Politics and the New Counter-Culture Part 2: Privileges and Powers

By Greg Scorzo –

Offensive Politics

What’s particularly fascinating about today’s counter-culture is the way it rejects the progressive narratives of who is a victim and who is privileged. One can especially see this when one examines this counter-culture’s critique of progressive views on gender and race. In interpreting and explaining this critique, I’m not claiming that every figure within the counter-culture agrees with my formulation of it. Nonetheless, what I am claiming is that, within the counter-culture, there is a fairly widespread critique of progressive views on gender and race. This widespread critique is compelling and thought provoking, and as such, is not something that should be written off as a reactionary return to the past. Nor should it be conflated with an unthinking regression into bigotry and hate.

This critique is found across the counter-culture’s ideological spectrum, whether one is dealing with conservative nationalists (Lauren Southern, Milo Yiannopolous), libertarian conservatives (Steven Crowder, Larry Eldar), libertarians (vloggers That Guy T and Blaire White), quasi-traditionalist, quasi-libertarians (Karen Straughan, Jordan Peterson), classical liberals (Dave Rubin, vlogger Sargon of Akkad) or liberals critical of progressivism (feminist Christina Hoff Sommers, and vloggers The Amazing Atheist, Chris Ray Gun, and ShoeOnHead).

The Rejection of Feminist Explanations

Where progressivism likes to keep in line with the dictates of 4^th wave Feminism, today’s counter-culture largely rejects this Feminism. It specifically rejects the feminist thesis that in western countries, women are oppressed by men. To an even greater extent, it rejects the idea that western men are privileged in virtue of being male, and that western women are belittled at all levels of western culture.

It also accuses 4^th wave Feminism of wilfully downplaying (or sometimes denying) all the empirical disadvantages western men face: disadvantages such as the fact that men are more likely than women to be victims of homicide, more likely to be homeless, more likely to die in military combat, more likely to experience on the job injuries, more likely to be hit as children, more likely to receive longer sentences for committing the same crimes as women, and more likely to commit suicide.³ The counter-culture also highlights social expectations that disadvantage men, such as the fact that men, to a larger extent than women, are expected to compete in an exploitative labour economy, and are judged far more negatively for being undesirable to the opposite gender.⁴ There is also activism around men’s issues, such as the fact that men have greater difficulties obtaining custody of their children, and men are less likely to be believed (or supported) when they are victims of female rapists.⁵

Today’s counter-culture rejects the idea that the wage gap between men and women is a sign of discrimination against women. Rather, it explains the wage gap in terms of men and women making different, collective choices.⁶ Often feminist rebuttals to this point focus on similarities between male and female employees, like the fact that women ask for raises as much as men, or the fact that even in professions where women dominate, they still make less money than men, on average.⁷ But there’s a major problem with these kinds of rebuttals. They assume that the default state for a non-sexist society is one where men and women make equal amounts of money, when the wage figures are averaged. Because society is not in the default state, the feminist wage gap proponent claims that western society is sexist against women.

But there is obviously no reason to think the default state of any non-sexist society is one where men and women make equal amounts of money, when the wage figures are averaged. In fact, there’s no reason to think the default state of a just society is one where any two demographics make equal amounts of money, when the wages are averaged. It would actually be quite bizarre if men and women naturally made equal amounts of money this way. Just like it would be bizarre if tall and short people, long haired and short haired people, or left handed and right handed people, mysteriously made the same amounts of money when their respective wages were averaged. But what’s behind this demand for equal amounts of averaged money is the unfounded assumption that equalities of outcome are somehow natural, while inequalities of outcome are socially constructed deviations from the norm.

The counter-culture flips this assumption on its head, describing equality of outcome as the socially constructed state of affairs. After all, the only way that two demographics can naturally make the same amount of averaged wages is for each to perform equally well under relatively analogous conditions. The idea that any two people would do this, let alone any two demographics, denies the reality that no two individuals perform exactly the same. Nor do they typically perform under analogous conditions, even when society values equality. Equality of outcome is something society has to make happen, because inequality of outcome is the natural outcome of human beings competing against each other. And unlike progressives, today’s counter-culture tends to value this competition.

