Guilt.. and not the chocolate coin kind.

Taylor begins to touch upon the theory of "liberal guilt" on page 132 when referring to the white perspective. He states, "Liberal guilt is a contemporary phenomenon, available to us only after emancipatory racialism incorporated non-white perspectives into mainstream US racial projects"(Taylor 132). I think that this point is important for us as a class to expand on and come to an understanding of how guilt plays into new modern racism/our society today. Taylor touches on this point throughout the chapters, however this is the first time attaching a term to the theory (scanning back I did not find him referring to/don't remember him utilizing the terminology). He then goes on to explain further double consciousness (within different perspectives) and how race shapes a persons philosophy, but he does not necessarily expand on the issue of "guilt"--and he most definitely does not give any current examples that are applicable and how it is still channeled consistently today. As Florka pointed out in a provoking email, this guilt complex is something that our class persistently struggles with. However, even after being prodded at on multiple occasions, our class reconvenes and remains detached; completely aloof--especially in regards towards the statements made previously (by yourself, a classmate, Florka, the book). How can nobody come back to class and not feel something? Especially being that most of the students in the class come from extremely white dominated towns and still go to a dominantly white college. Especially being, I'm going to take a wild guess, that those places (and this place) does not question their white intensions in such an aggressive way. This overt inattention towards some--or, rather most of the comments expressed in class and through email portrays much of what Taylor underlines his entire philosophical theory of race with:guilt (being emphasized in accord to new modern racism). Our class feels guilty, which comes across every time someone thinks they have made a statement that possibility, might, have the slightest of potential of maybe having the probability of being understood as offensive. And maybe this is the new modern racism equivalent to the the slave owners irrational fear of their slaves revolting--so in response to themselves they asserted physical and other forms of dominance in order to relieve their guilt. Now with this modern perspective whites have not the need to submit to violence, because silence has become its replacement. If our class can get past this, I'm sure we could finally discuss some pertinent issues and actually grow as a class and individually. Maybe we can get past this theory and others akin (like color blindness being positive)--bound by this guilt, which waists away energy that refocusing could allow for a more progressive and constructive class/society. Or the idea that walking up to a table of black kids (because you feel guilty) is an act of goodwill... gracing the table with your white presence. Or making sure you secure a few black friends because the pressure of finally realizing the ever present social segregation, which was implemented way before your time, makes you feel guilty... so you serve that guilt by accounting for a few colored people within your friend circle. Once we can get past this individual and self-centered perspective we can discuss these issues that impact our nation (and world) as a whole... instead of continuing to dance around these issues, in hopes that the god of racism will rain down and color the world blind. Because doing so only upholds and reinforces this unconscious institutionalized racism (the very thing all of the above is embodying) and yet again reinforcing the condemnation of our society today. The very first step is acceptance...not going straight from (original) Jim Crow to colorblind equality, because maybe you feel a little guilt.

Loads of codes

In the beginning of chapter 3 Taylor introduces and expands upon how America's social reform pressed for the white supremacists to reorganize a new way of implementing their superiority. Their newfound political ideology materialized as a response to, what they considered, a threatening increase of minority groups in the pursuit of, and outwardly advocating for, equality. Thus these white political powers founded a new, more discreet, and even more systematic approach to institutionalizing racism. The undertaking to continue a lifestyle of supremacy became what Taylor recognizes as late modern rationalism. This is a type of racism that evolved out of understanding the faultiness behind classical racialism and that the basis of this racism is applied in a covert fashion so to allow the whites to maintain their status while conning minorities into being satisfied with their "freedom" and "equal" status. This 2.0 version of American racism was produced with one objective in mind: to delay/stop the possibility of a social revolution, which could untangle the very ties that they have knotted as the foundation of this country, and maintain their all powerful and untouchable supremacist status. Late modern rationalism was and is a maneuver of trickery a movement to deceive--to silence those who found a voice and better positioning themselves. As Taylor puts it on page 76, "Political communities established on white supremacist grounds sought to minimize the costs of maintaining themselves, by accommodating and co-opting resistance before it became too troublesome. This  accommodation and co-optation signified the shift from domination, or rule by force, to hegemony, or, crudely, rule by consent". I believe that this form of control is much worse than outward racism. Hegemony institutionalizes it to another level, making it so that those who were fighting for the cause turn around and end up working against the cause, "A hegemonic formation - the alliance between ruler and ruled that makes control without forcible coercion possible - encourages the disadvantaged to see themselves as stakeholders in the system that generates their disadvantage; it does this in part by granting concessions to them, thereby winning their consent to the system's continuation"(Taylor 77).  The only power non-whites were given was to further instill this racist system within their own communities so that there is no safe haven. No place to hide. This in my opinion is probably the most effective and disturbing type of racism.

