Brazil president blames white people for crisis

[Yazman]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae4957e8-1a5f-11de-9f91-0000779fd2ac.html


Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Thursday blamed the global economic crisis on “white people with blue eyes” and said it was wrong that black and indigenous people should pay for white people’s mistakes.

Speaking in Brasília at a joint press conference with Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, Mr Lula da Silva told reporters: “This crisis was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing.”

Comments? This was an unexpected comment coming from Lula da Silva.

[Das war einmal]

Although I don't feel insulted one bit as a caucasian, if this is really what he said, its very stupid and actually a form of racism

[Pogue]

What the fuck? How could he get away with that?

[benhur]

It's true on some level, so there's no point in complaining.

Let me edit this before people gang up on me. While we don't believe in race, we must admit that man is essentially tribal, and likes to operate in groups, which is why individuals join other individuals to form families, families become communities, then into races, finally nations, and so forth. Therefore, even if capitalism is the problem, it doesn't exist as an abstraction, some powerful group has to be capitalist exploiting other groups of people. That's how it works. And that powerful ethnic group happens to be white at this point in time. Therefore, the statements relating capitalism and white supremacy are valid.

[Sasha]

although stupid and borderline racist also an factual remark.
only problem with it is, like all of this kind of racist remarks, that although maybe sommetimes true, one is not the product of the other (like stating the, true, fact that a disproportianal persentage of prison inmates in western countrys is non-white means that non-white people are more criminal).
its like stating that playing basketball makes you taller.
the people who caused the crises are (for 99.9%) white people (the blue eyes bit i'm willing too debate), because the ruling class is deeply intwined with white male supramecy/privelege, but them being white didn't cause the crises.
not that Lula stated that that was the case but by him making the link its suggested.

although i'm betting that this was a case of either unlucky chosen words or an misintripertation/translation by scandal looking tabloid hysteria inducing journalists looking for a good story.

[Wanted Man]

the people who caused the crises are (for 99.9%) white people (the blue eyes bit i'm willing too debate), because the ruling class is deeply intwined with white male supramecy/privelege, but them being white didn't cause the crises.
not that Lula stated that that was the case but by him making the link its suggested.
Basically this. Maybe that is also closer to what Lula meant. He is damn right when he says that it's indigenous and other historically oppressed groups who continue to be mercilessly exploited, while those at the top of imperialism and white supremacy get off scot free with the crisis they've created.

It reminds me of people who get upset when Dead Prez say "I'm down for running up on them crackers in they city hall": they don't express hate against all white people in the city hall, but they want to attack the city hall as a symbol of white supremacy.

[Enragé]

i agree with psycho but the case here is that lula was simply afraid to blame the rich for it, and then went on to talking about the (dominant) 'race' of the ruling class instead of the ruling class itself. Classic case of a social-democrat chickening out.

[Bilbo Baggins]

It's true on some level, so there's no point in complaining.

Let me edit this before people gang up on me. While we don't believe in race, we must admit that man is essentially tribal, and likes to operate in groups, which is why individuals join other individuals to form families, families become communities, then into races, finally nations, and so forth. Therefore, even if capitalism is the problem, it doesn't exist as an abstraction, some powerful group has to be capitalist exploiting other groups of people. That's how it works. And that powerful ethnic group happens to be white at this point in time. Therefore, the statements relating capitalism and white supremacy are valid.

benhur has it right here. Capitalism is essentially Anglo-Saxon in origin(Adam Smith, Protestant Calvinism, etc.). Capitalism also has lead to such white-colonial excesses as chattel slavery and now, corporate globalization, which can arguably be considered a new form of white colonialism.

[Iowa656]

Where did the economic situation originate?

Was it from "black" countries?

I think Lula crossed a line but essentially he is right. Generally speaking, of course not absolute, in Brazil, and all Latin America, it is the white colonialists who still own the land and control the wealth at the expense of the "indigenous" natives.

The great point he made, one that is most important in this climate, is not to forget the worlds poor as the economy crashes.

[Glenn Beck]

If you think this is racist you are an ignoramus with a poor grasp of metaphor and rhetoric or indeed what racism actually even is.

Lula represents emerging 3rd world powers who are understandably miffed that the West has done such a shit job at managing the world economy. This crisis started in the imperialist countries, not in industrializing or underdeveloped countries. But like every capitalist crisis its the international working class and weaker nations that pay the price and suffer the most.

The quote itself mocks the arrogance and historical racism of European civilization dating back ages towards the rest of the world for whom they felt a "white man's burden". He is lambasting the Eurocentric idolization of "Enlightenment values" and self-claimed monopoly on rational and responsible thought, showing that the Emperor indeed has no clothes as "the whites", representing to a Brazilian like Lula colonial and imperial arrogance are the ones whose irrational actions and ireresponsibility have plunged the entire world into economic crisis.

As a person of European descent I feel that Lula da Silva's statement was both incisive and accurate.

[pastradamus]

Im white and I have dark blue eyes. However I found it quite funny as he walked in with Gordon Brown. Did anyone see his face(Browns) when Lula said this? It just dropped! brilliant!:D

[ZeroNowhere]

It's true on some level, so there's no point in complaining.

Let me edit this before people gang up on me. While we don't believe in race, we must admit that man is essentially tribal, and likes to operate in groups, which is why individuals join other individuals to form families, families become communities, then into races, finally nations, and so forth. Therefore, even if capitalism is the problem, it doesn't exist as an abstraction, some powerful group has to be capitalist exploiting other groups of people. That's how it works. And that powerful ethnic group happens to be white at this point in time. Therefore, the statements relating capitalism and white supremacy are valid.
Blue eyes, though?

[brigadista]

is he looking for votes?

[RedAnarchist]

I'm white with blue eyes but I don't find what he said offensive in any way. I think he just used that description to personify the Western ruling classes, which is predominantly white.

[cyu]

i agree with psycho but the case here is that lula was simply afraid to blame the rich for it, and then went on to talking about the (dominant) 'race' of the ruling class instead of the ruling class itself. Classic case of a social-democrat chickening out.

Good analysis.

If he actually had some real leftist credentials, his statement might have more credibility, but since he has hardly been fighting capitalists himself, my first reaction was that it was just a calculated statement to make those with anti-capitalists sentiments look crazy.

There are plenty of people with light skin color and blue eyes who are not running banks or exploiting others. Many are in fact union members and the vast majority of those people actually do real work for a living.

