I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion than that Rufo really acquits himself well here. https://t.co/R6SLlq0hlM
— Thomas Chatterton Williams 🌍 🎧 (@thomaschattwill) May 26, 2021
२६ मे, २०२१
Anti- Critical Race Theory advocate Christopher Rufo is asked "What do you like about being white?"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११ टिप्पण्या:
Victoria writes: "It’s funny, Thomas Chatterton Williams says that Christopher Rufo acquits himself well in the video for CRT. I think Rufo comes off as complete smug jerk. I wouldn’t listen to anything he has to say."
Deirdre writes: "He missed the obvious answer: Easier absorption of Vitamin D, especially in the frozen North. Also, it makes you more likely to have life-long lactose tolerance."
Amadeus 48 writes:
"This is a great example of two people coming at a situation that one (M.L Hill) infuses with great significance and the other (C Rufo) really doesn’t, namely, what race are you? Hill can feel any way he wants to about being black, but Rufo doesn’t think in those terms. The best thing is to engage other people as individuals. To do anything else is to give too much power to stereotypes. I look at Hill and see a probably intelligent and somewhat elegant figure. That is about as superficial as anything can be. Then Hill starts talking, and I can get to know him as an individual. His ideas take shape and give him an identity that goes beyond the superficial. What he says indicates that he is preoccupied with race. Why? Well, maybe he is superficial. Maybe he has some theories about group characteristics that go beyond our common humanity. Generally, that hasn’t worked out too well in the past. When I was practicing law, I rode down in the elevator once with a couple of guys from the support staff. One, a black guy, was saying to the other, “Your father is black and your mother is Korean, so what do you call yourself? How do you think about it?” The other guy said, to his eternal credit, “I call myself an American.” There is a way forward here."
Washington Blogger
5:40 PM (2 hours ago)
to me
Washington Blogger writes: "I think the "what do you like about being white" is a new twist on "Have you stopped beating your spouse?" Is there really a good direct answer for that question? Anything you say that is good about being white is going to be turned against you. You know who has a good answer for the question "What is good about being _____? A racist. And I mean a racist in the more classical definition: One who thinks more highly about his or her own race than they do about others. But when I asked myself that same question, I couldn't really answer it. It would be like asking me "What do you like about being blue-eyed" or "What do you like about being balding" All these are things not part of my control and thus not things I spend time "liking". And then another thought occurred to me. Do most whites identify culturally as white in a tangible way? In many cases people might associate with historical national lineage such as French or Spanish, but not white. Maybe it is one of the subtle privileges of whiteness, that we can identify as something irrespective of our whiteness, and until we are so oppressed that we MUST form our identity from our racial characteristics then we will truly understand what our privilege used to be."
Kate writes: "I disagree with Williams' tweet. I think Rufo passed up an important opportunity. Answer the question. First of all, what does Hill mean by "White"? Ask him to define that. Does he mean people whose ancestors were born in Europe? If so, I can come up with a list of things I like. The Renaissance. Shakespeare. St. Patrick. Eleanor of Aquitaine. It's a total gotcha question, which is why Rufo diplomatically tries to refute it, but he should've gone all in instead. Make them define these terms. You want to call me White? Go ahead. I could go on for hours with all the ways I'm proud. Coyly dodging the question was pretty much his worst available option."
Paddy O writes:
I really liked the question "What do you like about being white?" It really is a good one, in light of critical race theory assumptions. I'm likely not as negative about the goals of that approach than many of your readers, but in thinking about how I'd answer that question, I realized again why I do see it as ultimately limited in scope. It does address certain experiences and contexts, but can't be a wide cultural theory because the very assumptions of that good question are misplaced. The African American experience is immensely unique in history and so there is a shared history, culture, identity, experience of being Black in America that allows race to be a strongly identifying trait. Most people globally don't have this distinctly shared racial history, white people included. So there's really not a sense of what I like about being "white' because white people have very distinct threads of place, history, culture, that has created solidarity and division along other lines. What is the racial experience of World War II, for instance? African Americans can point to continued racism within the military and Jim Crow laws during this time. Europeans and Asians have extremely different experiences broken down by national divisions, not race. So Europeans, Asians, and Hispanics and Africans, tend to not think in terms of their racial identity as something to 'like' but much more narrowly their national/region. What was the Asian experience of World War II. We can talk about the injustice of interning Japanese Americans, absolutely, but Chinese and Filipino folks will have their own things to say about the Japanese atrocities, to be sure.
