[Brujah]

amphibian, on 25 October 2017 - 03:02 AM, said:

Calling the death of millions of First Nations people via infectious disease, enslavement, resettlement, and wars plus the forcible enslavement, murder, plundering, and dehumanizing of black people for centuries "speed bumps on the highway of change" is one of the most callous things I've ever read.

Are you kidding me? For the umpteenth time, slavery is and was horrid. I would never consider it. It would feel like a piece of my soul was dying. I know right from wrong. I believe many white men felt the same way.

The speed bump I was talking about was the amount of wealth and power worry attributed to slavery. Cotton is not oil. Cotton is not steel. Cotton was not what paved the way to America's first real money men.

Chinese men built long stretches of the western railroads, but came here on their own. We're they treated Well? No. Not even like men.

I'm saying this early era of the cotton gin and it's products- slow to produce, were not the boon to our economy in retrospect compared to the industrial period, for example.

English ships land on the western banks of Africa, and what do they find? Black men selling black slaves. Slavery was an old institution all the way to the time of the Great Pyramids, and I'm sure further back, but African slaves were sold by African slavers.

I'm not saying this makes it right. It doesn't. They packed men into boats with horrid conditions, and that if I could, I'd love to be able to raise the dead responsible, and let them walk a mile in someone's shoes, or lack thereof.

I draw the line when someone says that ALL white men would have owned slaves if they could. No one can answer that in the affirmative. I trust my ancestors to know better. In fair turn, no one can affirm that, either. It's a moral dillema.

[Brujah]

D, on 25 October 2017 - 12:14 AM, said:

amphibian, on 24 October 2017 - 11:26 PM, said:

This is my thinking from three years ago:

amphibian, on 12 July 2014 - 04:59 AM, said:

No, this may be somewhat semantics, but I prefer to think of it as a person has racist thoughts or engages in a racist act. Racism itself is something much larger. We as individuals aren't defined by any -ism, but in the aggregate, yes, they coalesce around us.

I still think this. My previous post in which I say "black people [in America] cannot be racist" is wrong then. Black Americans cannot engage in racism, but they can commit a racist act - but it is not backed by the institutional power that accompanies a racist act by a white American.

worry, on 24 October 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

Yah, I actually still get surprised, like caught off guard -- even at this late date -- when people conflate racism (institutional, systemic) with bigotry (personal level). The distinction seems obvious. I've tried to wean myself off of using the noun "racist" to describe individual people, particularly non-public figures, though I'm still not 100% consistent.

Weird, maybe it's a linguo-regional thing.

Up here, the definition of a person being a "racist" is just "they did/do a racist thing", so it's an applicable term for anyone who commits a racist act. The word has no connotations of pertaining to a particular scale. I wonder if there are other variations per region or dialect out there.

Well said. This is where my head is at as well. I'm not trying to belittle the horrors of the more brutal side attributed to the word racism.

Around here, racism is anytime someone makes a generalization about a person based on the color of their skin.

I just feel that with the way things are going, many minorities and many white men, who do not like to be lumped in with THE white man, are going to have to settle differences, heal old wounds, whether through education, or plain logic, and start working together.

[worry]

Brujah, on 24 October 2017 - 11:53 PM, said:

Nothing in my post rang true...next line>
I do agree....
It appears something did ring true.

You're choosing to argue over "a snowball's chance in hell?" Would you have preferred an ice cube, instant frozen jello via liquid nitrogen? This is nothing short of pedantic.

As well as, "slavery didn't happen 200 years ago." Actually it did. We all here know what I meant when I turned the phrase 200 years ago that I was using a vague phrase. Nitpicking over the date is also superfluous. You don't need to reach so hard to say absolutely nothing.

America was not built on the backs of forced, unpaid labor. It was a speed bump on a highway of change.

Yah, I don't recall any past rancor, and maybe we'll have a good conversation in the future, but this one ain't gonna be it.

