Is blackness really just anti-whiteness

No, because Blackness doesn't really exist outside the imagination of those who assign themselves Whiteness.

Interesting take, and I agree until the last sentence. Blackness is a multitude of, somewhat intuitively recognizable behaviors, inclinations, and other traits resultant of our marginalized coalesence as well as reaction to our imposed status. It is not solely a political reaction, as such would be an inappropriate title, given we don't say the Irish, the Japanese, or the Jew, are culturally defined wholly as political counteraction . Naturally, in parts, black culture is composed of such quality, but I'd be hard pressed to call Mingus, Baraka, Motley, Brooks, Marshall, and others of the like, as nothing but the products of a reactionist political mechanism. Blackness is its own unique essence (and to be clear, up to now I've been speaking solely on the black American), and functions as a genuine ethnicity and culture, as does the white American, despite claims of a lack there of. In my opinion, blackness may be understood most clearly by symbols than rational articulation. Blackness is ATLiens by Outkast, it's corn bread and mashed potatoes, it's Stokely Carmichael it's Langston Hughes, it's Jacob Lawerence, Kanye West, Ishmael Reed, rebellion, serenity, pragmatism, socialism, and much more than that. It's ever-evolving as the American identity tends to be, and it is composed of many things, and should never be reduced to a mere reaction against any one thing.

see

>Am I being indoctrinated?
Always, by everything else. Your thought patterns want to replicate themselves through you. There are organized groups and machines that seek to alter the flow of that data.

>I'd be hard pressed to call Mingus, Baraka, Motley, Brooks, Marshall, and others of the like, as nothing but the products of a reactionist political mechanism
It's not that blackness is a 'reactionist political mechanism', its that its figurative opposition to 'whiteness' renders it as a political agency regardless of whether the individuals populating it were engaged in projects of emancipation or not. Its like how an apolitical stance is still a 'political' judgement simply by refusing to participate. You might not be a fan of them but D&G's ATP has a genuinely brilliant chapter on the function of the face in literature and political discourse, its at once a return to Fanon's black faces/white masks and a devastating critique of Levinas' face of the other. You're totally right, blackness IS a multiplicity of things, but only if it is illuminated beyond the shadow of whiteness, only if the face is totally dismantled.

I agree with that. I'll look into what you mentioned.

Blackness, like Marxism, is simply about power. When was the last time the left actually showed an instance of actual racism and not a hoax or gray area issue like Mike Brown?
Read something like invisible man instead and never trust authority regardless of its color or education level.

Liberal racism is well documented in the black community and manifests in myriad forms. You could learn that from something as popular as the Malcolm X bio, don't be reductionist. Racism isn't as simple as white hoods and burning crosses.

>Blackness, like Marxism, is simply about power.
Everything is about power, tell us something interesting

what do you mean by liberal racism? You know reverse racism doesn't exist, right? It's prejudice, but its by no means a multifaceted system of control. You could argue that black people can be racist if its an internal thing, say, a nigerian taking the piss out of a somalian, or if they're being rude about asians, but there's no reason to think that a black person using the term "cracker" is engaging in racism. The term doesn't refer to race, only to the power dynamics between master and slave.

how are blacks slaves if they're a net negative on the tax system, ie. their existence is paid for by white taxes

if anything theyre like a massive dependent class

If you use a prejudiced term on me because im white regardless of whatever power dynamic you are being racist and making a sweeping statement. Ofc reverse racism doesnt exist. Why play word games to justify prejudice one race may have over another?

user meant liberals have helped ruin the black community as much as the Klan. St Louis and Baltimore became war zones with a lot of death after the liberal condoned riots, for example.
There was a time people believed race didn't exist, but black elites couldn't dominate the tribe that way, so they made it all about race and the black man still suffers.

White man?
Bad.

How is a slave class not a dependent class?

Besides, black people aren't slaves anymore (unless they're sent to prison, in which case Jim Crow laws become not just applicable but actively encouraged). The bigger problem is that politicians and lobbyists use certain kinds of legislation (social, economic or otherwise) to not just obscure but perpetuate the deep-rooted marginalisation that the black community faces, particularly in america, simply because it makes too much money for them not to. This has been a problem throughout the 20th century that has never really been resolved, even though Clinton backtracked on all the criminal legislation he put into action that disproportionately affected the black community.

Not a single example given, just conjecture that is little more than a conspiracy theory. Most blacks in jail are there because of violent crime. Any one who lives in a city knows this, it's on the news everyday. Much like Mexico, whites are to blame, but only because of their drug habit which supports organized crime.

