Why is it one or the other? This eagerness in each of these shootings to claim or blame the guy for one side or the other is so transparent.

Dude was messed up, but there is no doubt he trafficked in radical black nationalism/Nation of Islam radicalism in addition to his SC beliefs.

This is not a winnable moment.

happen. I am listening to what is up, and who the person is, and wow... Say the wrong thing and people on your ass, thinking jumping into whatever is going on.

And, I have no desire to be informed what is going on cause i am not playing that game.

I hear ya.

That being said, I think it is bit of a joke calling him a racist as if that means something. Being the oppressed is not the same position of power as the oppressor so the word racist does not have the same consequence.

Btw... All this, i didn't listen to the video either.

I forgot.

thank you very much, not only with a science PhD but with a lifetime of civil rights activism. Your condescending tone doesn't mean you are right. It just means it's never occurred to you that you might be wrong.

And if you think non-whites can't be racists it's you who needs to get educated. Two wrongs don't make a right in my education. Even if the source of racist ideology is Western colonialism the idea has been exported to the world. Blacks can be racist against other blacks (perhaps you need to get educated about the Rwandan genocide?).

Racism is not a political philosophy. It is the belief that one group is superior to another based on phenotypic differences. Saying "victims of racism can't be racist" is a logic fallacy.

This is a longstanding debate (I'd say canard) in anti-racist circles. I know which side I'm on. When a black cop shoots a black man because he is convinced black men represent a heightened danger that's racism. The guy who did the St. Paul shooting was Latino. Was he nor racist in assuming his victim was reaching for a gun and not a wallet?

Very simply, oppression:

is a racist act perpetrated by a racist person. Regardless of the color of the victim and regardless of the color of the murderer.

ignorance of a life of oppression.

Are blacks, Latinos, Native Americans capable of racism by oppressing whites at the overall societal level via institutional racism? Of course not.

But are individual blacks, Latinos, Native Americans capable of being racist and of committing racist acts against individual whites? Of course they are.

You must be one of the oppressed huh?

You have no idea about the experience or knowledge of the people to whom you condescend so blithely.

No one is denying oppression is differentially distributed and experienced. But it's your analysis of how "racism" works that comes across as naive and "poorly educated." Maybe try trading some CRT classics instead of Tumblr.

You haven't answered my simplest question:

Was Clarence Thomas being racist when he opined against the Voting Rights Act or Affirmative Action? Or is he incapable of being "a racist" because he's African American?

at least as widely in anti-racist and critical race theory literatures as you have. In fact I suspect I've read much more in 40 years of my own sociqlmjustice activist life.

I am a DuBoisian anti-racist. I don't believe in racially essentializing people or groups of people as automatically morally justified because of historical experience or automatically morally corrupt because of the color of their skin.

A black man who sets out to kill white people because they are white is a racist. Clarence Thomas opposing the VRA is racist. A Latino cop who shoots an innocent black man because he fears black men is enacting a racist power structure that has colonized his mind. A Rwandan Tutsi who hacks the heads off a group of Hutu children is a racist killer. None of these lessen or excuse or change the relationship of racism as an ideology to white colonial power or slavery or genocide.

The point is that our society is racist and all who live in it are infected with it. It requires constant critique to remain aware of how each of us carries the hatred of our history in ourselves, lives it through privilege and enacts it by omission as well as commission.

But if you want to keep it at a Tumblr level of discussion in absolutes and stereotypes I'm done.

You keep insisting other people are "ignoring" something?

And now you add sexuality and gender. Ok, can a black "Hetero man" be a sexist or a homophobe? Or does he get a pass because being black makes him one of the oppressed too?

I *specifically* located the origin of racist ideology in white European colonialism, several times. I'm not ignoring white agency in creating and sustaining racism. You're ignoring anything I say that doesn't confirm your preconceived critique of me. You seem to think I'm excusing white racism by saying persons of color can be racist or act in racist ways or believing racist things.

I'm not ignoring anything, except you from now on. There's no point debating a broken record that is so sure of its correctness.

It really appears to me as if you are the poorly educated voice in this conversation and you disguise that by using condescension as a cudgel.

Historical facts disprove the assertion that members of oppressed groups are incapable of moral agency themselves. That, in fact, is a racist assertion in its own right, and you're making it.

racism is not the same when one is of an oppressed group. That is not an out there statement. Pretty factually known.

I am at work. I stated something very simple and am not up to a huge ole debate, though it is interesting, I do not even have time to read, let alone consider and formulate a reply.