The counter-culture also rejects the idea that it is the natural order of things for men and women to be represented equally in high paying professions. It rejects the idea that a difference in the number of men and women in a given profession constitutes prima facia evidence that this profession is sexist. These rejections are compelling, among other reasons, because they allow one to condemn sexist hiring practices for actually being sexist.

Furthermore, to assume non-sexism has to be linked with equality of outcome is to engage in a kind of moral panic about inequality of outcome. Inequality of outcome becomes the supreme marker of victimisation, rather than a sign of something more mundane: natural diversity. The progressive winds up assuming, without justification, that you can’t treat people equally if they don’t wind up all having access to the same achievements. This winds up belitting the concept of achievement. Moreover, it creates a climate in which the most benign facts about collective differences within human populations become things that need to be suppressed with social sanctions.

Other feminist claims about the workplace are also interrogated by the counter-culture. Sexual harassment is interrogated because of cultural double standards for judging harassment when its done by women, rather than men.⁹ The counter-culture often points out that in western culture, harassment is treated much more harshly when a man is doing it to a woman. This is partly because men, on average, are bigger and physically stronger than women. For this reason, unwanted sexual advances and comments are not seen as threatening, when they are female on male. This is true even if the female harasser happens to be bigger and stronger than the male. There’s a sense that regardless of how big or strong a woman is, unwanted sexual comments and advances by men are always intrinsically threatening.

Another reason for this double standard is that the public expression of female sexual desire is associated with empowerment. This creates an interestingly odd situation for western men. If a western man complains about not being able to express his sexual desires in comments to random women on the street, he’s seen as an oafish, misogynistic pig. On the other hand, if a western man complains about a woman giving him unwanted sexual advances or comments, there’s a suspicion this man is either a prude, or someone who thinks he has a right to control how women choose to express themselves. This feminist double-bind for men is one the counter-culture frequently takes aim at.

The counter-culture also rejects the idea that there is something wrong with heterosexual men sexually objectifying women. Sexual objectification is described as a natural expression of human sexuality that feminists have demonised, but only when heterosexual men objectify women.⁹ The feminist claim that the west is a “Rape Culture” is also attacked along similar lines: Rape Culture proponents are accused of fetishizing only the consent of women to have sex with men. The same feminists who want to criminalise men for having drunken sex with women rarely campaign to criminalise women who have sex with drunken men. Nor do they typically campaign to force female teachers who have sex with their male students to take consent clases. Moreover, the counter-culture often criticises Rape Culture proponents for stereotyping men, accusing society of maintaining norms that excuse brutal male behaviour, when in actual fact, brutal male behaviour is largely condemned by society.

What’s also critiqued by the counter-culture is the motivation behind the claim that we live in a Rape Culture. 4^th wave feminists dislike the fact that the legal definition of rape (“non-consensual sex”) is one the public’s intuitions do not always cohere with. For instance, many members of the public think a man who has sex with a drunken woman is not (necessarily) a rapist. Or sometimes they think, “Because it would be absurd to think a woman who has sex with a drunken man is (necessarily) a rapist, it’s equally absurd to think a man who has sex with a drunken woman is (necessarily) a rapist.” This of course, doesn’t exclude the possibility that a man could rape a woman while the woman is intoxicated. But it is to say that the mere fact that the woman is intoxicated is not evidence her male partner is a rapist.

The reason members of the public think this is because they see men as having some responsibility for ingesting substances which undermine their judgements and behaviours. Hence, a man can be both drunk and responsible for having sex with a woman who is either less drunk than him, or not drunk at all. Because the public gives this responsibility to men, many members of the public also give it to women. After all, if a woman can be responsible for getting in a car and running over a toddler while drunk, she can be responsible for having drunken sex. Even drunken sex she later regrets.