>you are being racist and making a sweeping statement. Ofc reverse racism doesnt exist
how are these not contradictory statements? I used the term "cracker" specifically because its a denotation of power, IE the "cracker" of the whip. It's not a racial slur because there is no legacy of repeated marginalisation through it, if anything its an exclamation of resistance. Like I said, it's a prejudiced term, but prejudice is not the same thing as racism.

then I agree, the celebration of Barack Obama was the ultimate post-racial circlejerk and premature ejaculation of white liberals, when in reality race relations were only worsened during and after his presidency.

>black elites couldn't dominate the tribe that way, so they made it all about race and the black man still suffers
Okay, maybe we're not in agreement then. My issue here is with white liberals who claim to be "blind" to race, or that we're living in a post-racial area, which is generally a claim used to justify economic policies and legislation that suppress the black community under cover of darkness.

The good thing about China rising to prominence is that I won't have to pretend to take Americans and their endless blathering about race and politics seriously anymore.

Muh whites, muh blacks. Nobody fucking cares.

Do you ever blame black people for anything, or is it always white people's fault?

>just conjecture that is little more than a conspiracy theory
I think Lee Atwater (advisor to Ronald Reagan) proves my point more than conjecture and conspiracies ever could:

>"You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

Professors calling for an overthrow of capitalistic society are typically sociology professors. They know those students aren't gonna have any real job prospects, so it seems they instead opt to turn them into foot soldiers for the revolution.

>race relations were only worsened during and after his presidency
how is this not me being critical of a black man?

Fanon criticized Négritude on its claiming of a Negro-African essence, positing against white European culture a black African culture simply inversing their evaluation (upside down Eurocentrism). They just did the negation, they didn't reach a higher synthesis in a new humanism Fanon advocated, which broke with the white-black dichotomy that accompanied the trans-atlantic slave trade, slavery and colonialism.

>Most blacks in jail are there because of violent crime
Yeah, and most people in the Gulag were there because they were counter revolutionary kulak saboteurs

I guess every prisoner is a political one even if you can pinpoint them to a specific murder... or not

>But now I'm starting to read into this stuff and I don't see how it's that radical. The only worry is the association with the overthrow of our capitalist society, but nowadays I don't see professors calling for that sort of thing. It's more of mentality change they seem to be seeking.

I was just reading an article by Derrida (The principle of reason: the university in the eyes of its pupils, 1983) where he writes on the entanglements of university faculties (even those that Kant had claimed should be above the utility question) and research oriented towards its utility in/for military power, economy, technology...
When, he wrote in the 1980s, the politics of research and teaching gets centered no longer around the nation state but around "international technomilitary networks"

At a certain point he writes: "the discourse of Marxism and psychoanalysis, including those of Marx and Freud, inasmuch as they are standardized by a project of scientific practice and by the principle of reason, are intra-institutional, in any event homogeneous with the discourse that dominates the university in the last analysis [...] even when it claims to be revolutionary, this discourse does not always trouble the most conservative forces of the university [...] it is enough that it does not threaten the fundamental axiomatics and deontology of the institution, its rhetoric, its rites and procedures [...] the academic landscape easily accommodates such types of discourse more easily into its ecology and landscape [...]

One adviser to a president decades ago is proof of a huge conspiracy against a group of people.
How about this, the husband of Michelle Alexander, author of the new jom crow, said her book is wrong. Her own black Male husband said their is no racist conspiracy in sentencing.

Oh I agree, white liberals are a major threat to the black community.

Obama is a white man in black skin. He had the typical white upbringing sans his few years in Indonesia. Hell he only married Michelle because he knew it would be extremely difficult to appeal to black women if he had a white wife. Look up the story of the white woman he dated for a few years. You can tell he lost interest in her when he realized it wasn't a politically savvy move to marry her.

It's certainly proof of a concerted effort to use legislation in order to enact ulterior motives. You'd have a point if it was an isolated incident, but you only have to look at the Jim Crow era to see just how many 'neutral' policies were used to suppress black voters. This is not a new tactic, nor is it a conspiracy, its just in the nature of vague 'political' language to manipulate and deceive.

Like I said, Bill Clinton came out a couple of decades later to apologise for the legislation surrounding the "war on crime" that he readily admitted to be disproportionately affecting black families and communities. There is no "racist conspiracy" in sentencing, but there is a narrative of black criminality which is used to justify policies like the three strike rule or the 85% rule as a means of keeping the industrial prison complex well-fed with free labour (provided to them, of course, through the 13th amendment, which is what I meant when I said that Jim Crow laws are totally applicable when an individual is convicted). Racism functions all the more smoothly when you claim that racism has been totally eradicated.

