100 Ways White People Can Make Life Less Frustrating For People of Color

This article very clearly about white people. Why bring up sadhus and sadhvis?

i think contextually this article would make the point that it's directed at white people considering wearing dreads and not other non-white groups, but yes it is pretty corny to effectively frame black people as the only group that has a cultural tradition of locked hair

This is always ridiculous to me, it's a hair style. Not even a black thing.

Literally used by many backgrounds to make hair manageable while outdoors. Like how a bandana isn't a gangster thing when it's just good for sweat on your brow and keeping your hair back while you work.

It frustrates me to see it as a staple of butch fashion when it's not even utilized, but hey whatcha gonna do.

Then again, lots of things have been co-opted. Like how no one talks about cowboy culture being a predominantly Mexican thing. Vaquero the Spanish word that literally translates to cow-er, like bean-er. Roughly meaning he who works with cows or he who works with beans.

Vaquero eventually became buckaroo, and America kept the cosplay for their manifesting.

It's life, you live and you learn. And you'd be an idiot not to learn from those around you. Just seems a weird hill to die on

Thank you for your well thought out response.

Sadly there are still many many people who are overtly individually racist, even on the 'left'. I have seen and met many who still are and it is deeply upsetting and sadenning to have to meet such people but also aggrivating.

Just the other day I had someone tell me that "I don't see color" so sadly, it is still the time for such articles.

Until the systems of opression stop existing and we all fully grapple with how it makes us racist then people are going to keep on being racist.

I had a really good dialogue about this a while ago. Here's a transcription, if you're interested in a detailed answer to this:

Factory farming is terrible. I completely respect anyone who is vegan because they oppose the abuse or exploitation of animals.

The issue with stuff like this is that it indicates some equivalency of human women and animals. I remember when PETA did a "holocaust on your plate" campaign which was fairly critisized for indicating that the murder of millions of men, women, and children was the same as eating meat.

I don't think the meat industry is ok and I agree that what it now considered normal in that industry is morally wrong. I also think it's a separate issue from human social trends. Minorities being compared to animals is never a good thing.

Two points on that.

1. There were multiple holocaust survivors that went vegan, citing the similarities between the their experiences and that of animal agriculture;

2. This is because what the holocaust was, in essence, was treating people like animals. Jewish people were loaded onto cattle cars on trains, sent to what were effectively slaughterhouses, and gassed in chambers - where I live (UK) almost all pigs are killed in gas chambers.

You can make the argument that animals deserve no moral consideration if you want, but a lot of the worst things that humans have ever done to other humans is what humans do to animals all the time.

It isn't the act of eating meat that is compared by animals rights groups to the holocaust, its all the stuff that came before it. Because it was essentially the same process.

I actually stated multiple times that I do believe animals deserve moral consideration. Once again, I think the norms of the meat industry are clearly immoral. Where we disagree I think is that I believe human considerations are fundamentally different from considerations of other animals, and putting people on the same level as animals in argumentation is more harmful than productive for a variety of factors.

I'm not saying that humans should have the same considerations as non-human animals, I'm saying that the holocaus analogy isn't innacurate, as the same acts were/are committed. Do you disagree?

As far as the animals are concerned, what they go through is the holocaust (obviously they aren't sapient, but you get my point).

Before saying anything else, I want to be clear that I would like to see a future free of animal meat from the practice of slaughter. I strongly disagree that these two things are comparable in any way other than they both involve the act of killing at high rates.

I’m not going to argue that our ancestral nature is morally correct, because in many ways we understand that many our instinctive impulses and wants are morally wrong. This being the case, the most available source of sufficient protein necessary to power our brains and bodies has come from meat, and this has been the case until very recently with advancement in our understanding of nutrition. Humans and our ancestors have killed other animals to eat them since before we even assumed our present taxonomy. There is an almost universal instinctual and cultural reason that people kill animals to eat them. I think we agree that it would be best to progress past this draconian practice, but there is no malice or de-humanizing campaign of extermination here whatsoever.

Compare this to the Holocaust. There is no way whatsoever that it could ever possibly be justified in any way. It was the result of reactionary politics coming into power and leading an entire society through the use of propaganda and terror to despise a group of sapient people for reasons that were entirely and demonstrably untrue. Sapience is a major factor. Although livestock can definitely understand when they’re being abused, they can’t comprehend the scope of what is happening beyond their immediate experience. The people in the camps lived every day with a full understanding that they were being tortured and murdered en masse as a political scapegoat at best and pure sadism at worst. They suffered their abuse and suffered the understanding of why it was happening and how little they could do about it. They weren’t being harvested, they were being murdered in a premeditated fashion in massive numbers exclusively for reasons of prejudice and intentional malice. The motives and suffering caused from this evil I think are significantly greater.

Complicating it further, there is a social imperative to de-humanize a person before they can be abused, exploited, or murdered. There is a common understanding that some creatures exist to be beasts of burden, some are dangerous predators to repelled, and some are invasive pests to be exterminated. There are life-forms such as actual cockroaches in which this understanding is completely justified. De-humanizing is taking a person who has agency and cognition and framing them as if they are an unthinking creature to be managed in some way for the “good” of the perpetrator.

Like I said above, the only similarity between these two evils is superficial. I believe they are fundamentally different.

This sounds an awful lot like "I don't see color" and is a pretty ignorant take. How do you prevent treating people differently while there is systemic discrimination giving people power over others and leading to a complicated web of privileges? Saying "don't treat people differently" is ignoring the systemic level of racism (and other forms of discrimination). You don't get absolved about confronting yourself with your own privileges and position of power over others just because you pretend to treat everyone equally. And I'm fact I don't think you can treat all people equally. Think of people you have a relationship with vs strangers for example.

Please be(e) nice on our instance

It's an American magazine, written in American English for an American audience about American racism. You're the one assuming that every article needs to be written for a globalized audience. How would that even be possible for a complicated, nuanced, and hyper-localizef social disorder like racism?

Are you assuming where we live?