[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 25 October 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

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 .

That's what I recall hearing when it was at Hot Docs, that they began to REALLY get noticed by the authorities and not in a good way. Some of the "roadblocks" late in the film are a direct result of that attention.

[worry]

D, on 25 October 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

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" ...?

This is in response to more than just D'rek's post, but it made for a good short one to quote!:

I don't really get the point of confusion, or this analogy. Chemistry isn't an "ism". Interestingly enough, though, "chemistry" and "alchemy" were once synonyms ('al' being the Arabic article), until chemistry evolved into the broader meaning for the study of all basic substances and their interactions, and not just the blending of metals.

Things that are ism's tend to fall into social science, so of course the academic take is going to be about broader phenomena. And with things like racism, their academic study is naturally going to be much younger than the lay person's use. That doesn't make it less valuable. Like, you can talk about the Rodney King beating with your friends in a discussion of "true crime" and delve into the minutiae or whatever, if that's your hobby, fine -- but if you're going to talk about it in a classroom, you're probably going to connect it to a wider context.

So why would we discuss racism in a narrow, contextless, one-on-one manner here? Like, we're not playing a game of Racist Or Not Racist here. What do you think is more productive: talking about individual acts of racism or talking about systemic racism? I'm not interested in whether Donald Trump being "a racist" is a personal failing, is "good" or "bad". I'm interested in him being "a racist" because he has power. I'm interested in the fact that he's been "a racist" from the beginning of his career, as documented in lawsuits he lost, and that ~40 years later he started his political campaign with a racist hate speech, and it didn't hinder his upward mobility for some reason.

So, like I said, both definitions exist and it's my personal preference to divide them rhetorically. It's not a matter of siding with jargon, or attempting to talk over people's heads. It's a matter of what I find useful.

[Aptorian]

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'm having problems wrapping my mind around this logic. It sounds like a rhetorical construct that serves as a machine for perpetual white guilt. It's basically cutting the legs out from under any white (privileged/middle/upper class) person, specifically ones living in the US. In one swift act of judgement you both damn any white person and acquit any colored individual of any wrong. Because since you're colored you get a "get out of racism free" card.

For perpetuity, white people are bad people and have no right to complain if somebody of a darker skin tone acts like an asshole towards them. Basically, they are now in the eyes of this white guilt perspective, tainted. Sounds sort of like German Anti-semitism. Which ties into what Worry posts further down.

worry, on 25 October 2017 - 07:15 PM, said:

D, on 25 October 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

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" ...?

This is in response to more than just D'rek's post, but it made for a good short one to quote!:

I don't really get the point of confusion, or this analogy. Chemistry isn't an "ism". Interestingly enough, though, "chemistry" and "alchemy" were once synonyms ('al' being the Arabic article), until chemistry evolved into the broader meaning for the study of all basic substances and their interactions, and not just the blending of metals.

Things that are ism's tend to fall into social science, so of course the academic take is going to be about broader phenomena. And with things like racism, their academic study is naturally going to be much younger than the lay person's use. That doesn't make it less valuable. Like, you can talk about the Rodney King beating with your friends in a discussion of "true crime" and delve into the minutiae or whatever, if that's your hobby, fine -- but if you're going to talk about it in a classroom, you're probably going to connect it to a wider context.

So why would we discuss racism in a narrow, contextless, one-on-one manner here? Like, we're not playing a game of Racist Or Not Racist here. What do you think is more productive: talking about individual acts of racism or talking about systemic racism? I'm not interested in whether Donald Trump being "a racist" is a personal failing, is "good" or "bad". I'm interested in him being "a racist" because he has power. I'm interested in the fact that he's been "a racist" from the beginning of his career, as documented in lawsuits he lost, and that ~40 years later he started his political campaign with a racist hate speech, and it didn't hinder his upward mobility for some reason.

So, like I said, both definitions exist and it's my personal preference to divide them rhetorically. It's not a matter of siding with jargon, or attempting to talk over people's heads. It's a matter of what I find useful.

The problem I see with this view is that the real world doesn't take place in a class room. Just like a lot of academic social theory doesn't actually work when it clashes with the more practical aspects of real life where more than just split second recognition of ethnicity and creed happens in a social situation.

There may be a bigger systemic form of institutional racism taking place in the US. But that system is being maintained by powerful individuals. And it's very much the individuals acts and beliefs that matter in terms of racism and the perception of the other people surrounding us. We each leave a mark on the world and the people surrounding us. When we act in a way that corresponds to our cultural or societal beliefs, like "All black/white people are bad" it becomes reinforced - and/or depending upon how strong our beliefs are, if they don't correspond to our expectation they may chance our perception.

