A few distinctions here

- white people make up the majority of the population, most of the politicians, most of the rich people are white.  

If you were in China, telling people that the 'China virus' is killing people, no one is going to get the idea that it's actually the fault of the Chinese individuals. Unless they have some weird issues, they're not going to start attacking their neighbors, or boycotting restaurants that happen to be run by Chinese people.

- White supremacy is advocated for, by and large by a subset of white people. 'China virus' isn't advocated in the same way.  If millions of Chinese people were advocating for the virus, then yeah, it'd be pretty fair to blame them. Last I checked, there aren't any Chinese versions of the KKK intentionally spreading coronavirus towards non-chinese people.

And if we continue that thought for more than a single, vague sentence, you immediately have to confront how we are talking about white power and white supremacy. The only way to avoid that is by avoiding the conversation, and all that avoiding the conversation accomplishes is enabling white supremacy to continue unchallenged. 

And whites being othered is not an unintentional side effect of white supremacy, or something that only occurs when white supremacy is called out. It is the point. Casting another group as fundamentally different from you necessitates that you are fundamentally different from them. Both the slave and the slave-holder, for example, are in a situation where they are "othered" from each other. The way to challenge this is not by tip-toeing around the truth, but by bringing about true equality by dismantling the white supremacist ideas which have created this division. 

"And if we continue that thought for more than a single, vague sentence, you immediately have to confront how we are talking about white power and white supremacy. The only way to avoid that is by avoiding the conversation, and all that avoiding the conversation accomplishes is enabling white supremacy to continue unchallenged."

>I still disagree. Example: if I wanted to call out the fact that blacks are killed in disproportionate numbers by police compared to their white, Asian, and Hispanic counterparts, I need not make any mention of 'white supremacy' at any point.

Watch:

Blacks are killed in disproportionate numbers by police compared to their white, Asian, and Hispanic counterparts. We must put into place reforms to correct this injustice that hurts our black citizens! Better de-escalation tactics, education for both police and our citizenry on how to handle police stops and interactions! Inform as many as possible on their rights when it comes to interactions with law enforcement and how all are entitled to a lawyer when arrested!

And by speaking about such things without really digging into the white supremacist history and ideas, you miss the fact that significant portions of our penal code have historically been created to criminalize minorities. Marijuana criminalization was created on the back of white supremacist nationalism, and the fear of Mexican immigrants. Further, it is largely through the white supremacist ideas of the dangerous black man that black men receive longer prison sentences for the same crime, and racial biases play a very important role in our jury based court system.

Hell, you miss the fact that actual White Supremacist organizations have worked to infiltrate local law enforcement agencies. A "classified FBI Counterterrorism Policy Guide from April 2015, obtained by The Intercept [...] notes that 'domestic terrorism investigations focused on militia extremists, white supremacist extremists, and sovereign citizen extremists often have identified active links to law enforcement officers'" (Source https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-investigated-white-supremacist-infiltration-of-law-enforcement/ )

Sure, you can kind of tip-toe around some of the central components of the issue, asking for more training (which I support), but the problem is centuries deep and you are barely scratching the surface. 

sundin13, I have excellent news for you: I'm all for rooting any corrupt elements in our judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government. Tread carefully however lest you end up doing more harm than good.

So, where shall we start? Got any police officers or judges you'd like to put on blast right now for their erroneous or biased work?

The idea is more insidious than the individual, and these ideas will continue to bear fruit unless we are able to grasp at the root to remove them. To that end, I believe education on racial injustice plays a fundamental role.

Okay, let's get educated! Tell me about this 'racial injustice'.

That is kind of a big question, and I am certainly no expert on the subject. You would be better off going to a local university and sitting in on a class or two (to understand, not to argue). A lot of universities let you walk in on classes for free if you aren't taking them for credit.

That said, if you have any more specific questions, I will see if I can answer them.

Do white people become the victims of crimes for being white? Yeah that happens.

But that's not really what we're talking about, with regards to white supremacy.

