No, that is not what I wrote. Seeking a safe space isn't racist. Equating being white with being unsafe to be around is racist. Just as equating being black with being unsafe to be around is racist. This should be obvious, if you aren't racist. Those who paint entire races of people as unsafe to be around or as racist, are racist, empathy regarding how or why they became so notwithstanding. It isn't "POC" who want or feel anything. It isn't everyone who isn't white. We don't all think and feel the same. We are not a monolith, all with one view, one thought, one feeling. That's racist, degrading, and dehumanizing. It seeks to eliminate our individuality and personhood. No, it isn't "POC". It is some people who happen to be black and racist. "POC" does not equate to being racist like this. Nor does being black. There are many non-white people who are not racist. Please recognize they exist and don't lump them in just because of their races. "Acting black" is a racist concept. Dark skin doesn't cause people to act a particular way. We may have sympathy for how or why somebody became racist, but that doesn't make their racism not racism, and it doesn't make it ok.
When a white girl gets gang raped by a group of black men, you have sympathy for her right? If she then due to the trauma declares all black people unsafe to be around, do you not recognize that as racism? Again, we can feel sympathy for how or why people become racist, but that doesn't make them not racist.
Looks like some more "safe spaces!" Berkeley co-op Person of Color Theme House bans white guests from common spaces White guests are banned from the common spaces at the Person of Color House, an off-campus housing option for Berkeley students, according to a photo of the guest rules recently posted on Reddit. Under a section labeled “Guests in Common Spaces,” it states: “Guests are allowed in common spaces but please be mindful if there are house members in the room beforehand. White guests are not allowed in common spaces (see intro).” The POC House intro states in part that many members moved in “to be able to avoid white violence and presence.” When students do bring a guest, the rules direct them to announce it in the house guest chat and note “if they are white.” The country is really making great strides in introducing this new "separate but equal" concept!
Yeah, like the fact that abolishing slavery was a goal from the very founding of the country being totally buried. Slavery being banned in many Northern states, transoceanic slave trading being abolished under penalty of death. The work of the underground railroad, and abolishment movements in several northern states. Or how the founders diluted southern states' power in Congress by the 3/5's compromise and requiring a new slave state could only be admitted if a new free state was admitted concurrently.
I wrote: “what is your explanation why many African Americans want to go to a "safe space" to relax? Are they all just racists?” You answered: “If they equate safe space to absence of any white people, then yes. Absolutely.” So the answer is you think they are all racists because what other criteria makes it a “safe space”. These “racists” have had their safe spaces since the beginning. They’re called Black churches, fraternities, private clubs, bars, barber shops, hair salons…..With African Americans moving out to professions, universities, etc. away from their historic safe places, some Black intellectuals are verbalizing that need which seems to bother some non-African Americans with rigid ideologies. I'd call that PTSD
I read the screenshot on reddit last week. I thought these poor fragile people need psychotherapy if a non-POC enters your personal space ruins your vibe. The fringe is just that.
I stand by what I wrote. IF they call it a "safe space" specifically because it lacks white people, because white people are considered unsafe or their existence nearby makes them uncomfortable, that is racist, and explicitly so. It is the same if a white person feels uncomfortable around all black people because they think them unsafe to be around. It is blatant prejudice based on race, and discriminatory action based on it. What other criteria can make something a safe space? I think we could all think of a few things. High visibility, lack of crime, security monitoring made available to the public. But presence or absence of a particular race? That's racist, plain and simple. Yeah, white racists want black-people-absent areas too. That's also racist. You didn't answer the question. Would you call it racist or not? Would you find it excusable? Is it fair to the vast majority of black people, who have no inclination to rape anybody, that she declare them all unsafe and demand they not go to places where she goes?
You realize we are talking about a specific culture in general terms, not every member is the same and some will disagree like any other culture. African Americans are 12% of the US population, one of the dominant cultures, that was uniquely molded by slavery, racism and segregation. Their culture has not been valued in the US and openly made fun of. That leads to on undercurrent of feeling vulnerable when displaying traits of their culture, which causes some to seek environments where they feel unjudged. Your rigid peculiar perspective seems to not allow you to understand that and you call them racists. If someone was attacked by a dog and afterward was afraid of dogs, I would say they developed a phobia. If a Filipino was brutally attacked by a Korean and then developed a fear of Koreans, I say that unreasonable fear was due to psychological trauma not racism. Is that clear enough?
Wow. That's some extra extreme projection. Did you notice that I made the same point and asked you to stop lumping all "POC" together as a monolith even though this is only about particularly racist black people? Yes, that doesn't mean all black people. Yes, it doesn't mean all people of any culture. It means racist black people specifically, only the ones who demand the exclusion of white people to call a space "safe". My perspective that you find so peculiar is simply the refusal to make excuses for people being racist. As I have written to you three times now, you can have empathy for how and why somebody became racist, and still recognize that they are racist. No, that isn't an answer to the question of if the white rape victim I depicted is racist and if her declaring black people unsafe is something you would be ok with. I don't think you would be ok with that, and I think you would consider it racist, which is why I think you are dodging.