All racists are not prejudiced because the system programmed them to be racist. Many people are just racists because they are ignorant, hateful bigots. Now you can then argue they got that way because the system made them that way over time, or capitalism did or the patriarchy or what ever, but every individual has free will. Every individual is responsible for his or her own actions. So if a person of color discriminates against a white person, because that the person is white. That is fucking racism. If racist acts against white people cannot be judged as so, then there can never be equality, because you are inherently stating that white and colored people are not equal. That white people are some how "born" worse than a colored person because of the sins of their fathers.

Which in my opinion stinks.

[EmperorMagus]

It's really hard for people (specially people who are accused of it - namely white people) to accept something such as institutionalized racism exists. They agree that some people are bigots; but they don't concede the point that there are racist trends underlying the very fabric of our society. Which is an understandable sentiment; to be honest.

But there are hundreds of articles written by people that are more knowledgeable and eloquent than anyone on this site on the issue; providing evidence for this notion (including some very troubling empirical evidence). For example, see the abstract of an article by Kawakami et al. 2009:

 Capture.PNG (75.51K)
Number of downloads: 0

The issue, of course, is that it doesn't matter how many peer reviewed articles you cite for people who don't want to believe institutionalized racism exists.

Also, @Apt:

The point of discussing institutionalized racism is never saying "white people are bad cause whatever"; it's proving and solving the problem of "Everyone who isn't white seems to be getting fucked more than people who're white".

The group spouting the first point are idiots who don't understand the point of social 'justice'. Justice isn't blaming people for the sins of their fathers; it's making sure people aren't fucked over cause they're black.

[worry]

Alternative Goose, on 25 October 2017 - 08:23 PM, said:

The problem I see with this view is that the real world doesn't take place in a class room.

The "real world" doesn't take place in a lab or a medical school either, but I'm prepared to say with confidence that when what is learned in a medical school finds its way out into the "real world" it constitutes a net benefit for society.

Alternative Goose, on 25 October 2017 - 08:23 PM, said:

There may be a bigger systemic form of institutional racism taking place in the US.

I'm glad at least that you grant that "there may be" something to this whole institutional racism thing.

Alternative Goose, on 25 October 2017 - 08:23 PM, said:

But that system is being maintained by powerful individuals. And it's very much the individuals acts and beliefs that matter in terms of racism and the perception of the other people surrounding us. We each leave a mark on the world and the people surrounding us. When we act in a way that corresponds to our cultural or societal beliefs, like "All black/white people are bad" it becomes reinforced - and/or depending upon how strong our beliefs are, if they don't correspond to our expectation they may chance our perception.

All racists are not prejudiced because the system programmed them to be racist. Many people are just racists because they are ignorant, hateful bigots. Now you can then argue they got that way because the system made them that way over time, or capitalism did or the patriarchy or what ever, but every individual has free will. Every individual is responsible for his or her own actions. So if a person of color discriminates against a white person, because that the person is white. That is fucking racism. If racist acts against white people cannot be judged as so, then there can never be equality, because you are inherently stating that white and colored people are not equal. That white people are some how "born" worse than a colored person because of the sins of their fathers.

This is like the Bond Villain view of institutional racism. I don't mean that to mock, but racism doesn't come down to the individual choices of individual men and women, even powerful ones. Those people exist, and they're exceptionally loud voices in a sea of noise, but segregation wasn't some just bigots getting their jollies. Not everything is a matter of individual "actions" -- in fact, most things aren't, and the answer either way isn't to convince every individual on a one-by-one basis to stop being racist. Again, I don't know how to emphasize this enough: judging people as "good" or "bad" is less useful by a factor of about infinity than analyzing whether a society is headed toward or away from equity and equality. This isn't a perfect analogy, but would inflation occur if individual merchants didn't raise their prices? No. Is the solution to that blaming each merchant, one by one, for raising their prices, like it's a selfish act by a "bad" person? Obviously not. As a society you study the broader economic trends, and you enact corrective policy to curb inflation and/or dampen its effects.

[worry]

That meta-commentary on the state of the discussion reminds me, NPR/RWJ Foundation/Harvard released their poll results on people's feelings on the state of race a few days ago: http://www.npr.org/2...minated-against

Interesting findings:
* More than half of whites — 55 percent — surveyed say that, generally speaking, they believe there is discrimination against white people in America today.
* While a majority of whites in the poll say discrimination against them exists, a much smaller percentage say that they have actually experienced it.
* 84 percent of whites believe discrimination exists against racial and ethnic minorities in America today.