Among 4^th wave feminists, this thinking is considered not just wrong, but morally repugnant and dangerous. It’s often referred to as “rape apologism” because it gives some responsibility to a female rape victim for having being raped. It’s called rape apologism, even though its actually motivated by a form of gender equality: holding men and women accountable to the same standards of blameworthiness while intoxicated.¹⁰

But the core of its supposed nastiness is in how it blames the female rape victim, rather than give sole responsibility to the (presumably male) perpetrator. Here, today’s counter-culture asserts exactly what the 4^th wave feminist finds so heinous: that victims (even victims of rape) sometimes have a degree of responsibility in being victims. Today’s counter-culture largely embraces the idea that some degree of victim blaming is both good and necessary for society. There are at least three compelling reasons for agreeing with the counter-culture here.

The first is that giving some degree of responsibility to the victim of a crime is actually empowering. It provides the victim with ways they can avoid being victims in the future. This not only protects the victim, but gives them a greater capacity to understand their experience of being victimised. In understanding it better, they can hopefully move beyond the experience, emotionally.¹¹ The second reason is that prohibiting victim blaming also winds up prohibiting safety advice. Safety advice, after all, promotes causal pathways to avoid victimisation.¹² Hence, all safety advice is implicit victim blaming. So if it’s never morally permissible to victim blame anyone, it’s also never morally permissible to advise people to lock their doors, or refrain from wandering around dark alleyways with expensive items.

The prohibition on victim blaming winds up having all sorts of strange, counter-intuitive consequences. If victim blaming is morally wrong, one can never advise anyone to avoid behaviour which makes them vulnerable to another human being’s criminality. At the same time, one can condemn a mother for advising her teenager daughter not to get smashed at parties. One can even get angry at a travel agent for suggesting it’s not a good idea to vacation in Syria. One might respond angrily to that travel agent: “Don’t tell me not to vacation in Syria! Tell Isis to stop beheading people!”

Even if we reluctantly accept these bizarre consequences, prohibiting victim blaming still makes society far less safe. Society is far less safe, when safety advise is conflated with failing to side with the victimised. Yet curiously it’s victim blaming, according to 4^th wave Feminism, that is the social phenomena that poses a grave threat to women. Not the absence of safety advise.

The third, and perhaps most powerful reason for tolerating some degree of victim blaming is that giving some responsibility to the victim in no way takes away responsibility from the perpetrator. If a victim puts themselves in a position where they are more vulnerable to being the target of a crime, this doesn’t justify the crime, or minimise its horror. Nor does it suggest that the perpetrator should get a lesser penalty. Even if the victim “asked for it,” that doesn’t justify the perpetrator giving the victim what the victim “asked for.”

The moral obligation not to victimise others is far more important than whether or not a crime, in some small way, was made easier by the victim. For instance, it doesn’t matter whether someone who leaves their doors unlocked is “asking to be burgled.” Whether they, “asked for it” or not doesn’t justify the burglar committing the burglary. Nor does it suggest that the penalty for committing burglary should somehow lesson, if the house broken into had an unlocked door.

BE A FEMINIST!!…(and one will think you’re a misogynist).

Critics of anti-Feminism are quick to point out it’s more extremist elements from the manosphere. Such elements include writers and vloggers who sometimes advocate everything from a return to traditional gender roles to legal principles which make it more difficult for women to prosecute male rapists, not to mention disturbingly blasé attitudes towards male on female rape.¹³ But in highlighting these elements, critics of the anti-Feminism do a guilt by association tactic, attempting to make the public dismiss the majority of Feminism’s opponents and their positions. Especially those opponents who only want to question the patriarchy thesis, and its many problematic consequences.

