Racialization - making everything about racial characteristics and pitting races against each other - is what has been 'on trend' recently and the world is a poorer place for it. Anti racism has been around forever and always should be, because drawing attention to and excluding people due to their race is completely unacceptable in liberal democracy merit based societies.
I don't see how putting people with darker skin in art could possibly be seen as "pitting races against each other". Would the artstyle be improved if it only depicted white people?
The pictures in the article include skin tones such as purple and fuschia.
To me this visual style screams:
“Of COURSE we’re totally ok with…those people we cannot correctly enumerate, even superficially. That doesn’t mean we’d include anything too controversial like those <insert racial epithet here>‘s.”
To each their own, I guess. At least they’re trying?
That’s actually not what racialization means. Racialization is the creation of race as a social construct. “Racial characteristics” aren’t fixed; the Nazis considered Jewish people a “race” despite what they looked like.
Race isn’t a real thing. It’s something we made up because it was a justification for why it was ok to oppress people with the characteristics we dislike (we tried enslaving people with lighter skin; turns out they were able to escape and blend in with the population).
@wayoutthere In sociology racialization/ethnicization is ascribing ethnic or racial identities to a relationship, social practice, or group that did not identify itself as such.
You will find lots of groups of people who aren't happy about being categorized then defended or attacked by people who are 'speaking for them'.
The obvious current example is the overwhelmingly white US #BLM movement. If you go to a California black neighborhood and talk to people they are v suspicious of BLM's motives. Another new one is the latest acronym #AANHPI (Asian American Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander).
I don't enjoy being categorized, pigeon holed and criticized like any other sane person but we appear to be in the midst of a mania for people speaking on behalf of others to push their own agendas.
I heard Tulsi Gabbard (an'#AANHPI POC') use the term racialization of everything recently and think she is sensible and spot on with her one love messaging and pointing out the endless divisions currently being created in societies.
Regarding slavery, I'm sure you're aware there are more slaves in Africa now than there were in the brief era when european and US maritime merchants bought slaves off slavers along with other 'products'? The current specious rewriting of history to imply slavery was invented by colonial white people is so far off base it is a huge danger to society and ignores today's realities. It is also a powerful tool for feeding racialization paranoias.
> If you go to a California black neighborhood and talk to people they are v suspicious of BLM's motives.
Have you done this? I live in a majority black neighborhood but not in California and I talk to my neighbors. I have heard a lot of skepticism and hostility towards _the organization calling itself by that name_. But not towards the movement itself or the phrase it uses to represent itself.
I have done this, yes. Your point is well taken: no question there is support for less racism towards black people (including racism amongst black peoples) but there is often deep suspicion about political motives of movements, from the black power 70's to the current Marxist BLM leadership.
Many POC are right wing of course, an inconvenient truth for people who like to think we live in a world of blue (good) versus Red (bad).
It’s a talking point from the right I’ve been hearing recently, along with “there were more slaves in Africa than the US”. It’s just more whataboutisms to distract from the utter lack of coherent policy from that side of the US political spectrum.
The person you're replying to did not at any point say that.
What he said was that deflecting criticism of slavery in North America by mentioning slavery in Africa is an attempt to mislead by distraction, i.e., whataboutism. Yes, there were horrible things done elsewhere; but that does lessen the horrible things done in the USA in any way.
