Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ktulhut wrote:

It's okay. We tried.

Gailbraithe wrote:

mattyrm wrote:What about Asian racism? I've been out with like.. 5 Asian birds an nearly all of them told me that older Asians are super racist.. it seems a bit harsh to blame it all on johnny white man.

It depends on what you mean by Asian racism. Many Asians who move to America adopt American racial attitudes, i.e. looking down on blacks and latinos. That's the exact same racism as practiced by the Klu Klux Klan.

If you mean long-standing prejudices like the Japanese attitude towards Koreans (Japanese people apparently think Koreans are like dogs), then that's not racism, that's ethnocentrism. When someone calls that racism its because they are uneducated and thus have a limited vocabulary. It should be fairly obvious that is not racism, because obviously the Japanese and Koreans are not different races according to the theories of race that comprise the foundation of racism, they're both Asians.

Oh, so we are still going off of esoteric definitions of the word "racism"?

My definition is when people wear large hats, only eat circus peanuts and poke themselves in the eye with a Sharp stick every Wednesday.

So it's blessedly rare, really.

dogma wrote:Well, 'reverse racism is itself a nonsense concept. Either something is racist or its not.

Before I respond to the rest of this, let me explain something: I was specifically using the phrasing "reverse" racism, with the scare quotes around reverse because I agree with your position that something is either racism or it's not, and that reverse racism is a nonsensical concept. Scare quotes typically indicate a sarcastic or skeptical use of a term, as if someone else (the unspecific person being quoted) were supply the term. However, I also used the term because its commonly understood as shorthand for racialist prejudice from people of color towards whites.

Regardless, the definition that I'm proffering is basically the accepted standard; carrying absolutely no association with any political or social cause. It doesn't attempt to hide the elephant at all, in fact its explicitly associated with it, as white supremacism is racism.

Now that is simply untrue. The definition you are offering has come to dominate much of the discourse in the mainstream media, as was recently highlighted by the mainstream media's handling of Shirley Sherrod, but its not the accepted standard in academic discussions, and it is most definitely a definition that was created by the white supremacist movement and has over time become the standard definition offered by right-wing fronts for white supremacy, like the conservative movement and the GOP.

The definition of racism you are offering began as reverse racism, an idea promoted by white supremacist fronts to counter the activism of anti-racists. In the late seventies the term racism as was explicitly understood to mean the system of white supremacy embodied in institutions like Jim Crow and segregation and so it was necessary for conservatives to introduce this new term, "reverse racism," into the discourse in order to change the topic from the pressing issue of black poverty created by white racism to a more white supremacist palatable "blacks are bad" narrative. Once the idea that it was possible to talk about the "reverse racism" of "black racists" was popularized the "reverse" element was dropped and the campaign to label anyone who opposes covert white supremacy a racist began in earnest. The most astonishing success of this movement has been to popularize the entirely ridiculous idea that affirmative action, which is specifically designed as a partial remedy to the actual consequences of America's racist past, is a "racist" program. It is Orwellian doublespeak at its finest.

And exactly as people predicted in the 80's, the mainstream (i.e. white dominated) discourse on racism is no longer about the issue of white oppression of blacks, but about the dangers presented to the white majority by the anger and resentment of blacks. Thus the very conversation on racism becomes a new means of reinforcing white supremacy and marginalizing people of color.

Compare this to your definition which explicitly marginalizes incidences in which race is used to define human interaction that are not associated with whiteness. This is a definition that was popularized by American reform thinkers like Christopher Doob with the express purpose of pushing other forms of racism out of the conversation.

Well duh. First of all, those kinds of incidences are intimately connected to white supremacy. Racial tensions between Latinos and blacks are the result of both being forced to fight over scraps by white supremacy, and black resentment of whites is a fairly obviously direct result of white oppression of blacks. Dealing with the problem of continuing white supremacy does more to combat these sort of tensions than pointing them out to misdirect from the problem of continuing white supremacy.

Second, if those kinds of incidents aren't marginalized then they will naturally tend to dominate the discourse if the discourse is controlled by the white majority, which it is clearly is. Its much easier for a white audience to enjoy stories about black "racism," about white victims, stories that make white racism seem more trivial, than to hear the realities of racism: that blacks are ten times as likely to be imprisoned for minor crimes than whites, twice as likely to be unemployed, earn less, live shorter lives, etc. etc.

Its about as radical a definition as you can get, and it follows directly from the storytelling process featured in critical race theory; making it, to my mind, utter nonsense. Not because CRT is incapable of producing good work, but because the storytelling process is designed to control the manner in which people think by manipulating language. It isn't out to find truth, because it explicitly rejects the notion that truth exists.