>Is the majority of our political leaders being white part of this so-called 'white supremacy'?

It's a byproduct of it. White people voting in other white people to defend white people interests. Most of those people aren't white supremacists, but they aren't fixing the problem.

If you want a little run down of white supremacy:

- slavery up to 1865

- white people were given free land, when the midwest began to be settled.

- law enforcement looking the other way, when black people were killed, or when their houses were burned down.

- the US government had policies on their books to advocate for neighborhood level segregation. The government would back loans for white people in white neighborhoods, intentionally zoning black neighborhoods to only include cheaper housing.  You can read a lot more about it: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

>It was in something called the Underwriting Manual of the Federal Housing Administration, which said that "incompatible racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communities." Meaning that loans to African-Americans could not be insured. In one development ... in Detroit ... the FHA would not go ahead, during World War II, with this development unless the developer built a 6-foot-high wall, cement wall, separating his development from a nearby African-American neighborhood to make sure that no African-Americans could even walk into that neighborhood.

To sum up, black people were enslaved to do labor for white people, in other words profiting off their labor. When black people started developing property, white people would burn it down. The US government intentionally invested in white neighborhoods, while cutting off black neighborhoods.

Ignoring the effects of hundreds of years of kicking down minorities, and then blaming them for not being as wealthy is another example of white supremacy.

What do you make of the discrepancy of police shootings between the different racial groups?

Blacks are shoot at higher rates than their white, Asian, and Hispanic counterparts for example.

• People shot to death by U.S. police, by race 2021 | Statista

"the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 36 fatal shootings per million of the population as of May 2021"

You can't be serious.

I refuse to believe you read any part of my post and thought this was a response.  

There is no comparison between 250+ years of government level oppression and a couple of random riots by people upset about that oppression.  

There is a lot to make of it. I'm not really sure what you are looking for with that question, so I'll just run through a few brief(ish) thoughts.

A lot of people see this as a reflection of the direct racism and racial biases among the police, and it often seems to be the idea that gets the most press, I don't think it is the most important (though that isn't to say that it doesn't play any role). I think there are two things which need to be spoken about here:

-The first relates to the historical reaction to police violence. The reason why change has not occurred is because historically society has not asked for change to occur. The people have the power to change the police, so why haven't they? To give my personal summary, I think there are two reasons: Because "they deserved it" and because "it was necessary". That is to say, when these shootings occur, often we react by excusing it. We see this in the wake of almost every police shooting, with the media pointing out every mistake that the person made. Maybe they had a dimebag of weed in their pocket, or they were had previously been to prison for shoplifting. Second, there is the idea that this type of thing is a byproduct of a necessary action. We need police in this form and this is the price that must be paid for it. Both of these are essentially different ways of weighing the value of a life. Historically, the value society polices on the life of a black man has been low enough that we have been willing to pay that price. Fortunately, from my view, this disparity is shrinking. While we can excuse many deaths, the cost is higher and there are people who are no longer willing to accept the price and are thus demanding change. 

-The second point relates to the greater question of "why". When we speak about these statistics, it is almost inevitable that someone will posit that the reason black men are killed at such a higher rate is that they commit more crime and as such they interact more with police, so this type of statistic is inevitable. While this hypothesis is generally poorly supported by data (the correlation between crime rate and police shootings is surprisingly weak), it begs another question: why do black men commit crimes at higher rates? This is a big question, so understand that I'm barely scratching the surface here. It is no coincidence that black Americans have been put in positions which are known to increase crime. Education, wealth, housing, employment, opportunity, health- these are all things that black Americans have historically been deprived of, while being met with laws specifically designed to criminalize them (from higher penalties on crack vs powder cocaine, to marijuana criminalization, to laws against wearing your pants low (seriously)). White power has created this disparity in criminality and now it seeks to use this disparity to justify itself. 

Like I said at the top, I've no idea what you are looking for from me, but hopefully I did at least a little to answer your curiosity.