Seems to me it speaks to the notion that when non-white Americans gain ground, it feels to some white Americans that they are losing ground (in like a zero sum game kinda way) even when it's demonstrably untrue.

Most white Americans -- not enough, but still a decently huge number -- recognize that discrimination against non-white people is a problem.

A good portion of white Americans just want to say "us too" and are frustrated when they aren't taken seriously.

Their "us too" often comes down to gut feelings, anecdotal observations ("If you apply for a job, they seem to give the blacks the first crack at it," said 68-year-old Tim Hershman of Akron, Ohio, "and, basically, you know, if you want any help from the government, if you're white, you don't get it. If you're black, you get it."), and personal experiences of the one-on-one variety (e.g. being called a "cracker" once or twice).

So their frustration often builds through being unable to reconcile -- or even to recognize -- the distinction between institutional racism and individual acts of bigotry. Being called a "cracker" is racism just like redlining non-whites out of owning property for generations is racism. "It's all racism! It's all bad!" That kind of thing.

[Gorefest]

@apt: i’m not damning any individual white person with the broader definition. I am damning the phenomenon where a group has a distinctive benefit from and maintains a distinctive oppression of a different group on the basis of ethnic divisions. Any individual in the priviliged group may not consider themselves prejudiced or bigoted, but as long as they benefit from, or at the very least not acknowledge and actively oppose the intrinsic divide, they still contribute to upholding the status quo.

[Shinrei]

Define "contribute".

Whites benefit from white privilage, but if they police themselves on an individual basis to give those same points of privilage to minorities... what else can they do to keep from "contributing" to the problem?

[worry]

Being mindful is a start for sure. One proactive example I can think of from the last year was during the height of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, when one of the suggested tactics for people elsewhere was to pressure their banks/credit unions to divest from related investments or face losing a customer, and while it didn't solve the whole problem (and DAPL is an ongoing issue) several banks did respond with divestment.

There's no one size fits all solution for these huge issues, and there's no one size fits all path for every concerned person. But proactivity is better than passivity, and mindfulness is better than stubbornness.

[Cause]

EmperorMagus, on 25 October 2017 - 08:55 PM, said:

It's really hard for people (specially people who are accused of it - namely white people) to accept something such as institutionalized racism exists. They agree that some people are bigots; but they don't concede the point that there are racist trends underlying the very fabric of our society. Which is an understandable sentiment; to be honest.

But there are hundreds of articles written by people that are more knowledgeable and eloquent than anyone on this site on the issue; providing evidence for this notion (including some very troubling empirical evidence). For example, see the abstract of an article by Kawakami et al. 2009:

Capture.PNG

The issue, of course, is that it doesn't matter how many peer reviewed articles you cite for people who don't want to believe institutionalized racism exists.

Also, @Apt:

The point of discussing institutionalized racism is never saying "white people are bad cause whatever"; it's proving and solving the problem of "Everyone who isn't white seems to be getting fucked more than people who're white".

The group spouting the first point are idiots who don't understand the point of social 'justice'. Justice isn't blaming people for the sins of their fathers; it's making sure people aren't fucked over cause they're black.

I feel like you are making my point. There is racism and there is institutionalized racism. The former does not only mean the latter. Even if it did there would still be no basis to say only white people can be racists. Rwanda! Zimbabwe!

Now the whole institutionalized fabric of racism in society. Does it exist? Yes. I live in a country in which apartheid ended 23 years ago, I could never deny it! However, as I have said, the 80% black majority has been leading my country for 23 years! They have the majority in parliament, so much so that they can rubber stamp anything they want. They control the laws, the courts, the police, the army etc. Yet my president often bemoans how the white man / the west / white monopoly capital is working hard to stop him governing the country the way he would want. Rating agencies are a weapon of the white illuminati etc. 23 years after apartheid though and if I was an entrepreneur running my own business the only reason to a hire a black person with a matric would be because the law demands it or because of the tax breaks. The pass rate is 33% on the exams! If you know 33% of the answers you pass. Still Only an average of 75% or less students pass their exams every year. We spend the most of any country in the world on education (% of GDP) and are ranked worst in the world in math's and science. Talk of white monopoly capital attacking my president is just a smoke screen to hide poor governance, ineffectual policies and leadership and rampant looting and corruption. Google Bell Pottinger, the PR agency based in London that has collapsed this year after being sanctioned for promoting racial division in my country after being paid, essentially by my countries president, to concoct a campaign blaming white monopoly capital for all the ills in my country. Looting was not looting and corruption was not corruption, it was just white people getting upset at a black president getting wealthy like them. 23 years after apartheid ended there are kids still attending classes under trees in parts of my country while my president builds himself a 25-million-dollar house or buys private jets for billions.

