White supremacy is the root of all race-related violence in the US, professor Jennifer Ho

submitted by Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist from theconversation.com

all 14 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Erasmus 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

https://www.colorado.edu/ethnicstudies/people/core-faculty/jennifer-ho

"The daughter of a refugee father from China and an immigrant mother from Jamaica..."

"Three Continents, Five Countries, One Family: My Chinese Jamaican Family’s Transnational and Transpacific Story" (book manuscript/family biography).

This validates my theory that mixed-race people ultimately take out their rage at being denied a whole racial identity on the rest of the world.

See also: Jordan Peele, Barack Obama, Colin Kaepernick, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Rashida Jones, Ava DuVernay, etc., etc.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The anti white rhetoric is just as normal among non mixed minorities.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This validates my theory that mixed-race people ultimately take out their rage at being denied a whole racial identity on the rest of the world.

Nothing you've said or posted has shown this on any meaningful scale.

[–]Erasmus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is mostly a throwaway comment, but I'll flesh it out. If you're looking through my comment history, then I'm sure you noticed a link to J. Richard Udry’s Health and Behavior Risks of Adolescents with Mixed-Race Identity showing that mixed-race kids experience the most profound effects of racism:

"The preponderance of our evidence supports the conclusion that adolescents who identify more than 1 race are at higher health and behavior risks when compared with those who identify with 1 race only. This applies in a general way and is not distinctive to any particular race combinations. Further, it is not peculiar to any particular type of risk, but to most risks, both health and behavior."

Anecdotally, I've noticed how many mixed-race people end up much more vitriolic in their antagonism of whites than people who aren't mixed-race, devoting their lives to anti-white hatred earlier and in a more committed way than their racially unmixed counterparts.

Jennifer Ho has apparently devoted her entire life and career to destroying white people, for example. There just aren't that many Asian-Americans who are so devoted to anti-white race hatred that they want to make it their life's work. If Ho were fully Chinese, would she have written the same editorial she wrote here? Would she even be an Ethnic Studies professor obsessing about race? I doubt it.

Or look at Nikole Hannah-Jones. Born in Waterloo, Iowa, to an African-American father, Milton Hannah, and a Czech and English mother, Cheryl Novotny. But you sure wouldn't know she was half-white from her blistering hatred of white people, expressed way back in 1995 when she was writing columns for her college paper saying the white race were barbaric devils and calling her own mother's people "savages".

Even the whollly black Ta-Nahesi Coates, son of a Black Panther, éminence grise of anti-whiteness, wasn't frothing at the mouth like this as a teenager. While Hannah-Jones uniquely led the charge to use the institutional power of the NYT to destroy white America, Coates today is writing Captain America comics.

It's just an interesting contrast, a mere anecdote, but I don't think the fact that she went on to spearhead the NYT's 1619 Project and the fact that she is mixed-race are unrelated.

You can go through a list of many of the greatest luminaries of anti-whiteness and see that they are actually mixed race, from Malcolm "I charge the white man with being the greatest murderer on Earth" X (who was at least a quarter Scottish) going all the way back to Frederick Douglass. Often, their antagonism to whiteness comes out of a deep level of pain at being excluded from it.

This is probably most pointedly articulated by James Baldwin, who wrote in 1965:

"In the case of the American Negro, from the moment you are born every stick and stone, every face, is white. Since you have not yet seen a mirror, you suppose you are, too. It comes as a great shock around the age of 5, 6, or 7 to discover that the flag to which you have pledged allegiance, along with everybody else, has not pledged allegiance to you. It comes as a great shock to see Gary Cooper killing off the Indians, and although you are rooting for Gary Cooper, that the Indians are you."

Now Baldwin was gay, not mixed-race, but the dynamic of identifying with and being rejected from the broader white culture is very similar. And I suspect the raised IQ and heightened moral sensibilities that come along with the infusion of European genes contribute to that sense of isolation from black culture, as well. Attacking the white culture you feel excluded from turns out to be a powerful way of reinforcing your connection to the black culture you may also be struggling to connect with.

It's not that non-mixed blacks don't have anti-white feelings, but that authentic racial connection with their own people helps to moderate them. I think of Nick Cannon's rant about how white people were inherently "less than... melanated peoples" and lacked compassion because of their lack of melanin. This is a pretty common sentiment among blacks as far as I can tell, and I would go as far as describing most blacks in America as black supremacists.