[Brujah]

King Lear, on 24 October 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

I had a bunch of replies typed up but I'm just going to go - what worry said also slavery is still happening (Jim Crow -> Prison Industrial Complex -> ??? technobro distopia on mars probably)

also this tweet


notnormal.PNG

KL, your initial thought was that my post was singling out Amph based on his various posts, and you were within your rights to speak out in his defense, especially against me right.

I specifically cleared this mistake up. My post and thoughts were a brief summation of posts we shared directly with each other. It was an easy mistake.

At this point, that's all you'd really had against me, and it was corrected.

This should have been the end of our interaction, but oddly enough, after you realized I wasn't just painting a picture of Amph with a broad paint brush, but had a legitimate exchange of posts that lead to my initial review.

King Lear, on 24 October 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

I had a bunch of replies typed up but I'm just going to go - what worry said also slavery is still happening (Jim Crow -> Prison Industrial Complex -> ??? technobro distopia on mars probably)

also this tweet


notnormal.PNG

Yet, for some reason, you moved from Amph's defense to choosing to say, "What worry said. "

[Shinrei]

For the sake of toning down hyperbole, I think the existence of people like Harriet Beecher Stowe and William Lloyd Garrison, combined with theor followers of abolition - not every white person wanted to own slaves.

[Primateus]

worry, on 25 October 2017 - 12:32 AM, said:

It's not that that connotation doesn't exist here too, it's just that the one we're referring too is the more academic use, and it's becoming more and more commonly the popular use too. But it's not nearly universal, and so the two definitions live uncomfortably side by side, even sometimes in the same conversation...as you can see, BK is clearly using the more lay definition. It actually can cause a lot of friction, which is why I personally try to keep them divorced (and to be clear, it's a preference of mine, not necessarily of everybody's). It just seems handier in any conversation on the subject.

That, I think, is part of the problem. It's like when people say evolution is "just" a theory, not understanding that theory is the highest scientific grade a phenomenon can get.

People uses the words racist or racism in a more colloquial manner, someone saying or doing something bigoted is then called a racist, because that's the term a lot people are most familiar with.

There may be a strict academic term defining racism as institutionalized bigotry, but I don't think that matters much to many people, especially considering that while using it as a catch-all term is not exactly correct, it's not exactly wrong either. Especially considering that we're still talking about prejudice against people of different colour.

Or something like that.

[Cause]

I hate that definition! One because I think it has twisted the meaning of the word. If you want to refer to institutionalized racism do so, but don't suggest if its not institutionalized its not racism. I hate it further because I think its a definition with an agenda. Again, I live in South Africa. Black people are 80% of the country. They control the army, the police force, the courts, parliament and the president is black. Black people from various student organizations or political parties in my country still say black people cant be racist. Why not? Do they need more power to be racist if they want to be? Its a definition used by many to excuse their behavior.

rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/

noun

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a program to combat racism"

synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism
"Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"

•the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
noun: racism

"theories of racism"


Anyway back on Topic- Trump is a moron

[Gorefest]

Briar King, on 24 October 2017 - 11:18 PM, said:

Anyone can be racist

It depends on how you define 'racist'. If you say that everyone can be racist regardless of ethnic background, you are using the term 'racism' to mean having a prejudice about and a feeling of superiority towards people from a different ethnic background. However, that is using the term in a fairly casual and not fully correct way. You might as well replace the word 'racist' in that context with 'prejudiced'. Racism as a concept really is a lot more complex than that. Racism is not just a personal viewpoint, it is an institutional system in which a dominant ethnic group benefits from putting people from a different ethnic background down and giving them unfair disadvantages in daily life. This does not even have to be deliberate or intentional. As a white person, even when you don't consider yourself racist, on an institutional level you may still benefit from having a white ethnic background over having a black background (e.g. in getting a job, in renting a house, or even just in walking on the streets at night). So in that respect a black person cannot really be 'racist', because they would not actually benefit in any way from such a viewpoint. They can be prejudiced against white people, sure, but they cannot really be 'racist' towards them because that attitude in no way oppresses or degrades the white person within the larger society.

[edit]Just saw Cause's post which has an example of where a predominantly black society does have the power base in place to allow for black racism. Still, the terminology holds.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 25 October 2017 - 11:22 AM

[Cause]

Gorefest, on 25 October 2017 - 11:16 AM, said:

Briar King, on 24 October 2017 - 11:18 PM, said:

Anyone can be racist

It depends on how you define 'racist'. If you say that everyone can be racist regardless of ethnic background, you are using the term 'racism' to mean having a prejudice about and a feeling of superiority towards people from a different ethnic background. However, that is using the term in a fairly casual and not fully correct way. You might as well replace the word 'racist' in that context with 'prejudiced'. Racism as a concept really is a lot more complex than that. Racism is not just a personal viewpoint, it is an institutional system in which a dominant ethnic group benefits from putting people from a different ethnic background down and giving them unfair disadvantages in daily life. This does not even have to be deliberate or intentional. As a white person, even when you don't consider yourself racist, on an institutional level you may still benefit from having a white ethnic background over having a black background (e.g. in getting a job, in renting a house, or even just in walking on the streets at night). So in that respect a black person cannot really be 'racist', because they would not actually benefit in any way from such a viewpoint. They can be prejudiced against white people, sure, but they cannot really be 'racist' towards them because that attitude in no way oppresses or degrades the white person within the larger society.

[edit]Just saw Cause's post which has an example of where a predominantly black society does have the power base in place to allow for black racism. Still, the terminology holds.

I still disagree that your definition of racism is the correct one. Id argue its a new definition and one that is not uniformly agreed on. What does it matter to separate the meanings of bigotry and racism. Both are bad.

[Gorefest]

It often doesn't matter in normal conversation, I agree. But when you are delving more into the nitty gritty of the subject matter in a written forum environment, it does help if everyone is on the same page on what exactly is meant by a contributor.

One regularly encounters that sort of thing as well in other discussions, e.g. about religion where a word like 'faith' is used in a very different context by different people. It can really muddy up the discussion and lead to people making incorrect assumptions based on someone else's post.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 25 October 2017 - 11:52 AM

[Tsundoku]

In this day and age, everyone can learn to use a goddamn dictionary. Google it for crissakes. Then there's a lot less chance of miscommunication.

Racism is the belief that one's own race is superior, or that other races are inferior. Like was posted above. Systemic racism or institutionalised racism is the application of racism into widespread acts or attitudes.

Anyone can be racist or A racist, not just white people.

However, historically in western societies, white people have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of institutionalised or systemic racism. This does not preclude other dominant races doing the same damn thing to everyone else in any country all through history. Asians can be just as bad as anyone else, or just as good. So can black people, and all the other demographics.

Stop arguing over split hairs. Sheesh.

You're welcome.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 25 October 2017 - 12:19 PM

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

This is why you shouldn't use jargon. Be specific. Jargon is exclusive.

[D'rek]

I'm genuinely confused. Is this how all "isms" are supposed to go "academically" ? Does Charles Goodyear count as a chemist or did he just do "acts of chemistry" ...?

[Macros]

Quote

America was not built on the backs of forced, unpaid labor. It was a speed bump on a highway of change. America's wealth was mostly accrued from winning wars, being the first to do the most horrible act in history - dropping the atomic weapons, and being the next new upcoming country at the right time in history. China now has this glorious position.

Sorry what?

What wars did America win to make it mighty an powerful?
America boomed for several reasons, one of the key ones was not being devastated by wars while the rest of the world got chewed up.

And as for the Chinese building the railroads, yes that's very true, but that was part of a problem that is worldwide. They are foreigners, they can't speak out language there fore they are stupid, they want to get a better life here, let's give them the shittest grimmest jobs and pay them fuck all, because they aren't us, they're different, it doesn't matter. We are better than them and so don't have to do those jobs for that wage. Another form of bigotry/racism/whatever we're currently calling it.

White man holds all the cards, in the western world, and reaps the benefit of hundreds of years of oppression and racism. You might not like it but you have to accept it. Hell, those nice houses in the suburbs, when they started popping up back in the day the construction companies policy was to not to sell to black people. Which led to a spiral that predominantly black communities still struggle to escape due to the chronically broken education system America has.
White people still have the upper hand everywhere

[Abyss]

Macros, on 25 October 2017 - 01:45 PM, said:

...

And as for the Chinese building the railroads, yes that's very true, but that was part of a problem that is worldwide. They are foreigners, they can't speak out language there fore they are stupid, they want to get a better life here, let's give them the shittest grimmest jobs and pay them fuck all, because they aren't us, they're different, it doesn't matter. We are better than them and so don't have to do those jobs for that wage. Another form of bigotry/racism/whatever we're currently calling it.
...

Note that China is still doing this to its own people on massive scale and has been for a very long time.

[King Lear]

In USA news, one of Milo's interns murdered his father for calling him a Nazi

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 25 October 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:

Macros, on 25 October 2017 - 01:45 PM, said:

...

And as for the Chinese building the railroads, yes that's very true, but that was part of a problem that is worldwide. They are foreigners, they can't speak out language there fore they are stupid, they want to get a better life here, let's give them the shittest grimmest jobs and pay them fuck all, because they aren't us, they're different, it doesn't matter. We are better than them and so don't have to do those jobs for that wage. Another form of bigotry/racism/whatever we're currently calling it.
...

Note that China is still doing this to its own people on massive scale and has been for a very long time.

China is actively worse about it too from a modern POV as it runs blatant and unchecked...I think the best example I can point to is the damming of the Yangtze river with the Three Gorges Dam (an event that WOBBLED EARTH ROTATION ON ITS AXIS) in which it basically flooded entire towns and villages (displacement is in the millions)....AND took swathes of the surviving people (300,000 apparently died from the flooding) from those places and funnelled them into slave labor because those people had nothing left to turn to. To say it's disturbing how they treat their own people is an understatement.

[Cause]

QuickTidal, on 25 October 2017 - 03:27 PM, said:

China is actively worse about it too from a modern POV as it runs blatant and unchecked...I think the best example I can point to is the damming of the Yangtze river with the Three Gorges Dam (an event that WOBBLED EARTH ROTATION ON ITS AXIS) in which it basically flooded entire towns and villages (displacement is in the millions)....AND took swathes of the surviving people (300,000 apparently died from the flooding) from those places and funnelled them into slave labor because those people had nothing left to turn to. To say it's disturbing how they treat their own people is an understatement.

Can you provide a source for this? 300 000 people dying from the flooding of the dams catch basin seems unbelievable to me.

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 25 October 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 25 October 2017 - 03:27 PM, said:

China is actively worse about it too from a modern POV as it runs blatant and unchecked...I think the best example I can point to is the damming of the Yangtze river with the Three Gorges Dam (an event that WOBBLED EARTH ROTATION ON ITS AXIS) in which it basically flooded entire towns and villages (displacement is in the millions)....AND took swathes of the surviving people (300,000 apparently died from the flooding) from those places and funnelled them into slave labor because those people had nothing left to turn to. To say it's disturbing how they treat their own people is an understatement.

Can you provide a source for this? 300 000 people dying from the flooding of the dams catch basin seems unbelievable to me.

The million+ displacement numbers are widely available...the death tolls from flooding AS the damn was put in (as opposed to before it in yearly floods of the yangtze), are slimmer as the Chinese government won't release those numbers (they only list the workers who died). The death toll numbers I got from a documentary about the dam... UP THE YANGTZE, and it's been a few years so my numbers could be off mind you. They come from those who lived in the area and know how many deaths would likely have occurred from the villages and towns that were essentially told "get out, or you will die"...and a lot of them refused to leave their homes believing the floods to be no different from the yearly ones.

Note that more than 1.2 million people, 13 cities, 140 towns, 1,350 villages, and length of reservoir (more than 600 kilometres) were displaced/threatened with displacement. Of those, I think the 300,000 number could be close to accurate.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 25 October 2017 - 03:47 PM

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 25 October 2017 - 03:45 PM, said:

... The death toll numbers I got from a documentary about the dam... UP THE YANGTZE, ...

That was an interesting doc film. I attended a view/chat with the crew and it was fascinating. It sounded like they really had to tread carefully to complete the filming .