The ethical retort to Black Lives Matter, ie All Lives Matter, expresses an attitude that should be. It is an idealism. The issue is not that all lives do not matter. The issue is that when we look at what occurs through all social and economic sectors, black people, and people of color in general, are not mattering. Indeed, systemically, black lives are worth less than white lives. This is actuality.
The problem is in the color blindness which accompanies human idealism. This idealism is, In fact and actually, whiteness.
It is the deliberate act of turning ones view away from what is actually occurring toward the way things should be.
This reliance upon what should be is a way of avoiding that things are not what they should be, and relying upon the status quo as the “common sense” way of getting us to where we should be. What this means most often is a return to what was.
In order for black lives to matter we have to stop repeating what was as an ethical goal.
On a more philosophical note: Hegel (but Western Philosophy in general) is the philosophy of systemic whiteness Because he asserts reason as something that every human being should have.
But, in actuality, there is no traversal across a common category. In other words: not all human beings have an ability to reason as the manner Hegel assumes of the common human being.
It is not that all humans can reason sensibly; it is that as we proceed, we do not know which ones will be able to, so we act as though everyone can and does.
Typically, modern humans project our ideas upon the world and judge it by our intension, Instead of encountering the world for what it actually is and adjusting our view accordingly.
…a very short intro on Jimmy Fallon.
Realizing is not the same as conceptualizing.
It’s the difference between an event and a reason.
Understanding is, indeed, a bridge under which one stands.
The ‘individual’ is an ideological construct which excuses the bias of those who hold the greater seat of power. In this case, it is the white woman. The Idea that Being White is more valuable is implemented as a system of privilege.
Racism should not define the woman in the vid entirely, but it is, indeed, defining how she perceives reality in times of stress. How she behaves, despite her sincere apology or intension, reifies that the ideology of whiteness is correct and indeed assumed to be operating.
Ala Paulo Freire, both the oppressor and the oppressed play the game of oppression. But it is the oppressed who hold the power for to interrupt the oppression. our current case as to race relations, ￼The oppressor simply is not able, on her own, to interrupt her whiteness. ￼￼￼￼
We see the perfect example of this in this audio/video reported upon at NPR. It is the black man who is interrupting the privilege of the white woman, and the white woman resorts to her privilege in order to place the black man back into his role of oppressed; she is relying upon an intentional system which keeps white people at the top and places people of color at the bottom.
The next question is thus: When is she not stressed ? And when is her privilege enacted as an individual not in play?
The issue is responsibility.
The lesson for white people everywhere, including myself, as an example, as I try to model for my white brothers and sisters, that I am not exempt from my racist privilege Because I see it. But part of this systemic privilege is that I get to sit outside of race. I get to call us all “human”, all of us “individuals”. It is by this kind of ideological deflection that I am thus able to retain my whiteness, able to uphold the system of oppression that gives me the most power and privilege in the system.
In short, I maintain power by constantly reifying that race is something that I don’t have, the system of identification in which I do not participate except as designator and enforcer. ￼I just get to pronounce upon everyone else how they should be because I exist outside of race. This is the reason why such statements as “I don’t see color”, or, I just treat everyone as an individual human being” Are inherently racist statements, because they propose to put everyone on a level playing field, a platform of a quality, we are indeed the reality of the matter is that we are not￼.￼ more to the point, is that in doing so, and asserting that everyone exists on this level playing field, I am implicating that there’s nothing wrong with the system, she’s basically saying, as a white man, that you all need to fall into my categories of truth. ￼￼
The solution is to racialize my voice and say that I am indeed a white man and I am a product as well is involved in a system of oppression called racism of which I benefit the most. I just support my brothers and sisters of color so we all can become More actualysed to our being and thus more free together￼￼￼￼￼￼￼. In short, as a white man, I am racist.
I like Chomsky’s “charlatan” name calling. It makes perfect sense to me, viewing Chomsky and his apparent approach scholarship.
Interesting also that in my previous posts I have been pondering why certain ideas of Lacan should have anything to do with actual reality.
To me Lacan’s ideas have a great sense about them, but, as we know well now through the problems with Postmodernism, intellectual sense and intension are not sufficient for an basis for an actual responsible activity.
Thanks Sourav Roy for this.
And if you are curious about race and whiteness, please check these out:
Race is Significant in our world.
I am intrigued about this Jordan Peterson phenomenon and so I’m trying to at least invest a little time into finding out what he is really saying.
So above is a little clip of him on the Bill Maher show. I got to say that Bill Maher just clicked down a few notches on my intelligence scale. I definitely liked him back in the politically incorrect days, but it seems as much as these two white men are talking about thinking, they are really not thinking it through very well. It sounds like they’re just patting each other on the back for being rich and famous. Lol.
Ok here’s what I really think.
For one, I don’t really like how they throw around the word “truth”. Now, I am appreciating what they are saying about offending someone or being disrespectful; I agree, this world has become a little bit too sensitive. But also I think it is very unthinking to go from people are just too sensitive – the universities are not holding up standards of truth – they are caught in postmodernism — etc..
