So You Want to Talk About Race

So You Want to Talk About Race was written by somebody from Seattle, who sees everything through a racial privilege lens. The book hits all the Seattle terminology and grievances. I just don't care for these arguments. I'd much rather have the efforts spent on combating oppression and car-centric transportation.
In the argument, the world is divided into two groups "straight neurotypical cis etc. white male oppressors" and "everyone else", where everyone else is primarily "people of color". Racism is defined to only be possible when coming from people in power. Thus, only "white people" can be racist, because they have the power. Though, how do you define power? In Chicago, the mayor is a LGBTQ black woman and "people of color" hold the majority of the city council seats. I doubt that this would be used to argue that white people in Chicago can't be racist. Perhaps you could argue that the big companies are still dominated by whites. Perhaps Silicon Valley in Northern California would be a better example. There are many cities run by Asians, with companies also run by Asians with an Asian-majority workforce. There are whites finally exempt from being racist? Or perhaps we need to carry it out to the world. Since European culture dominates the world, only Europeans can be racist. What about places like Malaysia that give preference to Malays over Chinese? It just makes for a confusing argument.
She gives some of the typically arguments that "people of color" are universally oppressed due to their race. She acknowledges that there are many other groups that are discriminated against, but sees race as the most important. She argues that she lives in a white supremacist world where she suffers from endless microagressions and discrimination. However, she fails to acknowledge that she comes from a huge position of privilege that lets her make her arguments and seek for some sort of non-oppression. She groups people as "people of color" and "white people". She had an "Obama" upbringing, raised by a white mother with an absent African father, however, identifies exclusively with "blackness". She does acknowledge that even in her "people of color" community, they excluded other people that were not "elite" like her. From there, she assumes to speak for all non-white people.
The author spends time discussing "intersectionality". The social justice movement wants to make sure that all "intersections" of groups are properly covered. (Of course this is only groups that the movements have acknowledged.) It thus makes for confusion as they attempt to "speak" for many other people (while at the same time excluding others because they are "oppressors." It all just sounds very Seattle.
One thing she seems to get right is that "racism" is a way that people make themselves feel better. If there is somebody lower than them, they will feel better about themselves. Similarly, if there is somebody "higher" than them, they will feel upset - especially if they feel they should be able to aspire to that position. If we erase all concept of race, people will still find a way to separate themselves. The case of European immigrants is an interesting study. There was originally heavy segregation based on different countries of origin. British were at the top. Southern Europeans and slavs were down near the bottom. Post-famine Irish were the dregs. These days, they are all just "white", even though there are various ranges of physical features. The offspring of a Brit and an Italian don't become "Italian". However, any African ancestry trumps all to make somebody "black". Why is this so?
The author throws in a discussion on Asians. They are both a model minority and oppressed. It all comes down to group definition. (Alas, the same is not done for whites, which are just used as a homogeneous foil.)
The cultural appropriation discussion is also rife with conflicts. An African-themed bar is considered bad. (Ok, I'll buy that. I'd much rather have good Ethiopian food than burgers.) Wearing sacred Native American headdress is also bad. (No problem there.) However, artists such as white rappers are viewed negatively because they have "appropriated" an art form that originated in West African chanting. That seems to be stretching things a bit. Should we argue black appropriation of McDonalds? (oh wait, it is fine to appropriate form the "dominate" race.) The author also tries to appropriate the legacy of slavery to her experience. Yet, she did not claim any slave ancestry. Why should she appropriate some culture but others not?
There are issues with race in America. However, separating out the "us vs. them" does not help things. There will always be differentiation. Some groups will be better at different things. Perhaps the biggest problem is that we have a culture that expresses value in a certain types of achievement. People that cannot achieve feel discouraged and look to sidestep the system. This leads to more discouragement and continued problems. Yelling at others for being racist just adds to the fire. The book ends by describing a fight against a police station in Seattle. It just happened to be near an area known for criminal activity. There were also a large number of people of color (including many African immigrants) in the area who were eager to have the station built. However, many residents (primarily in other parts of the city) fought against it due to some of the amenities (like a Yoga room.) Instead, some of the money was spent on public housing. This may show another symptom of the crime. Huge efforts are spent to get crumbs of money that only help a small number of people of color. At the same time, zoning and building codes present so many challenges to building housing, that most new housing built is "luxury". Why not fight to eliminate these regulations so that more housing appropriate for the community can be built? And calling out a "school to prison pipeline" doesn't help education. Instead, we need to rethink the whole structure. There is a tendency brewing now to implement a "lowest common denominator". Seeing a disparity in opportunities for different racial groups, the "special" ones that whites use are dismantled to give everyone an equal opportunity. Why not instead focus on differing educational experiences. Some people have time and resources to complete advanced education. Others need to work as soon as possible. What about co-op vocational opportunities? And what about practical coursework like personal finance, cooking and household skills. The children of professors will have distinct advantages over the children of a poor single-mom who did not finish high school. Often children will have an educational experience similar to their parents. As a society, we would do well by nudging the least educated up a bit, without hurting the top. Some racial groups tend to occupy the bottom. Racism may be part of the problem. However, there are many other factors involved.