If this guy wants to alienate them, prevent them from joining the push to move their countries to the left, then he's doing a good job - I wouldn't be surprised if that's what he's really trying to do.

[Glenn Beck]

Good analysis.

If he actually had some real leftist credentials, his statement might have more credibility, but since he has hardly been fighting capitalists himself, my first reaction was that it was just a calculated statement to make those with anti-capitalists sentiments look crazy.

There are plenty of people with light skin color and blue eyes who are not running banks or exploiting others. Many are in fact union members and the vast majority of those people actually do real work for a living.

If this guy wants to alienate them, prevent them from joining the push to move their countries to the left, then he's doing a good job - I wouldn't be surprised if that's what he's really trying to do.

Lula is pretty much the paradigmatic reformist waffler, but seriously what's with the ridiculous conspiracy theories? If anything the audience he is trying to manipulate is Brazilian, to capitalize on anti-imperialist sentiment at home and win elections for his party. If white and working class people in imperialist countries are seriously so thin-skinned that this innocuous statement is enough to throw them (or rather, us, because we're both in the US and I don't think you're a boss) into the arms of the ruling class then, well, we weren't particularly full of solidarity to begin with were we?

[JimmyJazz]

If you think this is racist you are an ignoramus with a poor grasp of metaphor and rhetoric or indeed what racism actually even is.

Lula represents emerging 3rd world powers who are understandably miffed that the West has done such a shit job at managing the world economy. This crisis started in the imperialist countries, not in industrializing or underdeveloped countries. But like every capitalist crisis its the international working class and weaker nations that pay the price and suffer the most.

The quote itself mocks the arrogance and historical racism of European civilization dating back ages towards the rest of the world for whom they felt a "white man's burden". He is lambasting the Eurocentric idolization of "Enlightenment values" and self-claimed monopoly on rational and responsible thought, showing that the Emperor indeed has no clothes as "the whites", representing to a Brazilian like Lula colonial and imperial arrogance are the ones whose irrational actions and ireresponsibility have plunged the entire world into economic crisis.

As a person of European descent I feel that Lula da Silva's statement was both incisive and accurate.

I feel you, but I have to object.

In a way, statements that are so close to getting the truth, yet miss it, are the most harmful. He's one of the few people willing to call out the exploitation of the undeveloped world by the developed, but then he substitutes racialist populism for class struggle; he's co-opting the very real mass anger that should be getting channeled into our movement.

It's cool that he's recognising the exploitation and the anger, but to then point out to a false source of the exploitation is as damaging as outright denial of the exploitation. Maybe even more so, because the outright deniers are usually rich Western whitie people, and their denial is pretty transparent.

In the end, I care more about his actions than his rhetoric. If he wants to blame "white people with blue eyes" while refusing further loans from the IMF/WB and restructuring advice from the WTO, more power to him. It would be better than talking about class struggle and then voting for war credits, that's for sure. But that doesn't mean his rhetoric wouldn't still be stupid. Instead of having the potential to rally the underdeveloped nations, it will probably just piss off a few white readers of the BBC and AOL News, then alienate other heads of state in underdeveloped nations who don't want to be controversial, and end up having no real effect.

So I have to agree with those who said that he wimped out by pointing to race instead of class. The international finance capitalists created this crisis, not me or you or any other fair-skinned working class person.

And let's bear in mind that this guy is a president of a capitalist "democracy". How authentic of a voice do you think he is for the indigenous people of Brazil? I'm sure he'd sell their land to white Western developers in the blink of an eye.

Edit: Check out the last sentence under "Political orientation" on his Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva). Someone who isn't banned from wiki-editing should get rid of that crap.

[Glenn Beck]

I feel you, but I have to object.

In a way, statements that are so close to getting the truth, yet miss it, are the most harmful. He's one of the few people willing to call out the exploitation of the undeveloped world by the developed, but then he substitutes racialist populism for class struggle; he's co-opting the very real mass anger that should be getting channeled into our movement.

It's cool that he's recognising the exploitation and the anger, but to then point out to a false source of the exploitation is as damaging as outright denial of the exploitation. Maybe even more so, because the outright deniers are usually rich Western whitie people, and their denial is pretty transparent.

In the end, I care more about his actions than his rhetoric. If he wants to blame "white people with blue eyes" while refusing further loans from the IMF/WB and restructuring advice from the WTO, more power to him. It would be better than talking about class struggle and then voting for war credits, that's for sure. But that doesn't mean his rhetoric wouldn't still be stupid. Instead of having the potential to rally the underdeveloped nations, it will probably just piss off a few white readers of the BBC and AOL News, then alienate other heads of state in underdeveloped nations who don't want to be controversial, and end up having no real effect.

So I have to agree with those who said that he wimped out by pointing to race instead of class. The international finance capitalists created this crisis, not me or you or any other fair-skinned working class person.


Lula is a reformist whose entire gimmick is playing both sides, he can never say the big bad "I" word much less call for international class struggle. Saying the "I" word is the very reason why it's Lula and not Chavez meeting personally with Obama about US-Venezuelan relations. This way he can still make a point that will likely be understood as anti-imperialist by most Brazilians. Ironically this crude statement was probably the more diplomatic given the situation because it can just be written off as an embarrassing gaffe and be interpreted in a racial or nationalist context, as opposed to a straightforward statement of the situation which would possibly compromise his political tight-rope act between representing a voice against neoliberalism and still being able to be "mature and responsible" enough to dialogue with the big boys. This way those who are receptive to such rhetoric can nod and those clueless New York Times (or whatever) readers who choose to interpret it as incomprehensible racism are free to say "wow, what an asshole" without anything really changing.

It should be clear I'm not saying he is awesome or that what he said was ideal, I mostly just take offense to people interpreting this as "racism". And fair or foul I interpret moaning and whining about "reverse racism" as borderline racist in itself. What he said was pandering and opportunistic in context (but not necessarily content), but it wasn't racist, and I stand by that.


And let's bear in mind that this guy is a president of a capitalist "democracy". How authentic of a voice do you think he is for the indigenous people of Brazil? I'm sure he'd sell their land to white Western developers in the blink of an eye.

He can, and he has :(. Maybe not himself directly but he sure as hell has not done enough (if anything) to reign in exploiters of Brazilian land and labor, foreign or domestic.


Edit: Check out the last sentence under "Political orientation" on his Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva). Someone who isn't banned from wiki-editing should get rid of that crap.