While I appreciate that you're bringing a discussion of CRT (critical race theory for everyone else) to the table, I don't think that's accurate. I don't think you're making a very fair or reasonable attack on CRT, and more importantly I don't think you've identified the actual source of the definition. The term racism began in the natural sciences, and was used to mean the scientific theory of human race. It was later adopted by the social sciences to describe the system of white supremacy that had developed out of the social, political and religious application of the scientific theory of race. The redefinition of racism that made affirmative action a racist program is the radical one, and it was a reaction to the end of institutional, legally mandated racism. Really took off after Jesse Jackson ran for president and the right has been pounding the drum hard ever since Obama was elected.

So what you're saying is that most of this debate comes down to semantics? Typical academics!

Oh, and asking for proof of qualifications, then simply not responding with a "Thanks- I can see we are both able to discuss this subject in an acedemic manner"- was ignored.

Pfft I loathe people like that.

"Prove to me you can talk about this!!"

*proof given*

"Anyhow- your'e a p**-p** head"

Meh.

akira5665 wrote:Oh, and asking for proof of qualifications, then simply not responding with a "Thanks- I can see we are both able to discuss this subject in an acedemic manner"- was ignored.

Pfft I loathe people like that.

"Prove to me you can talk about this!!"

*proof given*

"Anyhow- your'e a p**-p** head"

Meh.

Where is doctorate in arguementology when you need one?

If you're looking at it from a technical standpoint, we're talking about 2 different words as if they were a single word. Both start with 'nigg', but one word ends with an 'er' and the other ends with an 'a'.

I don't think N-a has a place in the dictionary,

Gailbraithe wrote:
Before I respond to the rest of this, let me explain something: I was specifically using the phrasing "reverse" racism, with the scare quotes around reverse because I agree with your position that something is either racism or it's not, and that reverse racism is a nonsensical concept. Scare quotes typically indicate a sarcastic or skeptical use of a term, as if someone else (the unspecific person being quoted) were supply the term. However, I also used the term because its commonly understood as shorthand for racialist prejudice from people of color towards whites.

That last part if why I commented on your usage of the term. I assumed that the quotes were based on sarcasm, and that sarcasm was emanating from your belief that it is impossible for anyone other than a white person to be racist. It bears noting that the usage of the term 'reverse racism' is a direct comment on the influence that CRT has exerted over the conversation, most likely because they're one of the few groups (excepting crazies like Neonazis, and people like me who regard CRT's attempt to craft a definition as nonsense from an academic standpoint) trying to exert an influence on the conversation.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Now that is simply untrue. The definition you are offering has come to dominate much of the discourse in the mainstream media, as was recently highlighted by the mainstream media's handling of Shirley Sherrod...

Its also quite popular in sociology, psychology, political demography, philosophy, ethics, regional studies, and many others.

Gailbraithe wrote:
...but its not the accepted standard in academic discussions...

Its not the accepted standard definition used by critical race theorists, but its pretty much the one that everyone else uses. I don't consider the definitions proffered by critical race theorists to be tenable simply because they acknowledge that they are knowingly defining terms in order to construe the debate in their favor. Everyone does this to some degree, but CRT doesn't even consider playing towards objectivity to be a laudable goal.

Gailbraithe wrote:
..and it is most definitely a definition that was created by the white supremacist movement and has over time become the standard definition offered by right-wing fronts for white supremacy, like the conservative movement and the GOP.

Why would a white supremacist place racism against black people, and racism against white people on equal footing? Why wouldn't he simply suppose that racism against black people was justified due to their inferiority? There's certainly a cultural legacy for the argument, and it would be incredibly easy to simply remove the genetic basis for 18th century racism; instead supposing that social factors have rendered black people inferior, and that correcting the problem is simply a waste of time.

Gailbraithe wrote:
The definition of racism you are offering began as reverse racism, an idea promoted by white supremacist fronts to counter the activism of anti-racists.

No, the definition I'm offering began as genetic racism, and with the dismissal of the genetic basis for racism, and racism in general, evolved into a category regarding sociological behavior in the course of two 'races' interacting.

Gailbraithe wrote:
In the late seventies the term racism as was explicitly understood to mean the system of white supremacy embodied in institutions like Jim Crow and segregation and so it was necessary for conservatives to introduce this new term, "reverse racism," into the discourse in order to change the topic from the pressing issue of black poverty created by white racism to a more white supremacist palatable "blacks are bad" narrative.

The general category of racism is much older than that. It was born out in the United States primarily through the racist behavior of whites towards blacks, and to a lesser and less physically significant degree by the racist behavior of blacks towards whites.

Honestly, its pretty clear to me that you've pigeonholed your understanding, perhaps unintentionally, by looking primarily at critical race theory, which is mostly associated with American sociological phenomenon.

Gailbraithe wrote:
The most astonishing success of this movement has been to popularize the entirely ridiculous idea that affirmative action, which is specifically designed as a partial remedy to the actual consequences of America's racist past, is a "racist" program. It is Orwellian doublespeak at its finest.