I am aware of the many flavors of POC. You do realize we are commenting on an opinion piece by an African American woman who is referencing herself as a POC , that is Black, that is African American and that is the culture we and she are commenting on, not South Asians or Hispanics? Your insistence on calling her a racist for wanting safe spaces makes the word nearly meaningless. She and I listed the reasoning behind it. Its intention is not to hurt but to help. Racist behavior usually involves bigoted hate of a race. Wanting a place where there is open cultural expression is not hate. Whites are not harmed in any way, but may be reminded that a culture has been damaged by its past treatment if they thought about it. My example was the same as yours using different races and the answer remains psychological trauma not racism. An irrational fear is not racism.
Irrelevant. She speaks for exactly one person , herself. She does not does not speak for "POC". She does not speak for "African Americans". Every time you or she says "POC" feel this or "POC" think that she/you is/are purporting to speak for people she doesn't and it is offensive and indeed racist. How many times do I have to repeat that I do/did not call her/you racist for wanting safe spaces? I called her/you races with equating safety with the complete absence of anyone of a particular race. And that is racist. Are you intentionally misreading this? That doesn't make it not racist. Many white nationalists want an absence of black people, because they want to help keep white people safe, because in their racism they see black people as unsafe. It's still racism. But not always. You need not hate to be racist. There are white nationalists who don't hate black people, but merely seek segregation for the safety of white people. Their racism is based on fear, not necessarily hate, though the two do often lead to one another. Nobody said otherwise. And if you are truly talking about culture and not race, then not only is it racist to demand white people not be present in the location, white people shouldnt even be excluded from the culture itself. You clearly changed the example because in mine it was obviously racism, even to those who refuse to see racism in non-white people. A not so subtle trick that needs to be noted. You excuse racism based on fear? Really? You don't recognize that a LOT of racism is based on irrational fear of black people, middle eastern people, etc?
You know there are gay bars and even gay soft ball leagues, I read today, where they say they can "be themselves" (a quote from the article). These people who want some safe place where they can be themselves are nothing but bigots by your peculiar calculation.
Sexual orientation is not a social construct. Straight people and gay people actually ARE fundamentally and categorically different in one important way. Black and white people are not.
Hmmm...some pushback... UChicago retracts no-whites allowed med school stipend program The University of Chicago’s medical school changed its stipend program that excluded white students after a foundation warned that it could be in violation of federal law. The program was directed toward “those who identify as Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, Native Americans (American Indians, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiians), and Asian (Hmong, Vietnamese, Laotian, and Filipino).”
Fascinating how they excluded so many Asians, and clearly by intention, since they singled out Laotian of all people. How about Cambodian? Burmese? Indian? Indonesian? Malay? Japanese? Korean? Samoan? Perhaps that's another reason this policy got changed.
I really don't think you would support that when it's white people who want areas rid of all POC for safety reasons. You know, so they can feel safe and be themselves as you put it... I think you may recognize that for what it is.
You still don’t get it. African American is a large subculture in the US. There are many more small and large subcultures with like interests, like gays, the deaf, bikers, Hispanics, Native Americans, furries, white supremacists…..and each try to find a place where they can “be themselves”. It is interesting to see which ones you object to.
I fully understand. It isn't complicated at all. I object to the racist ones. The ones who seek to exclude people based on race. That isn't all "African Americans", and you and the writer you quote don't speak for African Americans, much less People of Colour. If you can't "be yourself" without demanding the exclusion of entire races of people from where you are... that would be a textbook definition of racist. If a group of furries were to declare no black people can come to a particular place because they make said furries feel unsafe, we would be objecting to them too. Gay pride parades don't ban straight people from attending. Octoberfest doesn't ban anyone by race. Caribana doesn't demand races be absent either.
Nope, you still don’t get it. Of course not all Blacks need a "safe space" that would be a ridiculous assumption, but some do. Defining our terms; racism is bigotry based on race is my working definition. Is a furry bigoted against non-furries because they want to have a safe space where they can enjoy their fur? Are gays bigoted towards straights because they want to relax around other gays? Are Afghan Americans being bigoted against whites if they form a club for Afghans? Are African Americans being bigoted because they want a place where they do not feel judged for acting Black?
It is you who don't get it. Furries, homosexuals, etc are not races, and don't demand the exclusion of entire races of others just so they can feel safe. Furries accept the presence of non-furries. Homosexuals invite heterosexuals to Pride. You can feel safe around those who are different from you, especially if that difference is mere skin colour. To say otherwise is racist. You can be yourself around people of other skin colours too, and your skin colour doesn't dictate how you should act. "Acting black" and "acting white" are racist concepts. White is not a culture, nor is Black. You are talking about a small group of black racists, calling their racism a culture. That's fine, but it is just as wrong to equate that to "black" as it is to equate white nationalism (people who think non-white people unsafe) to "white". Most black people are not racist.
And equating safety to the absence of an entire race of people is bigotry based on race. Thinking you can't be yourself so long as somebody of a particular race is nearby is also bigotry based on race. You recognize this when thinking of white nationalists, don't you? Nobody should be prejudged as unsafe to be around or unable to be yourself around just because they are a particular race.
Do these people realize they are saying that they are so weak the mere presence of a white person totally dominates every aspect of their lives?