Even in the US, I think of myself as a Californian, which is very different from a midwesterner or Southerner. The Civil War was a immense expression of how immigrant communities continued to hold onto their particular heritage while adopting regional identity as well. There was a Black experience of the Civil War, yes, but not countering "White" experience except in the most strained sense. There was the North and the South, there were German regiments and Irish regiments.
If you ask most folks about their heritage and identity, breaking down into racial categories really doesn't fit, so we talk about our heritage. What do you like about being Italian, or Swedish, or Korean, or Indian, or Kenyan, because they have a distinct culture that arises from such roots. Black Americans had this robbed from them, and so there's a distinct need to better overcome the evils and misguided assumptions of the past that has inflicted discrimination. But that has to take shape without asserting that the very racial categories that were wrongly applied to those stolen from their homes should be likewise applied to every racial group. It makes for really strained assumptions and conversations as folks who want to play the part have to ignore or dissolve the complexities of history that have so many other categories of division and identity.
Donald writes:
"Ann, I must admit that this is a clever question. The left has been pushing racial essentialism hard in response to an increasingly populist Republican Party. Without minority voters, they are simply the party of the coastal elites. Under this strategy, non-whites are strongly encouraged to loudly proclaim the virtues of their ethnic or racial group. Whites who do such things are castigated as white supremacists. The interviewer was trying to lure Rufo into saying something that could be used to tar him as a white supremacist. I think Rufo realizes the trap. It’s a bit like asking Rwandans “Why do you like being a Tutsi (or Hutu)?” following the genocide. An excellent way to foment conflict! Get people to make statements that force them to take sides. The people in the middle are standing in the way of more conflict."
Rufo could have said: I like that there's a social convention against white pride, so that leaves me free to think of myself as worth whatever I'm worth on my individual merit.
Donald responds to my answer:
"Ann, that’s a better response than I would have offered had I been in Rufo’s shoes. Still, I worry that it concedes too much terrain to racial essentialism. Another possible response: “I was invited to this show to make an argument and present evidence on a matter of public concern. Neither my skin color or my feelings about my skin color are relevant to assessing the quality of my evidence. I would expect such a question on The View or Oprah, but not here. Are you suggesting that the quality of my evidence rises or falls based on the color of my skin?”"
The problem with my suggested answer is that it is intended to open the door to an intelligent discussion, but these shows don't work like that, so it would only make Rufo vulnerable. Of course, he made the better choice keeping his position clear. Your idea is similar but much more belligerent than what Rufo said.
In the discussion that I wanted to touch off, Marc Lamont Hill could follow up by inviting Rufo to see that is white privilege — not to feel pressure to think about your race and to easily experience individualism. Can you not then acknowledge the burden felt by black people? That can lead to a discussion of why black people don't choose to seize the same freedom for themselves — the freedom to see themselves as individuals? Etc. etc.
I thought that would be an interesting discussion, but I have little hope of seeing that done seriously on TV (or even in small social settings).
"choose to seize the same freedom for themselves — the freedom to see themselves as individuals"
To continue this imaginary conversation: It's not enough — or is it — to see yourself as an individual. The demand would be to be seen as an individual. How can you make that happen? And why hasn't it happened yet? This is the stuff of the "I Have a Dream" speech.
Ron writes:
that is white privilege — not to feel pressure to think about your race and to easily experience individualism.
Critical Race Theory requires white people (and everyone else) to center their identity around their race. Past history shows that a good outcome from that is unlikely. Meanwhile, out here in the despicable fly-over country, I routinely see kids of different races running around playing with each other. Married couples of different races are unremarkable, and thus nobody remarks on them. A retired Marine SGM wearing a BLM tee shirt waves back to me when we pass each other during our daily walks. People seem to be getting along quite well around here.
CRT requires white people to think about their race but to confine that thinking to negative things. There doesn't seem to be much worry that this could cause white people to think about good things — that is to indulge in white pride. Marc Lamont Hill invited Rufo to say what he likes about being white, but presumably this was a trap, and if Rufo expressed positive ideas about his whiteness, that would get him called a racist or a white supremacist or something like that. The positivity would be controllable — squelchable.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा