US society is founded on white supremacy. That is an omission in error.
Anti-racism is an action that CAN be undertaken by white people (but is also available to other people).
When an action of 'anti-racism' is undertaken by white people... such as throwing up black squares in support of BLM movement, it requires one BIPOC person to say this is racism for it to be justifiably considered so. The fact that other BIPOC may consider it supportive is neither here nor there - the accusation of racism is based on a subjective rather than objective definition.
In that situation a white person cannot tell a BIPOC that something they feel is racist is not racist. To do so would, in fact, be racist. That means any accusation of racism for any behaviour must be accepted prima-facie.
My position isn't necessarily about hating 'the woke' - which may mean something different in the US to the way I'm using it. It's about suggesting that the loudest voices may lack the wisdom to solve the problem - often this is the case.
Restorative justice is an excellent tool - but that tool presumes that BIPOC speak as one homogenous group and they don't. What count as restorative justice? The gradual rebalancing of society -or an all out race war. Listening to the loudest voices might lead society down the latter path despite this not being what anyone but the smallest and loudest majority want. It might be disastrous for the 75% of BIPOC who don't want that eventuality.
Kindness and justice must come first - but I don't see that in the way the discourse is being handled. I see lots of policing and enforcing tolerance using intolerance and bullying. I see a continuing step away from classic all inclusive socialism (which I think will relieve many of the tensions) into disparate ideological niche groups all vying to prove they're more oppressed than each other. What should be a catch-all push for inclusive betterment by the left wing, is becoming a faux-left-wing (but actually right-wing) series of smaller groups trying to outflank each other and gain control of the narrative.
And oppression itself is a contentious issue. Who decides what is oppressive and what is not? Is this a self-selecting thing? Is there a careful grading system? Where do blind people fit? Where do Saudi Princesses fit? Where do homeless white people fit? Who sets the rules for oppression? I suspect the answer is 'nobody' - and so the modus operandi of any group is to demonstrate they are more oppressed than everyone else, whilst simultaneously ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
As an example, BLM was accused of being anti-semitic in the UK, that dominated the discussion for a while. Is it possible for a BIPOC male to oppress a white middle class jewish woman? What about the holocaust? What about the slave trade? What about when the Jewish people were slaves in Egypt? All of this sort of conversation detracts from the issues at hand, and whilst the fighting continued... nobody really got anywhere.
Aside from anything else, it's very frustrating.