>disproportionately affecting black families and communities.
because they disproportionately commit more crime

Sometimes I wonder what Fanon would have to say about Obama. I think the fact that he was so celebrated by white liberals would've horrified him

*street crime
those legislations have done nothing to make the sentences of white collar crime any worse.

>this is your brain on sociology

Why is Derrida such a faggot? All that verbosity just to say “Marxism doesn’t trouble the institution because Marxism is the institution”.

I guess OP can rest assured of what already knew; that he wasn’t going to start the revolution all by himself.

How much does the American industrial economy rely on prison labor? I hear a lot of this type of language about the benefits of slave-type labor in the American prison system. But who is it benefitting, to what degree, and how are they involved in the establishment and maintainence of laws that supply this prison labor population?

I wish we could all just get along sometimes. Just a daydream.

Wtf i love derrida now

Look into ALEC, they're essentially a group of state legislators and industry lobbyists who allowed private prison companies like the CCA to generate a revenue of 1.7 bil. The prisons have to be bursting in order to turn a profit, so you have laws like the three strike and 85% rule which keeps people in prison effectively for good. Even if its difficult to provide statistical evidence that shows it adversely affects the black community, there's no question that a large percentage of America's wealth comes from what is effectively slave labour. A lot of companies have moved away from using prison-made products, but its still a profitable industry.

I don't want to recommend a Netlflix documentary over a book but the 13th Amendment is really well-researched film.

i get along with all my niggas (niggas = anyone of a certain race.)

Still don't fuck with racists tho.

>American GDP: 19.39 trillion USD
>Private prison profits: 1.7 billion USD
I'm not saying those profits aren't large, and lucrative to the executives who rely on them. But compared to the general GDP figure, do they really have a significant impact on the American economy? All American manufacturing, in general, only composes a third of our total GDP.

I see a persuasive prison-industry interest in keeping prisons stocked. But I don't see persuasive evidence for a general American interest in the same thing. This is just another narrow sect of lobbyists.

>I don't see persuasive evidence for a general American interest in the same thing. This is just another narrow sect of lobbyists.
That's the problem though, even if the profits are marginal in relation to America's GDP its still a glaring oversight. The industrial prison complex is just one part of a much bigger problem with American politics, alongside things like the pharmaceutical industry and gun lobbyists (although depending on your persuasion you might disagree with me here). It doesn't amount to much because taken individually the violence of each part is abstracted to a point of absurdity. Issues of race, for example, can't really be talked about directly without reference to it as an economic category. The same goes for women in employment and the gender wage gap (though I am not entirely convinced on the latter). I think even though the benefit isn't clear, that's no reason not to condemn what's been going on in America over the last half century up to the present day.

thats 1.7 billion in tax money being drained, its a drain on GDP, not to mention how companies refuse to hire people with even misdemeanors, if you were to calculate the lost productivity and loss of tax revenue its an outright burden

afropessimism seems pretty bleak and fucking racist to me

wtf is this non-sense, youve literally a fucking novel but yet said absolutely nothing, you should fucking write for politicians

it exists so we dont have to bring up things like IQ welfare policies and single parents

>Mingus, Baraka, Motley, Brooks, Marshall
thanks for this btw
so what the heck this is pretty important to me... technically as a mixed asian-caucasian man, if I at all experience any one of those things, do I have blackness to me? For example I grew up benig friends with full-Asian kids who for one reason or another related to hiphop more than rock/whatever you all it (lol). Anyways would that mean that since (for example) I personally only feel comfortable dancing to hip hop, I have blackness to me? Is it correct to say "blackness to me"?

"master" and "slave" aren't meant to be taken literally (see Nietzsche for an example), they just happen to be extremely fitting given the context of American history. But essentially it's not about the literal slave relationship (which doesn't exist anymore, like you point out), it's about the ability to define in society what is considered "good" and "just" and "pure", from up on the proverbial ivory "tower", hence "whiteness".

Blackness isn't a quality you possess, it's a culture and aesthetic that you participate in (but you're definitely not 'black').

Ok cool. So me and my friends participated in defining and refining Blackness, and this is because we participated in a culture that is not the orthodox one at the time? Or is it inherently dependent on white people in the context of their current (not necessarily lasting) power over the status quo?

