Wokeness

[Elio di Supo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Zucht

de official trailer op YT heeft zo'n 5000 likes en 256000 dislikes.

Woke is a joke.

[Bach]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Elio di Supo

Neen hoor.

Is dit dan geen culturele apropiatie? Zoals een zogenaamde 'witte' met rastas blijkbaar dient beschouwd te worden? Ik snap het niet goed....dat Woke leger, strijdt dat nu tegen racisme of voor segregatie?

[Elio di Supo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bach

Is dit dan geen culturele apropiatie? Zoals een zogenaamde 'witte' met rastas blijkbaar dient beschouwd te worden? Ik snap het niet goed....dat Woke leger, strijdt dat nu tegen racisme of voor segregatie?

Alleen witten doen aan cultural appropriation. In alle andere gevallen heet het juist racistisch te zijn als andere rassen niet vertegenwoordigd zijn. Zoals bv een zwarte kerstman. Raar dat ik Aziaten nooit drama hebben weten maken van zulke dingen. Of Hispanics.

[Bach]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Elio di Supo

Alleen witten doen aan cultural appropriation. In alle andere gevallen heet het juist racistisch te zijn als andere rassen niet vertegenwoordigd zijn.

Als dat zo is dan is de woke filosofie inherent racistisch van aard.

[Elio di Supo]

https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/...rom-whiteness/

White people need to save themselves from whiteness. Schitterende invalshoek. Eerst ga je een heel ras schofferen onder de term "whiteness" en dan ga je doen alsof het een ziekte is die moet bestreden worden en moet je jezelf gaan redden van je eigen cultuur.

Als je gaat veralgemenen bij andere rassen en hen bepaalde kenmerken toeschrijven op basis van ras dan is dat foei en moet je andere factoren gaan zoeken die meestal in het socio-economische liggen. Maar dus niet zo bij "whiteness". Whiteness mag je gerust op conto van ras toeschrijven en iets dat inherent is aan blanken. Je bent ermee geboren alsof het een genetisch afwijking betreft en je mag er gerust op aangesproken worden.

Daar waar in vroegere tijden elites werden gevormd door bezit, oorlogvoering, wetenschappelijke en technische vooruitgang gaan whiteness en wokeness samen hand in hand om nieuwe elites te creeren. Ditmaal op basis van morele afkeuring en het aanpraten van schuldgevoelens.

[Bach]

Gaat Pantone ook voor broke?

pantone Presenting “Period”, a new red shade created to break the stigma around menstruation and promote period positivity. Swedish healthcare brand @intimina came to Pantone Color Institute to develop this custom color in support of their global campaign to make menstruation more visible and normalize this most normal of bodily functions.

“An active and adventurous red hue, courageous Period emboldens people who menstruate to feel proud of who they are. To own their period with self-assurance; to stand up and passionately celebrate the exciting and powerful life force they are born with; to urge everyone regardless of gender to feel comfortable to talk spontaneously and openly about this pure and natural bodily function.”

Gevatte reactie op de 'wokespeak' van Pantone:

Ending menstruation stigma while simultaneously making any mention of ‘women’ shameful

https://www.instagram.com/p/CFufykoA...B-44A2F043A3D5

[Elio di Supo]

Ach heel die zever over menstruatie is er ook maar enkel omdat de medische wetenschap nu eenmaal nog niet zo ver is om aan transvrouwen eierstokken en een baarmoeder te bezorgen waardoor ze ook effectief kunnen menstrueren en zwanger raken. Dit moet wsl leiden tot mateloze frustraties en daarom moet er over dit menstrueren een serieus potje gekibbeld worden.

Het gaat enkel over opgekropte frustraties hier. En de hele samenleving moet dit spelletje gaan meespelen en doen alsof er geen biologische verschillen bestaan tss vrouwen en transvrouwen want dat zou die frele zieltjes wel eens een joekel van een identiteitscrisis kunnen bezorgen.

[Elio di Supo]

Een gezonde kijk op cultural appropriation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JzR_FmAe8s

[Elio di Supo]

Waarom blanke vrouwen geen "hoops" mogen dragen aan hun oren.

https://neoskosmos.com/en/42058/hoop...-to-look-back/

What spurred this recent fiery debate, is graffiti on Canada’s Pitzer College’s free speech wall; a plain brick wall on which Claremont students freely vent their opinions and feelings with spray paint. Students Alegria Martinez, Jacquelyn Aguilera, and Estefania Gallo-Gonzalez, in defence of brown and black culture freely painted: “White Girl, Take Off Your Hoops!!!” in yellow, taking away a white woman’s right to wear the much-hyped accessory.

