There definitely does seem to be something to the idea that simply being born white doesn’t necessarily give you a head start in life if you’re from a very underprivileged background to begin with. Which isn’t to say that systemic racism isn’t a real thing. But a lot of the rhetoric around white privilege is (ironically) a bit too black and white. It’s a pity that these issues are getting sucked into a culture war where genuinely privileged twats like Laurence Fox become the self-appointed spokesman for under-privileged white kids.
Laurence Fox feat. Elvis
- Thread starter Jippy
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
OK no worries. I only quoted him because I'd seen him make this argument and he was mentioned earlier on the page. His veiw is represetative of many on that side of the argument.
To me, it points to class as being the key indicator of privilege. The idea of a black middle class woman being more privileged than a white working class male doesn't really marry well too well with modern identity politics but I'm certain it will be supported by many fundamental measure of privilege: educational outcomes, income outcomes, health outcomes etc.
I certainly don't have any answers but I am hugely sceptical that CRT does.
Last edited:
The CRT approach is to use systemic/institutional racism as catch-all phrases across all spheres of life, and say any data that might suggest otherwise, or oftentimes clearly shows otherwise, is just more evidence that science and reason are white supremacist constructs, so best to just ignore them. White working class boys have the worst outcomes in education from literacy rates all the way to university drop out rates in the UK? Pah. We know that the education system is deeply systemically racist so all your studies and analysis have shown is that we can't trust science and reason, they're the tools of oppression.
It's the same sort of strategy behind the white fragility nonsense. You can't falsify it, and if you try to argue against it you're merely proving the original premise. It's all shallow rhetoric and absent reasoning, and anyone with half a brain sees through it.
Obviously that isn't to suggest that there are no institutions or processes that are systemically discriminatory. But CRT does nothing towards actually finding and righting them.
It's the same sort of strategy behind the white fragility nonsense. You can't falsify it, and if you try to argue against it you're merely proving the original premise. It's all shallow rhetoric and absent reasoning, and anyone with half a brain sees through it.
Obviously that isn't to suggest that there are no institutions or processes that are systemically discriminatory. But CRT does nothing towards actually finding and righting them.
Olly shut down the JKR thread so transphobes struggling with all the free time on their hands.
I know! Would've quoted Shamana if I was in the mood to be aggro.
It really amused me, though. We've been badly off-topic for a while and it was like Fox had personally intervened to make it all relevant for us.
Quoted me on what?
I think your accent plays a huge part in prejudice. A black guy with a posh accent is likely to do better in a job interview at a white collar firm than a white guy with a working class accent. Similarly a guy of Indian descent with an English accent will encounter less prejudice in England, day to day, than if he had an Indian accent.
The problem is the focus for these determinations is often too narrow, such as the point you refer to here (not saying it’s your argument) of black African vs black Caribbean. You have to take several steps back and look at what has led to the circumstances of both sets of groups, and as has been alluded to already in the thread, certain minority immigrants typically originate from higher educated backgrounds etc.
The argument isn’t as simple as “black kids do worse in school because racism”, it’s more about why black kids are more likely to find themselves in disadvantaged communities, and the impact poverty can have on those communities and kids.
With respect that’s a very questionable piece to say the least.
I'm not entirely sure how many times it needs to be repeated that white privilege isn't about this idea that all white people are born with more money, in a higher societal class or don't face any hardships in life. If you're not sure what it means, it's ok to ask questions.
And on the topic of cultural wars i.e. Black African vs Black Caribbean you have to apply context:
Black Africans are more likely to be first generation immigrants, and because of that you're more likely to have parents who don't accept anything less than the best out of their children. Due to how hard it was to get into the country in the first place - so there's no room for complacency when it comes to education.
Compared with black Caribbeans who are more likely to be 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants due to factors like Windrush and the lineage of wet nurses being brought over from slavery, and are far more settled in their residency in this country therefore those children are more likely to perform to the median expectation of every other child.
None of that takes into consideration the environments & communities that these kids grow up in, like having parents who aren't able to support them with after school activities for example (like tutoring) due to factors like lack of money or availability due to them working jobs that require late shifts like cleaners/nurses etc.
There's so many ways to discuss this that quite frankly playing it down to just culture alone at a high level without any context applied is borderline insulting.
And on the topic of cultural wars i.e. Black African vs Black Caribbean you have to apply context:
Black Africans are more likely to be first generation immigrants, and because of that you're more likely to have parents who don't accept anything less than the best out of their children. Due to how hard it was to get into the country in the first place - so there's no room for complacency when it comes to education.
Compared with black Caribbeans who are more likely to be 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants due to factors like Windrush and the lineage of wet nurses being brought over from slavery, and are far more settled in their residency in this country therefore those children are more likely to perform to the median expectation of every other child.
None of that takes into consideration the environments & communities that these kids grow up in, like having parents who aren't able to support them with after school activities for example (like tutoring) due to factors like lack of money or availability due to them working jobs that require late shifts like cleaners/nurses etc.