Essentially I'm wondering if Blackness is the *general* resulting experience when minority people struggle with self-asserting themselves in the world devised by the majority people? Does Blackness exist if white people aren't the ones setting the status quo anymore? If black people gained the majority and valued white people in the same way, would then white people participate in Blackness like blacks do now?

>would then white people participate in Blackness like blacks do now?
I should clarify this part. Would whiteness be Blackness in this context? Emphasis on little 'w' (linked to white people) and big 'B' (linked to whichever group is the minority)
OR is this entire thing invented by the white man and can only cease to exist if:
1) the white man liquidates history himself OR
2) the white man loses it's majority AND
3) the resulting majority doesn't play the same game that the white man invented for asserting his own existence

> Mingus, Baraka, Motley, Brooks, Marshall, and others of the like, as nothing but the products of a reactionist political mechanism
Baraka was and I say that as someone fond of him.

>but prejudice is not the same thing as racism.
This is pure sophistry. Nothing more than a cynical linguistic power grab.

>Fanon was essentially responding to the enlightenment idea of blackness

No he wasn't, he's a dog playing a piano and you're reading into the notes a melody that isn't there.

Are Australian aboriginals black?

How the fuck do they get away with telling this kid that the word "racism" actually means something completely different to both the dictionary definition of the term and the cultural consensus on its meaning, fucking insane.

What revolution? One whose members are Patagonia wearing, iPhone swiping, Twitter updating, Google Drive syncing, Amazon Prime ordering, Uber dependent, cowardly, blame shifting, petty, weak, irresponsible, pussybegging, eternally offended fuckboys?
It's not a revolution. Like everything else it's a nod and a wink, the same old handshakes, bank to crony-merchant to politician.
'Finance your iPhone, Tristan, your credit is shit anyway because even though you still live with mom with no end in sight you have $70,000 in debt on your school loan and you are making 14.55 an hour at a job you hate and are utterly unprepared to work at and have no means to better yourself because manual labor or anything involving real work is beneath you as you see it.'
They aren't foot soldiers, or revolutionaries, or even effective discontents. They're just tools to monitor shit on Periscope to further a narrative, left or right wing. Feed that echo chamber, keep them entertained, silence any semblance of rawness, or individuality, or anger, or (God forbid) masculinity. Whir up those telemetry monitors! Sell that fucking user data! Write midnight legislation to fund creeping government influence! We WILL take your rights away, don't question it, you will not do anything about it anyway, will you? Your sons will be taught that the Founders were racist, and their Constitution uninclusive and problematic! The legacy of your grandfather's will burn!
But there you sit, you dumb fat fuck, wasting away into triviality and porn and YoutTube, as the stars we dreamed of visiting and the supercomputers we dreamed of creating and the beautiful world we dreamed of making with our priceless freedom and individuality and the merit of our effort fades away.

Attached: 1550968147971.jpg (960x720, 118K)

you suffer from too much historicism to meaningfully participate in this thread desu

How is it sophistry? racism depends upon prejudice to work but that doesn't mean they are the same things. This is not that complicated. Prejudice is an individual's experience of suspicion or disgust at the other, racism is the cumulative effect of those prejudices on culture and society more broadly. Individuals have prejudices, societies are 'racist'.

Again, how is "cracker" a racial slur when there is zero reference to race to it? it explicitly refers to a historical power dynamic, not the ethnicity of the one holding the whip. How can it be racist if it doesn't refer to race? seems like you're the one bending the definition of racism, not me.

This seems like circular reasoning though?

>The politics is fucked and racist because it is influenced by the prison-industrial complex
>The prison-industrial complex is just one small part of bigger problem, the politics

Social sciences and cultural studies are leftist think tanks with funding and access to their targets that put all other think tanks and lobbying groups to shame.
First because it attempts to take a strong pejorative and claim exclusive use over it. This essentially allows academia to use its vast wealth and influence to control the discourse as a whole. Secondly within that definition is an unquestioned conception of justice which leads to vastly incorrect problemetozation. By by focusing political problems to groups (especially when one uses phony relations like marginalization and oppression) it renders the purpose of politics into nothing more than the use of political apparatus to render comforts onto the bodies of individuals rather than ensuring the resilience of the body politic, which is the only body that matters.

Also, the cracker thing is just plain dishonest. You know how the term and the institution of slavery have been raciallized to the extent that if your etymology were correct, it would make it explicitly racial language.