You've argued that a member of a racially oppressed group cannot "be" racist and you have thrice condescended to me about my level of knowledge without refuting any of my points.

That's disingenuous.

And your condescension extends beyond me to your insistent denial that a black man might be capable of exercising moral agency.

I suspect a large majority of African Americans would judge a black man who killed white cops just because they were white to be immoral. Followed to its logical conclusion you're saying they would be incapable of exercising such moral agency.

Don't patronize people if you aren't prepared for pushback.

No I did not

Ever comes from discussions on message boards. There's no honest debate, just a statement followed by why the other person is wrong.

I stated something very simple and am not up to a huge ole debate,

Yes, thank you for that honest discussion.

... society teaches about black men and what LEO training about blacks teach not just peoples own thinking.

Many innocent minority victims have been liked by minority cops, however. That doesn't make such killings not racist.

And the way cops are trained and socialized steeps them in racist ideology no matter what color their skin is.

Is Clarence Thomas incapable of racism when he writes an opinion against the Voting Rights Act?

I know my critical race theory, friend. I know the argument you're making. I don't buy it. Oppressed classes of people are capable of enacting oppression within their own communities and against their own kind in the real world. I'm a big believer in intersectional analysis. No individual person is innocent of participating in hegemonic structures.

Essentialist thinking and a misunderstanding of the biology of human adaptation and the logic of cultural identity are not unique to the right. Anti-racism that draws on racist thinking itself is not progressive.

None of us is immune from racist thinking.

... neither are oppressed IN THAT situation.

And the way cops are trained and socialized steeps them in racist ideology no matter what color their skin is.

Oppressed classes of people are capable of enacting oppression within their own communities and against their own kind in the real world.

doesn't rule out his also being black.

I don't understand your point. My pony is that it is entirely possible for a person who is a member of a group that has experienced historical racial oppression to embrace racism him or herself, as an ideology, and to act in ways that are properly described as "racist." That's it. If you agree we are fine here.

... in post #5 with

The guy who did the St. Paul shooting was Latino...[/quote]

Intimating that the oppressed can be oppresers (seeing that is what your reply in number 3 was saying)... I stayed on the subject of oppression and disagreed with the sardonic tone of your reply in post 3

[quote]...Was he nor racist in assuming his victim was reaching for a gun and not a wallet?

That's beyond obvious.

I wonder who will be the "Mental illness. Period. End. Of. Discussion." side, maybe I should write down names now.

has been and will continue to be the greatest threat our nation has ever faced.
On edit: they ARE the Trumpets who have stolen our country from the rest of us.

Ok.

Not Soviet nuclear bombs. Not Nazi Germany. Not a Civil War!

is the reason Congress will not act on any control over who get weaponized.
You are correct that in terms of numbers the Civil War was the most costly in lives, so far, and WWII was no walk in the park.
It could be argued that the subsequent Cold War actually contributed to massive advancement in knowledge and discovery that made life better for future generations, not in any meaning to justify any actions of the mad men responsible for the events, and fortunately wiser men prevailed in the quest for disarmament.
The death toll from guns is nearing the list of most common ways to die in America and I hold responsible the radical right wing fanatics who refuse to allow even a vote on any control.

but it's not an existential threat to the nation.


Nor is Islamist terrorism.

Enough nukes to destroy the world armed and ready to launch -- still the case by the way-- is an existstential threat. Climate change is the current"greatest threat" we face otherwise.

Climate change is not a threat, it is a reality that we are already paying for but I believe the solutions are at hand and will improve our lot.
Right wing terrorism is becoming a prevalent condition. We are even holding lock down exercised in our schools as a result. This is in line with the paranoia we experienced in the Cold War.

Same thing they pulled with the Dallas shooter.

Why not show in the normal dress from his videos? His military picture?

No, doesn't fit the narrative they want to push.

This is the one the media is pushing today... just watch the coverage:

He looks pretty freaking upstanding and attractive. It's a beautiful shirt.

Not sure what you're so upset about.

When that is not the case...

racist, angry, anti-government.

He was Nation of Islam, albeit too full of himself to commit purely to the cause.

I've been watching his Youtube rants. Basically an angry, racist, guy. Exceptionally antisemitic.

Although, I do agree that he shared a lot of similarities with right-wing kooks, in that they tend to be racist, angry, and anti-government.

But that goes back to my oft-posted argument that the entire left/right model of politics is a false narrative.

It's more of a loop or a grid, where the extremes have more in common with each other than the rest of us.

Have you watched his YouTube videos?