Let us indeed be real here:
Who is actually the one who is being offended? Is it the Queers? Who is really being too sensitive? The Gays?
I think it is Peterson himself.
First of all, at risk of being immediately stuck into a category of postmodernist — as anyone who reads my blog knows I am critical of postmodernism — I will suggest that these two white men on this show are throwing around the word “Truth” like it is something that cannot be a problem. In the other videos I’ve watched of Peterson he likes to talk about “reality” also. In fact I think he relates “honesty” with being in tune with reality.
Now, the reason why I keep saying “these two white men” is because indeed this is what we are talking about that even the intellectualizing white men are not comprehending, it seems, or could give a damn about (hence the problem).
Really, ironically, what I’m saying is that this white man, Jordan Peterson, is offended down to his core; White men who are offended meet those who are disrespecting their rightful “reasonable” righteous whiteness with indignation. So to defend himself, he uses the quite post-modern method of twisting discourse so that no one can see that he is deeply offended; that deep offense of his whiteness he returns back to the discourse to keep what is offensive at the level of postmodern discourse. He is doing what he is arguing: exactly what he is saying he is arguing against the PoMos about. And this is to say, so he can argue against “postmodernism” as if it is this resolved and specific thing.
Further, It is interesting to me that he is a PhD in psychoanalysis, and yet he is totally blind to how he is repressing those aspects of reality that offend him, and that he is projecting the object of his offense out upon the world as if there’s nothing wrong. Reaction formation, I Think it’s really called. It is basic Freudian psychoanalysis. I think he needs to go back to his psychology school, take some classes, Maybe listen to some Zizek for a little bit. I think Perterson might need some counseling. 😀
And the thing is, if anyone were to call him out on this, he would use the very post-modern method and skill of manipulating the reality of the situation back to discursive definition to show that that is not what is occurring with him, but is indeed a defense mechanism of what is occurring for me, say . In short, he would be dishonest about what he is in countering in reality.
Shall I mention his short synopsis of Kierkegaard? (In the previous post, his little rambling long talk). Can we say “agenda-filled reading” of Kierkegaard? It is so incredibly off the mark of what Kierkegaard is really talking about, I think I’m about to cough up my pancreas.
And yet here he is in the spotlight, famous calming having a bunch of people enjoying his arguments and relating to what he has to say. Even being offered a fellowship at Cambridge. I mean, this is not just about a difference of opinion or free speech, it’s a literally about different levels of intelligence and education; it’s about different capacities of understanding what the issues are and how they are being addressed.
I mean, I think I have talked about elsewhere, somewhere in my other posts, that the issue of philosophy now is to be able to distinguish between types of philosophy. And I mean this in the sense of how philosophy is being used as though is it it is a unitive category. This to say that it is not merely epistemology or ontology or teleology or whatever sort of other ologies; wit is literally about how discourses are being used under the umbrella category of philosophy. I submit that philosophy is being used in two distinctly different ways.
This is why you cannot prove that whiteness is real to people who are stuck within it, and this is why I say such subjectivity is really a religious tenet. In this case, the religion asserts the privilege of being white, that you do not have to admit when you are offended and you definitely don’t have to admit to something being true if you don’t agree with it. All you have to do is yell louder and present as a white man and you are above reproach, as you refer to the religious theological ground (truth;reality).
Keep in mind, I’m not saying that there is not a truth or that there is not a reality; Rather I am saying what we are presently involved with a religious effectuation; what in the past we have called ideology, we are finding now is really a manner of coming up on reality that really has nothing to do with whether or not my thoughts equate with a sensible object, or what that means.
What we are involved with now is getting out of these limiting, correlational structures, and the opening of oneself to the possibility of other. It is not postmodernism; postmodernism is the description of the typical religious activity of thought. (I admit, there is a certain faction in the university that calls itself “postmodernism”, but this is not a religion in the sense that Peterson calls it, rather it is a misunderstanding of discourse in the Lacanian sense).
Just because you have a PhD does not mean you comprehend this aspect; in fact, all it really means is that you can use language in a particular way. What is at issue is the person that is using these methods.
There is a much deeper rebuttal to his whole presentation, but I am just voice dictating here while I’m walking my dog and so it’s hard to edit and write a whole dissertation on how Jordan Peterson philosophical position is skewed. He is unable to see the reality in front of him; what he sees is his own justification for what appears to him self reflexively as truth and reality.
To ask what this truth is that they keep throwing around as if it’s well known, is not a postmodern tactic. Of course Peterson might say it is a postmodern tactic, but that is because he is inherently caught in the postmodern manner of appropriating reality. In my previous post, in the video where he’s talking about stuff, he even pointed this out: namely, that there is some sort of dichotomy in history, some sort of polemic through which human beings are able to behave. His ground summary and resolution to this historical polemic is that in order for a person to be honest with themselves they have to say things that are offensive to other people. And then he uses the trope “postmodernism” as a Patsy to lump people who are “sensitive” into a group of people who are not being “honest”. Jordan Peterson might be being honest by being offensive, but he has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to truth because for him truth is based in some sort of common ground of our existence I guess. All one needs to do is listen to his analysis of history to understand his orientation upon the world; he has no problem with his thinking. In fact everyone should think like him because if you’re a white Man, then you know everything there is to know about identity, biology, sex, ideology, philosophy, truth, reality… how convenient for him.