>renders the purpose of politics into nothing more than the use of political apparatus to render comforts onto the bodies of individuals rather than ensuring the resilience of the body politic, which is the only body that matters.
So it divert resources to black bodies instead of white bodies, and this upsets you?

Not at all, white bodies have too many resources as it is. Whites are probably the worst offender and the power they gave to corporate entities is partially responsible for the destruction of any semblance of civic virtue that existed in this world.

That's a rather manipulative way to refer to people who are in jail because they committed crimes. Conviction of innocents does happen but it's that common, and if you think jailing criminals is bad than perhaps you'd prefer to execute them?

Christ I'm really sick and tired of your lot. The entire internet is filled with progressives and marxists, why do you have to come here as well?
I just want one fucking community that is not a slave to current sensibilities.

Attached: 1551359349251-g.jpg (312x342, 32K)

>I just want one fucking community that is not a slave to current sensibilities.

You know that's impossible unless you leave the internet and go live in a farm in Idaho or something. Stop being a bitch.

Also read Bernanos' Dialogues of the Carmelites, you'll see a nice illustration of your own plight.

If anyone REALLY wants to get rid of blacks, all you have to do is sell them condoms. Make a campaign against unplanned pregnancy and stress to importance of the need of two parents to raise a child.

It's not circular reasoning, its a description of the positive feedback loop which allows these private prison companies to make a killing alongside other industries (pharma, gun, etc.) which are also pressuring legislators to make it easier for them to turn a profit, above concerns like social wellbeing. They're each small pieces of a much wider economic problem, and racism is simply an indirect byproduct of abstract economic policy.

>First because it attempts to take a strong pejorative and claim exclusive use over it
no, its an elaboration of how to differentiate between a microstate (prejudice) and a macrostate (racism). indviduals are not 'racist' because racism is a discourse of power that operates through multiple bodies, whereas prejudices are simply the instinctive aversion to things we aren't familiar with. Reverse racism could only be a thing if the marginalised group that is purportedly being racist gains some kind of hegemony that allows their ideals to propagate as part of the dominant culture

>ensuring the resilience of the body politic, which is the only body that matters
and its precisely this kind of collectivism and denial of individual or minor issues which white liberals use to push their post-racial narrative. This means they also refuse to acknowledge race as an economic category (when there is plenty of evidence to suggest why we should do this) which makes it impossible to address the real issues. Your claim that marginalisation is 'phony' only obscures the problem of racial difference even further, your idea of the 'purpose' of politics is bound up with a populist sentiment that I cannot on ethical grounds agree with

>So it divert resources to black bodies
except it doesnt, it hires rent seekers with degrees in peddling bullshit, most of whom are in fact white

niggers did that pre welfare state

How is it dishonest? I'm reading the term literally, you're the one historicising it and locating it within a racial context. it isn't a racial slur because it isn't plugged into a hegemonic discourse of racism, its a term which is (if anything) a resistance to white hegemony by naming the fundamental power dynamic between whites and blacks.

It's not about the conviction of innocents, its about the legislation that ensures criminals remain in prison for the maximum amount of time possible, when plenty of studies have shown there is no reparative benefit to this. It's just a way of keeping private prisons fully stocked so they can turn a profit.

Now you're thinking like a government legislator.

Such an elaboration could be done with new terminology, especially with such brilliant people at the helm. The use of the term racism was strategic. The the problem with it is that it’s conception of the macro state is one which still focuses on individuals without seeing the macro state as an entity in itself. It renders the difference meaningless.

I absolutely agree about viewing race as an economic category. If anything, it allows us to quantify their contributions to the resilience of the body politic. When viewed through this metric both blacks and whites (entirely due to the leftist, urban demographic of them) are a drain. I think forced rebased of propert from the latter to the former might be help, but I’m cynical about the ability to generate civic virtue in the black population. The real problem is that you’ve allowed fake issue to take precedence out of some due to your ethically wrong and sentimental beliefs about life itself. You reduce politics down to the individual body, so that we will never grow beyond it. The goal should be to reduce the autonomy of the individual as a social category becomes functionally useless.