“The art was created by myself and a few other WOC [women of colour] after being tired and annoyed with the reoccurring theme of white women appropriating styles . . . that belong to the black and brown folks who created the culture. The culture actually comes from a historical background of oppression and exclusion. Because of this I see our winged eyeliner, lined lips, and big hoop earrings serving as symbols as an everyday act of resistance, especially here at the Claremont Colleges. Meanwhile we wonder, why should white girls be able to take part in this culture (wearing hoop earrings just being one case of it) and be seen as cute/aesthetic/ethnic. White people have actually exploited the culture and made it into fashion,” Martinez, a member of the Latinx Student Union said, explaining her act in a statement to the entire student body as reported by the Claremont Independent.

[.....]

In August last year, Pitzer College made headlines when students refused to room with white people bearing or as stated at the time “appropriating styles that belong to the black and brown folks” and “exploiting the culture.”

“If you didn’t create the culture as a coping mechanism for marginalisation, take off those hoops, if your feminism isn’t intersectional take off those hoops, if you try to wear mi cultura when the creators can no longer afford it, take off those hoops, if you are incapable of using a search engine and expect other people to educate you, take off those hoops, if you can’t pronounce my name or spell it . . . take off those hoops / I use “those” instead of “your” because hoops were never “yours” to begin with,” Martinez added to what, in my eyes, reads as completely absurd, as she herself failed to use a search engine; but maybe she will accept to be educated by other people who won’t go as far as to ask her to “take off those hoops”.

[Elio di Supo]

[Elio di Supo]

Magnie



Magwel

[Elio di Supo]

[Elio di Supo]

Ook cultural appropriation?

[Elio di Supo]

http://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism

Reverse Racism is a Myth

Assumptions and stereotypes about white people are examples of racial prejudice, not racism. Racial prejudice refers to a set of discriminatory or derogatory attitudes based on assumptions deriving from perceptions about race and/or skin colour. Thus, racial prejudice can indeed be directed at white people (e.g., white people can’t dance) but is not considered racism because of the systemic relationship of power.? When backed with power, prejudice results in acts of discrimination and oppression against groups or individuals. In Canada, white people hold this cultural power due to Eurocentric modes of thinking, rooted in colonialism, that continue to reproduce and privilege whiteness. (See our definition of Whiteness)

Ricky Sherover-Marcuse asserts that "we should not confuse the occasional mistreatment experienced by whites at the hands of people of color with he systematic and institutionalized mistreatment experienced by people of color at the hands of whites” (“A Working Definition of Racism," p. 2). While expressions of racial prejudice directed at white people may hurt the white person/people individually or personally, and are never to be condoned, they do not have the power or authority to affect the white person's social/economic/political location and privileges. (See our definition of White Privilege/White-Skin Privilege)

Reverse racism is a myth because it tries to ignore the fundamental question of who holds more power/privilege between the individuals/groups involved; the myth of reverse racism assumes that racism occurs on a so-called level playing field. For example, Ricky-Sherover-Marcuse observes that claims to reverse racism are often made in regards to affirmative action programs. Zeba Blay explains how white people often "believe deserving white students are discriminated against while academically unqualified students are given highly coveted college or company positions ? just because they happen to tick the "ethnic minority" box" (article cited below). Sherover-Marcuse explains how, in actuality,"[a]ffirmative action programs are attempts to repair the results of institutionalized racism by setting guidelines and establishing procedures for finding qualified applicants from all segments of the population” (“A Working Definition of Racism," p. 2). In other words, these programs do not privilege people of colour but help to ensure that they are given equal consideration and opportunities.

Dus het onderscheid tss racisme en raciaal bevooroordeeld zijn zit er in dat je in geval van racisme macht kan uitoefenen dat discriminatoir werkt tegenover de onderdrukte. Maar hoe zit het dan bv als je je baan verliest omwille van een racistische mop te mailen bv wat eens een leraar overkwam. Hoe heeft die dan zijn macht uitgeoefend? En als die leraar nu eens een kleurling was geweest die een racistisch mopje over blanken mailde ... was dit dan ook racisme of enkel een blijk van raciale vooringenomenheid?

