winifred
Sinking fast
Well, you're both female and have been quite outspoken re: this thread and the other - so who better to ask?It's not silly at all as you are focusing on us.
You've both identified you're mixed race (or of mixed heritage as I'd prefer to call it) to reinforce your opinions in both the other thread and this one re: real life 'black' experiences and to register your personal indignation of a white person allegedly blacking up. To the casual observer it might have given more credence to your opinions on the concept of 'race' over all, but I would have to say that you both appeared to confuse matters as well within some of the discussion.'Mixed race credentials' ? Is that how you view these things? Most people would acknowledge experiences/perspectives. It's the way you frame these things that is annoying tbh. 'Credentials' like it's a competition or a profession.
I could have included Pickman's model as well - but I didn't because it's patently obvious that he's a complete numpty when it comes to understanding the complexities of race.Tag team? There you go again.
I don't know about that. I think my discussion serves as a very persuasive counterpoint to your own re: race. And the reason why I've grouped yourself and MochaSoul together was because there was much agreement between the two of you as to how you discussed the nuances of a mixed heritage re: the real 'black' lived experience in comparison to the selective/artificial experience of a 'white' woman pretending to be black. You also influenced a lot of the discussion within the other thread, so that's why I've grouped you together as a 'tag team' of sorts.Mochasoul and I have disgreed with you, along with other people I might add. There's no competition, no sides, no conspiracy. In fact, much of this is about the way you have described and framed this discussion and misrepresented the other thread. So instead of 'playing the victim' why not challenge yourself to understand why, despite your attempts at discussion here, you are not getting anywhere fast.
I already countered your accusations against me in post #92. Please move on.It's not an alleged misrepresentation, it's here for all to read.
It was meant as a play on words i.e. there were established terms in use to critique capitalism and patriarchy, but not racism. So, again, you misrepresent me with your flippant remarks.Also see your title for this thread... how can I take you seriously when you couldn't resist the 'ahem, ooohhhhh dangerous me, dare we go there' addition.
Also, how can I take yourself or anybody else seriously when you turned the Dolezal thread into a movie word association game for a couple of pages of pure childishness?
And you're talking pure tosh again. If you look at the two requests I made to both yourself and MochaSoul, there was no indication of any demands being made. All I can see is two people apparently dragging their feet on a simpe question - presumably because they're unsure as to how to answer it.You are making demands; demanding we answer your questions despite the fact you refuse to acknowledge our actual issues with how you have framed this discussion, misrepresented the other thread and continue to frame our contributions.
I want to put my point across in terms of how 'race' is in danger of being rooted in the specific i.e. peoples personal experiences and grievances etc., which risks missing out on the bigger picture = tackling the root cause of racism = questioning the prevelance of 'race'/racial terminology as a legitimate concept and/or an automatic given within everyday Western society.You are openly and clearly making massive assumptions, positioning yourself as the 'voice of reason' as well as glossing over some very basic yet important objections people have about why and how you have set up this discussion.
Last edited: