>look for dr Thandeka's essay on privilege discourse being a
>re-inscription of original sin as secular

I checked it out, and I have alotta thoughts on it including some major disagreements, but it was an interesting read. Concerning the original sin observation though, I noticed she pulls that from Joseph Barndt's idea that racism was the original sin from which white's can't free themselves but must look to their "savior" which he, in so many words, names as people of color.. once again, placing the onus on Black folks to teach white people how not to be racist lol. My favorite quote from that section was "Surely the moral passivity advocated by such a theology is one reason why anti-racism programs can claim so few concrete results." Shots fired.
However, I think she's in denial about what racism is, how it works, and permanence of it. Case in point, she quotes an alleged anti-racist who's doing some extensive twisting in order to claim that white people can't fix their own racism AS he turns the responsibility back on PoC. This isn't an unlearned person but an alleged anti-racist, and such acts are very consistent even among them. She says Barndt's ideas run counter to the UU's belief in moral agency, but the white people in the UU are sending her his work. When does she understand white peoples' social commitment to refusing to divest themselves of the "privilege" they receive from the abuse of non-white people (even if she doesn't want to call it privilege)? This is not the commitment and denial of the elites driving this refusal but that of her white colleagues and millions of other white people both domestically and globally.
The reason I disagree with her about racism and how it works is that she seems to think that a white person can consistently commit racist acts but not be a racist, due to the fact that it's a matter of "survival" for them. I think committing acts of racism is racist no matter why it's done. That's how the system works, and that's a really strong part of why I can't dismiss the assertion that all white people are racist. It's a necessity of the system's functioning whether they do it for survival or pleasure. She seems to be describing racism as how people feel inside as opposed to what they do. Here are two quotes from her, in reference to a convo with her friend Dan, to show what I mean:

"being white for Dan was not a matter of racist conviction but a matter of survival, not a privilege but a penalty."
"Dan did not cry during our lunch together in the restaurant because he was a racist. He cried because his impulses to moral action had been slain by his own fear of racial exile."
While these may be important distinctions in trying to understand human psychology, they don't make a difference to those who are affected by "moral action being slain by fear of racial exile" as she put it. Either white people are resisting that at all times, or they're practicing racism... and practicing racism makes one a racist. She claims that accusing them of racism "punishes them for being broken," but it's simply an accurate description... nothing more or less.
What's ironic here, is that she's taking up the very charge that Barndt gave people of color even though she takes shots at that "doctrine of helplessness" earlier on. She's considering it her duty to heal white people who are "broken" by their "slain moral action" and "fear of racial exile." She seems to think that our understanding and consolation will save or heal them as she states "The charge of racism does not heal this condition or even describe it." Neither does lying to them and telling them they can consistently commit acts of racism and not be racist. Only white people ceasing all practice of racism will end racism.



>blacks run around parroting what they been told aint nothing
>knew im surprised dr tommy curry still got a job

Yeah. I expect victims to act like victims (seeking acceptance, being stressed to the point of mental retardation, acting out of fear and/or survival, etc) but I can't say it isn't frustrating to watch Black people get played over and over in the same ways.
As for Dr. Curry, he got tenure pretty early in his career, and that's a blessing to us all. Even in light of that, it's STILL pretty shocking that a brother has been allowed to speak so truthfully at any university so I totally get your surprise.