You know there are black cities in america m8. Where they control the government, and they are massively racist towards white people

How is it dishonest? I'm reading the term literally, you're the one historicising it and locating it within a racial context. it isn't a racial slur because it isn't plugged into a hegemonic discourse of racism, its a term which is (if anything) a resistance to white hegemony by naming the fundamental power dynamic between whites and blacks.
What part of language can escape its historical or racial context. Your etymological approach does the same thing, yet it selectively ignores the racialization of the term and the institutions behind its development. It exists today to as a term of racial abuse from one group to another, and raises the question why someone would want to reduce power differentials to with someone who refers to them in such a way? How could could such a thing lead to the creation of a healthy community?
I would ask if you were interested in a meaningful coexistence or just striking back, but we both know the answer to that one. But more importantly we know that your primary interest is scoring points in conversation like it’s some type of high school debate.

a racial slur is a word that refers to a race and has negative connotations
ie. exactly the way black people use cracker

>80 posts and nobody has pointed out that black people are on average immensely dumber and more violent than white people
Is this reddit or what exactly is happening

discussing people instead of ideas is immensely dumber.

>Am I being indoctrinated?
maybe.
but what if you were indoctinated before ?

IQ obsession is pure nihilism. There’s no reason to even consider it.

>IQ obsession is pure nihilism

>Your etymological approach does the same thing, yet it selectively ignores the racialization of the term and the institutions behind its development.
See my previous post about Lee Atawater. Abstraction is necessary because politicians know they can use these legislative changes to negatively impact the black community, if only as a byproduct of the other benefits they can reap from it. This is more of a speculation but I think we should go even further in distinguishing between prejudice and racism, for example, to consider acts of police brutality against black men as prejudiced violence (literally a pre-judged sentence), while racism is the interrelations between systems of power that allows these kinds of things to go unchecked. I'm not historicising it because I don't think of racism as part of a time gone-by– its still here, still operating in ever-diffuse ways through the abstracted language of legislation. If you want a healthy community, these issues have to be scrutinised at an abstract level because that's the only way we can think about things productively.

>If anything, it allows us to quantify their contributions to the resilience of the body politic.
All I'm hearing from you is the language of empire and the platitudes of nationalism. I know you're probably making a jab at my disposition but everything you're saying just comes across as crass. Economic exploitation is not a 'fake' issue, its just very easily hidden behind legislation. I am not saying that black people are the only ones suffering under this regime, but rather that the real racism today (as distinguished from prejudice of the individual) operates through these channels.

>You reduce politics down to the individual body, so that we will never grow beyond it
on the contrary, my intention is to show how conceptions about the individual (racialised) body is not dictated by our personal disgust or contempt for the other, but rather a general indifference to race (for the purpose of 'neutrality' or otherwise) that allows the economic exploitation of the black community to be dissipated beyond what the legislative language is capable of addressing. You want to extinguish the autonomy of the individual, but I want to show how this kind of impartiality can reproduce the systemic problems of the past.

>the real racism today
you mean like the actual legislation favoring black people over white people
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

i honestly just don't care about Black Issues in the US anymore. make 13/50 not a thing and then I might care.

Honestly theyre barking up the wrong tree, spics are well on their way to being the majority. Being white is continually losing any meaning here

and vice versa?

implying you won't be constantly expected to pay for past "injustices" even when the US is 60% Indio

white academics who spew that horse shit

> All I'm hearing from you is the language of empire and the platitudes of nationalism. I know you're probably making a jab at my disposition but everything you're saying just comes across as crass.
It’s more that I developed my beliefs in opposition to yours. The only thing crass (and narcissistic) in this thread is the attempt at problemization centered around individual suffering. The individual body should be seen as subordinate to the body politic, and the suffering of the former should only become a concern when it is a threat to the resilience of the latter. The issues you creat are nothing more than a the projection of a a percerted sense of justice into occurrences in the world.

consider the economic (and social, and spiritual, etc) effect on a community where, say, 15% of its male popoulation is incarverated at any given time
extrapolate from there
lost tax revenue and state expenditures aren't the only problem with the prison system

Is any kind of education or knowledge which is not based around a neurotically completionist Socratic doubt not indoctrination? Burgers are way too faithful towards their institutions and their gatekeepers (and the concept of institutions and gatekeepers as such).

Nice argument

read my post again, you keep claiming I'm reducing politics to the individual body, when in reality I'm making a claim about how power operates and reproduces through supposedly 'neutral' legislations that do away with talking about bodies altogether. I'm not centring politics on the individual because talking about individual experience doesn't challenge or rethink legislation.

>niggers
lmao

>Burgers are way too faithful towards their institutions and their gatekeepers
dude what America is nothing if not a history of defections and revolutions

The fundamental cause of your problemetization is individual suffering. No matter what lens you wish to view it through, this is still the primary cause of a social problem in your view. You haven’t moved past the individual, you’ve merely contexualized them and their suffering.