But it's one thing to accidentally spill the beans about your black supremacy in a throwaway line during a podcast, or in a couple of tweets on Twitter, and another to build your entire life, career, and identity around attacking white people. I'm not saying every mixed-race person goes full white genocide, but I think the unique qualities of racial isolation that come with a mixed-race background present fertile ground for anti-white radicalism.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You can go through a list of many of the greatest luminaries of anti-whiteness and see that they are actually mixed race, from Malcolm "I charge the white man with being the greatest murderer on Earth" X (who was at least a quarter Scottish)

All African-Americans are on average a quarter white. They don't identify as more than one race and aren't seen as more than one race, for that reason Malcolm X likely wouldn't identify as two races, this isn't a good example.

It's not that non-mixed blacks don't have anti-white feelings, but that authentic racial connection with their own people helps to moderate them.

If you have majority white DNA and want to connect with other whites there are plenty of whites that would do so. Mostly liberal ones but whites nonetheless. This is my anecdote, coming from someone who is 75% Northwest European.

showing that mixed-race kids experience the most profound effects of racism

If you're among only a handful of blacks in a school of whites and mestizos you're probably going to experience just as much profound racism. For that reason the result of profound racism doesn't have to lie in being two races in of itself but I agree is more likely to occur with these people. Not just from whites by any means though, which is why I don't agree they're likely to be anti-white in particular but could also become anti-black. Anti-white ones probably just get more attention.

[–]Erasmus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Malcolm X likely wouldn't identify as two races, this isn't a good example.

Malcolm X was very aware of being mixed-race. His mother was the product of his grandmother being raped by a white man, a legacy that still showed in the red cast to his skin and hair that gave him the nickname "Detroit Red". From "The Autobiography of Malcolm X":

"Louise Little, my mother, who was born in Grenada, in the British West Indies, looked like a white woman. Her father was white. She had straight black hair, and her accent did not sound like a Negro's. Of this white father of hers, I know nothing except her shame about it. I remember hearing her say she was glad that she had never seen him. It was, of course, because of him that I got my reddish-brown 'mariny' color of skin, and my hair of the same color. [...] I learned to hate every drop of that white rapist's blood that is in me."

Most blacks who have mixed ancestry, I acknowledge, are not as aware of this or as connected to it as Malcolm was.

I do think the term "average" when applied to white admixture in African-Americans can be misleading. Averages usually are. We're only looking at the subset of African-Americans who have made the effort (and paid the cost) to have their genetics tested. This is not a random sampling. I suspect that this population leans towards a whiter admixture than the general African-American population as a whole, and that the most problematic class of African-Americans, the ones engaging in crimes of transgressive violence, would have even less white admixture.

It would be a good field of study, if we had any power or funding in academia to investigate it.

If you're among only a handful of blacks in a school of whites and mestizos you're probably going to experience just as much profound racism.

I should be clear here that when I'm speaking of the effects of racism, I don't mean merely race hate, but the deeper problems of identity formation that come from being the only one of your kind, so to speak. When you add to that the sense of alienation and rejection from the race you most feel like on the inside, you can ignite a genuine revenge narrative of the type that we see in Nikole Hannah-Jones and others like her.

I should also say that things have changed since Baldwin's era, and there is much more cultural power today in in proclaiming black identity and demonizing white identity, so for a younger generation, there is also a flight from white, and a real desire to "pass as black" if one can, as much as one can. Meghan Markle is a particularly hilarious example of that.

Not just from whites by any means though, which is why I don't agree they're likely to be anti-white in particular but could also become anti-black. Anti-white ones probably just get more attention.

If you've got a population of prominent mulattoes who've devoted their lives to destroying blacks, I'd love it if you'd share them with me.

Like Sam Dickson said: "Every morning, thousands of white people wake up and go to work to work all day on the problems of blacks and Asians and Hispanics and everyone else, but there's not a single black or Asian or Hispanic who gets up and says 'What can I do for white people today?'"

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

there is also a flight from white, and a real desire to "pass as black" if one can, as much as one can. Meghan Markle is a particularly hilarious example of that.

Have you seen what Meghan Markle used to look like? She most certainly has tried becoming more white, at least in appearance.

I should be clear here that when I'm speaking of the effects of racism, I don't mean merely race hate, but the deeper problems of identity formation that come from being the only one of your kind, so to speak. When you add to that the sense of alienation and rejection from the race you most feel like on the inside, you can ignite a genuine revenge narrative of the type that we see in Nikole Hannah-Jones and others like her.

