JF

"Explainable" and "of a common type" are not equivalent. Contemporary Germany is not explainable without understanding the Third Reich, but that does not mean contemporary Germany is a fascist state.

Would you like to give an example of a type of racial discrimination that wasn't aided by the American ruling-class' deliberate manipulation of national identities? You're the one arguing uphill, I'm not. There isn't just Jim Crow, there's eugenics, redlining, etc.

I'm not arguing they weren't aided by that. The narrative of pervasive white supremacy manipulating everyone is also aided by the ruling class. If you don't believe me, just tune into the Democratic debates. They never shut up about it,

Yeah sure, they complain about concentration camps but the solution is always to make the guards wear pink. The reality is that popular opinion is turning against the racist status quo, and like social democracy, they're getting on board with it.

The reality is that liberals have been "against racism" for a long time, have never done anything to make society more equal, and that the formulation of white supremacy is just as useful to them as the old ones. It's a pseudo-radical critique that will lead to more of the same.

I feel like you're beating around the bush. You say "white supremacy aids those things" and then go on to say observing white supremacy is "pseudo-radical critique", so which is it? Does it exist as "objective social reality" or not? Are racial inequalities man-made or genetic?

Obviously inequalities are man-made. The point is that there's nothing particular radical about formulating them this way. It's just as useful to the ruling class as it is to the working class.

It's pretty clear to anyone paying attention to politics that claims about white supremacy do not necessarily lead to a radical program, but that seems like a different question than how correct they are