That's not doublespeak. Doublespeak would involve accepting that affirmative action worked both against racist ends, and for them. It is not doublespeak to suppose that affirmative action was intended to abate racism, but that it in fact furthers them. The former statement is a matter of contradicting ideas being used in concert, the latter is one of supposing unintended consequences.

Gailbraithe wrote:
And exactly as people predicted in the 80's, the mainstream (i.e. white dominated) discourse on racism is no longer about the issue of white oppression of blacks, but about the dangers presented to the white majority by the anger and resentment of blacks. Thus the very conversation on racism becomes a new means of reinforcing white supremacy and marginalizing people of color.

Yeah, I've heard this argument hundreds of times before. You have to presuppose two ideas for it to hold water.

First, that all people are racist in a way which causes them to attribute non-relevant characteristics to people because of their race. For example, assuming that a given black person is a criminal because he is black.

That supremacy and numerical superiority are the same thing.

The first cannot be proven, or at least has not been supported statistically, and the second is self-evidently false.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Well duh. First of all, those kinds of incidences are intimately connected to white supremacy. Racial tensions between Latinos and blacks are the result of both being forced to fight over scraps by white supremacy, and black resentment of whites is a fairly obviously direct result of white oppression of blacks. Dealing with the problem of continuing white supremacy does more to combat these sort of tensions than pointing them out to misdirect from the problem of continuing white supremacy.

So instead of "fighting for the scraps from the white's table" they can fight each other; attributing characteristics in an alternate attempt to one up one another? I mean, if everyone is racist this is bound to happen. Moreover, if everyone will always be racist, then what incentive do white people have to stop oppressing minorities? After all, if this is really a system of perpetual conflict between racial groups that we're discussing, then why would anyone sacrifice their position at the top? If your theory is correct, then it isn't very useful for convincing whites.

I'd also ask that if another racial group eventual gained truly controlling power, would we have to refer to its attempts to marginalize other racial groups as something other than racist?

Gailbraithe wrote:
Second, if those kinds of incidents aren't marginalized then they will naturally tend to dominate the discourse if the discourse is controlled by the white majority, which it is clearly is. Its much easier for a white audience to enjoy stories about black "racism," about white victims, stories that make white racism seem more trivial, than to hear the realities of racism: that blacks are ten times as likely to be imprisoned for minor crimes than whites, twice as likely to be unemployed, earn less, live shorter lives, etc. etc.

Where are all these stories about racism against whites? I haven't seen them. I mean, I've seen lots of commentary discussing how the NAACP is racist (which is pretty much a joke), and I've seen lots of commentary on how a lot of rhetoric surrounding racism is absurd (it is), but true white victim stories are not often given press.

Gailbraithe wrote:
The term racism began in the natural sciences, and was used to mean the scientific theory of human race. It was later adopted by the social sciences to describe the system of white supremacy that had developed out of the social, political and religious application of the scientific theory of race.

It was adopted by the social science to explain the effects of the theories produced by the natural sciences, and the fundamental tendencies which underlie them. It has been most often been associated with the racism of whites against others, because whites held power throughout the majority of the world during the time in which the concept was explored. Indeed, it was that power which first gave rise to the biological concept of racism. However, there is nothing other than that temporary power which has insured a position of dominance for whites, and there is nothing that necessarily precludes the term from applying to the attempts of any racial group to marginalize or stereotype another. That racism may not itself be oppressive, but it would still be racism.

Gailbraithe wrote:
The redefinition of racism that made affirmative action a racist program is the radical one, and it was a reaction to the end of institutional, legally mandated racism. Really took off after Jesse Jackson ran for president and the right has been pounding the drum hard ever since Obama was elected.

Racism was never redefined to make affirmative action a racist program. The (cogent) argument that supposes affirmative action is racist follows from the idea that the conditions in which the program operates have sufficiently changed so as to make a program that wasn't racist, racist. The CRT definition, which did not gain serious traction until after the new wave of arguments against affirmative action, exists only to interpose new criteria whereby affirmative action can never be racist. Not that it matters though, as not being racist does not render something discriminatory. Of course, its a bit silly to nominate something that is supposed to be discriminatory along racial lines as non-racist, but then people are often very silly.

Gailbraithe wrote:I am not using racist in the place of discriminatory. You're the one who is conflating the two, not me. My point is that.

I have been trying to understand your point and it really seems like you are just twisting words in whatever way you see fit.

Discrimination is a very broad term, it can encompass many forms of prejudice while leaving room for the reality of human life. I don't think people are angels but it would appear that people have a great deal of personalized experience that shapes the way that they view the world. There is no reason why everyone would be racist unless you have drastically redefined the general concept that most would agree upon.

A>B. A+B= Subspecies. In many cases A<B. >< meaning considered greater, alternatively lesser than. This is not an amazingly complicated term, I would be appreciative if a new term were developed to encompass what you are talking about and there does appear to be some terms that could be considered up to the job as it is. That has little to do with grabbing the reins of language and trying to wrestle it to the ground, though.