It's true to some extent but you are likely overestimating the amount of mulattoes that will go on to be anti-white from internal conflict, at the same time underestimating the amount of whites who would accept them. I say this because much of your argument has been supported by popular anti-white figures who are mixed-race but we're living in a society that props up these people in particular by those in power.

[–]CircumsteinRabbi Circumstein 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Their ideology has developed in such a way that they could still make this claim even if the world was 0% White. It is very easy for them to make such a claim when it is 8% or so. It's fascinating, though, that there is a pushback in the comment section with only one comment in obvious support (predictably accusing those pushing back of themselves being 'racist').

This excuse would still be 'coherent' from their worldview in a world without Whites (and they already effectively make this excuse to 'explain' the dysfunctionality of non-white regions): Non-whites attack other non-whites because of the lingering legacy of White supremacism on our institutions.

Such a claim is both unfalsifiable and unverifiable, and therefore unscientific. It is impossible to observe a concretized abstraction such as 'institutional racism' or 'structural racism'. CRT's untestability also prevents it from being scientific much like a wide range of other social science theories. None of these 'theories' are actually theories.

I should add that CRT is (probably) better for us than colourblindness. And CRT is winning, since Trump's colourblind counter-attack against CRT was rolled back by Biden. The colourblind are rightfully scared that it could lead to the death of colourblindness and the polarization of people into 'reverse racist' and 'racist' camps. It means that people are forced to choose sides and that the battle lines are being drawn. This is a vastly better scenario than the colourblind delusion which masks the true racial struggle at hand. We should hope that things get out of hand while we're still majorities, especially for those who won't settle for anything less than the monumental task of saving an entire nation-state if not something larger still.

Alot of CR theorists outright support segregation (obviously with non-whites setting the boundaries unlike the segregation of old), oppose miscegenation with Whites, etc. Colourblindness is the slow boil, making exceptionally little sense especially outside of 'we need to delay things for as long as possible' Fabian-style thinking. CRT makes particular sense from 'accelerationist' viewpoints. It will lead the enemy to hate more openly, act more brazenly, etc. It will better show the 'normies' who their enemies are, once they are openly discriminated against in the workplace and elsewhere. Let the implicit hate become explicit.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It is completely incorrect that "It is impossible to observe a concretized abstraction such as 'institutional racism' or 'structural racism'. CRT's untestability also prevents it from being scientific much like a wide range of other social science theories. None of these 'theories' are actually theories."

They are very much true and testable. In fact the alt right should spent more time subverting CRT theory and applying it to whites. Taxes is systemic racism against whites. It has a disparate negative outcome for whites compared to other intersectional groups, especially white men. Adopt their lingo. It is surprisingly good at describing the system, the structures and so on that whites are being targeted by.

Immigration is systemic racism. It again has a negative disparate impact on white people in white countries. Crime and the prison system is systemic racism, because white people are the victims of this and the victims that then have to pay for those same offending criminals.

Alt rightism basically is CRT. Anyone talk about overreprsentation and the need of "diversity" in universities, media, finance etc?

We simply need to apply CRT and their lingo to alt right talking points.

White flight is caused by systemic racism. Whites can't be racist.

Your opposition to CRT is entirely, or mostly at least, due to it being used as a weapon against whites. "Used against whites -> wrong -> here is why that is a bad thing"

[–]CircumsteinRabbi Circumstein 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

A scientific theory is one in which empirical data can be inserted in order to explain said data. The pairing of theory and empirical data provides an explanation.

CRT is not a theory at all in this sense. The overwhelming majority of social-scientific theories do not meet this standard. CRT does not use empirical data to reach its conclusions, and CR 'theorists' claim that data which contradicts their conclusions is itself simply 'racist'. Their conclusions are the same as their (unquestionable) assumptions. When their assumptions are threatened, they simply interpret data that does not support their positions as 'supporting' their position. This is exactly what the OP's article does, taking something that has nothing to do with Whites (non-white violence targeting other non-whites—incidents in which Whites are neither perpetrator nor victim, violence which would not only continue but be the only type of violence in a world without Whites) and then claiming that it is 'actually' White 'racism' and thus validates CRT. Obviously 'non-white against non-white violence = White racism' is an absurd jump, and has the obvious consequence that in a 100% non-white location, a literally non-existent people are to blame.

CRT seems to me to be what happens when 'anti-racists' try to make a whole paradigm (worldview) which they wrongly label a 'theory'.

