African American
Related: About this forumIt's become clear that "divisive" is just a euphemism for "makes white people uncomfortable"
Although every issue, if it doesn't enjoy unanimous support, is "divisive" in some way, I usually only see the term applied to people and issues that white folks don't want to address or even hear about because it makes them uncomfortable. That's been very clear in the recent dust-up over Bernie Sanders position on reparations, which he says he does not support because they are "divisive." But many of the issues that he endorses are divisive and that, in fact, seems to be the primary reason his supporters love him - they claim to want a fighter who isn't afraid to stand up to the powers that be and who will, in fact, get in their faces. Yet he's quick to turn around and walk away from this issue because it's "divisive."
I suspect that, in this instance, as in most others, "divisive" really means that white people who support him don't want to discuss reparations because it makes them uncomfortable. Not only is this a sensitive, complicated issue that requires more than a shallow, simple response, it also forces liberal whites to check their own privilege and to look at things in a different way than they are used to - outside of their comfort zone, not a pleasant or easy thing to do, especially for those who very self-satisfied with their own presumed perfection on all things racial because, for example, they didn't own slaves, they've never used the n-word, they have black friends and/or they marched with Dr. King.
So much easier to push it away with accusations that those who endorse reparations are being unreasonable and "divisive."
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)and Asian communities. Why are you focusing on white Americans?
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)You are, of course, free to start your own discussion addressing anti-black sentiments in other communities of color. If you do, I will look forward to seeing your thoughts and possibly engaging with you on that issue. In the meantime, I will continue with the topic I've chosen to address.
Thanks.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Carry on.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)subjected Black Americans to Slavery, Jim Crow, redlining? Denied them voting rights? Counted them as 3/5ths of a person by law? No. Do Asians or Latinos make up the majority group in this country? No. Do they wield the largest portion of economic power? No.
It is important to understand the difference between racism and bigotry. Racism is the SYSTEMATIC use of race that privileges one group economically over another. Bigotry is an individuals words or actions that are based in prejudice. It is possible for Asians and Latinos to be bigots, but they do not have the numbers or economic power to SYSTEMATICALLY deny Blacks rights and economic access. And they have not done so historically. Whites have historically done these things and systematically continue. We as individuals may not support the systemic use of race for economic gain, but it does not change the fact of the system. So that is why Coates singles out Whites when focusing on SYSTEMIC racism, and not the bigotry of other minority groups.
It's not meant to make people feel bad, just to name the problem so we can work toward a solution.
On edit: I see the Coates article is not directly linked here, so I am providing a link. I think that my reasoning still directly addresses the question of why we talk about white racism and not bigotry of other minority groups.
randys1
(16,286 posts)with my narrative.
And by you people I of course mean you dastardly LIBERALS
My brain hurts from all the FACTS you people insist on mentioning
thesquanderer
(11,989 posts)...I don't think anyone who embraces reparations would have a chance of winning the general election.
I'm sure even Sanders knows he can try to push things so far, but no farther, if he is actually in this to win, as opposed to merely influencing the conversation. Even if, deep down, he thought reparations were a good idea, I think it would hurt his campaign to say so.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Because it is not about any of the things you typed.
thesquanderer
(11,989 posts)...both to the article, and to the conversation here, beginning with the OP.
The article's conclusing paragraph says:
My reply is relevant to that... that endorsing reparations would be damaging to his chance of winning the general election, even if he paired it with a recognition that there was no coalition to support it, as the author suggests.
Also, Coates is creating a no-win scenario with that proposed "solution" -- if Sanders were to say that he's for reparations except that there is no coalition to support it, just how does he distinguish that from single payer and the rest of his proposals that likewise would never get passed in the current Congress? His campaign is largely about creating a new consensus to do things that the current etsbalishment cannot do. In trying to convince the electorate that he is leading us toward a kind of people's revolution, how is he supposed to say that together we can create a new consensus to do "impossible" items x and y, but not z?
brush
(53,785 posts)brer cat
(24,575 posts)"Divisive" is often in a sentence that starts "I'm not a racist, but..." and likely includes something about "outside agitators" among references to "good Nigras." Of course, I'm from the south so your experience may vary. But wherever, it becomes too "divisive" when it is a subject that threatens to puncture our bubble, whether our white privilege or perfect liberalism. It is not unlike #BLM confronting Bernie in the yuppie paradise of Seattle.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Trying to get people to uncenter whiteness is like mental judo. I'm not a skilled orator, I usually do well in writing, but when this crops up in face-to-face discussions, trying to find a way to talk about how just privileging white middle class needs isn't going to address the racism and inequality in this country, people look at you like you're making the noises in the Peanuts cartoons when the adults talk.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)This is so eloquent . . .
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Seriously, the writers in this group are so inspiring, with the breadth and depth of OPs like this, I really carry away this work with me into my off-DU activism. ((group hug))
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)And not only that, but they (white, middle class people) benefit from their privilege being invisible to them, psychologically as well as materially.
White people very rarely perceive themselves as being implicated in or responsible for racism, in practice. At best, racism is something that "racists" or "Southerners" or "uneducated" whites are responsible for - but never educated, middle class white people with "progressive" racial views. At worst, racism is projected by whites onto people of color ("Why are they always complaining? They're not enslaved or denied civil rights anymore! Maybe they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, like I did!" . Either way, racism is externalized onto "those other people."
We have a long, long way to go, indeed.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)And "radical" is a euphemism for "makes the establishment uncomfortable."
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Followed by - How dare they much more threatening radicals than us! *hmph*
JI7
(89,251 posts)OneGrassRoot
(22,920 posts)Spazito
(50,362 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It never ceases to amaze me that white "liberals/progressives" can/will enter a discussion in the AA Group about race/racial issue for the twin purposes of calling our discussion "divisive", while introducing the REALLY, REAL all important, issue ... income inequality ... with not a hint that they are being divisive.