There's so many ways to discuss this that quite frankly playing it down to just culture alone at a high level without any context applied is borderline insulting.
A main problem for me is the common notion that class politics and minority 'identity' politics are somehow inherently contrary to each other. My impression is that this notion originates mostly from opponents of 'identity politics' (right, left, and center), and it's often carried by a distorted picture of what 'identity politics' are. (The term itself is a dismissive one.)
Just one example, I don't think the supposed reduction of everything to that one factor 'race' is actually very common among anti-racists. But that portrayal is what many people take as gospel, and it's endlessly repeated by a broad & loud-voiced public coalition. This and other misrepresentations objectively aim (whether intended or not) at painting the political articulation of minority interests as a threat to society.
Another problem in this discussion is that statistics offer a very limited picture of a much more complex social reality. They may be of limited use when used carefully, but I don't think wider conclusions about these issues can be extrapolated from them. On the contrary, the inevitable gaps are often filled with the most arbitrary assumptions, such as 'culture' as a reason for statistical outcomes. @villain has addressed that well in her post above, imo.
Last edited:
I guess you just wanted to be a bit reserved and polite etc at the end here...
I'm less inclined. Those who think it's culture alone are white supremacists. I think that's clear.
Is the implication here that those who “think it’s culture alone” are assuming that everyone who is black has the same culture and that explains poor outcomes? Because that’s stupid as well as racist.
Where I do think culture can explain poor outcomes above and beyond the colour of someone’s skin is the cultural expectations of being born into poverty. If you’re raised in a sink estate, surrounded by gangs and violence, it’s incredibly difficult to escape your circumstances and build a better life. Even more so if your parents have already been beaten down by the same system.
To me that could be explained as a cultural influence, with the peers being just as influential as your parents. And to try and explain the poor outcomes of black/brown kids from that background as primarily due to systemic racism that they subsequently experience is missing the point IMO. Because their white peers will be just as disadvantaged.
Where racism has played a part is in the demographics of those sink estates to begin with. That’s 100% a legacy of colonialism and systemic racism.
I don’t disagree with any of this. My whole point was that the how privilege works is a lot more complex than the Twitter shouting matches suggest. The right and black conservatives in particular often make the culture argument.
Personally I think identity politics are the fundamental political current in the UK today, from the right, left and centre. English nationalism, Scottish nationalism, minority identity and political identity to a lesser extent.
Gypsy/Roma are counted as white within that document.
Nevertheless, White British on school meals do have very poor outcomes, worse than Blacks and Asians on school meals for example. I wonder if there is a regional+povery aspect, i.e. are there areas where people on school meals do worse regardless of ethnicity, and what the ethnic distributions within those areas are.
There are certainly (currently very popular) books that do push a very focused view. For example the push for more employer power* conflicts with a class-based movement. While a push for unionisation (which isn't focused on in these popular books, but which has been shown to reduce the racial income gap) would address both racial as well as class disparities.
*more employee training, which then make firings easier.
https://newrepublic.com/article/156...h-pamela-newkirk-robin-diangelo-books-reviews
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4300995/
(Note that is is the effect of unionisation alone, not more worker power in general or a social safety net.)
The union wage-gap thing also applies to the gender wage gap, according to a very new study.
No they're assuming that other cultures are bad and that's why the white people win.
But you don't think it's culture alone, so where are we going here?
Just shooting the breeze really.
How do white supremacists explain Asians (American meaning) doing so well? Their culture is better than white culture?
Last edited:
Unlike you.
I do think someone should probably offer an opinion of Laurence Fox or his political party soon...
Seems to be universally agreed on here that he’s a twat and his party is a joke. So not really much to discuss.
The table breaks it down further and has white British at 3rd bottom above Irish gypsies and Roma.
There is regional variation because a lot of money has been put into London schooling in the past couple of decades whilst typically the other regions have been neglected. This will advantage minority attainment figures given the demographics of London I would expect.
https://assets.publishing.service.g..._returns_to_GCSEs_region_and_disadvantage.pdf
That does seem to be the issue. We can only generate conversation by going off topic.
Fox probably sees this as a nicer little earner for him given his modest acting success after Lewis.
This might be off-topic, but since Fox party's essentially a response to the "culture wars", I think it's not entirely off-topic. I don't support Laurence Fox BTW.
Can anyone tell me what this University professor Bret Weinstein did that was racist?
Can anyone tell me what this University professor Bret Weinstein did that was racist?
Last edited:
I think the aim is to create a UKIP-esque pressure group in order to influence Tory policy. And to get Fox paid.
I'd go much further: Identity politics are an essential part of all popular politics since the establishment of modern Western society. It's the natural mode of articulating particular interests inside societies divided into a plethora of interest groups. That perspective may explain why I'm generally unimpressed when 'identity politics' are decried in today's politics.