Sociologically speaking, I see no reason to believe that an institution can be 'racist'. Only agents (people) can be 'racist', structures have no life outside of the agents who perpetuate them. The point of institutional/structural/systemic racism thus seems to me to serve at least two purposes. Firstly, to keep the charade that 'racism' is endemic alive. By this I mean that examples of White 'racism' are actually hard to come by. Because this threatens the Left's narrative on race, they need to expand the scope of what is considered White 'racism' (like the OP article, even violence caused by non-whites is an example of White 'racism' according to CR 'theorists'). Secondly, it justifies revolutionary politics including the outright abolition of targeted institutions. As even making them 0% White wouldn't erase their racism (sociologically, they're claiming that structures can be 'racist' even if every agent within them is not), reform is impossible, and so we need to disband the police, have a revolutionary overthrow of the system, etc.

The Alt-Right never proclaimed itself to be a scientific theory, and thus is not competing with CR 'theorists' to have the right to have their beliefs classified as a theory. I don't even think of the Alt-Right as an ideology. It's a big tent that encompasses entire ideologies. Its big tent nature is exemplified by the fact that it has drawn in people from every side of the political spectrum, including former far-left activists. Even after their conversion, there are still Christians, pagans and the non-religious, and still 'nationalist + capitalist' and 'nationalist + socialist' members. With the exception of certain core principles upon which we all agree, the Alt-Right has a great deal of ideological diversity.

CRT comes to many of the same conclusions as the Alt-Right. I already mentioned this with segregation and miscegenation. With segregation they want the mirror image of us (non-whites decide where the lines are drawn, not Whites). Opposition to miscegenation is based on some idea that it is in itself racist. It's a case of agreeing for the wrong reasons. Extreme 'anti-racism' is actually 'racism', there's a sort of horseshoe effect going on here, one which the colourblind fear.

Certain CRT elements can obviously be coopted, though CRT itself is not. CRT is why so many Whites feel they should literally grovel before non-whites (like at the BLM protests) and engage in Bolshevik-style self-criticism, especially in academic environments. Those academics apologizing constantly for their 'racism' despite the fact that they themselves are completely deracialized if not outright anti-White is the result of Whites internalizing CRT.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I happen to agree with them but reality is just the exact opposite, so we should use CRT to support alt right talking points because if CRT is applied correctly to the data, we can dominate this academic field. "With the exception of certain core principles upon which we all agree, the Alt-Right has a great deal of ideological diversity." Yes, we speak truth, which is why CRT if applied truthfully would support our ideology. CRT is a framework, a set of tools to analyze the world, and it is not wrong, just misapplied.

Also of course an institution can be racist. Inserting rules where whites are inferior and removing rules where whites are superior would be an example of a racist institution. If whites are better at keeping time, then removing such rules would disadvantage whites comparatively. If men are worse at group-assignments, then adding such to classes makes the institution sexist. Etc. Upholding such systems is upholding "white supremacy", we need to rebrand these things into something else. The theory itself is not wrong.

Take blind hiring. The reason it isn't used is because it helps white men. That is an obvious example of sexist and racist structures that manifest in institutions as discriminatory practices.

Every time you add a rule or remove a rule, it has a disparate impact on different groups. You can easily discriminate against a certain group simply by adding and removing rules. If people in the institution follow these rules, then even if they are anti racists, they still uphold the racism inherent in the institution.

I actually think it is very important that the alt right takes over this area of academics, because if we don't the AIs will rape us in the future. This is like leftists ignoring race realism. They give the entire battle field to us and we can shape the narrative on the internet on that subject entirely. If CRT is abandoned by the alt right, AI scientists wont just disregard the research in this field which is - I repeat - valid research, just incorrectly applied. With the AI revolution happening it is very important that we take over this field and it should be so easy, because we already APPLY this in many of our arguments. Students for Western Society is a good example of how institutional, structural racism etc work against whites. As are many other things. How many are vaccine hestitant? Facebook demotes such posts. This is racism against whites, which makes facebook institutionally racist against white people. Etc. We need to apply this not today but yesterday.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

SS

...

The point I’ve made through all of those experiences is that anti-Asian racism has the same source as anti-Black racism: white supremacy. So when a Black person attacks an Asian person, the encounter is fueled perhaps by racism, but very specifically by white supremacy. White supremacy does not require a white person to perpetuate it.

...

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oh man.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm voting for the asteroid next time.