More importantly, even if a critic of Feminism advocates one morally repugnant view, this doesn’t mean that everything else they say should be reduced to a rank stew of forgettable insanity. We should remember that nearly every historical figure with timelessly important ideas is known for holding at least one morally repugnant view, whether it’s Aristotle’s defence of slavery, Kant’s unabashed sexism, or Marx’s racism.¹⁴

One stupid claim can’t invalidate an entire body of insights, despite the fact that this idea is now standard orthodoxy among both progressives and leftists. Yet despite its reputation for standing up to bigotry and oppression, this “all or nothing” imperative actually creates a high degree of conformism on the left. Among other things, it gives those on the left uncomfortable with progressivism a massive incentive to shut the fuck up.

Not only does this create pressure to avoid unpoular positions, but it intensifies an increasingly polarised political landscape. In such a polarised landscape, political opponents are far less likely to listen to each other, and far more likely to dehumanise those who don’t tow their party lines.

This black and white understanding of the political merits of thinkers also winds up ironically discrediting anyone on the left who ever disagreed with the cluster of positions that constitute progressivism today. In judging political thinkers by this standard, no one other than the present progressive is worth taking seriously. Not even Martin Luther King (who incidentally, would be horrified at today’s progressivism).

Systemic Racism and Privilege Checking

Like its rejection of progressive gender politics, today’s counter-culture also rejects the standard progressive narrative on racism. Interestingly, it doesn’t typically reject the claim that there are statistical inequalities between whites and people of colour (such as different rates of incarceration, access to housing, success in education, or levels of poverty).

It rejects the progressive idea that in western societies, people of colour are victims of culturally normalised racism, that people of colour are unique victims of social maladies that white people are not, and that people of colour should be beholden to different forms of etiquette, as well as different levels of social responsibility.

What’s behind this stance is a repudiation of the very concept of “systemic racism.” Systemic racism is supposedly institutional racism that is distinct from mere racial prejudice. In the west, it purportedly consists of practices, as well as economic and political structures, that place minorities at a disadvantage, relative to the majority ethnicity of a population.¹⁵ The problem with systemic racism (as a concept) is it doesn’t consider the possibility that racial inequalities can be explained by anything other than racism which benefits the majority.

Hence, systemic racism unfairly blames white racism for statistical inequalities between whites and people of colour, and does so by defining racial inequality in terms of racism, when racial inequality and racism are obviously not the same. Racism is a series of beliefs or attitudes that imply that one race in some way is superior to another. Racial inequalities are social facts about how different races are doing in society, relative to each other.

It’s an obvious truism that you can have racial inequalities without racism. If there are more Chinese teachers than Japanese teachers in Leicester, nobody would say that Leicester is racist. Racial inequalities are only expressions of racism, where there is a cultural norm which explicitly says one race is inferior to another. In a society where the dominant cultural norm is that racism is evil, racial inequalities can’t simply be defined as racism. They can’t even justifiably be treated as prima facia evidence of racism.

But the systemic racism hypothesis bypasses this fact, when dealing with inequalities between whites and people of colour. It instead denies the idea that western societies actually have a functioning social norm which says racism is evil. It insinuates that because of racial inequalities, the actual cultural norm of the west is that racism against people of colour is acceptable. And then it winds up judging whites as racist, not so much for their actual views on race, but simply because they live in a culture that is racist. Here, whites wind up being racist via cultural osmosis.¹⁶

The above description of white racism is actually an example of racial bigotry. It’s judging whites not on the basis of what they purport to believe, but by the culture they live in. The racist western culture supposedly determines the beliefs and attitudes of whites, whether they know it or not. So whites wind up giving no one reasons to believe them when they say they aren’t racist. This view of whites is obviously bigotry, because it’s bigoted to assume that a group of people are so culturally determined, that you can’t believe them when they tell you what it is they actually believe.

Another progressive tactic today’s counter-culture finds bigoted is the requirement that whites “check their privilege.” What is meant by this is that whites should acknowledge that they are beneficiaries of statistical norms which privilege them at the expense of people of colour.