Done

[jake williams]

I think this is awesome. I think if this makes you very upset (yes, it's a generalization, it's not a very sophisticated analysis, but the general idea), you don't understand how unspeakably racist Brazil still is.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Lula is a reformist comprador with poor rhetoric that comes off as 'racism' instead of 'class analsysis.' He's doesn't claim to be part of the revolutionary left so it shouldn't really be a surprise.

That said, he's largely right. Is it China's fault for saving money? Or is it the American imperialist, and American masses, drives to expand, consume and make transactions at every increasing rates, even when the capital such is based on is largely speculative.

That said, Lula is not a neutral player. Most of the ramifications Brazil will face as a result of the "crisis" could have been avoided by pursuing an independent socialist path.

[Yazman]

That said, he's largely right. Is it China's fault for saving money? Or is it the American imperialist, and American masses, drives to expand, consume and make transactions at every increasing rates, even when the capital such is based on is largely speculative.

The US and European powers are the dominant capitalist powers - SO WHAT? Things would be no different if it were Asian, African, or South American capitalists dominating the globe.

[AvanteRedGarde]

But they're don't. Come back to earth, you know, the one people live in.

[Revy]

"Blue eyes"? What does eye color have to do with anything?

Maybe Lula is a white man who doesn't want to take responsibility, so he makes it so white men of his own eye color aren't part of it. It is certainly unusual, anyway, it is sure to rile up many reactionary feathers, without doing not a damn thing for class unity...there is no class viewpoint on his statement at all.

So to distract from his own economic policies, which are unquestionably pro-big business in nature, he throws a controversial wrench in there, I guess hoping to bolster support and come off as a benevolent statesman from above. Don't be so hard on Lula, everyone knows he's the greatest! And we'll be sure to vote for YOU in the next elections, despite the fact you're a bourgeois twit who betrayed his voter base.

Sure, it's not "racist", nor do I think it is offensive, but he should not be commended for it, that was his purpose entirely, to get a pat on the back as a member of the ruling class trying to speak for classes which he does not in reality represent.

:rolleyes:

[Yazman]

But they're don't. Come back to earth, you know, the one people live in.

The point is that the upper class is our enemy. We need to be attacking them, not their culture - I don't care what their ethnicity is or what country they're from - all capitalists are the enemy. It isn't some sort of "achievement" to become an oppressor.

I think Stancel's view of the situation is a good one - Lula has never shown any sort of pro-worker policy and is indeed a member of the ruling class. No amount of rhetoric will change this.

[cyu]

If white and working class people in imperialist countries are seriously so thin-skinned that this innocuous statement is enough to throw them (or rather, us, because we're both in the US and I don't think you're a boss) into the arms of the ruling class then, well, we weren't particularly full of solidarity to begin with were we?

Unfortunately, there isn't as much solidarity as I would like to see - look, for example, at the percentage of employees that are unionized. Then there are the anti-immigrant groups, not to mention wingnuts like the various racial supremecist groups. I can only see them encouraged by this in their anti-communism - their "leaders" would just tell them stuff like, "See? Those godless pinkos are just trying to exterminate our race."

[Guerrilla22]

Stupid comment. It would have been better if he simply blamed the US and Europe for the current financial crisis.

[Mike Morin]

It's true on some level, so there's no point in complaining.

Let me edit this before people gang up on me. While we don't believe in race, we must admit that man is essentially tribal, and likes to operate in groups, which is why individuals join other individuals to form families, families become communities, then into races, finally nations, and so forth. Therefore, even if capitalism is the problem, it doesn't exist as an abstraction, some powerful group has to be capitalist exploiting other groups of people. That's how it works. And that powerful ethnic group happens to be white at this point in time. Therefore, the statements relating capitalism and white supremacy are valid.

True, and well said. I don't know the situation in Brasil, are the people of Portuguese descent (or should it be ascent) considered white? Maybe, it's relative, but most of them don't have blue eyes. Here's a slogan for the Braziliam revolution, "don't shoot until you see the color of their eyes".

So called "non-whites" have made many advances in the last generation and some have taken active niches in the Capitalist hiearchies.

In North America and Europe the Labor Movements and the Socialist/Communist movements have had very many so-called "white" people. Who cares what the eye colors of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, George, Ben Davis, Luxemburg, Debs, Hayward, Lewis, Reuther, M.L. Kin, Chavez, Hoffman, Lennon, Seale, Hampton, Charles, Malcolm, Jesse Jackson, Jesse Colin Young, Jesse Edwin Davis, Engels, Hegel, MacKaye, Morris, Gandhi, Gompers, Owen, Fourier, St.? Simon, Rousseau, Godwin, Renee Davis, Angela Davis, Henry Fredericks, etc.

Martin Luther Kin said he didn't judge people by the color of their necks. Is there a relation between neck color and eyes. Probably, but so what.

It also is true that there was racism in the American Labor Movement, but also remember Capitalists sometimes, if not often, used "negroes" as strike-breakers.

Although, some truth to what Silva said as we are all aware of the unfair trade relationships between north and south (in the Western hemisphere), it was a stupid thing to say.

If people are stupid enough to believe and accept what Silva said, then it amounts to an almost Hitlerian statement.


Mike Morin
www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com (http://www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com)

[PCommie]

Racism works both ways, and this statement is ridiculous. It strikes me as an off-the-wall attempt to bring out people's inner race-fears to lay the blame off of capitalism and somehow magically say that people with white skin and blue eyes are responsible for it somehow. It's BS, ANYONE who supports capitalism is responsible, regardless of what their skin or eye color is.


That's how it works. And that powerful ethnic group happens to be white at this point in time. Therefore, the statements relating capitalism and white supremacy are valid.

I don't know what nation you live in, comrade, but here in America, racism favoring black people is ridiculous. Innocent white people, who never enslaved anyone and deserve as much chance as anyone else lose educational and employment opportunities because they are reserved for blacks. It is this kind of activity that causes racism to continue, because people resent the fact that they are constantly turned away from good opportunities because they are white. Like I said, racism works both ways.

H&S forever,
-PC

[R_P_A_S]

I know this probably won't make sense to a lot of you. But I heard this comment in Portuguese, me being able to speak and understand the language pretty good I can tell you that it doesn't sound as harsh as it was translated.

Lots of it has to do with culture, Latinos have a way to express them selves that many others will consider rude. This might be a bad example but take how we use the world "black". "Negro".

Mi Negrita, is a term of endearment for a loved black woman. But if you translate that to english its literally "My little black girl". very insulting to a black women.

[rednordman]

When he said 'blue eyes', i though he was using a metaphore for hardline, one dimensional conservatism.