What I am saying would make more sense if you would actually consider it, which you're clearly not. When I say that everyone is racist, I mean that everyone tends to think of race as a real thing. Not that people are hateful, not that they discriminate, only that they notice. When you meet a new person you are going to notice things about them. Whether they are male or female. If they are gay or straight. Young or old. Attractive or ugly. Black or white. Those are the sort of things our society trains us to recognize, and that's why pretty much everyone is racist, sexist, heterocentrist, agist, etc. Because

But pretty much everyone is a racist. I won't say everyone, because I haven't met everyone, but outside of tribes living untouched in the Amazon and people like that, I doubt you could find anyone who is entirely without racist ideas.

You could simply say that people recongnize color and have much the same point, but again, that has little to do with fething that chicken. Keep on.

It has nothing at all to do with interpreting people's actions. All you have to do is listen to people talk.

The second you reference a legitimate study that reinforces your point, I will certainly hold this opinion in some regard. As it stands, I have talked to a lot of crazy people, some who might give the impression that they believe the universe hates them. The universe doesn't give a crap, they are specks. In some ways as an observer of their experience, I am much lesser than they could be perceived to be.

Talk to more people.

It's not a matter of what is right (which really can never be determined), it's a matter of who appears to have the power to decide what is right.

In what regard? Power appears to be a very limited resource from your point of view. It isn't.

Basically it boils down to this: Black people have decided they have the right to set the rules regarding the use of the n-word.

'Black people' meaning the people you have talked to in terms of this conversation.

White people get to make a choice in reaction to that: Do we say "Okay, sure, whatever you need to make you feel like you have power in this situation." or do we say "No, I want the right to set the rules regarding the use of the n-word."

I am of the opinion that there is no reason to not let black people decide the rules on the n-word. I can see absolutely no reason to argue the point. There is nothing at all to be gained by arguing the point. It's just a waste of time.

I am of the opinion that my opinion doesn't actually matter on this subject. People will do as they always have and always will.

My soapbox just can't be built tall enough to make my opinion matter substantially on this subject, and it would certainly appear that you have not developed space-age soap box technology either.

A shame really.





Soapbox car.

Have to say that when I was at university I was quite shocked to hear a group of black and asian school kids (probably about 12 years old) calling the single whilte child with them "white" in an insulting way (can't remember the exact wording of the insults as it was about 5-6 years ago in my first year).

I would agree with those who are saying that it is not the word itself but the context in the way it is said which is important in determining if it is offensive or not.

It does somewhat confuse me that it is so widely used in "popular" black culture, yet pounced on with great big heavy boots whenever a white person uses it no matter what the context was in its expression.

Like so many things with a root in history, I am thinking that it might be time to move on a bit and get over it. The French and the English have traditionally kicked the hell out of each other - doesn't mean we can't be friends now and forget that my great, great etc granddad stabbed yours in the leg 400 years ago.

.....All I really have to say is that the NAACP (National Association for the Advancment of Colored People)wouldn't be to happy with your reasoning using the N word Gailbraithe, as a matter of fact I'm pretty sure they think it's one of the things holding them back from the advancment of colored people. N word not exceptable for anyone.

EDIT* and I'm pretty sure a few of their credentials are way up to par as well. Skreet and da schoolin'.......

Henners91 wrote:

Ktulhut wrote:And we're back on "sins of the father" again...

As a member of the race that pretty much monopolises expensive suburban housing, the vast majority of urban "greenspace" and higher white-collar jobs... I can safely say that I have no problem with feeling guilty for one more thing...

Ok you feel guilty. I have more important things to do, like stare at paint.

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Ktulhut wrote:And we're back on "sins of the father" again...

As a member of the race that pretty much monopolises expensive suburban housing, the vast majority of urban "greenspace" and higher white-collar jobs... I can safely say that I have no problem with feeling guilty for one more thing...

Ok you feel guilty. I have more important things to do, like stare at paint.

Considering the focus of this forum, your post loses most of its sarcastic impact upon reflection...

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
...but its not the accepted standard in academic discussions...

Its not the accepted standard definition used by critical race theorists, but its pretty much the one that everyone else uses. I don't consider the definitions proffered by critical race theorists to be tenable simply because they acknowledge that they are knowingly defining terms in order to construe the debate in their favor. Everyone does this to some degree, but CRT doesn't even consider playing towards objectivity to be a laudable goal.

That is simply not true. The definition you are offering is not remotely the standard in academia -- in fact, the definition offered by CRT has come to dominate academia. And the reason it has done so is because the definition offered by CRT is more historically accurate and more objectively useful that the definition you've offered as the supposed standard.