In order to sufficiently acknowledge this privilege, whites are expected to adopt a racialised etiquette where they defer to people of colour. Sometimes this means not arguing with people of colour regarding political issues that deal with race.¹⁷ Sometimes it means prioritising the emotional needs of people of colour over the emotional needs of whites.¹⁸ But privilege checking is nearly always characterised as a way of redistributing power. And this redistribution depends on whites accepting that people of colour have a special access to social truths whites cannot see. Whites must accept that white privilege prevents them from having experiential knowledge of the various hardships people of colour face in western society.

Once again, the counter-culture is right to reject this. The demand to check privilege is bigotry because it’s really a demand for people to be treated as representatives of their race, rather than as individuals. It’s true that it’s impossible to treat everyone as an individual in every single context. For instance, if 5 billion people suddenly moved to London tomorrow, it would be impossible to treat every one of those immigrants as an individual. Greek immigrant Judy Pastorious might make a decent law abiding member of British society, but because of the sheer number of immigrants coming with her, she unfortunately has to be treated as part of the cluster of immigrants London can’t support all at once.

Nonetheless, there is one context were it is crucially important to treat people as individuals: the context of social interaction. This is because when we interact with others in a social setting, we aren’t interacting with mere demographics. We are literally interacting with individuals. Privilege checking is problematic because in the context of social interaction, it demands the etiquette for John Smith be specifically linked to the fact that John Smith is white. And in making this demand, the demand to privilege check is fundamentally an expression of the same racial bigotry it wants to counteract. It’s only tolerated by progressives because the bigotry appears to be directed against whites.

The demand to privilege check additionally commits the fallacy of division: it confuses collective privileges the white demographic has with privileges any white person might have.¹⁹ For instance, just because whites, on average, make more money than blacks, it doesn’t follow that any white person makes more money than any black person. Nor does it follow that any white person has access to housing, a successful education, and is not incarcerated. In order to find out whether any white person does have these privileges, one has to know something of their biography and material circumstances. This means one has to treat them as an individual, exactly what privilege checking advises against.

Another ironic problem with privilege checking’s fallacy of division is the racial bigotry it promotes against blacks. In much the same way that privilege checking demands one ascribe privilege to any white person, it also demands one ascribe a victimization narrative to any black person. Just like the privilege ascription denies white people of a biography that is appreciated on its own terms, victimization ascription does the same thing to blacks. Perhaps more tragically, the victimization narrative sometimes gets internalized by blacks, even in circumstances where it is patently absurd. For instance, many young black progressives at prestigious universities see themselves as victims of western society. They see themselves as victims, even though they are some of the most objectively privileged people within western society.

Derogatory Racist Language

Another attack today’s counter culture makes on the progressive politics of race is to attack the post-civil rights etiquette, regarding racist language. According to that etiquette, its not enough for whites to merely be non-racist. Whites must perform their non-racism. A white person performs non-racism by NOT using words and symbols associated with white racism.

If a white person utters the word, “nigger” for instance, they are as guilty of a racist act as someone who literally believes blacks are inferior to whites. It is admittedly more controversial whether or not a black person who utters the word, “nigger” is also guilty of racism. But what’s universally agreed upon is that for any white person to utter the word “nigger,” even in jest, is for that white person to commit a racist and offensive act.

Although “nigger” is the most taboo racist word, other words and practices are also on the progressive’s list of officially prohibited racist symbols. Performing in black face is considered racist. And more recently, progressives have demanded that white people not appropriate cultural practices that originate with people of colour. Some progressives have demanded that whites not wear hair styles associated with people of colour, such as dreadlocks.²⁰ Other progressives have demanded that white writers shouldn’t create fiction that utilises a person of colour as a narration voice.²¹

In the context of both cultural appropriation and speech, there are powerful reasons to reject the progressive demand that whites perform their non-racism. First off, this is a demand that ceases to take people’s beliefs and attitudes seriously. It treats a white person as racist or anti-racist not on the basis of their beliefs, but on the basis of what symbols they employ in expressing themselves. This gives the racist symbol a magical dimension, as if it’s a kind of spell that generates racism, even if the person using the symbol has no racist beliefs or attitudes.