[benhur]

Racism works both ways, and this statement is ridiculous. It strikes me as an off-the-wall attempt to bring out people's inner race-fears to lay the blame off of capitalism and somehow magically say that people with white skin and blue eyes are responsible for it somehow. It's BS, ANYONE who supports capitalism is responsible, regardless of what their skin or eye color is.

But the capitalist class is composed of predominantly white people. And because it is so, it's logical to assume that they'd maintain status quo by discriminating against other races. As to racism coming from other ethnic groups, most of the time it's a reaction to the oppression they've faced. Second, they don't have as much power (as the white capitalist class) to do any sort of damage, or cause any major impact of a political nature.


I don't know what nation you live in, comrade, but here in America, racism favoring black people is ridiculous. Innocent white people, who never enslaved anyone and deserve as much chance as anyone else lose educational and employment opportunities because they are reserved for blacks. It is this kind of activity that causes racism to continue, because people resent the fact that they are constantly turned away from good opportunities because they are white. Like I said, racism works both ways.

Oh please!:rolleyes: Whites control most of the world's resources, install puppet regimes in Latin America and Middle East, wage wars at the drop of a hat in total disregard for international law, assassinate leaders who refuse to cooperate.......and yet you're complaining about affirmative action that helps a few oppressed Black people get back on their feet! With comrades like you, we don't need enemies.

[PCommie]

Oh please!:rolleyes: Whites control most of the world's resources, install puppet regimes in Latin America and Middle East, wage wars at the drop of a hat in total disregard for international law, assassinate leaders who refuse to cooperate.......and yet you're complaining about affirmative action that helps a few oppressed Black people get back on their feet! With comrades like you, we don't need enemies.

Whatever, benhur. This is the most rascist statement I've ever seen, and coming from a communist, you should be ashamed of yourself. It's not whites but CAPITALISTIC IMPERIALIST GOVERNMENTS that do this crap. Maybe you would've been better off born colorblind?

-PC

[ZeroNowhere]

Racism works both ways, and this statement is ridiculous. It strikes me as an off-the-wall attempt to bring out people's inner race-fears to lay the blame off of capitalism and somehow magically say that people with white skin and blue eyes are responsible for it somehow
Well, yes, an obvious concern here is that it's just taking the whole populist 'evil and irresponsible capitalists caused the crisis' rhetoric, which basically just puts the blame on individual capitalists, and distracts it away from the system, and mixing it with some degree of nationalism.

[ComradeOm]

The US and European powers are the dominant capitalist powers - SO WHAT? Things would be no different if it were Asian, African, or South American capitalists dominating the globe.Did Lula suggest otherwise? That is, that there is something inherently different about "white people with blue eyes"?

[Charles Xavier]

Well one must realize that in Latin America there is a lot more racism than there is in the United States. White people are in all the fashion magazines all the advertisements, and mestizo, black and native people are promoted as second class citizens.

What Lula is telling South America, is not to look to the whites as the solution, it is our own people who will solve it. Its more about empowerment than it is about supremacy.

There is a reason why certain ethnic groups are on top and others are on the bottom, and its to do with active enforcement of racism. White people are part of the ruling circles of countries where they are the smallest minority. Why is this?

[TC]

I'm sorry, but he's right: the people responsible are overwhelmingly and disproportionately white American and British and to a lesser extent German and French people.

The people who suffer the most are the largely non-white third world that financial parasitism extracts superprofits from.

Sorry the truth hurts liberal sensibilities.

[Mike Morin]

When he said 'blue eyes', i though he was using a metaphore for hardline, one dimensional conservatism.


I thought he was blaming all the problems of the world on Frank Sinatra!!!

What color eyes did Elvis have?

:scared:


Mike Morin

[AvanteRedGarde]

[quote=PCommie;1397892

I don't know what nation you live in, comrade, but here in America, racism favoring black people is ridiculous. Innocent white people, who never enslaved anyone and deserve as much chance as anyone else lose educational and employment opportunities because they are reserved for blacks. It is this kind of activity that causes racism to continue, because people resent the fact that they are constantly turned away from good opportunities because they are white. Like I said, racism works both ways.

H&S forever,
-PC[/quote]

Comments like this make me check my browser to make sure I haven't stumbled onto Stormfront.

[Mike Morin]

Wait a minute, race division is a divide annd conquer strategy that the Capitalists use.

You both are right and you both are wrong.

What good jobs are there in Capitalism, anyway?

Let's all work together.

Socially liberal, economically radical.


Mike Morin

[Glenn Beck]

Racism works both ways

No it doesn't. It's possible for a person who is racially oppressed to be prejudiced towards a person who is not, to discriminate against a person who is not, to behave in an abusive or violent manner towards a person who is not. This doesn't make it racism, it makes it prejudiced and uncouth behavior. The social context of oppression and privilege is what creates racism.


It strikes me as an off-the-wall attempt to bring out people's inner race-fears to lay the blame off of capitalism and somehow magically say that people with white skin and blue eyes are responsible for it somehow.

People with white skin are not responsible for capitalist imperialism, however the people responsible for capitalist imperialism generally have white skin (this is becoming less true but that does not mean that racism has vanished). The superficial ridiculousness of the "blue eyes" statement should be taken as evidence by a reasonable person that the speaker was using metaphorical and hyperbolic rhetoric.


I don't know what nation you live in, comrade, but here in America, racism favoring black people is ridiculous. Innocent white people, who never enslaved anyone and deserve as much chance as anyone else lose educational and employment opportunities because they are reserved for blacks.

No. Just no.

[PCommie]

Whatever, folks. Maybe those responsible are statistically white, but that doesn't mean that's it's because they're white, but because they're capitalist. The Brazilian president would not have put it that way if he were not trying to stir up racism.

-PC

[More Fire for the People]

As if the bourgeoisie in black, red, yellow, and brown skin were not responsible. Lula is the ultimate scapegoat for sleezy capitalism.

[Zurdito]

Let'slook at what is really happening instead of getting caught up on the words used. When Lula says "white" he is referring to the first world and the "oligarchy" in Latin America who are so closely tied to it: he is talking about neoliberalism. This is obvious. The issue is not about skin colour. This may come as a shock to some people here but not everyone in the world talks literally 100% of the time, the world is not a dry fucking internet forum - people talk metaphorically, rhetorically, poetically. Especially Latin American politicians.

Now the real question here is: should we have sympathy with Lula?