He does not see his complicity with a particular ideology of power no matter how much he wants to talk about domination pyramids. In short, he is using the post modern method of coming upon reality and being in reality as an excuse for his own ignorance. He is being manipulative and he is not being honest simply because he is not able to confront what might be some sort of truth upon his truth operating. He is utterly an example of postmodern subjectivity in the same way that Zizek has indicated Donald Trump. The only truth he sees is that which is self-evident to him. He has no conception of what correlationalism might mean, nor would any of the discussions of the speculative realist folk are talking about over in France, or even LA, have any substance for him.
In short, we can see that he is involved with a particular post- modern religious manner of coming upon the world (there is no common thing called “postmodernism”; postmodernism defines a particular paradigm of knowing and a particular paradigm of being able to come up on world) and asserting that intuitive sense as if it obviously and should be and is supposed to be everyone else’s reality. This particular manner of approaching reality is called “colonialism”. And it seems he doesn’t even know that, Or at least, in the way that he has talked about it in other places, again, He completely exclude himself from the effort of colonialism in the progress of this universal history through which reality and truth only a come about through a persons being honest with themselves he completely exclude himself from the effort of colonialism in the progress of this universal history through which reality and truth only a come about through a persons being honest with themselves. I wonder if his definition of honesty means that everyone else needs to be fucked up in the head and only people like them are allowed to be rational (wat?) .
He is caught in a confusion created by his own presence of being offended by what reality presents to him. He uses ideas and tropes that go unanalyzed and unchallenged – Indeed he uses these troops in a manner that suggests that analyzing them or challenging them is part of the fantasy or a part of not being honest– for the purpose of reestablishing the status quo, which is basically the reality And supremacy Of the white thinking man.
It is not that truth is obvious, nor is it that there is no truth. It is not even some “spiritual” truth. It is that the truth of it is not yet viewable through those routes.
The problem is not what lay at the end of Perterson’s pointing finger, as much as he likes to point at things. The problem is that the subject of this pointing finger is not being questioned; it is as if to him some sort of “spiritual – historical mandate” is being communicated from God.
Again, there is a much deeper critique of Peterson which may come out one day but, honestly, I don’t know if it’s really worth the effort because demagogues have their place too. Hence, the discussion about what humanity is by what it does by the Philosophical Hack.
Folks; please do a little investigation into reality before you go and say that if people of color exclude whites then they are enacting reverse racism.
We can get into all the philosophical discussion later, because, for sure there is something more going on than only systemic oppression and prejudice. But it is not responsible to immediately jump to some sort of “higher form of reason intelligence” to argue against what is obviously a real element in the world.
I think it shows a certain level of ignorance and indeed pompousness for people in their excellent liberally educated minds to take an on the ground situation and then immediately jump into this meta-analysis of implied ethical “human equality”. Not only is it invalidating to real circumstances that real people encounter, but it is it’s self highly suspect route.
I myself have posted many essays and indeed have presently published the first part of a book (The Philosophical Hack) that investigates this notion of some sort of “higher reasoning”. I question whether there is this thing called “reason” in which all human beings are involved with that settles all disputes. This does not mean that I am arguing that there is no reason, but I am suggesting that what people tend to fall upon as being educated is really a type of myopia, really privileged kind of Freirian real systemic oppression.
Anyways. If you’re a white person, just try and understand, try to have some responsibility for our world: being a person of color does not invalidate your being white. It does challenge the exclusive privilege of whiteness, though. So before you fly off the handle with your presumption of meta-super rational educated intelligence or its partner “human equality”, maybe step back and consider how you might just be presenting yourself in the character of complete idiot.
Jesus Christ. If the other events across the country have not been offensive enough.
The only question that runs through my mind is what the fucking hell were these police officers thinking.
this is such an obvious and blatant case of being fucking stupid while white with a police officer uniform.
Please share this with everyone you know and get those fucking morons off of the Boulder police force
There is no bigger story here, there is no question about how it can be interpreted. The plain and simple fact is that police police officers are not the only people whose thinking works in exactly the same way.
We need to educate people to their racist ways of seeing and we need to get low functioning individuals out of positions of power.
Fucking hell I would clap their ears if they stood in front of me right now. Shitheads is the perfect word for those officers.
A very simple, clear and short talk about what racism means, and what is Whiteness, what it means to be white.
I Hope you can take sometime from your hectic day and listen to at least the first 3 minutes of this 20 minute talk.
LYOTARD’S THEORY-FICTION: le mur du pacifique