This is a little late, but for anyone who feels weird listening to Alec Benjamin's music after his comments about reverse racism, I suggest the artist Nico Collins. He's got some real bangers and he's kind of like a hybrid between Alec Benjamin and The Ready Set. A song that particularly has Alec Benjamin vibes is Alone 👇👇👇
like ... background check on the actors / actresses / entertainers that you wanna use for your fc it’s ... not that hard ... if they’ve exhibited severely abhorrent behaviors or if they’re not of the same ethnicity as the character you portray , find someone different there’s just no ifs ands or buts about it . don’t glorify ignorance
so someone i know put a link up on facebook to an essay that he said was thought-provoking. i think - although i don’t know, because he’s fairly scholarly himself - he just couldn’t see past the language to the intent. at any rate, i and a few other people wrote responses to this in the comments, and most of us got it - but then the author of the essay also started answering comments. so my friend deleted the post.
i didn’t want the whole thing to vanish, because the author quite rightly deserves to be called out for his shitty opinions, so i copied my comment out of the thread while it was still cached on my browser, and here’s the whole thing, including the author’s comment back to me.
The essay in question can be found here: http://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2017/08/theological-existence-today-identity-politics-and-the-gospel-by-michael-hardin.html
My comment:
I *have* read the entire essay.
it very much sounds like a very scholarly-sounding attempt to prove that reverse racism exists.
reverse racism does not exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_racism (yes, it's wikipedia - there are citations for everything, just go to those if the wiki article isn't enough for you)
further, i would argue that the definition of the "liberal/progressive fundamentalist" is a strawman such that the position can be criticised without having to really grapple with the arguments involved.
to quote from the essay:
"1. We (fundamentalists) believe every word of identity politics given by academic elites.
2. We have the correct interpretation of this authority.
3. To disagree with any one part of the fundamentalist rendering is to be marginalized.
4. The fundamentalist must then go on the attack to defend their position."
in response:
1. this is a gross generalization and i have never met any progressive who was not willing to question the conclusions come to by academic elites. in fact, there is an inherent suspicion of academic elites by progressives simply because academic elites tend to maintain the status quo.
2. see above.
3. white people are not marginalized. straight people are not marginalized. if you're talking about telling a person of colour that they have not experienced racism, and they chew you out for it, that is just about justifiable - defining someone else's lived experiences on their behalf is gaslighting and it is not okay.
4. see above.
yes, i can see somewhat of a point in this essay that we as christians should give grace to our enemies. HOWEVER. it ALSO is part of the christian prerogative to overcome oppression. this does NOT mean railing against people of colour, who have had long histories of oppression done to them (segregation didn't end til just over fifty years ago, there are people still alive who remember this), this means stepping back, sitting down, and letting the oppressed people take the head of the table, even if it hurts your pride - nay, especially if it hurts your pride. THAT is christian grace.
The author’s response:
I prefer Paul to wikipedia myself.
To which i answered:
well done.
you’ve managed an evasion, an argumentum ad verecundiam, and an argumentum ad antiquitatem, all within six words.
i also really appreciate you not actually engaging with anything i had to say.
after that point the whole post was deleted. i may have done better by not snarking so hard at him in my second comment, but he was really dismissive and apparently has a habit of blocking people who question him, even when they’re legitimately trying to understand what he’s saying. so i don’t feel particularly bad about that part.
Hey, was wondering if you could help because I'm trying to explain to my friends about reverse racism because they don't seem to believe me when I say it doesn't exist.. how can explain it properly to them? Their counter argument is that white people can be discriminated against in situations like if a person of colour refused to hire someone for a job because they are white..
White people can be discriminated against, but discrimination is not the same thing as racism. In order for racism to exist, the racist person or group must hold institutional power/must be systematically privileged over the person or group who is the victim of racism. In our society, white people hold said institutionalized power, and thus cannot be racist. PoC do not hold said power in our society, so they cannot be racist.
Another argument I’ve heard a lot is that “so black people can [insert violent action or words] and it’s fine, but if I do it it’s racist?” Remind them that 1) no, that behavior is never okay, regardless of whether it’s actually racist or not, and 2) oppressed minority groups are angry, and rightfully so - stop trying to silence them.
A third common argument I hear is “I didn’t do anything wrong! I’m not racist!” But:
1) these people need to examine why they feel so defensive when they were never accused of doing anything wrong in the first place.
2) This is not about them as individuals, but rather about systemic racial oppression.