No for 2 reasons: ) he has been a faithful neoliberal and his politics have been as "white" (i.e. as pro-first world) as anyone, and now he is jsut trying to save his own skin with empty phrases, and 2), We need to oppose capitalism, not favour "productive" or "national" capital over finance capital.

Lula's line is the line of Brazilian protectionism. Get over his slightly poetic language - if he hurt you then your poor white skin is too thin - and let's oppose him for the real reason - he represents the Brazilian bourgeoisie against its own workers and uses empty populist phrases as cover.

[black magick hustla]

the issue is here is not whether he is racist or not or insults some dumb sensibilities. i doubt he really gives a shit about white men. what worries me here is the fact that leftists get duped by his nationalist rhetoric - he is clearly trying to advance through that rhetoric the faction of the bourgeosie he represents, which most of it is not probably white.

[Zurdito]

the issue is here is not whether he is racist or not or insults some dumb sensibilities. i doubt he really gives a shit about white men. what worries me here is the fact that leftists get duped by his nationalist rhetoric - he is clearly trying to advance through that rhetoric the faction of the bourgeosie he represents, which most of it is not probably white.

I agree with all this except the final part - the section of the bourgeosie Lula represents is almost certainly also majority white (not that it really matters).

[jake williams]

I agree with all this except the final part - the section of the bourgeosie Lula represents is almost certainly also majority white (not that it really matters).
I appreciate the statement on the sole basis that it's something of a dig at the white Latin American oligarchy, even if, yeah yeah yeah, Lula's a hypocritical neoliberal and all that.

[BobKKKindle$]

It's quite amusing to see a bunch of liberals scream and make accusations of racism, because Lula is basically telling it like it is - the vast majority of the ruling class throughout the world is white, even in countries where the majority of the population is not (e.g. Brazil) and so in that sense white people are responsible for the economic crisis, and should be made to pay the consequences. It's clear that Lula is not claiming that every single white person around the world is responsible for the crisis, or even that an individual white worker can be held more responsible than a worker of any other ethnic group - instead he's referring to the small group of white people who control the world's financial institutions and impose neoliberal policies on developing countries in order to maintain the division of the world into imperialist core and exploited periphery. A brief look at any IMF/WTO summit will reveal just how skewed the racial composition of the international ruling class really is. As Gonzeau pointed out, his statement was full of historical irony, because white colonialists have traditionally justified their colonial projects by claiming that non-white peoples are incapable of ruling themselves and therefore need to be controlled and managed by white people so that they can attain "civilization" and rid themselves of backwards traditions, even if this involves non-white peoples being denied their national independence for some period of time - hence the concept of the "white man's burden". This may seem like a historical concept, but the truth is that this notion - of the west being benevolent, and having a regenerative role towards the rest of the world - continues to manifest itself today in the form of liberal interventionism, whereby western governments use the language of democracy and human rights to create an illusion of moral legitimacy for what are, in reality, acts of genocide, and imperialist aggression.

It seems that too many on the left are happy to accept the notion that "racism strikes both ways", which amounts to claiming that white people are in some way racially oppressed, and need to be liberated from that oppression. We (i.e. genuine Marxists) need to be clear on this - white people in every country around the world are systematically privileged regardless of their economic status simply because they are white, and are therefore not subject to the multiple forms of racial oppression that black people and members of every other ethnic group are forced to confront and endure on a daily basis. There is no such thing as anti-white racism, and all measures designed to improve the position of non-white people and address historic injustices - such as affirmative action programs - are morally justified, albeit totally inadequate, and need to be urgently defended by Marxists in order to break the chauvinism of white workers.

[black magick hustla]

I agree with all this except the final part - the section of the bourgeosie Lula represents is almost certainly also majority white (not that it really matters).

it really is though? i mean in mexico there is a disproportionate amount of white people in ruling class layers but i think a mayority still are mestizo.

[JimmyJazz]

It should be clear I'm not saying he is awesome or that what he said was ideal, I mostly just take offense to people interpreting this as "racism". And fair or foul I interpret moaning and whining about "reverse racism" as borderline racist in itself. What he said was pandering and opportunistic in context (but not necessarily content), but it wasn't racist, and I stand by that.

Of course.

[Zurdito]

I appreciate the statement on the sole basis that it's something of a dig at the white Latin American oligarchy, even if, yeah yeah yeah, Lula's a hypocritical neoliberal and all that.

You put the "yeah yeah yeah" in the wrong palce. It should be "Lula's a hypocritical neoliberal, even if, yeah yeah yeah, he had a dig at the oligarchy".

Although really even that misses the real problem: that Lula is doing the same as Obama - making some timid populist statements in order to get enough support for his project to keep the same people who he "criticises" in power.

[Yazman]

I understand your point kindles but I can't take you seriously when you say this:


white people in every country around the world are systematically privileged regardless of their economic status simply because they are white, and are therefore not subject to the multiple forms of racial oppression that black people and members of every other ethnic group are forced to confront and endure on a daily basis.

Do you actually believe that in every single country where people with light skin live, they are privileged? What about in Zimbabwe? I just think you've made a stupid generalisation that doesn't really apply. Mind you I never said there was any racism here. I do think Lula is a dumb fuck for targeting whites instead of capitalists though, particularly in a country where the indigenous are oppressed by every other ethnicity. I also think its ridiculous to state "in every single country around the world" when this is clearly a silly generalisation. It also universally puts the blame of oppression on whites when this is also not the case - there is just as much ethnic oppression committed without any white people being involved at all! This happens all the time in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East where many ethnic groups are routinely crushed and oppressed by other ethnic groups (none of which are white). Lula's statement sounds more like an emotional appeal, complete with mud slinging.

If Hamas or Fatah leadership came out and said the conflict was "caused by Jews with hooked noses" would you support this statement?

[AvanteRedGarde]

Do you actually believe that in every single country where people with light skin live, they are privileged? What about in Zimbabwe?

You mean where mass struggle resulted in white settlers being dispossessed of their stolen land, only to be attacks at every turn by their former colonial masters.

Your 'leftism' isn't cover for rampant structural inequalities, which historically break down in favor of 'white' Americans and Western Europeans.

[Yazman]

You mean where mass struggle resulted in white settlers being dispossessed of their stolen land, only to be attacks at every turn by their former colonial masters.

I never said they were systematically oppressed (they're not), but whites are certainly not privileged there. Do you disagree with this statement?


Your 'leftism' isn't cover for rampant structural inequalities, which historically break down in favor of 'white' Americans and Western Europeans.

