WOW! What a history lesson! Thanks for putting the effort into this it is very informative. One of the posts that I have saved on my computer to reflect on.
A few points really stood out to me:
This is interesting. It is obviously different to South Africa because our institutional racism only hardened from that point. But whereas WW2 might have affected America's term, Marxism had an influence behind the races standing up to the government over here, as the movements were lead by many intellectual socialists. The racism of Nazi Germany must have been a big shock to the world then.
I think there have always been divisions within America on this issue, even from the very beginning. But I think WW2 was the tipping point where public opinion slowly shifted in favor of civil rights and anti-racism. But as we've seen, there were (and still are) many holdouts and hardheads. One of the key factors is that America's position in the world had changed to where the Powers That Be had to mindful of our image and reputation in the world. The whole "hearts and minds" thing.
The Civil Rights movement was also associated with Marxism and Communist agitation here in the U.S. J. Edgar Hoover had an obsession with Martin Luther King, hounding him incessantly and putting surveillance on him. There may have been some Marxists and Communists involved, but in the post-McCarthy era - and as the anti-war movement also got bigger - there was a kind of anti-anti-communist counter movement set in motion. Some people were getting weary of our leadership's obsession with communism and their constant red baiting, so the rhetoric of anti-communism was starting to fall more and more on deaf ears. When there were people out there claiming the Beatles were a communist plot, many believed that it had gone too far.
I remember when I was in high school (early 80s) and we had a visitor to the class, a woman from South Africa. She presented Apartheid like she thought it was a good thing, as she stressed that different peoples could live in their own territory and have their own culture. I think some segregationists made similar arguments in favor of segregation.
I thought the term "white privilege" in its layman context and "only whites can be racist" was something that only occurred in the past decade. I didn't realize it has such a long history. Using these terms was certainly a counter productive move.
I think it was the late 80s/early 90s when I first started hearing the notion that only whites can be racist. Just going by memory, but it's been around for quite a while. The basic idea is that racism is about power, and since the racist system put whites in power, it's not politically viable or even possible for a black person to exercise such power over white people. However, the notion that only whites can be racist does not mean or imply that blacks can't be prejudiced or bigoted towards white people. It's when the term is defined within a political context, although many people define "racism" in terms of an individual's personal feelings and emotions towards one race or another.
I think "white privilege" came about in the late 90s, when the Clinton Administration appointed a commission on race relations, and the term "white privilege" came out of that report. Although it had probably been used prior to that; I'm not certain.
That's one thing that's characterized the political culture for much of my life, such as the shifting of vocabulary usage or the introduction of new phrases to express old ideas. So, the argument can get confused and miscommunication is inevitable when different groups of people use terms differently and hold variant meanings. The whole debate and narrative gets bogged down in semantics and wordsmithing and endless arguments over what someone meant when they said that.
I don't know if you have heard of a video game called Bioshock or not? It is considered one of gamings Masterpieces. It would be a cool thing to check out even if you watch an analysis of the game. It is a commentary on what happens if Capitalism is taken to the extreme, where the government doesn't interfere with businesses and other problems and where might and and wealth is right. Complete freedom. Oppression, corporate greed, poverty, genetic experimentation and depravity eventually ruin the society and it becomes an out of control horror show. It ties in well with what you are saying above.
I don't think I'm familiar with that game. Strictly speaking, I'm not completely anti-capitalist, although I think it should be restrained somewhat, if only to bring about greater political and economic stability. I've seen quite a few movies which show a rather dystopic future. Charlton Heston was in quite a few: Planet of the Apes, The Omega Man, Soylent Green. Rollerball had an interesting premise where all the world governments had dissolved, and the world was run by a few powerful corporations.
I certainly agree that identity politics is wrong. I also do see how Capitalism can allow racism and nationalism to to remain. I also see how Socialism does the same thing but in a different way. I think we should step away from both concepts and try something new.
At this point, there are probably too many problems facing us concurrently, not the least of which seems to be growing tension with China and Russia. That has to be addressed in a more forthright manner. Either we can try to work to build a peaceful and cooperative world, or we can go down a more militaristic route, which would also have consequences of its own.