As for your criticisms of CRT, they are completely without merit. Objectivity as you define is the exact opposite of objectivity, it is an understanding of racism that is willfully ignorant of history and context. You claim that CRT doesn't consider objectivity a laudable goal, but what you really mean is that CRT actually takes reality into consideration and is not a uselessly abstracted, contextless definition of racism that only benefits white supremacy.

Why would a white supremacist place racism against black people, and racism against white people on equal footing? Why wouldn't he simply suppose that racism against black people was justified due to their inferiority? There's certainly a cultural legacy for the argument, and it would be incredibly easy to simply remove the genetic basis for 18th century racism; instead supposing that social factors have rendered black people inferior, and that correcting the problem is simply a waste of time.

I've already answered the first question: The white supremacist movement seeks to place "racism" from blacks towards whites on an equal footing with racism from whites towards blacks in order to trivialize the latter and refocus attention on the former. White supremacists can no longer argue in favor of overt racism or make claims to the inferiority of blacks because the general populace, while still deeply racist, is at least superficially opposed to racism and is race-conscious enough to recognize such arguments as deeply offensive.

Without getting too deep into the issue, the systems of white supremacy have a "cultural inertia," a tendency to remain in effect unless specifically addressed and remedied. The historic poverty of blacks caused by the systematic disenfranchisement of segregation will tend to perpetuate itself even in the absence of institutional segregation. Thus all the white supremacist has to do in order to maintain white supremacy is to prevent any remedy of white supremacy. If the white supremacist can define any attempt to address white supremacy (such as affirmative action programs) as racism, then he can turn the public's shallow disapproval of racism against efforts to address racism. If the white supremacist can make "black racism" an issue of equal importance to white racism, then discussions of white supremacy become obfuscated and trivialized. Which all serves to perpetuate white supremacy.

No, the definition I'm offering began as genetic racism, and with the dismissal of the genetic basis for racism, and racism in general, evolved into a category regarding sociological behavior in the course of two 'races' interacting.

No, that's simply not true. You're making things up. "Genetic racism" isn't even a thing, that's just some words you threw together. Do you mean scientific racism, which as I've already pointed out defines racism in exactly the same way that CRT does, and predates CRT?

Gailbraithe wrote:
In the late seventies the term racism as was explicitly understood to mean the system of white supremacy embodied in institutions like Jim Crow and segregation and so it was necessary for conservatives to introduce this new term, "reverse racism," into the discourse in order to change the topic from the pressing issue of black poverty created by white racism to a more white supremacist palatable "blacks are bad" narrative.

The general category of racism is much older than that. It was born out in the United States primarily through the racist behavior of whites towards blacks, and to a lesser and less physically significant degree by the racist behavior of blacks towards whites.

That totally fails to address or even acknowledge the point I made. You're making me want to pull my hair out, dude. The term racism, as I've already pointed out, originates in the 17th century with scientific theories of race intended to support European colonialism and the oppression of non-Europeans. The point of the quoted paragraph above is that IN THE 1970'S racism was explicitly understood to mean the system of white supremacy embodied in institutions like Jim Crow and segregation. Obviously the term is older than that -- its was popularized amongst Americans during World War 2 and was strongly associated with Nazi eugenics.

Honestly, its pretty clear to me that you've pigeonholed your understanding, perhaps unintentionally, by looking primarily at critical race theory, which is mostly associated with American sociological phenomenon.

Now you're just making personal attacks. My understanding of race is not pigeonholed, and that's a ridiculous and unfair accusation.

Gailbraithe wrote:
The most astonishing success of this movement has been to popularize the entirely ridiculous idea that affirmative action, which is specifically designed as a partial remedy to the actual consequences of America's racist past, is a "racist" program. It is Orwellian doublespeak at its finest.

That's not doublespeak. Doublespeak would involve accepting that affirmative action worked both against racist ends, and for them. It is not doublespeak to suppose that affirmative action was intended to abate racism, but that it in fact furthers them. The former statement is a matter of contradicting ideas being used in concert, the latter is one of supposing unintended consequences.

That's not what doublespeak means. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak]Doublespeak[/url (sometimes called doubletalk) is any language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words, resulting in a so-called communication bypass, a term which is itself an example of doublespeak. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs), intentional ambiguity, or the reversal of meaning (for example, calling war "peace", or maintaining the status quo "change").

So yes, defining a program to overcome the effects of racism as racist is doublespeak.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Well duh. First of all, those kinds of incidences are intimately connected to white supremacy. Racial tensions between Latinos and blacks are the result of both being forced to fight over scraps by white supremacy, and black resentment of whites is a fairly obviously direct result of white oppression of blacks. Dealing with the problem of continuing white supremacy does more to combat these sort of tensions than pointing them out to misdirect from the problem of continuing white supremacy.