It should also explain why I see a fundamental difference between majority identity politics and minority identity politics. (Probably not on every subject, but in general.) The articulated interests are different from the POV of social equality. And it's why I think the popular liberal claim of an objective standpoint above the petty particularistic squabbles of others is an illusion (and a form of political identity).
Right, I give you that. (Insofar your portrayal of the issue is fair - I just assume it is for now.)
On the other hand, demanding equality inside our society is essentially a liberal standpoint, so I'd simply expect downsides of that kind. I don't think you can have one (a broad, effective anti-racist push in society) without the other (anti-racism getting adopted by corporate culture). It's certainly necessary to criticize such developments, but it doesn't debase the anti-discrimination standpoint as such.
Still, my main point was that there's no inherent contradiction between (minority/feminist) 'identity politics' and class politics. They have to go hand in hand, and eventual conflicts of interest have to be expected & handled. (See below.)
Only when specific inequalities and disadvantages (not only "race"/ethnicity, but also gender, legal status, disabilities, regional differences, etc.) are duly identified and addressed within that movement. Which would mean featuring certain particular interests more or differently than others. But wouldn't that fall under "identity politics", according to its opponents?
Last edited:
Bit of a tangent here but...they should've have kept and/or reformed the Grammar school system instead of abolishing it.
If you want to reduce disadvantage then retaining a system that formalises advantage isn't a good tactic. Same reason I'm against public funding of private schools (in the UK in the form of tax free status). Public funds should be for trying to give all people equal educational opportunity leading to greater social mobility and equality.
I just think that selection by ability is preferable to selection by wealth, and one of the effects of the comprehensive system, has been to formalise the latter.
Those private schools were sadly given a new lease of life by the comprehensive system.
Ability isn't demonstrated by results as on average poorer kids score less well no matter their ability.
I didn't say public education had been done well or well enough. And the push from the right, barely resisted at all by the left, for decades has been to gradually defund public education, move from learning to standardised testing and use those results to continue the decline. At least in the UK the funding of private schools only benefits from tax breaks whereas here in Australia we give private schools the same or more funding than publicly funded schools so that the private schools can build 50m swimming pools and tennis courts with their fees, and paying scholarships to kids who are good at sport so they can dominate all school competitions. We were offered tens of thousands of dollars to send our kid to a private school to cover fees and if we had been regional they would have doubled that to pay for boarding, which in the end comes from my tax dollar. Which imo is obscene.
Last edited:
TWEET & VIDEO: RECLAIM project on Fox using their name for his political party
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
God dammit can rich white men not steal ANYTHING without some liberal lefty libtards complaining about it.
I think that if the 11 plus tests are set right, based on cognitive thinking and non-verbal reasoning, then it would be more of an equalizer than if it was based English and maths, for example.
I am a bit biased though, I did get into a grammar school, l an hour and a half bus journey away, and I'm fairly sure if I didn't, I would have ended up locked up, like half my mates.
Better than standardised testing but biased to people who are good at that sort of reasoning. It is also a hell of a permanent life affecting decision to base on a single test. In your case it worked out well but a head cold or a bad day at the office could have seen you have a very different outcome. Exactly the same for me although the schools I avoided weren't quite that bad.
Streaming like that doesn't address inequality of opportunity and is just a bandwidth to justify it imo. We should be making publically funded high schools good enough so it isn't needed.
grammar schools inevitably bleed funding and the best teachers away from all other schools.
they label 80% of children failures at the age of 11.
they do not take into account pupils who are brilliant in one area and poor in another
they do not take into account late developers
they breed a sense of superiority and entitlement into those that pass the 11 plus akin to but not as acute as those that attend public schools
all the advantages that they offer to the 20% who would pass the 11 plus can be provided in a comprehensive school where ability sets are employed for each subject
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So basically the topic of his party is that he doesn't like being called a white privileged man? I can see this dragging on for a while.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The problem he's got is that, yes, he probably doesn't care about the colour of anyone's skin. But I think it's more to do with him not wanting to hear about the colour of someone's skin, and the injustices that people other than him might face in life. It's the same thing when you hear rich folk say "I don't care for money". Of course you don't, because you've got fecking loads of it.
He also says that he just wants people to get on, and I'm guessing by that he means "maintain the status quo and stop complaining about stuff, unless you're complaining about the same stuff as me".
I always hate this faux intellectual facade that people like Fox use when they try to act like they're the voice of reason and everyone else is wrong.
Its the strangest thing to start a party over. While I agree with some of his points...its just odd. Racism is shit but I tend to think it isn’t helpful that it’s constantly put on the agenda in everyday life as if normal non racist people really need to be going about their lives everyday thinking racism is everywhere. I’d prefer education from a young age and calling out obvious racism. going searching for it constantly just puts people on edge. It certainly fecks with my head to the point where sometimes my first thought upon meeting a black person is ‘right, what do I need to pay attention to to not be racist.’ it’s painfully unproductive.