This is why I am so loathe to allow any sort of definition of racism that reduces the word to mean only something that happened in the past, caused by white people and which they benefit from today. There is an entire continent of black people with agency and with their own history. Not to mention the Japanese in WW2 or a thousand other examples. The biggest and most recent act of racism is not the only act of racism. Past, present or future

[EmperorMagus]

@Cause:

I don't really disagree with any of what you've written. Mostly because I know little about SA and what's going on there so I can't comment on it with good conscience.

However, I do have one point to make: The people in this argument (other than you) are living in very different environments, which are mostly similar.

Worry is from the US
Brujah is from the US
BK is from the US
QT is from Canada
Abyss is from Canada
Gorefrest is from UK (or Belgium?)
Apt is from Denmark
I live in Canada

We're all discussing racism in the context of our own personal experiences; and what people encounter in Canada, US, and UK is similar (relatively); while SA is a very different country.

[Tsundoku]

Not to be a smartarse (no more than usual anyway), but since the last couple of pages has gone on a bit of a tangent from USA politics, should it be cut and pasted to this thread?

https://forum.malaza..._1#entry1134381

[Gorefest]

EmperorMagus, on 26 October 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

Gorefrest is from UK (or Belgium?)

Live in the UK, originally from the Netherlands

But yeah, totally agree, which is why I said earlier in response to Cause that my definition was focussing on the existing social environment. So from my highly westernised point of view the empowered group is of white ethnic background, but I fully appreciate that you could apply the same rationale to other ethnic backgrounds if they are the dominant faction. SA is an interesting situation though, because it would seem that there you have the 'traditional' white dominance still heavily influencing the state of mind and the behaviour of various layers of society. I don't know enough about the political and social environment in SA to be able to gauge what the white minority's current status is in SA.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 26 October 2017 - 11:04 AM

[Studlock]

In South Africa, white people definitely still benefit from the legacy of apartheid, and it's literally absurd on its face to state otherwise. Even if we consider all white South Africans to not be actively racist (which, given then apartheid ended, what, 20, 25 years ago? I highly doubt it), they absolutely benefit from the legacy from the legacy of apartheid policies, which would be they benefit from institutional racism. Racism (in the sociological sense) is about social relations, not individualized behavioural patterns--who has power in this relationships, why do they have power, and how do they use that power. In North America (including Canada--which I'll include here because apparently some of our Canadian residences here seem to think this doesn't include Canada) those who have power in the vast majority of contexts are white people, the reason they have this power is not only because of slavery, but also a long, long history of racialized policies made specifically to harm black people to the benefit of white people (obviously the shitshow of Reconstruction, and Jim Crow, but also overpolicing, redlining, eugenic programs, denying them benefits that whites got, like the GI Bill, to today with the War on Drugs), that is both formal and informal. Medical professionals often report racist beliefs, like how black people don't feel as pain, or like in Canada where First Nation peoples have longer wait periods because they are believed to faking (or occasionally die in hospital waiting rooms because the nurses or doctors believe they are drunk), and this is an everyday experience. It just isn't the big things, it permeates societies mores and taboos.

In South Africa the context, is obviously different. I would expect animosity between the English, and the Afrikaners (who, often to my knowledge, opperate similarly to the white populations in the Appalachia). I would expect animosity between the San, and Bantu peoples. But to deny the significance of institutionalized racism and white privilege seems deeply absurd to me given the difference in wealth, in education, in well everything between not only whites and blacks, but whites and other categories of people (coloured, Indians, and so on). This doesn't mean there is some secret cabal of white people planning the demise of the black population, or that no black people in America, or Canada, or South Africa have it good, it means in aggregate, black people have it worse, then white people, and society in general operates in such a manner, and has a history, that this empirically, through quantitative and qualitative true. None of this takes into account intersectionality--in the context of South Africa, this would take into account the new moneyed black political elites, and so on.

There is something to be said about not using this definition in the presence of working-class or poor white people who don't so obviously benefit from it (but they still do, but because of intersectionality, they are still an abused class, this time by the rich, instead of whites), but this wasn't just pulled out of the ether--it was used to describe the world as it is, and for my money is pretty much correct. The history of colonialism, till this day, has shaped the destinies of many people, and if you honestly think South Africa has gotten over apartheid in 20 years, but America some hasn't gotten over slavery in 200 I don't know what to tell you.

I got my information from South Africa here, and from a black South African professor (teaching a statistics in the social science class): https://welections.w...n-south-africa/

[Cause]

EmperorMagus, on 26 October 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

@Cause:

I don't really disagree with any of what you've written. Mostly because I know little about SA and what's going on there so I can't comment on it with good conscience.