You've lost me with this. You're actually saying that I'm not a leftist? WTF?

[ComradeOm]

What about in Zimbabwe?The exception that proves the rule. Name another

[Invader Zim]

I have that kind of green/brown muddy water colour eyes, so I guess I'm in the clear.

[Bilan]

Racism and xenophobia, a common substitute for an understanding of capitalism.

[BobKKKindle$]

It also universally puts the blame of oppression on whites when this is also not the case - there is just as much ethnic oppression committed without any white people being involved at all!I don't think arguing that all white people are privileged is the same as saying that all white people support (or are complicit in) the oppression of non-white peoples, and it certainly isn't the same as saying that white workers have an interest in maintaining racist oppression. When we talk about white workers being privileged relative to black workers, what that basically means is that the average white worker is more likely to be employed, and is generally subject to a lower level of exploitation than the average black worker, due to the presence of racial discrimination in the labour market, which is rooted in the historic oppression of non-white peoples, and provides a means by which the bourgeoisie can turn workers against each other. The fact remains, however, that all workers are exploited regardless of which ethnic group they belong to, in the same way that both male and female workers are exploited even though men tend to receive higher wages and enjoy greater economic security under capitalist patriarchy, and that common experience of exploitation is what gives all workers an interest in fighting against racism within the framework of capitalist society by whatever means necessary, and eventually overthrowing capitalism. I would also agree with the other point you made - that a dynamic of racial oppression can also exist between two (or more) non-white peoples. In Malaysia, as well as Singapore, for example, workers of Chinese origin have suffered racial discrimination at the hands of a native elite comprised almost entirely of Malays and Indians, and this is why Chinese workers have always made up a large share of communist militants, and played such an important role in the post-war independence struggle.

So I don't think we disagree on these issues. However, I maintain that there is no society anywhere in the world in which white people are racially oppressed, and if we actually look at how white workers are treated, politically and economically, we find a system of privileges. The case of Zimbabwe is interesting, because in that instance a government has attempted to address the racist legacy of colonialism, manifested in a grossly unequal distribution of land, by taking privileges away from whites (even though most expropriated land has been given to high-ranking members of the ZANU-PF - that's another debate though) and as a result that government has been punished by the imperialist powers through the application of sanctions, and could be a target for imperialist intervention in the future. In other words, anti-racist and anti-imperialist measures, however flawed, have provoked a hostile reaction from a white-dominated international ruling class, and the black workers of Zimbabwe have been made to suffer because the government of their country has done what no other government in the whole of Africa has ever dared to do.


If Hamas or Fatah leadership came out and said the conflict was "caused by Jews with hooked noses" would you support this statement?No, because however much Jewish workers may be privileged relative to Arab workers within Israel, Jewish people on an international level are still the targets of racist oppression.

[Yazman]

The exception that proves the rule. Name another

Why? I'm not trying to "prove" anything. How about reading my motherfucking posts for once rather than lumping me in with everybody else? Why is it so hard for some of you people to read a single post and take it on its own merit without lumping it in to some category? I never made a label of "racism" on Lula's comment, stop lumping me in with them.

My first problem was with the generalisation that everywhere in the world where people with light skin live, they are always privileged - its a stupid fucking generalisation. It is true of the majority - but not of every single location in every single country on the planet!

My second problem, which you and AvanteRedGarde seem to have totally ignored in your rush to equate my arguments with the others in this thread simply because I disagree with YOU, was actually an entirely different one. AvanteRedGarde, in labelling me as some sort of fucking poser trying to "cover up structural inequalities with leftist rhetoric" shows how he totally ignored the contents of my post. I was actually pointing out that there are far more structural inequalities that are a lot more complex than the simple "all whites oppress all other ethnicities."

There are regions with little or no white populations where structural inequality based on ethnicity is extremely common, but you seem to have failed to notice this blatantly obvious point that I made. Have you ever heard of the "fourth world" as a concept? One can hardly deny that indigenous populations are often the victims of even more severe structural inequality and injustice than the other oppressed groups and ethnicities. In Malaysia for example there is quite a lot of ethnic conflict and structural oppression that is quite open in some places. An even further layer of oppression is that of the indigenous peoples in the region who have even been stripped of their claim to indigeneity by those who settled the region a few thousand years ago - the very concept of indigeneity taken away from an entire culture that has lived there for tens of thousands of years before settlers from the further north regions of asia ever came.

That some of you seem to think the only "real" structural oppression involves ethnically european or american populations indicates to me a lack of understanding of structural oppression of a non-white ethnicity by another non-white ethnicity. I can give you plenty of examples of this, multi-layered and complex examples, of this happening in the Philippines, many of which don't even involve any sort of history related to white people at all. Given these facts I think its ridiculous for communists or anarchists to boil our ideology down to prejudice. We need to struggle as hard as we can against ethnic oppression - and I especially think more of us need to take more concern with indigenous oppression, something that I rarely see at all on here - but we need to remember that much of the time this structural oppression is the result of the capitalist system and if we build our ideology around, and encourage prejudice as some of you seem to want to, we will lose sight of what it is that we seek to achieve. The total abolition of capitalism and the classes that come with it. We need to be reminding people that at the end of the day, capitalist oppression will take pretty much the same form regardless of what ethnicity the capitalist is.


No, because however much Jewish workers may be privileged relative to Arab workers within Israel, Jewish people on an international level are still the targets of racist oppression.

So you are only concerned with oppression or ethnic prejudice if it takes place globally? Regional ethnic prejudices and conflicts are ok? There are quite a few in Africa and the middle east, and even genocides have been conducted as a result of these ethnic prejudices - yet you would tell me that its "not as bad"?

[BobKKKindle$]

So you are only concerned with oppression or ethnic prejudice if it takes place globally? Regional ethnic prejudices and conflicts are ok? There are quite a few in Africa and the middle east, and even genocides have been conducted as a result of these ethnic prejudices - yet you would tell me that its "not as bad"?

No, of course not. But the political implications of a statement identifying a particular group as responsible for the crisis or anything else worthy of opposition are entirely different if the group in question is a victim of racial oppression - this is not the case for white people because there is no country in which white people are racially oppressed to any degree. We should also keep in mind that Lula's statement was not intended to suggest that all white people are responsible - he was simply indicating that the people who can be held responsible are overwhelmingly white.

