It's always white guilt this, white guilt that. I just thought it was being a considerate human being, personally. o_o

[dearmisterecho]

yeah, when people assume "understanding white privilege" = "having white guilt," then that proves they don't know what they are talking about AT ALL.

[livinghope]

Yep, pretty much.

[seasontoseason]

They laugh with us when we lampoon the more outrageous kind of black race hustler - a Sharpton, a Farrakhan, a Johnny Cochran.

Fail.

[riath]

are happy to hear arguments pro and con about racial profiling

Is there a pro side to racial profiling? Of wait, it's just that douchebag John Derbyshire spouting more stupid ignorant bullshit.

[livinghope]

A lot of conservatives are under the impression that racial profiling is a "the ends justify the means" situation. The people I've talked to have acknowledged that racial profiling has it's problems, but have decided that in the end it's more important that we be kept safe even if it means "hurting someone's feelings." I don't agree with this sentiment at all, but I think that's probably what Douthat is driving at here.

[ladypolitik]

Is there a pro side to racial profiling?

The only people who perceive a "pro" to racial profiling are the ones who usually never have to be subjected to it.

Funnily enough, that's a hallmark of white privilege: agreeing to absurd identity scrutiny and pretending as if it applies to everyone, when in reality, whiteness is automatically opted out of such demeaning processes.

So of course straight white cis men are predominantly keenest when it comes to treating dehumanizing notions -- like profiling -- as something "objective" and "logical".

It's funny, because you'd think one know better, what with the propensity of too many privilege white people to scream "Reverse Opresshun" at the slightest misinterpretation/identification of discrimination.

--But then if they recognized real oppression beyond using slurs, owning swastika tattoos, and burning crosses in someone's front lawn, we wouldn't be having this convo to begin with, now would we.

[livinghope]

A+ comment