[Elio di Supo]

[Elio di Supo]

[Elio di Supo]

Racism 1.0, racism 2.0 and racism 3.0

Like others, the Merriam-Webster dictionary has, up to now, given us what we might consider the 1.0 definition of racism, the one we would cite for the curious child. That is, what used to be referred to as prejudiced: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

Since the 1960s, however, racism has often been used in terms such as societal racism and institutional racism, referring to structures of society that disadvantage people of subordinated races because of the collective effect of bigoted attitudes. For example, one might say that societal racism is to blame for neighborhoods with decaying infrastructure, because white flight lowered tax revenues.

John McWhorter: Racist is a tough little word

These terms have naturally often been shortened to just racism, such that the word has acquired a 2.0 definition. Merriam-Webster captures this as well, noting that racism can mean “a political or social system founded on racism.”

However, Kennedy Mitchum, 22 and just out of college, wrote a message to the editors at Merriam-Webster asking them to expand the definition to account for usage that has morphed even beyond the 2.0 definition to refer to “social and institutional power.” Mitchum noted that racism “is a system of advantage based on skin color.”

Here, the focus of the definition is less on attitudes than results: The societal disparities between white people and others are themselves referred to as racism, as a kind of shorthand for the attitudinal racism creating the disparities. This 3.0 definition of the word is now quite influential, such that the best-selling author and Atlantic contributor Ibram X. Kendi calls all race-based societal disparities racism that ought to be battled. It is a usage of racism that one often acquires in college classes in the social sciences, and that is fundamental to modern discussions of race and racism. For example, many people would say that the fact that, on average, black students do not perform as highly on standardized tests as white students means that the tests are racist, in that they disadvantage black students.

Mitchum was frustrated by people telling her, in debates about racism, that her 3.0 definition was erroneous given that it wasn’t “what’s in the dictionary.” Her frustration was justified. She wasn’t creating her own definition of the word—it is shared by legions of people, especially educated ones, across our nation.

Conor Friedersdorf: When using ‘racist,’ define your terms

Dictionaries can lag behind societal developments, and the idea that a “word” indisputably “means” what dictionaries say is simply sloppy. Words’ meanings change inevitably and constantly, and not just in terms of slang. Anyone who doubts that might take a listen to how people use the word fantastic in old episodes of The Twilight Zone or old movies, when they meant not “Great!” but what we would now express as “fantastical.” The change was gradual. But here, in the real, non-fantastical world, people tend to think that the cold print of dictionaries implies some kind of unchanging truth. As such, it won’t do for definitions of words as crucial as racism to sit frozen somewhere around the era of Watergate and fondue. We’ve come a long way, baby.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...change/613324/

[patrickve]

Het punt is dat 3.0 eigenlijk het verkeerde van 1.0 bewijst.

Blijkbaar is 1.0 de HYPOTHESE dat raciale kenmerken (huidskleur ?) een oorzakelijk verband zouden hebben met superioriteit.

Dat is uiteraard enkel maar een hypothese, die objectief waar of verkeerd kan zijn. Het aanhangen van die hypothese is wat men racisme 1.0 noemt blijkbaar. Het is blijkbaar moreel verkeerd om die hypothese aan te hangen, terwijl het ergens logischer zou zijn om haar waarheidsgehalte na te gaan.

Maar versie 3.0 is de VASTSTELLING dat raciale kenmerken zouden leiden tot superioriteit !

Men is in versie 3.0 een racist als het blijkt dat men superieur is op basis van raciale kenmerken

[Elio di Supo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door patrickve

Maar versie 3.0 is de VASTSTELLING dat raciale kenmerken zouden leiden tot superioriteit !

Men is in versie 3.0 een racist als het blijkt dat men superieur is op basis van raciale kenmerken

Juist. Zelfs als men niet de intentie had racistisch te zijn kan men dit alsnog als etiket krijgen als de uitkomst ongewild nadelig is voor een bepaald ras.

Trek deze redenering eens door. Veronderstel dat er een miss-verkiezing is met 10 kandidates en slechts 1 ervan is blank. De 9 anderen zijn zwart. Stel dat de jury enkel bestaat uit zwarten die de blanke kandidate tot winnares kronen. Dan zijn die juryleden dus racistisch want statistisch gezien (9 kansen op 10) hadden de zwarte kandidates veel meer kans om te winnen.

[Elio di Supo]