Another critique of this way of looking at symbols is that it creates a culture where blame for racism is given on the basis of bad performances, not beliefs and attitudes. White brothers Ben and Jerry are different in that Ben is racist and Jerry is not. But because Ben never uses racist symbols (or overtly advocates any racist political views) he can pass in society as a non-racist. But if Jerry jokingly uses the N word to express affection for a black woman he deeply loves, it is Jerry who society will treat as the racist.

Within this etiquette, the true white racist can get away with being racist. Conversely, there is no performance required of people of colour, in order to demonstrate that they aren’t racist against whites. Because there is less of a stigma against (much less an acknowledgement of) racism against whites, people of colour are not beholden to the same standards of blameworthiness, regarding their racism. This illuminates one of the more ironic implications of progressive racial politics: within progressivism, only whites are given responsibility for being racist.

CLICK HERE TO READ PART 3 – No peace no justice.

CLICK HERE TO READ PART 1 – The outraged establishment.

Notes

6. See https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/mythbusting-the-gender-pay-gap/ Also see http://judgybitch.com/2015/05/04/the-wage-gap-is-evidence-that-western-women-are-pampered-coddled-and-spoiled/ Also see http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-gender-pay-gap-is-dead/18032#.WYGmyK2ZOCQ Also see http://blog.acton.org/archives/92915-yes-the-gender-wage-gap-is-still-a-myth-and-a-potentially-dangerous-one.html Also see http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/political-correctness-stupid-dogma/how-women-can-earn-more-then-men-25-life-choices-to-get-higher-pay Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcDrE5YvqTs Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ZTMjF3Y2M Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRfERVPq2VE Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl0JcZfFGQw Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTcy4GiN1iQ

7. See http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/a63877/pay-gap-explanation/ Also see https://www.bustle.com/p/8-wage-gap-statistics-to-shut-down-any-haters-48441

8. See https://thoughtcatalog.com/lorenzo-jensen-iii/2017/02/34-men-discuss-societys-insane-double-standards-that-favor-women-and-hurt-men/ Also see http://redpillphilosophy.com/2016/02/watch-male-sexual-harassment-social-experiment-reveals-societys-double-standards/ Also see https://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/the-myth-of-sexual-harassment-the-fiamengo-file-episode-17/

9. The classic counter-cultural statement on this issue is Karen Straughan’s Vlog, “I’m a Sexy Woman, So Stop Objectifying Me!” See http://www.gregscorzo.com/gender-politics-on-the-offensive-karen-straughan-part-3/ Also see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/09/hottest-olympic-dudes-its-not-okay-to-objectify-female-athletes-but-what-about-men/?utm_term=.08a2be1eb886 Also see https://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/feminist-explains-why-its-okay-to-objectify-men/

10. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Leyz74gpXQ8 Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWykQ0PQtNg Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrwDXyUSKsY Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc_E9JtM_ss Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfI-tu4ki7w&t=64s

11. This is a point Karen Straughan makes. See http://www.gregscorzo.com/gender-politics-on-the-offensive-karen-straughan-part-1/

12. See http://rmitcatalyst.com/gadfly-on-victim-blaming-and-denial-of-causality/

13. See https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/jury-duty-at-a-rape-trial-acquit/ Also see https://mancheeze.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/paul-elams-pot-of-crazy-rape-victims-are-lying-unless-they-take-it-to-court/ Also see https://judgybitch.wordpress.com/tag/old-fashioned-gender-roles-get-people-laid/ Also see https://thoughtcatalog.com/jakob-stauf/2014/02/im-a-traditional-guy-and-i-dont-think-theres-anything-wrong-with-gender-roles/ Also see http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/roosh-v-is-a-saddo-not-a-threat/17338#.WYN10q2ZOCQ Also see http://www.xojane.com/issues/roosh-v-legalize-rape Also see https://www.change.org/p/the-nsw-police-force-stop-supporters-of-legal-rape-roosh-v-advocates-meeting-in-sydney

14. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_slavery Also see http://www.newfoundations.com/WOMAN/Kant.html Also see http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2217122-karl-marx-the-racist/

15. See https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565 Also see https://www.raceforward.org/videos/systemic-racism Also see https://www.commondreams.org/views/2010/07/26/fourteen-examples-systemic-racism-us-criminal-justice-system

16. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-men-project/why-its-so-hard-to-talk-to-white-people-about-racism_b_7183710.html Also see https://medium.com/@ARTaghavi/to-you-who-deny-white-privilege-5-lessons-to-take-advantage-of-yours-670809dfd146 Also see https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/28/what-white-people-need-to-know-and-do-after-ferguson/?utm_term=.e36ae729d776 Also see http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/08/raising-racially-conscious-kids/ Also see https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person-shesaid/

17. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-griffin/why-dont-white-people-bel_b_12220958.html Also see https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahgiorgis/how-white-people-can-support-people-of-color-right-now?utm_term=.haxydOpAl#.eaoAzprLG Also see http://www.itstheiproject.com/blog/how-to-be-an-ally-a-guide-for-woke-white-people-white-people-who-want-to-be-woke-and-woc-who-can-empathize

18. See https://medium.com/empire-south-magazine/beyonce-is-the-new-black-for-colored-girls-who-have-considered-assimilation-when-having-hot-sauce-f613a9735c21 Also see http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/white-people-emotions-tears/ Also see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christy-degallerie/its-time-to-call-out-nice-racists-white-fragility_b_11939196.html

19. See https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/fallacies-of-composition-and-division/

20. See http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-wasnt-surprised-by-the-us-dreadlocks-row-white-people-never-think-they-are-guilty-of-cultural-a6964906.html Also see http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447916/internet-upset-demi-lovato-was-not-more-sensitive-about-appropriation-she-didnt-even Also see http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/07/white-people-black-hairstyles/

21. See https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/articles/why-do-white-writers-keep-fictionalizing-black-experiences/ Also see https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/13/lionel-shrivers-full-speech-i-hope-the-concept-of-cultural-appropriation-is-a-passing-fad

Image List:

Cover Image: Title: Finger art of family during quarrel. The concept of parents scolded her daughter, she was crying. Image ID : 45362273 Copyright : mukhina1 (Follow) Copyright: <a href=’https://www.123rf.com/profile_mukhina1′>mukhina1 / 123RF Stock Photo</a>
Title: A conceptual image of a man being crushed and oppressed by a large foot. Copyright : Chris Harvey (Follow) Image ID : 2052835 Copyright: <a href=’https://www.123rf.com/profile_harveysart’>harveysart / 123RF Stock Photo</a>
Title: The student with a considerable quantity of books (boy, girl) Copyright : Anna Yakimova (Follow). Image ID : 11511333 Copyright: <a href=’https://www.123rf.com/profile_evdoha’>evdoha / 123RF Stock Photo</a>
Title: Angry young woman in swimsuit shouting through megaphone and pointing in camera Copyright : citalliance (Follow) Image ID : 19727641 Copyright: <a href=’https://www.123rf.com/profile_citalliance’>citalliance / 123RF Stock Photo</a>
Title: set of worried businessmen (silhouette, man, sad) Copyright : Laschi Adrian (Follow) Image ID : 28458205 Copyright: <a href=’https://www.123rf.com/profile_laschi’>laschi / 123RF Stock Photo</a>
Title: White clothed figures. Copyright : Bruce Rolff (Follow) Image ID : 72990224 Copyright: <a href=’https://www.123rf.com/profile_rolffimages’>rolffimages / 123RF Stock Photo</a>
Title: Now shut up. Copyright : Franco Volpato (Follow) Image ID : 20922534 Copyright: <a href=’https://www.123rf.com/profile_francovolpato’>francovolpato / 123RF Stock Photo</a>