[ComradeOm]

My first problem was with the generalisation that everywhere in the world where people with light skin live, they are always privileged - its a stupid fucking generalisation. It is true of the majority - but not of every single location in every single country on the planet!Then name another nation in which "people with light skin" do not form a privileged caste. If this generalisation is as stupid as you say then it should not be overly difficult to disprove

The reality is, and this is particularly true of Latin America, is that those citizens of European descent do, almost uniformly, occupy a privileged position in society. The composition of these national ruling classes are obviously not exclusively 'white' but the effects of centuries of European imperialism cannot be denied. In cases where there was significant European colonisation, always accompanied by the dispossession and oppression of the original populace, it forcibly produced a landowning, and later capitalist, class that was 'white'. In these countries patterns of class dominance are therefore reinforced and perpetuated by ethnic distinctions and inequalities. Now Zimbabwe jumps out because it is one country that has deliberately acted to reverse this process. Other attempts (Mexico and S Africa spring to mind) have either failed, been too moderate, or not begun at all

[Invader Zim]

Then name another nation in which "people with light skin" do not form a privileged caste.
Firstly, Zimbabwe has already been noted. And you came out with the idiom 'the exception that proves the rule' (which incidentally you, like most people, have misunderstood). So why bother trying to come up with other examples? Surely they too will be dismissed as exceptions? Secondly how does one define 'light' skin? Thirdly, what of the millions of individual exceptions both ways (i.e. people with more melanin who live in priviledge and those with less who don't?)?

[Yazman]

No, of course not. But the political implications of a statement identifying a particular group as responsible for the crisis or anything else worthy of opposition are entirely different if the group in question is a victim of racial oppression - this is not the case for white people because there is no country in which white people are racially oppressed to any degree. We should also keep in mind that Lula's statement was not intended to suggest that all white people are responsible - he was simply indicating that the people who can be held responsible are overwhelmingly white.

Well, like I've said multiple times now. I never disagreed with the thing about european cultures being oppressive. You and ComradeOm seem to think I've disputed this when I never did. My point is that there is a lot of oppression of one ethnicity or culture by another that takes place independent of europeans or americans. I think its also relevant to point out that the oppressed groups you're referring to are specific ethnic groups. In some cases there are ethnic groups that are oppressed that barely even exist outside of one or two countries, such as some of the african ethnic groups that are oppressed by others.


Then name another nation in which "people with light skin" do not form a privileged caste. If this generalisation is as stupid as you say then it should not be overly difficult to disprove

There are many countries in which the most privileged and powerful ethnicity is certainly not one descended from europeans. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somaliland, Iran, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Thailand? In each of these countries there is structural oppression of one or multiple ethnicities by another, non-caucasian ethnic group which dominates. In Thailand and the Philippines there is a lot of cultural and ethnic oppression of the 'southerners' who are ethnically and culturally different - and it is not white people who are responsible for this structural oppression.

Like I've said, this is the third or fourth time now - I never disagreed or downplayed oppression of other cultures by those ethnic groups descended from europeans, or by europeans themselves. What I disagree with here is that some of you seem to think that this is the only sort of oppression that should be condemned. When Hutus conduct a campaign of genocide against Tutsis I do not see this as something "not to be criticised" or "less relevant." Prejudice is prejudice and it is a lot more complex and common than you seem to be suggesting - it would be occurring in the same way it does today if there were no white people.

[BobKKKindle$]

My point is that there is a lot of oppression of one ethnicity or culture by another that takes place independent of europeans or americansI accept this - I actually gave the case study of Malaysia to support this point in one of my previous posts. You're assuming that the argument I've been putting forward - that white people are privileged in every country around the world simply by virtue of the fact that they are white, and consequently do not suffer from any form of racial oppression - is the same as saying that every possible dynamic of racial oppression must involve white people. This is not the case. There are many instances of oppression/exploitation taking place between non-white groups, but even in countries where these cases exist and constitute the most intense form of racial oppression, white people are still privileged.

[black magick hustla]

No, because however much Jewish workers may be privileged relative to Arab workers within Israel, Jewish people on an international level are still the targets of racist oppression.

while jewish folks may be the target of racist slurs i think they are about the same in terms of "opression" as white people. they just have a nasty story to tell. doesnt matter though - race politics are not a substitute for class struggle and there are plenty of jewish workers.

[Yazman]

I accept this - I actually gave the case study of Malaysia to support this point in one of my previous posts.

Cool, thats all I wanted to clear up. Malaysia is a good example (not surprised we both used it).

[ComradeOm]

Firstly, Zimbabwe has already been noted. And you came out with the idiom 'the exception that proves the rule' (which incidentally you, like most people, have misunderstood). So why bother trying to come up with other examples? Surely they too will be dismissed as exceptions?Of course not. If you or Yazman can produce a number of examples of white minorities that are suffering discrimination (or even just occupying non-privileged roles in society) then you'll have conclusively demonstrated that the generalisation is false. If however you can only come up with Zimbabwe then it remains an outlier


Secondly how does one define 'light' skin?It is an awkward turn of phrase (I was however quoting Yazman) and I assume it refers to those of European descent. In the context of Latin America these would be primarily criollos or peninsulares


Thirdly, what of the millions of individual exceptions both ways (i.e. people with more melanin who live in priviledge and those with less who don't?)?I've never pretended to be talking about individual cases. If my previous post was unclear about that then its my mistake

[Yazman]

Of course not. If you or Yazman can produce a number of examples of white minorities that are suffering discrimination (or even just occupying non-privileged roles in society) then you'll have conclusively demonstrated that the generalisation is false. If however you can only come up with Zimbabwe then it remains an outlier

In stark contrast to Bobkindles, who read my post, understood my point and agreed with it, it is clear that you never read a word of anything I said. I never said "white minorities suffer discrimination." In your refusal to pay attention to what I've written you have lumped me in with other views which I don't even hold and never even posted.

[synthesis]

This whole thread is stupid. Lula didn't "blame white people", he said that the people at fault have white skin. There is a world of difference between the two, like it or not, and he wasn't too far off base. However, I agree with whoever remarked that such statements are merely symptoms of a latent national bourgeoisie, nothing we should align ourselves with.

In any case, while it is true that race politics aren't a substitute for class struggle, human society is still divided on any number of socially constructed fault lines, of which class is only one. It should come as no surprise that such racial politics would prosper in a society such as Brazil, where "race" can define one's life as much as one's class. If the paradigm isn't on our terms yet, perhaps we should be asking ourselves what we can do to change that.