.........and more labeling

At the bottom of page 36 Taylor brings attention to the concept of "who" can be racist. He expands his "pluralistic approach" of how people can execute racism (extrinsic, intrinsic, indirect) by providing a greater explanation of who actually has the ability to participate in those very acts. He first mentions the model of racism that the "PPP" was based off of: that anyone who was not white "collectively lack the power to make their prejudices operative"(36). Without having to discount this interpretation, Taylor's open position on the matter questions the validity of it acting as a general model. Instead he acknowledges the significance of which white supremacy has on the spectrum of racism and how it has "systematically and disproportionately shaped the development of Western societies. Subsequently he unfolds the contradiction, which appointing the ability to enact racism to only one race, actually counteracts the the ability for a "general account of racism" and, "obscures other ethically questionable phenomena that seem pre-theoretically to count as instances of racism"(36). By taking such a general approach to the matter, he is able to put into perspective the "variety" of those who carry on racist intentions, and the gravity to which it has on the general population this act of racism is prescribed towards. Taylor eventually comes to the conclusion that any race, can in fact be racist, if that individual consistently declares his/her hatred towards all who can be characterized as the specific race of his/her focus. Here Taylor asks a really important question, "What do we gain by refusing to call it racism?"(37) He emphasizes that there is no reason to discount the ability for any race to execute racism, rather to identify the severity of the act and the magnitude in which it effects the targeted group as a whole. So he stresses that anyone can be racist, but that does not necessarily amount to the racism of "the social ills that follow from centuries of white supremacist exclusionary practices"(36). I ask the same question as him. What is the point of excluding all but one race of have the ability of being racist? Why charge one race and ignore the others? Like he asks, "why not just say that this sort of individual racist assault pales in significance beside the systematic racism?"(37) It is important to recognize that white supremacists have implemented a systematic form of racism that governs and disproportionately benefits only those that fall under whiteness--because it is important to establish  that white supremacists have mobilized racism to such a degree that it has given them the ability and even authority to target and convict all non-whites. However, it is important to realize that an act of hate is an act of hate. A minority that targets another race other than their own is still an act of racism, just incomparable to the same degree as white racism in America. So what do you gain by condemning only one race to have the ability to "disregard" another race? Instead of grasping the gravity the difference between racists actions? The blame game does not solve any issues. Acknowledging the potential for anyone to be racist, even if it does not play a significant role to the underlying problem in America, does not, and should not change the fact that the systematic racism set by the majority is the most prevalent, and in dire need of dismantling. But to deny the ability of other races to be racist is somewhat comparable to the ideal, but faulty concept of colorblindness. The ability to "disregard" is not colorblind--just color-concentrated with whiteness.

Post 1 Assumptions and Associations

On page seven Taylor begins to touch upon the idea that different societies have different beliefs saying when, "separated by time, space, or both" these different societies, "may assign the same person to different races". The concept that different cultures view each other and others different from one another is not a hard one to grasp--especially being that I have personally experienced being placed in different categories by people coming from different backgrounds and social ideologies. To elaborate--when I disclose to certain people my Jewish heritage, some consider Judaism white while others consider it to be something....else. The reaction to this information about myself is always different, but always seems to provide some sort of explanation or category for "what" I am. Before that knowledge, I was just "white"(or whatever else people first assume I am without the knowledge of my bloodline) and after I am "Jew". But Taylor goes on with the sentence adding, "if they assign racial identities at all"(Taylor 7). The word, "If", in my eyes has a lot of emphasis in it. The idea of a place where people might not even assign racial identities is a much more difficult concept to grasp--being that I was born and raised in the United states. A place where the concept of colorblindness only emphasizes the racial tensions that this nation was founded upon. We are so racially aware and sensitive to the point where just the idea of a society that does not identify anyone as any"thing" completely baffles me. On page 17 Taylor provides an example that if we were to look at a persons face and immediately decide that he "looks smart", he concludes that this assumption is made without identifying that person with a specific racial group and that "thinking racially" has yet to occur. He then stats that if, "we think he looks smart because his facial features mark him as a member of a type of smart people, then we're on the way to race-thinking"(Taylor 17). I completely disagree (with the first half of the statement at least). How can he say that racial-thinking has not taken place during the first assumption of this person? You have to ask, why did someone in the first place assume that this "John" guy is smart? Because of our (U.S.) social makeup, I believe most racial thinking is done in an unconscious matter. One does not need to actively think of the physical attributes that made them think John looked smart, because they already had the thought that he looked smart. Assumptions do not come without associations, and in an example like the one given to us by Taylor, the association of someone "looking like" something automatically identifies that person with an attribute that is acutely related to the physical characteristics in which make up the different racial categories. Within the context of the United States, I believe racial thinking does not mean you have to physically and consciously "think" about the characteristics that explains someones initial perception of another person. I believe that racial awareness is so deeply embedded within this society that the process of racial thought has already taken place and led you to the conclusion that "John looks smart"--no additional thinking or elaboration has to take place because you have already come to a reason, with the light speed and always present process, of racial thinking. Which begins to explain why racial blindness, in America at least, is something that is as of right now, impossible. But thats another blogpost.