Great writeup. This is similar to an idea I've had kicking around my head for a while now, about what I want to call "The White Supremacy Spectrum".
Let's imagine that we have a linear ordering of different levels of attitudes/beliefs that one might call "white supremacy". The lowest end of "the least amount of white supremacy possible" would be a white person who argues that white people are, in fact, completely inferior to all other races and it is every white person's bounden duty to give as much of the wealth and power that they have stolen to non-white races as possible. On the highest end, a.k.a. "actual white supremacists", you'd have a card-carrying KKK member who believes in the absolute superiority of the white race over all other races and pretty much every horrible policy proposal that would flow downstream from that belief, e.g. forced segregation/apartheid.
The problem is that, as far as I can tell, there are a whole bunch of different levels in between those extremes, but if the two opposite ends of the spectrum I described are levels 1 and 10, most people in this country are somewhere between levels 4 and 6, and the people at level 4 are calling the people at level 6 "white supremacists" (and by so doing, they intend to evoke the same kinds of disgust and hatred that people rightly feel for the folks at level 10, when the worst thing people at level 6 are guilty of is thinking that the fact that most people tend to live in neighborhoods where the majority of the folks around them look the same as they do is just natural human behavior and not evidence of America being racist to the core.
I keep wanting to work up a description of the full spectrum but haven't found the time.
If you do it, you'll need to have examples of each level so people can know how 'white supremacist' they are. BUT, the problem with writing that up is that nobody wants to be even 20% white supremacist, so the result of the writeup will be to pressure all your readers into becoming 1s. So there's that.
I think the races are different enough that not separating them will lead to great harms* while not leading to any benefits.** Therefore a clear cost-benefit analysis leads to the conclusion that ethnic nationalism is the only rational choice. Games theory would also clearly show that the rational choice is to favor your race over others, and that in a multiracial nation this will lead to chaos.
It struck me that the utility of your analysis lies in demonstrating the utter inanity of the 'conversation' about 'racism' in popular culture. More apt would be the descriptor 'self-important screeching and hooting' about 'media-entertainment industry infighting.' And if this isn't ridiculous enough: given the speed of multiplication, might there not be more definitions soon?
You've written about the two, and now the five; I eagerly await your writeup on the Eleven Definitions of Racism, on which a national conversation will be fanned by the ADL but also by PETA, CDC, and Santa Claus.
What do we do?
My proposal is that we create a unifying common enemy to direct our attention and efforts. Suitable candidates include potentially hostile aliens, or perhaps Belgians
+1 for the presence of a common enemy to help unite – at least the vast majority of members of – fractious groups of humans! And however temporary that may be, after the menacing Belgians are finally defeated ...
Likely one reason, perhaps among many, there was so much *relative* comity in US politics in the direct aftermath of WWII and into the 1950s? So many families had at least one member who recently fought alongside other Americans in that common cause.
Yes, there was Sen. McCarthy and the Birchers, plus some antediluvian hard-line USSR sympathizers. Yes, Nixon-JFK in '60 was hard fought. But still ...
"“Old Party divisions are less meaningful,” wrote one Fortune magazine writer in 1960. “American political debate is increasingly conducted in a bland, even-tempered atmosphere and extremists of any kind are becoming rare.” The differences [between many mainstream Republicans and Democrats] were often subtle, having less to do with ideology than life style."
Great writeup. This is similar to an idea I've had kicking around my head for a while now, about what I want to call "The White Supremacy Spectrum".
Let's imagine that we have a linear ordering of different levels of attitudes/beliefs that one might call "white supremacy". The lowest end of "the least amount of white supremacy possible" would be a white person who argues that white people are, in fact, completely inferior to all other races and it is every white person's bounden duty to give as much of the wealth and power that they have stolen to non-white races as possible. On the highest end, a.k.a. "actual white supremacists", you'd have a card-carrying KKK member who believes in the absolute superiority of the white race over all other races and pretty much every horrible policy proposal that would flow downstream from that belief, e.g. forced segregation/apartheid.
The problem is that, as far as I can tell, there are a whole bunch of different levels in between those extremes, but if the two opposite ends of the spectrum I described are levels 1 and 10, most people in this country are somewhere between levels 4 and 6, and the people at level 4 are calling the people at level 6 "white supremacists" (and by so doing, they intend to evoke the same kinds of disgust and hatred that people rightly feel for the folks at level 10, when the worst thing people at level 6 are guilty of is thinking that the fact that most people tend to live in neighborhoods where the majority of the folks around them look the same as they do is just natural human behavior and not evidence of America being racist to the core.
I keep wanting to work up a description of the full spectrum but haven't found the time.
If you do it, you'll need to have examples of each level so people can know how 'white supremacist' they are. BUT, the problem with writing that up is that nobody wants to be even 20% white supremacist, so the result of the writeup will be to pressure all your readers into becoming 1s. So there's that.
I think the races are different enough that not separating them will lead to great harms* while not leading to any benefits.** Therefore a clear cost-benefit analysis leads to the conclusion that ethnic nationalism is the only rational choice. Games theory would also clearly show that the rational choice is to favor your race over others, and that in a multiracial nation this will lead to chaos.
Where do I fall on your chart?
* diversity harms: http://americandigest.org/wp/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/
** benefits according to an expert is better athletes and more restaurants, nothing else referenced in a 2 hour debate: https://youtu.be/KqoqN4kXk3s
Thanks for writing.
It struck me that the utility of your analysis lies in demonstrating the utter inanity of the 'conversation' about 'racism' in popular culture. More apt would be the descriptor 'self-important screeching and hooting' about 'media-entertainment industry infighting.' And if this isn't ridiculous enough: given the speed of multiplication, might there not be more definitions soon?
You've written about the two, and now the five; I eagerly await your writeup on the Eleven Definitions of Racism, on which a national conversation will be fanned by the ADL but also by PETA, CDC, and Santa Claus.
What do we do?
My proposal is that we create a unifying common enemy to direct our attention and efforts. Suitable candidates include potentially hostile aliens, or perhaps Belgians
+1 for the presence of a common enemy to help unite – at least the vast majority of members of – fractious groups of humans! And however temporary that may be, after the menacing Belgians are finally defeated ...
Likely one reason, perhaps among many, there was so much *relative* comity in US politics in the direct aftermath of WWII and into the 1950s? So many families had at least one member who recently fought alongside other Americans in that common cause.
Yes, there was Sen. McCarthy and the Birchers, plus some antediluvian hard-line USSR sympathizers. Yes, Nixon-JFK in '60 was hard fought. But still ...
https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2011/04/20/the-fall-and-rise-of-partisan-journalism/
"“Old Party divisions are less meaningful,” wrote one Fortune magazine writer in 1960. “American political debate is increasingly conducted in a bland, even-tempered atmosphere and extremists of any kind are becoming rare.” The differences [between many mainstream Republicans and Democrats] were often subtle, having less to do with ideology than life style."
You probably already saw this, but in a similar vein, here's a post I really like about how the framework is pretty useless at explaining anything: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/