[Charles Xavier]

Firstly, Zimbabwe has already been noted. And you came out with the idiom 'the exception that proves the rule' (which incidentally you, like most people, have misunderstood). So why bother trying to come up with other examples? Surely they too will be dismissed as exceptions? Secondly how does one define 'light' skin? Thirdly, what of the millions of individual exceptions both ways (i.e. people with more melanin who live in priviledge and those with less who don't?)?


Zimbabwe the whites do and in the past did immensely form a privileged caste, what are you smoking? Zimbabwe was Rhodesia.

[AvanteRedGarde]

In a highly interconnected world, and insofar that mainstream Americans and Europeans have lifestyles qualitatively more consumptuous than the much larger, darker Third World, do 'race' relations in this or that country really best address the question of today's group-patterned social-economic relations?

[Zurdito]

I never said they were systematically oppressed (they're not), but whites are certainly not privileged there. Do you disagree with this statement?

I disagree with your statement, you are looking at the photograph not the moving picture. White landowners in Zimbabwe have by no means been defeated, many are still fighting for their old priveleges from a priveleged position in countries like Britain where they are hugely favoured over non anglo saxon asylum seekers, and where they still retain much more economic power than Zimbabwean workers peasants and poor.

Unless there is a socialist revolution in Zimbabwe there is a very good chance the white landownign elite will soon be back big time, and in fact the MDC which now shares power with Zanu PF (and which the SWP supported) has white landowners in its leadership.

So: most white Zimbabweans, compared to the black majority of Zimbabweans, are still very priveleged, yes - regardless of the governments actions.

Whcih goes to show the impotence of third world bourgeosiie's in the face of imperialism, and why only a revolutionary working class party can meet the basic progressive democratic and anti-imperialist demands in the third world - and hwich shows why both "Popular Frontism" alongside the "national" bourgeosie, and ultra-left sectarianism against anti-imperialist and basic democratic demands, are two ugly faces of the same coin.

[Comrade_XRD]

He could have just said it was the rich people if he wanted to make his point without being ridiculously wrong and offensive. I fear the second coming of Hitler when I hear things like that. The new Hitler only likes black and brown people, and wants to rid Brazil of the blued-eyed whites.

[synthesis]

He could have just said it was the rich people if he wanted to make his point without being ridiculously wrong and offensive. I fear the second coming of Hitler when I hear things like that. The new Hitler only likes black and brown people, and wants to rid Brazil of the blued-eyed whites.

I'm going to chalk that one up to your newishness. You have much to learn, young grasshopper.

[AvanteRedGarde]

What's really more ridiculous, Lula's 'anti-imperialist' showboating, or the shrill knee jerk response from many RevLefters? Most definately the latter. Why is there such a need to defend people with 'blond hair and blue eyes?' Are they disproportionately attacked by finance capital and its lackeys? To me, it seems more like a case of 'leftism' being used as a cover to defend, or at least not seriously address, 'white privilege' ( a term which i find erroneous and misleading) as part of current structural relations.

[benhur]

To sum it up:

#1 It's racist to say all white people are evil capitalists. But it's not inaccurate (or racist) to say that most capitalists have been predominantly white. This is a fact.

#2 To people who say, "But there's no such thing as race."

Wrong. Race isn't a scientific reality, but it DOES exist as a social reality; which is why, most people identify themselves with a particular race. Why do you think that is? Because man is essentially tribal, and likes to function in groups. That's why he wants a family. Extend this concept of family, and you get race. So real or not, race has become some kind of extended family man can identify himself with. And just like man will do anything to protect his family, exploit other families to keep his family wealthy, it's also reasonable to conclude that man will use race in the same way, that is, as an extension of family; doing which, he will make sure his 'race' is always on top and other 'races' are always down below.

#3 From point #2, we ask further: how is race politics then related to capitalism? It's related, because inherent in the capitalist system is the absolute power of those who control the means of production, and the utter helplessness of those who don't. And inherent in race politics is the desire to make sure one's race is always on top, and other races are always down. But how is this to come about? The race which wants to be on top will have to control the means of production, so much so other races will be helpless and forced to sell their labor for survival, meaning the former can be likened to capitalists and the latter to the working class.

Hopefully, one can now see the connection between race politics and capitalism. Not only is racism inherent in capitalism, but it's equally true that capitalism is also inherent in racism, because without capitalism, how will the racists control MoP, and without controlling MoP, how else will they exercise power and domination over other races? Put simply, can a racist succeed in subjugating other races without resorting to capitalism in some form or the other? It's in this context race politics must be understood, as a means to acquire control of MoP and political authority, and NOT merely as some vague ideology pertaining to skin color and all the rest.

[BobKKKindle$]

#1 It's racist to say all white people are evil capitalists.It's not "racist" at all, if by "racist" you mean part of "racism". For Marxists, "racism" means a system of power whereby one section of the population identifiable by skin colour and other physical features is systematically accorded political and economic privileges at the expense of other groups, with these privileges existing independent of class and sex - although the manner in which these privileges are experienced, and the impact of racial oppression on subordinate groups may be shaped by these others forms of oppression. From this perspective, white people cannot be victims of racism because there is no society anywhere in the world in which white people occupy the position of an oppressed racial group, in the same way that men cannot be victims of sexism, because patriarchy is so pervasive. This is not to say that white people cannot experience isolated cases of prejudice because of their appearance, but these cases cannot be treated in the same way as racism because they do not comprise a system of oppression, and do not in any way impinge on the privileges white people are accorded.

Please type properly as well.

[ZeroNowhere]

He could have just said it was the rich people if he wanted to make his point without being ridiculously wrong and offensive. I fear the second coming of Hitler when I hear things like that. The new Hitler only likes black and brown people, and wants to rid Brazil of the blued-eyed whites.
You're overreacting here. The problem here is that it's just populist, nationalist rhetoric, and also seeks, as the media has been doing, to deflect blame away from the system and towards certain capitalists. Certainly, Lula has no problem with capitalism.
Saying 'rich people' would just have decreased the nationalist element, and probably increased the populist slant.


And just like man will do anything to protect his family, exploit other families to keep his family wealthy, it's also reasonable to conclude that man will use race in the same way, that is, as an extension of family; doing which, he will make sure his 'race' is always on top and other 'races' are always down below.
Early 'murkin history doesn't seem too favourable towards your claim. Which is why the state had to create laws to prevent whites and blacks from meeting.

[benhur]

Woof! Woof! Woof!

Are you suffering from verbal diarrhea again?;) Take a break, comrade, you're losin' it.