So instead of "fighting for the scraps from the white's table" they can fight each other; attributing characteristics in an alternate attempt to one up one another? I mean, if everyone is racist this is bound to happen. Moreover, if everyone will always be racist, then what incentive do white people have to stop oppressing minorities? After all, if this is really a system of perpetual conflict between racial groups that we're discussing, then why would anyone sacrifice their position at the top? If your theory is correct, then it isn't very useful for convincing whites.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. Your first sentence makes no sense to me at all. They are currently fighting each other for "scraps from the white's table," so I can't figure out what you mean by saying instead of here. You seem to be saying "instead of doing X, they can do X" or "instead of doing this thing, they can do the same thing."

There is no reason to suppose that everyone will always be racist, and I don't know where that assertion is coming from (certainly not me).

I'm also not sure what your point is about convincing whites. I don't really care if whites are convinced or not, the reality is that white supremacy will end within the next few generations simply because population demographics. If whites need a pragmatic reason to address and dismantle white supremacy before it is torn down by force, then I would point to places like Zimbabwe and South Africa where white supremacist systems were torn down with a result of a lot of resentment driven black on white violence.

Where are all these stories about racism against whites? I haven't seen them. I mean, I've seen lots of commentary discussing how the NAACP is racist (which is pretty much a joke), and I've seen lots of commentary on how a lot of rhetoric surrounding racism is absurd (it is), but true white victim stories are not often given press.

Shirrely Sherrod, Van Jones, the "New Black Panthers," the NAACP commentary, the ACORN non-stories, Glenn "I think he's a racist. I think he has a deep seated hatred for white people." Beck, going all the way back to the story of the white boys on a bus being intimidated by black youths that made headlines days after Obama was elected. Few of these stories focus on actual victims, because actual stories of white victims of black "racism" are incredibly rare, but all of them focus on the idea that white people need to be afraid of black people's supposed racism.

Gailbraithe wrote:It was adopted by the social science to explain the effects of the theories produced by the natural sciences, and the fundamental tendencies which underlie them. It has been most often been associated with the racism of whites against others, because whites held power throughout the majority of the world during the time in which the concept was explored. Indeed, it was that power which first gave rise to the biological concept of racism. However, there is nothing other than that temporary power which has insured a position of dominance for whites, and there is nothing that necessarily precludes the term from applying to the attempts of any racial group to marginalize or stereotype another. That racism may not itself be oppressive, but it would still be racism.

Ah hah, so here you admit I'm right about where the term racism comes from. You are right that there is nothing that "necessarily" precludes applying the term to any example of prejudice with a racial component, but as I've already point out several times that only serves the purposes of maintaining that power which has insured a position of dominance for whites by refocusing attention from that oppressive power to these trivial, marginal cases of prejudice in the absence of power.

Your redefinition of racism can only serve one agenda: To distract from oppressive racism by side-tracking every conversation about that oppressive racism into discussions of non-oppressive, toothless "racism." Thus every conversation about endemic black poverty becomes a conversation about why the Japanese hate the Koreans, and other utterly pointless and trivial distractions.

But I'm done with this conversation. I've been informed by the mods that my participation in this conversation is borderline "trolling," and so I won't be responding further. I just wanted to give your post the response it deserves for being an obviously honest attempt at a cogent, on-point argument.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Your redefinition of racism can only serve one agenda: To distract from oppressive racism by side-tracking every conversation about that oppressive racism into discussions of non-oppressive, toothless "racism." Thus every conversation about endemic black poverty becomes a conversation about why the Japanese hate the Koreans, and other utterly pointless and trivial distractions.

If by "pointless and trivial" you mean "completely destroys my argument that racism only benefits white people" I agree with you completely.

Or did I mis-read again?

Gailbraithe wrote:
That is simply not true. The definition you are offering is not remotely the standard in academia -- in fact, the definition offered by CRT has come to dominate academia.

Shall we compare criteria again? I mean, Community College is nice for some people, and some disciplines, but not others.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Objectivity as you define is the exact opposite of objectivity, it is an understanding of racism that is willfully ignorant of history and context.

Yes, that is what it means to be objective. If you do not know what words mean, then you should stop using them.

Sorry, I would debate with you, but you sound like nothing more than one of my "revolutionized" ex-girlfriends.
Which is to say that I threaten you with "Tah!".

kirsanth wrote:



Or did I mis-read again?

I loled!

by right-wing fronts for white supremacy, like the conservative movement and the GOP.

Wheeeee! Nothing says "white supremacy" quite like being the party that was formed on an anti-slavery agenda.

The most astonishing success of this movement has been to popularize the entirely ridiculous idea that affirmative action, which is specifically designed as a partial remedy to the actual consequences of America's racist past, is a "racist" program.

That's because it IS racist. Helping (or harming) somebody purely on the basis of their race is called "racism."

But you're astonished that we haven't been brainwashed by your CRT thinking? Seriously dude, wake up. Just because you believe your own lies, don't you have the intelligence to know that most people haven't even been EXPOSED to them, much less been forcibly brainwashed with them?