However, I do have one point to make: The people in this argument (other than you) are living in very different environments, which are mostly similar.

Worry is from the US
Brujah is from the US
BK is from the US
QT is from Canada
Abyss is from Canada
Gorefrest is from UK (or Belgium?)
Apt is from Denmark
I live in Canada

We're all discussing racism in the context of our own personal experiences; and what people encounter in Canada, US, and UK is similar (relatively); while SA is a very different country.

I know my situation is somewhat unique but we are arguing over definitions and I am particularly arguing against the idea that 'black people can't be racist' or put another way that only white people can be racist. My point is that their are experiences outside the US and outside of the last 50 years to draw on. Definitions don't stop at the border of the USA. Racism means what it means. If you want to refer to institutionalized racism its not so hard to add the adjective.

No one said black Americans cant be racists, they said blacks cant be racists. No one prefaces that in some academic circles when referring to racism in the USA alone does racism only refer to bigotry backed up by power.

Gorefest, on 26 October 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 26 October 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

Gorefrest is from UK (or Belgium?)

Live in the UK, originally from the Netherlands

But yeah, totally agree, which is why I said earlier in response to Cause that my definition was focussing on the existing social environment. So from my highly westernised point of view the empowered group is of white ethnic background, but I fully appreciate that you could apply the same rationale to other ethnic backgrounds if they are the dominant faction. SA is an interesting situation though, because it would seem that there you have the 'traditional' white dominance still heavily influencing the state of mind and the behaviour of various layers of society. I don't know enough about the political and social environment in SA to be able to gauge what the white minority's current status is in SA.

Race in my country is a mess. Government talks a big game about creating a new South Africa inclusive to all and founded on the principles of acceptance and tolerance. In reality race is a very charged subject at the centre of nearly everything in south African life. As soon as its convenient for government they will use white people as a scape goat, or the west, or the CIA (I wish I was joking about this last one). White people have inherited and continue to benefit hugely from apartheid in that white people have more money, more education and better opportunities. The biggest problem is that the affirmative action and black empowerment policies put in place by government instead of benefiting the majority have instead made a few politically connected black people into millionaires and billionaires all the while the root causes of black poverty such as poor education have gone unfixed for 23 years. This leads to further racial tension in that, for those black people whose lives have not really changed significantly since apartheid ended (and there are very many) its still easy to think that white people are to blame. Certainly there remains truth in that statement but it also hides many other problems my country faces. In addition there are sorts of other fators that influence the dynamic.

[Obdigore]

Tsundoku, on 26 October 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

Not to be a smartarse (no more than usual anyway), but since the last couple of pages has gone on a bit of a tangent from USA politics, should it be cut and pasted to this thread?

https://forum.malaza..._1#entry1134381

If you think Racism isn't tied to USA politics, you don't understand USA politics.

[Morgoth]

Didn't you comment on that excellent article by Ta-Nehisi Coates, Sombra? I seem to remember you liked it, or maybe I just dream about you sometimes.

[HoosierDaddy]

Detour into semantics of racism aside, just a thought:

Who is it that are speaking out about Trump's absolute unfitness in the Republican Party? Those who are no longer seeking office and, therefore, no longer need to pander. This is an example as to what term-limits could accomplish if instituted. Without the need to be re-elected, politicians could actually vote for their conscience and moral reasons rather than what would get them re-elected.

The balance between an all-amateur Congress and professional political class would obviously have to be found, but I can't help but feel it would go a way towards mitigating the absolute asshattery that takes place in order to be reelected every. single. two or six years.

Just a thought.

[worry]

I wonder if/how much publicly funded campaigns would affect that issue (on top of more overt forms of corruption).

But while we're at it, I'll toss out: adopt an amendment barring anyone who says "government should be run like a business" from public office.

[Cause]

HoosierDaddy, on 26 October 2017 - 04:44 PM, said:

Detour into semantics of racism aside, just a thought:

Who is it that are speaking out about Trump's absolute unfitness in the Republican Party? Those who are no longer seeking office and, therefore, no longer need to pander. This is an example as to what term-limits could accomplish if instituted. Without the need to be re-elected, politicians could actually vote for their conscience and moral reasons rather than what would get them re-elected.

The balance between an all-amateur Congress and professional political class would obviously have to be found, but I can't help but feel it would go a way towards mitigating the absolute asshattery that takes place in order to be reelected every. single. two or six years.

Just a thought.

The negative side of this is they also no longer have a need to vote according to the wishes of their constituents