The small whites are for sure afraid they will be treated economically like a minority. That is the anxiety. They don’t want to lose the benefits of their white privilege. So kidna
no, they don’t think they will be treated equally; it is an inherent part of colonialism (from which white supremacy arose) to condition a projection of a ‘reversed consequence’ if power is let go by making the colonized subject into a ‘dangerous’ and ‘unpredictable’ embodiment of ‘barbarity,’ against whom the colonizer is instead a ‘civilized’ and ‘rational’ embodiment of ‘good’ in dialectical antithesis to it. It is where the ideological dynamic of ‘civilizing the savages’ comes from in the material relation of colonialism and its white supremacist expression in history (how European colonialism unfolded and reified its relations). ie. there is an underlying understanding in the white supremacist consciousness that “they want to do to us what we did to them or worse, and will if we let them” (the implication being, we can never ‘let them,’ meaning never give up vigilance and power over them, securing the colonial relation).
It comes out very obviously from white liberals in conversations about decolonization when they are pressed that they are not to and can not insert themselves into deciding ‘how’ the colonized ‘should’ carry out decolonization. There is a deep primal fear in this projection which dialectically necessarily grows out of the material relations of colonialism and colonization; as for there to be a colonizer there must be a colonized — which inherently necessitates dehumanization and justifications for ‘why’ maintaining control and dominance over the colonized subject is “right,” “natural,” or “the only option.” Which then cyclically reinforces the material relations to the material base — land, resources, labor, means of production and subsistence and reproduction of labor. Cyclically because then every act of defiance and resistance against this colonial relationship by the colonized, in the perspective of this superstructural ethos, ‘justifies’ the claim of the ‘dangerousness’ and ‘barbarity’ of the colonized and so the colonizer’s need to ‘keep them under control’. As we saw it also with oct7 in Palestine. As we see in every uprising and riot of colonized people or major push against the structures and systems of their subjugation.
I recommend The Wretched of the Earth by Fanon for a good understanding of colonialism and decolonization and all its inter-relations.
The small whites are for sure afraid they will be treated economically like a minority. That is the anxiety. They don’t want to lose the benefits of their white privilege. So kidna
No, they’re afraid they’ll be treated equally. Equality feels like oppression
If you actually treated them like a minority they would all sudoku in like 3 days from the shock
no, they don’t think they will be treated equally; it is an inherent part of colonialism (from which white supremacy arose) to condition a projection of a ‘reversed consequence’ if power is let go by making the colonized subject into a ‘dangerous’ and ‘unpredictable’ embodiment of ‘barbarity,’ against whom the colonizer is instead a ‘civilized’ and ‘rational’ embodiment of ‘good’ in dialectical antithesis to it. It is where the ideological dynamic of ‘civilizing the savages’ comes from in the material relation of colonialism and its white supremacist expression in history (how European colonialism unfolded and reified its relations). ie. there is an underlying understanding in the white supremacist consciousness that “they want to do to us what we did to them or worse, and will if we let them” (the implication being, we can never ‘let them,’ meaning never give up vigilance and power over them, securing the colonial relation).
It comes out very obviously from white liberals in conversations about decolonization when they are pressed that they are not to and can not insert themselves into deciding ‘how’ the colonized ‘should’ carry out decolonization. There is a deep primal fear in this projection which dialectically necessarily grows out of the material relations of colonialism and colonization; as for there to be a colonizer there must be a colonized — which inherently necessitates dehumanization and justifications for ‘why’ maintaining control and dominance over the colonized subject is “right,” “natural,” or “the only option.” Which then cyclically reinforces the material relations to the material base — land, resources, labor, means of production and subsistence and reproduction of labor. Cyclically because then every act of defiance and resistance against this colonial relationship by the colonized, in the perspective of this superstructural ethos, ‘justifies’ the claim of the ‘dangerousness’ and ‘barbarity’ of the colonized and so the colonizer’s need to ‘keep them under control’. As we saw it also with oct7 in Palestine. As we see in every uprising and riot of colonized people or major push against the structures and systems of their subjugation.
I recommend The Wretched of the Earth by Fanon for a good understanding of colonialism and decolonization and all its inter-relations.