You're like one of these conspiracy theorists that chuckles at everyone else's "ignorance." "Oh, sure, and now you're gonna tell me aliens didn't build the pyramids? Please, don't waste my time..."

Racial tensions between Latinos and blacks are the result of both being forced to fight over scraps by white supremacy

Right, TOTALLY! Cause, without white people to mess things up, people NEVER form antagonistic groups based on race, religion, etc. NEVER. NEVER EVER.

all of them focus on the idea that white people need to be afraid of black people's supposed racism.

False.

As one of the white supremacist conservatives that you suggest we ACTUALLY should be afraid of, and thus as the intended audience of the news items you mention, I think I'm better qualified to see what their intention is.

The intention is to demonstrate the hypocrisy and untrustworthiness of the American left, such as yourself. I'm sure some people are genuinely scared of black people. The great majority of conservatives are not. The great majority of conservatives simple hope that race will cease to be an issue, that everyone will get along.

They view the "race card" as being purely political, something that the American left uses to garner political power and moral highground. They also view the left as hypocritical, the only deliberate racists of note left in America, people who make their decisions primarily upon race, who seek to empower fringe elements as a means of maintaining racial division and the political power they gain from it.

Conservatives don't think black kids are beating up white kids on busses because blacks are evil, they think it's because the left is emitting so much racially charged invective, and so twisting the language and perception, that it's damaging the psychology of young black people to the point that they feel justified in violence against non-blacks.

It's not about "look at how blacks act, we've got to turn them back into slaves!"

It's about "look how people act when they're exposed to the lies of the race industry."

Just look at you... You've decided that "racism" is only something that whites do to other people. You've decided that the only acceptable scholarship on race is the sort of twisted, left aligned false intellectualism that agrees with that view.

Can you seriously not see the brainwashing you've absorbed, and now attempt to inflict on the rest of us? You're trying to promote language destruction and thought control as noble, simply because they suit your politics. Racism has a meaning, and it's bigger than white people, it's bigger than America circa 1865, it's bigger than the American left's political needs circa 2010.

Racism has existed for as long as there have been races. It exists in all places and all times. You're promoting language designed to eliminate the discussion of any form of racism besides white racism. You're literally trying to TAKE AWAY THE WORDS for any other form of racism.

Please stop pretending that a ridiculous, politically motivated academic movement is now the gold standard. Two hundred years ago, one could have found university professors who could explain in detail how blacks are scientifically closer to monkeys than white people. They were politically motivated idiots. So are the people behind CRT. At least the 'blacks are monkeys" crowd PRETENDED to be scientific. CRT doesn't even get that far. It's false scholarship that doesn't even have the decency to be scholarly. It's just "SHUT UP and do what I say, I have black friends, and they're sad sometimes."

funny... I have a 10 foot pole but I still don't want to touch this subject...

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
Objectivity as you define is the exact opposite of objectivity, it is an understanding of racism that is willfully ignorant of history and context.

Yes, that is what it means to be objective. If you do not know what words mean, then you should stop using them.

That is not what objectivity means at all. Objectivity demands setting aside one's personal feelings and subjective impressions in favor of consideration of objects external to the mind. To say that objectivity demands one ignore history and context goes beyond ridiculousness into being outright disingenuous.

Like I said, I'm done with this debate at mod request, but I'm not going to let that outright fabrication you just posted (nestled between some petty personal attacks, which demonstrate the real strength of your position) fly. For someone who is quick to accuse someone else of not knowing what words mean, that was quite the doozy of a post.

You literally don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I'm done with this debate

I'm excited to hear what faux-intellectual movement it is that defines "done with this debate" as "popping in repeatedly to be wrong and insulting, and then remind everyone that you're done with the debate."

I'm pretty sure that, whatever it is, it's WIDELY accepted, and also one of the many reasons you're better than us.

Gailbraithe wrote:
That is not what objectivity means at all. Objectivity demands setting aside one's personal feelings and subjective impressions in favor of consideration of objects external to the mind. To say that objectivity demands one ignore history and context goes beyond ridiculousness into being outright disingenuous.

Sweet, sweet irony.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
That is not what objectivity means at all. Objectivity demands setting aside one's personal feelings and subjective impressions in favor of consideration of objects external to the mind. To say that objectivity demands one ignore history and context goes beyond ridiculousness into being outright disingenuous.

Sweet, sweet irony.

I was thinking the same thing this entire thread when he started saying White people were responsible for all the race-related evils of modern society. Not like that's a racist statement AT ALL

metallifan wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
That is not what objectivity means at all. Objectivity demands setting aside one's personal feelings and subjective impressions in favor of consideration of objects external to the mind. To say that objectivity demands one ignore history and context goes beyond ridiculousness into being outright disingenuous.

Sweet, sweet irony.

I was thinking the same thing this entire thread when he started saying White people were responsible for all the race-related evils of modern society. Not like that's a racist statement AT ALL

I really am trying to walk away from this argument, but if you guys are going to be world-class jerks and mock my back as I walk away, then I kind of have to turn around.

First of all, there is nothing ironic about what I said. That's just insulting nonsense from Monster Rain, trying pathetically to implicate that my argument is based on personal feelings and subjective impressions. That's ludicrous, baseless, and really only demonstrates how feeble Monster Rain's ability to argue a point is.

Second, metalifan is completely misrepresenting my point. I did not say that white people were responsible for all the race-related evils of modern society, I said that racism was developed by Europeans to justify the oppression of people of color. That is HISTORY. You can deny it til you're blue in the face, but it remains HISTORY. Africans did not declare themselves the black race and then travel to Europe and say "Hey, we're clearly not as human as you people, why don't you conquer our lands, enslave our people, and ship us to the other side of the world to do your menial labor?" That's not what happened.

It is not racist to point out that racism was invented by Europeans as part of the system of colonialist imperialism, and I am hardly arrogogant or conceited for thinking my time is better used not arguing with KNUCKLE DRAGGING MORONS who think that acknowledging where racism came from and what purpose it served is "racist." This is why I hate getting into these debates online. The whole wargaming community is sickeningly filled with the worst kinds of racist, and a topic like this brings them out of the woodwork.

I am done talk to any of you. You people are fools. My only hope is that other people reading this recognize a fundamental truth in all of the bs you clods are throwing around: That he civil rights era was only fifty years ago, and that there are still many people alive who remember segregation, and there are still many people in power who fought for segregation, and that the effects of 400 years of racism where felt primarily by people of color.

People of color in America are still lagging behind whites in every possible measure. Study after study proves that being a person of color makes it harder to find a job, makes it harder to get a promotion, makes it harder to get access to health care, to government services, etc. This is still a DEEPLY racist country, a country that refuses to actually deal with racism, and people like Dogam, Monster Rain, and metallifan -- all of whom are white -- are the real racists.

They know better than to call black people [see forum posting rules], and they know better than to demand whites only drinking fountains, but their entire agenda serves only one purpose: to ensure that white supremacy is maintained. That is what they want. White power forever. These people are the kind of scum that Nazis rely on to get into power. They have nothing but hatred in their hearts, and nothing but idiocy in their small minds.

These people LOVE racism, and they want it to continue forever. That is why they put so much effort into attacking people like me, who have an education. That is why they attack having an education as "political brainwashing," all while denying that that their own arguments can all be traced back to white power movements and groups like Christian Identity and the Aryan Nation. That is why they define addressing racism as racism, and that is why they are so deeply, deeply terrified of acknowledging that white people have been the prime instigators and benefactors of racism for four hundred years.

Now go on, schumcks. Get your inane, idiotic last words in, and continue demonstrating how very small-minded you worthless dogs really are.

metallifan wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
That is not what objectivity means at all. Objectivity demands setting aside one's personal feelings and subjective impressions in favor of consideration of objects external to the mind. To say that objectivity demands one ignore history and context goes beyond ridiculousness into being outright disingenuous.

Sweet, sweet irony.

I was thinking the same thing this entire thread when he started saying White people were responsible for all the race-related evils of modern society. Not like that's a racist statement AT ALL

I know that I like to claim objectivity right after I denounce all opposing viewpoints as the rantings of uneducated fools.

And white people can't be the victim of Racism as it can only benefit them, Metallifan. Just ask all the white people that made out like bandits in Rwanda and are currently benefiting somehow in Darfur.

Gailbraithe wrote:This is still a DEEPLY racist country, a country that refuses to actually deal with racism, and people like Dogam, Monster Rain, and metallifan -- all of whom are white -- are the real racists.

That is the first time I've ever been seriously called a racist. How hysterical.

I'll just let that stand as a testament to how little you know about what you're raving about.

Oh righ! Those white guys! Man, It's too bad we're good friends with those guys, thus making us racist by association. Steve was always my favorite of the bunch. Such a joker, that guy.

EDIT: Monster, why are we quoting me in something I never said?Wait... No... Oh god... OH JESUS CHRIST! I HAVE AN EVIL TWIN! OH F***ING DAMNIT!

metallifan wrote:Oh righ! Those white guys! Man, It's too bad we're good friends with those guys, thus making us racist by association. Steve was always my favorite of the bunch. Such a joker, that guy.

I'll have to let all of my friends that happen to be "people of color" that I'm a Klansman according to some cat on the internets.

metallifan wrote:Oh righ! Those white guys! Man, It's too bad we're good friends with those guys, thus making us racist by association. Steve was always my favorite of the bunch. Such a joker, that guy.

EDIT: Monster, why are we quoting me in something I never said?Wait... No... Oh god... OH JESUS CHRIST! I HAVE AN EVIL TWIN! OH F***ING DAMNIT!

I don't know WHAT you're talking about.